Part 8

“The last mail has brought us another attempt, made in a speech five columns long by Mr. Charles Sumner in the American Senate. This gentleman is, perhaps, the one American who has been most petted and fêted over here. Mr. Charles Sumner was the greatest drawing-room lion of his day, and his mane was combed by a thousand delicate hands, often held up in admiration at his gentle roarings. In America he has arrived at the high distinction of Senator for Massachusetts and Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs; but after the very general hilarity throughout Europe caused by Mr. Seward’s diplomatic _fiasco_, it seems to have been thought necessary to put some one forward to make ‘a scathing exposition of British inconsistency,’ and to show what a victory over the old country had been obtained. So Charles Sumner is the man.… Mr. Sumner has not done his work ill. But then he had peculiar facilities for it. ‘Who best has known them can abuse them best.’ Moreover, his audience at Washington was not difficult. Gentlemen who could congratulate themselves on Bull Run required no cogent reasons for seeing a glorious triumph, first in the seizure of the Trent, and then in the compulsory surrender of the prize.… No wonder, then, that Mr. Charles Sumner’s speech in the Senate has been a great success. We are told that all the foreign ambassadors--except only Lord Lyons, whom nothing but severe diplomatic etiquette kept away--came round him and congratulated him; and that after its delivery, ‘our respected mother, England,’ is ‘left out in the cold,’--whatever that may mean. The two points which seem especially to have been admired are, first, ‘the absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question,’--showing that he is by no means so obstinate upon that matter as had been feared,--and, second, ‘the signal rebuke he administered to England.’ We can go some way with Mr. Sumner’s encomiasts in this admiration. It at least shows a versatile and cosmopolitan mind. His ‘allusions to the Negro Question’ are evidently only absent from his Washington speeches because they are kept entirely for English use, and are not fitted for home consumption; whereas the ‘rebukes’ are manufactured expressly for the American market, and are never offered for acceptance on this side of the Atlantic.… It is of no great consequence to us what clouds of dust American statesmen may choose to raise in order to escape from their difficulty. Now that they have eaten the leek, they may declare, if they please, that it was exquisite in its flavor, and had been presented to them as a mark of honor.…

“The case of the Trent has not made any new precedent whatever, nor can it clash with any precedent upon which in modern times we ever did or could have intended to rely. The forcible removal of those four men from under the British flag was a rude outrage, redeemed neither by precedent nor principle, and it has been resented and repaired. If all the Federal Senate make set speeches till doomsday, they can make no more of it.”

In the course of its objurgations, the _Times_ seeks to repel the parallel between the taking by Captain Wilkes and the taking of American citizens by British cruisers, and here it asserts:--

“In the current number of the _Quarterly Review_ it is conclusively shown that only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’ were taken by our cruisers out of American ships in the year preceding the war of 1812.”[116]

“Only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’”! Lord Castlereagh, in the House of Commons, immediately after the breaking out of the war, admitted that there were in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men “who claimed to be American subjects.”[117] The _Times_ perhaps intended “only two men” really American. But here is strange and total oblivion of the fact, that, in every case of taking, whether the victim was American or not, whether two or two hundred were seized, there was an exercise of the very prerogative it condemned in Captain Wilkes, although he had an excuse beyond that of any British cruiser.

This leader of the _Times_ was followed by an article, dated at the Temple, January 28, from its famous correspondent “Historicus,” known to be Mr. Vernon Harcourt, a writer of admirable power on questions of International Law, and afterwards a distinguished member of Parliament. In this article the same spirit appeared, with the same personality, and the same hardihood of assertion. Beginning with elaborate flings at Mr. George Sumner, where the causticity is reinforced from _Martin Chuzzlewit_, he comes to the Senator, and, in the tone already adopted by the _Times_, refers to his reception in London: “It would be scarcely too much to say, that, for a single season, Mr. Charles Sumner enjoyed a social success almost equal to that of the ‘Black Sam’ himself. He was regarded as ‘a man and a brother,’ and he could not have been better treated, if he had had real black blood in his veins.” This is to prepare for what follows.

“It is impossible adequately to describe the ‘threat speech’ in the Senate, except by saying that Charles, if possible, out-Sumners George. The great object of this remarkable oration is to prove that the surrender of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a great triumph for the American Government. There is, proverbially, no accounting for taste; and if the American people are of Mr. Sumner’s opinion, I do not see why we should complain of their contentment. Some people, like Uriah Heep, are ‘very ’umble,’ and their meekness is an edifying spectacle. We demanded the restoration of the prisoners, not in order to mortify the American people, but for the purpose of vindicating the honor of our flag and asserting the established principles of Maritime Law.”

In exposing Mr. Sumner’s misfeasance, the writer proceeds:--

“As if to make the absurdity of his position more conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as ‘contraband of war.’”

This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not subject to seizure.

This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does he pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered into this debate with a direct proposition for the release of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation of International Law,”[118] and himself insists upon the very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore, the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for somebody else.

Then comes another misapprehension.

“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the ‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”

Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by force,”[119] which was the precise point so often urged by the United States against impressment.

Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.

“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits, there is none more conspicuous and apparently more irreparable than the decline in capacity and character of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the English colonial system were of a very different stamp from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for itself.…

“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and furious incapacity.”

In the volume of Historicus,[120] much of which constitutes a valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others are changed. Generally the personalities are mitigated. Thus, the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article is introduced by words describing the speech as “_professing_ to expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light--and not to be neglected--on the general tone of the British press and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical moment.

* * * * *

Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were impressed.

At home, persons in all conditions--statesmen, judges, lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens--made haste to express gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important chapter of history.

A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist, full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of England and the English press.

“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the London _Times’_ attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel to the quick--what you did not seem to feel, or refused to admit--the _insolent_ tone of the British press and public men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition, liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy, arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger and stronger.

“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of this case, because they know, that, properly understood, they would not support the hostile feeling against this country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced to know that you feel this.

“I have had a letter from England, from a high source, which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc., but says, “No paper has dared to publish it,” and speaks of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it apparent that it is read.

“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it has cost him his favor in England.’

“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in them. They are _the best omen for you_ that I have seen.”

Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston, travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:--

“The _Times_ has come down on you, and has failed. It has the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”

Hon. James E. Harvey, Minister Resident at Lisbon, wrote:--

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair, and cannot refrain from expressing my thanks for its able and conclusive vindication of the position of our Government on that subject. If any reasoning can reconcile the American mind to the restitution of the two emissaries to British protection, your arguments and the calm and convincing presentation of facts must do it. What you have said of Hautefeuille might be justly applied to this statesmanlike production, which, in comprehension and in logical connection, is a state paper.”

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, Minister Resident at Copenhagen, wrote:--

“I thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights, just received, and which I have carefully read. All my assertions that the Trent affair would not lead to war were received here with incredulity, by the Government, by my colleagues, by all parties. It was a bitter disappointment to some of the English here, and I doubt not in England, that this matter has been settled without war. The London _Times_, while criticizing your speech and denying its conclusions, writhes under it, and its arguments are a severer rebuke to England than any philippics or denunciations could be.”

William S. Thayer, Consul-General at Alexandria, wrote from his post:--

“I lent Mr. Buckle[121] the _Intelligencer_ with your speech on the Trent affair, some points of which received his emphatic indorsement.”

Hon. John Bigelow, Consul at Paris, and afterwards Minister there, wrote from Paris:--

“It produced an excellent effect here, and still better in England, if one may judge by the ill-humor in which it put the _Times_. The impotent venom of that journal, under the circumstances, was more complimentary than its praise could have been.”

Henry Woods, the Parisian member of the American importing house of Messrs. C. F. Hovey & Co., wrote from Paris:--

“I have to thank you for a copy of your very able speech on the Trent affair, which has been very much read, and in all quarters I hear it spoken of with admiration. It is considered your greatest effort, and worthy of a great occasion.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, author and Abolitionist, Consul at Cardiff, Wales, wrote:--

“How my heart rejoices that the affair of the Trent is thus amicably settled! but--and I _must_ say so--I have little faith in the good feeling of the Government of England, and the leading influences here, towards our country. How indignant have I felt the last six weeks at the tone of the leading papers towards our country! Nothing, hardly, could exceed the bitterness of the _Times_, the _Post_, the _Telegraph_, the _Saturday Review_, &c., &c. Even _Punch_ lent all his influence to the Rebels, and against us. The very first number after the news of the Trent affair was received had a full-length figure of Britannia standing beside a cannon, with a match in her hand, looking across the water, and underneath was written, ‘Waiting for an Answer.’

“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr. Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done, and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church Establishment have shown right feelings.

“I was always the friend of England, and few have written or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth say that my feelings have changed since I have been here. England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided. She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”

In close connection with letters from abroad is that of E. Littell, founder and editor of the _Living Age_, close student of the English press, and warmly attached to England, who wrote from Boston:--

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay it.’

“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of the London press as to be forced to think and say that I must give up my love for England (which was a part of my inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that that press does not represent either her people or her Government.”

Hon. Henry L. Dawes, the eminent Representative in Congress, wrote:--

“I congratulate you on your great effort to-day. It was worthy of you. I regret I could not hear it all. But I shall have the greater pleasure in reading it.”

Hon. Hamilton Fish, afterwards Secretary of State, wrote from New York:--

“_Exactly_ right; you have done justice to the question, the country, its history, its policy, and its late action. On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand proudly before the world.…

“It should be circulated largely in England, among the class who will read it. The British press will not publish it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”

Hon. N. P. Talmadge, former Senator of the United States from New York, wrote from Georgetown, District of Columbia:--

“I have just read with great pleasure your very able speech in regard to Messrs. Mason and Slidell and the recent affair of the Trent. Coming in support of the lucid and able reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, it places the matter before the American people and all Europe in a light as clear as a sunbeam.

“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter, as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by saying that the law officers of the crown decided that the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was the only point involved. She will find, however, that not only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly demonstrated flow from her own action.

“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will settle this whole question with the American people. If their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce, no matter how high their passions may have been wrought against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the London _Times_, that, if these men were given up, the Government would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show England that a British ministry have much more to fear from her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to fear from our people.”

Hon. Julius Rockwell, the Judge, and former Senator of the United States, with lifelong experience, political and judicial, wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:--

“The public opinion, as far as I know it here, is in accordance with the positions set forth in your speech, and your speech will tend to illustrate and render it more general. Still, some are unsatisfied, and there is a general, I may say, almost universal, accession of dissatisfaction with the conduct and character of England. This feeling just now pervades our people, crops out in all lectures, and in many sermons, and some prayers.”

Hon. Daniel Ullmann, prominent in the politics of New York, and a General in the war, wrote from his head-quarters:--

“You will greatly oblige me by sending to my address a pamphlet copy of your great speech on the ‘Trent affair.’ I desire it in that form for preservation.”

Hon. James Duane Doty, Governor of Utah, and former Representative in Congress, wrote from Salt Lake City:--

“Far, far from you, on the top of the Rocky Mountains, I have just held communion with you by a perusal of your able, eloquent, and conclusive speech on the Trent affair, as reported in the _Herald_ of the 10th January, which has just reached us. Surely no nation was ever put in a more absurd position than you have placed England, and if she is satisfied with the possession of the Rebels (whom, I am glad to notice, you have not named), we ought to be gratified; for it avoids a quarrel at an inconvenient time, and allays public feeling, which was becoming much excited. These two worthless Rebels could not have been put to a better use.”

Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, afterwards Minister at Constantinople, wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:--

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the personal obligation I feel for your last great speech. Its wise candor and its steadfast adherence to the landmarks of maritime freedom cannot fail to make a profound impression upon the liberal minds of Europe; while disclaiming the thought of her dishonor, you have lifted the Republic to the heights of a beneficent victory.”

Hon. B. C. Clark, merchant, and Consul for Hayti, wrote from Boston:--