Part 11

Both are objections of _fact_. Either is sufficient. Even if the belligerence seems to be established as _fact_, still its concession in this age of Christian light must be impossible, except under some temporary aberration, which, for the honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, should speedily pass away.

* * * * *

Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass. If the field traversed is ample, it has been brightened always by the light of international justice, exposing clearly, from beginning to end, the sacred landmarks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping nothing back, so that you have been able to see the perils to which the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed war, as exhibited in examples of history, and also from the fatal proclivity of foreign powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships are permitted to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances testify in favor of Freedom, and how all intervention of every kind, whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable, when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless anomaly, a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting bondage of a race; and especially how Great Britain is sacredly engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness; then how all the Christian powers constituting the Family of Nations are firmly bound to set their faces against any recognition of the embryo government.--first, because its independence is not _in fact_ established, and, secondly, because, even if _in fact_ established, its recognition is impossible without criminal complicity in Slavery; and, lastly, how these same Christian powers are firmly bound by the same twofold reasons against any concession of ocean rights to this hideous pretender.

* * * * *

It only remains that the Republic should gird itself to the majesty of its duties. War is terrible and hard to bear, with its waste, its pains, its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we are not choosers. We are challenged to the defence of country, and in this sacred cause to crush Slavery. There is no alternative. Slavery began the combat, staking life, _and determined to rule or die_. Let it die; and to this end the country must be aroused. We need a song like “Scots who have with Wallace bled.” The cause is greater now than then. We need words like those of Luther, “half battles.” Ours is another Reformation and another Revolution. The attempted revolution for Slavery we meet by a counter revolution for Liberty. That we may continue freemen, there must be no slaves; and thus our own security is linked with the redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war, to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster will surely fall! The battle is mighty; for into Slavery has entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent; for such a gathered wickedness, concentrated, aroused, and maddened, must have a tenacity of life which will not yield at once. But no might nor time can save it now.

That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen not only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the confessions of Rebel Slavemongers. Already the President has proclaimed that the slaves throughout the whole Rebel region “are and henceforward shall be free”; and in order to fix the irreversible character of this sublime edict, he has further announced “that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”[157] An enlightened commission is constituted to consider how these thronging freedmen can be best employed for their own good and the national defence. Already the sons of Africa, as mustered soldiers of the Union, have shown a discipline and a bravery not unworthy of their ancient fathers, when the prophet Jeremiah said, “Let the mighty men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield”;[158] and still further, by their stature, by their appearance in the ranks, and even by the unexpected testimony of sanitary statistics, according to which for every black soldier disabled by sickness there are more than ten white, thus making the army health of the black ten times as sure as that of the white,--by all these things they have shown that the Father of History, who is our earliest classical authority, was not entirely mistaken, when he spoke of Ethiopia as “the most distant region of the earth, whose inhabitants are the tallest, most beautiful, and most long-lived of the human race.”[159] Even if these acts of the National Government were less significant, all doubt is removed by the Rebel Slavemongers themselves, who, in Satanic audacity, openly avow that Slavery is the end and aim of the government they seek to establish, so that the whole bloody war they wage is all in the name of Slavery. Therefore, in battling against the Rebellion, we battle against Slavery. Freedom is the growing inspiration of our armies and the just inscription of our banners. Such a war is not a war of subjugation, but a war of liberation, to save the Republic from a petty oligarchy of taskmasters, and to rescue four millions of human beings from cruel oppression. Not to subjugate, but to liberate, is the object of our Holy War.

And yet British statesmen, forgetting for the moment all moral distinctions, forgetting God, who will not be forgotten, gravely announce that our cause must fail. Alas! individual wickedness is too often successful; but a pretended nation, suckled in wickedness and boasting its wickedness, a new Sodom, with all the guilt of the old, waiting to be blasted, and yet, in barefaced effrontery, openly seeking the fellowship of Christian powers, is doomed to defeat. Toleration of such a pretension is practical atheism. Chronology and geography are both offended. Piety stands aghast. In this age of light, and in countries boasting civilization, there can be no place for its barbarous plenipotentiaries. As well expect crocodiles crawling on the pavements of London and Paris, or the carnivorous idols of Africa installed for worship in Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame.

Even if the Republic were less strong, yet I am glad to believe that the Rebellion must fail from the essential impossibility of any such wicked success. The responsibilities of the Christian powers would be increased by our weakness. Behind our blockade there would be _a moral blockade_; behind our armies there would be the aroused judgment of the civilized world. But not on that account can we hesitate. This is no time to pause. Thus do I, who formerly pleaded so often for Peace, now insist upon Liberty as its indispensable condition,[160]--clearly because, in this terrible moment, there is no other way to that sincere and solid peace without which is endless war. Even on economic grounds, it were better that this war should proceed rather than recognize any partition, which, beginning with humiliation, must involve the perpetuation of armaments and break out again in blood. But there is something worse than waste of money; it is waste of character. Give me any peace but a liberticide peace. In other days the immense eloquence of Burke was stirred against a regicide peace. But a peace founded on the killing of a king is not so bad as a peace founded on the killing of Liberty; nor can the saddest scenes of such a peace be so sad as the daily life legalized by Slavery. A queen on the scaffold is not so pitiful a sight as a woman on the auction-block.

While thus steady in purpose at home, we must not neglect that proper moderation abroad which becomes the consciousness of strength and the nobleness of our cause. The mistaken sympathy which foreign powers bestow upon Slavery,--or, it may be, the mistaken insensibility,--under the plausible name of “neutrality,” which they profess, will be worse for them than for us. For them it will be a record of shame, which their children would gladly blot out with tears. For us it will be only another obstacle vanquished in the battle for Civilization, where, unhappily, false friends are mingled with open enemies. Even if the cause seem for a while imperilled by foreign powers, yet our duties are none the less urgent. If the pressure be great, the resistance must be greater. Nor can there be any retreat. Come weal or woe, this is the place for us to stand.

I know not if a republic like ours can count even now upon the certain friendship of any European power, unless it be the Republic of William Tell. The very name is unwelcome to the full-blown representatives of monarchical Europe, who forget how proudly, even in modern history, Venice bore the title of _Serenissima Respublica_. It is for us to change all this. Our consistent example will be enough. Thus far we have been known chiefly through that vital force which Slavery could only degrade, but not subdue. Now, at last, by the death of Slavery, will the Republic begin to live. For what is life without Liberty? Stretching from ocean to ocean, teeming with population, bountiful in resources of all kinds, rejoicing in that righteousness which exalteth a nation, and thrice happy in universal enfranchisement, it will be more than conqueror. Nothing too vast for its power, nothing too minute for its care. Triumphant over the foulest wrong ever inflicted, after the bloodiest war ever waged, it will know the majesty of Right and the beauty of Peace, prepared always to uphold the one and to cultivate the other. Strong in its own mighty stature, filled with all the fulness of a new life, and covered with a panoply of renown, it will confess that no dominion is of value that does not contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and child of its own struggles, without ancestral claim, but heir of all the ages, it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and wherever any member of the Human Family can be succored, there its voice will reach,--as the voice of Cromwell reached across France, even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps. Such will be this Republic, upstart among the nations. Ay! as steam-engine, telegraph, and chloroform are upstart. Comforter and helper like these, it can know no bounds to its empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of Slavery.

APPENDIX.

This speech was made at a crisis in our foreign relations when they were watched with more than the wonted anxiety, which began with the hasty concession of belligerent rights, as early as May 13, 1861. Among painful incidents may be mentioned the affair of the Trent, with the attendant menace, the escape of the Florida, and then of the Alabama, the damage to our commerce by these British vessels, the report of other vessels building for the Rebels, the swarm of British blockade-runners with arms and powerful cannon, adverse speeches of British statesmen, offensive articles of the British press, and movements for the recognition of the Rebels as an independent power.

As early as March 4, 1861, Mr. Gregory gave notice in the House of Commons that on an early day he would call the attention of her Majesty’s Government to the expediency of a prompt recognition of the Southern Confederacy of America. April 16, Mr. Gregory renewed his notice, and added a call for papers. This motion was afterward deferred from April 30 to May 13, and on May 16 until June 7, when it was finally postponed _sine die_. After that frequent debates occurred in both Houses of Parliament, involving the course of England to the United States. As late as June 30, 1863, in the summer before Mr. Sumner’s speech, a long debate was started in the House of Commons by Mr. Roebuck, on presenting a petition praying the House to enter into negotiations with the great powers of Europe with the object of recognizing the independence of the Confederate States. To all these things was now superadded the open construction at Birkenhead of two powerful iron-clad war-vessels, known as the Rebel rams.

The country was alarmed, for the contribution of these powerful vessels to the Rebel navy was felt to be an open participation in the Rebellion. Foreign war seemed to menace. Mr. Sumner, in private correspondence with England during the summer, did not hesitate to say, that, in his judgment, the sailing of these Rebel rams from an English port, after the ample notice given, would be equivalent to a declaration of war by England, not unlike the seizure of the Spanish galleons or the bombardment of Copenhagen. Our diplomatic correspondence shows a similar sentiment in important official quarters. July 11, Mr. Adams, our minister at London, after setting forth “a systematic plan of warfare upon the people of the United States carried on from the port of Liverpool, as well as in less degree from other ports in the kingdom,” called the attention of Earl Russell to “the construction and equipment of a steam vessel of war of the most formidable kind now known,” and intimated that such a proceeding would “be regarded by the Government and people of the United States with the greatest alarm, as virtually tantamount to a participation in the war by the people of Great Britain.”[161] At different times he transmitted additional papers, showing the character of these vessels. Meanwhile one iron-clad ram, being launched, received her engines, and was engaged in receiving her coal, ready to depart, when, September 4, Mr. Adams, transmitting further testimony, begged permission to record, in the name of his Government, “this last solemn protest against the commission of such an act of hostility against a friendly nation.”[162] On the same day he received a communication from Earl Russell, bearing date September 1, where, after setting forth the alleged insufficiency of the testimony against the vessels, he says: “Her Majesty’s Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels.”[163] The next day Mr. Adams replied: “I trust I need not express how profound is my regret at the conclusion to which her Majesty’s Government have arrived.… It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war. No matter what may be the theory adopted of neutrality in a struggle, when this process is carried on, in the manner indicated, from a territory and with the aid of the subjects of a third party, that third party, to all intents and purposes, ceases to be neutral. Neither is it necessary to show that any government which suffers it to be done fails in enforcing the essential conditions of international amity towards the country against whom the hostility is directed.”[164] On the very day of this reply, Mr. Seward, at Washington, addressed Mr. Adams as follows: “Can the British Government suppose for a moment that such an assault as is thus meditated can be made upon us by British built, armed, and manned vessels, without at once arousing the whole nation and making a retaliatory war inevitable?… For the interest of both countries, and of civilization, I hope they will not let a blow fall from under their hands that will render peace impossible.”[165] Mr. Beaman, in his essay on the Alabama Claims, after examining this correspondence, says, it “shows, that, if these rams had been allowed to escape, peace between Great Britain and the United States would have been no longer possible.”[166]

It is easy to see that the two countries were on the verge of war. Happily, this was avoided by a tardy act, made known to Mr. Adams by a note, under date of September 8: “Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor to inform him that instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool.”[167] The Rebel rams were stopped.

Meanwhile Mr. Sumner had accepted an invitation to speak in New York on our foreign relations, at a time to be fixed by himself. Watching the course of events, and seeing clearly the alternative that presented itself to Mr. Adams and Mr. Seward, he wrote at the close of August, fixing September 10th for his speech; and here his purpose was twofold. Anxious to arrest the fatal tendency, he was not without hope that he might obtain a hearing in England, especially from the Cabinet, to most of whom he was personally known; but, if unsuccessful in this last frank effort for peace, then he trusted that his speech would be a vindication of his country on the issue forced by England, and an appeal to the moral sentiments of the civilized world. On this account he dwelt especially on Slavery, and the impossibility in a civilized age of recognizing a _new_ power openly proclaiming this Barbarism as its corner-stone.

The reception of this speech at home was cordial and sympathetic; in England it was the reverse, although there were friendly exceptions. A few extracts from the American press will show the unison with Mr. Sumner, which becomes important in illustrating his position, and also the divergence of sentiment in the two countries.

The New York press was outspoken.

* * * * *

The _Herald_ said:--

“The very voluminous speech of Mr. Senator Sumner at the Cooper Institute, the other evening, in two or three points is a remarkable production. His exposure and denunciations of the hypocritical pleadings and false pretences of the British Government, in justification of its sneaking and perfidious neutrality in this war, are well administered, and, considering the rapidly dissolving Davis Confederacy, these views of the learned Senator at this time can hardly fail to make a decided sensation, not only upon the public mind of England, but upon the rhinoceros hides of the British Cabinet.…

“But the whole of this exhaustive and exhausting discourse of the inexhaustible Senator is spoiled by his venomous and rabid denunciations of African Slavery. In view of this peculiar Southern institution he becomes as fierce and remorseless as a vicious bull, when a piece of red flannel is flaunted before his eyes.”

The _Times_ said:--

“We give up one half of the entire surface of to-day’s issue of the _Times_ to the important speech upon our Foreign Relations delivered by Senator Sumner in this city last night. The subject at the present moment is one of such deep public interest, and of such overshadowing national importance, that we believe we cannot do a greater service than by giving in full the views of one who, by his official position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, by his relations with some of the foremost publicists of England and France, and by his intimate knowledge of the whole subject, is capable of speaking with intelligence, if not with authority.

“We can give no analysis or estimate of the discourse at this moment, as it was a late hour of the night before he concluded its delivery; but every intelligent citizen will doubtless give due study to its views and statements, which, we need not say, are set forth in a style highly ornate, yet lucid, and distinguished by all the characteristics of a professed orator.”

The _Evening Post_ said:--

“It is a very important subject, treated by him with great ability and knowledge, and in a manner which must leave little to be added by the diligence of others. It was listened to with profound attention and frequent expressions of interest and approbation by one of the most closely packed audiences which the hall at Cooper Institute ever contained.”

Horace Greeley, in a contribution to the _Independent_, said:--

“Mr. Sumner’s speech is not, therefore, a mere rehearsal and arraignment of national wrongs already endured. It is a protest and a warning against those which are imminently threatened. In showing how deeply, flagrantly, France and England have already sinned against us, he admonishes them against persistence in the evil course on which they have entered, against aggravating beyond endurance the indignities and outrages they have already heaped upon us.… Mr. Sumner’s is the authentic voice, not of the mob, but of the people. He utters the sentiments of the conscientious, the intelligent, the peace-loving. His inoffensive protest against the wrongs to which we have been subjected is utterly devoid of swagger or menace. It is a simple, but most cogent demonstration, by the application thereto of the established principles of International Law, of the systematic injustice to which we as a people have been subjected. A miracle of historical and statesmanlike erudition, his address is severe without being harsh,--an indictment judicial in its calmness, its candor, its resistless cogency.”

The _Boston Journal_ said:--

“We trust no one will be deterred by its length from reading Mr. Sumner’s speech on our Foreign Relations; and we are sure that no one will be, who fairly enters upon the subject.… The speech is the most able and elaborate ever delivered by Mr. Sumner, and will be read with great interest abroad as well as in this country. Let us hope that it will help to open the eyes of the people of England and France to the treachery of their rulers to the progress of civilization and the spirit of the age.”

Then, in another article, the same journal said:--

“The recent speech of Mr. Sumner meets with the warmest expressions of commendation from all quarters, excepting, of course, the journals which are wedded to the interests of Slavery.… The speech was, in fact, timely, and, while it was designed primarily to communicate facts of the gravest interest to the people of the loyal States, it will have the secondary and not less important effect of making an impression upon the Cabinets of England and France. The fairness, candor, earnestness, and ability with which great questions of international rights are discussed by a statesman so well known abroad and so much respected as Mr. Sumner must secure for the speech an attentive perusal by those who shape public opinion in the Old World.”

A correspondent of the _Boston Journal_, calling himself “An European Democrat,” wrote:--