Part 12

“The speech of Senator Sumner at the Cooper Institute will produce a startling effect in Europe. It may safely be asserted that the opinions of that gentleman upon international politics are received with greater favor in England and France than those of perhaps any other American statesman. He is regarded as most liberal and cosmopolitan in his views; his acquaintance with leading public men in both countries is known to be alike extended and intimate; and such declarations, therefore, as those to which he gave utterance last Thursday evening will necessarily have extraordinary weight in political and commercial circles.”

The _Transcript_, of Boston, said:--

“The great speech of Senator Sumner upon the Foreign Relations of the United States will command the attention of all intelligent men in Europe and America. It is a thorough and exhaustive discussion of English and French diplomacy, so far as either bears upon the present war. The effect of the complete exposition of the policy of Great Britain with regard to Slavery since 1807, proving, by clear and irrefragable historical instances, the apostasy of the existing ministry to the high principles so long maintained, must be great among all reflective Englishmen.… Mr. Sumner’s comprehensive views of International Law, the extensive learning with which he enriches the discussion of it, his convincing logic and kindling eloquence, together with the results he reaches, make this address one of great importance, and cannot but exert the most beneficial influence in this country and in Europe.”

The _Independent_, of New York, in a leading article entitled “Sumner and Burke,” presented an elaborate parallel between the recent speech and that against Warren Hastings.

“The trial of Hastings was really a trial of England herself. So Burke evidently felt it. The bill of charges and the speech upon them was more of an appeal against the rulers of England than the despot of India.… As he arraigned England against herself, so does Sumner. As he sought to flatter her to the right by appeals to her highest professions and practices against the swift current of her ruling passions and purposes, so does Sumner. As he failed in his attempt, so, we fear, will Sumner.… Grander is his position, as well as his appeal, than those of Burke. He stood before a House of British nobles: Sumner stands before the Congress of Nations. Burke impeached the conduct of a satrap: Sumner the heads of powerful nations. Burke denounced him in the name of justice and law outraged by his abuse of subject provinces: Sumner denounces England in the interests of outraged internationality and humanity, for her conduct toward a free and equal nation engaged in casting out the devils that Britain’s lust of gold and power had forced upon her in the days of her helplessness. He has constrained the haughty powers to appear at the bar of the Nations. The world will hear his plea, and give him the verdict.”

_Zion’s Herald_, of Boston, an able religious journal, said:--

“This speech is not hostile in its tone, unless our transatlantic friends see fit to make it so. It is a grand effort in behalf of those principles which are to underlie our renovated nationality; it is a noble assertion of our rights against wrongs which are emphatically condemned by the best minds of England and France themselves. If our sister nations will heed this appeal, and cease to give the support hitherto accorded to our foes, it is not too late for them to gain thereby the friendship of our people and the praise of mankind; but if any European power should now directly espouse the cause of the Rebellion, the responsibility of war will rest with them and not with us; and even if they continue to grant the Rebels their sympathy and moral support, the severe words of Mr. Sumner will be but a faint expression of the infamy to which an indignant posterity will consign them.”

The New York correspondent of _The Congregationalist_, at Boston, wrote:--

“The whole country owes Mr. Sumner a debt of gratitude for this timely, thorough, and weighty exposition of our Foreign Relations. Its facts and arguments must produce a strong impression upon the popular mind in England; and every American who has friends abroad should hasten to put in circulation in Great Britain as many copies of the speech as he can command. Its tone, at once dignified, firm, and conciliatory, will help our cause wherever it is read, while it cannot fail to ally to us all who really value truth and honor between nations, and who abhor Slavery and its abettors.”

* * * * *

Numerous letters, in harmony with the press of the country, attested the extent to which Mr. Sumner was sustained, being spontaneous testimony to the prevailing sentiment. Written as they were for the purpose of sympathy and encouragement, they show the general conscience and intelligence. Prompted by the speech, and relating exclusively to it, they may be considered among its incidents. The warm appreciation of Mr. Sumner’s service was less important than the aspiration for country and for mankind which they disclosed.

Mr. Seward wrote from the Department of State:--

“I have read your address on Foreign Relations without once stopping.

“You have performed a very important public service in a most able manner, and in a conjuncture when I hope that it will be useful abroad and at home.…

“You are on the right track. Rouse the nationality of the American people. It is an instinct upon which you can always rely, even when the conscience that ought never to slumber is drugged to death.”

Mr. Chase wrote from the Treasury Department:--

“In spite of finest print almost illegible, I have read your great speech from beginning to end. It is a noble effort, quite worthy of you. It exhausts the whole subject, leaving nothing even for a gleaner. I shall await with curiosity, not unmixed with anxiety, the rebound from Europe.”

Hon. Thomas Corwin, Minister Plenipotentiary in Mexico, wrote:--

“I cannot withhold my mite of praise for the truly masterly manner and matter of the whole pamphlet. Your country, Europe, all Christendom, and Heathendom too, are your debtors.”

Hon. Christopher Robinson, Minister Plenipotentiary in Peru, wrote:--

“I have read it with great attention, and with the highest pleasure, for the principles it announces, the facts it narrates, and the firm and manly discussion of them. As an explanation of the great principles of International Law applicable to the nefarious Rebellion, it will open the eyes of the American people to the important fact, that, in all its disguises, English and French policy has wilfully ignored the principles of justice and liberty which the Government of the United States are struggling to maintain.”

Hon. Horatio J. Perry, Secretary of Legation at Madrid, wrote:--

“Your noble effort was well timed. I have had portions of it reproduced in the Spanish press with the best effect. Another part will reappear here in a more durable form, which I shall take pains to send you.

“These admonitions of yours to the European powers have always been of the highest possible service. Whatever necessity there may have been (and there has been necessity) for our diplomatic representatives to act with consummate prudence in our direct intercourse with the courts hostile to us, it was no less necessary that the voice from home, the utterances of our Houses of Congress, of our leading Senators, should be bold and unsubdued,--confidence in ourselves and in our cause, above all, the consciousness of right, and the evidence that we were not afraid.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, Consul at Cardiff, wrote from his consulate:--

“I need hardly say with what pleasure I read your recent speech at New York. Though Earl Russell did not like some things in it, _it evidently did him much good_. I think I saw clearly that he FELT the force of your arguments; for, if you will notice, it was not till after your speech had reached this country, and after quotations were made from it in papers friendly to us, that the more decided orders were given to stop the Rebel rams in the Mersey.”

The latter statement is confirmed by a despatch of Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, dated October 16, where he says: “The Government has, within the past week, adopted measures of a much more positive character than heretofore to stop the steam-rams.”[168]

Hon. T. O. Howe, Senator of the United States, wrote from Wisconsin:--

“Stopping here, where I am to speak this evening, I cannot refrain from telling you that I approve it. How much I approve it I am utterly unable to tell you.

“Such conciseness of statement, such fulness of research, such wealth of illustration, such iron logic, heated, but unmalleable, I really do not think are to be found in any other oration, ancient or modern.

“To me it seems bursting with new and most inspiring ideas. But even when you deal with ideas which are not new, but old and familiar, you present them in words so marvellously chosen that they are themselves giant forces.…

“No single man has ever so grandly struggled against the barbaric tendencies of a frightfully debauched generation. I cannot certainly foresee the future; you may be worsted in this encounter; but I know the world will be the better for it.”

Hon. Henry B. Anthony, Senator of the United States, wrote from Providence:--

“I suppose you are tired of compliments about your great speech. Everybody says it is one of the best things that even you have done. It must have a large and beneficial effect, not only here, but in Europe, where your reputation will secure for it the consideration of those who control public affairs and mould public opinion.”

Hon. Samuel S. Blair, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, wrote:--

“I have just read your New York speech on our Foreign Relations, and most cordially thank you for a statement of our cause which ought to give us the verdict of the civilized world.”

Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, for so many years eminent as Antislavery champion in Congress, and then Consul-General at Montreal, wrote:--

“I have just read your lecture at Cooper Institute. That production excites in my heart the deepest gratitude and the highest pleasure.”

Hon. Simon Cameron, who had recently returned from Russia, where he had been Minister, wrote:--

“It is a masterly production of a master mind, and if you had never made a single mental effort before, or if you should cease from this moment to enjoy the power of speech, it would stand as a monument unrivalled among the many great productions of American and British statesmen. It is unanswerable. Its influence, like all great ideas founded on truth, may be comparatively slow, but it is already acting over the world, and in a brief period it will be so potent that men and nations will be ashamed to avow a belief in any other code of morals.”

Rev. William H. Furness, the accomplished Unitarian preacher of Philadelphia, wrote:--

“I have no words to express my sense of the large familiarity with human affairs, and of the conscientious fidelity which it shows. If you had done nothing else for the past year but prepare that, I should hold you to be a miracle of work. It is impossible it should not tell. It indicates a statesmanship fitting the grandeur of our unequalled cause.”

Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, of Boston, eminent in the medical profession and as an Abolitionist, wrote:--

“Allow me to express to you my most hearty thanks for your noble, and, as it seems to me, unanswerable, speech at New York. It is truly statesmanlike, and I regard it in that light as one that will last longer and have more effect than any delivered by any one in this country since the war began. It must have a wide influence in Europe. I thank you, therefore, most heartily for it. It will aid mightily public sentiment in England, and _tend_ to force the Government of that country, for consistency’s sake, at least, to deal more fairly.”

Parker Pillsbury, the earnest Abolitionist, wrote from Concord, New Hampshire:--

“When a nation is expressing its admiring gratitude for your recent masterly oration on our Foreign Relations, what place or what need for my feeble utterance remains? And all the nations will thank you, as they shall read, in present and coming time, this chapter in the new political dispensation. It is a scripture for the ages.”

Hon. Amasa Walker, formerly a Representative in Congress, a Vice-President of the American Peace Society, devoted to the cause of peace, and a writer on political economy and finance, wrote:--

“It is the grandest thing you have yet done, if I am qualified to judge. I think it cannot fail to exert a great influence at home and abroad. I am quite anxious to find out how it is received in England, and am much mistaken, if it does not produce a great impression.

“The friends of our Government will be greatly delighted at it, our enemies greatly annoyed by it.

“I have the impression that there is no speech of any American statesman, that has ever been printed, that will secure such a lasting reputation, and be so often referred to in the future, as this.”

Hon. George R. Russell, of various experience, who had recently returned from Europe, wrote:--

“I have often thought of writing you about your speech on our Foreign Relations, which I read with much attention, and decided that it was the best that could be said. I met a friend of ours a few evenings since, and he told me that he had said to you that you made a great mistake in assailing England as you had done. I met him with the rejoinder, that you had hit the nail on the head, that the proofs of change we see daily are in consequence of your attacks, and that, instead of upbraiding you, we owed you our heartfelt thanks for the good you had done.”

Brigadier-General Saxton, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Beaufort, South Carolina:--

“I can hardly express to you the intense satisfaction and delight with which I read your great oration delivered in New York. In my humble opinion you have rendered a great service to our country and to humanity. The words of truth and wisdom which you have spoken cannot fail to command the attention and respect of the statesmen of England as well as of this country.”

Captain George Ward Nichols, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Milwaukee:--

“I hardly know what to say of this eloquent exposition, so full of righteous indignation, terrible denunciation, exhaustive research, unanswerable argument,--so abundant, so powerful, and so eloquent in the cause of humanity. It seems to me like a timepiece, which, with unfailing faith, I consult to mark the hour in a stormy day, unmindful of the wondrous art and wit which combine this perfect whole. I thank you more than I can say for this noble speech. It is already a part of the history of this momentous time. It is as much a fact as is Gettysburg or Vicksburg.”

George Baty Blake, Esq., a banker of Boston, wrote:--

“I have read attentively your speech made in New York, and, let me say, I think it exactly suited to the occasion; and if it finds circulation in Great Britain, it cannot fail to do us much good in our foreign relations. Plain speech with John Bull, and to the point frankly, is what always proves most effective with him, in my experience.”

The late James A. Dix, editor of the _Boston Journal_, declared his sympathies:--

“I cannot resist the temptation to express the pleasure which the perusal of your speech on our Foreign Relations has afforded me. I do not think it extravagant to say that it is the ablest speech ever delivered in this country. Certainly it is the ablest of any with which it could appropriately be compared. In the number, value, interest, and importance of its historical facts and precedents, in the apt use of materials derived from laborious research, and in the lucid treatment of the topics discussed, it is unsurpassed.”

Major B. Perley Poore, for a long period connected with the press, wrote from his country home:--

“If human gratitude be among the number of our national virtues, the highest honors should contribute to reward you for your address on Foreign Relations, so replete with patriotism, learning, and practical knowledge, knowledge of public law and the practice of nations, a thorough acquaintance with civil government and the great question of Freedom which underlies and overtops everything else. I have read it twice in the small type of the _Journal_.”

Pliny Miles, the writer on Postal Affairs, wrote from London to President Lincoln, who forwarded the letter to Mr. Sumner:--

“Mr. Sumner’s late speech in New York has arrived here in the journals, and is attracting a great deal of attention. Quotations and extracts are made from it in the leading liberal papers; but really the whole speech ought to be printed here, and circulated in pamphlet form. If sent to all the members of both Houses of Parliament and to the press, I think it would do great good.”

Daniel R. Goodloe, for a long time connected with the press, then of Washington and afterwards of North Carolina, wrote:--

“I regard Lord Russell’s speech at Blairgowrie as a reply to yours; and the country is indebted to you for the important concessions he makes, and for the greatly modified tone in which he speaks of our affairs.”

Hon. A. C. Barstow, formerly Mayor of Providence, wrote:--

“I returned from Washington this morning. Have read your speech with great satisfaction. I think you have touched the public pulse more widely than ever before.”

* * * * *

The speech had a different reception in England, being criticized by the press, and by Earl Russell in a public speech.

The New York correspondent of the London _Standard_ called Mr. Sumner “the mouthpiece of the President,” and said that the speech “had been carefully examined by the President, and was analyzed by the confidential members of the Cabinet, before being let off to the public in this great city.” This was a mistake. Neither the President nor any of his Cabinet had seen a line of the speech.

Its delivery was reported by the London _Times_ of September 22d, in a telegraphic despatch from Greencastle, in Ireland:--

“He denounced the conduct of the British Government in permitting the building of war steamers in British ports for the Confederates and recognizing on the part of the South any belligerent rights upon the ocean. He disbelieved that either France or England would intervene in favor of a state that based itself upon Negro Slavery, and asserted that all intervention in the internal affairs of another nation was contrary to law and reason, unless such intervention were obviously on the side of human rights.”

The _Times_ followed with an elaborate leader, undertaking to correct statements of law and fact, dwelling especially on the allegation, that, without the concession of belligerent rights, the supply of munitions of war to rebels would have been a violation of English law. Here Mr. Sumner had the authority of the English Law Lords in Parliament, openly declaring that without such concession the building of a Rebel ship in England would have been under the penalties of piracy, and it is difficult to see why a corresponding penalty would not have followed the supply of munitions of war. In each case the article is supplied for offence against a friendly power. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, remarkable for learning and good sense, has said: “The law of England recognizes the principle of protecting a foreign government by its own municipal regulations”[169]; and he refers to the trials for libels on foreign sovereigns, and also to the proceedings in 1858 against Simon Bernard, the Frenchman, indicted for a plot to assassinate the Emperor Louis Napoleon, in supplying the grenades used by Orsini in his attempt. In the latter case, Lord Chief Justice Campbell said to the jury: “If you believe that he, as there is strong evidence to show, being acquainted with Allsop’s views, and knowing that Allsop had got these grenades, _assisted in having them, transported to Brussels,--if you believe that he bought in this country the materials for making the fulminating powder with which these grenades were charged_,--if you believe, that, living in this country, and owing a temporary allegiance to the sovereign of this country, _he sent over the revolvers_ with the view that they should be used in the plot against the Emperor of the French, … it will be a fair inference, I think, to draw, that he had a guilty knowledge of that plot.”[170] Though this judgment was in the case of a conspiracy to take the life of a foreign sovereign, it is not easy to see why the same principle is not applicable to a conspiracy against a friendly power. To this case may be added the authority of Lord Lyndhurst, who laid it down in debate, with the concurrence of other Law Lords, that a conspiracy in the United Kingdom, either by native subjects or aliens, to do any act, either at home or abroad, tending to embroil the Government with that of any foreign country, is a misdemeanor.[171] Is a rebellion without belligerent rights different from a conspiracy? Its nature was changed by the Queen’s Proclamation, which not only helped the Rebels, but created a new set of customers.

The character of the leader in the _Times_ appears in its conclusion:--