Part 13

“We believe our readers have by this time had enough of the logic of Mr. Sumner. It is based neither on law nor on fact, but upon his own sympathies and antipathies, which he is pleased to assume must also be ours, on the supposition, which we do not admit, that the North are obviously in the right, and on the inference, which we refuse to draw, that, even if the North are in the right, we are bound to violate the laws of neutrality in order to assist them.”

The _Daily News_, of London, in its first notice, said:--

“He spoke under the impression that the English Government was about to permit the Confederate iron-clads to leave this country, and he interpreted their previous policy by this supposed breach of neutrality. Every candid man will make allowance for words spoken under provocation, and distinguish them from the utterances of settled malevolence, such as we were accustomed to hear from the American statesmen now at Richmond, and still hear from their allies in the Northern States.”

In a second article, the same journal criticized the speech at length, saying:--

“It is a strange delusion. It makes one wonder whether it is still possible that a republican legislator, now blinded by panic and perplexed by jealousy, should even yet recover his sense and temper, and see the case as others see it.… Instead of using his influence, as the friend of many Englishmen, to bring the two peoples to a clear understanding, and the calm temper which arises out of it, he has nourished and propagated a delusion, and has applied all his powers of influence and eloquence to raise and kindle the passions of his countrymen against a nation which, if not accustomed to flatter, is capable of a sound and durable friendship with a people exhibiting such qualities as the citizens of the Free States are manifesting now. The American people have nothing to fear from us, while they treat us justly. We believe that Mr. Sumner knows this as well as we do, however he may be for the hour beguiled into passion and error.”

The _Scotsman_, of Edinburgh, said:--

“The splendid oration which he delivered at New York on the 10th inst., though full of a strange injustice towards ourselves, ought not to lessen our love for the man, and will increase our admiration of the orator and philanthropist; but, if there was any idea that Mr. Sumner could reason clearly as well as feel rightly and speak eloquently, that idea will be dissipated. All the multitude of eloquent and burning words which he pours forth against Slavery will here find ready echo; and even when he enters on accusations against this country, as having ‘intermeddled on the side of Slavery,’ it will be felt that he speaks in the spirit, not of a mean and jealous enemy, but of a high-minded, though mistaken friend. But no non-American man can fail to perceive that there is a grand mistake lying at the root of all the complaints he makes against us: he would have Great Britain in her national capacity to deal with American affairs according to moral sentiments as distinguished from political rules, and he condemns her for doing what he did himself and is doing still.… He tries, indeed, to make a difference between the hypothetical Confederate States and all other Slave States, including the late United States. They will, he says, form a ‘_new_’ Slave Power. He forgets, that, though the Power may be new, the Slavery will be old.”

The Manchester _Guardian_ said:--

“We receive by the last steamer from New York the report of a speech recently delivered by a person of great consideration in the councils of the present Government at Washington, who maintains that the favor already given to the Confederacy by England deserves the execration of humanity, and supplies, if necessary, abundant cause for war. The speaker to whom we allude is Mr. Charles Sumner, the President of the Committee of the Senate on Foreign Affairs. He denounced, we are told, as ‘a betrayal of civilization,’ England’s recognition of the Confederate States as belligerents, and her proclamation of neutrality. _The absurd injustice of this often repeated complaint is sufficiently shown by the simple observation, that, in recognizing the belligerent rights of the South, we did exactly what the Federal Government itself did_, and has continued to do from the commencement of the war. We did, moreover, what no power could have avoided, without absolutely intending to take a direct part in the subjugation of the seceding States. But Mr. Sumner correctly appreciates the consequences of this course, as adopted by ourselves and France, in perceiving that it insured to the South the free exercise of all the power of making war from its own resources which an independent state could possess.”

The _Economist_, of London, a weekly journal, in an article entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Speech at New York,” among many remarks of bad temper and doubtful candor, said:--

“Mr. Charles Sumner has been delivering a speech before a crowded audience in New York which will cause much pain and disappointment to all friends and well-wishers of the Federal United States. It is weak in argument, unfair and unjust in its representations, and bitter in tone and temper. If men of Mr. Sumner’s education and position in America really believe the things they say and indulge the feelings to which they give utterance, it is clearly hopeless to attempt either to enlighten their understanding or to allay their irritation.…

“Two other considerations will fully justify us in describing Mr. Sumner’s address as marked by the most distinctly unfair and unfriendly _animus_ toward this country. The first is, that he has carefully avoided doing the slightest justice to the strong Antislavery feeling which prevails among us, and even insinuates a disposition to favor the slave empire of the South.…

“Finally, what construction is to be placed upon the remarkable circumstance, that, throughout his whole address, while endeavoring to rouse the wrath of his countrymen by a vicious enumeration of the supposed offences of Great Britain, he says not a word against France, which has participated in nearly all, and added others of her own? He charges us with hostile designs, because we recognized belligerent rights in the Confederates; but he utters no word of complaint against France, who recognized these at the same date and in the same terms.”

Referring to Mr. Sumner’s speech, it will be seen how untrue is the statement that he said “not a word against France”; nor is it true that he was unjust to “the strong Antislavery feeling” which had done so much honor to English history, although he lamented that it was impotent to save England from fatal concession to Rebel Slavery.

* * * * *

There was a critical spirit in the provincial press. The Halifax _Reporter_, in Nova Scotia, said:--

“Mr. Sumner, whose judgment is evidently warped by his abhorrence of Slavery, seems to expect that England should look upon the North as waging the war on behalf of human liberty. It is obvious he considers, that, in recognizing the Confederates as belligerents, her statesmen have exhibited a sympathy with slaveholders which is unjustifiable.…

“Mr. Sumner is peculiarly wrathy that any portion of the British people should have been allowed to give aid and comfort to the Rebels by affording them supplies of various kinds.”

The _Globe_, at Toronto, said:--

“He reviews the whole transactions between England and the United States since the commencement of the civil war with great warmth, beginning with the proclamation of neutrality and ending with Mr. Laird’s rams, and tortures every action of the British Government into a manifestation of unfriendliness towards the Republic. We expected from Mr. Sumner more enlightened consideration for the circumstances in which the English people have been placed, and some acknowledgment of the provocation they have received from this side of the Atlantic.…

“There is only one excuse for Mr. Sumner. As an Abolitionist, he has been accustomed to look to England for sympathy and aid, and he is disappointed to find so many enemies where he supposed he would see none but friends. This feeling should not prevent him, however, from doing justice as a publicist, nor, as a statesman, from pursuing the course most wise and expedient at the moment.”

In a different tone, the _Morning Star_, of London, the constant friend of the national cause, said:--

“The Hon. Charles Sumner has not belied the confidence inspired by a long and illustrious career. He is as firmly as ever the friend of peace, and especially of peace between Great Britain and America. The eloquent voice which has so often employed the stores of a richly furnished mind in persuasives to international amity has not, as the telegrams suggested, been inflamed by the heat of domestic conflict to the diffusion of discord between kindred peoples. His speech at New York on the 10th of September is, indeed, heavy with charges against France and England. But it is an appeal for justice, not an incentive to strife. It is a complaint of hopes disappointed, of friendship withheld, of errors hastily adopted and obstinately maintained. It is, however, an argument which does honor even to those against whom it is urged, and which aims to establish future relations of the closest alliance. Senator Sumner’s chief reproach is this,--that we have acted unworthily of ourselves, unfaithfully to our deepest convictions and best memories.…

“There runs through the whole of Mr. Sumner’s gigantic oration--far too long to have been spoken as printed, but yet without a word of superfluous argument or declamation--an idea on which we can now only touch. From the first sentence to the last, Slavery is present to his mind. It colors all his reasoning. It inspires him to prodigious eloquence. Not merely as the Senator for Massachusetts, the honored chieftain of the political Abolitionists, but as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, he sees everywhere the presence of the Slave Power. Against it he invokes, in periods of classic beauty and of fervid strength, all the moral forces of the mother country. To England he makes a passionate and pathetic appeal--more for her own sake than that of the slave, more for the sake of the future than of present effects--that she withdraw all favor and succor from Rebel slave-owners.”

The _Northern Whig_, of Belfast, Ireland, noticed especially the statement on _ocean_ belligerence:--

“One point, however, on which Mr. Sumner dwells, is of such urgent present importance as to make the reproduction of his remarks, at such length as our space allows, desirable. We refer to his criticism of the claims of the Confederates to belligerent rights _at sea_. Whether the ground which Mr. Sumner takes on this question be or be not tenable, whether the authorities and examples by which he supports it really make out his case, is a matter not to be decided summarily. His argument is, beyond dispute, a most masterly one, and deserves the careful attention of the English Government and its legal advisers, and will, no doubt, engage the ingenuity of writers upon International Law.”

These expressions of opinion show something of the extent to which Mr. Sumner was sustained, and also the British criticism he encountered. To the latter must be added an unexpected episode.

* * * * *

Earl Russell was on a visit to Scotland when Mr. Sumner’s speech arrived. Being entertained at a public dinner in the Town-Hall of Blairgowrie, September 26th, he took that occasion to review the questions of the war, and especially to answer Mr. Sumner, thus making a new precedent. It is not known that any European statesman ever before made a speech criticizing a speech in another country. The part relating to us was approached by the remark, “I am speaking of what has occurred in what a few years ago were the United States of America”; and then, towards the end, he says, “The people of what were the United States, whether they are called Federals or Confederates.”

The following passages belong to this answer.

“It was impossible to look on the uprising of a community of five million people as a mere petty insurrection [‘_Hear! hear!_’], or as not having the rights which at all times are given to those who, by their numbers and importance, or by the extent of the territory they possess, are entitled to these rights. [_Cheers._] Well, it was said we ought not to have done that, because they were a community of Slaveholders.

“Gentlemen, I trust that our abhorrence of Slavery is not in the least abated or diminished. [_Loud and prolonged cheers._] For my own part, I consider it one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity. [_Cheers._] But then, when we are treating of the relations which we bear to a community of men, I doubt whether it would be expedient or useful for humanity that we should introduce that new element of declaring that _we will have no relations with a people who permit Slavery to exist among them. We have never adopted it yet, we have not adopted it in the case of Spain or Brazil, and I do not believe that the cause of humanity would be served by our adoption of it._ [‘_Hear! hear!_’]

“Well, then it was said that these Confederate States were Rebels,--Rebels against the Union. Perhaps, Gentlemen, I am not so nice as I ought to be on the subject. But I recollect that we rebelled against Charles the First [_a laugh_], we rebelled against James the Second, and the people of New England, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George the Third. [_‘Hear!’ and laughter._] … But, certainly, if I look to the declarations of those New England orators,--and I have been reading lately, if not the whole, yet a very great part, of the very long speech by Mr. Sumner on the subject, delivered at New York,--I own, I cannot but wonder to see these men, the offspring, as it were, of three rebellions, as we are the offspring of two rebellions, really speaking, like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis the Fourteenth himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion. [_Loud laughter and cheers._] …

“I said, that in America, although there were some of the local courts which had not the authority of such men as Lord Stowell and Sir William Grant, yet there was a Court of Appeal, there was a Supreme Court, in the United States, which contained, and had for many years contained, men as learned and of as high reputation in the law and of as unsullied reputation for integrity as any that have sat in our English courts of justice, and that we ought to wait patiently for the decision of those tribunals. Now what is my surprise to find, and what would be your surprise to find, that Mr. Sumner is so prejudiced that he brings these declarations of mine against me, saying _that I have diminished the reputation of the American Courts_, and that I showed myself biased against the Federal States, by the declaration I then made in Parliament! [_A gentleman from the Southern States among the company here ejaculated, ‘He is not to be believed.’_]

“I will not detain you further on these subjects; but one remark I must make on the general tendency of these speeches and writings in America. The Government of America discusses these matters very fairly with the English Government. Sometimes we think them quite in the wrong; sometimes they say we are quite in the wrong; but we discuss them fairly, and with regard to the Secretary of State I see no complaint to make. I think he weighs the disadvantages and difficulties of our situation in a very fair and equal balance. But there are others, and Mr. Sumner is one of them, his speech being an epitome almost of all that has been contained in the American press, by whom our conduct is very differently judged.”

In defending the concession of belligerent rights to Rebel Slavery, Earl Russell forgot two things: first, that the Rebels, whatever their numbers, were without ports or Prize Courts, and therefore unable to administer justice on the ocean, which was essential to the protection of neutrals, and, in the nature of things, the condition precedent of any such concession; and, secondly, he forgot, that, whatever might be the traditional relations with existing nations “permitting Slavery to exist among them,” it was now proposed, for the first time in history, to recognize a rebel community seeking to found a new nation whose declared corner-stone was Slavery, which Mr. Sumner insisted was contrary to good morals and the Antislavery principles so constantly and loftily avowed by England.

On another occasion Earl Russell seems to have laid down a rule requiring Prize Courts, as will be seen in Mr. Sumner’s speech.[172] He insisted that vessels seized should be tried in a Prize Court. If this rule is correct, how vindicate the award of belligerent rights to a community without Prize Courts? Another question may also be asked: If Slavery be, as Earl Russell declared, “one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity,” how could England make any concession to Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence was this very crime?

The answer to Mr. Sumner on Prize Courts will be appreciated after reading the report in the London _Times_, June 16, 1863,[173] of what Earl Russell actually said in the House of Lords.

“With regard to the decisions in Prize Courts, I must say I lament that the Constitution of the United States is such, that, instead of being brought at once before the Court of Admiralty, where generally you have a very eminent judge to preside, perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations, _such cases go in the first instance before the District Courts_, then, I think, before a Circuit Court, and it is only after a considerable delay that they come before the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this, because I believe we should all very much respect a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is to be lamented that there should be a considerable delay before the judgment of that tribunal can be obtained.”

The compliment to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, like the House of Lords and the Privy Council, is not a court of original jurisdiction in prize cases, will hardly excuse the reflection upon the District Courts, which are the Admiralty Courts of the United States,--especially when it is considered that those at Boston and New York, where the prize cases chiefly occurred, were administered at the time by judges who would compare favorably with the contemporary judge of the English Admiralty. Judge Sprague, of Boston, and Judge Betts, of New York, were “very eminent” and “perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations,” although only judges of District Courts.

The speech of Earl Russell was noticed by Mr. Adams, in a despatch to Mr. Seward, under date of October 1, 1863:--

“The event of the week has been the speech of Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, evidently drawn forth by the report of Mr. Sumner’s address at New York.”[174]

It was the subject of comment by the press of England and the United States. The sympathetic _Morning Star_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner’s oration has had an unexpected effect. It has stirred the phlegmatic nature of Earl Russell. The Foreign Secretary has replied from his Scottish retreat to the complaints and reproaches of the New England Senator. Absurdly contemptuous in his personal allusions to the distinguished Senator, Lord Russell confesses the force of his accusations by taking the trouble to reply to them.…

“It would also have been well, if our Foreign Secretary had included in his reply some notice of one of the most distinct and gravest of Mr. Sumner’s complaints. The defence of our recognition of the Confederates as belligerents is without novelty. It is a simple repetition of the old statement, that our naval commanders required to be instructed whether they should respect the new flag or treat it as that of a pirate. Lord Russell does not touch the objection raised by Mr. Sumner, that the Confederates had no ocean navy, and could provide one only from neutral ports. Neither does his Lordship explain why the resolution to recognize the Confederates as belligerents was taken in the absence from this country of a Federal minister.

“But, notwithstanding these defects, Lord Russell’s speech at Blairgowrie is an immense advance upon his previous utterances on the American Question. It is evident that he begins to perceive the real issue of the conflict, and rightly estimates the direction of British sentiment.”

The Boston _Traveller_ said:--