Page images

The suggestions by Mr. Blair, as to improvements in international postal arrangements, will be promptly submitted to Mr. Thouvenel, and through him to the proper department here.


I feel much gratified with the full satisfaction which you, in your own behalf and in behalf of the President, have expressed with my conduct in this mission. Certainly, if I have in any respect failed, it has not been for want of proper attention and care. Indeed, I am not now aware that anything could have been done here usefully which has not been done. There is a certain class of people who seem to think diplomacy consists in mousing out and reporting small matters, having really no kind of weight in settling international relations. I have not troubled you with these things, and I am glad of it.

Nor have I troubled you about Garibaldi or Italy or any other matters not directly connected with my mission here. I wish that some other of our officials on the continent could restrain their love of notoriety, and confine themselves to their business. This remark grows out of a letter, which I have just seen, from our consul at Vienna (Mr. Theodore Canisius) to Garibaldi, and his answers, copies of which are enclosed. The sentiments may be all right, but just at this point of time, when Austria and Italy and France are so sensitive, it was scarcely worth while for our consul to throw them in the face of these powers. I am your very obedient servant,

WM. L. DAYTON. Hon. Wm. H. SEWARD, 8c., fc., fr.

Mr. Scward to Mr. Dayton.

No. 230.)


Washington, October 3, 1862. Sir: Your despatch of the 18th of August (No. 199) has been received. I thank you for the attention manifested in sending me the two publications, that of our late consul general in Egypt, Mr. DeLeon, in favor of the treason against the United States, and that of Mr. Laboulaye, in support of the American Union.

Should occasion offer, you will gratify the President by expressing his acknowledgments to Mr. Laboulaye for the inestimable service he has rendered our country at a time which is trying the sincerity of the friends of constitutional freedom throughout the world. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. WILLIAM L. Dayton, Esq., &c., &c., dc.

Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward.

No. 206.]

PARIS, October 6, 1862. Sir : Agreeably to request, I have called the attention of Mr. Thouvenel to the case of Mr. Moquardt, an American citizen, resident in Vera Cruz, who complains of ill usage at the hands of certain French officers and soldiers there.

Mr. Thouvenel said he would be compelled to communicate with the French authorities at Vera Cruz before he could give an answer to the complaint. At his request, I left with him your despatch, to be read and then returned.


It is not probable that a final reply to our claim for indemnity, in behalf of Mr. Moquardt, will be given before this government shall hear from Vera Cruz. I am, sir, your obedient servant,


Secretary of State, 8c., fr., fc.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton.

[ocr errors]

No. 234.]


Washington, October 8, 1862. Sir: I have read with respect and carnestness the notes of a conversation between Mr. Thouvenel and yourself, which you have sent to me.

Mr. Thouvenel's cordial and friendly dispositions and his candor are appreciated by the President and by this whole government.

Revolutions seldom admit of exact regulation. This insurrection is an appeal by force not merely to reverse a regular popular judgment, but to overturn the tribunal which pronounced it. I admit the importance of moderation on the part of the government. I think that all the world will agree that the government has thus far practiced that virtue to the largest possible extent. It has, however, produced no abatement of the ambitious designs of the insurgents. It is manifest that they prefer a common ruin, a complete chaos, to any composition whatever that could be made under any auspices. Nor does the case admit of offers of composition on the part of the Union. It is a question between the existing and only possible constitutional system of government and a resolution of society here into small, distracted, and ever-jealous belligerent states. Other unusual elements enter into the motives of the conflict, and popular passions inflame them into a white heat. It is impossible not to see that the conflict between universal freedom and universal slavery, which has been so long put off, has come upon us at last in the form of a civil war, and that the parties are marshalling themselves under the banners of the Union and of the insurrection, respectively. Who has ever seen mediation or compromise arrest a conflict of that nature when brought to the trial of arms? No such conflict was ever ended but by exhaustion of one or both of the partics. Does it require a great discernment to see on which side exhaustion must first occur? Does it require much loyalty to our institutions, or much faith in virtue, or much trust in the guidance of a beneficent Providence, to enable us to believe that that exhaustion must be rapid and complete enough to bring about a return of that portion of our people which has been misled to the constitutional government, which alone can maintain peace, preserve order, and guarantee pracical freedom to all the members of the state? Where are we now? The Union is distracted, but it is not broken nor even shaken. It still maintains its authority everywhere, with local exceptions, as before. It still maintains its place in the councils of nations. It has only begun to draw upon its resources and its forces. The insurrection is without position at home or abroad. It has nearly exhausted its resources, and it is bringing into the field the last armies available by conscription. No revolution, prolonged without success, escapes the avenger of faction among its movers. That avenger is even now upon the lieels of the movers of the insurrection, and it appears with terrors such as failing revolutionists were never before compelled to turn upon and confront. Let any statesman look into the elements of society in the gulf or revolutionary States, and see what else than universal ruin of society can result from longer war against the

Union. What else than the protection of the Union, duly accepted, can arrest that desolation, or restore safety even then to property, liberty, and life. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. William L. DAYTON, Esq., 8c., &c., dr.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton.




[Extracts.) No. 236.]


Washington, October 10, 1862. Sir: Your despatch No. 200 has been submitted to the President.

I send you a copy of a despatch which goes out by this steamer, recalling Mr. Canisius, our consul at Vienna. You may read it to Mr. Thourenel, and give him a copy of it if he should desire one. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. William L. DAYTON, Esq., Sr., fr., sc. [The above-mentioned enclosure appears elsewhere in this correspondence.

Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward.

No. 208.]

Paris, October 14, 1862. Sir: Your circular, dated September 22, 1862, and the proclamation of the President of the same date, in relation to the abolition of slavery, were received at the legation on the 7th instant.

It is needless to say that these papers are of great interest. They have already been, or soon will be, published throughout the civilized world, and, wherever published or known, will at once fix the attention of mankind.

You may look immediately for the most mischievous efforts from portions of the foreign press to pervert and misconstrue the motives which have prompted the proclamation, and the probable consequences which will follow it. You must not be surprised if another spasmodic effort for intervention is made, based upon the assumed ground of humanity, but upon the real ground that emancipation may seriously injure the cause of the south, and will interfere, for years to come, at least, with the production of cotton.

But whatever may be the motive which prompts emancipation, or the immediate consequences which may follow it, the act will remain, and this cannot fail, in the end, to commend itself to the enlightened conscience of the Christian world. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WM. L. DAYTON. His Excellency William H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, fr., fr., dr.

Mr. Dayton to Mr. Scward.


No. 211.)

Paris, October 14, 1862. SIR: I was yesterday evening officially notified that Mr. Thouvenel retires from the ministry of foreign affairs, and Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys takes his place. You may recollect that some months since, the withdrawal of Mr. Thouvenel was spoken of, and I reported it to you. It was then supposed that it would originate in the fact that he differed from the policy of the Emperor in maintaining the existing status in Italy, and this seems to be admitted as the principal cause operating now. So little, however, was it anticipated at the present moment, outside of the official circle, that the Patrie, a leading journal here (strongly in favor of the south, by the way) which once had, and still affects to have, semiofficial relations with the government, made an announcement the very morning following the change, in reference to the subject of a cabinet conference the day preceding, which must obviously have been at direct variance with the fact.

The France, a journal started a few weeks since, only, (strongly opposed to us,) and generally understood to be semi-official, announces this difference on the Italian question as the specific cause of Mr. Thouvenel's resignation, and says that it will be followed by the return of the present French minister from Rome.

I regret the retirement of Mr. Thouvenel from the foreign department. We lose a friend at an important point. What may be the views of Monsieur Drouyn de l’Huys in respect to our affairs I do not know. He is a gentleman of the highest character, and is universally recognized as one of the ablest statesmen of France. He has heretofore held, as you know, the department of foreign affairs, and acquired much reputation while there. He first discharged its duties temporarily from December 19, 1848, to the 2d of January, 1849, when he was succeeded by the Comte de Tocqueville; again from the 9th of January, 1851, to the 24th of the same month, when he was succeeded by Monsieur Breuier, and, lastly, from the 28th of July, 1852, to the 3d of May, 1855, when he was succeeded by Comte Walewski. Since that time he has been, I believe, in private life.

should add that he has served as minister of France in England; is well known to the statesmen of that country, and speaks the language with ease and fluency. I have the pleasure of an acquaintance with Monsieur de l'Huys, and have no doubt that our personal relations will be entirely agreeable. His perfect knowledge of our language will, to a certain extent, facilitate our official intercourse. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WM. L. DAYTON His Excellency William H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Sc., fc., Sc.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton.

No. 237.]


Washington, October 20, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of the 2d of October (No. 202) has been laid before the President. It is desirable that the views I am now to express should be understood as official, and that, with such reserve as your discretion

may they may be made known to the French government. For this reason I do not draw under review the unofficial conversation with Mr. Thouvenel which you

deem proper,

have related, but I base these intimations upon information of a general charac, ter which has reached this department.

The effect of this information is that Great Britain and France are seriously considering the question of recognizing the insurgents of this country as a sovereign state. Of course, the grounds of such a proceeding must involve a conclusion that the insurgents have shown their ability to maintain a national independence. We now know, although it was for a time studiously concealed from this government and the American people, that so early as the reverses which befel our army in front of Richmond, the insurgent leaders projected and began to prepare a campaign with the very comprehensive purpose of invading the loyal free States by armies which should occupy and permanently establish themselves in the loyal border States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In this way Philadelphia and New York were to be menaced, while Baltimore and New Orleans were to be captured, and this capital was to be reduced to capitulation. We know also that the project of this campaign was confidentially communicated to parties in Europe who sympathized with the insurrection, and who became active in furnishing aid, arms, and supplies for its execution. We know further that from a natural impulsiveness, if not from deep design, the cmissaries of the insurgents excited very sanguine expectations of the success of their proposed campaign in the principal European cabinets. We have learned further that, besides enlisting under the influence of that excitement many persons of assumed importance as advocates of a recognition of the insurgents, a great pecuniary speculation in cotton was opened to others who might be moved by mercenary inducements to lend their aid to the same conspiracy against the United States. Chimerical as this scheme seemed to calm observers here while it was being developed through the manæuvres of the insurgents, it nevertheless borrowed a certain measure of probability of success from the surprise it excited, from inaugural military advantages gained in the region of Manassas, and from a seeming, though unreal, dilatoriness of the loyal States in sending forward the new levies for which the President had called. The apparent depression thus manifested here of course was observed in Europe, and doubtless it went far to fortify the sanguine expectations of the success of the anticipated campaign which prevailed there. Those expectations thus reached such a height that all Europe was seen actually looking for nothing less than the surrender of Washington and the dissolution of the Union, when it received, through the telegraph, the very different intelligence of the defeats of the insurgents at South Mountain and Antietam. In view of these facts, this government was not at all surprised when it heard, through the despatches of its representatives in the European capitals throughout the months of August and September, that confident expectations were prevailing there of an early recognition of the independence of the insurgents, and that European statesmen, assuming that recognition to be imminent, were benevolently engaged in considering what substitute they could propose to the United States for the loss of their venerated and invaluable federal Union. It does, however, surprise the President that the expectations of a recognition of the insurgents are still lingering in European capitals, in view of the disappointment and failure of the campaign, which by its successes was to prepare them for that hostile measure.

Waiving the temptation to bring military events singly into a tedious review, it will be sufficient on this occasion to say that the military and political situa. tions in this country are in perfect contrast with the imaginary ones which were expected to win the advantages of European intervention. Instead of being in possession of or threatening Philadelphia and New York, and occupying Cincinnati, Louisville, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Washington, the invading armies of the insurgents in the east, in the west, and in the south, are in retreat before the national forces, and as rapidly as possible evacuating all the loyal border States. On the first of July last the government had retained from the

« PreviousContinue »