« PreviousContinue »
the commissioners would seek, by means of well-ordered | and profound deliberation, whether these interests are definitively irreconcilable, whether separation is an extreme that can no longer be avoided, or whether the memories of a common existence, the ties of every kind which have made of the North and the South one whole Federative State, and have borne them on to so high a degree of prosperity, are not more powerful than the causes which have placed arms in the hands of the two populations.
The suggestion is not an extraordinary one, and it may well have been thought by the Emperor of the French, in the earnestness of his benevolent desire for the restoration of peace, a feasible one. But when M. Drouyn de l'Huys shall come to review it in the light in which it must necessarily be examined in this country, I think he can hardly fail to perceive that it amounts to nothing less than a proposition that, while this Government is engaged in suppressing an armed insurrection, with the purpose of maintaining the constitutional national authority, and preserving the integrity of the country, it shall enter into diplomatic discussion with the insurgents upon the questions whether that authority shall not be renounced, and whether the country shall not be delivered over to disunion, to be quickly followed by ever increasing anarchy.
sities, and therefore can seldom be conformed to precedenta Great Britain, when entering on the negotiations had manifestly come to entertain doubts of her ultimate success; and it is certain that the councils of the colonies could not fail to take new courage, if not to gain other advantage, when the parent State compromised so far as to treat of peace on the terms of conceding their independence.
It is true, indeed, that peace must come at some time, and that conferences must attend, if they are not allowed to precede the pacification. There is, however, a better form for such conferences than the one which M. Drouyn de l'Huys suggests. The latter would be palpably in deroga tion of the Constitution of the United States, and would carry no weight because destitute of the sanction necessary to bind either the disloyal or the loyal portions of the people. On the other hand, the Congress of the United States furnishes a constitutional forum for debates between the alienated parties. Senators and Representatives from the loyal portion of the people are there already, freely empowered to confer; and seats also are vacant, and invit ing Senators and Representatives of the discontented party who may be constitutionally sent there from the States involved in the insurrection. Moreover, the conferences which can thus be held in Congress have this great advantage over any that could be organized upon the plan of M. Drouyn de l'Huys, namely: that the Congress, if it were thought wise, could call a national convention to adopt its recommendations, and give them all the solemnity and binding force of organic law. Such conferences between the alienated parties may be said to have already begun. Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and MissouriGovern-States which are claimed by the insurgents-are already represented in Congress, and submitting with perfect freedom, and in a proper spirit, their adve upon the course best calculated to bring about, in the shortest time, a firm, lasting, and honorable peace. Representatives have been sent, also, from Louisiana, and others are understood to be coming from Arkansas.
If it were possible for the Government of the United States to compromise the National authority so far as to enter into such debates, is it not easy to perceive what good results could be obtained by them.
The commissioners must agree in recommending either that the Union shall stand, or that it shall be voluntarily dissolved; or else they must leave the vital question unsettled, to abide at last the fortunes of the war. The ment has not shut out knowledge of the present temper, any more than of the past purposes of the insurgents. There is not the least ground to suppose that the controling actors would be persuaded at this moment, by any arguments which national commioners could offer, to forego the ambition that has impelled them to the disloyal position they are occupying. Any commissioners who There is a preponderating argument in favor of the conshould be appointed by these actors, or through their dic-gressional form of conference over that which is suggested by tation or influence, must enter the conference imbued with M. Drouyn de l'Huys, namely: that while an accession to the spirit, and pledged to the personal fortunes of the in- the latter would bring this Government into a concurrence surgent chiefs. The loyal people in the insurrectionary with the insurgents in disregarding and setting aside an im States would be unheard, and any offer for peace by this Gov-portant part of the Constitution of the United States, and erument, on the condition of the maintenance of the Union must necessarily be rejected.
On the other hand, as I have already intimated, this Government has not the least thought of relinquishing the trust which has been confided to it by the nation, under the most solemn of all political sanctions; and if it had any such thought, it would still have abundant reason to know that peace proposed at the cost of dissolution would bo immediately, unreservedly, and indignantly rejected by the American people. It is a great mistake that European statesmen make, if they suppose this people are demoralized. Whatever, in the case of an insurrection, the people of France, or of Great Britain, or of Switzerland, or the Netherlands would do to save their national existences, no mutter how the strife might be regarded by or affect foreign nations, just so much, and certainly no less, the people of the United States will do, if necessary to save for the common benefit the region which is bounded by the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and by the shores of the Gulfs of St. Law rence and Mexico, together with the free and common navi. gation of the Rio Grande, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, St. Lawrence, Hudson, Delaware, Potomac, and other natural highways by which this land, which to them is at Once a land of inheritance and a land of promise, is opened and watered. Even if the agents of the American people now exercising their power, should, through fear or faction, fall below this height of the national virtue, they would be speedily, yet constitutionally, replaced by others or sterner character and patriotism.
I must be allowed to say, also, that M. Dronyn de l'Huyn errs in his description of the parties to the present conflict. We have here, in a political sense, no North and South, nc Southern and northern States. We have an insurrectionary party, which is located chiefly upon and adjacent to the shore of the Gulf of Mexico; and we have, on the other hand, a loyal people, who constitute not only northern States, but also eastern, middle, western, and southern States.
I have on many occasions heretofore submitted to the French Government the President's views of the interests and the ideas more effective for the time than even interests which lie at the bottom of the American Government and people to sustain the Federal Union. The President has done the same thing in his messages and other public declarations. I refrain, therefore, from reviewing that argu. ment in connection with the existing question.
M. Dronyn de l'Huys draws to his aid the conferences which took place between the colonies and Great Britain, in our Revolutionary war. He will allow us to assume, that action in the crisis of a nation must accord with its neces
so would be of pernicious example, the congressional conference, on the contrary, preserves and gives new strength to that sacred writing which must continue through future ages the sheet anchor of the Republic.
You will be at liberty to read this dispatch to M. Drouyn de l'Huys, and to give him a copy, if he shall desire it. To the end that you may be informed of the whole case, transmit a copy of M. Drouyn de l'Huys's dispatch. I am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS UPON FOREIGN
Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. Whereas it appears from the diplomatic correspondence submitted to Congress that a proposition, friendly in form, looking to pacification through foreign mediation, has been made to the United States by the Emperor of the French and promptly declined by the President; and whereas the idea of mediation or intervention in some shape may be regarded by foreign governments as practicable, and such governments, through this misunderstanding, may be led to proceedings tending to embarrass the friendly relations which now exist between them and the United States; and whereas, in order to remove for the future all chance of misunderstanding on this subject, and to secure, for the United States the full enjoyment of that freedom from foreign interference which is one of the highest rights of independent States, it seems fit that Congress should declare its convictions thereon: Therefore,
Resolved, (the House of Representatives concurring.) That while, in times past, the United States have sought and accepted the friendly mediation or arbitration of foreign pow era for the pacific adjustment of international questions, where the United States were the party of the one part and some other sovereign power the party of the other part; and while they are not disposed to misconstrue the natural and humane desire of foreign powers to aid in arresting domestic troubles, which, widening in their influence, have afflicted other countries, especially in view of the circumstance, deeply regretted by the American people, that the blow aimed by the rebellion at the national life has fallen heavily upon the laboring population of Europe; yet, notwithstanding these things, Congress cannot hesitate to regard every proposition of foreign interference in the present contest as so far unreasonable and inadmissible that its only explanation will be found in a misunderstanding of the
true state of the question, and of the real character of the war in which the Republic is engaged.
| bell, Casey, Chamberlain, Clark, Clements, Colfax, Freder ick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Covode, Cutler, Dawes, Dunn, Edgerton, Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Samuel C. Fessenden, Thomas A. D. Fessenden, Fisher. Flanders, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Gurley, Haight, Hale, Harrison, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Leary, Lehman, Loomis, Low, McIndor, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Marston, Maynard, Mitchell, Moorhoad, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Olin, Patton, Timothy G. Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rico, Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, Sedgwick, Shanks, Sheffield, Sheilabarger, Sloan, Smith, Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Train, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Valkenburgh, Van Wyck, Verree, Walker, Wallace, Washburue, Webster, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, Worcester, Wright-103.
2. That the United States are now grappling with an unprovoked and wicked rebellion, which is seeking the destruction of the Republic that it may build a new power, whose corner-stone, according to the confession of its chiets, shall be slavery; that for the suppression of this rebellion, and thus to save the Republic and to prevent the establishment of such a power, the national Government is now employing armies and fleets in full faith that through those efforts all the purpose of conspirators and rebels will bo crushed; that while engaged in this struggle, on which so much depends, any proposition from a foreign power, whatever form it may take, having for its object the arrest of these efforts, is, just in proportion to its influence, an encouragement to the rebellion and to its declared principles, and on this account, is calculated to prolong and imbitter the conflict, to cause increased expenditure of blood and treasure, and to postpone the much desired day of peace; that, with these convictions, and not doubting that every such proposition, although made with good intent, is injurious to the national interests, Congress will be obliged to look upon any further attempt in the same direction as an unfriendly act, which it earnestly deprecates, to the end that nothing may occur abroad to strengthen the rebellion LETTER OF LORD LYONS TO EARL RUSSELL REor to weaken those relations of good will with foreign powers which the United States are happy to cultivate.
NAYS-Messrs. William Allen, Ancona, Calvert, Crittenden, Dunlap, Grider, Johnson, Kerrigan, Knapp, Lazear, Mallory, May, Noble, Norton, Nugen, Pendleton, Perry, Price, Robinson, Shiel, Stiles, Vallandigham, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Yeaman-28.
3. That the rebellion from its beginning, and far back WASHINGTON, November 17, 1862. even in the conspiracy which preceded its outbreak, was In his dispatches of the 17th and of the 24th ultimo, and encouraged by the hope of support from foreign powers; of the 7th instant, Mr. Stuart reported to your lordship the that its chiefs frequently boasted that the people of Europe result of the elections for members of Congress and State were so far dependent upon regular supplies of the great officers, which have recently taken place in several of the southern staple that sooner or later their governments most important States of the Union. Without repeating would be constrained to take side with the rebellion in the details, it will bo sufficient for me to observe that the some effective form, even to the extent of forcible interven- success of the Democratic, or (as it now styles itself) the tion, if the milder form did not prevail; that the rebellion Conservative Party, has been so great as to manifest a is now sustained by this hope, which every proposition of change in public feeling, among the most rapid and the foreign interference quickens anew, and that without this most complete that has ever been witnessed, even in this life-giving support it must soon yield to the just and pater- country. nal authority of the national Government; that, consider- On my arrival at New York on the 8th instant I found ing these things, which are aggravated by the motive of the the Conservative leaders exulting in the crowning success resistance thus encouraged, the United States regret that achieved by the party in that State. They appeared to reforeign powers have not frankly told the chiefs of the rebel-joice, above all, in the conviction that personal liberty and lion that the work in which they are engaged is hateful, freedom of speech had been secured for the principal State and that a new government, such as they seek to found, of the Union. They believed that the Government must at with slavery as its acknowledged corner-stone, and with no once desist from exercising in the State of New York the other declared object of separate existence, is so far shock- extraordinary (and as they regarded them) illegal and uning to civilization and the moral sense of mankind that it constitutional powers which it had assumed. They were must not expect welcome or recognition in the common-confident that at all events after the 1st of January next, wealth of nations. on which day the newly elected Governor would come into office, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus could not be practically maintained. They seemed to be persuaded that the result of the elections would be accepted by the President as a declaration of the will of the people; that he would increase the moderate and conservative element in the Cabinet; that he would seek to terminate the war, not to push it to extremity; that he would endeavor to effect a reconciliation with the people of the South, and renounce the idea of subjugating or exterminating them.
4. That the United States, confident in the justice of their cause, which is the cause also of good government and of human rights everywhere among men; anxious for the speedy restoration of peace, which shall secure tranquillity at home and remove all occasion of complaint abroad; and awaiting with well-assured trust the final suppression of the rebellion, through which all these things, rescued from present danger, will be secured forever, and the Republic, one and indivisible, triumphant over its enemies, will continue to stand an example to mankind, hereby announce, as their unalterable purpose, that the war will be vigorously prosecuted, according to the humane principles of Christian States, until the rebellion shall be suppressed; and they reverently invoke upon their cause the blessings of Almighty God.
5. That the President be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions, through the Secretary of State, to the ministers of the United States in foreign countries, that the declaration and protest herein set forth may be communicated by them to the government to which they are accredited.
1863, March 3-The resolutions were passed by the Senate-yeas 31, nays 5, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Daris, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Hicks, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Morrill, Nesmith, eroy, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts-31. NAYS-Messrs. Carlile, Latham, Powell, Saulsbury, Wall
On the following morning, however, intelligence arrived from Washington which dashed the rising hopes of the Conservatives. It was announced that General McClellan had been dismissed from the command of the army of the Potomac, and ordered to repair to his home; that he had, in fact, been removed altogether from active service. The general had been regarded as the representative of Conservative principles in the army. Support of him had been made one of the articles of the Conservative electoral programme. His dismissal was taken as a sign that the Pres ident had thrown himself entirely into the arms of the extreme radical party, and that the attempt to carry out tion of the Conservatives at New York was certainly very the policy of that party would be persisted in. The irrita. great; it seemed, however, to be not unmixed with con sternation and despondency.
Several of the leaders of the Democratic party sought in terviews me, both before and after the arrival of the intel Pom-ligence of General McClellan's dismissal. The subject up permost in their minds while they were speaking to me, was naturally that of foreign mediation between the North and South. Many of them seemed to think that this mediation must come at last, but they appeared to be very much afraid of its coming too soon. It was evident that they apprehended that a premature proposal of foreign interven tion would afford the Radical party a means of reviving the violent war spirit, and of thus defeating the peaceful plans of the Conservatives. They appeared to regard the present moment as peculiarly unfavorable for such an offer, and indeed, to hold that it would be essential to the success of
1863, March 3-The above resolutions were considered in the House.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM moved to lay them on the table; which was negatived-yeas 29, nays 92. They were then passed-yeas 103, nays 28,
YEAS-Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baily, Baker, Baxter, Bingham, Jacob B. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Bridges, William G. Brown, Buffinton, Camp
any proposal from abroad that it should be deferred until the control of the Executive Government should be in the hands of the Conservative party.
I gave no opinion on the subject. I did not say whether or no I myself thought foreign intervention probable or ad
visable, but I listened with attention to the accounts given me of the plans and hopes of the Conservative party. At the bottom I thought I perceived a desire to put an end to the war, even at the risk of losing the southern States altogether; but it was plain that it was not though: prudent to avow this desire. Indeed some hints of it, dropped before the elections, were so ill received that a strong declaration in the contrary sense was deemed necessary by the Democratic leaders.
At the present moment, therefore, the chiefs of the Conservative party call loudly for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, and reproach the Government with slackness as well as with want of success in its military measures. But they repudiate all idea of interfering with the institutions of the southern people, or of waging a war of subjugation or extermination. They maintain that the object of the military operations should be to place the North in a position to demand an armistice with honor and effect. The armistice should (they hold) be followed by a convention, in which such changes of the Constitution should be proposed as would give the South ample security on the subject of its slave property, and would enable the North and the South to reunite and to live together in peace and harmony. The Conservatives profess to think that the South might be induced to take part in such a convention, and that a res-office expires next March. The new Congress is likely toration of the Union would be the result.
The more sagacious members of the party must, however, look upon the proposal of a convention merely as a last experiment to test the possibility of reunion. They are no doubt well aware that the more probable consequence of an armistice would be the establishment of Southern independence, but they perceive that if the South is so utterly alienated that no possible concessions will induce it to return voluntarily to the Union, it is wiser to agree to separation than to prosecute a cruel and hopeless war.
It is with reference to such an armistice as they desire to attain, that the leaders of the Conservative party regard the question of foreign mediation. They think that the offer of mediation, if made to a radical administration, would be rejected; that, if made at an unpropitious moment, it might increase the virulence with which the war is prosecuted. If their own party were in power, or virtually controlled the administration, they would rather, if possible, obtain an armistice without the aid of foreign governments, but they would be disposed to accept an offer of mediation if it appeared to be the only means of putting a stop to hostilities. They would desire that the offer should come from the great powers of Europe conjointly, and in particular that as little prominence as possible should be given to Great Britain.
At Washington I have had fewer opportunities than I had at New York of ascertaining the present views of the chiefs of the political parties. At the interview which I had with Mr. Seward the day after my arrival he showed no disposition to enter upon political matters. He did not appear to expect or to desire to receive from me any special communication from her Majesty's government. The President, when I waited upon him, talked to me only on ordinary topics. I, for my part, gladly shunned all allusion to foreign intervention, my principal object being to avoid Baying anything which might embarrass me in carrying out any instructions on the subject which I may receive from your lordship.
All things considered, my own opinion certainly is that the present moment is not a favorable one for making an offer of mediation. It might embarrass the peace party, and even oblige them, in order to maintain their popularity, to make some declaration against it, and this might make it difficult for them to accept a similar offer at a more propitious time. It would in all probability be rejected by the President, who appears to have thrown himself into the arms of the extreme radical party.
The views of that party are clear and definite. They declare that there is no hope of reconciliation with the Southern people; that the war must be pursued, per fas et nefas, until the disloyal men of the South are ruined and subjugated, if not exterminated; that not an inch of the old territory of the Republic must be given up; that foreign intervention, in any shape, must be rejected and resented. This party would desire to turn an offer of mediation to account, for the purpose of inflaming the war . spirit and producing a reaction against the Conservatives.
Is is probable, too, that the Government would urge, in answer to an offer of mediation, that it has by no means abandoned the hope of putting down the rebellion within a reasonable time; that at all events, this is not a moment at which it can reasonably be called upon to put a stop to hostilities. It would observe that the armies of the United States are everywhere advancing, and that expeditions are prepared against Texas, as well as against Charleston, Mobile, and other points on the coast. It would point out that it had equipped a considerable number of war-vessels, iron-clad as well as others, at a vast expense; that the season had just arrived when the autumn rains would render
the rivers navigable by armed vessels, and when the South. ern coast would be free from epidemic disease. It might even represent an advance of the Army of the Potomac to Richmond as a probable event. The experience of the past is certainly not calculated to inspire any great confidence in the results of these warlike preparations, but the political interests of the party now in power render a continuance of the war a necessity to it. Its only chance of regaining its lost popularity lies in successful military oper ations. Unless it can obtain a much higher place in public estimation than it now occupies, not only will its tenure of power become extremely precarious, but some of its leading members may be called to a severe account for their extra-legal proceedings. During the session of Congress which begins next month, the present Administration has indeed reason to expect an uncompromising support from a majority of both Houses of Congress. But on the 4th of March next, the existing House of Representatives is dissolved by the terms of the Constitution, and at the same time several of the present Senators go out of office. The majority of the members chosen at the recent elections for the new House of Representatives are of the Democratic or Conservative party, and in some States, Senators of that party will be returned in the room of those whose term of to be hostile to the Administration and to the Radical party; and although it will not, in the ordinary course of things, assemble until the last month of next year, the President will hardly be able to persist in his present policy and in his assumption of extraordinary powers, unless he can, in virtue of military successes, obtain a reputation with the people which will sustain him in a contest with the Legislature.
It would seem, then, to be vain to make an offer of mediation to the present Government, in their present mood, with any notion that it would be accepted. A change of mood may, however, take place after the 4th of March, if no great military successes occur in the interval. Such a change may possibly be produced sooner by military reverses. A proposal, however, to mediate, made even under the present circumstances, by three or more of the great powers of Europe conjointly might not produce any great inconvenience.
It is, indeed, urged by some people that mediation should be offered, not so much with a view to its being accepted as to its clearing the way for a recognition of the Southern Confederacy. And, indeed, if it were determined that the time had come for recognizing that Confederacy, no doubt an offer of mediation would be a suitable preliminary. But I do not clearly understand what advantage is expected to result from a simple recognition of the southern government; and I presume that the European powers do not contemplate breaking up the blockade by force of arms, or ongaging in hostilities with the United States in support of the independence of the South.
I have, indeed, heard it maintained that Great Britain should recognize the independence of the South as soon as possible, with a view to impede the success of the efforts of the conservative party to reconstruct the Union. The advocates of this opinion consider a re-union as a probable event, and apprehend that the first result of it would be that the combined forces of the North and the South would be let loose upon Canada. I certainly do not at present share these apprehensions. All hope of the reconstruction of the Union appears to be fading away, even from the minds of those who most ardently desire it. But if the reconstruction be still possible, I do not think we need conclude that it would lead to an invasion of Canada, or to any consequences injurious to Great Britain. At any rate dangers of this kind are remote. The immediate and obvious in terest of Great Britain, as well as of the rest of Europe, is that peace and prosperity should be restored to this country as soon as possible. The point chiefly worthy of consideration appears to be whether separation or reunion be the more likely to effect this object.
The French in Mexico. Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress, IN SENATE. 1863, January 19-Mr. McDOUGALL offered the following concurrent resolutions:
Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That the present attempt by the government of France to subject the Republic of Mexico to her author ity by armed force is a violation of the established and known rules of international law, and that it is, moreover, a violation of the faith of France, pledged by the treaty made at London on the 31st day of October, 1861, between the allied governments of Spain, France, and England, communicated to this Government over the signatures of the re
presentatives of the allies by letter of the 30th day of November, 1861, and particularly and repeatedly assured to this Government through its ministers resident at the Court of France. Resolved further, That the attempt to subject the Republic of Mexico to the French authority is an act not meroly unfriendly to this Republic, but to free institutions every where, and that it is regarded by this Republic as not only unfriendly, but as hostile. Resolved further, That it is the duty of this Republic to require of the government of France that her armed forces be withdrawn from the territories of Mexico.
Resolved further, That it is the duty and proper office of this Republic now, and at all times, to lead such aid to the Republic of Mexico as is or may be required to prevent the forcible interposition of any of the States of Europe in the political affairs of that Republic.
Resolved further, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be communicated to the government of Mexico the views now expressed by the two Houses of Congress, and be further requested to cause to be negotiated such treaty or treaties between the two Republics as will best tend to make these views effective.
1863, February 4-The resolutions were, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, laid on the table-yeas 34, nays 10, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Daris, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of KanBas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts-34.
NAYS Messrs. Kennedy, Latham, McDougall, Powell, Rice, Richardson, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Turpie, Wilson of Missouri-10.
First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress. IN SENATE.
1864, Jan. 11-Mr. MCDOUGALL offered this joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
IN RELATION TO THE OCCUPATION OF MEXICO.
Resolved, &c., That the occupation of a portion of the territory of the Republic of Mexico by the armed forces of the government of France, with the purposes avowed by the government of France, is an act unfriendly to the Republic of the United States of America.
Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That it is the duty of the proper department of this Government to demand of the government of France the withdrawal of her armed forces from the Mexican territory within a reasonable
June 14-Mr. MCDOUGALL sought to introduce this resolution, but objection was made: Resolved, That the people of the United States can never regard with indifference the attempt of any foreign power to overthrow by force or to supplant by fraud the institutions of any republican government on the western continent, and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the peace and independence of their own country, the efforts of any such power to obtain any footholds for monarchical Governments sustained by foreign military force in near proximity to the United States.
1864, April 4-Mr. H. WINTER DAVIS, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported to the House of Representatives the following joint resolution, which was passed-yeas 109, nays none, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Francis P. Blair, jr., Bliss, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brooks, Broomall, James S. Brown, William G. Brown, Chanler, Ambrose W. Clark, Clay, Cobb, Cole, Cox, Cravens, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawson, Denison, Dixon, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eden, Eldridge, Eliot, English, Fenton, Finck, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harding, Harring
ton, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Jenckes, Philip Johnson, Julian, Kalbfleisch, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Ker nan, King, Law, Lazear, Long, Longyear, Mallory, Marcy, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, McKinney, Middleton, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, James R. Morris, Morrison, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, John O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Pendleton, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rogers, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B. Steele, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Thayer, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Voorhees, Ward, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, Woodbridge, Yeaman-109. NAYS-None.
The resolution is as follows:
Relative to the substitution of monarchial for republican Government in Mexico, under European auspices. Resolved, &c., That the Congress of the United States are
unwilling, by silence, to leave the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico; and they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowl edge a monarchical government, erected on the ruins of any republican government in America, under the auspices of any European power.
1864, April 5-The resolution was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it remained unreported at the close of the session.
April 27-Mr. McDOUGALL offered a resolution that the Committee on Foreign Relations be instructed to report to the Senate the joint
resolution printed above.
May 28-Mr. MCDOUGALL offered a resolution that the committee be discharged from the subject, both of which went over.
May 23-Mr. H. W. DAVIS offered this resolution, which was agreed to without a division: Whereas the following announcement appeared in the Moniteur, the official journal of the French Government: "Le gouvernement de "The Emperor's Govern l'Empereur a reçu du gou- ment has received from that vernement des Etats-Unis of the United States satisfac des explications satisfai- tory explanations as to the santes sur le sens et la portée sense and bearing of the res de la résolution prise par olution come to by the House l'assemblée des représentans of Representatives at Washà Washington, au sujet des ington relative to Mexico. affairs du Mexico.
"On sait, d'ailleurs, que le Sénat ayait déjà ajourné indéfinement l'examen de cette résolution, à laquelle, dans tous les cas, le pouvoir exécutif n'eût point accordé sa sanction."-Moniteur.
"It is known, besides, that the Senate had indefinitely postponed the examination of that question, to which in any case the executive power would not have given its sanction."
Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this House, if not inconsistent with the public interest, any explanations given by the Government of the United States to the Government of France respecting the sense and bearing of the joint resolution relative to Mexico, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously on the 4th of April, 1864.
May 24-The PRESIDENT transmitted the following correspondence, communicated by the Secretary of State, in response to the resolution of the House :
MR. SEWARD'S LETTER TO MR. DAYTON, DATED DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, APRIL 7, 1864.
I send you a copy of a resolution which passed the House of Representatives on the 4th instant, by a unanimous vote, and which declares the opposition of that body to a recog nition of a monarchy in Mexico. M. Geofrey has lost no time in asking for an explanation of this proceeding.
It is hardly necessary, after what I have heretofore written with perfect candor for the information of France, to
say that this resolution truly interprets the unanimous sen- cerning Mexico, as you have reported it, is entirely approved. timent of the people of the United States in regard to Mex. The resolution yet remains unacted upon in the Senate. ico. It is, however, another and distinct question whether Mr. Corwin was to leave Vera Cruz on the 3d instant 10the United States would think it necessary or proper to der the leave of absence granted to him by this department express themselves in the form adopted by the House of on the 8th of August last. Representatives at this time. This is a practical and purely SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Executive question, and the decision of its constitutionality dispatch of May 2, (No. 461,) and to approve of your pro belongs not to the House of Representatives, nor even to ceedings therein mentioned. We learn that Mr. Corwin, Congress, but to the President of the United States. You our minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, is at Havana, on will, of course, take notice that the declaration made by the his return to the United States, under leave of absence. House of Representatives is in the form of a joint resolution, which, before it can acquire the character of a legislative
June 4-Mr. Davis, of Maryland, . asked act, must receive, first, the concurrence of the Senate, and, unanimous consent to make a written report secondly, the approval of the President of the United States; from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in reor, in case of his dissent, the renewed assent of both houses of Congress, to be expressed by a majority of two-thirds of sponse to the above message of the President. each body. While the President receives the declaration of Mr. BROOMALL objected. the House of Representatives with the profound respect to June 6—He asked consent, and Mr. ARNOLD which it is entitled, as an exposition of its sentiments upon objected. He then moved to suspend the rules, a grave and important subject, he directs that you inform the Government of France that he does not at present con- which was rejected-yeas 43, nays 55, (two template any departure from the policy which this Govern- thirds being required,) as follows: ment has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists between France and Mexico. It is hardly necessary to
YEA8—Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Augustus C. Baldroin, say that the proceeding of the House of Representatives was
Cor, Henry Winter Davis, Dawson, Eden, Edgerton, Eldriilge, adopted upon suggestions arising within itself, and not upon
Finck, Ganson, Garfield, Grider, Griswold, Harding, Him any communication of the Executive department; and that rington, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Jenckes, King, the French Government would be seasonably apprised of Knupp, Lazear, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, James R. any change of policy upon this subject which the President Morris, Morrison, Noble, Odell, Orth, Pendleton, Perry, might at any future time think it proper to adopt.
Robinson, Ross, Scott, Spalding, Strouse, Sweat, Wadsworth
Nays-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Arnold, Baily, John D. Bal MR. DAFTON'S LETTER, DATED PARIS, APRIL 22, 1864. win, Beaman, Blaine, Jacob B. Blair, Broomall, Ambrose SIR : I visited M. Drouyn de l'Hnys yesterday at the de- W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffraith, Cole, Thomas T. partment of foreign affairs. The first words he addressed Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eliot, Farnsworth, to me, on entering the room, were: “Do you bring us peace, Fenton, Frank, Gooch, Griune!), Hale, Hotchkiss, John H. or bring us war?” I asked him to what he referred, and he Hubbard, Ingersoll, Kelley, Orlando Kellogg, Littlejohn, said he referred more immediately to those resolutions Longyear, Marvin, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Daniel Mor recently passed by Congress in reference to the invasion of ris, Amos Myers, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Price, Mexico by the French, and the establishment of Maximilian Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollius, Shun upon the throne of that country. I said to him, in reply, non, Smithers, Thayer, Tracy, Upson, Ellihu B. Washburne, that I did not think France had a right to infer that we William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wilson, Windom—55. were about to make war against her on account of anything contained in those resolutions; that they embodied nothing was ordered to be printed :
June 27-Mr. Davis made this report, which more than had been constantly held out to the French government from the beginning; that I had always repre- The Committee on Foreign Affnirs have examined the sented to the government here that any action upon their correspondence submitted by the President relative to the part interfering with the form of government in Mexico joint resolution on Mexican affairs with the profonnd re would be looked upon with dissatisfaction in our country, spect to which it is entitled, because of the gravity of its and they could not expect us to be in haste to acknowledge subject and the distinguished source from which it emana monarchical government, built upon the foundations of a ated. republic which was our next neighbor; that I had reason They regret that the President should have so widely to believe you held the same language to the French Min- departed from the usage of constitutional governments as ister in the United States. This allegation he did not seem to make a pending resolution of so grave and delicate a to deny, but obviously viewed the resolutions in question character the subject of diplomatic explanations. They re as a serious step upon our part; and I am told that the gret still more that the President should have thought leading secessionists here build largely upon these resolutions proper to inform a foreign government of a radical and an as a means of fomenting ill-feeling between this country and rious conflict of opinion and jurisdiction between the do some others and ourselves. Mr. Mason and his secretary positories of the legislative and executive power of the have gone to Brussels to confer with Mr. Dudley Mann, United States. who is their commissioner at that place. Mr. Slidell, it is No expression of deference can make the denial of the said, was to have gone to Austria, although he has not yet right of Congress constitutionally to do what the House
did with absolute unaniinity, other than derogatory to their SECOND LETTER FROM MR. DAYTON, Paris, MAY 2, 1864, BEING
dignity. IN REPLY TO MR. SEWARD'S OF APRIL 7.
They learn with surprise that, in the opinion of the Prest
ident, the form and term of expressing the judgment of the SIR: Immediately upon the receipt of your dispatch No. United States on recognizing a monarchical government im525, I applied to M. Drouyn de l'Huys for a special inter- posed on a neighboring republic is a “purely executive view, which was granted for Saturday last. I then said that question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs not I knew that the French government had felt somo anxiety to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but in respect to the resolution which had recently been passed to the President of the United States." by the House of Representatives, in reference to Mexico; This assumption is equally novel and inadmissible to and inasmuch as I had just received a copy of that resolu- President has ever claimed such an exclusive authority. tion, together with the views of the President of the United No Congress can ever permit its expressiou to pass without States, I begged, if agreeable, to read to him your dispatch dissent. in reference to the latter. To this he assented, and as the It is certain that the Constitution nowhere confers such shortest and most satisfactory mode, following out my in- authority on the President. structions, I read to him that entire portion of your dispatch The precedents of recognition, sufficiently numerons in which applies to this subject, stating, at the same time, that this revolutionary era, do not countenance this view; and I thought it was a remarkable illustration of the frankness if there be one not inconsistent with it, the committee have and straightforwardness of the President. When the read- not found it. ing was closed, M. Drouyn de l'Iluys expressed his gratifi- All questions of recognition have heretofore been delated cation, and after asking some questions in regard to the and considered as grave questions of national policy, ed effect of laying a resolution upon the table in the Senate, which the will of the people should be expressed in Congress the conversation terminated.
assembled; and the President, as the proper medium ot for. Me extreme sensitiveness which was manifested by this eign intercourse, has executed that will. If he has ever government when the resolution of the House of Represen- anticipated its expression, we have not found the car. tatives was first brought to its knowledge has, to a consider- The declaration and establishment of the independence able extent, at least, subsided.
of the Spanish American colonies first brought the question Mr. Seward's responses of May 9 and May 21: of recognition of new governments or nations before the
Government of the United States; and the precedents then SIE : Your dispatch of April 22 (No. 454) has been received. set have been followed ever since, even by the present Act
What you have said to M. Drouyn de l'Huys on the subministration. joct of the resolution of the House of Representatives con- The correspondence now before us is the first attempt to