Chap. VIII. then Mr. Dayton's apprehensions might be well founded: but if nothing was said on either side concerning this particular point, the accession of the United States might be given at once, and accepted, and the effect of it with regard to the States in revolt be determined afterwards."

On the same day he sent a long explanation to Mr. Dayton. After referring to the "complication" produced by "the irregular and extraordinary proceedings of the French Government in proposing to take notice of the domestic disturbance which has occurred in this country," he proceeds :

"The reason why we wished it done immediately was, that we supposed the French Government would naturally feel a deep anxiety about the safety of their commerce, threatened distinctly with privateering by the insurgents, while at the same time, as this Government had heretofore persistently declined to relinquish the right of issuing letters of marque, it would be apprehended by France that we should take up that form of maritime warfare in the present domestic controversy. We apprehended that the danger of such a case of depredation upon commerce equally by the Government itself, and by its enemies, would operate as a provocation to France and other commercial nations to recognize the insurrectionary party in violation of our national rights and sovereignty. On the contrary, we did not desire to depredate on friendly commerce ourselves, and we thought it our duty to prevent such depredations by the insurgents by executing our own laws, which make privateering by disloyal citizens piracy, and punish its pursuit as such. We thought it wise, just, and prudent to give, unasked, guarantees to France and other friendly nations for the security of their commerce from exposure to such depredations on either side, at the very moment when we were delivering to them our protest against the recognition of the insurgents. The accession to the Declaration of Paris would be the form in which these guarantees could be given-that for obvious reasons must be more unobjectionable to France and to other commercial nations than any other. It was safe on our part, because we tendered it, of course, as the act of this Federal Government, to be obligatory equally upon disloyal as upon loyal citizens.

*.

#1

"The matter stood in this plain and intelligible way until certain declarations or expressions of the French Government induced you to

1 The passage omitted refers to Mr. Dayton's fruitless attempt to re-introduce the "Marcy Amendment" into the Convention.

believe that they would recognize and treat the insurgents as a distinct Chap. VIII. national power for belligerent purposes. It was not altogether unreasonable that you, being at Paris, should suppose that this Government would think itself obliged to acquiesce in such a course by the Government of France. So assuming, you thought that we would not adhere to our proposition to accede to the declaration, pure and simple, since such a course would, as you thought, be effective to bind this Government without binding the insurgents, and would leave France at liberty to hold us bound, and the insurgents free from the obligations created by our adhesion. Moreover, if we correctly understand your despatch on that subject, you supposed that you might propose our adhesion to the Treaty of Paris, not pure and simple, but with the addition of the Marcy proposition in the first instance, and might afterwards, in case of its being declined in that form, withdraw the addition, and then propose our accession to the Declaration of Paris, pure and simple.

"While you were acting on these views on your side of the Atlantic, we on this side, not less confident in our strength than in our rights, as you are now aware, were acting on another view, which is altogether different, namely, that we shall not acquiesce in any declaration of the Government of France that assumes that this Government is not now, as it always has been, exclusive Sovereign, for war as well as for peace, within the States and territories of the Federal Union, and over all citizens, the disloyal and loyal all alike. We treat in that character, which is our legal character, or we do not treat at all, and we do in no way consent to compromise that character in the least degree; we do not even suffer this character to become the subject of discussion. Good faith and honour, as well as the same expediency which prompted the proffer of our accession to the Declaration of Paris, pure and simple, in the first instance, now require us to adhere to that proposition and abide by it; and we do adhere to it, not however, as a divided, but as an undivided nation. The proposition is tendered to France not as a neutral but as a friend, and the agreement is to be obligatory the United States and France and all their legal dependencies just

upon alike.

"The case was peculiar, and in the aspect in which it presented itself to you portentous. We were content that you might risk the experiment, so, however, that you should not bring any responsibility for delay upon this Government. But you now see that by incorporating the Marcy Amendment in your proposition, you have encountered the very difficulty which was at first foreseen by us. The following nations are parties to the Declaration of Paris, namely, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Bremen, Brazils, Duchy of Brunswick, Chili, the Argentine Confederation, the Germanic Confederation, Denmark, the two Sicilies, the Republic of the Equator, the Roman States, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Hamburg, Hanover, the two Hesses, Lubeck, Mecklenburg Strelitz, Mecklenburg Schwerin, Nassau, Oldenburg, Parma, Holland, Peru, Portugal, Saxony, Saxe Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg Gotha, Saxe Meiningen,

N

Chap. VIII. Saxe Weimar, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuscany, Wurtemburg, Anhalt Dessau, Modena, New Granada, and Uruguay.

"The great exigency in our affairs will have passed away-for preservation or destruction of the American Union-before we could bring all these nations to unanimity on the subject, as you have submitted to M. Thouvenel. It is no time for propagandism, but for energetic action to arrest the worst of all national calamities. We therefore expect you now to renew the proposition in the form originally prescribed. But in doing this you will neither unnecessarily raise a question about the character in which this Government acts (being exclusive Sovereign), nor, on the other hand, in any way compromise that character in any degree. Whenever such a question occurs to hinder you, let it come up from the other party in the negotiation. It will be time then to stop and wait for such further instructions as the new exigency may require."

Mr. Dayton's view of the transaction in which he was engaged appears, after this copious explanation, to have been exactly the same as before. On the 5th of August we find him writing to Mr. Adams :

"You say you do not comprehend the drift of the last paragraph in Lord John's reply. I think I do, at least in part, and I shall not be surprised if the meaning, which he has purposely wrapped up in that general language, should in the end break off all negotiation. He may not refer to this language again, but unless you ask its meaning before the Treaty is negotiated, it will be used by them afterwards as an excuse for not carrying it into effect as respects the insurrectionists of the South. The paragraph states, the engagement of Great Britain will be prospective, and will not invalidate anything already done.' The comment after the Treaty, predicated upon this language, will be: We had declared before the Treaty that the Southern insurrectionists were a belligerent party, aud entitled to belligerent rights (among which is the right to issue letters of marque), and the Treaty was to be prospective only, and not to invalidate anything already done. That, in other words, it does not bind your disloyal citizens, recognized by us as a belligerent party.' I long ago wrote Mr. Seward that these Powers would, in my judgment, either refuse to negotiate, or, if they did negotiate, it would be with the understanding that it secured us no rights not already conceded, and charged them with no duties not heretofore acknowledged. It is advisable that we raise no question in advance in reference to this matter, but it is necessary that we know what they mean as we go along."

It is clear that the two European Powers, had they simply acceded to the Convention, as they were asked

'to do, would have been pinned to an engagement which Chap. VIII. the American Government was prepared to construe in a sense very different from that wherein they naturally regarded it; and that this discrepancy was perfectly understood by the American negotiators, by whom the Convention was drawn, and by whom it was proposed. Understanding this, the envoys were instructed not to raise the question themselves, but to let it, if raised at all, come from the other side; and they appear to have obeyed their instructions. The French and English Governments, however, would have been gifted with little penetration had they not perceived the danger to which they were asked to expose themselves. They saw plainly that they had to choose between two courseseither to refuse to sign the Convention, or to declare plainly at the time of signing in what sense they apprehended it. They chose the latter alternative. "My anticipations," wrote Mr. Dayton, on the 22nd August, "are fully realized. Both Lord John Russell and M. Thouvenel refuse to negotiate for an accession by the United States to the Treaty of Paris of 1856, except on the distinct understanding that it is to have no bearing directly or indirectly on the question of our Southern or domestic difficulty; and to render the matter certain, they each propose to make a written Declaration, simultaneous with the execution of the Convention, of which I herewith send you a copy and translation."

The proposed Declarations were as follows:

British Declaration.

'In affixing his signature to the Convention of this day, between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America, the Earl Russell declares, by order of Her Majesty, that Her Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any engagement which shall have any bearing direct or indirect on the internal differences now prevailing in the United States."

Chap. VIII.

(Translation.)

French Declaration.

“In affixing his signature to the Convention concluded this day between France and the United States, the Undersigned declares, in execution of the orders of the Emperor, that the Government of His Majesty does not intend to undertake by the said Convention any engagement of a nature to implicate it directly or indirectly in the internal conflict now existing in the United States."

The Government of the United States refused to accept these Declarations, and the whole negotiation fell to the ground, and was never renewed.1 Lord Russell, however, on the 20th December, wrote to Lord Lyons: "You may speak to Mr. Seward about letters of marque. Should Great Britain and the

1 The despatches in which ench Government explained and vindicated its own course are:

United States to Great Britain-Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 23rd August, 1861.

United States to France-Mr. Dayton to M. Thouvenel, 26th August, 1861; Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, 10th September, 1861.

Great Britain to United States-Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, 28th August, 1861.

France to United States-M. Thouvenel to Mr. Dayton, 9th September,

1861.

"The acceptance of such an explanation from one party," wrote Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, on the 23rd August, "would justify the idea that some advantage is, or may be suspected to be, intended to be taken by the other. The natural effect of such an accompaniment would seem to be to imply that the Government of the United States might be desirous at this time to take a part in the Declaration [of 1856], not from any high purpose or durable policy, but with the view of securing some small temporary object in the unhappy struggle which is going on at home. Such an inference would spoil all the value that might be attached to the act itself. The mere toleration of it would seem to be equivalent to a confession of their own weakness. Rather than that such a record should be made, it were a thousand times better that the Declaration remain unsigned for ever."

Mr. Dayton wrote to M. Thouvenel in a like strain, yet with an evident sense of relief at the turn which affairs had taken. It might have been supposed that the refusal of the explanation, rather than the acceptance of it, was calculated to suggest the inference which Mr. Ada:us repudiated so indignantly.