contained your own explanation to him, and, much to my gratification, confirmed substantially what I had said on this point to Mr. Thouvenel. So, too, in a late despatch, February 3, I suggested the propriety of maturing some plan for the delivery of letters in the southern country, and within a few days only after that despatch was sent, I learned through the newspapers that you were already engaged in maturing a plan for that purpose. We seem, to a great extent, to have anticipated each other's suggestions, which is some evidence at least of their propriety. I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant, His Excellency WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. WM. L. DAYTON. Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. No. 114.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 19, 1862. SIR: The lateness of the hour in which your despatch of January 27 (No. 109) was received rendered a reply by the returning mail impossible. I am glad that you have had so long and free a conversation with Mr. Thouvenel. Your report of it suggests the points to be noticed in this despatch: First. The subject of maritime law in regard to neutrals as affected by the present state of affairs in our country. Second. The obstructions placed in Charleston harbor. Third. Our present blockade. Fourth. The progress and end of our military operations. I begin by saying that, in my view, the whole difficulty which prevents correct views being taken on these subjects arises from one cause, namely: the fact that the European states have been from the first impatient of a civil war in America, and have thought that it could soonest be ended by pursuing a policy practically discouraging to this government. This is a mistake, against which we attempted to caution foreign powers in the beginning earnestly, though respectfully. I have only to say upon that point now, that revolutions, especially those instituted on a large scale, and disturbing a government that extends over regions of vast extent, will not accommodate themselves to either the interested desires or the benevolent wishes of those who may be incidentally disturbed by them. Of all human transactions a civil war is that one which most requires to be treated practically, dispassionately, and with patience. First. The subject of maritime law in regard to neutrals as affected by the present state of affairs in our country. We remonstrated with the European states against recognizing the insurgents here as a belligerent power, on the ground that it was unnecessary, and would injuriously prolong the civil war. Our remonstrances were disregarded.. Let European statesmen now take a retrospection of ten months of war, and say whether we were then in error. The Sumter and the Nashville, outlaws in America, are found disturbing the peace of Europe by piratical depredations on our commerce-the second commerce of the worldwithin sight of European ports. This is the extent of the naval strength of the new belligerent. What have not the European states lost by the terror struck into our commerce? Is it nothing that because of that unnecessary recognition our accession to the treaty of Paris, tendered by an administration favorable to neutral rights, has been rejected? Look at the insurrection now breaking down before the mere array of national strength which meets it on every side, and say whether the same result would not have happened three months ago but for the hopes of recognition infused into the insurgents by their recognition as belligerents. The Trent affair, all the world sees, was an accident for which not the least responsibility rests upon this government. For a time our national pride and passion appealed to us to abandon an ancient liberal policy; but, even though unadvised, we did not listen to it, and we are to-day, after that occurrence, as ready and as willing to join other maritime powers in meliorations of the law, to the extent that France desires, as we were before it happened, and before the civil war commenced. Forced into a belligerent attitude, and treated as such by neutral powers, we, of course, while these hostilities last, must claim for ourselves the rigors which other maritime powers agree to apply to us when we are neutrals. But even to-day, in the midst of this strife, if the other powers, including Great Britain, should agree to abolish naval blockades altogether and forever, and to exempt private property from confiscation in maritime war, we are prepared to consider the propositions. But we can make no proposition except as a whole nation. France and Great Britain, having declared the insurgents a belligerent, are not prepared to treat with us as more than a part of a nation. Is it not clear that the sooner they reconsider that unnecessary step, so prematurely taken, the better it will be for all parties concerned? I send you a copy of my rejoinder to Earl Russell on the Trent affair, which will show you more at large our views on this point. Secondly. The artificial obstructions placed in the channels to the harbor of Charleston. No Hitherto such obstructions have been regarded as an ordinary military appliance of war. No American ever conceived that the human hand could place obstructions in a river which the same hand could not remove. loyal American citizen has regarded this war as one that can have any other than a brief duration, with a termination favorable to the Union, casting upon the federal government the responsibility of improving the harbors of all the States. We were, therefore, surprised, and even incredulous, when we saw that the placing of obstructions in the channels leading to Charleston was, in Europe, regarded as an act of peculiar and ruthless severity. I observe that my explanations to this effect, made to Lord Lyons, are already published in the European journals. Since they were given I have ascer tained that there yet remain two of the natural channels leading to Charleston harbor in which no obstructions have been placed or intended to be placed. In making these explanations, I must not be understood as conceding to foreign states a right to demand them. Third. The present blockade. It is a legitimate war measure intended to exhaust the insurrection. As I have already intimated, we are willing to conform to the law of nations as it is, or to consent to modifications of it, upon sufficient guarantees that what we concede to other nations shall be equally conceded by them. It is not the blockade that distresses European commerce. It is the insurrection that renders the blockade necessary. Let the European powers discourage the insurrection, it will perish. The blockade has not been unreasonably protracted. The whole coast of the blockaded ports is now falling rapidly into our hands. From the north line of Virginia to and including the Savannah river we, not the insurgents, have military occupation of the roadsteads and harbors. Before a month shall have elapsed we shall be in occupation of all the rest. When this shall have been done, we shall also have pressed the insurgents so closely inland that the insurrection will be practically without support. We shall, of course, be able safely to raise or modify the blockade as soon as we resume possession of the ports, and shall desire to do so. If our expectations shall prove too sanguine, we shall then consider how to favor commerce without danger to the national cause. Fourthly. The prosecution and end of the civil war. It has seemed slow and discouraging only because all parties accustomed to peace at home and abroad, and more or less dependent on American productions, commerce and consumption, demanded that it should be brought to an end without allowing time and preparation. The time, however, has been gained, and the preparation has been made, and its satisfactory results are already known to the world. Let the European states acknowledge these results, and concede now to the Union half as much toleration as they have practically, though unintentionally, shown to disunion, and the civil war will come to an end at once. The insurgents would be without means, without credit, and without power. Loyalty would resume sway in the insurrectionary States in place of treason, and the peace of the world would be restored. These reflections appear to me to be worthy the consideration of France. It seems to us, indeed, that France would consult her own true political interest by considering them; for government in France can stand on no other foundation than the democratic principle, while that principle must be surrendered as hopeless throughout the world if it be allowed to fail on this continent. The material interest of France counsels the consideration of these suggestions. For France will be prosperous only when the United States are united and at peace, and therefore also prosperous. I am aware that I have presented in this paper some facts and some thoughts contained in previous despatches, but I have thought it not unprofitable to bring the discussion of the subjects involved into a form in which it may be submitted to Mr. Thouvenel. You will show him this paper, and give him a copy if he shall desire it. I am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq., &c., &c., &c. No. 117.] WILLIAM H. SEWARD. SIR: A copy of your confidential despatch to Mr. Adams, No. 177, was received yesterday. I sincerely hope that the expectations therein referred to may be realized. It so happens that the night before your despatch was received I had ventured, on my own responsibility, to assure the Emperor that bad roads only had prevented an advance of our army in the west. He understands that difficulty perfectly, as you will have learned from one of my late despatches. It may not be amiss to state to you that I have been informed that Mr. Rost, one of the southern commissioners, went recently to Spain, and is now there, I presume. I simply telegraphed the fact to Mr. Perry, chargé, &c. Mr. Slidell, the other commissioner, with his family, is here, though I have not seen them. I am, sir, your obedient servant, His Excellency WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. * WM. L. DAYTON. No. 120.] Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, February 27, 1862. SIR: Your despatch No. 109 encloses a copy of Mr. Thouvenel's note to you of the 19th of January, 1862, and your reply of the 7th of February, 1862. Both of these papers are in the best tone and spirit, and I confess I feel now and have felt (since the address of the Emperor in opening the Chambers) in the best hopes and spirits for the future. A speech just delivered in the French senate by M. Billault, minister without portfolio, and herewith inclosed, is most satisfactory as respects American affairs. These ministers, it is said, represent the Emperor on the floor, and are understood to express his views and the views of the government. This speech, I am informed, is universally regarded as closing, for the present, all hopes on the part of the secessionists of France's interfering to break the blockade. M. Billault, you will recollect, was, last summer, minister of foreign affairs ad interim. I think I can see from the British press how this thing has worked itself out. England and France have been coquetting a little with each other on this question. We have had what seemed to be the most reliable assurances from England that the Emperor was urging them to interfere. In the meantime, the British press was urging France to interfere; it was giving out that the blockade was a paper blockade, and the south should be recognized; thus working France and themselves up to the point of, at least, a joint interference. Then came the Emperor's address; it was not what they expected. They said that just before its delivery "the switch had been turned off," and forthwith the London Times and other portions of the English press ran off along with it. Now, all hands seem opposed to interference. How long this will last no human power can tell. If, in the midst of our successes at home and abroad, some reasonable hope could be given of opening two or three cotton ports, it would greatly mollify the feelings of that class of persons abroad who constantly agitate these questions against us. And I cannot help thinking that (excluding things contraband) the tråde would not seriously affect our interests. I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant, His Excellency WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. Speech of M. Billault. M. BILLAULT, (minister without portfolio.) The government is anxious to clearly make known its sentiments on another point mooted by the Marquis de Boissy. When on the other side of the channel a member of the English chambers, not sharing in the feelings of his neighbors and of his colleagues, makes by chance a violent motion against our country, French feelings suffer from it, and it is not without emotion that the echo of such a discussion is heard on this side of the Strait. The reason is, that the two great nations are proud and susceptible on what touches their honor. Expressions of hatred exchanged from one tribune to the other are most objectionable. How can any one endeavor to revive feelings of hatred when the Emperor's policy is based on conciliation? The government, without forgetting the reminis cences and lessons of the past, and instead of allowing itself to be led away L by savage rancor, has adopted a conciliatory and pacific policy, under the shelter of which it can proceed in the path of ameliorations which constitute the progress of the world. (Hear, hear.) Instead of recalling the memory of Waterloo, in order to revive hatred, it is wiser to think of Italy wrested from the yoke of Austria, of Savoy again become French, of Belgium and of Holland separated and constituted in a state of neutrality. It would also be much more desirable to admit that with the alliance of a great country important results might be hoped for. A good accord between the cabinets cannot but be advantageous. The Emperor does not fear the revival of old reminiscences, because they are not applicable to him, but the expressions which the senate has heard are not of the present age, nor are they good policy. The two great states may differ on certain points, and may not completely pursue the same object. All nations have not the same wants and the same instincts. Some require a large amount of material profits and advantages, while others desire more grandeur and more glory. We went into the extreme east, and shed the blood of France to there represent the spirit of religion, and plant that cross which is the symbol both of the empire and of civilization. Why, however, should the two powers be reproached for the qualities peculiar to them-qualities which impel England to seek elements for her commerce, and France for her glory? (Approbation.) As to America, France will never forget the bonds of kindness which unite her to the United States. History points out to her that war with them is impossible, but that does not prevent her from being pained at seeing the children of the same people destroying each other and their common country. The government has recommended and practiced neutrality. It would not allow events to compromise the principles which it defended and made prevail in 1856 in the congress of Paris, but it feels the strongest friendship towards the United States, and cannot comprehend how any one could wish to impel it to a combination which would have for object to force an entrance into the southern ports in order to load cotton. On the part of France such conduct would be madness, and England, whose interests are more deeply engaged in the question, and is now on good terms with the United States, would not venture on a line of policy which is not that of France, and to which the Emperor would not lend himself. (Approbation.) Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. No. 118.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 27, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of February 3 (No. 110) has been received. It suggests the expediency of our permitting the passage of letters purely commercial, and not tending to the violation of the blockade, between French merchants and their correspondents in New Orleans. Mr. Mercier had, as you have recently been informed, already submitted Mr. Thouvenel's wishes to me. We have felt a strong desire, if possible, to accede to this proposition. But it would be attended by many and great embarrassments. Equal privileges must be given to all other foreign merchants, and, of course, to our own merchants. The privilege must be extended, of course, beyond New Orleans, to all other marts in the insurrectionary region. It would be very difficult to perfect details for such a proceeding. These considerations have not been regarded as conclusive against it, but they have been sufficient to induce hesitation upon it until we see whether, indeed, the complaint cannot be removed in another and better way. |