Has not the policy of Great Britain in regard to our internal troubles been adhered to long enough? This is a question for the British government. If the British government shall still think it necessary to persevere, is it asking too much of them that they shall lend the protection of their courts to the enforcement of the neutrality which the Queen's proclamation commands? Will they stand by and see the Bermuda again fitted out with munitions and arms by British subjects, to be employed by insurgents in their attempts to overthrow the government of the United States? When Spain refuses shelter to the Sumter, is Great Britain willing that she shall rest from her work of destruction, and repair in the harbor of Gibraltar? These indulgences extended to pirates, who are destroying our commerce, must, sooner or later, give rise to the questions, What wrong have the United States done or even meditated against Great Britain? What duty of neutrality, or even friendship, which they owed to Great Britain have they failed to perform? What fault have they committed in their national conduct? They, indeed, are involved in a domestic strife, but it is a strife which, while they are fighting for their own existence, is, at the same time, purely a war of self-defence. In your own way please bring these views to the attention of Earl Russell. Meantime, I shall refer the matter you mention relative to the Bermuda and the Sumter to the Secretary of the Navy. I doubt not that, if we must maintain war in European waters against American pirates, in addition to the naval operations in which we already are engaged nearer home, we shall be able to meet that responsibility with full success. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., §¤., §., §. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 184.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 14, 1862. SIR: I herewith transmit to you the copy of a communication of the 24th ultimo, addressed to this department by the consul general of the United States at Havana. It has reference to the conduct of the master of the English steamer General Miramon, off the port of Mobile, in the monthof May last. It will be seen that, in violation of a solemn pledge, the captain of the General Miramon grossly abused a privilege granted to him by Flag Officer McKean from motives of humanity. You will make the facts known to the British government, and express the expectation of the President that if that government has the necessary power it will cause the captain of the Miramon to be suitably punished for his perfidy. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c., London. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 186.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 17, 1862. SIR: The interval between the reception of your last despatches and the departure of the mail is too short to permit full response to your call for information respecting details which would show the efficiency of the blockade. I send you a copy of a communication which has been received from the consul general at Havana, by which you will learn, first, that in view of the extent of the coast blockaded, and the amount of commerce which existed before the blockade began, the number of vessels which have run the blockade is very small, and the trade effected by them is inconsiderable. Second. That the success of the blockade has continually increased. It is now as nearly absolutely effective as any blockade ever was. Third. That far the largest portion of the vessels which have run the blockade are British vessels. You need not be told how little care the British government has taken to discourage or repress that prohibited trade. But the true test is not the number of vessels that have entered or left the blockaded ports, but the actual effect of the blockade. I send you two articles on that subject, which you will find conclusive against all allegations that the blockade is inefficiently conducted. Happily the active campaign of our land and naval forces has begun. The great preparations which have been made so diligently and so carefully in defiance of popular impatience at home and political impatience abroad are now followed by results indicative of a complete and even early decision of the contest in favor of the government. We entertain too high an opinion of the justice as well as the wisdom of foreign states to apprehend any intervention in the face of these significant triumphs of the arms of the Union. As to details, the public journals which you will receive will be the best despatches possible. SIR: I am not prepared to recognize the right of other nations to object to the measure of placing artificial obstructions in the channels of rivers leading to ports which have been seized by the insurgents in their attempt to overthrow this government. I am, nevertheless, desirous that the exaggerations on that subject which have been indulged abroad may be corrected. I have, therefore, applied to the Navy Department for information, and I have now to inform you that between the channels leading to the harbor of Charleston which have been so obstructed there still remain two other channels, neither of which has been so obstructed, and in which there has been no design to place any artificial obstructions. These are the Swash channel and a part of the so-called Maffit's channel. These two latter channels are guarded, and passage through them prevented only by you in an the blockading naval forces. Evidence of these facts is furnished extract from a report of the flag-officer at Port Royal, hereto appended. The question which I have thus noticed, happily, is likely soon to drop out of view in the course of stirring events. Within a very short period we expect to be in occupation of all or the chief southern ports, and we are already considering how we can afford desirable facilities to foreign as well as domestic trade. SIR: It is represented to us that equally in Great Britain and in France the cause of the Union is prejudiced by the assumption that the government which maintains it is favorable or at least not unfavorable to the perpetuation of slavery. This incident is one of the most curious and instructive ones which has occurred in the course of this controversy. The administration was elected and came into its trust upon the ground of its declared opposition to the extension of slavery. The party of slavery, · for this reason, arrayed itself against, not only the administration, but the Union itself, and inaugurated a civil war for the overthrow of the Union and the establishment of an exclusive slaveholding confederacy. Without surrendering the political principle, we meet them in the battlefield and in defence of the Union. The contest for life absorbs all the interest that had existed, growing out of the previous conflict of ideas. But what must be the effect? If the confederacy prevails, slavery will have a constitutional, legitimate, and acknowledged state, devoted to itself as the paramount object of the national existence. If the Union prevails, the government will be administered by a majority hostile to the fortification and perpetuation of slavery. Slavery in the slaveholding States will there be left in the care of the people of those States just as it was left at the organization of the government in all of the States except Massachusetts. It might admit of doubt whether it would not have been able to recover its former strength had the slaveholding States acquiesced in the election and avoided civil war. But what ground is there to fear such a renewal of strength after having been defeated in arms against the Union? What is the operation of the war? We have entered Virginia, and already five thousand slaves, emancipated simply by the appearance of our forces, are upon the hands of the federal government there. We have landed on the coast of South Carolina, and already nine thousand similarly emancipated slaves hang upon our camps. Although the war has not been waged against slavery, yet the army acts immediately as an emancipating crusade. To proclaim the crusade is unnecessary, and it would even be inexpedient, because it would deprive us of the needful and legitimate support of the friends of the Union who are not opposed to slavery, but who prefer Union without slavery to disunion with slavery. Does France or does Great Britain want to see a social revolution here, with all its horrors, like the slave revolution in San Domingo? Are these powers sure that the country or the world is ripe for such a revolution, so that it must certainly be successful? What, if inaugurating such a revolution, slavery, protesting against its ferocity and inhumanity, should prove the victor? Who says this administration is false to human freedom? Does it not acknowledge the citizenship as well as the manhood of men without respect to color? Has it not made effective arrangements with Great Britain to suppress the slave trade on the coast of Africa? Has it not brought into life the federal laws against the African slave trade, and is it not executing their severest penalties? Besides, is it not an object worthy of practical men to confine slavery within existing bounds, instead of suffering it to be spread over the whole unoccupied portion of this vast continent? Is it not favoring emancipation in the federal District, to be accomplished at the government cost, and without individual injustice or oppression? Does it not receive all who come into the federal camps to offer their services to the Union, and hold and protect them against disloyal claimants? Does it not favor the recognition of Hayti and Liberia ? The tale that Mr. Cameron was required to give up his place because of his decided opposition to slavery is without foundation; that distinguished gentleman resigned his place only because he could be useful in a diplomatic situation, while the gentleman appointed his successor, it was expected, would be more efficient in administration. His successor has no more sympathy with slavery than Mr. Cameron. These facts and thoughts are communicated to you confidentially for such use in detail as may be practicable, but not to be formally presented in the usual way to the government to which you are accredited. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 190.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 19, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of January 31, (No. 109,) has been received. I was just about instructing you how to answer the querulous complaints in Parliament which you have anticipated, the chief of which is the assumed incompetency of this government to suppress the insurrection. But a very shrewd observer, a loyal, and, at present, exiled Virginian, fell in at the moment, and expressed to me the opinion that the end of the war is in sight; that there will be a short and rapid series of successes over a disheartened conspiracy, and then all will be over. I give you these opinions as entitling us to what is sometimes granted by candid tribunals, namely, a suspension of judgment. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 123.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In consequence of information furnished to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool of certain suspicious movements at that port, I have felt it my duty to make a representation to Lord Russell of the facts attending the outfit of the steam gunboat Oreto, and to ask an investigation. Copies of the notes that have passed on this subject are herewith transmitted. Presuming that you are in constant receipt of intelligence from the consuls in the various ports of the preparation of vessels with supplies of ali sorts intended to run the blockade of the southern ports, I do not attempt to furnish the information which I obtain. The temptation of rising prices will, of course, stimulate these ventures just so long as there shall be any reasonable chance of escaping the vigilance of our cruisers. There seems to be less and less disposition to press complaints about the blockade. The remarks attributed to M. Billault, in the senate of France, leave little further hope of co-operation against it from that quarter. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MY LORD: I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of an extract of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, going to show the preparation at that port of an armed steamer evidently intended for hostile operations on the ocean. From the evidence furnished in the names of the persons stated to be concerned in her construction and outfit, I entertain little doubt that the intention is precisely that indicated in the letter of the consul, the carrying on war against the United States. The parties are the same which despatched the Bermuda laden with contraband of war at the time, in August last, when I had the honor of calling your lordship's attention to her position, which vessel then succeeded in running the blockade, and which now appears to be about again to depart on a like errand. Should further evidence to sustain the allegations respecting the Oreto be held necessary to effect the object of securing the interposition of her Majesty's government, I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal manner. I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the highest consideration with which I have the honor to be your most obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. The Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &C., &C., &C. |