[290]
The course of Great Britain towards the United States during the Civil War had left a deep sense of wrong in the minds of our people.
The British government still maintained that it had done nothing which it had not a right to do, and left undone nothing which it was bound to do, in the matter of the rebel cruisers issuing from its ports; and there were as yet no signs of its receding from its position.
There was a disposition among our people to make our power felt against England in any war in which she might hereafter be engaged; and this disposition led to a movement in Congress for an essential modification and ‘scaling down’ of our neutrality laws, which were of long standing, and in some provisions coeval with the government itself.
Banks, the chairman, and a majority of the House committee on foreign affairs were in sympathy with the recent Fenian raids into Canada.
The committee reported a bill recasting the neutrality acts,1 and among the changes authorized the dispensing with the requirement of a bond not to use ships in hostilities against a friendly foreign power; permitted the sale of slips by American citizens to either belligerent in a foreign war, the United States not being a party thereto; and repealed the provisions against the fitting out of military expeditions in this country against foreign governments with which we were at peace.2 Banks, in his report and speech, disparaged the American system of neutrality as wanting in principle, and established at the behest of a foreign power—a necessity at a period of national weakness, but out of place in a condition of national strength.3 Conkling and Orth supported Banks, and
1 H. J. Raymond of New York, and J. W. Patterson of New Hampshire, members of the committee. proposed, instead of the bill, a commission to revise the neutrality laws.
2 Chandler in the Senate, Jan. 15, 1866 (Congressional Globe, p. 226), had proposed a resolution of non-intercourse with Great Britain on account of her refusal to entertain the ‘Alabama’ claims; but it was laid on the table (Globe, p. 243) on Reverdy Johnson s motion, Sumner voting for it.
3 George Bemis (1816-1878), the eminent lawyer and publicist, in a pamphlet entitled ‘American Neutrality, its Honorable Pat. its Expedient Future,’ subjected this report and speech to the tests of international law and duty, saying at the outset, ‘I conceive that the country is under great obligations to Senator Sumner for sturdily standing in the way of this ill-digested and revolutionary legislation, and preventing its passage through the Senate by storm, amid the excitement of the closing hours of the session.’ Mr. Bemis was distinguished as a lawyer for his critical and scientific treatment of criminal law; but for twenty years after his retirement from practice the study of public and international law was his favorite pursuit. His will contained a legacy to Sumner, which, as he was the survivor, lapsed; it contained also a tribute to the senator as a public man and personal friend.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.