my explanation of the British
statesman's position was correct.
His communication ran in part as follows:
But what was his real reason for sympathizing with the South
I am quite sure that it was not sympathy with the Southern
“aristocracy” --which undoubtedly, however, had a great effect in bringing over the mass of upper-class opinion to that side.
I do not believe it was his father's slave-owning connection (although that influenced some of his early speeches during the time he was still a Tory), for he had long since shaken himself free from those ideas.
I firmly believe it was, as he viewed it, his love of liberty, his hatred and distrust of any policy of keeping any body of men in a political connection against their will.
This he regarded as bad for the community which included an unwilling element in its midst, because it was an element of weakness and not of strength; just as a regiment wherein one-fifth of the men hate their officers or want to desert will not fight as well as a regiment “at union with itself.”
He further regarded it as bad for the element unwillingly included, because, being deprived of liberty, they were apt to direct all their energies to a struggle to be free, instead of along the natural lines of free and peaceful development and progress.
This was at the root of his later Eastern policy, of his sympathy with Italy
, and of his Irish policy, and also of his policy of