Table of Contents:
[from the New York Herald.]The selfish policy of England in relation to the insurrection in the South, as developed in the recent announcements of her Ministers, in the tone of her leading journals, and in the dispatch of a menacing fleet to our seaboard, is just what it has been towards this country for the last thirty or forty years. It is a policy dictated by an endeavor to harmonize the discordant notes of Manchester and Exeter Hall, to reconcile British interests with the destruction of American institutions. It is comprised in two words — abolition and cotton. Many years ago her ruling class originated and fostered associations in her territory hostile to an American institution, on which was based the prosperity of the Southern States and the welfare of the whole Union. These associations conspired with kindred treasonable associations set on foot by her agents here to overthrow the Constitution as ‘"a covenant with death and an agreement with hell,"’ because it sanctioned and protected negro slavery. The British press kept up a constant fire upon the institution, and the most influential British statesmen, from Lord Brougham downwards, gave the weight of their names to the crusade. The author of ‘"Uncle Tom's Cabin"’ was feted by the English nobility, her pestilent work landed to the heavens and circulated everywhere; the most rapid antislavery propagandists visiting England from this country were treated with the most distinguished consideration and with every mark of social favor, subscriptions were regularly furnished from England to sustain the revolutionary organizations at this side of the Atlantic; and both British money and emissaries were supplied to organize and to execute the John Brown raid on Virginia, which gave the first fatal) impulse to Southern rebellion. Ever since the insurrection broke out in South Carolina, English statesmen and the English press, while making a show of friendship to the republic and shedding crocodile tears of sympathy, have artfully encouraged it, till now it has extended to eleven States, with three others vibrating in the balance.--As the rebellion became more formidable, the disguise of the Government and its organs was thrown off, and now they no longer affect to conceal their real sentiments. Lord John Russell and his advisers have come to the conclusion, which some awkward interrogatories in Parliament have compelled him to avow, that ‘"the Southern Confederacy of American must be treated as a belligerent."’--‘"This," ’ says the London Times, ‘"is a very grave decision, and must have great influence upon the conflict now commencing; but we cannot see any possibility of disputing its soundness. "’ The decision was, of course, intended to ‘"have great influence"’ in favor of the Southern Confederacy, and, therefore, its soundness cannot be disputed. The soundness consists in the fact that the policy indicated will, it is thought, subserve British interests, to the detriment of a great naval and commercial rival, whose power it is sought to overthrow in order to get rid of a practical argument against kingcraft and titled aristocracy, and in favor of democratic institutions, as well as to enable Britannia henceforth to rule the waves with an exclusive sway. Would the London Times, we ask, hold the decision to be equally ‘"sound"’ if the American Government concluded to secretly aid an insurrection in Ireland, and to acknowledge a junta there as a ‘"belligerent,"’ having the rights of war and the power to issue letters of marque which ‘"must be recognized by the Governments and Courts of Law of foreign nations?"’ The organ of Lord John Russell goes further than the cautions Minister. It says that when he quoted the rebellion of Greece against Turkey as a case in point, he might have placed his argument on higher ground, by asserting that the Confederate States had a legal right to secede, as being ‘"constituted States retiring from a voluntary confederacy."’ It is worthy of remark that, while the Times asserts the right of the rebellious States to withdraw from the Union, and their right to send forth privateers into every sea, it denies the right of the American Government to blockade its own ports. It maintains that the right of levying duties at sea has ‘"never been conceded to or even claimed by a Power whose dominion has de facto ceased upon the shore.".’ It goes on to say:--‘"The maritime law of nations, therefore, would seem to be adverse to the Northern States, and favorable rather to the position of the Southern Confederacy. * * As the United States insist that they are not at war, but are only putting down a rebellion, it would appear that they have not that right of search or visit which has been sometimes conceded in time of war; as they are not in possession of the Southern coast, they cannot claim dominion over so much of the sea as may be appurtenant to the coast. "’ But, with still greater audacity, the organ of British commerce insists:--‘ "The merchant ships which will trade between Europe and the Confederate States have only to hoist an English or a French flag, and the great war steamers of the United States Navy must, in obedience to the law their own Government has in other cases enforced, allow them to pass. Their holds may be full of warlike materials, they may be crammed with the Armstrong guns now being bought up at Liverpool, but if the tricolor is flying at the mizzen, the Minnesota cannot fire a shot to bring one of those vessels to at sea without peril of a war with France. "’ Well may the London Times gloat over ‘"the collapse and ruin of this political edifice,"’ ‘"the short-lived destinies of the American Union," ’ and even ‘"the shipwreck of Democracy"’ itself, if the great Republic submits to its insolent dictation, or to the interference of any European monarch in its domestic affairs. Perhaps when the stern ultimatum of the Administration shall have reached the British and French Governments, through our newly accredited Ministers, when they have received intelligence of the onward movement of our troops to give effect to the determination of the Government and the people, and when, moreover, they have heard of the uprising of the North, the sympathy of Canada and of the British residents here, as well as of all other nationalities, the British Ministry may change its mind, and the London Times may assume a very different tone, and the echoes of the Thunderer of Printing House square become as faint, and feeble as the explosion of a pop-gun. Whatever England is suffering or may hereafter suffer in consequence of our present troubles she has brought upon herself, and we will not permit her to take advantage of her own wrong to do us further injury. We will not be circumvented either by Lord John Russell's policy of the Puritan, nor by Lord Palmerston's policy of the blackleg, nor by both combined. While with one hand Great Britain clapped on the back the demon of discord she sent among us, with the other she grasped our great Southern staple to turn it into bread for millions of her pauper population; but now, cotton being cut off, in stead of bread she has only stones to offer them, and even-handed justice presents to her own lips the chalice she had poisoned for the American people. Abolition was the entering wedge with which, driven home by repeated blows, she at last succeeded in splitting the Union. The first fruits of her victory are the prospect of speedy starvation to five millions of her population, and, to prevent a revolution on her own (soil, she now encourages a revolution on ours, and gives all the aid and comfort she can to the rebels. She calculates that the attitude she has taken will deter the Government from prosecuting the war against them, coerce it to make peace and to acknowledge the independence of the revolted States. But we will not suffer her to escape from the consequences of her own policy at the expense of the Union, whose integrity we are prepared to maintain to the death. And let her beware how she provokes retribution. Her dominion in Canada sleeps upon a volcano --It sleeps upon a volcano in Ireland. By a rebellion in both these countries would her crooked policy to the United States be avenged. Nor let her lay the flattering unction to her soul that the Emperor of the French will follow in her wake. His game is to get her into a trap and to leave her there, while he is free to pursue his designs in Europe. He will probably secretly urge her upon her dangerous path, and when she is fairly and finally committed against us, should a wayward destiny so will it, the nephew of his uncle will be sure to espouse the side opposite to that of England, and thus carry out the traditional policy of France, whose ancient friendship for the United States remains unchanged to the present hour. Should such a complication of European with American affairs arise, the rulers of Great Britain will have cause to rue the day they have taken a mean advantage of our domestic troubles, and they will learn, when it is too late, that in their international dealings with a mighty republic, honesty would have been the best policy.
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.