Nov. 28, 1861. |
Dec. 16. |
 |
| Count Mercier. |
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[165]
benefit of the insurgents, that they could not conceal their chagrin and disappointment.
They had tried to fan the flame of discord between the Cabinets of Washington and London.
In England, Liverpool was the focus of efforts in aid of the rebellion.
There the friends of the conspirators held a meeting,
1 which was presided over by James Spence, who, for a time, was the fiscal agent of the Confederates and a bitter enemy of the Republic.
On that occasion the act of Wilkes was denounced as a gross violation of the honor of the British flag, for which, according to a resolution offered by Spence, the most ample reparation should be demanded.
In concert with these expressions, a sympathizing friend in the American Congress (C. L. Vallandigham, of Ohio) offered a resolution
in the House of Representatives, in which the President was enjoined to maintain the position of approval and adoption by the Government (already assumed by the House) of the act of Captain Wilkes, “in spite of any menace or demand of the British Government,” and declaring that “this House pledges its full support in upholding now the honor and vindicating the courage of the Government and people of the United States against a Foreign power.”
“we have heard the first growl of the British lion,” said the author of the resolution, “and now let us see who will cower.
The time has now come for the firmness of this House to be practically tested, and I hope there will be no shrinking.”
2
Fortunately, better counsels prevailed in Congress, and out of it.3 the loyal people acquiesced in the wise decision of the Government, and soon rejoiced that it had sustained American principles in a case so tempting to a different course, for thereby the nation was amazingly strengthened.
This act of the Government was warmly commended by the best men in Europe, and gratified those powers who, like the United States, had been in vain endeavoring to persuade England to a righteous and unselfish course concerning the sacred rights French Minister for Foreign affairs, had expressed, in a confidential note to Count Mercier, the representative of France at Washington, a desire
that the captives might be delivered up, in accordance with the liberal
1 the meeting was called by the following placard, posted all over the town: “Outrage on the British flag — the Southern Commissioners forcibly removed from a British mail steamer. A public meeting will be held in the cotton Salesroom at three o'clock.”
2 proceedings of Congress, reported in the Congressional Globe, December 16, 1861. the resolution, by a vote of 109 to 16, was quietly disposed of by being referred to the Committee on Foreign relations. The 16 who voted against laying the resolution on the table were: Messrs. Allen, G. H. Brown, F. A. Conckling, Cox, Cravens, Haight, Holman, Morris, Noble, Nugen, Pendleton, Shier, T. B. Steele, Vallandigham, Vandaver, and C. A. White.
3 the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign relations (Charles Sumner) approved the action of the Government, and made it the occasion of an elaborate speech in that body. He declared that in the dispute great Britain was “armed with American principles, which throughout our history have been constantly, deliberitely, and solemnly rejected.” speaking of the release of the prisoners, he said: “let the rebels go. . . . prison doors are opened; but principles are established which will help to free other men and to open the gates of the sea. Never before in her active history has great Britain ranged herself on this side. Such an event is an epoch. Novus soeclorum nascitur ordo. to the liberties of the sea this power is now committed. To a certain extent this course is now under her tutelary care. If the immunities of passengers, not in the military or naval service, as well as of sailors, are not directly recognized, they are at least implied; while the whole pretension of impressment, so long the pest of neutral commerce, and operating only through the lawless adjudication of a quarter-deck, is made absolutely impossible. Thus is the freedom of the sea enlarged, not only by limiting the number of persons who are exposed to the penalties of war, but by driving from it the most offensive pretension that ever stalked upon its waves. To such conclusion great Britain is irrevocably pledged. Nor treaty nor bond was needed. It is sufficient that her late appeal can be vindicated only by a renunciation of early, long-continued tyranny. Let her bear the rebels back. The consideration is ample, for the sea became free as this altered power went forth upon it, steering westward with the sun on an errand of liberation.”
Scanned printed 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.