This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
[569]
Punch as a good-natured slander, uttered for the sake of the wit.1 Only a few months before, the people of the Free-labor States, who were loyal to their Government, had shown the most cordial good — will toward the British Queen, in the almost affectionate attentions which they gave to her son, the Crown Prince of the realm, on the occasion of his visit to the United States, and thereby certified their friendship for the English people.2 Thinking of this, and of the. heritage of the two nations in common, of historic traditions, language, literature, and laws, and the intimate relations of their commerce, they were amazed at the unseemly haste displayed in the recognition of the insurgents as belligerents, for the Queen's Proclamation appeared before the representative of the assailed Republic, under the new Administration, had been formally received at Court.
It was a proceeding so “precipitate and unprecedented,” as Mr. Adams afterward said,3 that it made a most unfavorable impression upon right-minded statesmen and philanthropic Christians everywhere.4
The Proclamation of the Queen was followed in the British Parliament, and in most of the newspapers in the interest of the government, and the ruling classes in Great Britain and her colonies, by the most dogmatic assertions that the Republic of the West was hopelessly crumbling into ruins, and was unworthy of respectful consideration.
In addition to affected indifference to the fate of the Nation, British legislators, orators, publicists, and journalists were lavish of causeless abuse, not only of the Government, but of the people of the Free-labor States who were loyal to that Government.
1 The following is the epigram, entitled: Shop and Freedom:--
Though with the North we sympathize,
It must not be forgotten
That with the South we've stronger ties,
Which are composed of cotton,
Whereof our imports mount unto
A sum of many figures;
And where would be our calico,
Without the toil of niggers?
The South enslaves those fellow-men
Whom we love all so dearly;
The North keeps commerce bound again,
Which touches us more nearly.
Thus a divided duty we
Perceive in this hard matter--
Free trade, or sable brothers free?
Oh, will we choose the latter I
2 It has been asserted, and not denied, that the late Prince-Consort (Albert), who was the ever-trusted confidential adviser of the Queen, entertained feelings of the most cordial friendship toward the Government and people of the United States, and that such remained the sentiments of Her Majesty during the whole war. As parents, they could not forget the kindness bestowed upon their child; and it is believed that the Queen's influence was very powerful in restraining the eagerness of her ministers and the ruling classes of Great Britain to recognize the independence of the so-called “Confederate States.”
3 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, the Foreign Secretary, May 20, 1865.
4 Two months before, the astute Count de Gasparin, observing the unfriendly tone of English leaders of opinion, and aware of the seductive character of the bribe of free trade in cotton, which the agents of the conspirators were offering, said :--“Let England beware! It were better for her to lose Malta, Corfu, and Gibraltar, than the glorious position which her struggle against Slavery and the Slave-trade has secured her in the esteem of nations. Even in our age of armed frigates and rifled cannon, the chief of all powers, thank God! is moral power. Wo to the nation that disregards it, and consents to immolate its principles to its interests! From the beginning of the present conflict, the enemies of England, and they are numerous, have predicted that the cause of cotton will weigh heavier in her scales than the cause of justice and liberty. They are preparing to judge her by her conduct in the American crisis. Once more, let her beware!” --The Uprising of a Great People,; Miss Booth's translation, page 250.
A year later, De Gasparin wrote, when considering the unprecedented precipitancy with which leading European powers recognized the insurgents as belligerents:--“Instead of asking on which side were justice and liberty, we have hastened to ask on which side were our interests; then, too, on which side were the best chances of success.” He said England had a legal right to be neutral, but had no moral right to withhold her sympathies with a nation struggling for its existence and universal justice against rebels intent on crime against humanity.--America before Europe: translated by Mary L. Booth.
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.