previous next
[414] of the clear and decisive direction it gave to the public conscience, and of its statement of the government's duty as to foreign relations, especially on the Cuban question.1 Similar testimonies came from Mr. Hooper, R. H. Dana, Jr., General Cushing, E. R. Hoar, E. G. Spaulding, Ira Harris, E. B. Washburne (from Paris), and A. G. Curtin (from St. Petersburg). Mr. Fish was pleased with the speech, particularly with its treatment of the Cuban question. He wrote, October 9, to the senator: ‘Plumb writes from Havana that your speech seemed so timely and admirable, and in accord with what he had heard of views of the department, that he brought it officially to the attention of the authorities.’

The British Cabinet was uneasy under the suspension of negotiations, and through Sir Edward Thornton sounded our government as to what terms of settlement would be satisfactory to it. The following letter, given in full, shows the diplomatic condition, and also the intimate relations between the secretary and the senator, and the confidence the former continued to repose in the latter:2—

Washington, Nov. 6, 1869.
My dear Sumner,—On two or three occasions within the last few months Mr. Thornton has, in conversation, casually expressed the wish that I would intimate to him the views of this government as to the basis on which the ‘Alabama’ claims may be settled. The day before yesterday he mentioned that a private letter from Lord Clarendon informed him of Mr. Motley having read a despatch from this department, of which a copy was also furnished, and which he should submit to the British Cabinet; he professed to feel regret on account of the tone of the paper. I told him that it was intended to be a calm presentation of our views of the grievances we had sustained; that we thought they had not allowed themselves to appreciate the depth and the earnestness of our feelings; and that until they would or could fully appreciate these, I feared that we could not arrive at an agreement; that we make no claim or demand in the paper referred to, but do endeavor strongly and forcibly to present our case,—not with a view or expectation to reopen a discussion on these points, but for their calm consideration. He asked whether I wished an answer to it. I replied, ‘No, I certainly do not wish one; but of course if the British government think one necessary, it is for them to decide. My own judgment would be that it were better not to reply; that we were anxious to have the questions settled, and the case disposed of.’ He said his government were also anxious for a settlement; but that having once accepted all


1 The New York Nation, usually critical in its treatment of Sumner, in its leader, Sept. 30, 1869, approved the speech, with emphasis on the part relating to Cuba. The Boston Advertiser, September 23, was equally emphatic in its approval.

2 The whole tone of the letter discredits Davis's account of differences between Mr. Fish and Sumner in April and May preceding.

Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.

Tufts University provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Places (automatically extracted)
hide People (automatically extracted)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
November 6th, 1869 AD (1)
September 30th, 1869 AD (1)
October 9th (1)
September 23rd (1)
April (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: