[62] singular tranquillity. As for our Cabinet, I assure you confidently, knowing what I say, that there is no idea of war or rupture with England, and that nothing is now hoarded for future animosity when it may be more convenient; and my sincere desire is that your Cabinet may be in the same mind, and sincerely and actively. If so, then permanent peace is assured. The general feeling is that England took advantage of our weakness. I say “general,” perhaps that is too strong; but this I often hear; and I confess that it does not seem like the conduct of a megnanimous people to make a casus belli at once on a point of law, when we are embarrassed by domestic difficulties. But on the point of law I have not doubted you were right, and according to American principles too. Perhaps you will see a speech of mine on this topic. I hope that I have not spoken too freely of my mother country. My earnest desire was to do something for peace; but I was obliged to arouse the patriotism and self-respect of my own countrymen by associating the surrender with American principles. I think that we shall soon have news from some of our expeditions.The debate on the seizure of the ‘Trent’ was not continued in the Senate; and Sumner's speech was left to stand as the statement of the American case.1 His position as the authority on foreign affairs was from this time firmly fixed in the Senate, until his controversy with President Grant nine years later. One of the senators—Mr. Morrill of Vermont said with emphasis, when Sumner was no longer a member of the committee, that his administration of its business during the period he remained chairman was ‘masterly.’2 Another associate, Dixon of Connecticut, who had no sympathy with his advanced antislavery position, expressing his fear lest the country should become embroiled in difficulties with France by certain proceedings in New Orleans, wrote, Nov. 15, 1862, beseeching Sumner to exert his influence for peace, adding: ‘Your views on foreign ’
This text is part of:
1 Elaborate notes in Sumner's Works (vol. VI. pp. 162-168, 219-242) review the disputes and print extracts from newspapers and correspondence. English opinion was discontented with Sumner's treatment of the English precedents. (London Times, Jan. 25, 1862.) Its contributor, W. V. Harcourt, writing under the pseudonym of ‘Historicus,’ weakened his argument by personalities, which he modified in a volume published later. Henry Reeve, in a letter to Sumner, January 28, attributed to him a misconception of the English precedents, and claimed that the English position was what Sumner denied it to be in a passage of his speech found in Works, vol. VI. p. 175. A correspondent of the New York Tribune, Jan. 13, 1862, mentions that the foreign ministers at Washington commended Sumner for his tact, and regarded the speech as ‘forming a chapter in the law of nations.’ Mr. Dana thought the speech ‘the best thing for Sumner's popularity and reputation he had done,’ though not wholly approving his argument. Adams's ‘Biography’ of Dana, vol. II. pp. 261-263.
2 In a conversation with the writer. Mr. Conness said in the Senate, Feb. 6, 1868: ‘Without any disrespect to the other members of the committee, I had really begun to believe that the honorable senator [Sumner] was the committee.’ Sumner answered from his seat, ‘Oh, no; not at all.’
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this 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.