previous next

Cassius M. Clay and the London Times--"Our Foreign Relations."

The letter from Cassius M. Clay to the London Times was briefly referred to yesterday. We do not propose to burden our columns with the text of this letter, preferring to give the comments of the London Times thereon, which are as follows:

‘ This lively letter writer proposes six questions--three relating to his own country, three relating to England. The first question he is more successful in asking than answering: --"What are we fighting for?" "We are fighting," says Mr. Clay, "for nationality and liberty." We can understand a fight for nationality between different races, but a fight for nationality between men of the same nationality is to us, we candidly confess it, an inexplicable enigma; nor can we better understand how a people fighting to put down a rebellion, to force their fellow-citizens to remain in a confederacy which they detest, and to submit to institutions which they repudiate, can be called the champions of liberty. If the South seriously threatened to conquer the North, to put down trial by jury, freedom of the press and representative government, the contest might be for liberty; but, as this is not so, the introduction of such topics is mere rhetorical amplification. "Can you subdue the revolted States?" "Of course we can," says Mr. Clay. So on that point there is no more to be said.--"Can you re-construct the Union when one-half of it has conquered the other?" "Nothing easier," says Mr. Clay. The victim of today will become the confederate of to-morrow; the traitors will be cast out, and the Union firmer than ever — witness the happy results of the conquest of Ireland by England, repeated over and over again, and always repeated in vain.

Having answered the questions which he supposes to be addressed to him by England, Mr. Clay becomes the questioner, and asks us where our honor would place us in this contest. Clearly by the side of the Union, because, he says, if slavery be extended in America, it must be restored in the West Indies.--If any one doubts the force of this demonstration, we are sorry for it, for Mr. Clay has no other to offer. Our examiner next asks us to consider our interests. Clearly, he says, it is to stand by the Union, because they are our best customers, and because, though they have done all they can, since the separation of the South gave them the power, to ruin their trade with us, they will, in spite of their own hostile tariff, remain our best customers.

Lastly comes the momentous question, ‘"Can England afford to offend the United States? "’ ‘"Certainly not,"’ says Mr. Clay, ‘"for in half a century they will amount to a hundred millions of people, and will have railways four thousand miles long. "’ But is Mr. Clay quite sure that, even if we should offend them now, the people of America will bear malice for half a century; and, if they do, is he quite certain that his hundred millions will all be members of one Confederacy, and that we may not then, as we might now, secure either half of the Union as our ally in a war against the other?

Mr. Clay must really allow us to give our own version of the honor and interest of England. Our honor and interest is to stand aloof from contests which in no way concern us: to be content with our own laws and liberties, without seeking to impose them upon others; ‘"to seek peace and insure it,"’ and to leave those who take to the sword to fall by the sword. In war we will be strictly neutral; in peace we will be the friends of whatever power may emerge out of the frightful chaos through which Mr. Clay sees his way so clearly. And that neutrality which is recommended alike by our interest and our honor we will not violate through fear — no, not of a hundred millions of unborn men. Let Mr. Clay and his countrymen look well to the present, and they will find enough to occupy their attention, without troubling themselves with long visions of humiliation and retribution, which no man now alive will ever see accomplished.

’ The New York Journal of Commerce has the good sense to comment as follows upon the impertinent effusion of the Kentucky Cassius — a man who bears the name of Clay to disgrace it, both at home and abroad:

‘ The present Administration has the fortune to have secured the services of a jealous and earnest, if not a discreet champion, in the person of its newly-appointed Minister to Russia, the valiant Cassius M. Clay, of Kentucky. That gentleman lately arrived in England on his way to the field of his official labors, and finding the tone of public sentiment there not quite in conformity with his own views of the American question, forthwith writes a letter to the London Times, to instruct the English nation in their duty and their interests. To say nothing of the lack of propriety and of dignity, in thus forcing his opinions, unsolicited and probably undesired, upon the people of a country through which he was passing, on the way to another to which he was officially accredited, the letter of Mr. Clay was in bad taste, and liable to damage the cause which it was doubtless intended to advance. It does not appear to have occurred to Mr. Clay that in the first place he was insulting the British public by thus thrusting his opinions in their faces, while simply halting for a day or a few days on his passage to Russia; and secondly, granting the propriety of place and occasion, that "British honor," "British interests," and the question whether "England can afford to offend the great nation which will still be the 'United States of America,' even should we lose part of the South," are delicate subjects for an American diplomat to handle in the columns of an English newspaper, where no provocation or occasion has been given for such a departure from the usage of the Representatives of our country abroad. Had Mr. Clay been the Ambassador of the United States to England instead of Russia, it would have been manifestly improper thus to thrust great questions of the character discussed in his letter to the Times before the British people; and we cannot see how the case is materially changed by the fact that his mission is to Russia instead, unless it be to give to the transaction an air of impudence when otherwise it would have been one of impropriety. We need no better proof of the indiscretion of the act to which we refer, than the comments of the English papers thereon. They regard it as an impertinent interference with questions belonging to the British Government and people, and it can scarcely be doubted that the effect of the course pursued by Mr. Clay, however well intended, must be to damage rather than promote the cause of our Government abroad. Had he been a private citizen, invested with no official importance, his undertaking might pass for a specimen of the vanity which sometimes characterizes the action of Americans in Europe; but the importance attached to his connection with the Administration, whose confidence in him has so recently been manifested by his selection for an important mission, will be likely to give undue prominence to the views which he has so unwisely sought to thrust upon the people of England.

’ "our Foreign Relations."

The New York Herald, of Thursday, editorially says:

Secretary Seward's dispatch to Mr. Dayton is again criticised in a very sneering manner by the London Times, and another English journal does not hesitate to class Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet and the insurgent Southern conclave of rebels as the two American factions. Lord Palmerston says, through his London organ, the Post, that Canada will soon become the centre of commerce and emigration for the American continent. Our compilation from the foreign files, given to-day, in such connection, is worthy of serious consideration, and exhibits a manifest tendency towards an unfriendly policy to the Government at Washington, which, if carried out, may result in giving England a severe lesson, for which she is probably not prepared.

Mr. Lindsay, M. P., who recently visited this country, in a speech to his constituents at Sunderland, has gone far towards indoctrinating them with the idea of the right of secession at the South and the necessity of maintaining the rebel cause. This gentleman advises France and England to step forward and proclaim the independence of the Southern Confederacy as the only means of allaying the thirst for blood which he says prevails at the North. The London Morning Post, Lord Palmerston's organ, asserts that the Southern States were de facto independent at the moment.

’ "Misplaced Confidence."

Under this heading the New York Express observes:

‘ It was a favorite notion with not a few of our contemporaries quite lately that, if the present British Ministry would be so infatuated as to espouse the cause of the Montgomery Confederacy, it would find its speedy account in ejection from office. The opposition led on by the Earl of Derby, it was never doubted, would be but too happy to avail themselves of Palmerston and Russell's leanings towards the Cotton Confederacy, to make them uncomfortable, at least, in their places, if not ultimately to compel her Majesty to seek other advisers. This expectation was not an unreasonable one. It was predicted upon the fallacy that the British anti-slavery feeling was something more substantial than a sentiment, and that in a hand-to-hand contest with a "Government," the chief corner-stone of which, as acknowledged by Mr. Vice- President Stephens, is negro slavery, English sympathy must all be on the side of the North. --Never was there a greater delusion, as everybody may now see.

The Earl of Derby, so far from espous- ing "the cause of freedom," and making that cause a lever with which to oust Palmerston and Russell from office, has taken the first opportunity to go a step or two in advance of them even, in favor of the Confederates! Witness his speech, on the 16th, in favor of treating privateers, not as pirates, but (we had almost said) as gentlemen. That speech, now, together with the cold shoulder Lord Brougham has given them, ought to open the eyes of the Beechers, and Cheevers, here at home, to the truth we have ever been trying (in vain) to impress upon them — that the Abolitionists of Exeter Hall have for years and years only been using them to bring about a dissolution of the Union--and that all their lip sympathy for "Liberty and Humanity" was but a bubble, which would collapse — as it has already collapsed — the moment "sentiment" came in contact with interest.

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)

View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.

Sort places alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a place to search for it in this document.
Russia (Russia) (4)
United States (United States) (3)
West Indies (1)
Sunderland (United Kingdom) (1)
France (France) (1)
Canada (Canada) (1)

Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.

hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
Cassius M. Clay (18)
Russell (2)
Palmerston (2)
Derby (2)
Stephens (1)
Seward (1)
London (1)
Lindsay (1)
Abe Lincoln (1)
England (1)
Dayton (1)
Americans (1)
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.
16th (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: