Inhuman Sentiments.
The London
Times, of May 12th, says:
‘
"No recognition or mediation would have the smallest weight, unless it were backed up by more forcible arguments, and these arguments we are not disposed to apply.
We have nothing to do but to wait, and hope that these two unhappy maniac may soon come to themselves and see what they are about."
Sentiments more thoroughly heartless than those just quoted have never emanated from any journal.
The two combatants are represented as "unhappy maniacs" in the very teeth of the often repeated declaration of the
Times that the cause of the
South is the cause of constitutional liberty.
Does the
Times consider it "maniacal" to defend such a cause with all the energy and courage that a nation can summon to the rescue?
If English liberty were assailed at its own altars as that of the
South is, would not every Englishman rush to arms, and in that event would the
Times denounce the whole nation as an "unhappy maniac?" Would it put the defenders of all that is dear to man on the same level with those who would plunder and despoil him of his dearest rights?
Or are life, liberty, and property, less precious in
America than
England?
The
Times then proceeds to intimate that the interest of
England is the supreme rule by which her conduct is governed.
This is what we had always supposed, though we had not expected such an unblushing avowal of it from the leading organ of English public opinion.
And is interest the only principle which governs the foreign policy of
England?
So we must conclude from the declaration of the
Times. We had supposed that, whilst nations ought to take care of their own households, there was such a thing as the common interest of humanity, which sometimes had a claim to their consideration.
When war degenerates into murder, robbery, and arson; into the banishment of whole populations from their home, and the deliberate organization of servile insurrection, there is or ought to be some rule higher than dollars and cents to govern the action of the civilized spectators of such scenes.
But even on the calculation of selfish interest,
England has sorely mistaken her true policy, as she will one day see, in declining to unite with the wise and generous French Emperor in intervening to put an end to this quarrel.
The
United States would never have dared to resist the combined arms of the two, as is evident from the manner in which she
has backed down at the slightest symptom of their displeasure.
As it is,
France, which offered to intervene, is still respected in both North and South, whilst
England has made an implacable enemy of the
United States, who will not be slow to seize the first opportunity of revenge.
’
