Message of the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress, at the Commencement of the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Congress
Mr. Pike to Mr. Seward.
[Extract.]
The Hague, September 11, 1861.
Sir: Subsequently to the interviews I had with the minister of foreign affairs, of which I spoke in my last, and after the transmission to you of my despatch (No. 15) of the 4th instant, I addressed the following communication to Baron Van Zuylen:
[Page 363][Untitled]
“The Hague, September 7, 1861.
“Sir: I do not understand this government to have yet distinctly conceded ‘belligerent rights’ to the self-styled Confederate States.
“In behalf of my government I beg to say that I trust Holland will not take this position now, and open the questions to flow therefrom. By doing so, this government may make an enemy of the United States, through the consequences growing out of that act. But Holland will not thereby make a friend of the rash and misguided men who lead the rebellion against the American government. For their object is to perpetuate and extend African slavery. With this object Holland can have no sympathy. Tour government has just now determined to abolish that remnant of barbarism in your colonial possessions.
“The slaveholders’ rebellion cannot be successful. The United States has determined it shall not be, and that it will preserve the union of the States at whatever cost.
“But even if we admit, for argument’s sake, that some of the slaveholding States should be allowed hereafter to depart from the Union, still would the rebellion be unsuccessful in its objects, and hospitality shown to its progress be unavailing. The United States would be still resolute to defeat the purposes of the rebel slaveholder. They would do this by their own unaided efforts. They might readily co-operate with foreign powers to the same end. Such of those powers as hold possessions in America, wherein slavery has been abolished, would join in this object from motives of justice and humanity, as well as from considerations of policy and consistency. Those who have colonies where the practice still prevails would gladly concur in self-defence. England having abolished slavery, France having put it under her feet, the position of these two great maritime powers on this subject is fixed. The recent action of the French Emperor is conclusive as to the policy of that powerful monarchy. Spain, in her late trespass upon St. Domingo, has been constrained to formally stipulate that she will not reintroduce slavery in that island; Mexico and Central America will be only too eager to enter into stipulations that shall save them from any attempted spoliation, and preserve the condition of freedom from slavery for all their inhabitants now and hereafter. A common civilization throughout the world will look with favor on a common union to crush the offensive purposes of the rebellious slaveholder. His success, therefore, is out of the question. Unless the world is to go backward, and history reverse its lessons, this rebellion in its leading purpose is foredoomed. Even governments cannot save that against which humanity revolts. Surrounded by communities on the north, on the south, on the west, that have expelled slavery; the islands of the Caribbean sea nearly all emancipated from this pestilent system; the fabric of the rebellious slaveholder, which he is so madly ambitious to erect, were even its temporary establishment possible, would soon be washed away by the attrition of surrounding influence upon its crumbling foundations, and its remains left a ruin in the world.
“It is thus neither just nor politic, in any point of view, for the powers of Europe to do anything to encourage this abortive and criminal enterprise of the rebellious American slaveholder. For though they should do ever so much, the effort will be none the less abortive, through the operation of forces that governments cannot control.
“The recognition of ‘belligerent rights’ to the party in question by England and France was a precipitate and unnecessary act. It was surely time enough to do this when the alternative presented an embarrassing situation.
“The Dutch government has been wiser. In continuing to occupy the position of refusing all countenance to the authors of such a hateful rebellion, [Page 364] the Netherlands will do an act which will be viewed with the liveliest satisfaction by the United States, and, I may be permitted to add, one worthy the traditions of this ancient and renowned state, and will set an example well worthy the respect and consideration of other nations.
“The undersigned, &c., &c.
“Baron Van Zuylen, &c., &c.”
On the 9th instant I had an interview with Baron Van Zuylen, again urging him in the most earnest manner to issue such instructions to the Dutch authorities in the West Indies as would peremptorily exclude from their ports every species of craft set afloat by the secessionists.
Baron Van Zuylen appears, and I have no doubt is, very desirous to do all he possibly can, under what he deems the requirements of public law, to carry out the wishes of the United States in this matter. He does not consider that his government has recognized belligerent rights, and desires not to be pressed on that point. I told him we had no desire to press him to do anything, except to issue such instructions to his colonial governors as will effectually exclude the piratical vessels of the secessionists from making use of the Dutch ports.
He asked then if we would consent to have our own ships-of-war excluded. I told him if that was necessary to relieve him from a dilemma, I did not know how far such an act might be tolerated for the sake of an advantage which we could procure in no other way. We might not find fault, if thereby we found our interests advanced. But, of course, I could not undertake to commit my government on the point. I remarked that exclusion would not operate to our disadvantage, inasmuch as we had command of the sea, while it would be fatal to the plunderers, as they had no retreat at home. He intimated that his government contemplated making the proposition to the United States. He also remarked that the course of our own government threw impediments in their way; for while we regarded the secessionists as rebels, we did not seem to treat them as such when taken prisoners, not even their privateers. I concluded the interview by renewedly urging every consideration I could adduce to induce him to issue the desired orders, and to lose no time in doing it.
He will soon make a written communication on the whole subject, which I will forward at the earliest moment after receiving it.
After my interview, I addressed Baron Van Zuylen the following note:
[Untitled]
“The Hague, September 9, 1861.
“Sir: Referring to our conversation of to-day, I beg to suggest that what appears to you a practical difficulty may, it seems to me, be properly overcome by your government issuing orders to its colonial authorities to regard all armed vessels bearing the so-called confederate flag as privateers. They are so in fact, and they should not be allowed to shield themselves under any other pretext. Unless a vessel claiming to be a ship-of-war exhibit some prima facie evidence of being such, in her size, and in her other external symbols and aspects, which these piratical craft do not, the proper authorities may well claim the right to decline all investigation of the case, and assume her unlawful character.
“The undersigned, &c. &c.
“Baron Van Zuylen.”
* * * * * * * * *
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State.