Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams .
Washington, June 8, 1861.
Sir: I have the pleasure of acknowledging the receipt of your despatch of May 21, (No. 2,) which contains a report of the conversation which you had held with Lord John Russell on the 18th day of that month.
This government insists, as all the world might have known that it must and would, under all circumstances, insist, on the integrity of the Union, as the chief element of national life. Since, after trials of every form of forbearance and conciliation, it has been rendered certain and apparent that this paramount and vital object can be saved only by our acceptance of civil war as an indispensable condition, that condition, with all its hazards and deplorable evils, has not been declined. The acceptance, however, is attended with a strong desire and fixed purpose that the war shall be as short and accompanied by as little suffering as possible. Foreign intervention, aid, or sympathy in favor of the insurgents, especially on the part of Great Britain, manifestly could only protract and aggravate the war. Accordingly, Mr. Dallas, under instructions from the President, in an interview conceded to him by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, presented our protest against any such intervention.
Lord John Russell answered with earnestness that there was not in the British government the least desire to grasp at any advantages which might be supposed to arise from the unpleasant domestic differences in the United States, but, on the contrary, that they would be highly gratified if those differences were adjusted, and the Union restored to its former unbroken position.
Mr. Dallas then, as he reported to us, endeavored to impress upon his lordship how important it must be that Great Britain and France should abstain, at least for a considerable time, from doing what, by encouraging groundless hopes, (of the insurgents,) would widen a breach still thought capable of being closed; but his lordship seemed to think that the matter was not ripe for decision, one way or another, and remarked that what he had already said was all that at present it was in his power to say.
Upon this report you were instructed to inform her Britannic Majesty’s government that the President regarded the reply made by his lordship to Mr. Dallas’s suggestion as possibly indicating a policy which this government would be obliged to deem injurious to its rights, and derogating from its [Page 101] dignity. This government thought the reply of the secretary unjustifiably abrupt and reserved. That abruptness and reserve unexplained, left us under a seeming necessity of inferring that the British government might be contemplating a policy of encouragement to the insurgents which would widen the breach here which we believed it possible to heal if such encouragement should not be extended. A vital interest obliged the United States to seek explanation, or to act on the inference it thus felt itself obliged to adopt.
Your despatch of the 21st of May, (No. 2,) which has just been received, shows how you have acquitted yourself of the duty imposed upon you. After stating our complaint to his lordship, you very properly asked an elucidation of his meaning in the reply to which exception had been taken by us, and very rightly, as we think, asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty’s ministers to adopt a policy which would have the effect to widen, if not to make irreparable, a breach which we believe yet to be entirely manageable by ourselves. His lordship disclaimed any such intention. A friendly argument, however, then arose between the secretary and yourself concerning what should be the form of the answer to us which his lordship could properly give, and which would, at the same time, be satisfactory to this government. The question was finally solved in the most generous manner by the proposition of his lordship that he would instruct Lord Lyons to give such a reply to the President as might, in his own opinion, be satisfactory, which proposition you accepted.
I hasten to say, by direction of the President, that your course in this proceeding is fully approved. This government has no disposition to lift questions of even national pride or sensibility up to the level of diplomatic controversy, because it earnestly and ardently desires to maintain peace, harmony, and cordial friendship with Great Britain. Lord John Russell’s proposition, by authorizing the President to put the most favorable construction possible upon the response which was deemed exceptionable, removes the whole difficulty without waiting for the intervention of Lord Lyons. You will announce this conclusion to Lord John Russell, and inform him that the settlement of the affair in so friendly a spirit affords this government sincere satisfaction.
Your conversation with the British secretary incidentally brought into debate the Queen’s late proclamation, (which seems to us designed to raise the insurgents to the level of a belligerent state;) the language employed by her Majesty’s ministers in both houses of Parliament, the tone of the public press, and of private opinion, and especially a speech of the lord chancellor, in which he had characterized the insurgents as a belligerent State, and the civil war which they are waging against the United States as justum bellum.
The opinions which you expressed on these matters, and their obvious tendency to encourage the insurrection and to protract and aggravate the civil war, are just, and meet our approbation. At the same time, it is the purpose of this government, if possible, consistently with the national welfare and honor, to have no serious controversy with Great Britain at all; and if this shall ultimately prove impossible, then to have both the defensive position and the clear right on our side. With this view, this government, as you were made aware by my despatch No. 10, has determined to pass over without official complaint the publications of the British press, manifestations of adverse individual opinion in social life, and the speeches of British statesmen, and even those of her Majesty’s ministers in Parliament, so long as they are not authoritatively adopted by her Majesty’s government. We honor and respect the freedom of debate, and the freedom of [Page 102] the press. We indulge no apprehensions of danger to our rights and interests from any discussion to which they may be subjected, in either form, in any place. Sure as we are that the transaction now going on in our country involves the progress of civilization and humanity, and equally sure that our attitude in it is right, and no less sure that our press and our statesmen are equal in ability and influence to any in Europe, we shall have no cause to grieve if Great Britain shall leave to us the defence of the independence of nations and the rights of human nature.
My despatch No. 14 presented four distinct grounds on which this government apprehended a policy on the part of her Majesty’s government to intervene in favor of the insurgents, or to lend them aid and sympathy. The first ground was the reserve practiced by the British secretary for foreign affairs in his conversation with Mr. Dallas, referred to in the earlier part of this despatch. I have already stated that the explanations made and offered by Lord John Russell have altogether removed this ground from debate.
The second was the contracting of an engagement by the government of Great Britain with that of France, without consulting us, to the effect that both governments would adopt one and the same course of proceeding in regard to the subject of intervention in our domestic affairs. You were informed in my despatch No. 10 that, as this proceeding did not necessarily imply hostile feelings towards the United States, we should not formally complain of it, but should rest content with a resolution to hold intercourse only with each of those States severally, giving due notice to both that the circumstance that a concert between the two powers in any proposition each might offer to us would not modify in the least degree the action of the United States upon it.
The third ground was Lord John Russell’s announcement to Mr. Dallas that he was not unwilling to receive the so-called commissioners of the insurgents unofficially. On this point you already have instructions, to which nothing need now be added.
The fourth ground is the Queen’s proclamation, exceptionable first for the circumstances under which it was issued, and secondly, for the matter of that important state paper.
My despatch No. 14 apprised you of our reason for expecting a direct communication on this subject from her Majesty’s government. I reserve instructions on this fourth ground, as I did in that despatch, expecting to discuss it fully when the promised direct communication shall bring it authoritatively before this government in the form chosen by the British government itself.
My silence on the subject of the defence of that proclamation made by Lord John Russell in his conversation with you being grounded on that motive for delay, it is hardly necessary to say that we are not to be regarded as conceding any positions which his lordship assumed, and which you so ably contested on the occasion referred to in your despatch. Your argument on that point is approved by the President.
The British government having committed the subject of the proposed modifications of international law on the subject of the right of neutrals in maritime war to Lord Lyons before you were prepared by our instructions to present the subject to that government, no objection is now seen to the discussion of that matter here. No communication on any subject herein discussed has yet been received from Lord Lyons. Despatches which you must have received before this time will have enabled you to give entire satisfaction to his lordship concerning the blockade. We claim to have a right to close the ports which have been seized by insurrectionists, for the purpose of suppressing the attempted revolution, and no one could justly [Page 103] complain if we had done so decisively and peremptorily. In resorting to the milder and very lenient form of the blockade, we have been governed by a desire to avoid imposing hardships unnecessarily onerous upon foreign as well as domestic commerce. The President’s proclamation was a notice of the intention to blockade, and it was provided that ample warning should be given to vessels approaching and vessels seeking to leave the blockaded ports before capture should be allowed. The blockade from the time it takes effect is everywhere rendered actual and effective.
Your remarks on the subject of the late tariff law were judicious. The subject of revenue policy in the altered condition of affairs is not unlikely to receive the attention of Congress.
We are gratified by the information you have given us of the friendly spirit which has thus far marked the deportment and conversation of the British government in your official intercourse with it.
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.