Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
Sir: I have had the honor to receive and to submit to the President your despatch of the 17th of September, No. 497, which relates to the iron-clad vessels built at Laird’s ship yards for war against the United States, and which is accompanied by a very interesting correspondence that has taken place on that subject between yourself and Earl Russell.
The positions you have taken in this correspondence are approved.
It is indeed a cause of profound concern, that, notwithstanding an engagement which the President has accepted as final, there still remains a doubt whether those vessels will be prevented from coming out, according to the original hostile purposes of the enemies of the United States residing in Great Britain. You have, however, exhausted the argument upon that subject; nor do I perceive that your exposition can be improved or materially re-enforced. Earl Russell remarks, that her Majesty’s government having proclaimed neutrality, have in good faith exerted themselves to maintain it. I have not to say now for the first time, that however satisfactory that position may be to the British nation, it does not at all relieve the gravity of the question in the United States. The proclamation of neutrality was a concession of belligerent rights to the insurgents, and was deemed by this government as unnecessary, and in [Page 446] effect as unfriendly, as it has since proved injurious to this country. The successive preparations of hostile naval expeditions in Great Britain are regarded here as fruits of that injurious proclamation.
Earl Russell adds, that the United States have derived some military supplies from Great Britain, and enlisted many British subjects in their cause. But it can hardly be denied that neither such supplies nor such men would have been necessary, if Great Britain had not, so far as she was concerned, first raised the insurgents to the position of belligerents. Neither the government of Great Britain, nor any other recognized party, has contended, or can contend, that the United States have violated any municipal law, or any treaty, or the law of nations, or even comity towards the British government, in the proceedings by which they have received as merchandise supplies derived from British sources, and have accepted British subjects voluntarily residing in our own country, and voluntarily enlisting as soldiers and seamen in maintaining the cause of the Union. It is hardly necessary to say that the United States stand upon what they think impregnable ground, when they refuse to be derogated, by any act of British government, from their position as a sovereign nation in amity with Great Britain, and placed upon a footing of equality with domestic insurgents, who have risen up in resistance against their authority.
It does not remain for us even to indicate to Great Britain the serious consequences which must ensue, if the iron-clads shall come forth upon their work of destruction. They have been fully revealed to yourself, and you have made them known to Earl Russell, within the restraints which an honest and habitual respect for the government and the people of Great Britain imposes. It seems to me that her Majesty’s government might be expected to perceive and appreciate them, even if we were henceforth silent upon the subject. When our unhappy civil war broke out, we distinctly confessed that we knew what great temptations it offered to foreign intervention and aggression, and that in no event could such intervention or aggression be endured. It was apparent that such aggression, if it should come, must travel over the seas, and therefore must be met and encountered, if at all, by maritime resistance. We addressed ourselves to prepare the means of such resistance. We have now a navy, not indeed as ample as we proposed, but yet one which we feel assured is not altogether inadequate to the purposes of self-defence, and it is yet rapidly increasing in men, material, and engines of war. Besides this regular naval force, the President has asked, and Congress has given him, authority to convert the mercantile marine into armed squadrons, by the issue of letters of marque and reprisal. All the world might see, if it would, that the great arm of naval defence has not been thus invigorated for the mere purpose of maintaining a blockade, or enforcing our authority against the insurgents, for practically they have never had an open port, or built and armed, nor could they from their own resources build and arm, a single ship-of-war. Every European statesman who knows anything of our history, or even of the nature of our complex republican institutions, understands full well that we are building a navy not for ulterior, or even immediate foreign war, but for self-defence. Thus, the world is left free to understand that our measures of maritime war are intended to resist maritime aggression, which is constantly threatened from abroad, and even more constantly apprehended at home. That it would be employed for that purpose, if such aggression should be attempted, would seem certain, unless, indeed, there should be reason to suppose that the people do not in this respect approve of the policy, and sympathize with the sentiments, of the executive government. But the resistance of foreign aggression by all the means in our power, and at the hazard, if need be, of the national life itself, is the one point of policy on which the American people seem to be unanimous, and in complete harmony with the President. This is no menace of war to Great Britain; it is simply an assumption of the position of self-defence against a naval enemy, from whatever quarter [Page 447] he may come. Need I add, that this position is not affected by the character in which the enemy may come, whether under the authority and bearing the flag of a foreign state, or as an unauthorized invader, defying the authority of his own state, while seeking to invade our own. If, then, we shall become engaged with such an enemy, whether he comes from Great Britain, or from France, or from Russia, what must be the limit of our resistance? The law of nations says that the only limit is that which can be defined by ascertaining the magnitude of the public danger.
I do not know that it is necessary, or would be useful, to communicate any part of this paper to Earl Russell. But the President is of opinion that you should be fully apprized of the views of this government, and authorized to use them as you may think proper.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.