Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams
Sir: Your two despatches of February 23, Nos. 883 and 884, have been received. Both relate to one general subject, and I shall therefore consider them together. That subject is an apprehension which prevails in British political [Page 201] circles that the close of our civil strife will be improved by this government to inaugurate a war with Great Britain, in which war Canada will be the objective point. The restrictive policy in regard to Canada which we were compelled to adopt, to counteract aggressions from British provinces and ports, seems to be regarded as a fresh proof of the inimical purpose referred to, while a supposed general unfriendliness on my own part is assumed in justification of the suspicion.
The conciliatory manner in which this government has met the explanations which were recently made to you by Earl Russell appears in my recent despatches. I think it completely removes the ground upon which the suspicion complained of was erected. It can be of little import to the two countries what my personal sentiments or feelings towards Great Britain are, yet, with a view to disembarrass you entirely of the objections raised on that account, I am permitted to say that in no instance has any proceeding which could affect our relations with Great Britain been adopted by this government, during the administration of the present Executive, which has not either originated with or, at least, been cordially supported by myself; to which may be added that the proceedings of the government set forth in my aforenamed despatch were adopted upon my over motion. “Whether the policy which has governed our course of proceedings during this painful civil war has been just and friendly towards Great Britain, and towards all other nations, is a question which is freely left to the decision of mankind.
In an interview with Mr. Burnley yesterday, invited by myself, I authorized him to inform Earl Russell that, irony judgment, even had there been no disturbance of our friendly relations with Canada or Great Britain, the late reciprocity treaty could not have been continued beyond its appointed time, without being modified so essentially as to require a thorough revision of the compact, and that such a revision would necessarily involve a submission of the whole subject to not only the Senate, but to the Congress of the United States. I observed further to Mr. Burnley that, in my opinion, it would be utterly unavailing to attempt to negotiate with Great Britain a treaty of reciprocal trade between the United States and Canada, while this civil war continues, with Great Britain in her present attitude, recognizing the insurgents as a belligerent, and thus derogating the United States from their accustomed sovereignty over all the territory and all the citizens of the republic. I gave my reasons for this, namely, that the present condition of tilings has proved destructive of our national commerce and subversive of friendship between our people and those of Great Britain. I further stated to Mr. Burnley that there seems good reason to believe that this civil war has already come, or is about coming to such a crisis that we may look for an early recognition of our full national authority by Great Britain, and that when that change shall take place, this government will cheerfully enter into negotiations, with a view to ascertain whether a just, fair and equal reciprocity in trade can be established between the United States and Canada. Of course, in this matter I am not to be understood as assuming to speak for the Senate or for Congress.
You will see that in this proceeding I anticipated an important suggestion of Earl Russell, communicated in your despatch now before me, which suggestion is accepted as having been made in the interest of peace and friendship. Perhaps it is not improper to add, that in no case does this government contemplate war against Great Britain, whether for Canada, or any other object. So far are we from seeking either an occasion or a cause, or a theatre of war with Great Britain, we are earnestly desiring peace, friendship, and communion with that great nation. But, on the other hand, I repeat, and must continue to insist, that the United States cannot consent to endure indefinitely the injuries resulting, directly and indirectly, from the present policy of Great Britain in regard to the existing insurrection. They cannot consent to remain derogated as a naval power to a level with a local slavery-upholding rebellion, destitute of ports, [Page 202] courts, and ships-of-war. Nevertheless, our policy is directed to the redress of this wrong by lawful and by peaceful means; and it will be persisted in, in the same manner, until other powers shall concede to the United States the position they held, with the free consent of all nations, before the insurrection began.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c., London.