It has been heretofore impossible to find a clue to the premises upon
which their expectations were based. I think I have now found it in an
article of the Richmond Sentinel of the 18th of January, a copy of which
I enclose. The idea of the insurgents seems to be this: That insomuch as
the rebels are prevented the exercise of suffrage in the insurgent
States in the late presidential election, therefore this government in
the next administration will not be de jure, a
government over these States, which by the treaty of peace of 1783 were
acknowledged to be free, independent, sovereign States. The conceit is a
refinement of the secession principle, which the war has already
effectually exploded. Still I have thought it not inexpedient to bring
the subject to your notice. While I do not attribute any serious
importance to it, it may be worth your while to be watchful.
Charles Francis Adams. Esq., &c., &c., &c.
[Editorial from the
Richmond Sentinel, January 18.
]
Foreign relations of the Confederacy.
The nations of western Europe have just put themselves and us to many
disadvantages by their failure to recognize the confederate
government, and institute with us diplomatic relations. A state of
war invests with a peculiar delicacy the relations of a belligerent
with a mutual power. It requires much care and address to adjust
satisfactorily the many questions which arise between them;
especially is this the case while there is. much conflict of
interests, such as an extensive intercourse necessarily produces. To
all these hazards and inconveniences to them and to us France and
England have submitted for four years without the ameliorations
which a diplomatic interchange would have afforded. They have denied
themselves and us the means of asking or giving explanation, and of
making representation closely affecting in many cases the interests
of citizens entitled to protection, or, in a more general sense, the
rights and duties of the respective governments.
The great convenience of the policy long recognized in America, of
acknowledging a de
[Page 97]
facto government without delay, has been
strikingly illustrated by the effect of the different principles
which France and England have prescribed to themselves in their
dealings with us. If American policy had been applied to American
affairs four years of embarrassment would have been avoided. There
is a prevalent presumption, however, that the reserve which has
produced so much inconvenience is about to be abandoned. It is
supposed by many who read the signs of the times, that France and
England will not much longer deny themselves the liberty of holding
interviews with a people with whom they have so much business to
transact. We say nothing of the comity or the duty which they owe to
an organized community so large and respectable as ours; viewing the
subject simply in the light of their own interest, and of their duty
to their own citizens, the shackles with which they have so long
voluntarily restrained their action are truly extraordinary.
If the two governments to whom we refer have come to the resolution
of terminating that deference, not to the principles but to the will
of the Washington government, which wears the appearance of
vassalage, they would have at any moment an abundance of solid and
satisfactory measures to sustain them in such a step. But the
conjecture which is assigned as the probable occasion on which the
new attitude will be assumed, the next inauguration of Mr. Lincoln,
is singularly propitious to such a proceeding. It will afford not
merely a pretext for that action, but a new ground; sufficient of
itself to justify and to require it. We will explain this by the
narration of some, facts which we find collected in a very
convenient form in Mr. McHenry’s excellent book, “The Cotton
Trade.”
France, on the 5th of February, 1778, acknowledged the independence
of the thirteen American colonies as so many
independent States. Even the Articles of Confederation were
not then adopted. The United Netherlands followed this example
October 8, 1782, and Sweden, April 3, 1783. Great Britain, in the
treaty of peace, concluded September 3, 1783, recognized the several
States in like manner as so many independent political communities.
This recognition embraced Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia, by name, and it territorially included Tennessee,
Florida, and Mississippi. The remaining confederate States became
possessed by their organization and admission of equal rights with
the original States, and stand on the same footing. The independent
nationality of Texas was; recognized by France in 1839, and by Great
Britain in 1840. She did not enter the Union, until 1845.
In no other form has the nationality of the United States ever been
acknowledged by European courts. John Adams was, in 1777, sent to
represent the States in France, and was soon after succeeded by Dr.
Franklin. They both received their authority from, the Congress of
Delegates of the several States. The Articles of Confederation were
not adopted till March, 1781. Mr. Adams, under an appointment
received in 1789, remained as minister, to England till 1798.
The Union formed by the Articles of Confederation was dissolved March
3, 1789. The Union under the Constitution did not go into operation
until April 30, 1789, and then only as between eleven States, Rhode
Island and North Carolina for a time remaining aloof.
In all these changes of the agency for conducting their foreign
intercourse,, the States deemed no notification necessary to other
governments. No recognition was asked for any such nation as the
confederation of States, for there was no such created, nor for any
such nation as the United States, for the same reasons. The
governments established by the Articles, of Confederation and by the
Constitution were the mere foreign agencies of the States, the true
sovereigns, whose nationality was already acknowledged. The European
governments conceded to us the right to change the form of this
agency whenever we pleased. The recognition of the independence of
the States survived all these changes unharmed; the disbanding of
the confederation in 1783, the intervening of fifty-eight days that
followed, the separation of the State, which then continued for some
time, Rhode Island and North Carolina remaining distinct, and the
accessions to the number of States, which afterwards occurred from
time to time. The ministers sent by the federal agent were received
on the original acknowledgment of the nationality of the several
States, and no other. No other was desired; no other was proffered;
no other was thought necessary or appropriate. Let us notice some of
the consequences which may be deduced from this view of the case,
looking at it from a foreign stand-point, and excluding all
reference to our own controversy as to the right of secession.
France and England might say that Mr. Lincoln was appointed in 1860
by an election in which all the States participated.; that thus he
was regularly constituted the diplomatic representative of all the
States for a specified term; that as such Europe recognized him as
appointed, according to our own forms. After the fourth of March
next he will sustain, however, a new character. He will have entered
upon a term of service to, which various of the States acknowledged
by Europe as independent had no part in electing;: him. He cannot
claim to have any commission from Virginia or North Carolina, or the
rest of the Confederate States. He can show no authority to
represent them. These latter States at once refrained, and were
excluded from all share in his appointment. Of this Europe is duly
notified, and it would be both an outrage and a perfidy to,
acknowledge as the representative of States recognized as
independent an agent in whose appointment they had no share. As well
might the European Maximilian assume to represent the Confederate
States, as the man who rules at Washington. Virginia and the rest
have claimed to change their foreign agency frequently in the past,
and it has been accorded. How can the right be
[Page 98]
questioned now? Their responsibility for
Lincoln’s appointment as the organ for foreign intercourse has been
discharged by the expiration of the term for which he was elected:
In the new appointment they had no part and were allowed none, and
hence it cannot be pretended that it represents them either in
substance or form. We say that such views as these may well be
adopted by France and England, without reference to the other merit
of our cause, and we do not see how they can be overlooked, or how
they can be met; and taking into consideration the duties which
those governments owe to their own people, to their own dignity, to
sound international principles, and to us—duties, however, which
they have declined until the neglect has become a severe reproach—we
think it very reasonable and very probable, that they will indeed
profit by the opportunity to abandon their present situation with
good grace.
