[With three enclosures.]
Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward
No. 111.]
Legation of the United States,
Paris,
June 1, 1865.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a
note which I handed to his excellency Monsieur Drouyn de Lhuys on the
29th ultimo, and a copy, with translation, of a reply to it, which he
handed to me yesterday. They are severally numbered enclosures 1, 2, and
3.
In his note of yesterday you will find an avowal of his readiness to
withdraw from the confederates the quality of belligerent. This, I
presume, is intended to be regarded as a practical withdrawal of the
declaration of neutrality of June, 1861.
I was informed by Lord Cowley, whom I met this morning at the funeral of
Marshal Magnan, that his government would probably make a like
communication to our government to-day or to-morrow. From this I infer,
what I have supposed from the beginning was the case, that neither
government takes a step in shaping its policy towards the United States
except in conjunction with the other.
I suppose the action taken is sufficiently decisive for all practical
purposes, though the declaration of Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys leaves something
to be desired in that respect. At all events, I shall leave the subject
where it is until I hear from you after the receipt of this.
I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Bigelow to M. Drouyn de Lhuys
[Enclosure No. 1.]
Legation of the United
States, Paris,
May 29, 1865.
Sir: I have received the note which your
excellency did me the honor to address to me on the 20th instant, in
reply to mine of the 10th, in reference to the imperial declaration
of neutrality of the 10th of June, 1861.
After reaffirming your confidence in the justice and propriety of
that declaration, under the circumstances in which it had its
origin, your excellency proceeds to say that, in your opinion,
measures taken in consequence of a state of manifest and declared
war ought not to be persisted in when the situation which rendered
them necessary has ceased to exist; that every
[Page 322]
thing indicated that the time was at
hand when the federal government could relinquish the attitude which
the necessities of war imposed upon it, and that as soon as you were
informed that the federal government renounced the exercise of the
right of visit and capture, there would be no further question of
belligerency with the United States; that you would then hasten to
recognize the fact, and would be happy to suppress without delay all
the restrictions which a state of war had imposed upon your
relations with the United States, and to offer in your ports the
most complete hospitality to our ships. You are pleased to add, that
in the actual state of affairs the government of his Majesty no
longer regards as necessary the provision which limited the stay of
vessels belonging to the navy of the United States in the ports of
France to 24 hours. and that orders to that effect had already been
issued by the minister of marine.
In regard to so much of your excellency’s note as relates to the
propriety and justice of the imperial declaration of neutrality of
the 10th of June, 1861, I may now repeat, what I had the honor to
state in my note of the 10th instant, that I have no occasion nor
intention, at present, to make it the subject of discussion. It is
proper, however, to avoid any possible future misunderstanding, that
I should invite your attention to one phrase upon that topic in your
note of the 20th instant which is liable to give an impression which
the history of the late insurrection, as I understand it, will not
sustain. Your excellency speaks of measures taken by his Majesty’s
government “in consequence of a state of war, manifest and
declared.” Without presuming to know precisely what meaning you
attach to the word “declared,” in that relation, I deem it my duty
to say, that this word has a technical signification in military and
political science, to which it would not be historically entitled in
the senterrce I have quoted. I am not aware that the government of
the United States has issued any declaration of war to which your
excellency’s remark could be properly applicable.
I regret that the withdrawal of the declaration of neutrality of the
10th of June, 1861, should have been offered only upon conditions of
which I am unable to see the propriety. Your excellency practically
admits that there is nothing in the military condition of the Unit d
States which requires the further concession of belligerent rights
to the insurgents, for you i,e ready to withdraw that concession the
moment we renounce our pretensions to visit and search neutrai
ships. I respectfully submit that the propriety or impropriety of
our pretensions to visit neutral ships is a question between us and
any neutral power that we may aggrieve, and the decision, whatever
it might be, would in no respect affect the question of belligerency
in the United States. The visiting of a neutral ship by a United
States cruiser would not. of itself, and in the absence of other
military demonstrations, constitute evidence of a state of war
between the different States of the American Union. The neglect to
formally renounce such pretensions, therefore, cannot justify a
continued recognition of a state of belligerency, for which no other
pretext can be assigned. To concede that the visiting of a neutra
ship established the belligerent right of the visitor, would deprive
neutral powers of their 1egitimate remedies against an abuse of the
right of visit.
Besides, the United States government, in applying for a repeal of
the declaration of June, 1861, abandoned any of the rights of a
belligerent which it is presumed to have claimed, and became
directly responsible for any thing it might do in the character of a
belligerent.
If, after the withdrawal of the imperial declaration, it were to
visit and search a neutral vessel, it would at once expose itself to
reprisals, the same as for any other violation of international
comity. To require of a non-belligerent a renunciation of the right
to visit a neutral vessel is, therefore, equivalent to requiring a
renunciation of the right to make war upon a neutral power—a
contradiction in terms. Every visitation of a neutral vessel is a
distinct and substantive act, deriving no justification from any
previous visitation, or from any previous necessity, and which
nothing but a grave public danger can excuse. The danger ceasing,
the right ceases with it, whether the privileges incident to a
pre-existing state of belligerency had been renounced or not.
Were this otherwise, and were the principles upon which your
excellency proposes to act accepted, the United States may continue
to visit neutral ships, and avail herself of all the other
privileges of a belligerent with impunity, so long as she omits
formally to renounce them; a proposition, to state which is to
expose its inadmissibility. No neutral power can afford to
relinquish the right of determining for itself whether another
nation claiming them is entitled to the privileges of a belligerent.
Nor can I remember an instance of any nation ever making such a
renunciation. Persuaded as I am of the correctness of these views, I
will not attempt to disguise the disappointment I felt on perusing
your excellency’s reply to my communication of the 10th, nor am I
yet prepared to abandon the hope that, in view of recent
intelligence from America, announcing the capture of the chief
fomenter and official head of the late insurrection, with his
fugitive companions, and their delivery to the hands of justice,
your excellency will see an additional motive for withdrawing a
declaration which can serve no purpose now but to chill the
relations of two nations whose interests and traditions are
constantly inviting them to the cultivation of the most cordial
friendship.
I beg to avail myself of this occasion to renew to your excellency
the assurances of the very high consideration with which I have the
honor to be, your excellency’s very obedient and very humble
servant,
His Excellency Monsieur Dotjyn De
Lhtjys, Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
[Page 323]
[Enclosure No. 3.—Translation of No.
2.]
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Bigelow.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of the letter which you addressed to me the day before
yesterday, in reply to my communication of the 20th instant.
The observations which my last note suggested to you, turn, for the
most part, on certain theoretical matters, the discussion of which
between us does not appear to me either opportune or serviceable to
the end which both of us have in view. I think that without entering
into these considerations it is proper, in dealing with the question
before us, to adhere to the reality of facts.
We proclaimed our neutrality four years ago, because we were in
presence of manifest hostilities; besides, the federal government
exercised towards neutrals the rights of war, and impliedly
recognized the belligerent character of the confederates.
In my letter of the 20th of May I acknowledged the great and decisive
change which had Been brought about in the situation of the two
parties respectively, by the military operations of the last two
months. We have already been able, in consequence of that change, to
give an assurance of our good will towards the United States, by
immediately withdrawing the regulations which limited the stay of
federal ships-of-war in the ports of the empire. On acquainting you
with that resolution, I informed you of our intention to revoke,
without delay, all the other restrictions required by our
declaration of neutrality, so soon as we knew that the government of
the Union, ceasing to regard itself as belligerent, no longer
exercised the right of search and capture with respect to neutral
ships; for it would be inconsistent to retain the rights of war,
while claiming from us the abandonment of our neutrality.
Therefore, sir, I have read with much satisfaction your letter of the
29th of May, from which I may infer, that the impressions of the
federal government are such as we should desire to see them from a
practical point in view. You tell me, in substance, “that the United
States government, in applying for a repeal of the declaration of
June, 1861, abandoned all of the rights of a belligerent which it is
presumed to have claimed, and became directly responsible for
anything it might do in the character of a belligerent.” You then
add—“If after the withdrawal of the imperial declaration it were to
visit and search a neutral vessel, it would at once expose itself to
reprisals, the same as for any other violation of international
comity.”
These declarations, sir, respond exactly to what I have had the honor
of requiring of you, and bring us to agree upon the object we have
in view. We have, therefore, no longer any objection to withdraw
from the confederares the quality of belligerents; and I am happy to
congratulate you upon the opportunity which presents itself to
revive the old sympathies of the two peoples whose interests and
traditions constantly invite them to cultivate the most cordial
friendship.
Receive, sir, the assurances of the high consideration with which I
have the honor to be, your very humble and obedient servant,
Monsieur Bigelow,
Minister of the United States at
Paris,
