Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of
State.
[Enclosure No. 1.]
Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys.
Legation of the United
States.
Paris, June 12, 1865.
Sir: In the official report of a speech
made by his excellency the minister of state on the 9th instant, I
find an erroneous statement, which, to prevent any possible
misapprehension between your excellency and myself, I hasten to
bring to your notice.
After speaking of the declarations made at Boston by General
Rosecrans in reference to the alleged recruiting of American
soldiers for the Mexican army, M. Rouher is reported to have said:
“Pendant que ces declarations se faisaient à Washington et à New
York, elles recevaient ici leur sanction et leur consecration
formelle; le ministre des Etats Unis se presentait a notre ministre
des affiaires ètrangères et lui disait: Sans doute nous ne voyons
pas d’un œil favorable une monarchie s’etablir au Mexico. Sans doute
nous preferons les formes republicaines; mais nous respectons la
volontè des peupleset des nations; nous comprenons que le Mexique,
qui a èté longtemps regi par la forme monarchique veuille reveniv à
cet ètat de choses; il nous n’irons pas faire la guerre pour une
question de forme de gouvernement.”
[Page 395]
[Translation.]
“While these declarations were being made at Washington and at New
York, they received here their sanction and formal consecration. The
minister of the United States presented himself also to our minister
of foreign affairs, and said to him: Without doubt we do not behold
with a favorable eye a monarchy established in Mexico. Without doubt
we prefer the republican form, but we respect the will of peoples
and of nations. We understand that Mexico, which had been long
governed by the monarchical form, may desire to return to that state
of things, and we are not going to make war upon a question of the
form of government.”
Mr. Rouher has probably misapprehended your excellency, for I am
persuaded that you could never have so entirely misunderstood my
language as to have reported me as saying that the people of the
United States understand that Mexico, after having been so long
subject to a monarchical form of government, may desire to return to
it. What I stated that may have given the impression which has
misled the minister of state was this, in brief: that now that the
experiment had been begun, the Americans wished to be fully tried,
under circumstances best calculated to determine, finally and
forever, whether European systems of government suited the Mexican
people best. If it should appear that they did, and public
tranquillity was restored, no nation was more interested in such a
result than her immediate neighbors. I added, that the success of
republican institutions in the Spanish American states had not been
such as to encourage us to attempt the propagation of them there
otherwise than by our example, and that whatever government was
acceptable to the Mexican people would be satisfactory to us.
I trust to your excellency’s memory to confirm me in the assertion
that I never expressed to you any opinion or impression importing
that the Mexican people desired a monarchical government. In saying
that the success of republican institutions in Spanish America had
not been such as to justify us in becoming their armed
propagandists, I did not countenance the inference that the Mexicans
themselves were dissatisfied with the form of government under which
they had been living prior to the occupation of their capital by
French troops.
I beg your excellency will take such measures as may seem to you
proper to correct the error into which the minister secretary of
state, in common with his hearers, appears to have been
betrayed.
I desire to avail myself of this occasion to correct another
misapprehension which has become accredited by publication in the
official journal.
The Moniteur, of the 10th instant, speaking of the neutrality of
France between the United States and the late insurgents in the
slave States, says:
“La situation étant aujourdhui changée et le gouvernement federal
ayant fait connaître son intention de ne plus exercer à l’egard des
neutres les droits qui resultaient pour lui de l’ètat de guerre, le
gouvernement de l’Empereur n’a pas cru devoir plus longtemps
reconnaître de belligerants dans les Etats Unis d’Amerique.”
[Translation.]
“The situation being to-day changed, and the federal government
having made known its intention no longer to exercise towards
neutrals the rights which were imposed upon it as a consequence of
the state of war, the government of the Emperor has not deemed it
its duty longer to recognize belligerents in the United States of
America.”
I presume reference is here made to the communication which I had the
honor to submit to your excellency on the 29th ultimo, extracts from
which were quoted by your excellency in a subsequent communication
to me, announcing the withdrawal of belligerent rights from the
insurgents. Assuming such to be the authority from which the
Moniteur makes the statement which I have cited, I feel it my duty
to say that, thus far, the federal government of the United States
has made no renunciation of any rights which belonged to it as a
belligerent. It has ceased to exercise such rights, I presume, but I
am not aware that it has renounced them.
The communication to your excellency of the 29th ultimo was in reply
to a previous declaration of your excellency that a renunciation by
us of the belligerent right of visit and capture of neutral ships
must be a condition precedent to the withdrawal of belligerent
rights from the American insurgents by France.
In arguing the inconveniences of making these measures dependent one
upon the other, I stated that “the United states government, in
applying for a repeal of the declaration of June, 1861, abandoned
any of the rights of belligerent which it is
presumed to have claimed, and became directly responsible
for anything 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.” That is to say, we abandoned any belligerent rights which,
upon the theory of your excellency, we only shared in common with
the insurgents, and, upon that theory, would be responsible for
anything we might do in our proper character as belligerents.
These observations were based upon the doctrine of belligerent rights
propounded in the communication to which I was replying without
either admitting or denying its correctness.
[Page 396]
Should my government be of the opinion that a
nation may he entitled to the privileges of belligerent in
suppressing a rebellion, without thereby conferring belligerent
rights upon the rebels, it might not be prepared to renounce the
practice of visiting and searching neutral vessels so long as that
remedy was necessary for the national security. Your excellency will
remember that I made no concealment of the fact that I had no
instructions from my government to offer or accept any conditions to
be attached to the withdrawal of the declaration of June, 1861. I
merely argued the inconvenience and unreasonableness of the
conditions attached to its withdrawal upon premises assumed by your
excellency. The final suppression of the rebellion in the United
States, of which intelligence has reached us since the
correspondence under consideration took place, deprives the matter
to which I have invited your excellency’s attention of much of its
practical importance, at the same time it is as well that the
communications, both oral and written, which I had the honor to
submit on the 27th ultimo, should not acquire in their re-statement
any importance not properly belonging to them.
I beg, therefore, that nothing I have written or said to your
excellency may be regarded as an acceptance of the principle that
the assertion of belligerent rights by a nation against its
rebellious subjects necessarily confers upon the latter belligerent
rights.
I beg to renew to your excellency 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 Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
