Mr. Dix to Mr. Seward

No. 90.]

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation of a note from the charge d’affaires of the republic of Paraguay in Paris, dated the 6th instant, addressed to me, and a note in French addressed by him on the 3d instant to the government of France and Great Britain, in regard to the recent fruitless attempt to bring to a termination the sanguinary war which is desolating the States of La Plata. At the request of Mr. Bareiro, the writer, I forward the letter to you in anticipation of his transfer to the city of Washington, as the diplomatic representative of his government. I have been associated with him for more than five months as a member of the diplomatic corps, and have a high appreciation of his intelligence and gentlemanly deportment.

I am, with distinguished consideration, your obedient servant,

JOHN A. DIX.

Hon, William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[Translation.]

Mr. Bareiro to Mr. Dix

General: I have the honor to transmit to your excellency a copy of a note dated the 3d instant, which I have addressed to the governments of France and England, to whom I am accredited, and in which I communicate to them a despatch* (copy enclosed) from my government to the honorable Mr. Washburn, minister resident of the United States in Paraguay, to thank him for the generous but vain effort to stop the bloody strife which my country sustains against the empire of Brazil and its allies.

This last despatch has been published in La Plata, and the Argentine government thought it incumbent upon them to answer by a memorandum, which undoubtedly is already known to your excellency. To me it seemed necessary not to leave this Argentine memorandum unanswered, and I have written my note of the 3d instant, mentioned below.

I pray your excellency, general, to make this note known to the honorable Mr. Seward, so that, aided by the considerations it contains, that enlightened minister may better appreciate the despatch of my government to the honorable Mr. Washburn, and the Argentine memorandum. Besides, this will be a sort of introduction to the flattering mission which I received to proceed to Washington, in order to express to the government of the United States the gratitude which my government owes to it for its good and generous offices, and also in order to enlighten him as to the nature, not less American than Paraguayan, of the great and powerful interests which have forced Paraguay into the unequal strife it sustains against those hostile to these interests.

Please accept, general, the assurance of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be your excellency’s very humble and obedient servant, the chargé d’affaires of Paraguay,

CANDIDO BAKEIRO.

General John A. Dix, United States Minister.

Note addressed to the governments of France and England.

[Translation.]

Mr. Minister: Pursuant to instructions which I have received from my government, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your excellency a translation of the original of a note which the minister for foreign affairs of Paraguay wrote to the minister resident of the United States at Asuncion on the occasion of the recent and vain attempt of the latter to put an end to the sanguinary struggle which has been desolating the States of the La Plata since more than two years.

[Page 244]

Your excellency will find in that document a short and truthful review of the causes which have brought about the war, and see expressed in it, in terms at once solemn, energetic and calm, the firm hope nourished by my government to triumph over its enemies.

The document having been made public on the La Plata, the minister for foreign affairs of the Argentine Republic thought it necessary to reply to it by a memorandum, of which your excellency will no doubt already have received a copy, and which, for my part, I deem it a duty not to leave unanswered.

The Argentine minister commences by accusing my government of an aggression without motive in the midst of peace; that at the time no misunderstanding had given occasion either to complaints or to claims or to the presentation of an ultimatum; indeed, that even a declaration of war had not been previously drawn up, since, according to what he says, the Argentine government did not receive notice of that formality until twenty days after the opening of hostilities. Moreover that, in acting in this manner, Paraguay had violated a treaty which constrained her not to make war on the Argentine Republic until six months after a declaration to that effect. “The Argentine government,” says the memorandum, “rested in the security of treaties and the usages of civilized nations when it was surprised by the news of the aggression of the President of Paraguay on the 13th of April.”

I will only oppose to this accusation two facts, and then pass completely in silence over the injurious expressions by which it is accompanied.

In the first place the treaty which, according to the Argentine minister, constrains Paraguay not to make war on the Argentine Republic until six months after declaring it, bears date 1856, and was only to endure for six years, so that it expired in the month of November, 1862—that is to say, two years and a half before the present war. The Argentine minister cannot ignore this circumstance, the less so because her Britannic Majesty’s minister at Buenos Ayres, Mr. Thornton, has already reminded him of it.

In the second place, the treaty of offensive and defensive alliance by which the governments of Brazil, of the Argentine Republic and of Uruguay, have united to overthrow the present government of Paraguay, disarm the Paraguyan people, ruin Paraguay by war subsidies, dismember her territory and impose upon her a degrading tutelage, at the same time regulating the navigation of the rivers to their own advantage. That treaty bears date the 1st of May, 1865, from which it follows that it was signed seventeen days after the opening of hostilities by Paraguay against the Argentine Republic, and less than fifteen days after the Argentine government, had notice of these hostilities; from which it consequently results that so far from resting in the security of treaties and the usage of civilized nations, as far as Paraguay is concerned, the Argentine government had been preparing for a long time to make war against her; and what a war, Mr. Minister; a war of extermination, as will appear evident from the contents of the treaty of the 1st of May, articles 6, 7, 14, 16, 17 and 18, and four of the provisions of the protocol. It is evident, in fact, that that treaty could not have been conceived, projected, submitted to the cabinet of Rio Janeiro, discussed, engrossed, and concluded in less than fifteen days.

You see, therefore, Mr. Minister, the author of the memorandum convicted of inaccuracy, and, I do not fear to say it, wilful inaccuracy, in two essential points of his task. What are we to think after this of his indignation against Paraguay, against that treacherous, perfidious, and barbarous adversary who attacks the Argentine Republic without motive in the midst of peace, &c.? This conviction renders my task more easy, at the same time permitting me to curtail it. I shall not, therefore, examine point by point the memorandum in question; if my government should hereafter deem it proper to do so, it will do it with an authority superior to mine, and also with the aid of information which I have not yet received. However, I shall reply to some accusations which tend to throw on my government the responsibility of asserting facts which are vague or doubtful, and especially of having been faithless, at a time when such faithlessness was really practiced so openly towards it, to the usages of civilized nations.

You allege complaints without proving them, without citing facts to support them, says, and frequently repeats, the memorandum to the minister of Paraguay. Let us not forget, Mr. Minister, that the note of my government is addressed to the minister of the United States, who knows of the alleged complaints and to whom it is not necessary to prove them. It is true that this note seems destined for publicity, but it is also true that the alleged complaints are based upon facts so well known in America, and even in Europe, that the minister of Paraguay would have thought to abuse the patience of those who were to read it by insisting upon manifestations which had become hackneyed for some years. No, Mr. Minister, it is no longer necessary to-day to show that the Argentine government, before 1852 and since 1862, have always been hostile to the independence of Paraguay and Uruguay; that they have raised up for those two countries all sorts of difficulties since fifty years; that they have fettered their commerce by numberless restrictions; and that as regards Uruguay principally, whose independence is like the guarantee of the independence of Paraguay, they have rarely left her in several years of continuous peace. The Argentine minister himself admits that, since he burdens anterior administrations with the responsibility of certain facts which he does not dare to deny; but nothing is more specious than this manner of arguing. Your excellency better than I understands the puerility of this theory which would separate the different administrations of the same country from that necessary solidarity which binds [Page 245] them together before foreign countries. Besides, could it even be recognized, this theory would not relieve the present administration of Buenos Ayres of the responsibility with which it is justly charged by my government, because the sympathy of that administration for the steady policy of the Dictator Rosas concerning Paraguay and Uruguay—a policy which had, perhaps, its excuse in the traditions of 1810, a little forgotten to-day at Buenos Ayes—because the sympathy of that administration, I say, springs very clearly out of its own policy and especially out of its secret treaty of the 1st of May. I would call to mind in this connection, Mr. Minister, that the restoration of what is called the territorial integrity of the former vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres is the dream of the men of the present government of the Argentine Republic as it was that of the Dictator Rosas. Of this your excellency will see the proof in the correspondence communicated to the English Parliament in 1865. In that correspondence, in fact, appears a letter of the minister of England at Buenos Ayres, Mr. Thornton, in which occurs the following passage of a conversation between the Argentine minister, author of the memorandum in question, and Mr. Thornton, himself: “Señor Elisalde, who is about forty years of age, said to me that he hoped to live long enough to see Bolivia, Paraguay, and the Argentine Republic united in one confederation and forming a powerful republic in South America.”

One word in passing, Mr. Minister, on the traditional and unchanged pretensions of Brazil relative to Uruguay. The Argentine minister says that these pretensions cannot be reconciled with those which my government ascribes to the Argentine Republic with reference to, the same country; the one must exclude the other, or they must annul each other. I agree with the Argentine minister that the simultaneous and identical pretensions of Brazil and the Argentine Republic relative to the Oriental State of Uruguay conflict with each other; but it does not result therefrom, by any means, that they exclude or annul each other. What blessing to humanity, Mr. Minister, if the conflicting claims of people always excluded or annulled each other in fact ! This would be universal peace instead of the war which their inconsistency engenders everywhere. The truth is, that the conflicting pretensions of Brazil and the Argentine Republic relative to Uruguay have narrowed down within the latter years, certain to oppose each other again, as it has happened already several times.

Another accusation of the Argentine minister bears on the fact that the Paraguayan government ought to have made known its grievances against the Argentine Republic in the usual manner—that is, asking amicable explanations in the first place; next, insisting upon receiving satisfaction; finally, drawing up an ultimatum. This accusation appears so serious and so peremptory to the Argentine minister that he reproduces it at every instant, and that he glories in advance over the silence to which he thinks surely to reduce my government.

It is well to ask ourselves here whether the Argentine minister knowingly laughs at public opinion, or whether he is really deceived as to the force of his accusation. My reason is unable to make a choice between the two hypotheses. Those upright and conciliating proceedings, that generous and benevolent forbearance for which he so loudly claims credit for his government, how were they applied by his government to the last legal government of Uruguay, whose ruin it has prepared and consummated under the cover of a fallacious neutrality; or to my government, for whom, without provocation, it prepared since a long time a still more cruel fate in meditating the treaty of the 1st of May? Does the Argentine minister suppose that international law serves only to ensnare the good faith of one party and favor the duplicity of the other?

All the States of the La Plata are solidary in a certain measure, the smaller especially, and the independence of one of them cannot be attacked without the others feeling themselves menaced. This is the reason why Paraguay was alarmed at the encroaching policy of Brazil and the Argentine Republic in Uruguay; and this is the reason why she saw herself forced into war, notwithstanding her traditional inclination to peace. She found herself once before, in 1845, in an analogous situation, and acted in a similar manner. There are not two ways of repelling force, especially when it comes disguised under false manifestations of sympathy and neutrality. Events have but too well verified the suspicions of my government. As to the pretension in the memorandum that it was it, my government, which provoked and kindled the war, it is really superfluous to gainsay it. Who would account it a crime in him whose life is menaced to anticipate his aggressors?

What will I say, in conclusion, of that last accusation of the Argentine minister, namely: that if the mediation of the United States has miscarried it is not the fault of the allies, who have declined it, but of the Paraguayan government which accepted it? It were difficult to carry to a greater extreme the love of paradox. Thus, therefore, it is my government which must still bear the responsibility of the continuation of the war and of all the evils resulting therefrom. It is true that by retiring and delivering over Paraguay to the signers of the treaty of May the government of Paraguay could cause the war to cease, but it would also cover itself with shame, and violate its duties and betray the great interests confided to its care; in short it would desert the charge of the most sacred trust which a people can confide to those who govern them—the integrity and independence of their country. To demand this of my government, or of the mediator who might generously interpose between it and its enemies, is evidently desiring the continuation of the war with the endless evils which result from it. Such is also the opinion of the minister of the United States to Paraguay, Mr. Washburn. Your excellency will see the energetic expression of it in the annexed translation [Page 246] of the protest which that minister addressed the 19th of last March to the Marquis of Caxias, the organ of the refusal by the allies of the offer of mediation which he transmitted to them on the part of his government.

Please accept, Mr. Minister, &c.

CANDIDO BAEEIRO, The Chargé d’Affaires of Paraguay.

His excellency Mr.____, &c.

  1. For this enclosure see despatch No. 85 of the 26th March, 1867, from the United States minister to Paraguay.