Shooting of Colonel Kimball
|
This Site:
|
MAY 2, 1863.] HARPER'S WEEKLY. 275 (Previous Page) England is quibbling, evasive, and confused. The Solicitor-General says that the offense if committed is an infraction of municipal law merely, and that it is at the option of Britain to enforce it or not. If we wish to complain we may do so, and if we can bring sufficient legal evidence the British Government will probably stop the proceedings. We answer that a friendly power will not hesitate, under such grave circumstances as those of this war, to detain ships upon suspicion as we did during the Crimean war: and that when she stands out upon purely technical grounds, when the moral proof is overwhelming to all the world, she reveals a disposition which is not friendly. Thereupon the British Government replies that to sell and fit a vessel of war is no more unfriendly than to sell guns and ammunition to either party. To which the answer is conclusive that the English laws themselves make a difference, which is recognized by international law, and by the very action of the British Government, which, at the last moment, and of course too late, sent to stop the Alabama. When merchants sell goods they are used at the option of the buyer; but when a ship-builder like Mr. Laird builds ships for a purpose of which Mr. Laird does not even pretend ignorance, and which is to prey upon the commerce of a friendly power, there is a breach not only of the municipal, but of international, law. And, as the London Daily News remarks, it is for the Solicitor-General to answer why Mr. Laird, after his open confession of guilt, was not indicted by the Government: since by the proclamation of neutrality the Queen warned her subjects against "violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in behalf of neutrality, or the law of nations in relation thereto." The case is very simple. Our commerce is ruined by ships built in England, manned in England, armed in England, sailing from English harbors, entering only English ports, flying only the English flag until just at the moment of striking, when they run up a flag which is no more recognized as a national flag, by any government in the world, than a red bandana handkerchief. We respectfully represent the facts. The Prime Minister smirks, the Solicitor-General twiddles his thumbs, and says that his Government can not help it. Are we not forced then to ask how we can help ourselves? If the difficulty lies in English laws which the Government will not execute, or in the law of nations, which it chooses to disregard, the result for us is the same. Our ships are hunted from the sea, and our commerce is transferred to British vessels. It remains, then, for this nation merely to consider when, and in what way, it will be most wise for it to defend itself. EDWARD EVERETT DIFFUSING "SOUND POLITICAL INFORMATION."MR. EDWARD EVERETT has recently made a speech which we commend to the attention of Mr. G. Ticknor Curtis, Mr. James Brooks, and other Bell-Everett members of the Delmonico Committee for diffusing sound political information. One passage in it is especially addressed to people who hold with Mr. G. Ticknor Curtis that this war is waged unconstitutionally: "But it may be asked again, how can we support an Administration which adopts measures that we deem unconstitutional? I should certainly be a very unfaithful pupil of the political school in which I was trained if I could ever hear the sacred name of the Constitution justly invoked without respect, or yield to it any thing less than implicit obedience. It is, however, as great an error to appeal to it where it does not apply, as to disregard it where it does: and I must say that the study of our political history ought to teach us caution in this respect; for from the formation of the Government in 1789 to the present day there has not been an important controverted measure—no, not one—which its party opponents have not denounced as unconstitutional. It is one of the doctrines of the seceding school that the Government of the United States could not constitutionally wage war against a sovereign State. But how if the sovereign State strikes the first blow, fires on your vessels, bombards and captures your forts, threatens your capital, and invades the loyal members of the Union who refuse to join in the war of oppression? "Few, I suppose, will doubt that the United States may constitutionally wage a war of self-defense against any enemy, domestic or foreign. But in waging this war of self-defense we can not, in the opinion of some persons with whom I have usually acted and whose judgment I greatly respect, go beyond the powers specially granted by the Constitution to the General Government for the purposes of ordinary administration in time of peace. This opinion seems to me to rest on a misconception of the authority under which war is waged. The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy, and it clothes the President with the power of Commander-in-Chief. It goes no further. It prescribes nothing as to the enemy against whom, the measures by which, nor the ends for which the war may be carried on. It gives no more power to wage war with a foreign State than with a domestic State; and it is as silent upon the subject of blockading the ports as of seizing the cotton or of emancipating the slaves of a district in rebellion. The rights of war belong to the more comprehensive, in some respects the higher, code of international law, to which not the Government of the United States alone, but all civilized governments are amenable. By that august code all unjust wars are forbidden, and all unjust modes of waging just wars, no matter who may be the enemy or what the pretext: while, by the same code, all just wars, and eminently all wars of self-defense, and all warlike measures sanctioned by our Christian civilization, are permitted, unless so far as they may be expressly prohibited by the municipal law of our own country." Mr. Everett then supposes that misunderstanding with Spain had led to war, and that Florida had tried to return to her, and carry Key West, Fort Pickens, and the Tortugas—and he asks: "Would any one doubt that the United States could, without violating the Constitution, invade Florida, in order to recover the public property, the islands, the forts, and the national establishments thus seized: to repel the enemy: to chastise these acts of hostility to the National Government, and to take effectual security that they should not be repeated? Would not the Government of the United States, without violating the Constitution, be authorized to do precisely the same things in Florida as in Cuba? Would not the arming and employing of the slaves in this just war, as allies inured to the climate and acquainted with the country, be as legitimate on one side of the Gulf of Florida as on the other? and would not their employment under the authority of the United States, and the control and direction of its officers, instead of tending to a servile war and the massacre of the unarmed and defenseless (at which humanity revolts), be the surest means of preventing such barbarities, and reducing this frightful element of danger within the limits of Christian warfare?" "COLD AND UNFRIENDLY NEUTRALITY."IN the recent debate upon the Alabama in the British Parliament John Bright, after speaking of the fourteen steamers that were building in England for the rebels, described the attitude of Great Britain toward this country as "a cold and unfriendly neutrality." Lord Palmerston, in closing the debate, surpassed his customary insolence. He sneered at the cry against England as part of the ordinary "political capital" of this country. He said that a nation which had set aside its own laws naturally supposed that other nations could do the same. And he spoke of this Government as "the Northern Union," although he knows that the Union with which his own Government, of which he is the head, has treaties of amity and commerce is the United States, both North and South. The British residents in this country are accustomed to speak with the utmost bitterness and contempt of Mr. Seward's tone toward England as insolent. But all the insolence that can be found in all the speeches Mr. Seward ever made, or in all the dispatches he ever wrote, is surpassed by the haughty and intolerable tone of this one speech of Palmerston's. It was a cool, studied insult to a power at peace with Great Britain; and in its way it does as much mischief as the pirates whom it excuses. But in replying to Mr. Bright Lord Palmerston laid himself open to a thrust which Bright spared him. The gentleman, said Lord Palmerston, speaks of "a cold and unfriendly neutrality. I do not know what the meaning of those terms may be; but they appear to me to be a contradiction in themselves. [Hear, hear.] If neutrality is more than friendly toward one party it is something very different toward the other [Laughter, and hear, hear], and ceases to be what in common parlance is meant by neutrality between contending parties." Precisely so, Mr. Bright might have replied; that is just what I say. British neutrality is cold and unfriendly toward the belligerent with which we have treaties, and which is a recognized power in the world; and it is something very different toward the belligerent whose national existence we do not recognize, whose flag is unknown to us, with which we have no treaty, and which is not acknowledged by any nation in the world. And this is British neutrality! This is the neutrality which the Prime Minister of England calls "honest and sincere"—the two most unfortunate words for the truth that the English language furnishes. FOREIGN WAR.THE speech of the Postmaster-General at the first Sumter meeting in New York was interesting and important, as showing the probable view of our English relations held by the Cabinet. The substance of his remarks was that England is so deeply interested in the success of the rebellion as to be about ready to take up arms for it; and that, under the present circumstances, we ought to avoid giving her a pretext for war. He preferred therefore, he said, the plan of the New York merchants who sent food to Lancashire rather than General Butler's plan of non-intercourse. Certainly the feeling between the two countries is very inflammable; and, as we have elsewhere said, in making up the account with England, it is for this nation to decide how it may most wisely defend itself against the practical hostility of Great Britain. The complacent reiterations by British papers and politicians of their honest neutrality, are too ludicrously criticised by facts to require any other attention. But we are not to forget that prudence is often the highest heroism. We must not forget, either, that war between America and England would be a misfortune for mankind. We must remember that if John Bull swaggers and blusters, we have ourselves often done the same thing, and every honorable man will be very slow to counsel extreme measures until all others have clearly failed. But the danger of war is evident from the enormous stake of Great Britain in our civil contest. She is on trial quite as much as we. The victory of this Government is a blow to every monarchical power in Europe. It is the justification of a popular system more overwhelming than years of peace could be, for during peace the monarchy has only to say, "Just wait till they are tried by war." Our triumph is the vindication of John Bright and his friends against the haughty Toryism of Britain, of the people of England against its aristocracy, of liberty and equality against privilege. But while this is the British political and social interest in our war, her commercial stake is not less. Emerging victorious from this struggle our fleets compose the most formidable navy in the world. The sceptre of the seas drops from the senile grasp of Britain. Whoever may be mistress of the ocean we shall be master, and there will be a formidable marine account unsettled between us. To see us destroyed in the first flush of our youth has been the hope of the British governing class, the instinct of her nobles and her merchants. The young Hartington, who did not refuse to insult his host and all his host's guests at a ball in this city, announces upon his return home the conviction, sprung from his instinctive desire, that we shall be ruined; while Laird, the ship-builder, speaking for another interest, boasts in Parliament of his disobedience to British laws in order to help on that ruin, while British law-makers eagerly listen and loudly applaud. To secure the fulfillment of this wish Mr. Blair thinks that England would easily allow herself to be drawn into armed assistance of the rebellion. Such an impression upon the mind of that member of the Cabinet, who is supposed to be most allied with Mr. Seward, added to our own knowledge of the spirit and acts of the British Government, should lead us to the utmost careful preparation and consideration. No American citizen can really wish a war with England; but it is the duty of every one to contemplate the chances; to act moderately and calmly; neither to fear war nor to provoke it; and to bear in mind that neither a wise man nor nation gives way to uncontrollable passion.
HARPER'S PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE GREAT
|
|
||
|
Site Copyright 2003-2018 Son of the South. For Questions or comments about this collection, contact paul@sonofthesouth.net |
|
Are you Scared and Confused? Read My Snake Story, a story of hope and encouragement, to help you face your fears. |