The Trent affair, including a review of English and American relations at the beginning of the Civil War

Contents

Introduction 7

Chapter,

I. Relations with England it

Introduction

The history of the diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the United States suggests an interesting and valuable field to the student of Anglo-American history and international law. It is a fertile field, still largely unworked. No one, so far as I know, has yet ventured upon an exhaustive and connected discussion of the important subjects which this theme involves. One of the most interesting and unwritten chapters in this history is to be found in the relations between Great Britain and the United States during our civil war, as illustrated in the case of the Trent and the discussion to which this case gave rise. Much has been written on this celebrated case. Mr. Harris has set for himself the task of examining the literature of the subject, of reviewing the original material, and placing in brief and accessible shape the important and essential features of the discussion. All who wish a ready access to a faithful review and complete resume of this notable chapter in our foreign relations will appreciate his service.

The right of search is historically a very interesting subject. On two notable occasions it brought us into serious collision with Great Britain. One of these occasions was in the war of 1812, the other in the affair of

the Trent in 1861. The war of 18121s to be studied chiefly as a part of the history of international law. The reader who turns his attention to this war will, therefore, desire to bring within his viev/ the history of the affair of the Trent. The merits of the two discussions, in 1806-1812 and 1861, are inseparable. Mr. Madison and Mr. Seward, the American contributors to the diplomatic literature of this discussion, are to be considered together. It will thus be seen that a competent account of the case of the Trent and the principles of public law which it involves brings within the view a pretty wide range of historical discussion.

One of the prominent causes of the war 1812 was the right, then claimed by Great Britain, of searching the vessels of the United States upon the high seas for British subjects, with the purpose of impressing them into the service of the British navy. The way in which Great Britain exercised this power of search did more than all other causes combined to arouse irritation and antagonism in America. Mr. Webster, in his correspondence with Lord Ashburton, in 1842, gave an American definition of this assumed right. "England asserts the right," says Mr. Webster, *'of impressing British subjects in time of war out of neutral ships and of deciding by her visiting officers who among the crew of such merchant ships are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal prerogative of the crown, which prerogative is alleged to be founded on the English law of perpetual and indissoluble allegiance of the subject and his obligation, under all circumstances, and for his whole life, to render military service to the crown whenever required."

INTR ODUC TION. g

Great Britain did not renounce this right at Ghent in 1814, nor has she at any time since specifically surrendered it. But the right of search, for such a purpose as England then asserted it, is now obsolete. It is safe to say that it will never again be attempted in time of war against any vessel flying a neutral flag. American diplomacy has contributed not a little to this desirable result.

In 1 86 1 a public armed vessel of the United States forcibly searched an English mail steamer for the purpose of recovering certain gentlemen who were claimed as citizen subjects of the United States. The act was not one of hostility toward England, nor as an act of search was it nearly so provoking as many which had been previously committed by Great Britain against us. The case arising out of this seizure is a subject of the first importance in our national history, and the result of the case, with the diplomatic discussion between Mr. Seward and Lord Lyons, may be said to have finally established, as permanent public law, the principle underlying the preceding historic American contention on this subject. The history of the case, its political aspects, the diplomatic discussions to which it gave rise, the principles of law which it has helped to establish, the opinions of eminent publicists, the conclusions of international law, and the relation of the case to preceding discussions, — these themes indicate the scope of Mr. Harris's essay.

James A. Woodburn.

Indiana University.

Chapter I. Relations With England

Undisturbed relations have not always existed between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The English colonies in the New World quarreled continually with their mother country. Finally revolution and war enabled the colonists to free themselves from English rule, although causes of dispute have ever continued to exist. A continuous record of the international difficulties between the United States and England would form no inconsiderable part of American history.

An almost unbroken succession of disputes has occupied the attention of statesmen in both countries for more than a century. The Federal government had scarcely been organized when the first serious cause of trouble arose. England claimed the right forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace. Thousands of American citizens having been impressed into the British naval service, the arbitrament of war was resorted to. This did not decide the matter. The abstract right of search and seizure was steadily maintained by England for almost half a century after the close of the war of 1812. An attempt to put it into practice again off the coast of Cuba in the spring of 1858 caused an outburst of popular indignation in every part of the United States, and American war vessels in Cuban waters were immediately ordered to resent such outrages at all hazards. This looked like war, and, without further delay. Great Britain abandoned the claim for which she had so long contended. 1 Boundary disputes were a cause of much agitation for many years. Long and tedious negotiation was required to adjust the northwestern boundary of the United States between Maine and New Brunswick. Although the American claims in this region were ably presented and fairly established, British writers have repeatedly asserted that the United States government, in this instance, accomplished its purposes by means which were unfair, unjust, and entirely unworthy of modern diplomacy. ^

Scarcely had a treaty been concluded by which this boundary was settled when the Oregon question became one of great prominence, and in 1844, the alliterative campaign cry of " fifty- four forty or fight" testified to the serious character of the dispute. A settlement was finally effected by conceding most of the English claims, although ex-President John Quincy Adams and other equally noted Americans protested against what seemed to them a disgraceful surrender. The details of the various controversies caused by English conduct during

* See Schuyler's American Diplomacy, pp. 262-3.

* London Quarterly Review, No. 221, p. 261; Westminster Review, Vol. xxi, pp. 222-3. For a full discussion of the northwestern boundary question, see Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. vn, p. 180.

DISPUTES WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 13

the American civil war are fresh in the memory of a generation still living. In our own time fishery disputes have tested the skill of diplomatists in both countries.

There has probably never been a time, however brief , in the history of the United States when absolutely no cause of difference existed between the two nations. At the present date (1895) one hundred seven presidential messages reviewing the state of the country have been submitted to the American congress at the opening of its regular sessions. It is a significant fact that seventy-eight of these messages — almost three-fourths of them — have called the attention of congress to difficulties of more or less importance with Great Britain. To the seventy-eight messages of the latter class every president has contributed except Garfield, Taylor, and William Henry Harrison.

Toward the close of the year i860, however, British and American international affairs had assumed a much more favorable aspect than usual. All of the most perplexing and dangerous questions which had so long disturbed the relations of the two countries had been peaceably and finally settled. This result gave the greatest satisfaction to the people and government of the United States. In his message to congress at the opening of the session in December, i860. President Buchanan said: "Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and from the right of search claimed by the British government have been amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant

H

THE TRENT AFFAIR.

constructions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this government.

"It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our fellow-citizens and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has been abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the peace of the two nations which has existed since the war of iSi3. While it remained open they might at any moment have been precipitated into a war.

"The only question of any importance which still remains open is the disputed title between the two governments to the Island of San Juan in the vicinity of Washington territory." It was evident that both countries were expecting this question to be settled without any trouble.

The president also said in the same message: "The recent visit of the Prince of Wales in a private character to the people of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event. In its consequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate the government and people of both countries in their political and social intercourse with each other."

Lord Lyons, the British minister at Washington, truly said of this message that its language was the most cordial in character of any which had ever appeared in

VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

such a communication. The British government and people appeared to appreciate the friendship and good feeling for them which prevailed in the United States at that time. As an evidence of this fact Queen Victoria sent her son, the Prince of Wales, on a visit to the United States in the latter part of the year i860 — the event referred to in President Buchanan's message. The Prince was received everywhere with the hearty and enthusiastic welcome which was due to such a distinguished personage. After the visit had terminated, the British minister at Washington was directed to express the thanks of her majesty and to say to the president and citizens of the United States that one of the main objects which she had in view in sanctioning the visit of her son to America was to prove "the sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and regard which her majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations." "Her majesty trusts," continued the British minister, "that the feeling of confidence and affection, of which late events have proved beyond all question the existence, will long continue to prevail between the two countries to their mutual advantage and to the general interests of civilization and humanity. I am commanded to state to the president that the queen would be gratified by his making known generally to the citizens of the United States her grateful sense of the kindness with which they received her son, who has returned to England deeply impressed with all he saw during his progress through the states, and more especially so with the friendly and cordial good-will manifested towards him on every occasion and by all classes of the community." *

This message was promptly answered by the American assistant secretary of state, who said among other things: "I am instructed by the president to express the gratification with which he has learned how correctly her majesty has appreciated the spirit in which his royal highness was received throughout the republic, and the cordial manifestation of that spirit by the people of the United States which accompanied him in every step of his progress. Her majesty has justly recognized that the visit of her son aroused the kind and generous sympathies of our citizens, and, if I may so speak, has created an almost personal interest in the fortunes of the royalty which he so well represents. The president trusts that this sympathy and interest towards the future representative of the sovereignty of Great Britain are at once an evidence and a guaranty of that consciousness of common interest and mutual regard which have bound in the past, and will in the future bind together more strongly than treaties, the feelings and the fortunes of the two nations which represent the enterprise, the civilization, and the constitutional liberty of the same great race."^

While the Prince of Wales was in the United States the London Times described his visit to the tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon and his planting a chestnut while there. The closing paragraph read as follows: "It seemed, when the royal youth closed the

* Lord Lyons to Gen. Cass, U. S. secretary of state, Dec. 8, i860.

• Mr. Trescott to Lord Lyons, Dec. 11, i860.

ENGLISH FRIENDSHIP FOR AMERICA. 17

earth around the little germ, that he was burying the last faint trace of discord between us and our great brethren in the west." Other English newspapers, in commenting upon the prince's welcome in America, gave utterance to sentiments which were extremely cordial in character. Two extracts from leading London papers may be noticed. "Thus we believe an alliance has been consolidated which will endure for the mutual benefit, not only of the two nations, but of the civilized world." 1 "At no time could we desire more earnestly than we do now the close alliance of the great Anglo- Saxon family." 2

Opportunities were soon to be offered for testing the sincerity of those recently expressed "sentiments of esteem and regard which her majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations." South Carolina seceded December 17, i860. Other states followed her example. A hostile government was organized within the territory of the United States. A war cloud was rapidly gathering upon the American political horizon. Lord Lyons duly reported all of these occurrences to his government. On February 4, 1 86 1, in a communication addressed to Lord John Russell, the British minister for foreign affairs, Lord Lyons gave a detailed account of Mr. Seward's views concerning the state of the country and of his plans for securing the peaceable return of the seceding states to "the confederation." In this dispatch the American union is characterized as a "confederation."

, * London Post, Nov. 16, i860.

• London News, Nov. 16, i860. 2

Since the adoption of the constitution no such use of the word "confederation" had ever been made in any diplomatic communication. It was indicative of the English view of the nature of the American union.

Lord John Russell replied to the above communication just two weeks before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated. After saying that the success or failure of Mr. Seward's plans were matters of deep interest to her majesty's government and that it was not their duty to offer advice, Lord Russell said: "Supposing, however, that Mr. Lincoln, acting under bad advice, should endeavor to provide excitement for the public mind by raising questions with Great Britain, her majesty's government feel no hesitation as to the policy they would pursue. They would in the first place be very forbearing. They would show by their acts how highly they value the relations of peace and amity with the United States. But they would take care to let the government which multiplied provocations and sought quarrels understand that their forbearance sprung from the consciousness of strength and not from the timidity of weakness. They would warn a government which was making political capital out of blustering demonstrations that our patience might be tried too far."i

It is not easy to understand why Lord Russell should make use of such language at this time. Only seventytwo days before this dispatch was written, the most cordial feelings of "confidence and affection" for the American people had been professed in the communication concerning the visit of the Prince of Wales, and in

* Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, Feb. 20, 1861.

LORD RUSSELL'S THREATS. 19

the meantime not an unkind word had been used in the correspondence of either government. His lordship may have seen in a settlement of the American domestic difficulties something which was unfavorable to British interests. The occasion certainly was not one which called for an offensive and unprovoked threat from the British minister for foreign affairs. He did not lose the opportunity, however, to utter an official warning to the American government that British patience "might be tried too far."

From many similar instances in the official career of that statesman, it is certain that Lord Russell himself never lost a favorable opportunity to "make political capital out of blustering demonstrations."

AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.

1. Annual messages of the presidents of the United States, I 789-1894.

4. London newspapers: The Times, News and Post, November, i860.

5. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.

6. Schuyler, Eugene: American Diplomacy.

7. Westminster Review, Vol. xxi.

8. Winsor: Narrative and Critical History of America.

Chapter II. English Sympathy For The Confederacy

From the beginning of the secession movement the central aim of the Federal government and of the loyal people of the United States was to preserve the Union. It was the principle of union which had brought the American colonies together and enabled them to establish their independence. It was only after a "more perfect union" had been formed that prosperity and power at home and influence abroad had come to the United States as a nation. It was clearly seen that, if the principle of secession were once established, there would be nothing to prevent the great American commonwealth from crumbling into fragments. The honorable position of the United States among the nations of the world, as well as all of the good results at home which had been gained by more than three-quarters of a century of union, would be irretrievably lost. But these were not the only bad effects likely to follow successful secession. It was the avowed intention of the leaders of this movement to establish in the southern states a republic whose very corner-stone was slavery. With an immense slave population, with almost absolute control of the cotton supply of the world, with a people that took pride in the military art, with able and experienced leaders, the founding and future success of such a republic would have been attended by evil consequences which no one could foretell.

For these reasons the government and loyal people of the United States earnestly hoped that the secession movement would not receive any support or encouragement from foreign nations, especially from England. The members of the English cabinet at that time were all bitterly opposed to slavery and had been in full sympathy with the great movements which had utterly destroyed it within the limits of the empire.

The existence of slavery in the South had caused much annoyance to the English government and people. Negro subjects of the queen were being constantly kidnapped in southern ports and sold into slavery. To obtain redress in such cases was impossible. The escape of fugitive slaves into British territory was another cause of much trouble. Only a short time before the secession movement began all England had been shocked by the report that a British captain had been tarred and feathered at Charleston for allowing a negro to sit down at the table with him in his own vessel. All of these matters, however, were quickly forgotten. From the very beginning it was evident that English sympathy was with the South. It was apparently forgotten that such a course meant support and encouragement for human slavery — that institution which was so abhorred by the people and statesmen of England. Consistency in this matter alone would seem to indicate that the British government and people could not afford to sympathize with any sort of movement which had for its

ENGLISH STMPATHT FOR CONFEDERATES. 23

principal object the founding of a new republic especially to perpetuate and extend slavery. None of these considerations, however, seemed to exert any influence. With rare exceptions, the press, the people, and the government were heart and soul with the South in its efforts for the dismemberment of the American commonwealth. Mr. Justin McCarthy says: "The vast majority of what are called the governing classes were on the side of the South. London club life was virtually all southern. The most powerful papers in London, and the most popular papers as well, were open partisans of the southern confederation." ^ A writer in the Atlantic Monthly for November, i86i,says: "We have read at least three English newspapers for each week that has passed since our troubles began ; we have been a reader of these papers for a series of years. In not one of them have we met the sentence or the line which pronounces hopefully, with bold assurance for the renewed life of our Union. In by far the most of them there is reiterated the most positive and dogged averment that there is no future for us."

Even the great and conservative English quarterlies aided the newspapers in their efforts to encourage and justify the secession movement. A writer in the Edinburgh Review discussed the situation in the United States. His ability to do this may be readily inferred from his assertion that, "under the existing constitution of the United States which the freemen of the North are in arms now to defend, slavery must be considered to form a part and parcel of the law of the Union." To establish this proposition he then quoted from an amend-

* History of Our Own Times, Vol. n, pp. 224-225.

ment to the constitution which, he said, provided that that instrument could never in future be so amended as to give congress pov^er to abolish or interfere with slavery in any state. This, the writer said, was "the very last amendment or addition to the constitution passed on the 3d March of this year, that is, on the eve of President Lincoln's inauguration." In reviewing the condition of the people of the North he said : "They are fighting for territorial dominion." In defining for his readers just what was meant by "territorial dominion," he proceeded to tell them that it was "the power to enforce the will of the North over the South by superior force — to compel the minority, which is a local majority, to submit, in a word, to command the country and to subdue the people. If this be not the object for which the Americans of the Union are contending against the disunionists, we confess our inability to apprehend it, for no lesser object could justify a war conducted on such a scale." '

A writer in the Quarterly Review said: "We believe the conquest of the South to be a hopeless dream, and the reunion of the states in one all-powerful republic an impossibility.

"There is verge and room enough on the vast continent of America for two or three, or even more, powerful republics, and each may flourish undisturbed, if so inclined, without being a source of disquiet to its neighbors. There will be no loss of anythingwhich conduces to the general happiness of mankind. For the contest on the part of the North now is undisguisedly for empire.

"As to the attempt to subjugate the Confederate

* Edinburgh Review, Oct., 1861.

POSITION OF ENGLISH ^UAR TBRLIES 25

States, supposing it succeeded, what then? Is the North prepared to hold the South by the same tenure that Austria holds Venetia ? And is there a statesman in the Union who believes that in future it could be held in any other way ?

"But the idea of a federal republic of which the onehalf is in deadly hostility to the other, and coerced into a hateful partnership, involves a practical contradiction. It would no longer be the union of free states but a tyranny." 1 The same writer confidently predicted secession among the northern states on account of excessive taxation and the hardships incident to war.

A writer in the Westminster Review said: "The North is fighting to defend an abstraction — the constitution — the South to defend his home, his wife and his children.

"Without nicely balancing the virtues of the contending parties, they (Englishmen) can not help believing that moderation, justice and national honor will find ampler development in a divided republic." 2

Early in 186 1 a prominent Englishman of Liverpool published a book designed to inform the British public concerning the American situation. This book was extensively circulated and did much to influence public opinion in England. The most extreme views of the secessionists were upheld and defended. The attempt to restore the Union was denounced as a lamentable delusion which had been undertaken as a result of excitement in the North. The author's position is well stated in the following quotation: "Secession is a just and

* London Quarterly Review, No. 221. 'Westminster Review, Vol. xxi, p.212.

clear constitutional right of the states, and no violation of any enactment of the Federal compact." ^

The queen in her speech from the throne, February 5, 1 86 1, referred to American affairs and expressed a conventional wish that the "differences might be susceptible of a satisfactory adjustment," Concerning this expression Mr. Toumlin Smith soon afterward said : "Those last loose words are characteristic of the very loose notions that are common in England on the subject of what used to be the United States of North America. It is, from the very nature of the facts, no other than impossible that the 'differences' can be 'susceptible' (whatever that means) of satisfactory adjustment." 2

Such expressions of opinion from these various sources, advanced so early in the great struggle and uttered with such confidence, were on many accounts most unwarranted and mischievous. The press was a most powerful factor In molding and directing English public opinion in favor of the Confederacy. Its course also tended to prejudice the Union cause in the eyes of the world and, at the same time, to establish the insurgent cause as a just one. This produced a corresponding degree of discouragement among the friends of the Union.

A very large majority of the most prominent public men of England never lost an opportunity to express unfavorable opinions concerning the northern cause. The following quotations are indicative of the sentiment which prevailed among them :

* Spence's "The American Union," p. 246.

* Parliamentary Remembrancer, Vol. iv, p. 3.

VIEWS OF PROMINENT ENGLISHMEN.

Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton: "I venture to predict that the younger men here present will live to see not two, but at least four, separate and sovereign commonwealths arising out of those populations which a year ago united their legislation under one president and carried their merchandise under one flag. I believe that such separation will be attended with happy results to the safety of Europe and the development of American civilization. If it could have been possible that as population and wealth increased all the vast continent of America, with her mighty sea-board and the fleets which her increasing ambition as well as her extending commerce would have formed and armed, could have remained under one form of government, in which the executive has little or no control over a populace exceedingly adventurous and excitable, why, then America would have hung over Europe like a gathering and destructive thunder cloud. No single kingdom in Europe could have been strong enough to maintain itself against a nation that had consolidated the gigantic resources of a quarter of the globe." 1

Lord John Russell: "The struggle is on the one side for empire, and on the other for power."' On another occasion he said: "On the one hand, President Lincoln, in behalf of the northern portion of the late United States, has issued a proclamation declaratory of an intention to subject the ports of the southern portion of the late Union to a vigorous blockade," ^ etc.

* From an address before the Agricultural Society of Hertford County, September 25, 1861.

* Speech at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1861.

' Extract from dispatch of Lord J. Russell to Lord Cowley, British minister at Paris, dated Foreign Office, May 6, 1861, See Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Vol. Lxvii, p. 531. The italics are the author'8.

a8 THE TRENT AFFAIR.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: "I see in America the trial of democracy and its failure. I believe that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and that men now before me will live to see an aristocracy established in America."'

Sir John Pakington, M. P.: "From President Lincoln downward there is not a man in America who will venture to tell us that he really thinks it possible that by the force of circumstances the North can hope to compel the South to again join them in constituting the United States."^