To The Right Hon. Lord DUNFERMLINE,
House of Lords, London.
New York, June 3, 1861
My Dear Lord Dunfermline,—The friendly relations which have existed during several years between us, and which I shall always cherish among the bright recollections of my sojourn at the Hague, induce me to address you this letter, for which I crave your kind and favorable consideration.
The unfortunate position into which a few reckless and selfish politicians, aided by the weakness of our late national administration, have thrown this country, is at this moment directing the serious attention of the British government and people toward us. Knowing your warm and active sympathy, and that of your noble and influential family, for the cause of constitutional liberty, I am sure that you are among those who watch with intense interest the phases of the dark drama which is now enacting on this continent, between the United States, struggling for their national existence, and a rebellious faction, attempting to overthrow our free institutions, in order to plant slavery on the whole American continent.
From the tenor of the English press, and the debates in Parliament, I am inclined to believe that there exists a serious misapprehension in the minds of your government and people in regard to the nature of the Southern rebellion, and the chances of its success.
If you allow me, I will give you my views on the present position of affairs here, in as short a space as the form of a letter, and my desire not to bore you with a lengthy epistle, will permit. I may claim that these views, however erroneous and imperfect they may prove, have at least the merit of fairness and impartiality. My politics have always been opposed to the party now in power, the advent of which has been used by the leaders of the Southern conspiracy as a watchword for an overthrow of our government. I was, and am, opposed to an useless agitation of the slavery question, and any infringement of the Constitutional rights of the South, under a fair and liberal construction, and am equally hostile to the anti-free-trade proclivities of the present administration.
You are doubtless aware that the so-called Republican (anti-slavery) party which is now in power, was first able to claim the position of a national party in 1854, in consequence of the daily increasing aggressions and demands of the pro-slavery oligarchy, which had gained the control of the executive and legislature of the Federal government. The dastardly assault upon Senator Sumner, from Massachusetts, provoked as it undoubtedly was by the violent language of that senator, and the fraud and violence with which the pro-slavery party attempted to force a slavery constitution upon the new State of Kansas, drove hundreds of thousands throughout the North into the ranks of the new party.
In 1856 that party, for the first time, put a candidate for the Presidency in nomination, upon the avowed doctrine of preventing the extension of slavery to our western Territories. Mr. Fremont was then defeated by Mr. Buchanan, who enjoyed the confidence of a very large majority of the conservative and influential portion of the country, and in whose sagacity, experience, and familiarity with public affairs, everybody hoped for a strong government, and for the suppression of the seditious cry of disunion which had been raised by the political leaders of the South ever since the formation of the Republican party.
In these expectations the country was sadly disappointed. Mr. Buchanan threw himself from the very outset into the arms of the very men who are now the rebel leaders of the South. His cabinet, chosen under such influences, sympathized, with one single exception, and was in secret league with the conspirators, giving them during the last four years ample time, means, and influence, in order to prepare their treasonable machinations.
The Secretary of War, convicted since his retirement of actual treason and fraud, had placed all the Federal forts in the South, and an immense quantity of arms, within their reach, so that when the time had come for them to throw down the mask they were enabled to give to their movement an appearance of strength and probability of success, which evidently has deceived public opinion in England.
Upon the first outbreak of secession, and when it was confined to the cotton States, there was also a large party at the North which was in favor of compromise measures, in order to bring the seceding States back to their allegiance. When these failed against the uncompromising attitude of the extremists South and North, they even went so far as to advocate a peaceable separation of the cotton States, convinced that the latter, when once out of the Union, would soon discover how fearfully they had been deceived by their selfish and designing leaders, and that they would be but too glad after a year or so to return into the confederacy.
The attack against Fort Sumter, the treachery of Virginia and North Carolina, and the conduct of Jeff. Davis, have, however, since then, produced a revolution in the public mind of the North, of the strength, intensity, and unanimity of which it would be impossible for me to convey to you even the faintest idea.
The people of the North see now revealed to them, in all their horrid nakedness, the treasonable schemes of the slavery oligarchy, who, while pretending to battle for their threatened Constitutional rights, have dragged the country to this fearful condition, for no other purpose but to insure to themselves the continuance of that power which they have wielded for the last forty years, and to fasten slavery, as a political element, upon this country. The North feels that to admit the right of secession claimed by the revolted States, would be forever to renounce our existence as a nation, and that a peaceful separation of fifteen slave States on one side, and seventeen free States on the other, divided only by an imaginary geographical line, must soon be followed by war and strife, however much treaties and diplomacy might attempt to prevent it. Besides, can it be expected that the powerful North and Northwest, with a hardy and industrious population of twenty-one millions of freemen, would quietly relinquish the mouth of the Mississippi, and all the seaports, from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande, into the possession of a foreign nation, ruled by unscrupulous and reckless politicians, who, for the sake of their odious domestic institution, and upon the strength of their cotton monopoly, would disregard and violate treaty-stipulations, whenever it would suit their convenience.
With a due appreciation of these considerations, it cannot be doubted that no sacrifice will be too great for the people of the North in support of their government, and the maintenance of the integrity of their country. We are all united, while we know that in Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama, a very considerable portion of the inhabitants are openly in favor of the Union, and we have good reason to suppose that a very numerous minority in the other cotton States, with the exception, perhaps, of South Carolina, is opposed to secession.
The contest must end in the victory of the government, but I fear that the position of neutrality taken by your government, which raises the rebels to the dignity of belligerents, will give them a moral support only calculated to prolong the war and its horrors.
We had hoped for the active sympathy and support of the British government and people, in our struggle against the spread of the institution of slavery, and against a rebellion, which, by the confession and boast of its leaders, is based upon that institution as its principal element of power.
We could not, of course, expect a direct interference of your government in our intestine quarrel, but we thought that, as they had heretofore done in the case of Greece, Italy, and Spain, the British people would be allowed to follow their noble instincts for freedom and constitutional liberty, and that the anti-slavery cause, which had always been so warmly advocated in England, would now find means, money, and men, in its dark hour of trial, to assist us against the most unjustifiable and criminal rebellion which has ever disgraced the annals of history.
These hopes have been most sadly disappointed by the proclamation of the Queen, declaring strict neutrality between the government of the United States and a portion of its citizens in rebellion against that government. It has, however, in no way lessened the determination of the United North to fight for the restoration of the integrity of their government to the last man. With the preponderance of men and resources which we possess over the South, the final result can only be a question of time; but if the British government desires, as it undoubtedly must, to see the length and horrors of this fratricidal war diminished, its true policy must be to avoid any thing which in the remotest way can give aid and comfort to the seceded States.
Our government has given, by one of the first acts of the new administration, its consent to the first article of the declaration of the Paris Conference on the right of neutrals, abolishing privateers. With its consent, all the maritime powers of the world have now united in declaring privateering piracy, and I hope sincerely that this progress in civilization and humanity will be secured by the acceptance of the consent of my government, notwithstanding that we were somewhat slow in making up our mind.
I trust, also, that the restrictions imposed by the Queen’s proclamation, by which British merchant-vessels are prohibited from carrying arms and munitions of war to either of the belligerents, may be repealed.
The Southern ports being blockaded by our navy, this restriction results of course to the direct advantage of the rebels, and prevents, moreover, your shipowners and manufacturers from realizing a legitimate profit by the manufacturing and carrying of English arms to our ports.
During the Crimean war, notwithstanding the strict neutrality of our government, our merchant-ships and steamers were chartered by the English and French authorities, for the carrying of troops and arms to the Crimea, and large numbers of arms were manufactured here, and sent in American vessels to England.
Our government did not interfere with its ship-owners and manufacturers in the lawful pursuit of their trade, and as the Russian ports were then in the same position as our Southern ports are at present, the neutral course of the United States resulted to the advantage of the allies.
I hope, my dear Lord Dunfermline, that you will excuse this very lengthy epistle, and I trust that your powerful influence will be exerted in favor of the cause of right, justice, and freedom. Your position in the House of Lords, and your intimate relations with Lord John Russell, give a peculiar weight to any steps you may feel induced to take in this important question.
The cordial good feeling of our people for Great Britain, and their deepfelt love and respect for the Queen, will be very much strengthened by an evidence of sympathy on the part of the British nation and government for our cause, which is that of justice and humanity.
If you have sufficient leisure left to let me hear from you, I shall be much gratified, and if I can learn from you that I have not in vain advocated the cause of my country, it will be a source of pride and happiness to me.
