A Few Letters and Speeches of the Late Civil War by August Belmont (DNC Chairman)

London

New York, June 18, 1861

While I was in Washington I had a two hours’ interview with our Secretary of State. Mr. Seward is clear in the position which he has taken with reference to the rebellion and the attitude into which the recognition of the Southern Confederacy, by any European government, will place the United States.

In that position the people will uphold our government at all hazards. There is no irritation of feeling on the part of the intelligent portion of our people against England, our papers, with one or two exceptions, treat the question very dispassionately, but there is a firm and unalterable determination not to allow a separation of this Union, whatever blood and treasure it may cost to conquer a peace and a reconstruction of the Confederacy.

To The Hon. W. H. Seward,

Washington, D. C.

New York, June 6, 1861

My Dear Sir,—In your last kind letter, you requested me to inform you, from time to time, of the phases of public opinion in Europe, as they may come to my knowledge. I shall do so with pleasure, but hope that you will excuse my request if I beg you to consider my communications as strictly confidential.

The letters received by last steamer from England are any thing but satisfactory. The cotton interest seems to have gained so complete an ascendency over every other consideration, that the anti-slavery feeling is entirely pushed into the background.

I fear that the British cabinet is seriously contemplating the recognition of the Southern Confederacy, and what is worse is the almost certainty that France will act in concert with England.

If you will not take it amiss, I will make bold enough to give you, as my candid opinion, that the Morrill tariff has had as much to do with the unfortunate state of feeling in Europe as any other circumstance.

England and France are compelled to keep their army and navy on the most extensive war footing, both mistrusting each other. In order to obtain the enormous sums required for such a state of things, both governments must bring every sacrifice of principle rather than see their commercial and manufacturing interests endangered. Our tariff and our blockade strike a mortal blow to both, and as we cannot, of course, give up the latter, it is certainly worthy the serious consideration of our government and people to see whether sound policy does not dictate the modification of tlje first. Apart from the change of public feeling which a return to free-trade principles would produce in England and France, I think that we absolutely require it in order to increase our revenue, which, under the present system, must continue to be very low. The only interest, in my opinion, for which the plea of protection can be advanced with any degree of justice, is our iron interest, and that can be sufficiently done by a specific duty.

For the rest there ought, in my opinion, to be an average duty of fifteen per cent., and coffee and tea might be taken from the free list.

The government will very soon require a new loan, probably not less than thirty or forty millions, and I confess, candidly, that I do not see any chance for the negotiation of it in Europe, unless the chances of an increased revenue are secured by such a measure.

Before the war can be brought to a satisfactory termination we shall require from fifty to one hundred millions of dollars at least, and I think it will be absolutely necessary to look to the European money market for at least a portion of that amount.

By a reduction of our tariff to fifteen per cent., we take away a very great inducement for France and England to force our blockade and to recognize the South. They evidently expect now, not only to get their supply of cotton, but also to export their produce and manufactures into the Southern ports, to be from there smuggled into the West and North.

With a duty of fifteen per cent., the South cannot defray her expenses of a war, even if the blockade should not exist, and will be obliged to have recourse to an export duty on cotton and tobacco, and nothing will bring out a Union feeling so soon as that, among the influential planting interest.

Excuse the freedom of the expression of my views—they are based upon the best information I can command, abroad and at home, and they are dictated by a sincere devotion to my government.

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.

To The Hon. W. H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

New York, May 29, 1861

My Dear Sir,—I am extremely obliged to you for the very kind and flattering manner with which you speak of a letter of mine to Baron Rothschild, of which a copy had been handed to you by Mr. Weed.

The Baron is a very intimate friend of Lord John Russell, both representing the city of London in Parliament, and he is on equally friendly relations with Lord Palmerston.

I know that his personal views and sympathies have been, and are, still, with the North, and I have no doubt but what he will communicate my views to his ministerial friends.

As you have given a favorable consideration to my views on the unfriendly attitude assumed by the British Crown, I beg to hand you the inclosed copy of another letter which I wrote yesterday to Baron Rothschild on the proclamation of the Queen, and which I hope you will find leisure to peruse.

To Baron LIONEL de ROTHSCHILD, M.P.,

London.

New York, May 28

Dear Baron,—Since my letter by the Africa steamer we have received the proclamation of the Queen, commanding a strict neutrality to her subjects in the struggle in which the government of the United States is now engaged against a portion of its citizens, now in rebellion against their constituted authorities.

It would be difficult for me to convey to you an idea of the general feeling of disappointment and irritation produced in this country, by this manifesto of the British government, by which a few revolted States are placed, in their relations with Great Britain, upon the same footing as the government of the United States.

People naturally compare the position which England takes now against us, to her stand during the Carlist war in Spain. The rebellion in the South has not the same chances of success as there existed certainly at one time for the cause of the Spanish pretender. Yet it certainly never occurred to the British crown for one moment to acknowledge Don Carlos in the light of a belligerent. On the contrary, we saw a British legion, armed and equipped in England, and commanded by an English general officer, fight for the cause of the constitutional and rightful sovereignty.

When Hungary, some years later, made an heroic effort to reconquer her nationality and independence, England did not cease to consider her as a revolted province, although the sympathies of the majority of the English people were on the side of the rebels, and though nothing but the powerful intervention of Russia prevented a success of that revolution.

Recently, again, on the other hand, we have seen men and arms equipped by British subjects, leave the English ports to assist the cause of Italian independence under Garibaldi.

The people of the United States had certainly a right to hope and expect the same support in their struggle for their national existence against the unjust and unwarrantable revolt of an unprincipled oligarchy, based upon the most odious domestic institution, and against which no government has heretofore taken so decided a stand as Great Britain herself.

If not an actual violation of international law, it must certainly be considered an act of extreme unfriendliness on the part of any government to place itself on a footing of neutrality between a power with which it entertains intimate diplomatic and commercial relations, and a revolted portion of that nation, unrecognized by any civilized government, and having so far in no way shown any evidence that it will be able to maintain the position which it has assumed against its legitimate government.

I fear that the very cordial good-feeling which, notwithstanding the delicate questions arising, from time to time, between the two governments, has pervaded all classes of our people toward the British nation, and of which, as well as of their deep-felt veneration for the Queen, they have given such a unanimous and striking evidence on the occasion of the laying of the Atlantic telegraph cable, and the recent visit of the Prince of Wales, will make room to sentiments of bitter resentment and animosity if the British government should persist in its present attitude.

Even upon the point of strict neutrality the proclamation goes further than international law and comity would seem to require. While the prohibition of equipment and enlistment of armaments and troops by British subjects in British ports is a measure of neutrality, it is certainly stretching the point to prevent British merchant vessels from carrying arms, military stores, etc., etc., to our ports or those of the Confederate States. The ports of the latter being blockaded by our navy, this restriction is entirely aimed against us, and is, therefore, an actual assistance to the rebels.

During the Crimean war, notwithstanding the strict neutrality of our government, which forbade enlistments, etc., etc., our vessels carried troops, arms, and military stores from English and French ports into the Crimea. The American ship-owners did this at their own peril in case of capture by Russian vessels of war, but our government did not prohibit it, notwithstanding that, as in the present case, it only was done to the advantage of one of the belligerent parties, Russia being blockaded then as the South is now.

MAY 15, 1861.

Colonel Blenker And Gentlemen Of  The First Regiment Of Rifles,— I have the honor to present this stand of colors to your regiment. It is the flag which for three-quarters of a century has been hailed in every quarter of the inhabited globe as the emblem of Constitutional liberty, and the beacon of hope to the oppressed of all nations.

In rushing with generous ardor to the rescue of our flag, you have given to your fellow-citizens a most gratifying proof of the patriotism and the devotion of our German population to the land of their adoption and choice. A large number of you have fled from oppression and tyranny in the Old World, after having in vain shed your blood for the liberties of your country on many a hardfought battle-field in Hungary and Germany.

You have found on these hospitable shores protection, freedom, and loving hearts, and in offering now the sacrifice of your lives on the altar of your adopted country you pay a debt of gratitude for the blessings vouchsafed to you under our liberal institutions.

Our most fervent prayers follow you to the path of duty and honor which you have chosen. May the Almighty, who has thus far showered His choicest blessings upon our cherished Union, protect her brave defenders. May He watch over you in the hour of danger, and may He grant you to return in safety to your homes and firesides after every star in this bright constellation shall have been restored, to abide with its sisters in union and peace to the end of time.

To The Hon. S. A. DOUGLAS,

Washington, D. C.

New York, December 31, 1860

My Dear Sir,—Your kind favor crossed with the letter which I had the pleasure of addressing you last week.

I have read carefully your resolutions for a conference, and they meet my entire approval. The South cannot ask for more, and the dominant party of the North ought certainly to acquiesce in a plan of settlement, which, in my opinion, would not add a foot of slave territory to the Union, except where climate and soil render it more profitable than free labor.

Several of the ultra men of the South whom I have seen lately, are loud in their praises of the stand which you have taken, and approve the mode of settlement proposed by your resolutions. I see, however, with great regret, by the papers, that the committee of thirteen have rejected them.

Now, if you will allow me one suggestion, dictated only by my warm attachment to you, I would advise you to support a compromise which has for its basis the restoration of the Missouri compromise, carried to the eastern frontier of California. I have good reason to know that the conservative portion of the Republican leaders are in favor of it, and it can only add to your high position as a patriotic and a Union man, if you support actively and energetically the restoration of the Missouri line.

It will forever silence the clamors of your enemies at the North, who have tried to lay the repeal of that act at your door, forgetting the refusal of the North to carry that line to the Pacific rendered that repeal necessary.

The self-denial and sacrifice of your favored doctrine of popular sovereignty, when the salvation of the Union requires it, would place you higher in the affections of the American people than you have ever been before. I am told by Republican leaders that they will not vote for Crittenden’s amendment because they will not accept the Missouri line for future acquisitions of territory. They say this would be holding out a premium for filibustering against Mexico and Cuba, in order to make new slave States. If you could hit upon some plan of compromise by which to get over this difficulty, there might be some hope of saving the country.

I have written, yesterday, to Governor Johnson, of Georgia, urging upon him the policy of getting the convention of his State to submit their final action to the ratification of the people, and showing how incompatible with the best interests of Georgia it would be to follow in the wake of South Carolina.

I beg to hand you inclosed copy of my letter, and if you approve of my suggestions, I hope you will find leisure to recommend them to the earnest consideration of Stephens and Johnson.

My own impressions are very gloomy indeed, and I fear nothing will be done to save the sinking ship of state. We must, however, do our duty as men, and stand by the Union to the last.

To The Hon. HERSHEL V. JOHNSON,

Speir’s Turnout, Jefferson County, Ga.,

New York, December 30, 1860

My Dear Sir,—Since I wrote you last, I have seen, with much pleasure, that you have been elected a member of your State convention. Your eloquence and popularity will give you great influence in that body; I still have hopes that your wise counsel will be listened to, and that the empire State of the South will not allow herself to be dragged into a precipitate and hasty action by the example of South Carolina. It is impossible to contemplate the events which are now enacting in Charleston without feeling, as a true friend of the South, the deepest regret and the most fearful apprehensions.

Never was a good and righteous cause so much damaged as the just claims of the whole South for its Constitutional rights are at this moment by the revolutionary movement of South Carolina.

Mr. Gorter showed me, a few days ago, a letter of yours, recently written to his father-in-law. You give, indeed, a gloomy picture of the state of feeling in Georgia. If your anxious forebodings should really prove true, and the advocates of immediate and separate secession should carry the day in your convention, then this great and prosperous Republic is doomed to pass under all the horrors of anarchy and civil war.

To us conservative men of the North, who have fought the battles of the South for many years, and though defeated now, are still unconquered, it is a sad and incomprehensible spectacle to see the ferocity with which your great State rushes into the secession movement, at the example, nay, I may say, under the dictation of South Carolina. We cannot understand that the same policy should be pursued by two States whose vital interests are so different, and whom we have learned to look upon as rivals, just as their seaports, Savannah and Charleston, are rivals, for commercial supremacy.

* * * * * *

It appears to me very probable that the government, being averse to adopting any aggressive action against South Carolina, will most likely, upon her taking possession of the custom-house, annex Charleston to Savannah as a port of entry. This course plainly could be adopted only in the event that Georgia delays the final act of secession. The impetus which such a state of things would give to the growth of Savannah would be lasting, while its immediate effect would be to open the eyes of the people of Georgia to the advantages of adhering to the Union.

The second sober thought and the practical sense of the American people would undoubtedly unite the whole of Georgia upon the policy of co-operation with all the slaveholding States, if a free discussion of these vital questions were possible at this moment. It is, however, very clear to us here at the North, that a reign of terror exists at the South which silences the voice of every, conservative patriot, and renders it impossible for the people to arrive at a correct judgment.

The members of the convention have been elected under this state of things, and I fear the worst unless you and Stephens can stem the torrent. I hope that your united influence will be exerted to the effect of having the final action of the convention submitted to the people for their final ratification. This would not be asking too much, or any thing to which the people are not fully entitled. It is the course which has been generally pursued by all conventions for the amendment or formation of a constitution, in nearly all the States. It seems to me that when a convention passes an ordinance of secession, it takes a step fraught with the most fearful consequences, and it cannot hesitate to submit that act to the people for their ratification.

It would be no more than fair to the people, although very disagreeable to the precipitate gentlemen of the Yancey school. It would give time to reflect, and as the vote would be simply yea or nay, would be free of that active and partisan canvass which existed upon the election of rival delegates.

Pray let me know whether, in your judgment, this should not be attempted, and whether you think it could not be carried. Every dav which can be gained is of immense importance.  Though the Republican leaders in Congress have thus far disappointed my expectations, I have strong hopes that they will be compelled to yield under the pressure of public opinion.

In our own city and State some of the most prominent men are ready to follow the lead of Weed, and active agencies are at work to bring about a compromise. Last week the governors of seven Republican States were here in caucus, and I am credibly informed by a leading Republican, that they will all recommend to their legislatures, in their opening messages next month, the unconditional and early repeal of the personal-liberty bills, passed by their respective States, without waiting for any amendment of the fugitive-slave law by Congress. In regard to the Territories, the restoration of the Missouri line, extended to the Pacific, finds favor with most of the conservative Republicans, and their number is increasing daily.

I sent you the day before yesterday a pamphlet, entitled The Border States. It is written by John P. Kennedy, of Maryland, and evinces great statesmanship and elevation of thought. I recommend it to your attentive perusal. It seems to me almost impossible that such appeals should remain unheeded by so intelligent, high-toned, and patriotic a people as our Southern brethren.

Do they not see that secession is exactly what the Abolition party desires most to see, in order to perpetuate the reign of their party, and its nefarious principles. They know that they can never attain this in the present Union, and are therefore content to have their sway in the remaining half, sure to crush the national Democracy when once deprived of its Southern support.

I hope you will find leisure to let me hear from you, etc.