Great Britain and the American Civil War Part 21

Fitzmayer, Dec. 3, 1861.) It is interesting that Canadian opinion regarded the _Times_ as the great cause of American ill-will toward Britain. A letter to Gait a.s.serted that the "war talk" was all a "farce"

(J.H. Pope to Gait, Dec. 26, 1861) and the Toronto _Globe_ attacked the _Times_ for the creation of bad feeling. The general att.i.tude was that if _British_ policy resulted in an American blow at Canada, it was a British, not a Canadian duty, to maintain her defence (Skelton, _Life of Sir Alexander Tilloch Gait_, pp. 340, 348.) Yet the author states that in the beginning Canada went through the same phases of feeling on the _Trent_ as did Great Britain.]

[Footnote 443: _A Cycle of Adams' Letters_, I, pp. 81-2.]

[Footnote 444: _Ibid._, I, p. 83. Henry Adams to Charles Francis Adams, Jr., Dec. 13, 1861.]

[Footnote 445: Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell. Private. Nov. 29, 1861.]

[Footnote 446: See the _Times_, Dec. 14, 1861. Here for the first time the _Times_ used the expression "the last card" as applied to emanc.i.p.ation.]

[Footnote 447: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, Dec. 11, 1861.]

[Footnote 448: Gladstone Papers. Russell to Gladstone, Dec. 13, 1861. On the same day Lady Russell wrote Lady Dumfermline: "There can be no doubt that we have done deeds very like that of Captain Wilkes.... but I wish we had not done them.... It is all terrible and awful, and I hope and pray war may be averted--and whatever may have been the first natural burst of indignation in this country, I believe it would be ready to execrate the Ministry if all right and honourable means were not taken to prevent so fearful a calamity." (Dana, _The Trent Affair.

(Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc., XLV, p. 528.))]

[Footnote 449: _A Cycle of Adams' Letters_, I, p. 87. Charles Francis Adams to his son, Dec. 20, 1861. ]

[Footnote 450: The _Times_, Dec. 16, 1861.]

[Footnote 451: The _Times_ twice printed the full text of the message, on December 16 and 17.]

[Footnote 452: Gladstone Papers. Milner-Gibson to Gladstone, Dec. 18, 1861.]

[Footnote 453: Maxwell, _Clarendon_, II, p. 225. Lewis to Clarendon, Dec. 18, 1861.]

[Footnote 454: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." No 14. Russell to Lyons, Dec.

19, 1861. The Government did not make public Adams' confirmation of "no authorization of Wilkes." Possibly it saw no reason for doing so, since this had been established already by Wilkes' own statements. The point was later a matter of complaint by Americans, who regarded it as indicating a peevish and unfriendly att.i.tude. (Willard, _Letter to an English Friend on the Rebellion in the United States_, p. 23. Boston, 1862.) Also by English friends; Cobden thought Palmerston had intentionally prolonged British feeling for political purposes.

"Seward's despatch to Adams on the 19th December [_communicated to Russell_ on the 19th]... virtually settled the matter. To keep alive the wicked pa.s.sions in this country as Palmerston and his _Post_ did, was like the man, and that is the worst that can be said of it." (Morley, _Cobden_, II, p. 389. To Mr. Paulton, Jan., 1862.)]

[Footnote 455: Davis to Adams. New York. Dec. 21, 1861. C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair, (Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc., XLV, p. 107.)]

[Footnote 456: There has crept into American historical writing of lesser authenticity a story that just at this juncture there appeared, in the harbours of New York and San Francisco, Russian fleets whose commanders let it be understood that they had come under "sealed orders"

not to be opened except in a certain grave event and that their presence was, at least, not an unfriendly indication of Russian sentiment in the _Trent_ crisis. This is a.s.serted to have bolstered American courage and to give warrant for the argument that America finally yielded to Great Britain from no fear of consequences, but merely on a clearer recognition of the justice of the case. In fact the story is wholly a myth. The Russian fleets appeared two years later in the fall of 1863, not in 1861. Harris, _The Trent Affair, _ pp. 208-10, is mainly responsible for this story, quoting the inaccurate memory of Thurlow Weed. (_Autobiography_, II, pp. 346-7.) Reliable historians like Rhodes make no mention of such an incident. The whole story of the Russian fleets with their exact instructions is told by F. A. Colder, "The Russian Fleet and the Civil War," _Am. Hist. Rev_., July, 1915.]

[Footnote 457: Weed, _Autobiography_, II, pp. 354-61.]

[Footnote 458: _Ibid._, p. 365. Peabody to Weed, Jan, 17, 1862.]

[Footnote 459: _A Cycle of Adams' Letters_, I, p. 91. Charles Francis Adams to his son, Dec. 27, 1861.]

[Footnote 460: See _ante_. Ch. IV.]

[Footnote 461: The _Times_, Dec. 25, 1861.]

[Footnote 462: James, _William Wetmore Story and his Friends_, II, pp.

108-9. The letters were sent to Robert Browning, who secured their publication through Dicey.]

[Footnote 463: C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair_. Adams to Motley, Dec. 26, 1861. (_Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc., XLV, p. 109).]

[Footnote 464: _Ibid._, p. 110.]

[Footnote 465: Palmerston had very close relations with Delane, of the _Times_, but that paper carefully maintained its independence of any party or faction.]

[Footnote 466: Gladstone Papers. Argyll to Gladstone, Dec. 30, 1861.]

[Footnote 467: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 78. No. 97. Adams to Seward, Jan.

2, 1862.]

[Footnote 468: Palmerston MS.]

[Footnote 469: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, p. 233. Lyons officially reported that he carried no papers with him _(Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." No. 19.

Lyons to Russell, Dec. 19, 1861). Newton (_Lyons_, I, pp. 55-78) shows that Seward was, in fact, permitted to read the instructions on the nineteenth.]

[Footnote 470: _A Cycle of Adams' Letters_, I, p. 86. C.F. Adams, Jr., to Henry Adams, Dec. 19, 1861.]

[Footnote 471: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, p. 234. Adams' letter of December 3 was received on December 21; Dayton's of December 3, on the 24th.]

[Footnote 472: Much ink has flowed to prove that Lincoln's was the wise view, seeing from the first the necessity of giving up Mason and Slidell, and that he overrode Seward, e.g., Welles, _Lincoln and Seward_, and Harris, _The Trent Affair_. Rhodes, III, pp. 522-24, and Bancroft, _Seward_, II, pp. 232-37, disprove this. Yet the general contemporary suspicion of Seward's "anti-British policy," even in Washington, is shown by a despatch sent by Schleiden to the Senate of Bremen. On December 23 he wrote that letters from Cobden and Lyndhurst had been seen by Lincoln.

"Both letters have been submitted to the President. He returned them with the remark that 'peace will not be broken if England is not bent on war.' At the same time the President has a.s.sured my informant that he would examine the answer of his Secretary of State, word for word, in order that no expression should remain which could create bad blood anew, because the strong language which Mr. Seward had used in some of his former despatches seems to have irritated and insulted England"

(Schleiden Papers). No doubt Sumner was Schleiden's informant. At first glance Lincoln's reported language would seem to imply that he was putting pressure on Seward to release the prisoners and Schleiden apparently so interpreted them. But the fact was that at the date when this was written Lincoln had not yet committed himself to accepting Seward's view. He told Seward, "You will go on, of course, preparing your answer, which, as I understood it, will state the reasons why they ought to be given up. Now, I have a mind to try my hand at stating the reasons why they ought _not_ to be given up. We will compare the points on each side." Lincoln's idea was, in short, to return an answer to Great Britain, proposing arbitration (Bancroft, _Seward_, II, 234).]

[Footnote 473: Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc. _Proceedings_, XLV, 155. Bright to Sumner, Dec. 14, 1861. The letters to Sumner on the _Trent_ are all printed in this volume of the _Proceedings_. The originals are in the _Sumner Papers_ in the library of Harvard University.]

[Footnote 474: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." No. 24. Lyons to Russell, Dec.

27, 1861.]

[Footnote 475: F.O., Am., Vol. 777. No. 807. Lyons to Russell, Dec. 31, 1861. But he transmitted a few days later, a "shocking prayer" in the Senate on December 30, by the Rev. Dr. Sutherland, which showed a bitter feeling. "O Thou, just Ruler of the world ... we ask help of Thee for our rulers and our people, that we may patiently, resolutely, and with one heart abide our time; for it is indeed a day of darkness and reproach--a day when the high principle of human equity constrained by the remorseless sweep of physical and armed force, must for the moment, succ.u.mb under the plastic forms of soft diplomacy" (Russell Papers.

Lyons to Russell, Jan. 3, 1862).]

[Footnote 476: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, 249-53.]

[Footnote 477: C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair. (Proceedings_, Ma.s.s. Hist.

Soc., XLV. p. 75).]

[Footnote 478: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, 250.]

[Footnote 479: Mason, Slidell, Eustis and McFarland were delivered to the British ship _Rinaldo_, January 1, 1862. _En route_ to Halifax the ship encountered a storm that drove her south and finally brought her to St. Thomas, where the pa.s.sengers embarked on a packet for Southampton.]

[Footnote 480: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." Nos. 27 and 35. February 3, Lyons reported that Sumner, in a fireside talk, had revealed that he was in possession of copies of the Law Officers' opinions given on November 12 and 28 respectively. Lyons was astounded and commented that the Law Officers, before giving any more opinions, ought to know this fact (F.O., Am., Vol. 824. No. 76. Lyons to Russell).]

[Footnote 481: F.O., France, Vol. 1399. No. 1397. Cowley to Russell, Dec. 3, 1861. The italics are mine.]

[Footnote 482: Newton, _Lyons_, I, 73.]

[Footnote 483: F.O., Am., Vol. 817. No. 57. Draft. Russell to Lyons, Feb. 11, 1861.]