“In the case of a divided kingdom, by the Law of Nations, Great Britain, like every other power, is free to take any part she pleases.She may decline, with more or less formality, according to her discretion, to acknowledge this new system; or she may recognize it as a governmentde facto, setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court open to its choice.… The declaration of anewspeciesof government on new principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe.”[126]
“In the case of a divided kingdom, by the Law of Nations, Great Britain, like every other power, is free to take any part she pleases.She may decline, with more or less formality, according to her discretion, to acknowledge this new system; or she may recognize it as a governmentde facto, setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court open to its choice.… The declaration of anewspeciesof government on new principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe.”[126]
This same rule Burke declared in Parliament, saying, “that the French Republic wassui generis, and bore no analogy to any other that ever existed in the world. It, therefore, did not follow that we ought to recognize it, merely because different powers in Europe had recognized the Republic of England under Oliver Cromwell.”[127]And in his famous “Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs” this illustrious authority proclaimed the new French Government “so fundamentally wrong as to be utterly incapable of correcting itself by any length of time, or of being formed into any mode of polity of which a member of the House of Commons could publicly declare his approbation.”[128]
Another eloquent publicist, Sir James Mackintosh, while pressing on Parliament the recognition of Spanish America, says: “The reception of a new state into the society of civilized nations by those acts which amount to recognition is a proceeding which has no legal character, andis purely of a moral nature”; and he proceeds to argue, that, since England “is the only anciently free state in the world, for her to refuse hermoral aid to communities struggling for libertyis an act of unnatural harshness.”[129]Thus does he vindicate recognition for the sake of Freedom. How truly he would have repelled any recognition for the sake of Slavery let his life testify.
At the Congress of Verona, Chateaubriand, as representative of France, replied to a proposition from the Duke of Wellington on this subject:—
“France is influenced by considerations of more general importance with regard to the governmentsde facto. She conceives thatthe principles of justice on which society is founded must not be lightly sacrificedto secondary interests, and it appears to her that those principles increase in importancewhen the matter in question is that of recognizing a political order of things virtually hostile to that which exists in Europe.”[130]
“France is influenced by considerations of more general importance with regard to the governmentsde facto. She conceives thatthe principles of justice on which society is founded must not be lightly sacrificedto secondary interests, and it appears to her that those principles increase in importancewhen the matter in question is that of recognizing a political order of things virtually hostile to that which exists in Europe.”[130]
Here the rule is mildly stated, but in harmony with correct principle. Anewgovernment, with Slavery as its active soul, must be “virtually hostile” to European civilization, so as to make its recognition impossible; nor can the principles of justice be lightly sacrificed.
No better testimony to the practice of nations can be found than the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the subject in familiar form, has done more, during the last century, to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority. Here it is briefly.
“If there be any nation thatmakes an open professionof trampling justice under foot, of despising and violating the rights of others, whenever it finds an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to unite in order to humble and chastise it.”[131]“To form and support an unjust pretensionis to do an injury only to the nation whom such pretension concerns; to mock at justice in general is to injure all nations.”[132]“The power that assists an odious tyrant, that declares for an unjust and rebellious people, undoubtedly violates duty.”[133]“As to those monsters who under the title of sovereigns render themselves the scourges and horror of humanity, they are ferocious beasts, of whom every brave man may justly clear the earth.”[134]“If the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence, and to oppress all those who do not embrace it, the Law of Nature forbids us to favor that religion, or to unite unnecessarily with its inhuman followers, and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter intoa league against such madmen, to repress such fanatics, who disturb the public repose and menace all nations.”[135]
“If there be any nation thatmakes an open professionof trampling justice under foot, of despising and violating the rights of others, whenever it finds an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to unite in order to humble and chastise it.”[131]
“To form and support an unjust pretensionis to do an injury only to the nation whom such pretension concerns; to mock at justice in general is to injure all nations.”[132]
“The power that assists an odious tyrant, that declares for an unjust and rebellious people, undoubtedly violates duty.”[133]
“As to those monsters who under the title of sovereigns render themselves the scourges and horror of humanity, they are ferocious beasts, of whom every brave man may justly clear the earth.”[134]
“If the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence, and to oppress all those who do not embrace it, the Law of Nature forbids us to favor that religion, or to unite unnecessarily with its inhuman followers, and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter intoa league against such madmen, to repress such fanatics, who disturb the public repose and menace all nations.”[135]
Nor can you urge this recognition on any principle ofComity of Nations. This is an expansive term, into which enters much of the refinements, amenities, and hospitalities of civilization, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But where an act is prejudicial to national interests, or contrary to national policy, or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended by any consideration of courtesy. A paramount duty must not be betrayed by a kiss. For the sake of comity, acts of good-will and friendship not required by law are performed between nations; but an English court has authoritatively declared that this principle cannot prevail, “where it violates the law of our own country, the Law of Nature, or the Law of God,” and on this exalted ground it was decided that an American slave who had found shelter on board a British man-of-waron the high seas could not be recognized as a slave.[136]The same principle must prevail against recognition of a new slave nation.
Nor, finally, can this recognition be urged on any reason ofPeace. There can be no peace founded on injustice; and any recognition is injustice which will cry aloud, resounding through the earth. You may seem to have peace, but it will be only smothered war, sure to break forth in war more direful than before.
Thus is every argument for recognition repelled, whether under the sounding words, Practice of Nations, Comity of Nations, or Peace. There is nothing in practice, nothing in comity, nothing in peace, which is not against any such shameful acknowledgment.
Applying the principles already set forth,—assuming what cannot be denied, that every power is free to refuse recognition,—assuming that it is not every body of men that can be considered a commonwealth, but only those “associatedthrough agreement in right and community of interest,”—that men “banding together for the sake of systematic crime” cannot be considered a commonwealth,—assuming that every member of the Family of Nations will surely obey the rule of morality,—that it will “shun fellowship with the wicked,”—that it will not “enter the service of barbarians,”—that it will avoid what is “unbecoming,” and do that only which is “pious, safe, and glorious,”—and that, above all things, it will not enter into alliance to “help the ungodly,”—assuming these things, every such member must reject with indignation a new pretension whose declared principle of association is so intrinsicallywicked. Here there can be no question. The case is plain; nor is any language of contumely or scorn too strong to express the irrepressible repugnance to such a pretension, which, like vice, “to be hated needs but to be seen.” Surely there can be no Christian power which will not rouse to expose it, crying, with irresistible voice,—
Nonewsanction of Slavery!
Nonewquickening of Slavery in its active and aggressive barbarism!
Nonewencouragement to “filibusters” engendered by Slavery!
Nonewcreation ofSlave Territory!
Nonewcreation of aSlave Navy!
No new Slave Nation!
No installation of Slavery as anewCivilization!
But all this litany will fail, if recognition succeeds,—from which, good Lord, deliver us! Nor will this be the end.
Slavery, through thenewpower, will take its place in the Parliament of mankind, with the immunities of an independent nation, ready always to uphold and advance itself, and organized as an unrelenting Propaganda of the new faith. A power having its inspiration in such a Barbarism must be essentially barbarous; founded on the asserted right to whip women and sell children, it must assume a character of disgusting hardihood; and openly professing determination to revolutionize the public opinion of the world, it must be in open schism with Civilization itself, so that all its influences will be wild, savage, brutal, and all its offspring kindred in character.
“Pards gender pards; from tigers tigers spring;No doves are hatched beneath a vulture’s wing.”[137]
“Pards gender pards; from tigers tigers spring;No doves are hatched beneath a vulture’s wing.”[137]
“Pards gender pards; from tigers tigers spring;
No doves are hatched beneath a vulture’s wing.”[137]
Such a power, from very nature, must be despotism at home “tempered only by assassination,” with the cotton-field for its Siberia,—while abroad it must be aggressive, dangerous, and revolting, in itself aMagnum Latrocinium, whose fellowship can have nothing but “the filthiness of evil,” and whose very existence will be an intolerable nuisance. When Dante, in the vindictive judgment hurled against his own Florence, called itbordello, he did not use a term too strong for the mighty house of ill-fame which the Christian powers are now asked for the first time to license. Such must be the character of the new power. But, though only a recent wrong, and pleading no prescription, the illimitable audacity of its nature can hesitate at nothing; nor is there anything offensive or detestable it will not absorb into itself. It will be an Ishmael, with hand against every man. It will be a brood of Harpies, defiling all it cannot steal. It will be the one-eyed Cyclop of nations, seeing only through Slavery, spurning all as fools who do not see likewise, and bellowing forth in savage egotism,—
“Know, then, we Cyclops area race aboveThose air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove;And learn our power proceeds with thee and thineNot as he wills,but as ourselves incline.”[138]
“Know, then, we Cyclops area race aboveThose air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove;And learn our power proceeds with thee and thineNot as he wills,but as ourselves incline.”[138]
“Know, then, we Cyclops area race above
Those air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove;
And learn our power proceeds with thee and thine
Not as he wills,but as ourselves incline.”[138]
Or it will be the Læstrygonian cannibal, with Slavery a perpetual maw, and terrible to the civilized world as that distant power to the companions of Ulysses, when, according to Homer,
“One for his food the raging glutton slew.”[139]
“One for his food the raging glutton slew.”[139]
“One for his food the raging glutton slew.”[139]
Or, worse still, it will be the soulless monster of Frankenstein, the wretched creation of human science without God,—endowed with life and nothing else, forever raging madly, the scandal to humanity, powerful only for evil, whose destruction will be essential to the peace of the world.
Who can welcome such a creation? Who can consort with it? There is something loathsome in the idea. There is contamination even in the thought. If you live with the lame, says the ancient proverb, you will learn to limp; if you keep in the kitchen, you will smell of smoke; if you touch pitch, you will be defiled. But what limp so mean as that of this pretended power? what smoke so foul as its breath? what pitch so defiling as its touch? It is an Oriental saying, that a cistern of rosewater will become impure, if a dog be dropped into it; but an ocean of rosewater with Rebel Slavemongers would be changed into a vulgar puddle. Imagine whatever is most disgusting, and this pretended power is more disgusting still. Naturalists report that the pike will swallow anything except the toad, but this it cannot do. The experiment has been tried, and though this fish, in unhesitating voracity, always gulps whatever is thrown to it, yet invariably it spews the nuisance from its throat. Our Slavemonger pretension is worse than toad; and yet there are foreign nationswhich, instead of spewing it forth, are already turning it like a precious morsel on the tongue.
There is yet another ground on which I make this appeal. It is part of the triumphs of Civilization, that no nation can act for itself alone. Whatever it does for good or for evil affects all the rest. Therefore a nation cannot forget its obligations to others. Especially does International Law, when it declares the absolute equality of independent nations, cast upon all the duty of considering well how this privilege shall be bestowed so that the welfare of all may be best upheld. But the whole Family of Nations would be degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much more to equality. There can be no reason for such admission; for it can bring nothing to the general weal. Civil society is created for safety and tranquillity. Nations come together and fraternize for the common good. But this hateful pretension can do nothing but evil for civil society at home or for nations in their intercourse with each other. It can show no title to recognition, no passport for its travels, no old existence. It is all new. And here I borrow the language of Burke on another occasion:—
“It is not a new power of an old kind.It is a new power of a new species.When such a questionable shape isto be admitted for the first timeinto the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not a mere matter of idle curiosity to considerhow far it is in its nature alliable with the rest.”[140]
“It is not a new power of an old kind.It is a new power of a new species.When such a questionable shape isto be admitted for the first timeinto the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not a mere matter of idle curiosity to considerhow far it is in its nature alliable with the rest.”[140]
The greatest of corporations is a nation; the sublimest of all associations is that composed of nations, independentand equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful fraternity as the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slavemongers may be a corporationin fact, but no such corporation can find place in that august Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose first article of faith is to kill the stranger,—or the Buccaneers, those “brothers of the coast,” who plundered on the sea; or, better still, revive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were assassins, and all his subjects were assassins; or yet again, better at once and openly recognize Antichrist, the supreme and highest impersonation of the Slave Power.
Amidst the general degradation following such obeisance to Slavery, there are two Christian powers that would appear in sad and shameful eminence. I refer to Great Britain, declared protectress of the African race, and to France, declared champion of “ideas,” who, from the very abundance of pledges, are so situated that they cannot desert the good old cause and turn their faces against civilization without criminal tergiversation, which no mantle of diplomacy can cover. Where, then, is British devotion to the African race, so eloquently proclaimed by the British Minister? Where, then, is French devotion to ideas, so ostentatiously announced by the French Emperor? Remembered only to point a tale and show how nations have fallen. Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes, but such an act of wrong would do something in its influence to equalize the conditions of these two nations. Rather than do this thing, better for the fast-anchored isle that it should sink beneath the sea, carrying down its cathedrals,its castles, its happy homes, its fields of glory, Runnymede, Westminster Hall, and the tomb of Shakespeare. In other days England has valiantly striven against Slavery, winning a truer glory than any achieved by her arms on land or sea; and now she is willing to surrender, at a moment when more can be done than ever before against the monster, wherever it shows its head,—for Slavery everywhere has its neck in this Rebellion. In other days France has valiantly striven for ideas; and now she, too, proposes surrender, although all that she professes at heart is involved in the doom of Slavery, which a word from her might hasten beyond recall. It is in England, where the great victory of Emancipation was first obtained, that now, more even than in France, the strongest sentiment for Rebel Slavemongers is manifest, constituting amoral maniawhich menaces a pact andconcordatwith the Rebellion itself,—as when an early Pope, head of the Christian Church, did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a Pagan enemy to the Christian name. It only remains that the new coalition should be signed in order to consummate the unutterable degradation. The contracting parties will be the Queen of England and Jefferson Davis, once patron of “Repudiation,” now chief of Rebel Slavery. Then must this virtuous lady, whose pride is justice always, bend to receive the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill as ambassadorial plenipotentiary at her Court.
A new power, dedicated to Slavery, will take its seat at the great council-board, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have their letter of license as ambassadors of Slavery, to rove from court to court,over foreign carpets, poisoning the air which has been nobly pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas for England, vowed a thousand times to the protection of the African race, and by her best renown knit perpetually to this sacred loyalty, now plunging into adulterous dalliance with Slavery, recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty itself, and wickedly becomingDefender of the Faithas now professed by Rebel Slavemongers! Alas for England’s Queen, woman and mother, carried off from the cause of Wilberforce and Clarkson to sink into unseemly association with the scourgers of women and the auctioneers of children!—for a “stain” deeper than that which aroused the anguish of Maria Theresa is settling upon her reign. Alas for that Royal Consort, humane and just, whose dying voice was given to assuage the temper of that ministerial despatch, by which, in an evil hour, England was made to strike hands with Rebel Slavery!—for the counsellor is needed now to save the land he adorned from an act of inexpiable shame.
And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared apology. It is, that the Union permitted and still permits Slavery,—therefore foreign nations may recognize Rebel Slavery as anewpower. Here is the precise error. England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only a short time ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil, both permitting Slavery; but these two powers are notnew, they are already established, there is no question of recognition, nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no reason in any relations with them why anewpower, with Slavery as its declared “corner-stone,” whose gospel is Slavery, and whose evangelists are Slavemongers, should be recognizedin the Family of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the British Queen, complaining of rights denied, it would be our duty to recognize her as an independent power; but if Ireland rebelled with the declared object of establishing anewpower which should be nothing less than a giant felony and a nuisance to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous pretension, and no triumph of rebellion could change this plain and irresistible obligation. And yet, in face of this commanding rule, we are told to expect the recognition of Rebel Slavery.
An aroused public opinion, “the world’s collected will,” and returning reason in England and France, will see to it that Civilization is saved from this shock, and the nations themselves from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely attend it. No power can afford to stand up before mankind and openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger; nor can armies, fleets, bulwarks, or “towers along the steep” prevail against His mighty anger. To any application for this unholy recognition there is but one word the Christian powers can utter. It is simply and austerely “No,” with an emphasis that shall silence argument and extinguish hope itself. And this proclamation should go forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apostasy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to discourage is to encourage; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple word be uttered, and Slavery will slink away with a mark on its forehead, like Cain, a perpetual vagabond, forever accursed; and the malediction of the Lord shall descend upon it, saying:“Among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest; but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart and failing of eyes and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life; in the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even, and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning.”[141]
Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for the cause. But there is yet another topic, which I have reserved to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least can be best considered in the gathered light of the previous discussion. Its immediate practical interest is great. I refer to theConcession of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to independence. Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo government as belligerent on sea as well as land, and by proclamation of the Queen declared neutrality between the two parties,—thus lifting an embryo, which was nothing else than animate Slavery, to equalityon seaas well as land with its ancient ally, the NationalGovernment. Here was a blunder, if not a crime, not merely in the alacrity with which it was done, but in doing it at all. It was followed immediately by France, and then by Spain, Holland, and Brazil. The concession of belligerent rights on land was a name and nothing more, therefore I say nothing about it. But the concession ofbelligerent rights on the oceanis of widely different character, and the two reasons against the recognition of independence are equally applicable to this concession:first, the embryo government has nomaritimeornavalbelligerent rightsde facto, and,secondly, an embryo of Rebel Slavery cannot have the characterde factowhich would justify the concession ofmaritimeornavalbelligerence; so that, were the concession vindicated on the first ground, it must fail on the second.
The concession ofoceanbelligerence is a letter of license from consenting powers to every Slavemonger cruiser, or rather it is the countersign of these powers to the commission of every such cruiser. Without such countersign the cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a foreign port. The declaration of belligerence imparts legal competence, and the right to testify by flag and arms. Without such competence there would be no flag and no right to bear arms on the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an “intermediate treatywhich puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations with regard to war.”[142]And this is plainly true.
The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects:first, in the immunities it confers, puttingan embryo of Rebel Slavery onequalitywith established governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical, and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that they may obtain supplies and hospitality;secondly, in the degradation it fastens upon the National Government, which is condemned to see its ships treated onequalitywith the ships of Rebel Slavery, and also the just rule of “neutrality” between belligerent powers invoked to fetter its activity against a giant felony; and,thirdly, in the disturbance to commerce it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers armed with belligerent rights, including the right of search, whose natural recklessness is left unbridled and without remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a common highway; but it is for the interest of all who traverse it that the highway should not be disturbed by predatory hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest caution, and then only under the necessity of the case, on the overwhelming authority ofthe fact: for, from beginning to end, it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those conditions and prerequisites without which ocean belligerence cannot exist.
As a general rule, belligerent rights are conceded only where a rebel government or contending party in a civil war has acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within certain limits, it is sovereignde facto, so far at least as to command troops andto administer justice. On this last point I dwell especially. It is the capacity to administer justice which is the criterion, whether on land or ocean. The concession of belligerence is the recognition of such limited sovereignty, which bears the same relation to acknowledged independence asgristle bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may existde factoon land without existingde factoon ocean. It may prevail in armies, and yet fail in navies. In short,the factmay be one way on land and the other wayon ocean. Nor can it be inferred on ocean simply from existence on land. Our Supreme Court has declared that there may be “a limited, partial war,” “a restrained or limited hostility,” “an imperfect war, or a war as to certain objects and to a certain extent.” Thus, on one occasion, hostilities were authorized “on the high seas by certain persons in certain cases,” but without authority “to commit hostilities on land.”[143]But by the same rule there may be war on land and not on sea, and this may follow from the necessity of the case. If Rebel Slavery does not come within the conditions of ocean war, then, whatever its belligerence on land, it cannot expect it on the ocean. Since every such concession is adverse to the original government, and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be limited carefully tothe actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground that “belligerency is not so much a principle asa fact.”[144]And the question then arises, whether Rebel Slavery has acquired suchde factosovereignty on the ocean as entitles it tooceanbelligerent rights.
There are at least two “facts” patent to all:first, that Rebel Slavery is without a single port into which even legal cruisers can take prizes for adjudication; and,secondly, that the ships which now presume toexerciseoceanbelligerent rights in its name—constituting that navy which a member of the British Cabinet announced as “to be created”—were all “created” in England, which is thenaval basefrom which they sally forth on predatory cruise, without once entering a port of their own pretended government.
These two “facts” are different in nature. The first attaches absolutely to the pretended power, rendering it incompetent to exercisebelligerent jurisdictionon the ocean. The second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical. These simple and unquestionable “facts” are the key to unlock the present question.
From the reason of the case, there can be nooceanbelligerent without a port into which it can take prizes. Any other rule is absurd. It is not enough to sail the sea, like the Flying Dutchman; theoceanbelligerent must be able to touch the land, and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea of civilized warfare, that something more thannaked forceis essential to the completeness of capture. According to the earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the “pernoctation” of the captured ship within the port of the belligerent,—or, as it was called,deductio infra præsidia. As early as 1414, under Henry the Fifth of England, there was an Act of Parliament requiring privateersto bring their prizes into a port of the kingdom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer,before undertaking to dispose of them.[145]The modern rule interposes an additional check upon lawless violence, by requiring the condemnation of a competent court. This rule, which is among the most authoritativeof the British Admiralty, is found in the famous letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl, addressed to John Jay, as follows: “Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor, there must be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize, in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations and treaties.”[146]This is explicit, and is plainly necessary for the protection of neutral commerce. But this rule is French as well as English. It is part of International Law. Aseizureis regarded merely as apreliminaryact, which does not divest the property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A subsequent act of condemnation by a competent tribunal is necessary to determine if the seizure is valid. The question is compendiously calledPrize or No Prize. Where the property of neutrals is involved, this requirement becomes of absolute necessity. In conceding belligerence, all customary belligerent rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that neutral rights and interests are put in jeopardy. Here we see at once the wrong done. If nothing is due to Civilization, something is due to neutrals. Without dwelling on this point, I content myself with the authority of two recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work, says: “The cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of the objects seized, he cannot dispose of them, butit is his duty to present himself before the tribunal and obtain a sentence declaring them to be prize.”[147]A later writer, M. Eugène Cauchy, whose work has appeared since our war began, says:“A usage which evidently has its source innatural equityrequires, that, before proceeding to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity of the prize.Every prize taken from an enemy should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign of the captor.”[148]But if the power calling itself belligerent cannot comply with this condition,—if it has no port into which it can bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the requirement of the British Admiralty, with “a regular judicial proceeding wherein both parties may be heard,”—it is clearlynot in a situation to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever its force in other respects, it lacks a vital element ofoceanbelligerence. In thatsemi-sovereignty which constitutes belligerence on land there must be provision for theadministration of justice, without which there is nothing but a mob. In that samesemi-sovereignty on the ocean there must be similar provision. It is not enough that there are ships duly commissioned to take prizes, there must also be courts to try them; and the latter are not less important than the former. Such is the conclusion of reason, in harmony with acknowledged principles. How, then, acknowledge belligerent rights where this condition is wanting?
Earl Russell himself, so swift to make this concession, is led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part ofoceanbelligerents, and thus exposes the irrational character of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, occasioned by the destruction of British cargoes, the Minister says:“The owners of any British property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war,may claim in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such property.”[149]Even in the very speech announcing the belligerent rights of our Rebels, including the right to visit and detain British merchant vessels having enemy’s property on board and to confiscate such property, Earl Russell was compelled to declare, that “it wasnecessarily implied, as a condition of such acknowledgment, that the detention was for the purpose of bringing the vessels detained before an established Court of Prize, and that confiscation did not take place until after condemnation by such competent tribunal.”[150]Such was the express condition, obviously to secure justice. If there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail; and with this failure tumblesin factthe whole wretched pretension ofoceanbelligerence, except in the galvanism of a Queen’s proclamation or a Cabinet concession.
If a cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it is because of some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according to general rule, which practically declares that there can be no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the complements of each other, through which a harsh prerogative is supposed to berounded into the proper form of civilized warfare. Therefore every ship and cargo burned by the captors for the reason that they had no port testifies that they are without that vital sovereignty on the ocean which is needed in the exercise of belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are notoceanbelligerentsin fact. Nay, more, all these bonfires of the sea cry out against the power which by precipitate concession furnished the torch. As well invest the rebel rajahs of India, who never tasted salt water, with this ocean prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn; as well constitute land-locked Poland, now in arms for independence, an ocean belligerent,—or enroll mountain Switzerland in the same class,—or join with Shakespeare in giving to inland Bohemia an outlook upon the ocean.[151]
To aggravate this concession, the ships are all built, rigged, armed, and manned in Great Britain. It is out of British oak and British iron that they are constructed, rigged with British ropes, made formidable with British arms, provided with British gunners, and navigated by British crews, so as to constitute in all respects aBritish naval expedition. British ports supply the place of Rebel Slavemonger ports. British ports are open to them, when their own are closed. British ports constitute theirnaval base of operations and supplies, furnishing everything needful, except an officer, the ship’s papers, and a court for the trial of the prizes, each of which is essential to the legality of the expedition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports, andnever touching a port of the pretended governmentinwhose name they rob and burn,—being simply a rib taken out of the side of England and prostituted to Rebel Slavery,—receive the further passport of belligerence from the British Government, whenin factthe belligerence does not exist. The whole proceeding, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyard to the bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law and an insult to a friendly power.
The case is sometimes said to be new; but it is new only as no such “parricide” is provided against in express terms. It was not anticipated. But the principles which govern it are as old as justice and humanity, in the interests of which belligerent rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed, and it is now apparent, that, whatever the motives of the British Government, the concession was in behalf ofinjustice andinhumanity. Burning ships and scattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not condemned by International Law, then has this law lost its virtue. Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear, and you do not change their character with their name. Without a home and without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of the sea, disturbers of the common highway, outlaws, and enemies of the human race.
There is a precedent which shows how impossible it is for a pretended power, without a single port, to possess belligerent rights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such pretended power to be anything but a felon ship. James the Second of England, after he had ceased to bede factoking, and while an exile without a single port, undertook to issue letters of marque. It was argued unanswerably before the PrivyCouncil of William the Third, that a deposed prince could not receive from any other sovereign “international privileges”; “that, if he could grant a commission to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general license to plunder,because those who were so commissioned would be their own judges of whatever they took”; and “that the reason of the thing, which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pronounced also that a king without territory, without power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty,or in any way of administering justice, dwindled into a pirate, if he issued commissions to seize the goods and ships of nations,and that they who took commissions from him must be held by legal inference to have associated ‘sceleris causâ’ and could not be considered as members of a civil society.”[152]These weighty words are strictly applicable to the present case. Whatever the force of Rebel Slavery on land, it is no more on the ocean than the “deposed prince,” “without power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty,or in any way of administering justice”; and, like the prince, it has “dwindled into a pirate,” except so far as sustained by British concession. In adducing this precedent, I follow the learned ex-Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, who used it to show, that, without the concession of belligerent rights to our Rebels, “any Englishman aiding them by fitting out a privateer against the Federal Government would be guilty of piracy.”[153]But the reasoning at the Privy Council shows, also, that the concession ought not to have been made.
There is yet another British precedent, which shows how essential are judicial proceedings before appropriation of a captured ship or cargo. The case is memorable. It is none other than that of the famous Captain Kidd, who, on indictment for piracy, as long ago as 1701, produced a commission in justification. But it was at once declared not enough to show a commission;he must also show condemnation of the captured ship. The Lord Chief Baron of that day said, that, “if he had acted pursuant to his commission,he ought to have condemned the ship and goods”; that “by his not condemning them he seems to show his aim, mind, and intention; that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission, but quite contrary to it, for he takes the ship and shares the money and goods, and is taken in that very ship, …so that there is no color or pretence appears that he intended to bring this ship to England to be condemned or to have condemned it in any of the English plantations”; and that, “whilst men pursue their commissions, they must be justified, but when they do things not authorized, or never acted by them,it is as if there had been no commission at all.”[154]Captain Kidd was condemned to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of death, then, by the same rule, those rovers who rob cargoes, burn ships, and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronometers, careless of a Prize Court, are entitled to small favor from a civilized power.
Without considering more critically what should be the fate of these ocean incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of England, out of whom they came, I content myself with the conclusion that they are not entitled tooceanbelligerence. And here let it be understood that no question is possible with regard to an established power with access to the ocean; for belligerent rights are fixed by International Law, without foreign recognition; nor can the rights of such a power be a precedent for any concession to a rebel community without ports and Prize Courts.
Pirateis a hard word; but Jefferson did not shrink from applying it to “private armed vessels,” infesting our coasts, preying upon our commerce, and making captures at the very entrance of our harbors, as well as on the high seas. “They have carried them off,” he says, “under pretence of legal adjudication; but, not daring to approach a court of justice, they have plundered and sunk them by the way, or in obscure places, where no evidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews, and abandoned them in boats in the open sea or on desert shores without food or covering.” These things, kindred to what is done by our Rebel cruisers, he calls “enormities,” and he announces that he has equipped a force “to bring the offenders in for trial aspirates.”[155]
Even if Rebel Slavery, coagulated in embryo government, has arrived at thatsemi-sovereigntyde factoon the ocean which justifies belligerent rights, yet the Christian powers should indignantly decline to make the concession, because by doing so they make themselves accomplices in shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say that every argument of fact and reason, every whisper of conscience and humanity, everyindignant outburst of an honest man against recognition of Slavery as an independent power, is equally strong against any concession of ocean belligerence. Such concession is half-way house to recognition, and can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of independence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it, on the principle of Vattel, that “whosoever has a right to the end has a right to the means.”[156]It is equally clear, that, where a nation, on grounds of conscience, must refuse recognition of independence, it cannot concede belligerence; for,where the end is forbidden, the means must be forbidden also. The illogical absurdity of such concession by Great Britain, so persistent always against Slavery, and now for more than a generation the declared protectress of the African race, becomes doubly apparent, when it is considered that every Rebel ship built in England and invested with ocean belligerence carries with it the Law of Slavery, so that, by British concession, the ship becomes anextensionofSlaveterritory and a floatingSlavecastle.
And yet it is said that this impostor is entitled to ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim them. Sad day for England, when another wicked compromise was struck with Slavery, kindred to that old treaty which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen, when the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to British subjects! I know not the profits secured by the destruction of American commerce, but I do know that the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not so crimson as that reckless proclamation which gave to Slavery a frantic life, and helped for a time, nay, still helps, this demon in the rage withwhich it battles against Human Rights. Such a ship, with the law of Slavery on its deck and the flag of Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, fighting for Slavery, burning for Slavery, and knowing no other sovereignty than the pretended government of Rebel Slavery, can be nothing less in spirit and character than a slave pirate and the enemy of the human race. Like produces like, and the parent power, which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a floating offence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity,—wild, outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep, to be hunted down by all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man.
Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession, made in a moment of eclipse, when reason and humanity were obscured, must be annulled. Theblunder-crimemust be renounced, so that Slave pirates may no longer sail the sea, robbing, destroying, burning, with British license. Then will they promptly disappear forever, and with them the occasion of strife between two great powers, who ought to be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the nations. And may God in His mercy help this consummation!
Here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objections on two grounds.
(1.) The embryo of Rebel Slavery has not that degree of sovereigntyon the oceanwhich is essential to belligerence there.
(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian power can make such concession to it without shameful complicity with Slavery.
Both are objections offact. Either is sufficient. Even if the belligerence seems to be established asfact, still its concession in this age of Christian light must be impossible, except under some temporary aberration, which, for the honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, should speedily pass away.
Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass. If the field traversed is ample, it has been brightened always by the light of international justice, exposing clearly, from beginning to end, the sacred landmarks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping nothing back, so that you have been able to see the perils to which the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed war, as exhibited in examples of history, and also from the fatal proclivity of foreign powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships are permitted to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances testify in favor of Freedom, and how all intervention of every kind, whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable, when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless anomaly, a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting bondage of a race; and especially how Great Britain is sacredly engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness; then how all the Christian powers constituting the Family of Nations are firmly bound to set their faces against any recognition of the embryo government.—first, because its independence is notinfactestablished, and, secondly, because, even ifin factestablished, its recognition is impossible without criminal complicity in Slavery; and, lastly, how these same Christian powers are firmly bound by the same twofold reasons against any concession of ocean rights to this hideous pretender.
It only remains that the Republic should gird itself to the majesty of its duties. War is terrible and hard to bear, with its waste, its pains, its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we are not choosers. We are challenged to the defence of country, and in this sacred cause to crush Slavery. There is no alternative. Slavery began the combat, staking life,and determined to rule or die. Let it die; and to this end the country must be aroused. We need a song like “Scots who have with Wallace bled.” The cause is greater now than then. We need words like those of Luther, “half battles.” Ours is another Reformation and another Revolution. The attempted revolution for Slavery we meet by a counter revolution for Liberty. That we may continue freemen, there must be no slaves; and thus our own security is linked with the redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war, to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster will surely fall! The battle is mighty; for into Slavery has entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent; for such a gathered wickedness, concentrated, aroused, and maddened, must have a tenacity of life which will not yield at once. But no might nor time can save it now.
That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen not only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the confessions of Rebel Slavemongers.Already the President has proclaimed that the slaves throughout the whole Rebel region “are and henceforward shall be free”; and in order to fix the irreversible character of this sublime edict, he has further announced “that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”[157]An enlightened commission is constituted to consider how these thronging freedmen can be best employed for their own good and the national defence. Already the sons of Africa, as mustered soldiers of the Union, have shown a discipline and a bravery not unworthy of their ancient fathers, when the prophet Jeremiah said, “Let the mighty men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield”;[158]and still further, by their stature, by their appearance in the ranks, and even by the unexpected testimony of sanitary statistics, according to which for every black soldier disabled by sickness there are more than ten white, thus making the army health of the black ten times as sure as that of the white,—by all these things they have shown that the Father of History, who is our earliest classical authority, was not entirely mistaken, when he spoke of Ethiopia as “the most distant region of the earth, whose inhabitants are the tallest, most beautiful, and most long-lived of the human race.”[159]Even if these acts of the National Government were less significant, all doubt is removed by the Rebel Slavemongers themselves, who, in Satanic audacity, openly avow that Slavery is the end and aim of the government they seek to establish,so that the whole bloody war they wage is all in the name of Slavery. Therefore, in battling against the Rebellion, we battle against Slavery. Freedom is the growing inspiration of our armies and the just inscription of our banners. Such a war is not a war of subjugation, but a war of liberation, to save the Republic from a petty oligarchy of taskmasters, and to rescue four millions of human beings from cruel oppression. Not to subjugate, but to liberate, is the object of our Holy War.
And yet British statesmen, forgetting for the moment all moral distinctions, forgetting God, who will not be forgotten, gravely announce that our cause must fail. Alas! individual wickedness is too often successful; but a pretended nation, suckled in wickedness and boasting its wickedness, a new Sodom, with all the guilt of the old, waiting to be blasted, and yet, in barefaced effrontery, openly seeking the fellowship of Christian powers, is doomed to defeat. Toleration of such a pretension is practical atheism. Chronology and geography are both offended. Piety stands aghast. In this age of light, and in countries boasting civilization, there can be no place for its barbarous plenipotentiaries. As well expect crocodiles crawling on the pavements of London and Paris, or the carnivorous idols of Africa installed for worship in Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame.
Even if the Republic were less strong, yet I am glad to believe that the Rebellion must fail from the essential impossibility of any such wicked success. The responsibilities of the Christian powers would be increased by our weakness. Behind our blockade there would bea moral blockade; behind our armies there would be the aroused judgment of the civilized world. But not onthat account can we hesitate. This is no time to pause. Thus do I, who formerly pleaded so often for Peace, now insist upon Liberty as its indispensable condition,[160]—clearly because, in this terrible moment, there is no other way to that sincere and solid peace without which is endless war. Even on economic grounds, it were better that this war should proceed rather than recognize any partition, which, beginning with humiliation, must involve the perpetuation of armaments and break out again in blood. But there is something worse than waste of money; it is waste of character. Give me any peace but a liberticide peace. In other days the immense eloquence of Burke was stirred against a regicide peace. But a peace founded on the killing of a king is not so bad as a peace founded on the killing of Liberty; nor can the saddest scenes of such a peace be so sad as the daily life legalized by Slavery. A queen on the scaffold is not so pitiful a sight as a woman on the auction-block.
While thus steady in purpose at home, we must not neglect that proper moderation abroad which becomes the consciousness of strength and the nobleness of our cause. The mistaken sympathy which foreign powers bestow upon Slavery,—or, it may be, the mistaken insensibility,—under the plausible name of “neutrality,” which they profess, will be worse for them than for us. For them it will be a record of shame, which their children would gladly blot out with tears. For us it will be only another obstacle vanquished in the battle for Civilization, where, unhappily, false friends aremingled with open enemies. Even if the cause seem for a while imperilled by foreign powers, yet our duties are none the less urgent. If the pressure be great, the resistance must be greater. Nor can there be any retreat. Come weal or woe, this is the place for us to stand.
I know not if a republic like ours can count even now upon the certain friendship of any European power, unless it be the Republic of William Tell. The very name is unwelcome to the full-blown representatives of monarchical Europe, who forget how proudly, even in modern history, Venice bore the title ofSerenissima Respublica. It is for us to change all this. Our consistent example will be enough. Thus far we have been known chiefly through that vital force which Slavery could only degrade, but not subdue. Now, at last, by the death of Slavery, will the Republic begin to live. For what is life without Liberty? Stretching from ocean to ocean, teeming with population, bountiful in resources of all kinds, rejoicing in that righteousness which exalteth a nation, and thrice happy in universal enfranchisement, it will be more than conqueror. Nothing too vast for its power, nothing too minute for its care. Triumphant over the foulest wrong ever inflicted, after the bloodiest war ever waged, it will know the majesty of Right and the beauty of Peace, prepared always to uphold the one and to cultivate the other. Strong in its own mighty stature, filled with all the fulness of a new life, and covered with a panoply of renown, it will confess that no dominion is of value that does not contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and child of its own struggles, without ancestral claim, but heir of all the ages, it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man,and wherever any member of the Human Family can be succored, there its voice will reach,—as the voice of Cromwell reached across France, even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps. Such will be this Republic, upstart among the nations. Ay! as steam-engine, telegraph, and chloroform are upstart. Comforter and helper like these, it can know no bounds to its empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of Slavery.