CHAPTER LV.

KELLY, PIET & CO. PUBLISHERSLITH BY A. HOEN & CO. BALTO.Larger Image

The Combat between the Alabama and theKearsarge, off Cherbourg, on the 19th of June, 1864.

The ship settled by the stern, and as the taffarel was about to be submerged, Kell and myself threw ourselves into the sea, and swam out far enough from the sinking ship to avoidbeing drawn down into the vortex of waters. We then turned to get a last look at her, and see her go down. Just before she disappeared, her main-topmast, which had been wounded, went by the board; and, like a living thing in agony, she threw her bow high out of the water, and then descended rapidly, stern foremost, to her last resting-place. A noble Roman once stabbed his daughter, rather than she should be polluted by the foul embrace of a tyrant. It was with a similar feeling that Kell and I saw theAlabamago down. We had buried her as we had christened her, and she was safe from the polluting touch of the hated Yankee!

Great rejoicing was had in Yankeedom, when it was known that theAlabamahad been beaten. Shouts of triumph rent the air, and bonfires lighted every hill. But along with the rejoicing there went up a howl of disappointed rage, that I had escaped being made a prisoner. The splendid victory of their iron-clad over a wooden ship was shorn of half its brilliancy. Mr. Seward was in a furor of excitement; and as for poor Mr. Adams, he lost his head entirely. He even conceived the brilliant idea of demanding that I should be delivered up to him by the British Government. Two days after the action, he wrote to his chief from London as follows:—

“The popular excitement attending the action between theAlabamaand theKearsargehas been considerable. I transmit a copy of the “Times,” of this morning, containing a report made to Mr. Mason, by Captain Semmes. It is evidently intended for this meridian. The more I reflect upon the conduct of theDeerhound, the more grave do the questions to be raised with this Government appear to be. I do not feel it my duty to assume the responsibility of demanding, without instructions, the surrender of the prisoners. Neither have I yet obtained directly from Captain Winslow, any authentic evidence of the facts attending the conflict. I have some reason to suspect, that the subject has already been under the consideration of the authorities here.”

Mr. Seward and Mr. Adams were both eminently civilians. The heads of both of them were muddled, the moment they stepped from the Forum to the Campus Martius. Mr. Adams was now busy preparing another humiliation for the great American statesman. Some men learn wisdom by experience, and others do not. Mr. Adams seems to have been of thelatter class. He had made a great manydemandsabout theAlabama, which had been refused, and was now about to make another which was more absurd even than those that had gone before. The “instructions” coming from Mr. Seward in due time, the demand was made, and here is the reply of Lord Russell:—

“Secondly,”—[his lordship had been considering another point, which Mr. Adams had introduced into his despatch, not material to the present question,]—“I have to state, that it appears to her Majesty’s Government, that the commander of the private British yacht, theDeerhound, in saving from drowning some of the officers and crew of theAlabama, after that vessel had sunk, performed a praiseworthy act of humanity, to which, moreover, he had been exhorted by the officer commanding theKearsarge, to which vessel theDeerhoundhad, in the first instance, gone, in order to offer to theKearsargeany assistance which, after her action with theAlabama, she might stand in need of; and it appears further, to her Majesty’s Government, that, under all the circumstances of the case, Mr. Lancaster was not under any obligation to deliver to the captain of theKearsargethe officers and men whom he had rescued from the waves. But however that may be, with regard to the demand made by you, by instructions from your Government, that those officers and men should now be delivered up to the Government of the United States, as being escaped prisoners of war, her Majesty’s Government would beg to observe, that there is no obligation by international law, which can bind the government of a neutral State, to deliver up to a belligerent prisoners of war, who may have escaped from the power of such belligerent, and may have taken refuge within the territory of such neutral. Therefore, even if her Majesty’s Government had any power, by law, to comply with the above-mentioned demand, her Majesty’s Government could not do so, without being guilty of a violation of the duties of hospitality. In point of fact, however, her Majesty’s Government have no lawful power to arrest, and deliver up the persons in question. They have been guilty of no offence against the laws of England, and they have committed no act, which would bring them within the provisions of a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, for the mutual surrender of offenders, and her Majesty’s Government are, therefore, entirely without any legal means by which, even if they wished to do so, they could comply with your above-mentioned demand.”

This reasoning is unanswerable, and adds to the many humiliations the Federal Government received from England during the war in connection with theAlabama, through the bungling of its diplomatists. TheDeerhound, a neutral vessel,was not only under no obligation, in fact, to deliver up the prisoners she had rescued from the water, but she could not, lawfully, have put herself under such obligation. The prisoners had rights in the premises as well as theDeerhound. The moment they reached the deck of the neutral ship,by whatever means, they were entitled to the protection of the neutral flag, and any attempt on the part of the neutral master, whether by agreement with the opposite belligerent or not, to hand them over to the latter, would have been an exercise of force by him, and tantamount to an act of hostility against the prisoners. It would have been our right and our duty to resist any such attempt; and we would assuredly have done so if it had been made. It will be observed that Lord Russell does not discuss the question whether we were prisoners. It was not necessary to his argument; for even admitting that we were prisoners, hospitality forbade him to deliver us up.

But we were not prisoners. A person, to become a prisoner, must be brought within the power of his captor. There must be a manucaption, a possession, if even for a moment. I never was at any time, during the engagement, or after, in the power of the enemy. I had struck my flag, it is true, but that did not make me a prisoner. It was merely anofferof surrender. It was equivalent to saying to my enemy, “I am beaten, if you will take possession of me, I will not resist.” Suppose my ship had not been fatally injured, and a sudden gale had sprung up, and prevented the enemy from completing his capture, by taking possession of her, and I had escaped with her, will it be pretended that she was his prize? There have been numerous instances of this kind in naval history, and no one has ever supposed that a ship under such circumstances would be a prize, or that any person on board of her would be a prisoner. Nor can thecausewhich prevents the captor from taking possession of his prize, make any difference. If fromanycause, he is unable to take possession, he loses her. If she takes fire, and burns up, or sinks, she is equally lost to him, and if any one escapes from the burning or sinking ship to the shore, can it be pretended that he is a prisoner? And is there any difference between escaping to the shore, and to a neutral flag? The folly of the thing is too apparent forargument, and yet the question was pressed seriously upon the British Government; and the head of Mr. Gideon Welles, the Secretary of the Federal Navy, was, for a long time, addled on the subject. I question, indeed, whether the head of the old gentleman has recovered from the shock it received, to this day. He afterward had me arrested, as the reader will see in due time, and conveyed to Washington a prisoner, and did all in his power to have me tried by a military commission,in time of peace, because I did not insist upon Mr. Lancaster’s delivering me up to Captain Winslow! Will any one believe that this is the same Mr. Welles who approved of Captain Stellwagen’s running off with theMercedita, after he had beenparoled?

But here is another little incident in point, which, perhaps, Mr. Welles had forgotten when he ordered my arrest. It arose out of Buchanan’s gallant fight with the enemy’s fleet in Hampton Roads, before alluded to in these pages. I will let the Admiral relate it, in his own words. He is writing to Mr. Mallory, the Secretary of the Navy, and after having described the ramming and sinking of theCumberland, proceeds:—

“Having sunk theCumberland, I turned our attention to theCongress. We were some time in getting our proper position, in consequence of the shoalness of the water, and the great difficulty of manœuvring the ship, when in or near the mud. To succeed in my object, I was obliged to run the ship a short distance above the batteries on James River, in order to wind her. During all this time her keel was in the mud; of course she moved but slowly. Thus we were subjected twice to the heavy guns of all the batteries, in passing up and down the river, but it could not be avoided. We silenced several of the batteries, and did much injury on the shore. A large transport steamer, alongside of the wharf, was blown up, one schooner sunk, and another captured and sent to Norfolk. The loss of life on shore we have no means of ascertaining. While theVirginiawas thus engaged in getting her position for attacking theCongress, the prisoners state it was believed on board that ship, we had hauled off; the men left their guns, and gave three cheers. They were sadly undeceived, for, a few minutes after, we opened upon her again, she having run on shore, in shoal water. The carnage, havoc, and dismay, caused by our fire, compelled them to haul down their colors, and hoist a white flag at their gaff, and half-mast another at the main. The crew instantlytook to their boats and landed. Our fire immediatelyceased, and a signal was made for theBeaufortto come within hail. I then ordered Lieutenant-Commanding Parker to take possession of theCongress, secure the officers as prisoners, allow the men to land, and burn the ship. He ran alongside, received her flag and surrender from Commander William Smith, and Lieutenant Pendergrast, with the side-arms of these officers. They delivered themselves as prisoners of war, on board theBeaufort, and afterward were permitted,at their own request, to return to theCongress, to assist in removing the wounded to theBeaufort.They never returned, and I submit to the decision of the Department, whether they are not our prisoners?”

Aye, theseparoledgentlemen escaped, and Mr. Wellesforgotto send them back. There was some excuse for Mr. Seward and Mr. Adams making the blunder they did, of supposing that the rescued officers and men of theAlabamawere prisoners to theKearsarge, but there was none whatever for Mr. Welles. He was the head of the enemy’s Navy Department, and it was his business to know better; and if he did not know better, himself, he should have called to his assistance some of the clever naval men around him. Nay, if he had taken down from its shelf almost any naval history in the library of his department, he could have set himself right in half an hour. James’ “English Naval History” is full of precedents, where ships which have struck their flags, have afterward escaped—the enemy failing to take possession of them—and no question has been raised as to the propriety of their conduct. So many contingencies occur in naval battles, that it has become a sort of common law of the sea, that a ship is never a prize, or the persons on board of her prisoners,until she has actually been taken possession of by the enemy. A few of these cases will doubtless interest the reader, especially as they have an interest of their own, independently of their application.

THE REVOLUTIONNAIRE AND THE AUDACIOUS.

Lord Hood fought his famous action with the French fleet in 1794. In that action, the French shipRevolutionnairestruck her colors to the English shipAudacious, but the latter failing to take possession of her, she escaped. The following is the historian’s relation of the facts:—

“TheAudacious, having placed herself on theRevolutionnaire’slee quarter, poured in a heavy fire, and, until recalled by signal, theRussell, who was at some distance to leeward, also fired on her. TheAudaciousandRevolutionnairenow became so closely engaged, and the latter so disabled in her masts and rigging, that it was with difficulty the former could prevent her huge opponent from falling on board of her. Toward tenP. M., theRevolutionnaire, having, besides the loss of her mizzen-mast, had her fore and main yards, and main-topsail yard shot away, dropped across the hawse of theAudacious; but the latter quickly extricating herself, and the French ship, with her fore-topsail full, but owing to the sheets being shot away, still flying, directed her course to leeward. The men forward, in theAudacious, declared that theRevolutionnairestruck her colors, just as she got clear of them, and the ship’s company cheered in consequence. The people of theRusselldeclared, also, that theRevolutionnaire, as she passed under their stern, had no colors hoisted. That the latter was a beaten ship, may be inferred from her having returned but three shots to the last broadside of theAudacious; moreover, her loss in killed and wounded, if the French accounts are to be believed, amounted to nearly 400 men. Stillthe Revolutionnaire became no prize to the British; owing partly to the disabled state of theAudacious, but chiefly because theThunderer, on approaching the latter, and being hailed to take possession of the French ship, made sail after her own fleet.” 1James, 132, 133.

It is observable in the above extract, that the historian does not complain that the French ship escaped; does not deny her right to do so, but remarks, as a matter of course, that she did not become a prize,because she was not taken possession of.

THE ACHILLE AND THE BRUNSWICK.

In the same action, the French shipAchille, struck to the British shipBrunswick, andnot being taken possession of, endeavored to escape. The relation of this engagement is as follows:—

“At elevenA. M., a ship was discovered through the smoke, bearing down on theBrunswick’slarboard quarter, having her gangways and rigging crowded with men, as if with the intention of releasing theVengeur, [a prize made by theBrunswick,] by boarding theBrunswick. Instantly the men stationed at the five aftermost lower-deck guns, on the starboard side, were turned over on the larboard side; and to each of the latter guns, already loaded with a single 32-pounder, was added a double-headed shot. Presently, theAchille, for that was the ship, advanced to within musket-shot; when five or six rounds from theBrunswick’safter-guns, on eachdeck, brought down by the board the former’s only remaining mast, the foremast. The wreck of this mast, falling where the wreck of the main and mizzen-masts already lay, on the starboard side, prevented theAchillefrom making the slightest resistance; and, after a few unreturned broadsides from theBrunswick, the French ship struck her colors. It was, however, wholly out of theBrunswick’spowerto take possession, and theAchillevery soon rehoisted her colors, and setting her sprit-sail endeavored to escape.”

The escape, however, was prevented by the appearance of a new ship upon the scene, theRamilles. This ship, after dispatching an antagonist with which she had been engaged, perceiving the attempt of theAchille, made sail in pursuit, and coming up with her, took possession of her, and thus, for the first time, made her aprize. 1James, 162-4.

THE BELLONA AND THE MILLBROOK.

In the year 1800, the French shipBellonastruck to the British shipMillbrook, and afterward escaped. The following is the account of the engagement. The battle having continued some little time, the historian proceeds:—

“The carronades of theMillbrookwere seemingly fired with as much precision, as quickness; for theBellona, from broadsides, fell to single guns, and showed by her sails and rigging, how much she had been cut up by the schooner’s shot. At about tenA. M., the ship’s colors came down, and Lieutenant Smith used immediate endeavors to take possession of her. Not having a rope wherewith to hoist out a boat, he launched one over the gunwale, but having been pierced with shot in various directions, the boat soon filled with water. About this time, theMillbrook, having had two of her guns disabled, her masts, yards, sails, and rigging shot through, and all her sweeps shot to pieces, lay quite unmanageable, with her broadside to theBellona’sstern. In a little while, a light breeze sprung up, and theBellonahoisted all the canvas she could, and sought safety in flight.” 3James, 57.

THE SAN JOSÉ AND THE GRASSHOPPER.

In 1807, off the coast of Spain, the Spanish brigSan Joséstruck to the British brigGrasshopper—having first run on shore—when the greater part of her crew escapedbefore she could be taken possession of. The affair is thus related:—

“At about half an hour after noon, having got within range, theGrasshopperopened a heavy fire of round and grape upon the brig.A running fight was maintained—about fifteen minutes of its close—until twoP. M., when the latter, which was the Spanish brig-of-warSan José, of ten 24-pounder carronades, and two long sixes, commanded by Lieutenant Don Antonio de Torres, ran on shore under Cape Negrete, and struck her colors. The greater part of her crew, which, upon leaving Carthagena, on the preceding evening, numbered 99 men, then swam on shore, and effected their escape.” 4James, 374.

THE VAR AND THE BELLE POULE.

In 1809, in the Gulf of Velona, the French ship-of-warVar, struck to the British frigateBelle Poule, butbefore she could be taken possession of, the officers, and a greater part of the crew escaped. The action is described as follows:—

“On the 15th, at daybreak, theVarwas discovered moored with cables to the fortress of Velona, mounting fourteen long 18 and 24-pounders, and upon an eminence above the ship, and apparently commanding the whole anchorage, was another strong fort. A breeze at length favoring, theBelle Poule, at oneP. M., anchored in a position to take, or destroy theVar, and, at the same time, to keep in check the formidable force, prepared, apparently, to defend the French ship. TheBelle Pouleimmediately opened upon the latter an animated and well-directed fire, and, as the forts made no efforts to protect her, theVardischarged a few random shots, that hurt no one, and then hauled down her colors.Before she could be taken possession of, her officers, and a greater part of her crew escaped to the shore.” 5James, 154.

THE VIRGINIA AND THE CONGRESS.

In the year 1862, one Gideon Welles being Secretary of the Federal Navy, Admiral Buchanan, of the Confederate States Navy, in the engagement in Hampton Roads, already referred to, for another purpose, sunk the frigateCongress, and,before she could be taken possession of, the crew took to their boats and escaped. Buchanan did not claim that the crew of theCongress, that had thus escaped, were his prisoners; he only claimed that Commander Smith, and Lieutenant Pendergrast were his prisoners,he having taken possession of them, and they having escaped, in violation of thespecial parole, under which he had permitted them to return to their ship.

It thus appears, that, so far from its being the exception, it is the rule, in naval combats, for both ship and officers, and crew, to escape, after surrender, if possible. The enemy may preventit by force, if he can, but if the escape be successful, it is a valid escape. I have thus far been considering the case, as though it were an escape with, or from a ship, which had not been fatally injured, and on board which the officers and crew might have remained, if they had thought proper. If the escape be proper in such a case as this, how much more must it be proper when, as was the case with theAlabama, the officers and crew of the ship are compelled to throw themselves into the sea, and struggle for their lives? Take my own individual case. The Federal Government complained of me because I threw my sword into the sea, which, as the Federal Secretary of the Navy said, no longer belonged to me. But what was I to do with it? Where was Mr. Welles’ officer, that he did not come to demand it? It had been tendered to him, andwouldhave belonged to him, if he had had the ability, or the inclination to come and take it. But he did not come. I did not betake myself to a boat, and seek refuge in flight. I waited for him, orhisboat, on the deck of my sinking ship, until the sea was ready to engulf me. I was ready and willing to complete the surrender which had been tendered, but as far as was then apparent, the enemy intended to permit me to drown. Was I, under these circumstances, to plunge into the water with my sword in my hand and endeavor to swim to theKearsarge? Was it not more natural, that I should hurl it into the depths of the ocean in defiance, and in hatred of the Yankee and his accursed flag? When my ship went down, I was a waif upon the waters. Battles and swords, and all other things, except the attempt to save life, were at an end. I ceased from that moment to be the enemy of any brave man. A true sailor, and above all, one who had been bred to arms, when he found that he could not himself save me, as his prisoner, should have been glad to have me escape from him, with life, whether by my own exertions, or those of a neutral. I believe this was the feeling, which, at that moment, was in the heart of Captain Winslow. It was reserved for William H. Seward to utter the atrocious sentiment which has been recorded against him, in these pages. Mr. Seward is now an old man, and he has the satisfaction of reflecting that he is responsible for more of the woes which have fallen upon the American people, thanany other citizen of the once proud republic. He has worked, from first to last, for self, and he has met with the usual reward of the selfish—the contempt and neglect of all parties. He has need to utter the prayer of Cardinal Wolsey, and to add thereto, “Forgive, O Lord! him who never did forgive.”

With the permission of the reader, I will make another brief reference to Naval History, to show how gallant men regard the saving of life, from such disasters during battle, as befell theAlabama; how, in other words, they cease to be the enemies of disarmed men, struggling against the elements for their lives.

DESTRUCTION OF L’ORIENT AT THE BATTLE OF THE NILE.

At the battle of the Nile, fought by Lord Nelson, in 1798, with Admiral Brueyes, the flag-ship of the French fleet,L’Orient, took fire and blew up, after having surrendered. Admiral Ganteaume, the third in command of the fleet, was on board the ill-fated ship, and being blown into the water by the explosion of the magazine, was picked up by one of his boats and conveyed to a French brig of war, in which he escaped to Alexandria. This escape, after surrender, was regarded as valid by Lord Nelson. The disaster is thus described by the historian. After giving the position of the French fleet, at anchor in the Bay of Aboukir, and describing the mode of attack by the English fleet, the narrator proceeds:—

“It was at nineP. M., or a few minutes after, that theSwiftsure’speople discovered a fire on board of theOrient, and which, as it increased, presently bore the appearance of being in the ship’s mizzen chains. It was, in fact, on the poop-deck, and in the admiral’s cabin, and its cause we shall hereafter endeavor to explain. As many of theSwiftsure’sguns as could be brought to bear were quickly directed to the inflamed spot, with, as was soon evident, dreadful precision. After spreading along the decks, and ascending the rigging with terrific and uncontrollable rapidity, the flames reached the fatal spot, and at about tenP. M., theOrientblew up with a most tremendous explosion.”

The historian then describes the terrible night-scene that followed; how it put an end, for the time, to the action, and the efforts which were made by the English boats to save life. We have only to do, however, with Admiral Ganteaume. This gentleman describes his escape as follows:—

“It was by an accident, [he is writing to the Minister of Marine,] which I cannot yet comprehend, that I escaped from the midst of the flames of theOrient, and was taken into a yawl, lying under the ship’s counter. Not being able to reach the vessel of General Villeneuve, [the second in command,] I made for Alexandria. At the beginning of the action, Admiral Brueyes, all the superior officers, the first commissary, and about twenty pilots, and masters of transports, were on the poop of theOrient, employed in serving musketry. After the action had lasted about an hour, the admiral was wounded in the body, and in the hand; he then came down from the poop, and a short time after was killed on the quarter-deck. The English having utterly destroyed our van, suffered their ships to drift forward, still ranging along our line, and taking their different stations around us. One, however, which attacked, and nearly touched us, on the starboard side, being totally dismasted, ceased her fire, and cut her cable to get out of reach of our guns; but obliged to defend ourselves against two others, who were furiously thundering upon us on the larboard quarter, and on the starboard bow, we were again compelled to heave in our cable. The 36 and 24-pounders were still firing briskly, when some flames, accompanied with an explosion, appeared on the after-part of the quarter-deck,” &c.

Admiral Ganteaume does not mention the striking of the colors of this ship, and the fact has been disputed. But Lord Nelson believed that she had struck, and that is all we need for our purpose, which is to show that, with the belief of this fact, he did not pretend to regard Admiral Ganteaume as a prisoner. In 2 Clarke’s “Life of Lord Nelson,” p. 135, occurs the following passage:—

“In a letter to his Excellency, Hon. W. Wyndham, at Florence, dated the 21st of August, 1798, Sir Horatio had said, that on account of his indifferent health and his wound, he thought of going down the Mediterranean as soon as he arrived at Naples, unless he should find anything very extraordinary to detain him; and this determination had been strongly impressed on his mind by some of his friends, who doubted the effect of his going into winter-quarters at Naples [where the modern Anthony would find his Cleopatra, in the person of the then charming Lady Hamilton] might have on a mind by no means adapted to cope with the flattery of the Sicilian Court. He also informed Mr. Wyndham, thatL’Orient certainly struck her colors, and had not fired a shot for a quarter of an hour before she took fire.”

Admiral Ganteaume resumed his duties as a naval officer immediately after his escape, repairing to Cairo, where Napoleon then was, to put himself under the orders of the Great Captain. He returned with his distinguished chief to France,in the frigateLe Muiron. The British Government did not demand him of the French Government as a prisoner of war. This case was almost precisely similar with my own. Both ships struck their colors; both ships were destroyed before the enemy could take possession of them, and both commanders escaped; the only difference being that Admiral Ganteaume escaped in one of his own boats, to one of his own brigs of war, and thence to Alexandria, and I escaped by swimming to a neutral ship, and to the cover of a neutral flag; which, as before remarked, was the same thing as if I had swum to neutral territory. Mr. Lancaster could no more have thrust me back into the sea, or handed me over to theKearsarge, than could the keeper of the Needles light, if I had landed on the Isle of Wight.

I have presented several contrasts in these pages; I desire to present another. The reader has seen how Mr. Seward, a civilian, insisted that beaten enemies, who were struggling for their lives in the water, should be permitted to drown, rather than be rescued from the grasp of his naval commander by a neutral. I desire to show how a Christian admiral forbade his enemies to be fired upon, when they were engaged in rescuing their people from drowning; even though the consequence of such rescue should be the escape of the prisoners. I allude to Lord Collingwood, a name almost as well known to American as to English readers; the same Lord Collingwood, who was second in command to Nelson at the famous battle of Trafalgar. This Admiral, from his flag-ship, theOcean, issued the following general order to the commanders of his ships:—

“Ocean, September 19, 1807.“In the event of an action with the enemy, in which it shall happen that any of their ships shall be in distress, by taking fire, or otherwise, and the brigs and tenders, or boats which are attached to their fleet, shall be employed in saving the lives of the crews of such distressed ships, they shall not be fired on, or interrupted in such duty. But as long as the battle shall continue, his Majesty’s ships are not to give up the pursuit of such, as have not surrendered, to attend to any other occasion, except it be to give their aid to his Majesty’s ships which may want it.”—Collingwood’s Letters, 235.

“Ocean, September 19, 1807.

“In the event of an action with the enemy, in which it shall happen that any of their ships shall be in distress, by taking fire, or otherwise, and the brigs and tenders, or boats which are attached to their fleet, shall be employed in saving the lives of the crews of such distressed ships, they shall not be fired on, or interrupted in such duty. But as long as the battle shall continue, his Majesty’s ships are not to give up the pursuit of such, as have not surrendered, to attend to any other occasion, except it be to give their aid to his Majesty’s ships which may want it.”—Collingwood’s Letters, 235.

But the American war developed “grand moral ideas,” and Mr. Seward’s, about the drowning of prisoners, was one of them.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE BRITISH STEAM-YACHT DEERHOUND—MR. SEWARD’S DESPATCH, AND MR. LANCASTER’S LETTER TO THE “DAILY NEWS”—LORD RUSSELL’S REPLY TO MR. ADAMS ON THE SUBJECT OF HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. LANCASTER—PRESENTATION OF A SWORD TO THE AUTHOR, BY THE CLUBS IN ENGLAND—PRESENTATION OF A FLAG BY A LADY.

Thehowl that went up against Mr. Lancaster, the owner of theDeerhound, for his humane exertions in saving my crew and myself from drowning, was almost as rabid as that which had been raised against myself. Statesmen, or those who should have been such, descended into the arena of coarse and vulgar abuse of a private English citizen, who had no connection with them or their war, and no sympathies that I know of, on the one side or the other. Mr. Welles, in one of those patriotic effusions, by which he sought to recommend himself to the extreme party of the North, declared among other things, that he was “not a gentleman!” Poor Mr. Lancaster, to have thy gentility questioned by so competent a judge, as Mr. Gideon Welles! If these gentlemen had confined themselves to mere abuse, the thing would not have been so bad, but they gave currency to malicious falsehoods concerning Mr. Lancaster, as truths. Paid spies in England reported these falsehoods at Washington, and the too eager Secretary of State embodied them in his despatches. Mr. Adams and Mr. Seward have, both, since ascertained that they were imposed upon, and yet no honorable retraxit has ever been made. The following is a portion of one of Mr. Seward’s characteristic despatches on this subject. It is addressed to Mr. Adams:—

“I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 21st of June, No. 724, which relates to the destruction of the pirate-shipAlabama, by theKearsarge, off Cherbourg. This event has given great satisfaction to the Government, and it appreciates and commends the bravery and skill displayed by Captain Winslow, and the officers and crew under his command. Several incidents of the transaction seem to demand immediate attention. The first is, that this Government disapproves the proceedings of Captain Winslow, in paroling and discharging the pirates who fell into his hands, in that brilliant naval engagement, and in order to guard against injurious inferences which might result from that error, if it were overlooked, you are instructed to make the fact of this disapprobation and censure known to her Majesty’s Government, and to state, at the same time, that this Government, adhering to declarations heretofore made, does not recognize theAlabamaas a ship of war of a lawful belligerent power.”

Mr. Seward, when this despatch was penned, had hopes that the “pirates” would be given up to him, and thecaveat, which he enters, may give some indication of the course the Yankee Government intended to pursue toward the said “pirates,” when they should come into its possession. It did not occur to the wily Secretary, that, if we were “pirates,” it was as competent for Great Britain to deal with us as the United States; and that, on this very ground, his claim for extradition might be denied,—a pirate beinghostis humani generis, and punishable by the first nation into whose power he falls. But thesemistakeswere common with Mr. Seward.

Laying aside, therefore, all his trash and nonsense about piracy, let us proceed with that part of his despatch which relates to Mr. Lancaster:—

“Secondly, the presence and the proceedings of a British yacht, theDeerhound, at the battle, require explanation. On reading the statements which have reached this Government, it seems impossible to doubt that theDeerhoundwent out to the place of conflict, by concert and arrangement with the commander of theAlabama, and with, at least, a conditional purpose of rendering her aid and assistance. She did effectually render such aid, by rescuing the commander and part of the crew of theAlabamafrom the pursuit of theKearsarge, and by furtively and clandestinely conveying them to Southampton, within British jurisdiction. We learn from Paris that the intervention of theDeerhoundoccurred after theAlabamahad actually surrendered. The proceeding of theDeerhound, therefore, seems to have been directly hostile to the United States. Statements of the owner of theDeerhoundare reportedhere, to the effect that he was requested by Captain Winslow to rescue the drowning survivors of the battle, but no official confirmation of this statement is found in the reports of Captain Winslow. Even if he had made such a request, the owner of theDeerhoundsubsequently abused the right of interference, by secreting the rescued pirates, and carrying them away beyond the pursuit of theKearsarge. Moreover, we are informed from Paris, that theDeerhound, before going out, received from Semmes, and that she subsequently conveyed away to England, a deposit of money, and other valuables, of which Semmes, in his long piratical career, had despoiled numerous American merchantmen.”

There was not one word of truth in this cock-and-a-bull story, of concert between Mr. Lancaster and myself, as to his going out to witness the combat, as to his receiving money or anything else from theAlabama, or as to any other subject whatever. We had never seen each other, or held the least communication together, until I was drawn out of the water by his boat’s crew, and taken on board his yacht, after the battle.

It was quite natural that Mr. Seward’s Yankee correspondents in London and Paris, and Mr. Seward himself, should suppose that money and stealings had had something to do with Mr. Lancaster’s generous conduct. The whole American war, on the Yankee side, had been conducted on this principle of giving and receiving a “consideration” and on “stealings.” Armies of hired vagabonds had roamed through the Southern States, plundering and stealing—aye, as the reader has seen, stealing not only gold and silver, but libraries, pianos, pictures, and even the jewelry and clothing of women and children! The reader has seen into what a mortal fright the lady-passengers, on board the captured steamshipAriel, were thrown, lest the officers and crew of theAlabamashould prove to be the peers of Yankee rogues, epauletted and unepauletted. These men even laid their profane hands on the sacred word of God,if it would pay. Here is amorceau, taken from the “Journal of Commerce” of New York, a Yankee paper, quite moderate in its tone, and a little given, withal, to religious sniffling. It shows how a family Bible was stolen from a Southern household, and sold for a “consideration” in the North, without exciting so much as a word of condemnation from press or people:—

“An Old Bible Captured from a Rebel.—H. Jallonack, of Syracuse, New York, has exhibited to the editor of the ‘Journal’ of that city a valuable relic—a Protestant Bible, printed in German text, 225 years ago, the imprint bearing date 1637. The book is in an excellent state of preservation, the printing perfectly legible, the binding sound and substantial, and the fastening a brass clasp. The following receipt shows how the volume came in Mr. Jallonack’s possession:—“‘New York, Aug. 21, 1862.“‘Received of Mr. H. Jallonack $150 for a copy of one of the first Protestant Bibles published in the Netherlands, 1637, with the proclamation of the King of the Netherlands. This was taken from a descendant Hollander at the battle before Richmond, in the rebel service, by a private of the Irish Brigade.“‘Joseph Heime, M. D., 4 Houston Street.’”

“‘New York, Aug. 21, 1862.

“‘Received of Mr. H. Jallonack $150 for a copy of one of the first Protestant Bibles published in the Netherlands, 1637, with the proclamation of the King of the Netherlands. This was taken from a descendant Hollander at the battle before Richmond, in the rebel service, by a private of the Irish Brigade.

“‘Joseph Heime, M. D., 4 Houston Street.’”

“Semmes, in his long piratical career,” scarcely equalled these doings of Mr. Seward’s countrymen. He certainly did not send any stolen Bibles, published in the Netherlands or elsewhere, to theDeerhound, to be sold to pious Jallonacks for $150 apiece.

But to return to Mr. Lancaster, and the gross assault that was made upon him, by the Secretary of State. Mr. Lancaster, being a gentleman of ease and fortune, spent a portion of his summers in yachting, as is the case with a large number of the better classes in England. Being in France with his family, he ordered his yacht, theDeerhound, to meet him, at the port of Cherbourg, where it was his intention to embark for a cruise of a few weeks in the German Ocean. A day or two before the engagement between theAlabamaand theKearsarge, a steam yacht, under British colors, was reported to me, as having anchored in the harbor. Beyond admiring the beautiful proportions of the little craft, we paid no further attention to her; and when she steamed out of Cherbourg, on the morning of the engagement, we had not the least conception of what her object was. With this preface, I will let Mr. Lancaster tell his own story. He had been assaulted by a couple of Yankee correspondents, in the London “Daily News,” a paper in the interests, and reported to be in the pay of the Federal Government. He is replying to those assaults, which, as the reader will see, were the same that were afterwardrehashedby Mr. Seward, in the despatch already quoted.

“THE DEERHOUND, THE ALABAMA, AND THE KEARSARGE.“To the Editor of the ‘Daily News.’Sir:—As two correspondents of your journal, in giving their versions of the fight between theAlabamaand theKearsarge, have designated my share in the escape of Captain Semmes, and a portion of the crew of the sunken ship as ‘dishonorable,’ and have moreover affirmed that my yacht, theDeerhound, was in the harbor of Cherbourg before the engagement, and proceeded thence, on the morning of the engagement in order to assist theAlabama, I presume I may trespass upon your kindness so far as to ask an opportunity to repudiate the imputation, and deny the assertion. They admit that when theAlabamawent down, the yacht, being near theKearsarge, was hailed by Captain Winslow, and requested to aid in picking up the men who were in the water; but they intimate that my services were expected to be merely ministerial; or, in other words, that I was to put myself under the command of Captain Winslow, and place my yacht at his disposal for the capture of the poor fellows who were struggling in the water for their lives.“The fact is, that when we passed theKearsarge, the captain cried out, ‘For God’s sake, do what you can to save them,’ and that was my warrant for interfering, in any way, for the aid and succor of his enemies. It may be a question with some, whether, without that warrant, I should have been justified in endeavoring to rescue any of the crew of theAlabama; but my own opinion is, that a man drowning in the open sea cannot be regarded as an enemy, at the time, to anybody, and is, therefore, entitled to the assistance of any passer-by. Be this as it may, I had the earnest request of Captain Winslow, to rescue as many of the men who were in the water, as I could lay hold of, but that request was not coupled with any stipulation to the effect that I should deliver up the rescued men to him, as his prisoners. If it had been, I should have declined the task, because I should have deemed it dishonorable—that is, inconsistent with my notions of honor—to lend my yacht and crew, for the purpose of rescuing those brave men from drowning, only to hand them over to their enemies, for imprisonment, ill-treatment, and perhaps execution.“One of your correspondents opens his letter, by expressing a desire, to bring to the notice of the yacht clubs of England, the conduct of the commander of theDeerhound, which followed the engagement of theAlabamaandKearsarge. Now that my conduct has been impugned, I am equally wishful that it should come under the notice of the yacht clubs of England, and I am quite willing to leave the point of honor to be decided by my brother yachtsmen, and, indeed, by any tribunal of gentlemen. As to my legal right to take away Captain Semmes and his friends, I have been educated in the belief that an English ship is English territory, and I am, therefore, unable, even now, to discover why I was more bound to surrender the people of theAlabamawhom I hadon board my yacht, than the owner of a garden on the south coast of England would have been, if they had swum to such a place, and landed there, or than the Mayor of Southampton was, when they were lodged in that city; or than the British Government is, now that it is known that they are somewhere in England.“Your other correspondent says that Captain Winslow declares that ‘the reason he did not pursue theDeerhound, or fire into her was, that he could not believe, at the time, that any one carrying the flag of the royal yacht squadron, could act so dishonorable a part, as to carry off the prisoners whom he had requested him to save, from feelings of humanity.’ I was not aware then, and I am not aware now, that the men whom I savedwere, or ever had been his prisoners. Whether any of the circumstances which had preceded the sinking of theAlabamaconstituted them prisoners was a question that never came under my consideration, and one which I am not disposed to discuss even now. I can only say, that it is a new doctrine to me, thatwhen one ship sinks another, in warfare, the crew of the sunken ship are debarred from swimming for their lives, and seeking refuge wherever they can find it; and it is a doctrine which I shall not accept, unless backed by better authority than that of the master of theKearsarge. What Captain Winslow’s notion of humanity may be is a point beyond my knowledge, but I have good reason for believing that not many members of the royal yacht squadron would, from ‘motives of humanity’ have taken Captain Semmes from the water in order to give him up to the tender mercies of Captain Winslow, and his compatriots. Another reason assigned by your correspondent for that hero’s forbearance may be imagined in the reflection that such a performance as that of Captain Wilkes, who dragged two ‘enemies’ or ‘rebels’ from an English ship, would not bear repetition. [We have here the secret of the vindictiveness with which Mr. Seward pursued Mr. Lancaster. It was cruel of Lancaster to remind him of the ‘seven days’ of tribulation, through which Lord John Russell had put him.]“Your anonymous correspondent further says, that ‘Captain Winslow would now have all the officers and men of theAlabama, as prisoners, had he not placed too much confidence in the honor of an Englishman, who carried the flag of the royal yacht squadron.’ This is a very questionable assertion; for why did Captain Winslow confide in that Englishman? Why did he implore his interference, calling out, ‘For God’s sake, do what you can to save them?’ I presume it was because he would not, or could not save them, himself. The fact is, that if the Captain and crew of theAlabamahad depended for safety altogether upon Captain Winslow,not one half of them would have been saved. He got quite as many of them as he could lay hold of, time enough to deliver them from drowning.“I come now to the more definite charges advanced by your correspondents, and these I will soon dispose of. They maintain thatmy yacht was in the harbor of Cherbourg, for the purpose of assisting theAlabama, and that her movements before the action prove that she attended her for the same object. My impression is, that the yacht was in Cherbourg, to suit my convenience, and pleasure, and I am quite sure, that when there, I neither did, nor intended to do anything to serve theAlabama. We steamed out on Sunday morning to see the engagement, and the resolution to do so was the result of a family council, whereat the question ‘to go out,’ or ‘not to go out,’ was duly discussed, and the decision in the affirmative was carried by the juveniles, rather against the wish of both myself, and my wife. Had I contemplated taking any part in the movements of theAlabama, I do not think I should have been accompanied with my wife, and several young children.“One of your correspondents, however, says that he knows that theDeerhounddid assist theAlabama, and if he does know this, he knows more than I do. As to the movements of theDeerhound, before the action, all the movements with which I was acquainted, were for the objects of enjoying the summer morning, and getting a good and safe place from which to watch the engagement. Another of your correspondents declares, that since the affair, it has been discovered, that theDeerhoundwas a consort of theAlabama, and on the night before had received many valuable articles, for safe-keeping, from that vessel. This is simply untrue. Before the engagement, neither I nor any member of my family had any knowledge of, or communication with Captain Semmes, or any of his officers or any of his crew. Since the fight I have inquired from my Captain whether he, or any of my crew, had had any communication with the Captain or crew of theAlabama, prior to meeting them on theDeerhoundafter the engagement, and his answer, given in the most emphatic manner, has been, ‘None whatever.’ As to the deposit of chronometers, and other valuable articles, the whole story is a myth. Nothing was brought from theAlabamato theDeerhound, and I never heard of the tale, until I saw it, in an extract from your own columns.“After the fight was over, the drowning men picked up, and theDeerhoundsteaming away to Southampton, some of the officers who had been saved began to express their acknowledgments for my services, and my reply to them, which was addressed, also, to all who stood around, was ‘Gentlemen, you have no need to give me any special thanks. I should have done exactly the same for the other people, if they had needed it.’ This speech would have been a needless, and, indeed, an absurd piece of hypocrisy, if there had been any league or alliance between theAlabamaand theDeerhound. Both your correspondents agree in maintaining that Captain Semmes, and such of his crew as were taken away by theDeerhound, are bound in honor to consider themselves still as prisoners, and to render themselves to their lawful captors as soon as practicable. This is a point which I have nothing to do with, and therefore I shall not discuss it. My object, in this letter, ismerely to vindicate my conduct from misrepresentation; and I trust that in aiming at this, I have not transgressed any of your rules of correspondence, and shall therefore be entitled to a place in your columns.John Lancaster.”

“THE DEERHOUND, THE ALABAMA, AND THE KEARSARGE.

“To the Editor of the ‘Daily News.’Sir:—As two correspondents of your journal, in giving their versions of the fight between theAlabamaand theKearsarge, have designated my share in the escape of Captain Semmes, and a portion of the crew of the sunken ship as ‘dishonorable,’ and have moreover affirmed that my yacht, theDeerhound, was in the harbor of Cherbourg before the engagement, and proceeded thence, on the morning of the engagement in order to assist theAlabama, I presume I may trespass upon your kindness so far as to ask an opportunity to repudiate the imputation, and deny the assertion. They admit that when theAlabamawent down, the yacht, being near theKearsarge, was hailed by Captain Winslow, and requested to aid in picking up the men who were in the water; but they intimate that my services were expected to be merely ministerial; or, in other words, that I was to put myself under the command of Captain Winslow, and place my yacht at his disposal for the capture of the poor fellows who were struggling in the water for their lives.

“The fact is, that when we passed theKearsarge, the captain cried out, ‘For God’s sake, do what you can to save them,’ and that was my warrant for interfering, in any way, for the aid and succor of his enemies. It may be a question with some, whether, without that warrant, I should have been justified in endeavoring to rescue any of the crew of theAlabama; but my own opinion is, that a man drowning in the open sea cannot be regarded as an enemy, at the time, to anybody, and is, therefore, entitled to the assistance of any passer-by. Be this as it may, I had the earnest request of Captain Winslow, to rescue as many of the men who were in the water, as I could lay hold of, but that request was not coupled with any stipulation to the effect that I should deliver up the rescued men to him, as his prisoners. If it had been, I should have declined the task, because I should have deemed it dishonorable—that is, inconsistent with my notions of honor—to lend my yacht and crew, for the purpose of rescuing those brave men from drowning, only to hand them over to their enemies, for imprisonment, ill-treatment, and perhaps execution.

“One of your correspondents opens his letter, by expressing a desire, to bring to the notice of the yacht clubs of England, the conduct of the commander of theDeerhound, which followed the engagement of theAlabamaandKearsarge. Now that my conduct has been impugned, I am equally wishful that it should come under the notice of the yacht clubs of England, and I am quite willing to leave the point of honor to be decided by my brother yachtsmen, and, indeed, by any tribunal of gentlemen. As to my legal right to take away Captain Semmes and his friends, I have been educated in the belief that an English ship is English territory, and I am, therefore, unable, even now, to discover why I was more bound to surrender the people of theAlabamawhom I hadon board my yacht, than the owner of a garden on the south coast of England would have been, if they had swum to such a place, and landed there, or than the Mayor of Southampton was, when they were lodged in that city; or than the British Government is, now that it is known that they are somewhere in England.

“Your other correspondent says that Captain Winslow declares that ‘the reason he did not pursue theDeerhound, or fire into her was, that he could not believe, at the time, that any one carrying the flag of the royal yacht squadron, could act so dishonorable a part, as to carry off the prisoners whom he had requested him to save, from feelings of humanity.’ I was not aware then, and I am not aware now, that the men whom I savedwere, or ever had been his prisoners. Whether any of the circumstances which had preceded the sinking of theAlabamaconstituted them prisoners was a question that never came under my consideration, and one which I am not disposed to discuss even now. I can only say, that it is a new doctrine to me, thatwhen one ship sinks another, in warfare, the crew of the sunken ship are debarred from swimming for their lives, and seeking refuge wherever they can find it; and it is a doctrine which I shall not accept, unless backed by better authority than that of the master of theKearsarge. What Captain Winslow’s notion of humanity may be is a point beyond my knowledge, but I have good reason for believing that not many members of the royal yacht squadron would, from ‘motives of humanity’ have taken Captain Semmes from the water in order to give him up to the tender mercies of Captain Winslow, and his compatriots. Another reason assigned by your correspondent for that hero’s forbearance may be imagined in the reflection that such a performance as that of Captain Wilkes, who dragged two ‘enemies’ or ‘rebels’ from an English ship, would not bear repetition. [We have here the secret of the vindictiveness with which Mr. Seward pursued Mr. Lancaster. It was cruel of Lancaster to remind him of the ‘seven days’ of tribulation, through which Lord John Russell had put him.]

“Your anonymous correspondent further says, that ‘Captain Winslow would now have all the officers and men of theAlabama, as prisoners, had he not placed too much confidence in the honor of an Englishman, who carried the flag of the royal yacht squadron.’ This is a very questionable assertion; for why did Captain Winslow confide in that Englishman? Why did he implore his interference, calling out, ‘For God’s sake, do what you can to save them?’ I presume it was because he would not, or could not save them, himself. The fact is, that if the Captain and crew of theAlabamahad depended for safety altogether upon Captain Winslow,not one half of them would have been saved. He got quite as many of them as he could lay hold of, time enough to deliver them from drowning.

“I come now to the more definite charges advanced by your correspondents, and these I will soon dispose of. They maintain thatmy yacht was in the harbor of Cherbourg, for the purpose of assisting theAlabama, and that her movements before the action prove that she attended her for the same object. My impression is, that the yacht was in Cherbourg, to suit my convenience, and pleasure, and I am quite sure, that when there, I neither did, nor intended to do anything to serve theAlabama. We steamed out on Sunday morning to see the engagement, and the resolution to do so was the result of a family council, whereat the question ‘to go out,’ or ‘not to go out,’ was duly discussed, and the decision in the affirmative was carried by the juveniles, rather against the wish of both myself, and my wife. Had I contemplated taking any part in the movements of theAlabama, I do not think I should have been accompanied with my wife, and several young children.

“One of your correspondents, however, says that he knows that theDeerhounddid assist theAlabama, and if he does know this, he knows more than I do. As to the movements of theDeerhound, before the action, all the movements with which I was acquainted, were for the objects of enjoying the summer morning, and getting a good and safe place from which to watch the engagement. Another of your correspondents declares, that since the affair, it has been discovered, that theDeerhoundwas a consort of theAlabama, and on the night before had received many valuable articles, for safe-keeping, from that vessel. This is simply untrue. Before the engagement, neither I nor any member of my family had any knowledge of, or communication with Captain Semmes, or any of his officers or any of his crew. Since the fight I have inquired from my Captain whether he, or any of my crew, had had any communication with the Captain or crew of theAlabama, prior to meeting them on theDeerhoundafter the engagement, and his answer, given in the most emphatic manner, has been, ‘None whatever.’ As to the deposit of chronometers, and other valuable articles, the whole story is a myth. Nothing was brought from theAlabamato theDeerhound, and I never heard of the tale, until I saw it, in an extract from your own columns.

“After the fight was over, the drowning men picked up, and theDeerhoundsteaming away to Southampton, some of the officers who had been saved began to express their acknowledgments for my services, and my reply to them, which was addressed, also, to all who stood around, was ‘Gentlemen, you have no need to give me any special thanks. I should have done exactly the same for the other people, if they had needed it.’ This speech would have been a needless, and, indeed, an absurd piece of hypocrisy, if there had been any league or alliance between theAlabamaand theDeerhound. Both your correspondents agree in maintaining that Captain Semmes, and such of his crew as were taken away by theDeerhound, are bound in honor to consider themselves still as prisoners, and to render themselves to their lawful captors as soon as practicable. This is a point which I have nothing to do with, and therefore I shall not discuss it. My object, in this letter, ismerely to vindicate my conduct from misrepresentation; and I trust that in aiming at this, I have not transgressed any of your rules of correspondence, and shall therefore be entitled to a place in your columns.

John Lancaster.”

“Mark how a plain tale shall put him down.” There could not be a better illustration of this remark, than the above reply, proceeding from the pen of a gentleman, to Mr. Seward’s charges against both Mr. Lancaster and myself. Mr. Adams having complained to Lord Russell, of the conduct of Mr. Lancaster, the latter gentleman addressed a letter to his lordship, containing substantially the defence of himself which he had prepared for the “Daily News.” In a day or two afterward, Lord Russell replied to Mr. Adams as follows:—

Back to Index Next