north america-2-第10章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ed and what men said about it； I knew that I need not hurry myself。 One met a minister here； and a Senator there； and anon some wise diplomatic functionary。 By none of these grave men would any secret be divulged； none of them had any secret ready for divulging。 But it was to be read in every look of the eye； in every touch of the hand； and in every fall of the foot of each of them； that Mason and Slidell would go to England。 Then we had； in all the fullness of diplomatic language； Lord Russell's demand； and Mr。 Seward's answer。 Lord Russell's demand was worded in language so mild； was so devoid of threat； was so free from anger； that at the first reading it seemed to ask for nothing。 It almost disappointed by its mildness。 Mr。 Seward's reply； on the other hand； by its length of argumentation； by a certain sharpness of diction； to which that gentleman is addicted in his State papers； and by a tone of satisfaction inherent through it all； seemed to demand more than he conceded。 But； in truth； Lord Russell had demanded everything； and the United States government had conceded everything。 I have said that the American government behaved well in its mode of giving the men up； and I think that so much should be allowed to them on a review of the whole affair。 That Captain Wilkes had no instructions to seize the two men； is a known fact。 He did seize them； and brought them into Boston harbor； to the great delight of his countrymen。 This delight I could understand； though of course I did not share it。 One of these men had been the parent of the Fugitive Slave Law； the other had been great in fostering the success of filibustering。 Both of them were hot secessionists； and undoubtedly rebels。 No two men on the continent were more grievous in their antecedents and present characters to all Northern feeling。 It is impossible to deny that they were rebels against the government of their country。 That Captain Wilkes was not on this account justified in seizing them； is now a matter of history； but that the people of the loyal States should rejoice in their seizure； was a matter of course。 Wilkes was received with an ovation； which as regarded him was ill judged and undeserved； but which in its spirit was natural。 Had the President's government at that moment disowned the deed done by Wilkes； and declared its intention of giving up the men unasked； the clamor raised would have been very great； and perhaps successful。 We were told that the American lawyers were against their doing so； and indeed there was such a shout of triumph that no ministry in a country so democratic could have ventured to go at once against it； and to do so without any external pressure。 Then came the one ministerial blunder。 The President put forth his message； in which he was cunningly silent on the Slidell and Mason affair； but to his message was appended； according to custom； the report from Mr。 Welles； the Secretary of the Navy。 In this report approval was expressed of the deed done by Captain Wilkes。 Captain Wilkes was thus in all respects indemnified； and the blame； if any； was taken from his shoulders and put on to the shoulders of that officer who was responsible for the Secretary's letter。 It is true that in that letter the Secretary declared that in case of any future seizure the vessel seized must be taken into port； and so declared in animadverting on the fact that Captain Wilkes had not brought the 〃Trent〃 into port。 But； nevertheless； Secretary Welles approved of Captain Wilkes's conduct。 He allowed the reasons to be good which Wilkes had put forward for leaving the ship； and in all respects indemnified the captain。 Then the responsibility shifted itself to Secretary Welles； but I think it must be clear that the President； in sending forward that report； took that responsibility upon himself。 That he is not bound to send forward the reports of his Secretaries as he receives themthat he can disapprove them and require alteration； was proved at the very time by the fact that he had in this way condemned Secretary Cameron's report； and caused a portion of it to be omitted。 Secretary Cameron had unfortunately allowed his entire report to be printed； and it appeare d in a New York paper。 It contained a recommendation with reference to the slave question most offensive to a part of the cabinet； and to the majority of Mr。 Lincoln's party。 This； by order of the President； was omitted in the official way。 It was certainly a pity that Mr。 Welles's paragraph respecting the 〃Trent〃 was not omitted also。 The President was dumb on the matter； and that being so the Secretary should have been dumb also。 But when the demand was made； the States government yielded at once； and yielded without bluster。 I cannot say I much admired Mr。 Seward's long letter。 It was full of smart special pleading； and savored strongly； as Mr。 Seward's productions always do； of the personal author。 Mr。 Seward was making an effort to place a great State paper on record； but the ars celare artem was altogether wanting； and； if I am not mistaken； he was without the art itself。 I think he left the matter very much where he found it。 The men； however； were to be surrendered； and the good policy consisted in this； that no delay was sought； no diplomatic ambiguities were put into request。 It was the opinion of very many that some two or three months might be gained by correspondence； and that at the end of that time things might stand on a different footing。 If during that time the North should gain any great success over the South； the States might be in a position to disregard England's threats。 No such game was played。 The illegality of the arrest was at once acknowledged； and the men were given up with a tranquillity that certainly appeared marvelous after all that had so lately occurred。 Then came Mr。 Sumner's field day。 Mr。 Charles Sumner is a Senator from Massachusetts； known as a very hot abolitionist； and as having been the victim of an attack made upon him in the Senate House by Senator Brooks。 He was also； at the time of which I am writing； Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs； which position is as near akin to that of a British minister in Parliament as can be attained under the existing Constitution of the States。 It is not similar； because such chairman is by no means bound to the government； but he has ministerial relations； and is supposed to be specially conversant with all questions relating to foreign affairs。 It was understood that Mr。 Sumner did not intend to find fault either with England or with the government of his own country as to its management of this matter； or that； at least； such fault…finding was not his special object； but that he was desirous to put forth views which might lead to a final settlement of all difficulties with reference to the right of international search。 On such an occasion； a speaker gives himself very little chance of making a favorable impression on his immediate hearers if he reads his speech from a written manuscript。 Mr。 Sumner did so on this occasion； and I must confess that I was not edified。 It seemed to me that he merely repeated； at greater length； the arguments which I had heard fifty times during the last thirty or forty days。 I am told that the discourse is considered to be logical； and that it 〃reads〃 well。 As regards the gist of it； or that result which Mr。 Sumner thinks to be desirable； I fully agree with him； as I think will all the civilized world before many years have passed。 If international law be what the lawyers say it is； international law must be altered to suit the requirements of modern civilization。 By those laws； as they are construed； everything is to be done for two nations at war with each other； but nothing is to be done for all the nations of the world that can manage to maintain the peace。 The belligerents are to be treated with every delicacy； as we treat our heinous criminals； but the poor neutrals are to be handled with unjust rigor； as we handle our unfortunate witnesses in order that the murderer may； if possible； be allowed to escape。 Two men living in the same street choose to pelt each other across the way with brickbats； and the other inhabitants are denied t
