|
|
|
|
|
|
and true to its long-cherished principles, proceeded to disavow the act of Wilkes and to release the prisoners. That act was in violation of a principle for the  maintenance of which, as we have seen, the United States went to war with Great Britain-- the principle that the flag of a neutral vessel is a protection to all beneath it. A few hours after the news of the capture reached Washington, the calm and thoughtful President said to the writer: " I fear the traitors will prove to be white elephants. We must stick to American principles concerning the rights of neutrals. We fought Great Britain, for insisting, by theory and practice, on the right to do precisely what Captain Wilkes has done. If Great Britain shall now protest against the act, and demand their release, we must give them up, apologize for the act as a violation of our doctrine, and thus forever bind her to keep the peace in relation to neutrals, and so acknowledge she has been wrong for at least sixty years." Under the instructions of the President, the Secretary of State (Mr. Seward) acted in accordance with these utterances. The prisoners were released, and the British people blushed for shame because of the impotent bluster of their government, when the fact was promulgated by the American minister, Mr. Adams. Then the London Times, which had called most vehemently for war on "the insolent Republic," in speaking of the demand of the British government for the release of the embassadors, superciliously declared that they were "worthless booty; " and added, "England would have done as much for two negroes." The embassadors were treated, in England, with a coolness that amounted to contempt, and they soon passed into obscurity.
The British government acted not only unwisely but disbonorably in the matter. Lord John Russell, the Foreign Secretary, wrote to Lord Lyons, the British minister at Washington,  to demand from our Government the liberation of the captives and "a suitable apology for the aggressions which had been committed; " and if the demand should not be speedily complied with, to leave Washington, with all the members of the legation. On the day of the date of Earl Russell's despatch, Mr. Seward wrote a confidential note to Mr. Adams, calling attention to the fact that Captain Wilkes did not act under orders from his Government, and expressed a hope that the British government would consider the subject in a friendly manner. He gave Mr. Adams permission to read his note to Lord Russell and the Prime Minister. Mr. Adams did so; and yet the British government, with this voluntary assurance that a satisfactory arrangement of the difficulties might be made, continued its preparations for war with vigor, to the alarm and distress of the people. The fact that such assurance had reached the government was not only suppressed, but, when rumors of it were whispered, it was semi-officially denied. And when the fact could no longer be concealed, it was, by the same authority, affirmed, without a shadow of justice, that Mr. Adams had suppressed it, at the same time suggesting as a reason, that the American minister might profit by the purchase of American stocks at panic prices!
When the excitement, in our country, caused by the " Trent affair," was subsiding, early in 1862, public attention was attracted by the fitting out of a third naval armament at Hampton Roads. It was composed of over one hundred war-vessels and transports commanded by Commodore L. M. Goldsborough, and bearing sixteen thousand land troops under General Ambrose E. Burnside, of Rhode Island. The armament left the Roads on the 11th of January (1862) with its destination unknown except
|
|
About |
Contact
All images and content are the
property of eHistory at The Ohio State University unless otherwise stated.
Copyright © 2009 OSU Department of History. All rights reserved.
|
| |
