Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
Sir: Your dispatch of November 21 (No. 214) has been received.
The President is of opinion that the dignity of the country and the interests of peace concur in requiring forbearance on the part of this government from discussing the motives, objects, and legitimate tendency of the late movement of France in regard to our national affairs. I may, perhaps, without departing from this course, inform you that the popular judgment in this country is unanimous in ascribing that proceeding to designs on the part of the Emperor, which are not only hostile, but aggressive. The President does not accept this interpretation, but thinks, on the contrary, that the proceeding was an ill-advised one, grounded upon erroneous assumptions in regard to the military and n ava [Page 15] condition of the country, and a mistaken desire to counsel in a case where all foreign counsel excites distrust, and must be rejected with firmness. I may add, that the determination of Congress and of the people to hold the country in a condition of defence, adequate to meet any foreign intervention, has been intensified by the appearance of the proposition of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys.
There is a very simple explanation of the misunderstanding into which the French government was led in regard to the disposition of the American people and their government, to which Earl Russell has referred. The insurgent invasion of the loyal States last summer, as I so often had occasion to show you, produced for the moment a state of apparent consternation and confusion, of which the sympathizers with the insurgents in New York profited in their intercourse with some of the foreign ministers residing in the United States. These ministers doubtlessly conveyed to their governments the sentiments and purposes, not of this government or of the people, but of a party which grew in the night of despondency, and disappeared so soon as the sunlight of national prosperity reappeared. It is a pleasing reflection now that no pains were spared by the President to counteract the mischief which was thus set on foot, and to save foreign nations from the inconveniences which it might bring upon them.
I notice in the communication of Earl Russell the appearance rather than the expression of a belief that the United States are more tolerant of real or apparent injury from France than of such injury coming from Great Britain, and that they would prefer rather the friendship of the former than of the latter country. Perhaps a word or two on this subject may not now be out of season. Beyond all doubt the people of the United States desire peace and friendship with both of those powers. A traditional sympathy with France has come down to us from the revolutionary age. It has not, however, been strong enough for many years past to persuade the American people to bear with patience any aggression that France might commit. On the other hand, two wars with Great Britain have left memories that are impatient. But the growing intercourse between the two countries has counteracted those memories, so that the people would not willingly do Great Britain any wrong, but, on the other hand, they are in a temper to become fast friends. The joint proceedings of the two countries in regard to this war have neutralized those national sentiments in a large degree. Our commerce has suffered, and our armies have been hindered by actual co-operation of British subjects with the insurgents, while no considerable grievances of that kind have been inflicted upon us by France. I do not profess to know, nor do I care to inquire, whether the French press and the French statesmen have been as intolerant towards us as the British press and the British statesmen. It is enough that the latter speak and print in our own tongue, and everybody on this side of the Atlantic reads and hears them. The French employ a different language, and, practically, are not read and heard in our country. The people have hitherto been jealous and watchful of both Great Britain and France, because the language and the proceedings of each were not as forbearing, or, if it would suit them better, I would say not so generous, as was expected, and because there was a prevailing consciousness on our part that we were not yet fully prepared for a foreign war. This latter conviction is passing away. It is now apparent to observing and considerate men that no European state is as really capable to do us harm as we are capable to defend ourselves. There is, moreover, a general conviction that we have deserved peace and friendship at the hands of all nations, and that if war must come from any foreign quarter, our cause will be a just one, and such a war would rather strengthen the Union than add to its present dangers. The time, therefore, is a propitious one for the restoration of harmonious relations between the United States and Great Britain. It will be through her own fault, not ours, if the restoration does not come. All that stands in the way of it is the injurious attitude of armed neutrality between the United States and a domestic faction that is seeking [Page 16] their overthrow—a neutrality that, as we think, was unnecessarily proclaimed, and has resulted in making British ports a base for a feeble yet irritating and vexatious maritime war against this country. British ships and even fleets ride in our ports free, honored, and respected. Armed vessels of the United States are allowed only restricted entrance, with irritating conditions, in British ports, colonial as well as domestic, when they are sent to watch the appearance of privately armed hostile expeditions sent out from those ports by or through the activity of British subjects—an activity which, although forbidden, is nevertheless practiced with impunity, and in defiance of municipal law as well as international justice. It no longer rests with this country to suggest remedies for this evil. All that could be suggested on that subject has been offered and reiterated. The whole ease may be summed up in this: The United States claim, and they must continually claim, that in this war they are a whole sovereign nation, and entitled to the same respect as such that they accord to Great Britain. Great Britain does not treat them as such a sovereign, and hence all the evils that disturb their intercourse and endanger their friendship. Great Britain justifies her course and perseveres. The United States do not admit the justification, and so they are obliged to complain and stand upon their guard Those in either country who desire to see the two nations remain in this relation are not well-advised friends of either of them.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.