Author Title Imprint J 6— 47372-3 OPO THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE. BY ,^^'-x %K^ y // V EDWARD LABOUIiAYE, PROFESSOR IN THE COLLEGE OF FRANCE. ADVOCATE IN THE IMPERIAL COURT OF PARIS, AND MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE. TRANSLATED FOR THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER. BOSTON : PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER. 1862. ^46'! The pamphlet, which is translated in the following pages, was printed in Paris in September, 1862, with the following title : — " Les Etats Unis et la France, par Edouard Laboulaye, Professeur au College de France, Avocat a la Cour Imperiale de Paris, Membre de I'Institut. Paris, 1862." The papers of which the pamphlet is made up first appeared in the Paris Journal des Debats of August 26, and 27, and having attracted great attention, were collected and printed with some additional pages of documentary illustrations, including particularly the important note in the policy of Napoleon, appended to the present translation. M. Laboulaye, the author of the pamphlet, is well known in Europe as an able publicist, of liberal opinions. The argument and tone of his present publication and the close acquaintance with American affairs and history which it discloses, will commend it to all readers, as not only a clear and thoroughly sympathetic view of the present contest, but i^lso a most intelligent statement of the great issues involved. The present translation was made for the Boston Daily Advertiser, and was printed in that paper in its issues of October 15th and 18th. It has been revised by the translator, preparatory to printing it in this form. Boston, October, 1862. PREFACE. This pfttnphlet is merely a new edition of two articles i>ublishe(I last month [August! in the Jour- nal oa^■ted of hav- ing licen cjnspirins against tho govcrniaent for thirty years. tlieir devotion to a law that made them keep terms ■witli slavery (with which they had no right to in- termeddle)," I can understand; but I cannot see how the toleration, or, if you please, the inertia of the North can be made to justify the conduct of the South. Does anybody mean to maintain that, be- cause the North respected the Constitution.the South had a right to violate it? Further: the friends of the South tell us that in the free States the negroes are held in no sort of consideration, that they are worse treated and are more unhappy than they are in the South. It is true that in the North, through the influence of a prejudice unworthy of a Christian people, the blacks are looked upon as a race disgraced by the brand of servitude, and are not treated as cit- izens, ft is also true that at New Orleans the planter sometimes takes a certain pleasure in wit- nessing the sports of his slaves, as he would in ob- serving the gambols of his horses or his dogs, while at New York the white man looks down on the black man with scorn. But has anybody ever been at the troulile to ask the slave whether, in spite of all this, he does not envy his brothers in the North? Is it to go for nothing that in the North the black man is master of his own person, of his wife and children, his labor and his possessions? And after all, what would the argument prove? It was clearly not out q/'love to the negroes that the South left the Union. Once more, they tell us that it is at New York and Boston that all the slave-traders are fitted out, and that the North, which talks so loudly of its love of liberty, has been purveyor for the South. This again proves nothing, except that everywhere infamous speculators are to be found who make no account of the blood and lives of men if they can only gratify their covetousness. These criminal practices (which were a source of profit to the South,) though the offence of a few exceptional pirates, have been a spot on the fame of the people that has suf- fered them, — but what conclusion can be drawn from them ? We ask again— did the South revolt to avenge this abomination? Let us waive all these recriminations, which can impose upon nobody, and look at things as they are. What the North wanted was, that slavery should not be extended, that it should be restricted to the limits within which it is now confined, and should die out trradually iu a natural way. Here you have the true and the only cause of the rebellion, and from this you may estimate the criminality or the glory that belongs to Mr. Lincoln and his party. To go further than this they had no right, and, be- sides, to use a beautiful and deeply significant expression of Mrs. Stowe, a measureless compassion restrained them. To emancipate four millions of men in one day, would be to launch the South on a career whose uncertainties it may make us tremble to contemplate. Bat in marked distinction from the high-souled gentlemen who taunt the North with its weakness, and who clamor for instantaneous and universal emancipation, on the ground of principle, in order that they may cover over their real design to perpetuate slavery from motives of interest, Mr. Lincoln and his friends, with as much courage as wisdom, took the sole path which was at once con- stitutional and safe. To set impassable bounds to this curse of the land, to the end that it might grad- ually be reduced and finally extinguished,— this was the plan of these excellent men, a noble and benefi- cent conception, and one which haply deserved some better treatment than the indiflerence or the con- tempt of nations that call themselves Christian. But was the North really animated by these lofty views, in treating with the slave party, and electing an anti-slavery President ? Let the facts reply. Let us see what services the Congress has rendered to the cause of liberty in the course of the past year The District of Columbia, the seat of the Federal Government, bemg within the territory of Mary- land and bordering on Virginia, had always been sub- ject to slave laws, for the South would not suffer an oasis of liberty to exist as a place of refuge be- tween two slave States. Negroes were sold at the foot of the Capitol, and for thirty years all efforts to do away with this scandal hail been iu vain. The Congress has just declared the District of Columbia tree territory. The South was resolved to carry slavery Into the territories, immense wastes, into which cultivation and civilization were every day making their way. The Congress has dedicated all the territories to freedom, and has thus shut up slavery within a, circle which it cannot overstep. The prospect of emancipation fills the masters with terror; it involves the loss of a kind of proper- ty, not quite respectable to own, to be sure, but still consecrated, like all abuses, by time, and habit, and by the interests which are bound up with it. The Congress has made an oft'er to the slave States to contribute largely to the redemption of their negroes, and all the people of the United States are bound by their action to pay the ransom. To concede the possession of rights to free blacks, even without the bounds of the United States, has hitherto been regarded by the proud Southerners as an outrage not to be thought of. Although the trade carried on with Hayti was much more consid- siderable than the trade with Russia, the old gov- ernment never maintained consuls at her ports. The very idea of treating the blacks as men and as Chris- tians, still worse of going so far as to receive a black envoy at Washington, was most revolting to the planters. The Congress has recently decided to recognize both Hayti and Liberia. Under cover of the American flag the slave-trade was carried on with impunity. By stimulating na- tional jealousy, the right of search, the only means of checking this form of piracy, was withheld from other nations. The Congress has ratified a treaty with England for the suppression of this abomin- able traffic. In the interior of the country, where justice was in the hands of the democrats, the faithful friends of the South, the slave-traders, if brought to trial, were shamelessly acquitted. Under the presi- dency of Mr. Lincoln they are sentenced to death and hanged. Assuredly we have got a long way beyond the Ostend Conferences, and threats to CuDa. Finally an immense step was taken the day when it was decided, in virtue of the rights of war, to employ the slaves of rebels in the service of the Union, and that the slaves thus employed should be entitled to freedom.- This was a terrible blow to the South. At present, while all the free and able- bodied population of the South is engaged in the war, the negroes, by cultivating the laud, are indi- rectly adding to the military force of t'lie rebels. To free the blacks, therefore, and, if necessary, to put arms into their hands, would be to weaken the enemy and strengthen the side of liberty. All this the Congress has done since the rebellion broke out. In one year the North, become its own master, has shown how its heart was disposed. Whatever shall be the issue of the war, we may say that the year 1861 opens the era of emancipation. A question which sets thirty millions of men of the same blood by the ears is not a matter to be stifled by a compromise. It is of no use to represent these acts as the off- spring of a desire for retaliation, anger and revenge. = "Another liill, presented to the Confederate Con- gress by the President, JefforEon Davis, pi-,.vides that those corps of the Union army which may be composed partly of whites and partly of blacks sha.l not onjoy the privileses [read rijhts] of war. The negroes, if taken, shall !«; sjld, and their commanders hauled." I extract this telegrapll despatch from the Frouch news- papers of September 3. It gives a pretty accurate idea of tlio new code of iDternational law which the South will establish when the cause of slavoiy shall have tri- umphed. 9 All this is absolutely to no purpose, for it remains Done tlie less true that the cause of the North is the cause of freedom. While the North was making such spirited prepa- rations for the war, what was the South about ? What provoutec-l the South from competing with the North for the sympathy of Kurojio 'I What measures did they take in behalf of the negroes, and what pledges have they given of a seasonable emancipa- tion. If the tariff was the true origin of the war, and the supremacy of the North the only fear of the planters, a fairer occasion could not have present- ed itselt for throwing overboard the fatal clog of slavery. Let somebody publish a programme of what the South proposes to do; that ie the way to bring round public opinion. The North is acting, and why should the South iireserve silence, when she knows that this is so dangerous. Let not the South delude herself. Her soldiers are brave, her diplomatists adroit. She is keeping back |the cotton of which Europe has a pressing need, she is tlattering certain political jealousies by predicting the approaching dismemberment of tlie United States; but uotwithstauding all chances in her favor, the South will be deceived in the object of her ambition. It is possible that weary of the war, the North may submit to the separation of some of the States between the AUeghanies and the sea; but the new Roman empire which was to extend as far as Mexico, the new civilization founded on slavery, all that is but a dream which is even now vanishing, a bubble which will burst in the tirst breeze. To succeed, the South must have the help of Europe, and this help she will not have. Whatever m.ay be the sufferings of the manufacturing classes, and whatever the schemes of diplomatists, there is one fact which towers above everything else, and that is — 3L.\very. Victory for the North is the redemption of four millions of men — but triumph for the South is the perpetuation and extension of slavery, with all its miseries and all its infamies. This is the feeling of Europe, and the knowledge of this feeling will hold back more than one government. The multitude, whom great poli- ticians despise but dare not defy, the fanatics who believe in the gospel, the narrow minds whose con- ceptions do not soar above liberty, the silly hearts that melt at the recital of the sufferings of an un- known negro, and all that mass of sentimental peo- ple who thi-ow into the balance their love of right and of humanity, these always get the better in tlie end. The world belongs to those ignorant beings who care not a straw for political combinations, and who set justice and charity high above their own in- terests. Frenchmen, is it possible that the cause ef slavery should ever become popular with us? Our fathers once fought in America with Lafayette and Rocham- beau to uiihold freedom there. This is a part of our national glory, and it is the service then rendered the United States which has caused us to be regarded in that country as brothers and frieuds. Shall we obliterate the memorable past? Shall the nanie of France be associated with the triumph of the South, that is, whatever we may do or say, with the endless perpetuity of slavery? It is impossible. France, we are told, never fights for a selfish interest, but always for an idea, f accept this proud motto, and I now ask,— if we give help to the South, what idea shall we be fujhting for '! II. THE SOUTH HAD NO RIGHT TO SEPARATE. SEPARATION IS RbVOLnTION. Before proceeding to separation, the planters in- tended to make sure of Europe. Cotton and free trade, those two irresistible allurements, were to put at the service of the rebellion all the interests of the old continent. Living in the midst of slavery, accustomed to exercising hereditary domination, the people of the South had not taken into account what they call the abolitionist fanaticism. Could they imagine that in this age of business, there should still be in Europe a great number of persons foolish enough to put tlie rights of miserable negroes be- fore their own advantage, and to sacrifice themselves to such empty words as humanity and liberty ? The defenders of the South soon perceived that they were on the wrong road; and thereforo one after another they have drawn the curtain over this sad tragedy of slavery. All the world hates servitude, that is a settled thing; so now we are told that no body detests it so heartily as those who through pity for the inca- pacity of the negro, are obliged to deprive him of the fruits of his labor, and to confiscate forever his family and his rights. The question is now transferred to political ground. The South no longer claims the right of tyraTinizing over the blacks, but her own independence; it is no longer the liberty of millions of men which she con- fiscates, it is her own which she defends. Certainly, the field is better chosen; these words, liberty and independence, always make ua pick up our ears: are like the sound of the trumpet to the war-horae; but let us take care that we are not misled by a vain flourish. The United States, it is said, are a Confederation; the Constitution authorizes any of the States to sep- arate from the rest. Of these two arguments, one is based upon a word of which the sense is falsified; the other rests upon an error. Let us begin with the second. It is easy to con- sult the Constitution of the United States. The text of it is clear, the proceedings of Congress arc within reach. Story has written a commentary worthy of Roman jurists. Where do we find that the right is concede I to one or to many States to separate ? Or rather where do we not see that this pretended right has never existed ? The compact is perpetual, and can only be modified by the majority of the States. It is in this manner, besides, that the constitutional law wa.s understood up to the day when Mr. Cal- houn, the prophet of slavery and of separation, put forward his theory of nullification. The President, General Jackson, energetically resented this theory of anarchy. In his message of 1833, he says to Con- gress; "The right of the inhabitants to free them- selves at their will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most .solemn obligations, and to put in peril the liberties and the happiness of the millions of men of whom the Union is composed, cannot be recognized. To siy that a State may at will separate itself from the Uuion, is to say that the United States are not a nation." Such was the official reply; but, in addition, the General caused Mr. Calhoun to be told that, if he brought his theories to Washington, he would have him hanged; — a threat which, in a free country where a man is put to death only by process of law, signifies that the President would have had Mr. Calhouti tried on a charge of high treason. In other words, to attack the national unity is a crime at Washing- ton as it is at Paris. The law is the same in the two countries. Is it now necessary to cite legal authorities to jirove that everywhere in the world and alike among na- tions as among indiviilu.als, there exists no contract which one of the parties can break ,at will ? Take for instance an alliance, a simple treaty be- tween independent and sovereign nations: this reaty will have a certain duration, there will be forms lor proclaiming it and for annulling it. Where is the dui-ation and the expiration of the Constitution fixed ? Where is it stijjulated that any of the parties shall have the strange right to break it throuirh ci- price and by- force? What rovcriiment hns ever admitted this sort ot amicable dismemberme tt,\a which the minority would give the law to the ma- jority ? When I was a child I once saw a puppet which threw away one after another iLs arms, its legs and its body, till there was nothing left of it 10 but the head, and which then gathered up again piece by piece its scattered members. Behold the similitude of that chimera of a Constitution which ia attributed to the United States ! Between this im- possible charter and a living, self-preserving law, there is the same difference as between a puppet and an animated body. It will be said that the new Constitution of the South recognizes for all its members the right of separation. Yes, undoubtedly, for it was necessary to justify the rebellion; the excuse they could not find "in the charter which was violated, they have put into the new one which they jjroclaimed. In time of war and of revolution declarations cost little; nobody thinks of their being carried out. But sup- pose that today North Carolina should return into the Union. Ask yourself if the Southern Confeder- acy, thus mutilated, would consent to be cut off from Virginia, and acquiesce in its own destruction out of regai-d for the liberty of Carolina. Why, Virginia has already been divided into two States, and do we see that the South has respected the new State of Kanawha ! Things are stronger than laws; no people can willingly allow itself to be cut in two. No, not a, people, it will be answered; but the United States are not one people: they are a Con- federation—that is to say, a voluntary alliance of sovereign States. This is a definition invented for the necessities of the case, contrary to all the ideas received in the United States, to all the actual facts of the last seventj'-five years. M. de Gasparin replies in a triumphant manner to this objection, which is a mere sophism. It is a play upon the word confederatiou- The name of confederation, like that of monarchy, of republic, &c., is susceptible of different meanings. All language is an imperfect instrument, which can- not render the shades and the iniinite varieties of hu- man conceptions; we are, therefore, obliged to ex- press by the same word ideas which have nothing in common but a distant analogy. It is custom, it is history, which in each country gives to the word its significance and stamps it with its legal value. It is clear, for example, that the name of liberty has a wholly different signification in England from what it has on the continent. To say that the United States are a confederation, is therefore to say nothing unless you show at the same time what the United States understand by this word. That there may be confederations of sovereign States history attests, although it nowhere shows us an alliance which one of the parties has the right to break at will. But that there may be also, under the title of confederation, a great number of political combinations in which the sovereignty of the individual State is surrendered, is what it is easy to see by looking round us. What is the German Confederation, but an alli- ance of sovereign States which cannot disunite? If tomorrow Hesse wished to leave the Union, does not everybody know that the Diet would oblige her to remain, even were it necessary to have recourse to arms? Here is a primary form of Confederation which condemns the pretentions of the South. But even this is a tie too lax for the Germans, who every day feel more and more their national unity; there- fore tliey attempt to draw the federal knot tighter, by changing the system of confederated States Cstaaten Bund) into that of a confederation of States (Bn;i(i!eft S;acr(); in other terms, the Ger- mans desire to borrow of the United States that Constitution which places the political sovereignty in a central power, and leaves to the individual States only civil independence. Can anyone believe that if Germany shall one day arrive at that Ameri- can unity which has so long been her dream, she will easily consent to the rupture of the union she has made such sacrifices to bring about? The reform so much desired in Germany, Switzer- land has almost a hieved. She has put an end to the perpetual referenda to the cantonal sovereignty, which drove diplomatists to despair. Custom- houses, general legislation, supreme jurisdiction, the right of making peace and of war, now belong to the"Council and to the two Assemblies, which sit at Berne. Switzerland is still a confederation, but who does not see that the word has changed its meaning? It formerly denoted a league of sovereign cantons; now it denotes a nation. If tomorrow Geneva or Ticino wished to separate, alleging that the federal tie cannot bind them, does any one be- lieve that Switzerland would not maintain her na- tionality with her cannon? And Europe, which has an interest in Helvetian neutrality, would it deny to the Federal Council the right of subduing the rebel- ion? Here, then, again is a confederation which can not be left at will. What now has Switzerland done in strengthening the Federal unity, but distantly imitate the Con- stitution of the United States, an admirable combina- tion, which avoids at the same time the feebleness of the ancient confederations, and the despotism of cen- tralization. And how did America attain to that grand unity which Germany and Switzerland envy her? Is it forgotten that after the peace of 1783, America, though mistress of herself, came near per- ishing through the jealousy of the sovereign States? It was to escape from anarchy that patriots, lite Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Jay, propoised the Federal compact and induced the States in 1787 to renounce their individual sovereignties. Before the Constitution there were thirteen independent and allied States ; after the Constitution there was but one American people. "These .allied sovereignties," said the Federal Court, in 1787, "have changed their league into a government and their Congress of ambassadors into a legislature." Friends or enemies, federalists or partizans of the old order of things, no one was de- ceived. Patrick Henry, one of the first advocates of the revolution, but an enemy of the Federalists, said distinctly, "that this government is a consoli- dated government, (that is to say, a unit,) is evi- dent. The Constitution says. We the people of America, and not JVe the Stales." Open the Constitution, and there try to find what distinguishes the United States from tlie govern- ments of Europe. Nothing but a greater local in- dependence. As to the political sovereignty it be- longs altogether to the President and to Congress. The supreme executive, legislative and judicial power, the right of making peace and war are in the hands of the central authority. Iiiplomatio relations, the army, the navy, the custom-houses, the post-offices, coinage, all these privileges of sove- reignty have been withdrawn from the States and given to the Federal government. It is the Presi- dent who commands the militia of the several States ; it is he who grants naturahzation; it I is he who re- presents the country before tlie world. The Consti- tution does not recognise thirty-three nations, but one alone which is called the United States. Europe follows the Constitution. Is all this only a political fiction? In America are these different peoples united together by a fede- ral tie, as there are in Switzerland German, French, Italian cantons? No; in this territory, twelve times greater than France, there are only men of the same family, who have thesame remembrances, and, if slavery lie done away with, the same institutions. Undoubtedly there are shades of dift'erence between the different States; the character of the first colo- nists, the difference of climate, and above all slavery, give to the South a peculiar physiognomy; tlieseare those provincial varieties found in all countries, and which are less marked in America than in old Europe, which is all made up of odds and ends. But that there can be there an antasonism of race it is impos- sible to admit in the case of a natiou which sprang from one and the same cradle. The Americans are one people; this cannot be too often dinned in the 11 ears of Europe. What, I pray, is a. people, if this title is rcfusoil to a society of men wlio have the same origin, the same language, the same faith, the same civilization, the s.ame past, awl who, for seventy-five years, have had the same history, the same scovernment, the same laws? I insist upon this point, because, if the Americans are one people (and it is impossible to deny it), the recognition of the South raises a question which touches us nearly. What is asked of us, whether people know it or not, is to introduce into the pub- lic law of Christendom a principle of anarchy which tomorrow may be turned against ourselves. This absolute right of separation wliich is so loudly pro- claimed amounts to a denial of all national unity It is strange tliat auyoody shouhl ask France to proclaim a dogma so contrary to our political faith, and to our love of country. That no peojilc is made to be the slave of another people, is a principle which, God be thanked, is now no longer disputed. Tlie emancipation of Venice, the liberty of Poland, the enfranchisement of the Christian tribes in European Turkey, will be- received as the triumph of right over force. But in America, where there is no subject people, except the tbrgotteu negroes, what is implied in this right of separation, as claimed by the South, and as ad- vocated by publicists who think themselves states- men and defenders of order and peace? This new right, this hitherto unheard-of preten- tion, may be translated thus: "Every province, every fraction of the people has the right to quit the State of which it forms a part, and that on the day and hour which it likes best. To justify such conduct, it is enough to procure a local majori- ty, more or less doubtful, and which, besides, is only a minority of the nation. To offer resist.ance to such separation is an act of tyranny which Eu- rope ought not to suffer." Everybody will say this is monstrous; neverthe- less, it is exactly what we are asked to declare as a rule of public law. Has the South been oppressed? Was it not absolute mistress of its administration and of its internal laws? Had it not in the general representation a part proportionate to its popula- tion ? Had the North any exclusive political privil- eges? Was Mr. Lincoln a despot who would have violated his oaths, and trampled under foot the na- tional liberties? No, the South in revolting can al- lege neither a law broken, nor an outraged right. What it complains of is that a change of majority was about to transfer the political superiority to the North. Is this a cause for rebellion? Is not sub- mission to the majority in matters of general inter- est the very condition of the existence of a free peo- ple ? Is it not the very idea of political liberty, that the power of opinion takes the place of the bloody game of revolutions? If instead of free discussion and an appeal to rea- son every discontented minority may have recour.se to separation, where would the process of disinte- gration and division stop ? Why might not counties detach themselves from States? Why might not cities isolate themselves from counties? Why might not what is today the right of New Orleans be tomorrow the right of Geneva, of Cologne, or of Strasburg? Let these pronunciamenlos once be recognised by political jurisprudence, and who can say where this principle of dissolution will end ? To go over to an enemy, even in time of war, will no longer be treachery; it will be the use of an ab- solute and imprescriptible right, viz: — the right of separation. This amounts to introducing into inter- national law the doctrine of free marriage and o{ divorce at will. Such are the principles involved in this war. Pas- sion may obscure them, but it cannot make them not to be. It is possible that the South may g>in its point; it will not be the first time that an unjust revolt has had a transient success; but what we may bo sure of is that the cause of those who break up the unity of their country is an impious cause. The victory of tlie South will be an accur.scd victory and one from which the whole world will suffer. It will be not only the triumph of slavery, but it will be the destruction of the most patriotic and the wisest work of modern times. It will be the intro- duction into America of all the evils to which its di- visions condemn old Europe, and this without there being in the new world the same diversity of races and of customs. Standing armies, enormous budgets, national rivalries, foreign intrigues, the beginning of an endless war, these are the curses which neces- sarily will follow upon this sejiaration which some think so desirable. Such a prospect cannot but strike a profound sadness to the hearts of all lovers of peace, liberty and democracy. Such being the state of things, I do not hesitate to Siiy, that the duty of France is marked out for her. Can we stoop to associate the Trench name with the maintenance of slavery? Can we give aid to men who are engazed in destroying the unity of their nation, and can we assist in a proceeding in a distant land which here at home we should call a sacrilege and a crime? Appealing to our love of country and of humani- ty, I say. No. III. COJnrERCIAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS ALIKE fOUiNSEL FRANCE TO PRESERVE NEU- TR.ILirY. The false position of the Soath is now fully per- ceived, and accordingly her advocates have .shifted the question to the ground of our interest. By so doing they hope to rid themselves of those over- scrupulous politicians, who, while invoking justice, only know, it is said, how to construct fine phrases, but understand nothing of business. We are familiar with this old sophism; and in opposition to it we maintain that never was anything clearer than that on this point the interest and the duty of the coun- try are one. France has a two-fold interest at stake in America : a commercial interest and a political interest, both equally deserving of our attention, although at this moment cruel sufierings may make us forget the second and h)ok only at the first. The scarcity of cotton reduces to misery great masses of laborers. Whence came this scarcity? Is it the fault of the North? No; the North, notwithstanding the war, is willing to buy cotton from the insurgents and sell it to Europe. The North, on the contrary, greatly desires not to complicate an already dita- cult position. But the South has pei-ceived from the first that it could not gain its point, except with tlie suj)port of Europe; it has calculated on getting t'lis help at last, though at a hard bargain perhajis, by starving us. To induce Europe to intervene, iu spite of herself, is the hope and the policy o' the confederates. "Let us count for our defence";"' tliey say in their newspapers,"neither on our arms, nor on our ar.senals, nor on our fortresses; let us count only on our cotton. The life or death of whole commu- nities is in our hands. If we hold back our cotton they will die of hunsrer, and as soon as we bring it again into the market, they will take new life."' This is the haughty summons upon which we arc to lower our flag. What means is there of obtaining cotton if the South persists in this selfish course which costs us so dear? There is but one, and that is the end of the war. The end of the war may come in a natural way, or it may be decided by the intervention of Europe. Of these two ways the second is the more dangenms and the less sure. If the .\mericans are left to themselves, it is clear that the war cannot last long. There are in the field a million of men, whom fatieue and the climate are daily diminishing. The South is forced to call I 12 out the men between tlilrty-five and forty-five; its young men are exhausted. The Confederate paper is at 50 per cent, discount, silver is disappearing from the North, where the army costs a million dol- lars a day. Oq both sides the immense losses and expenses will very soon bring on that weariness and debility which reduce the most infuriated opponents to accej)t of peace. The more we a void interference, the shorter will be tlie struggle, is the best maxim we can act upon. It is not only politicians who feel but distantly the general misery, that tell us so, but English manufacturers, who understand America, and who are made sharp-sighted by their sufferings. To be always ready to otl'er a friendly mediation, to endeavor to shorten by our good offices a fratricidal war, such is our duty; but even to secure our own interests, let us not go farther. To intervene would be to excite on the one side the hopes, on the other the anger of two infuriated parties; it would be to add fuel to a flame which may set the ■whole world on fire. This wise neutrality which all our previous policy imposes on us, does not com- mend itself to a school of writers who wish that France should have a hand in everything, at the risk of wearing out and exhaustitg the country. These are those uneasy and restless people who pro- pose to us not to intervene, but to recognize the South. But will this recognitiou procure us cotton? No; it will not give us the right to breali the block- ade, and so it will not end the war. What will it gain for us? Nothing, but the loss of that position of mediators and friends, which at a favorable mo- ment might enable us to put an end to the conflict. To recognize the South is to give it our moral sup- port, is to declare in advance that its pretensions are lawful, to take sides and therefore to abandon the position of possible arbitrators. Of what use to us will be this measure, which will offend the North and put our future in jeopardy? llecognition, it is said, will not bind us to make ■war. That is a mistake. I fancy that those who say so, have too much sense to believe it. A great country like France never takes a useless step. When it declaresfor a people, it does not long remain satitfied with a barren declaration. In the train of re- cognition of the South, comes war with our old allies. Till- North will see a menace in thisilecisive measure. She has long been uneasy about the storm which has been pointed out to her on the horizon. "Every nation torn by civil war," Mr. Lincoln has said, "must expect to be treated without respect by foreien nations." Let me add also that, rightly or wrongly, it is from England that the North fears intervention; she still counts on the old and con- stant friendship of France. If the North does not yield to the first summona of England and France, do they mean to go farther? Has the probable cost been calculated of the most fortunate war, carried on at such a distance, in an immense country, among a brave, industrious peo- ple who will defend their homes with the energy of despair? What are the losses and the sufferings of the cotton business compared with the evils and the burdens which would be theconsequenceof.au un- dertaking longer and more difficult than the Crimean expedition? To sustain the policy of the slavery- prirty shall we add another thousand millions to our national debt,and spend the lives of sixty thou- sand men? Of course if the honor of France were a stake there should be no hesitation; but the Ameri- cans have in no way injured us; they have always been our friends. At this moment, even, it is in us that they put their trust; the neutrality of France is their safety. Under such circumstances a war will never be popular in France, for it would be in opposition to the inter- ests, the ideas, and the feelings of the country. But let us suppose that the North yields at the first threat of interference; let us suppose that worn out with the struggle it succumbs before our armed mediation; let us suppose that ^ does not deliver up the South to servile war, and thus take an ever- lasting vengeance on the party wnich has called in a foreign nation; let us suppose that it allows us to regulate the dismemberment of America, — all im- possible suppositions, when you remember that we are speaking of a youthful, ardent and patriotic people, a people which has been a year under arms ; — when we shall have succeeded in this gigantic en- terprise, what have we done? We shall have belied all our political traditions, we shall have weakened France and strengthened England, while crushing our most useful and most faithful allies! These po- litical interests are more important than the inter- ests of our manufactures; and yet some appear to forget this fact, or to wink it out of sight, whenever it is convenient for their purposes. When Louis XVI. gave his assistance to the insur- gent Americans, what was his intention but to avenge the insult that we had received in Canada, and to raise up on the shore of the Atlantic, a peo- ple who would one day come into compe- tition with Eugl.and, and would dispute with Iier the empire of the seas? Read the correspond- ence of M. do Vergonnes; it will be seen that people in France were not deceived with regard to the des- tinies of America; it was understood as early as 1780 that it was not a few millions of men who were emancipated; it was a new world that France called into life. When the First Consul sold Louisiana, which he would have done better to keep, when he decided to give up New Orleans, which the United States were ready to pay any price for as the key of the Missis- sippi, as a possession without which they could not live, v/hat was the policy of Napoleon? lie desired, like Louis XVI., to contribute to the power of this people, destined in no distant future to act .as coun-. terpoise to England. [See Note.] The first Consul was not mistaken in his calculations; in the year 1812 infant America accepted war with the parent country, and from that time made the rights of neu- trals a reality.- From this period England has had no maritime war; she has relinquished her pride, she has no longer talked of her maritime sovereignty; and why? Because opposite her, on the other side of the ocean, there was a people, whose growth partakes of the incredible, a people determined to go to war the very moment she interfered with the liberty of the seas. This is the result of our French policy, this was our retaliation for a century of unfortunate wars, this is why the United States have been from the first our allies and our friends. Their interest is ours, their greatness contributes to ours; the downfall of the United States will reduce our jiower and blind is he who does not see it. What, in fact, would be the effect of the dismem- berment of America, but the weakening and the de- struction of the United States navy to the advan- tage of the English navy ? England is not accus- tomed to fight for an idea; the least that she could ex act ofthe South after we should have given it freedom would be such privileges of navigation as would drive out the flag of the North to the advantage of the European flag. Besides, the South lives only on ' Lcs Etats Unis en 1861, p. m. -*'We recognize and will maintain the rights of neu- trals establi.shed in 17-0 by Catlierine II,, when jilacing herself at the head of the nations she proefaimed these rights the law of nations." Iieclaration of war by Congress, 13 June, 1S12. For eighty years the American policy, inspired by Washin'^ton, has been never to inter- miniile in the afiairs of Europe, and alwnys to defend the rights of neutrals. We owe to this policy the peace and the liberty cf the seas. A great puwev, foreign to our quarrels, and having no otiier interest tlian its com- merce, always neutral consequently, and always inter- ested in the defence of neutrals, is an admirable safe- guard for us which we should have to invent, if it was not made to our hands. The proposition has been made to destroy this .=afeguard, and the author of the proposal considers himself a statesman. 13 borroweil capital; it began the war by repudiating twelve huuilreJ million francs tine to Boston iind New V'orjj; it (lepcmls upon the advances of speculat- ors who will buy its cotton even before it is planted. Who will take the place of the North in making these necessary advances? Who in return will ob am the consi^'ument and the transportation of the cotton ? Who will be enriched by this great mono- poly ? Who will strengthen its merchant-marine, and in consequence its navy, by all that the North will lose? Is it France? — or, is it England T England, the natural protectress of the Southern Confederacy, (which will always require foreign support against its neighbors, who wU be more nu- merous by reason of their free institutions, and who ■will never forget the past,) England, mistress of the outlets of the Mississippi and of the St. Law- rence, will then control New Orleans as she does Quebec. She will regain a foothold on the conti- nent; and it is we who will have reestablished heB in the country from which our fathers drove her out. Is this idlejealousy ? I am certainly not one of those who raise an outcry against perfidious Albion. I love and envy the English institutions. I profound- ly respect the energy and the virtues of the English people; but I know that among nations an equilib- rium of forces is the best guaranty of peace. I have not forgotten either our past misfortunes or the wise conduct of our fathers, and I ask that the work of Louis XVI. and of Napoleon may not be destroyed in a moment of impatience. There is for every country a line of policy dictated by its position, which does not depend on men, and which outlives dynasties; and it is this policy that I defend. England acts on the principle that its navy ought always to be twice as powerful as ours, which is the same as saying that the English choose always to be in a condition to cope with confederated Europe. Do away with America, which holds England in check and forces her to respect the rights of neu- trals, and we may be sure that on the outbreak of he first continental war we shall see another mani- festation of the ambition of former times, and an ascendancy established from which we shall be the farst to suffer. To dismember America is the same thing as restoring the empire of the seas to our rivals; and te maintain the unity of America, is to maintain liberty on the ocean and the peace of the world. This is what we must never weary of re- peating to men who, in order to apply a more than doubtful remedy to transient sufferings, would be willing to expose us to a repetition of the terrible trials of the past. If the United States with their thirty-one millions of men had existed in 1810, can it be thought that the continental block- ade would have been possible? If they are crushed tomorrow, does not every one see that a repetition of this blockade would not be an impossibility, if, which God forbid, we should ever experience a dis- aster on the ocean? Whatever the issue may be, there is, at this time a auty to be performed by the friends of liberty and by those who wish to maintain the greatness of France. They must speak, they must enlighten the country; they must show her the abyss toward which she is pushed on by those fair spoken poli- ticians, who, through love of peace, would force us into a war, and who in the name of in- dependence would enrol us under the banner of slavery. Christians, who believe in the Gos- pel and m the rights of an immortal soul, even when it is covered by a black skin ■ patriots, whose hearts beat for democracy ancf liberty ; statesmen, who do not desire the restoration of that colonial policy which for two centuries stained the seas with blood; Frenchmen, who have not forgotten Lafayette nor the glorious memories we left behind us in the new world, — it is your cause which is trying in the United States. This cause has been defended by energetic men for a year with equal courage and ability ; our duty is to range ourselves round tliem, ai.d to hold aloft with a firm hand that old French banner, on which is inscribed, Liberty ! ?Iale. POLICY OF NAPOLBON WITH REGARD TO THE UNITED STATES. It is well known that the First Consul, taking up the ideas of M. de Vergennes, made Spain cede Lou- isiana back to us. He wished to found a great French Colony there which, placed between Ameri- cans and Spainiards might control the ambition of the one and protect the feebleness of the other. The rupture of the Peace of Amiens, foreseen from the first, prevented him from following out this project. Finding England everywhere in his way, the First Consulendeavored to destroy the maritime suprem- acy which was a Source of uneasiness to him. "The principles of a maritime supremacy," he said to his counsellors, "are subversive of one of the chief rights that Nature, Science and Genius have given to men. It is the right of traversing the Seas of the World with as much freedom as the bird cleaves the air; of making use of the waves, tiie winds, the various climates and productions of the globe; of bringing together by means of a bold nav- igation people that have been separated since the Creation; of carrying civilization into countries now given up to ignorance and barbarism. These rights England means to keep from all other na- tions." 1 "If we leave," he said again, "if we leave comf merce and navigation in the exclusive possession o a single people, the whole world will be subjected by Its arms, and by that gold which serves it in place of soldiers. "2 It was then that the "Idea occurred to Bonaparte to cede Louisiana to the United States, in order to increase their power; and on that occasion he ut- tered the following words, which are a summary of the course of French policy for the last thirty years. ''To deliver the nations of the world from the commercial tyranny of England, she musl be counterbalanced by a maritime power which may one day become her rival, and this power is the United States. The English aspire to dispose of all the riches of the world. I shall do a service to the whole world if I can prevent them from becom- ing the masters of America as they have become the masters of Asia." ^ On signing the treaty of 1803, which doubled the extent of the United States, by giving them the im- mense territories which were then called Louisiana, territories which stretched from the mouth of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, that is from New Orleans to California, Bonaparte said again: — "This accession of territory establishes forever the power of the United States, and I have now raised up against England a maritime rival which soon- er or later will humble her pride."* The account {by M. Thiers jis neither less interest- ing nor less instructive. "I shall not retain," said thcFirst Consul to one of his ministers, "a possession whichwould not be safe in our hands, and which woukl embroil me perhaps with the Americans, or would bring on a coldness between us. I shall avail myself of it on the con- ' BarbeMarboIs, Hintoire de la Louisiana. Paris, 1829, p. 2hO. ' Barbp-Marhois, p. 282. ' Barhc-Marbois, i.>id. *Barb6-Marboi8, p. 335. 14 trary to attract them to me, to embroil them with the English, and I shall create for these last, cne- 7uics who will avenge i:s sonic day, if u-e do not suc- ceed in avenging ourselves My decision is made— I shall give Louisiana to the United States." — (March, 1803.) " It is in this way," continues M. Thiers, " that the Americans acquired from France that vast coun- try which completed their sway over North Ameri- ca and made them the rulers ot the Gulf of Mexico for the present and for the future. They are conse- quently indebted for their existence and for their greatness to the long struggle of France against England. To the first act of this struggle they owed their independence, to the second the completion of their territory." ^ The Americans perceived from the first the im- portance of this cession and the immense service which France had done them. "As soon as the treaty was signed," Barbe Mar- bois tells us, who was the negotiator on the French side, "the three ministers rose, shook hands, and Livingston^ expressing the satisfaction they all felt, said — 'We have lived long, and this is the best work of our whole lives. The treaty we have just signed, whicli is equally advantageous to both of the con- tracting parties, will change vast solitudes into flourishing countries. Today the United Slates come into the number qf first class powers : alt ex- clusive influence over the affairs of America passes from the hands of the English, never to return. Ill this way one of theprincipal causes of Europe- an rivalries and hatreds is about to cease. Never- theless, if wars are inevitable, France will have in the new world a natural friend, increasing in strength from year tii year, and which cannot fail to become powerful and respected on all the seas of the world. By the United Stales will be re-csiabhshed tlie maritime rights of the nations of the earth, at present monopolised by one alone. It is thus that these treaties will become as it were a guaranty of peace and of harmony between commercial States.'"' The English, whose interests made them not less clear-sighted than the Americans, felt what a fatal blow this cession was to them. In 1809 we see the governor of Canada favoring intrigues, of which the object was to divide the United States and to separ- ate the North and South. We learn the policy of the English from a letter of the principal manager of the intrigue, a very able man who wished more 'Thiers, Histoiredu Consulate,!. III.,liv. XVI., pp 320, 322. ^ The other American minister was Mr. Monroe, after- wards President of the United States. ' B.arbc -Marbois, page 334. 8 Barbe-Marbois page 403. than fifty years ago to perform the work which the South is so patriotically trying to accomplish at this moment. " We must h.asten on another revolution in the United States; we must overthrow the only republic whose existence would prove that a government founded upon polit- ical equality is able in the midst of tumult and dissensions to secure the happiness of its people, and is in a condition to repel the attacks of foreign- ers. The object of Great Britain should be then to foment divisions between the A''orth and the South, and to extinguish the remains of the affection with which the French have inspired this people. JVoth- ing need then prevent her from pursuing her de- signs in Europe, without troubling herself about the resentment of the American democrats. Her su- periority on the sea wilt place her in a position to dictate her will to the seamen of the A'orth, and even to the agriculturists of the South, whose pro- ducts would be without value if our naval forces should prevent the exportation ofthem.^ The enterjjrise miscarried through the patriotism and the union of the Americans; but it may be said that since then the position of affairs has in no way changed. The Americans are still our natural friends, the defenders of neutrality; England alone can gain by a separation, for this event weakens the European continent not less than the New World. I may add that, in case she should succeed, En- gland would g.ain one of those unfortunate advan- tages from which she herself would have to suifer some day. She would become again an object of hatred to all nations. I do not doubt that enlight- ened men like Mr. Gladstone have a sincere de- sire to preserve unimpaired the greatness of a nation which is after all only the glorious daughter of Pro- testant England. Peace is to the advantage alike of humanity and of civilization. But there are not wanting in England more than elsewhere short sighted politicians, who seek in all matters, like a character in fable, — "First their own good, and then another's harm." Here lies the danger. It must always be fatal to give to men unlimited power; for it has an intoxi- cating influence which turns the strongest heads and misleads nations not less than kings. Fifty years of peace on the ocean is the glory of the nineteenth century. This peace is due chiefly to the neutrality of the United States. History tells us how our fa- thers, how Louis XVI, how Napoleon, have agreed in strengthening this unsurpassable safeguard. Let us not destroy their patriotic work in a day. If we have no pity for slaves, let us at least have pity for our country, and let us preserve for her the friend- Bhip of the United States, and peace. ¥