DANIEL WEBSTER’S IDEAS ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT C. HAYES 
 
 THESIS 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS 
 
 IN 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 1922 
 
I92Z 
 
 H32 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 ^y._30j i 92 -S__ 
 
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY 
 
 J0CimT_C..:HAIES 
 
 ENTITLED. _ _?^_EL_ MBSIER »_S_ IJEAS_ ON _ JMEBMTIQRAL .BiUlTIONS 
 
 IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF MQSIXQ.B_OX-iJlT^_IN_iIlSaJDiI 
 
 Instructor in Charge 
 
 Approv 
 
 
 HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/danielwebstersidOOhaye 
 
TABLE OF COITTENTS 
 
 I, Biographical Introduction 
 
 II. General Principles which govern international relations * 3 
 
 1. International Law 3 
 
 / 
 
 2. National Individuality and Non-interference .10 
 
 3. International Comnunity of Interest 15 
 
 III. Specific Rules of International Law 
 
 1. Rules of Warfare 17 
 
 (1) Distinction between Combatants and Non-combatants 17 
 
 (2) Treatment of Prisoners of War 17 
 
 2. Rules governing the status and actions of citizens abroad 18 
 
 3. The maritime Jurisdiction of a nation's law 21 
 
 4. Extradition of Criminals 26 
 
 IV. The Participation of the United States in Foreigi Affairs 
 
 1. The United States as the example of democracy 27 
 
 2. Neutrality the national policy .30 
 
 3. The wisdom of peace 32 
 
 4. National honor: qualifications of his peaceful attitude . 
 
 5. The influence of commercial considerations upon Webster's 
 
 ideas on foreign relations 
 
 V. Conclusion 
 
 41 
 
i 
 
 
 V;, 
 
 W, 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 V f 
 
 '! 
 
 run 
 
 f 
 
Daniel webstee's ideas on ikteenational kelations 
 
 I. Biographical Introduction 
 
 Daniel Webster, bom at Salisbury, New Hampshire on January 18, 1702, 
 was the son of an ex-indian fighter, soldier, and pioneer, who by his vigor and 
 intellect had made himself Judge of the local court, and who determined to give 
 his children a good education. As a result, Daniel was enabled to graduate from 
 Dartmouth College in 1801. He chose law as a profession, and was admitted to the 
 Bar in Boston in 1805. After practicing in Boscowan and Portsmouth he was elected 
 in 1813 to the House of Representatives. He returned to the practise of law in 
 1816 and made himself famous in the Darmouth College case and others. His ideas 
 of national union were expressed in some of these. 
 
 In 1823 he returned to Congress as representative from J'feissachusetts. 
 
 The speech on the Revolution in Greece, for free trade in 1824 and for the main- 
 tenance of a protective tariff when once established four years later. 
 
 In 1827 he was sent to the Senate and three years after the debate on 
 Foote's resolution occurred. He was made Secretary of State in 1841 and during 
 hie term negotiated successfully and peacefully the case of McLeod (althou^ the 
 British government had declared that it would regard his conviction as a casus 
 belli ) , the question of the right of search of American vessels to prevent the 
 Slave trade; and the impressment dispute. The treaty of Washington was concluded 
 in 1842, with Lord Ashburton the British representative, and was ratified by both 
 nations after inevitable objections by both sides. 
 
 Webster resigied in 1843 and two years later returned to the Senate. 
 
 His opposition to the Mexican war and endorsement of the Coapromise of 1850 mark 
 this term. 
 
 Prom 1836 to 1852 he had been a candidate for the presidency whenever 
 
’■'■Sr"; T^' 
 
 i, ■■■ V.';,v,. 
 
 f '.■ ,' 
 
 I 
 
 
 7 'i 
 
 I 
 
 .•■'... ..^ -- -.r . •• ■ • 
 
 •'W 
 
 •»' M 
 
 
 ■'■ff 
 
 
 '■*.••' ':.j 
 
 I 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 •* . t/i •* 
 
 >■ -'♦-’ ,r ^,. 
 
 C' .ih ^ I ,' ■ ' 
 
 rJ i'{» - . I : . y - ^,*!k -'J' 
 
 «• .<> »' w • &/•> f 'I ;< r* 
 
 J 
 
 'I 
 
 . . 
 
 'W. 
 
 
 ;f ,. ; _ ':. ■' '' ' ' ■ 
 
 i , '*i *:■.•, ‘ J' *•' ■ '['}»' ■ ■ I 
 
 < - ■;• V:'f,v 
 
 1 V :'■ ‘v- 7 /^r 
 
 i ■ ,,, 
 
 J.V.JjS.i* -<* t$’- p ' f‘-.;'- • •■'. * 
 
 'i > t 
 
 \r-sir:tr^ *>‘c''i( -<j 
 
 , *iv. ■ 
 
 ■w • . 7 , '■■. ■ 
 
 '■ji* 
 
 
 
 >. f 
 
 ■, . n ’ • ■ 
 
 • t 
 
 * . A . . ^ .• ' T V’ 
 
 , ■ •■: 
 
 '»if‘ -Va t- - 
 
 ■ • 'i -M' ■ J''* '■■'■■’^■■■'IfjIf'iM 
 
 i '■ Krt-/ • * ’'>•* ■'■■■* ' “■ ■ ■ 
 
 ii 
 
 
 .■'IJ;/: • AV 1'^ X .7 ^ V .V T*y 
 
 ■:'vj; > 'jiS’ift.’'' 
 
 ■'••E • ’ f ; r r - '\ -! 
 
 ■ ' ' ^ -^V* ■» I S«i. A. /.*»«.«> M 
 
 '.c.\. 
 
 
 J‘->r ■? 
 
 •J • - S • 
 
 ^ ‘ 
 
 I, ' »7 • 
 
 'i li'V. 
 
 »r 
 
 v». 
 
 7 tE -ia' T») a '7 
 
 •) 
 
 
 '7^ f- -■ 
 
 . ■ ,. -■ ■ 
 
 ^"w r 
 
 /•j X,‘;fr»- 
 
 .1 ■-.' ;V.. , 
 
 s 
 
 
 >* Vi/?' 
 
 A,'*: ' ... ‘‘^ 
 
 
 . i. 
 
 a/’-I. 
 
2 
 
 occasion offered, but never with any chance of success. 
 
 In 1850 he again became Secretary of State, a position which he held un- 
 til his death two years later. The chief events of this term were the Holssmaan 
 correspondence, the controversy with England in regard to Nicaragua, the dispute 
 over the right of way on the isthmus of Tehauntepec, the riot which resulted in 
 the destruction of the Spanish consulate at New Orleans, renewed dispute about the 
 fisheries, and the affair of the lobos islands. 
 
 The purpose of this paper is not to describe these events, but to summar- 
 ize the ideas of Webster on international relations which his dealings with them 
 reveal. ^ 
 
 Daniel Webster regarded the international situation as composed of sun- 
 dry Independent sovereign states, each with complete and exclusive right to con- 
 trol its own internal and foreign affairs; but controlled and regulated in their 
 proceedings by international law, which prescribed certain methods and required 
 others, and maintained the rights of small nations; a law enforced by the powerful 
 sanction of Public opinion; and held together to a considerable degree by mutual 
 interests - chiefly commercial - and the common enjoyment of the benefits of peace. 
 These three characteristics - the stress on the importance of international law; 
 the emphasis on non-intervention by every state in the concerns of its neighbor; 
 and conviction that peace and co-operation between nations supplies the best means 
 of advancing their interests - seem to me to be the chief features of his views on 
 
 international relations 
 

 
 r'llf.^l''r>i 'il'*Al^ i» * f ' •< ■ itf ~'y -. .• I. ' 
 
 m. 
 
 f: 
 
 u-'-lPT? » 
 
 r- 
 
 . 1 
 
 r - 
 
 ml 
 
 “ • •■ ; tiH \S*Vy»'^A6I^ 
 
 ►I '■fl ' k '''I 
 
 . ' 's • ■' ,"'i • ^. X *~ ^ ^ 
 
 
 L' Off Vf^ri t: '*.■■ ’' ‘ 9^, 
 
 ‘ ?3 _ ■■■■.;•* 
 
 ‘fiTx\/v|^tnP fu‘ ^«ifc r^d*t xf/ti^,747«vor:'i»tc<0' «f<f . |V 
 
 , '® . ’ ^ ':■ ,) ‘ ■ »' ■' Jl‘ J ”' 
 
 ‘-.•fjt. ..- ., . .Y(., .. ^ ’■. ' ,< • . ... '■" .;'•: ■ .-■■ .,/ "ijo" r* fife 
 
 x--m 
 
 tliiM «.<; rS'^lrtTiti' i»fe im' ,W>2 
 
 1 
 
 
 m' ftoWte^^ "■* 
 
 •:'- '■ ' .V, ’’ VC-' 4 
 
 ja.*W 
 
 'll ‘iji*. ■' ^ ^ • • ->r’“.lL ■' *' . ® -n 
 
 J:‘ ' J*’'- w ^ . :■ ^ .• ' ^ ■...'4;. ,: 
 
 ff' .. .'.•'■v'i . r: 'M’''J.^7^ itiS* *.»•■**■ A .13^ aJj .: 
 
 
 ■‘"- ■ ■' .. 32*« '■ . ■^‘ 
 
 , . ■■'> 4 s. .1 '/iViV /j. •. ■' ^ . . ■ 
 
 'fc' 
 
 '■ ' f ■. »' 
 
 
 
 p T\^- “'.ifarafff-'' ■• . ‘ ^i‘ ■ . ~x' ••^iV ■*•" **: - fIJ*t'^- •'■' *• ' ,■* ■- , . *. ■ 
 
 i* ■ . ■^^^^^'■ ' , ' to- , .f ./ ,’i^^r i^ 
 
 W\ 
 
 V i 
 
 1 '■ ■ S f ' L4 
 
 V / »• Ji'f'r^ 9‘ •« **^^45**/ ' 
 
3 
 
 II. General Principles Which Govern International Pelations. 
 
 1. International Law 
 
 In diplomatic disputes it has, of course, always been the atten^it of 
 nations to prove themselves in the right by means of appeals to precedent. But 
 Webster's recognized established set of permanent international regulations, which 
 made it obligatory to regard wider considerations than the powers or interests of 
 the parties to a controversy, if not in advance of his times was, at least, note- 
 worthy. "The law of nations" is a common phrase in his writings.^ 
 
 The demand of the en5>eror of Russia that Turkey give up Kossuth and his 
 followers he strenuously objected to because it was "an act of derision of the es- 
 tablished law of nations", which confined the jurisdiction of a sovereign to his 
 own nation and subjects. Although he had had his "syn^athles much enlisted in the 
 cause of Hungarian liberty" and had "wept at its failure" he was enough of a law- 
 yer to declare himself to be more indignant at this violation of law than at all 
 
 2 
 
 the previous events that had passed in her struggle for liberty. 
 
 The whole world according to this statesman has an interest in preserv- 
 ing international law. For it is the instrumentality that maintains the situation 
 
 <7 
 
 in which not only the rights and integrity of small nations are preserved but 
 
 4 
 
 from which the rights of all nations, even the most powerful, are derived. 
 
 Accordingly, a power that should defy international law would be, in 
 some measure, the enemy of mankind: an outlaw which threatened the fabric of the 
 
 ^orks, Vol. II, p. 255. 
 
 Speech at the Festival of the Sons of New Hampshire, 1849; Works, Vol. IV, pp.213, 
 213. 
 
 3 
 
 " — Europe has seen a family of nations flourishing within its limits, the small 
 
 among the large, protected not always by power, but by a principle above power 
 
 Reo in Greece. Great Speeches and Orations, pp. 65, 66. 
 
 "Our rl^ts as a nation, like those of other nations, are held under the sanction 
 of national law " Works, vol. IV, p. 213. ("national law" ho uses in the sanse 
 of law that regulates the conduct of nations in international affairs). 
 
4 
 
 society of nations and against which all civilized nations had a complaint. Mr. 
 Webster did not go so far, apparently, as to say definitely that all nations 
 shared a responsibility for maintaining "national law" even in cases in which 
 
 U'-C' 
 
 their Interest was not Involved, but he did say that "every offense against that 
 (i.e. , national law) is an offence against the rights of the civilized world", ^ 
 and therefore all nations share the right to interfere; and the culprit nation 
 will be obliged to justify Itself before the tribunal of the whole world, or be 
 subject to a demand for punishment by the whole world. Of the En^erors of Russia's 
 demand he said: " — if — he shall perpetrate so great a violation of national 
 law as to seize these Hungarians and to execute them, he will stand as a criminal 
 and a malefactor in the view of the public law of the world' the whole world will 
 bo the tribunal to try him, and he must appear before it, and hold up his hand, 
 
 and plead, and abide its judgment. he is not the supreme lawgiver or executor 
 
 of national law, and every offence agaiinst that is an offence against the civil- 
 ized rights of the whole world. If he breaks that law in the case of Turkey, or 
 any other case, the whole world has a right to call him out and to demand his pun- 
 ishment. " 
 
 It was Mr. Webster's aim in diplomatic controversies, in which^we were 
 the plaintiff, to show that foreign nations had not only violated our individual 
 rights, but also this law of nations; thus incriminating them ’vith a wider offence; 
 and in cases where the United States was the defendant, his aim was to justify his 
 country by appeal to this law. And it is notable that even where not of primary 
 necessity for his particular case, he laid down the law at length. He seemed to 
 
 ^Works, vol. IV, p.212. 
 
 ^Ibld. 
 
f W' 
 
 
 
 
 «•* .• . * .'iirU'' '/' 
 
 i;.' •/'■' ■ . ;' ..vi:*: ■’ 
 
 
 *M!.- .< ^ 
 
 P ■ ' 
 
 s 
 
 ,{J ;• r «r‘ : ’’ V 
 
 
 
 Uj f '•- , • )■ 
 
 
 
 
 i-- ; 
 
 •'. O 
 
 
 ffl 
 
 
 t'x> •! 
 
 
 > •*• 
 y ■ 
 
 •' ,li 
 
 . r:^'' Jr' ';r' 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 ■ ■. .M. .-'Jv 
 
 - 
 
 i,.; *T‘ ■ * ■ - I r J’*-'. 
 
 ' > 
 
 
 • • i ty- '*■! -7' ' 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 , ;0;-- -' 6 V- 
 
 Ir •■ 
 
 'i .‘ V^iV/,4 .,*' ■'. 
 
 f-.. ^ ft} 
 
 f \ 
 
 ‘ ■ i 
 
 ' 1 
 
 ’ r ’r' 
 
 L' 'y‘ ’■ ■' f’- • 
 
 . ij.' 
 
 ,i, t "V' ' ,, ^ t:t 
 
 ‘'. ■ 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 ,♦ - ? • 
 
 f • - 
 
 » *■£ A”, 
 
 - , .r ’ • 
 
 ! . 
 
 . . ' ■' _ - A' -••. 
 
 •;. ' ■'■ ‘i 
 
 , , , iil ■ ->. 
 
 , y' 
 
 .: r.'iJv i’J / 
 
 
 •'*•.. .:/» ■ ^ 
 
 
 • ; 
 
 ■ uM- ■ ■- '• 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 . :’.)J..''- :■) ■ ■ 
 
 . t:. . , r 
 
 jc ■ 
 
 -p ■ ‘ , ■ 
 
 
 
 .V 
 
 j 
 
 -.U -, Vfjcvv JUl». 
 
 
 * r' 
 
 ’ ' 
 
 I' '^lO . '". '■ ■C'^.vi.V' •/ .' 
 
 ' • - ‘ . • ' t • 
 
 v,^ r :U\ - .: ' ■ , -X-rt^'.-v^yy 
 
 •T ■ ’ ' ' 
 
 
 i I 
 
 ' v.;.-Ci ■. 
 
 :r, 
 
 ft 
 
 *< i -*: , .' 
 
 ‘. V '}u 
 
 
 
 .. ..i {! 
 
 ~> • i uX • *'- 'Z - -■''v- ■*■;•' •'■» ' ■■'* 
 
 , xT » * 
 
 jj fr..' :yii* i v '.i •: I";!- Cl-V -t"/:r} • . ’• s.;.: 
 
 ’ ' I* -4 ’'■* *.‘ 
 
 it ‘ 
 
 ■ »r 
 - T 
 
 
 UP ■' ’' . , 
 
 ,J( ' 51 
 
 f ^ u r-A 
 
 •j 
 
 !> 
 
 ’ Ill i -Jl' , A* ' 
 r>j *■ “■ '■ - A 
 
 ...: ■ I A : .' :i --’ .n- f>{ r tf 
 
 ^ '* v; 'ivv 'a 
 
 ' -"W > 
 
 • — I, 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 \ 5;.^. 
 
 c J . C i . 
 
 ‘ 7 i: I so 
 
 • ‘ of 
 
 ■»•,■•.'< "i 
 
 fo 'f’ 
 
 
 . .V.' 
 
 . *'■ 
 
 * aJ ’ f — :?=~ 
 
 
 
5 
 
 show solicitude not only for his arguiient, but for the preservation of this law. 
 Being an able lawyer, the result was that he established, or strengthened, a num- 
 ber of important precedents of international intercourse. 
 
 In the case of the Big Creole for ezan^le, he cited the admission of 
 
 I«rd Palraerton in the case of the Comet Econlum, and Enterprise, that American 
 
 / 
 
 claimants, who were lawfully in possession of their slaves within the British ter- 
 ritory, and who had been disturbed in their legal possession of slaves by function- 
 aries of the British Government, were entitled to condensation; and be asserted 
 that "this admission is broad enou^ to cover the case of the Creole — But al- 
 though this was enough to win his case, and secure all that could be secured for 
 his clients, the injured American slave owners,^ althou^ he, as Just stated, recog- 
 nized the sufficiency of this argument, and althou^ he was lawyer enough to know 
 it was best to leave well enou^ alone, - that it was in a sense wisest to confine 
 the discussion to grounds in which he was admittedly in the right, especially when 
 these might appear to be the whole grounds of his objection; nevertheless he pro- 
 ceeded to add a contention that, even if granted, would be granted too late to aid 
 his clients, but which as an established law of nations would make the internation- 
 al situation better in the future, "But it (i.e. this admission, which established 
 his contention) does not extend to what we consider the true doctrine" according 
 to the laws and customs of nations; he wrote Mr. Everett^ "and therefore cannot be 
 acquiesced in as the exactly correct general rule."*' 
 
 There was, of course, little remarkable in the attempt to show national 
 
 law on our side. That was a natural, inevitable attengit by both parties. Even if 
 the question had been generally recognized as one of national law it would be worth 
 
 ^Works, vol. XI7, pp. 375-6. 
 
 2 
 
 He proceeded to state his understanding of the law: not only is no unfriend- 
 
 ly intercourse by the local authorities to be allowed, but that aid and succor 
 should be extended in these, as in other cases which may arise, affecting the 
 rights and interests of citizens of friendly states." Ibid. 
 

 it.. 
 
 r^. 
 
 
 :j '/iV.'-i/jiiii^-*-# * 
 
 ki i ? ' 
 
 
 •Af 'fi 
 
 z:r 
 
 mr 
 
 
 .y.x.'vjt *» Lf ■ 
 
 r/ *u« e .' ■•' ' ■’ ‘V ‘ 
 
 X I 
 
 m- 
 
 
 i ;:T ■•<.’ ;■ it>. 
 
 ,• ^’: / : » '• ! ; ■' :> 
 
 • • . t ' ■. ■ : : j • c r»r .'* 'v 
 
 
 KiPiijrjU ': , fr.vQT >‘v' * - -V: 
 
 .«* ■' •• -■' • •> • - 
 
 T-' r 
 
 fi 'i J/0< <ij - >■ ,/ 
 
 ^■, C- : 
 
 V : . r; ■• •■;' ■' ii 
 
 f" 
 
 ■>; »'«5ii .-. itf.. 
 
 :.f> . ■> < ?vA..t -■ .. . 
 
 •',: . , ■ ; •' ■ t '.' r4*'. ■ J ” " ty i t * ' , ..'n?/. 
 
 
 t-:- 
 
 ' ■ cf 
 
 j jf 
 
 ■ . b 
 
 f ■ ''■ 
 
 I 
 
 K- 
 
 rf.'c J iJ» 
 
 •^r’ "e: 
 
 
 . a*’- ? 
 
 . *4 ^. ■ *' V‘ ■■l’ _ ' N I 
 
 L^ ' >n 
 
 [ ;. i:;'* I'jf 
 
 S.‘ 
 
 
 
 -jB&T ♦ 
 
 ■-: * -tA-T il 
 
 'SA 
 
 
 ■ I 
 
 
 '■X. 
 
 'vj ; .- :i.’i'' ’• , ?" ■ ■ - 
 
 ^ ■ . fB 
 
 • • : .v ’ it- /r^- i • }| 
 
 ■' *. 
 «f. 
 
 I 
 
 i ,u ■>-•■ '■ ^ »-. - .'■ 
 
 ' '. ; i. . :f. '.' *: 
 
 . -.i. am'; «t'.T ‘ ' ■;ci.>i.i;--‘< 
 
 . . * fr. -I*' *5 Mi • ' . 3i5*.'.v;v ■;- i.f. 
 
 •.., •, ■ ^ j ; .. 'if -.'V ♦VR «1 ■ ‘ '-i! 
 
 r / If 
 
 \fs:-..:r. . ^■■/. '.X e;. ^ 
 
 0 
 
 * ; . - V •’ vJ Jl5‘X<-* '•^•0 
 
 ” . ( . 
 
 Uri / ^Ifli|fc?.»- 
 
 • . U/ • 
 
 u •:■ ra , ^ 
 
 • i'f . ■, :• Ci4»*i-iv i . .'j <’■■’“ I, 
 
 '5 
 
6 
 
 while nevertheless to examine to what degree Webster was representative of his day 
 in this regard. Although references to precedent and custom in such disputes are 
 inevitable, I think it both true and important that Webster emphasized the legal 
 aspect of such affairs,^ that he felt that that party was in the right which could 
 best answer to the demands of the national law;^ that in this case instead of cry- 
 ing out that the British authorities had violated our rights and demanding what 
 they meant by so doing - as it was the general tendency of his countrymen to do 
 he quietly inquired "what duty or power, according to the principles of national 
 intercourse, had they to inquire at all?" The point is not that Webster introduced 
 a new eleinsnt or idea, but that in his diplomatic correspondence he laid great 
 wei^t on this already present idea of international law and of obligation to it, 
 as distinguishable from qr^he source of obligations to each other of the parties 
 to the dispute. All diplomats occasionally used an appeal to the law of nations; 
 it was Webster's most comon and apparently most valued method. Such phrases as 
 "law of nations", " ggu gty and practise of nations" look out from almost all the 
 pages of his writings; in one letter they occur fifteen times. ^ 
 
 International law was not entirely dependent upon, in Webster's opinion, 
 the good faith of those parties to it. Not only was there the tribunal of the 
 whole world before which nations were answerable for their deeds, but this tribun- 
 al was possessed of a most powerful sanction for the enforcement of its decisions: 
 that is, public opinion. There are few things more striking in Webster's writings 
 than the emphasis with which he states the inportance and power of public opinion. 
 Its power is a characteristic of the age as the dominance of "fleets and arms, and 
 subsidies" were of the past; the public opinion of the civilized world is rap- 
 idly gaining an ascendancy over mere brutal force. It is already able to oppose 
 
 1 
 
 Works, vol. XI, p.303f. 
 

 
 
 
 1 
 
 h - 
 
 f 
 
 :)t 
 
 ▼ * t ' 
 
 . r.ri ;i 
 
 
 ;^v^ 
 
 '•Uljo 
 
 ■ ' 
 
 J 
 
 
 *r, '■: 
 
 re/’ £,. • 
 
 ^ *“■, J ’ i '.> r .' 
 
 /r ■ 
 
 ; ~ h. ‘iJ t/' ■'. 
 
 ■ ; ■•t:: .:: :: I ■ ■■; *^ ^ r . 
 
 '.’-'.‘f .'l .i : .y ' I 
 
 : V .. *: , : ^ <• . -C; 0 ; •: * •■ .• :i : 
 
 . -t j , ' 'i .f ' it 'Vv' « 
 
 ’! ir'' 3 r.ir 
 
 ■ -c», ii* 'oV •■•a- :yc i* -J* ;■•!'■ ■! 
 
 i V ■ . f J ' '■ •,, •' 
 
 rr -r.*v •<* . 
 
 T 5 - 
 
 A • 
 
 ac i 
 
 I 
 
 T 
 
 5-‘ P 
 
 M*; ■’ /..■^ 7 
 
 , V •• 
 
 i^xirr ' -ir^ 1 ; 
 
 *t 
 
 
 » I 
 
 I 
 
 ;:•, ’'Ui^ 
 
 .•^; t;: , f; 
 
 |. 
 
 
 -o: .. ■ ■ ■ V 
 
 
 t' : .;.A .'/•t'.'J '''-.; i •” ;.r‘;i.PT , ' '- ..1 J'i' 
 
 ' ./'i/i.' ^ - !r 
 
 II 
 
 ll 
 
 I 
 
 ;?«?: " • -Mt*- • '. 
 
 I ‘ I 
 
 
 \rr :,/,; '" V V :■*■ ,, I. i 4 £'.r!i /• -■ ..t--'^" *■. / •■-j ■ 
 
 
 
 b/jr A ■' -i • •* Z' ^ V 
 
 ^ .f; •.- *•■ , \Vi..v 
 
 - - ■ * » ' * , ( 
 
 i,i r«- J ' X t 'ic' ' * -■- •• ^ ■ 
 
 • • •> ' :/■ - :'-:-r t;A» ' ' ' r. ' 
 
 ~' , •' ' . T. 
 
 • ■ - .* ■-., ^ -t •._*•■ ■ 'i. 
 
 -> > J.” * 
 
 . i :..^ ‘v’ M'Pm „ ■’f'P'i ■T'\i: '•: '. ■>.!'*.-f 
 
 I 
 
 •I,. 
 
 ' c 
 
 ■ 1 : xr^O 
 
 J -.' 4 'i,: 1 '^ 
 
 ...• • » t _ t V ‘ ■ 
 
 
 ' ^ I 
 
 ; r^* V' 
 
 / < li 
 
 i 
 
 ■c J ^ s; <\1 
 
 C vw. A 
 
 * • , ■ .’ 
 
 "ic. ■ 
 
 f * ‘ ^ 
 
 #i 'f^V'\V - - ■' 
 
 u 
 
 
 tf.. 
 
 .IaiTJ t 
 
 ‘io - 
 
 * * tv ' ‘ 
 
 
 j • *iuVC> /i 
 
 ifil' 
 
 f 
 
 • T-* - •-=r-y»^^-s« 59 | 
 
 5f 
 
 }|. 
 
 •I: 
 
7 
 
 the most formidable obstruction to the progress of injustice and oppression; and 
 as it grows more intelligent and more intense, it will be more and more formidable. 
 It may be silenced by military power, but it cannot be conquered. It is elastic, 
 irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weapons of ordinary wairfare. It is — im- 
 passable, inextinguishable enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule — ", Until 
 this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power to talk either of triun^hs 
 or repose, — we have seen the vanity of all triun^jhs in a cause which violates 
 the general sense of Justice of the civilized world. It is nothing that — an un- 
 happy and prostrate nation has fallen — ''There is an enemy that still exists to 
 check the glory of these triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the very 
 scene of his ovations; — it shows him that the sceptre of his victory is a barren 
 sceptre — it — shall smoulder to dry ashes in his grasp." Thus is futile any 
 victory that has "outraged the opinion of mankind."^ 
 
 And he proceeded to say that in his opinion Spain since gaining the sup- 
 port of universal public opinion, although filled with the victorious troops of 
 Franco, had made progress toward the establishment of free institutions. 
 
 Again he stated the superior power of this sanction which "will return 
 with awful retribution upon the heads of — violators of national law." "Nor let 
 anyone imagine that mere force can subdue the general sentiment of mankind. It is 
 more likely to diffuse that sentiment, and destroy the power.” "When national law 
 is violated," he exclaimed, "then thrones and principalities, and powers, must 
 look out for the consequences."^ 
 
 "Public opinion" he declared, "is not only very po'werful, but in ray es- 
 timation, at least, is making great progress".® 
 
 ^Hev. in Greece, Works vol. 77, 
 
 ®V/orks. vol. IV, p.313. 
 
 ^Works, vol. XIII, p.461. 
 
..JSi/ 
 
 ■K- II 
 
 i\rr,» ; ,:ol •. ' ‘ - 
 
 ' ' i; JU-(,rtX ac.^oa'vv vJ .’ 
 
 ..J if 
 
 f in'^ol 
 
 . ■■ .. - 
 
 
 i.- i 
 
 4 
 
 ■ • •» 
 
 . • r, r-i /: 
 
 
 
 V ■* ‘ 
 
 t'vt 
 
 
 
 : ,. Vi' I'.?-; f-r. .■'i vr ' ? 
 
 I 
 
 . J ■ ,, . . ^ ^ > •' ' \ 
 
 : t-t. i * J n-: iz^. t- X^i r. .‘ipq 
 
 . , J' .' *.v 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 -li; 
 
 . ; .. '. i . . . * . . ;. *VJ^. :j- :.' *’ 
 
 .. V * • *’ " ue.rv'; ( / 
 
 .-v', .Tit: :y 'tf.'IB.lptTs’O ^ l.*' ■ 
 
 ■: v:rVv .■.•i...- V- '' -A - '--t-' 
 
 
 »’ ■ 
 
 c r.dV: 
 
 
 
 T.; -K 
 
 •t BiiiL«« 
 
 .•j :'3 liX-fide ' 
 
 
 li; 
 
 
 '■'* -U ';/ i‘ 
 
 '»•* , ’■'*t I; 
 
 . V ' ^' 
 
 
 ■ ■-' • t. : J . .i-', / 9 .^ ■ 
 
 V ' ‘ ■ • • 
 
 4 
 
 ... ; iw # ■.'•'4 i "p : '^.or ■.' >•;• ••:<> 'i>»-vq, 4*^ 
 
 ; ■ .’. . .-, '•* Vo wf* j si 
 
 ' ■' - - ' •' ■' ‘Ji'r 
 
 ;Ttti t(; lT 43 'i 
 
 '*’ 7 V 7 
 
 -“Cl 
 
 ',•{., :r»,Ti.'' .. ... Xi ivij .- ..li '■ 
 
 
 ;i.^ 
 
 
 .*: *■' ? ;■ ■ , 
 
 
 • 91 ’ \juj ui -V; 
 
 7 . . 
 
 ' ' ^ , t'.'vr ‘ »v\». .'▼i^ .wy. 
 
 ; . h t ■ .y ^ r »• 
 
 • . ' y-.v*. •■ y. 
 
 *1 ' t 
 
 ("■. > 
 
 a ■ 
 
8 
 
 But international law is defended not by public opinion alone, but also 
 by the right - which may become the duty - of foreign states forcibly * to inter- 
 fere and see that its violation be discontinued. In a letter to the American 
 representative at Mexico^ he declared apropos of violation of national law govern- 
 ing the treatment of prisoners: "Indeed, although the rights or the safety of none 
 of their own citizens were concerned, yet if, in a war waged between two neighbor- 
 ing states, the killing, enslaving, or cruelly treating of prisoners should be in- 
 dulged in, the United States would feel it to be their duty, as well as their 
 right, to remonstrate and to Interfere against such a departure from the princi- 
 ples of humanity and civilization. These principles are comnwn principles, essen- 
 tial alike to the welfare of all nations, and in the preservation of which all 
 nations have, therefore, rights and Interests. But their duty to Interfere be- 
 comes imperative in cases affecting their own citizens." 
 
 This last sentence strongly suggests the opinion that in other cases the 
 performance of the "duty" of intervention was entirely optional. It was neverthe- 
 less an extraordinary doctrine, stated with extraordinary emphasis, for the middle 
 of the nineteenth century (1842) and for so circumspect a statesman as Tfr. Webster. 
 
 He was too lawyerly and practical a statesman to state his theory of the 
 allegiance of all nations to international law without ever making any qualificar- 
 tlons. But the qualifications, it seems to me, are chiefly notable for their few- 
 ness, and relative insignificance; they are quite uninportant when compared with 
 the numerous far-reaching provisions of national law which he recognized,^ 
 
 As a nation entered the family of civilized states on the condition of 
 
 ^It is more or less customary, with some people to value such statements according 
 to the power of the nation to which it is addressed. It is perhaps significant 
 that such a declaration was never addressed to any European state, although there 
 was according to llbc, Webster's own theory, plenty of occasion for it, 
 
 2see pp. of this paper. 
 

 
 
 . :-‘Cit'. ‘ 
 
 ,,.4. ^ - ,e.it. 
 
 ,.:' y£«^- 
 
 VC 
 
 Mfc .T^i 
 
 
 :^t v.>ic : r. i ■'vni'" i .5 -i Jc.r: J) 
 
 ' B. , 
 
 - td r \'-'^ jr I'.t ^ 
 
 ■ ■* ' I *' / ' ‘ * 
 
 ' ■■■■ ■}.' »: ^:1 y": 
 
 , ^ 
 
 i . ■ . . ' ' 
 
 •> :- ' ’ .'.'t/r ‘Vc /< ; r> ^\' '• ' : t ' 'V •» 
 
 ^ ^ < 
 
 ;. •■y:'!:: . :>U ■'iv' ' V.: v» :;'•. , '- 
 
 .'<vj ' “»/-■»♦ •-■^ .Vi.' , 
 
 -V Ufj^h ■ : vS-.fV5.T- 
 
 ■'• ;. ,',-V <.»•-• ,'fu f'«fi • ■ "*■• f i*-' 
 
 :.d.: .^;^v e.' : *r;V:->f .* - ^ •^Trt't’fc '.fti 
 
 •je. 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 ♦ ; : 1 
 
 - vis > •'' 
 
 C-iCV;: W n^nIVi^ Tl'^- "i 
 
 
 ii 
 
 , • • , ‘ fe^ir^jjr V" •' ■' 
 
 ■ ■ '' U 
 
 KkJi*':''' .:v ’ ti'^- Ij 
 
 -V ■ -:>'-.i;r. 
 
 * fr.=» ..->hx ■ ; ,i.--T 
 
 k. . N 
 
 1 '' .t" ' 
 
 
 I : : i 
 
 
 j ip ':p'V • 
 
 .' '; T'.'Ljr a*.' 3 ’ 
 
 
 '.-V.'--, ^ dt 9 | 
 
 • . , -T.-W 1 .'i yf' 
 
 'T », ;.y " . . i . a ,:v#)r? f i.*a..!.: 
 
 . :ii.. •',)!■: y «jt 
 
 .>>,cr .' V, .' 1 . 7 a .' 
 
 »r 
 
 ' ' i / V 
 
 fsm- . .. V .; V, V.. / *:s 
 
 fs.' 
 
 
 ( 
 
 * '• : 4 *‘. 
 
 
 ; . ' : \ne .>J >■• -U 
 
 f 
 
 i *rl^vrfJ 
 
 j ' -^<v; r. ■ ' C 
 
 ■' •-. />,-r Qf‘ '•’.^I i/.i.'.v iO'V. *.'’ 1'.- 
 
 ^ ^ ,*;■. i ‘-iiJ '^’3 Vjw U ^ » .'•'1-' *i’3 U f’*4 • 
 
 t..: ..' .. . . 
 
 ... ‘t-3C,C 9 . ‘f} -■' 
 
 
 cn 
 
 ;, ) ^.' 1 '. .•■'■ :lr. 
 
 /.; ■ J 
 
 T; • /. ' 
 
 > -.;!V 
 
 .J 
 
 '•«, j7i’;'T'2tv Iv 
 
 t>^ .. ;*'-vV • ’>•:. 
 
 
 / 
 
 4 
 
 . J 
 
 
 •.•r :r...‘ »•. i-fiw . •*• 
 
 ■ t • • - a 
 
 . 1 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
 i,W. *-'’ 
 
 . . i-'ti'w r;-cnl w.'v 
 
 -■ . , 
 
 
 
 . t ; 
 
 .“'vJ ' ,.' ^ .V 
 
 .V .'7i 
 
 j .V' .'i,'.' !•• . wfV* . - « •■ - 
 
 • r.i 'i i; ‘ d . ■'■. ,': ■ 
 
 ;. • - ' 1.' • *. HS3 ,:j.;; 
 
 X. . , V ■•'':•■. - .-^'‘:r-4 r’l 
 
 M .' i.v 
 
 • 1 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 
9 
 
 becoming bonnd to observe the laws which regulated their intercourse; so, converse- 
 ly, a state might indeed escape the necessity of giving its activity in accordance 
 with their provisions, but only by withdrawing from the circle of civilized nations 
 
 (5M 
 
 avowing Itself to be an "©ttt»of*the-law"f and undergoU^^ the unbearable handicaps 
 of such a position. Webster naturally does not discuss this impossible procedure 
 at length, but he clearly indicates it as the only means of escape.^ This is, in- 
 deed, not much of a qualification. 
 
 He made possible a more in^sortant qualification in writing that the ex- 
 tent of certain ri^ts held under the law of nations ”is a question to be Judged 
 of by the circumstances of each individual case"; and, of course, it cannot be of 
 very great use in settling disputes, since each party will probably have a differ- 
 ent view of the law, for they will almost certainly have different views of the 
 significance of the circumstances. But this qualification also , so far as I can 
 see, is important only as it seems to eri^hasize our appreciation of the fact that 
 in general international law as viewed by Webster was immutable and inclusive, as 
 well 818 inviolable. It was not confined to the regulation of a few technical pur- 
 suits, but it had provisions controlling all the most important activities of na- 
 tions; and it was not a hazy, or intricate, series of complications for a few law- 
 yers to argue about, but general and easily enough to be conprehended for the 
 masses of population to understand it, and give it vigor by their belief in it. 
 
 And in gsneral its provisions were unaltered by the power or weakness of the na- 
 tions sugject to it, or their interests or circumstances. It was not to be re- 
 garded as terminated by the exigencies of war. On the contrary, many of its pro- 
 visions "are provided especially for the contingency of war" and there are various 
 kinds of engagements which are " in the nature of perpetual obligations. "^ 
 
 ^Works, vol. XI, p. 309 (Creole arc) and vol. IV, p. 212. 
 
 2 
 
 Works, vol. XIV, Appendix p.630. 
 
i 
 
 ^ * 
 
 j . 'V 7 
 
 '. «< \ jon 
 
 ■A y -:r~ .,'v it -V i> 
 
 iWJfcS'Stf'. i- 'T f '■ t'? ^ '■, '* i ■' ‘r.’^ t *■ •' - ^ i^4i' ''Vt’' 
 
 
 er- zi.- -vu' '.‘I'i V'- v^-* • 
 
 . ■■■''£■ -’rr.-,- »' ;.,.C30*»»JC.flX.' *>f ■ i"~. 
 
 • ' * Pj.C''*'' '' 
 
 . >4->v ' ^ ^ > >1 
 
 . : 
 
 /Ts”' cer^sR- ' ;.:r: ' . ’ 
 
 : » :J ‘ ; ,:i^fr:,'; tjI..- 'p.' v-S i 
 
 '.' J'’ . *I,j j •'rr-'': * v-'^' • 
 
 r. S't: .'.’ 
 
 • .? ■ 
 
 f ‘ T .■ *-'i <' ' • • •* 
 
 ■ r. .• 
 
 *>4, ... . 
 
 -r.'.f' Cxf-' v.ArfiJ ■ ‘f- 
 
 • •• "■ . . 
 
 I r. 
 
 biul4''A:-: -V 
 
 k, 
 
 •« 
 
 ■ 
 
 'TV’ ?. 
 
 I 
 
 , V** ra ^'■‘ 'lot, r M .« .. * ^ ' '* 
 
 “io r.''''' 
 
 ‘ X. .'in/p'’ " !?■««»/!*• •:'!]:? . 
 
 * • ' a 
 
 ' 4 
 
 ■Ih 4 'l ii: ' '.’•i^<-V 
 
 '■ -• ''^sr^T=‘ ' ' 
 
 • J ■- <l 
 
 I... -j.\* *9^ j; 
 
 :T.: • .I" ' -1 x-’:. sV::/:' y:;. i .'f*5\xyT 
 
 ■■■5i 
 
 ’Is- 3 .ai* 
 
 '■ i 
 
 . * I * 
 
 
 ' ■ ' : ^v‘ 
 
 r ‘ 
 
 i'. ' IV A“: 'inX .. 'i; X 
 
 • ? I r*^ »• » f .* /' 
 
 ^ ^ V* A.< • i. 7*» ‘ ♦ .*'*'. ■ ■ '_*.y- . . 
 
 j f i "'’A' 'I'C -i'. i:'-> i.*.". .ri:^ 2* '.r' •• ■■' 1'-r‘ ’1 
 
 '* * Va .' Viror. s'? .'.>■ ••'. i ,.1'^~:. islTi ‘:s'Cto» .'V’''i''T 
 
 :• -Y a 'rr^ ,.v . ■: x* ?SJ i J 
 
 -• '•■ 'f f fv ^- ■ a- ->fs . ' 
 
 -.- u''*^A-4^ X- ' .^.•■•' ■ 
 
 cn ''c.i -lul r xe ' • ■• •^ - 
 
 sX!i?Ki , : -. • Is 
 
 'fi 
 
 L Si^ 
 
 ) - 
 
 
 F 
 
 n 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 . . = ' •? an^ter' ' .^n ii 
 
 f . • 
 
 ^ ' . :\r. -T>': ' :■ ari^Uiy^ ■ ' ■' ■.■•i*r*- ^ ~ rx 
 
 
 
 
 . ,/r ,J -1 
 
 , . (ft ■■-> v' 
 
 ..• r r S •» , 'J •> .'•* c *,1 -T . ' 
 
 
 ** ». Y A 
 
 
 9 l;:u 
 
 L 
 
 - -s,-. r * 
 
 
 
 9 
 
10 
 
 2. National Individuality and Non-interference 
 While all nations are subject to national law, the doctrine of national 
 sovereignty, and the ri^t of each state to complete independence from interfer- 
 ence by any other power so long as its acts were legal, was fully recognized by 
 Webster. Although modem conditions had placed nations in closer contact with one 
 another, and although moral influences and a coimon public opinion bound them in 
 pome measure together, each was to fulfill its own destiny, develop its own insti- 
 tutions and express its own individuality in its own way in accordance with its 
 own preferences without the slightest hindrance from any other nation, Itforeover, 
 however, little neighboring nations might like the methods of a state, they had no 
 rlg^t on that account to withhold diplomatic or other coninunication with them. 
 JMthough Webster felt that one country might by power of example benefit its fdl- 
 low-nations, and although he was eager that the United States share the commercial 
 adveuitages that resulted from securing privileges in the orient, there seems 
 to have been no such theory as "the white-man’s burden" in his thinking. On the 
 contreury every pov/er, however weak or backw8u:^i, shares this right of "civil equali- 
 ty" among the nations of the world. He felt it to be the duty of states that dif- 
 fered in their po liti cal ^ legal or social arrangements to tolerate each other 
 
 I 
 
 peaceably, and without any endeavor forceably to alter each others institutions, 
 
 V* 
 
 and to~ jC OJft t i nu e friendly intercourse. 
 
 In a letter to the American minister at London he expresses this view, 
 and also states the relationship of the comnon bond of international law to na- 
 tional individualism. " — the intercourse of nations has become more and more in- 
 dependent of different forms of government, and different systems of law or relig- 
 ion, It is not now, as it was in ancient times, that every foreigier is consid- 
 ered as therefore an enemy, and that, as soon as he comes into the country, he may 
 be lawfully treated as a slave; nor is the modem intercourse of states carried on 
 

 M^<l!y>M^ili>mi'n!0>ifcgti 
 
 
 Jv 
 
 
 
 #JL' ,w;'' 
 
 “ «» 
 r 
 
 
 
 . « >•■• • , ->,••' ■■. v-ra .V ';•• V ■ V 
 
 B® 1^. ■‘^\ . ' ' ■ , ^v;3 . ' 1^. ..Jo.* 
 
 ^r 
 
 I ' '“^' ■ “ ‘ .J„ '... ^ ■ J ’ 
 
 t , i4Ji: 
 
 
 ' “v ^‘.MU-- 
 
 
 »?o« i^oa< *«co«ti lu^ »a6iJ4*jS'.l^v'i»v^o*xWr.i 
 
 ■•' ■ ■■ r. -i. ' ^- ' • '* * . vv 
 
 y 
 
 t-n^i 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 — •»»« , g_r I . **" ! ! • ,i' !, 
 
11 
 
 mainly, or at all, for the pxirpose of iitposing, by one nation on another, new 
 forms of civil government, nev/ rules of property, or new modes of doraestic regula- 
 tion. The great communities of ths world are regarded as wholly independent, each 
 entitled to maintain its ovm system of law and government, while all in their mu- 
 tual intercourse, are understood to submit to the established rules and principles 
 governing such intercourse. And the perfecting of this system of intercourse 
 among nations requires the strictest application of the doctrine of non-interven- 
 tion of any with the domestic concerns of others. 
 
 His strenuous objection to the principles enumerated by the "Holy Alli- 
 ance" was on the ground that it controverted this doctrine of "non-interference 
 
 Q 2 
 
 and mutual abstinence from anything affecting each other's domestic regulations". 
 
 The "objectionable principle avowed in these papers," he said "is the ri^t of 
 forcible intervention in the affairs of other states."® 
 
 ** There cannot, as I think, be conceived a more flagrant violation of pub- 
 lic law, or national independance , than is contained in this short declaration." — 
 I want words to express my abhorrence of this abominable principle. — A survey 
 of the principles against which he prote^^ted serves to make his own stand more 
 
 A 
 
 clear, 
 
 "Bringing the power of all governments to bear against all subjects. 
 
 a sort of — quadruple or quintriple — allegiance"® was Just the opposite of 
 
 Webster's idea of the legal rule. The Russian Emperor had said that there should 
 
 "no longer be such a thing as an Baglish ^French, Russian, Prussian, or Austrian 
 policy; there is henceforth but one policy — for the safety of all — ". This 
 meant that " — the authority of all government was to be mixed and blended. " 
 
 ^Letter to Edward Everett, Jan. 29, 1842. Works, vol. XIV, p. 379. 
 
 ®Ibid, p. 380. 
 
 A ri^t to control notions in their desire to change their own goverrjnent is 
 plainly asserted - and to take a hostile attitude in regard to those states in 
 which the overthrow of the government may operate as an example. 
 
 ^Works, vol. V, p. 71. ®Ibid. u. 72. _ 
 

 ‘.ti, ’JiVt . '•' ~ i -' fl--l 
 
 £j • . •. , t ;-.-c'. i '*." . 
 
 • , .’• J •*,•' ■ ^ ' - 
 
 1 , 
 
 *;v , ‘ .' ili '{.liC;'.' ’ t^&U'f^i: ■ ' t ’"• -X'JC'/ t^f» 
 
 .'.tijItSf, ai ^ '". i. ■■■ I -r^!»»i¥.»t‘i'>*’‘>''v -> ^ • '- 
 
 ••• 
 
 ^.-.'Tf/OO^XC-'.-'-.^i ■'/': 
 
 ■rc-i'ri 
 
 . .1 
 H 
 
 • V . -f ^ ^ » ► 
 
 f, 
 
 to 
 
 u 
 
 
 rtf 
 
 ^- ■ . i-/. . , (i*«f 1 . j: 
 
 t’ , / : 7 .'.:i*j ^ t . i f ‘ ■' 
 
 .w 
 
 T,i.-^.nr! i ft-.'' ■■.-■' 
 
 
 7 JC- 
 
 ••:. 4 .il.**.-- ' ::.ry>i-xf ■ r^Jt ■■ ■/f•^ 
 
 
 ,.- - ..' S^aar- 
 
 i : ■: '.t; 
 
 - 1 
 
 ' ' ’ i .'i. ■ - 7:,' 7? I.;u .-t-lf>'i ' *'’ ' . v% i/Uii 
 
 ■ N 
 
 SRSCi^ i '.? 
 
 C-Di': I ' llV'* ’1 
 
 !, ^ ! 
 
 u iTf';- v:-'- cr .? '• i .lii'io'o:'.. cTf^ .fi 
 
 ■ : ' ■■ -' ' . r-. 
 
 V . ■■ ■: - •» ^ ; i.ii;.;v7U - ;n:i t ^ j; 
 
 -Q.rr^l^ tc.:. • ;*' i : ■ ,c^iT 
 
 V' 'i ,0 TS'- -^ ■.' ' -T i-i( vi 
 
 V, 
 
 t; oi?^' ^ 'Ttir' ; ■ ? iU ■: .’ -• '• -• ■ • > 
 
 --v,cH A , .r”- . ‘ o''- . • iriix:* 
 
 . = 4 - ■ ..' - .' *. ^-1 ^ ■ 
 
 : ' ' -. (i 
 
 
 f! 
 
 i *»«.■-* V -r'N. ■►>,■• ^ t 
 
 
 e' tv v'-iit (,f.. •' filtC' fTi^'''' T|j 
 
 ■-k 
 
 'TSt- ii'-i'-: I ' •• i- 
 
 . i '♦ 
 
 r ■• 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 •>'X * 7 ■<< ; *'paf ' - ■• 
 
 .' 7 (Mir i:-" ^■ 4 iS * - .,. -V. » 
 
 ! Jni■'r^^*JBy'. •! ■• , •.' i-' ' ' -'^' ■■ t. 
 
 I •*> I* A ^ « . * - , ^ . *v \‘*n • ^ V‘ 
 
 .■•■■lu^ii ’'V i V - ■ - '•■' 
 
 1 , > f.. ^ J-; 
 
 ' U'J 
 
 4 Csi* ■-»' 
 
 '^' . ■ . 
 p i, -i .v;£iri" co'’ ti 
 
 A 1 -lC. <fj 
 
 - » 
 
 
 
 . 7 ' 
 
 r-' I 
 
 *• V* 
 
 #»J r;'>c: 
 
 
 T *.".£< !si«i 
 17 ' r-fj ... (I . 
 
 U! 
 
12 
 
 ”The asserted right of forcible Irxtervention In the affairs of other 
 nations is in open violation of the public law of the world — the whole 
 world expected to acquiesce in principles which entirely subvert the independence 
 
 of nations , 
 
 ' T6 
 
 In a letter to itabassador W. C. Rives^Wsbster again recognizes the 
 "principle — that every nation possesses a ri^t to govern itself according to 
 its own will, to change its institutions at discretion, and to transact its busi- 
 ness through whatever agents it may think proper to employ" by instructing him to 
 re-ognize the new French government. For although — "the overthrow of the Repub- 
 lican constitution of French is deeply to be deplored, because, however inper- 
 
 fect its structure, it was the onlygreat Republican government existing in Europe, 
 and all Americans wished it success;" it was^his plain duty to recognize the new 
 govenanent ,\the French nation desired it - it was beyond our sphere of legitimate 
 action to try to alter their form of government, however contrary it mig^t be to 
 our ideals and our wishes for them. "While we deeply regret the overthrow of pop- 
 ular institutions" yet "we have no choice but to acknowledge" the new form of 
 government, for "we are bound to leave to her the choice of means for the promo- 
 tion of" "her prosperity and happiness." The past policy of the United States in 
 having successively recognized all the various governments established in succes- 
 sion by Prance’s series of revolutions, he cited as the proper procedure. 
 
 This theory of national individuality was a part of his grounds of ob- 
 jection to the policy of England in both Creole and the impressment controversies. 
 The practice of England in both cases might be Justified under English law he con- 
 
 ^Works, vol. XIV, p. 451-2. 
 
J 
 
 •V V 
 
 
 
 >v. t ' . 
 
 
 4 * r •* 
 
 :i 
 
 . . .<;.; It; . , 't ^ i j '■ 
 
 >'v i...’>^. '•■ •'f-c s-vr^ . . ■■' ^ a r»- 
 
 f ■ >iS 
 
 2 '■' •TOrjpC. IX- ' J * 
 
 ...V;- •■:'■. •■ • 2r‘»i:: ’k; 
 
 • 
 
 
 JJ: 
 
 '■ *;76va 
 
 ' i 
 
 • , 1 
 
 • :/i ,;■ 
 
 . . ,■.• ■ ' U, 
 
 
 t ^ <w f 
 
 1 
 
 *. 2 i ■'■. •». .i'’ 
 
 -f 'j*i 
 
 :;•. 'J- .'< : 
 
 - ■ ■ - ' ■'■ • ■ - ■ 
 
 1 \t . 
 
 %* 4 ‘ 
 
 'iMV.,- ; 
 
 
 : \ .... J ■ ’ 
 
 - ■ .•‘..1/0;-^? is 
 
 “ 
 
 
 1' ' 'Jt' ' i “ 
 
 ' f ■' 
 
 
 
 
 # ^ . 
 
 ; ;i , "-C 
 
 , . •• . . ■ ; V 
 
 [ r^t. 1 V I 
 
 
 
 
 .t; r: » * 
 
 ' tf ''^~t .4 • ■-*" I ■ ■ ■ 
 
 ' ^ i J 
 
 s'*’ 4\ 
 
 : tii) 
 
 IM*H,-‘ 1 -.. 
 
 K’>- *’:.'*!!1S. 
 
 
 ■■■■^'-- 'j(^ 
 
 V, 1. • •• -; 
 
 
 
 •' • . < ■ 
 
 .• ‘-. V ’'■ ., **■«? 
 
 * 4’ 
 
 
 
 ; ^ JD«rt# tw «s^ 
 
 ■z-rr-ii ; d ^ 
 
 ; '• ,1 / ’ ' 
 
 .■ f 1 
 
 i ~u mtf.rr-'-j 'V' ‘-■C"'/'' ■'- • 
 
 
 -V«» 
 
 •H l' 
 
 jr 
 
 : ,.♦■•- '.r.:. 
 
 - -S: ^ ■ . F " =- i ' 
 
 .0 - .V -ii;..'. cC' 
 
 V.' 
 
 • ■ ■ ■* ”i' • • ..;• ■ 
 
 L''i 
 
 '! j -r-'i 4*rr Ot}. ■' '■ • -V,.'. ■■.VC-:.:;/; :i ...i 
 
 )1 • . ? >» 
 
 V- . . . ' .^ V. 
 
 ‘ c?# i>7i 
 
 • ■ t 
 
 ' rrt 
 
 ■jp- ■ 
 
 t"' im -; 7 S': -^t 
 
 a CV'.. 
 
 .*f-yr 
 
 a I ■ i,t J'Jt'if.) jsd$ iaa-.{ ^ ' 
 
 D i : .^-i idri-r- ^ .■ ^ i‘- 
 
 - ••. ^ ■ ,.-f-.iX^ **' < .'u'-i. r'S*. . 
 
 Hj , 
 
 Trs; 'i 
 
 
13 
 
 ceded, but the Jurisdiction of a nation's law was confined to its own territory, 
 and in these cases only international law had Jurisdiction to settle the dispute. 
 ^We do not consider that the question depends at all on the state of British law, 
 
 " — Surely the influence of local law cannot affect the relations of nations in any 
 
 m1 
 
 such manner as this. 
 
 "Impressment of Seamen out of and beyond English territory is an inter- 
 ference with the rights of other nations; is further, therefore, than English pre- 
 rogative can legally extend; and is nothing but an attafnpt to enforce the peculiar 
 law of England beyond the dominions and Jurisdiction of the crown. — A British 
 cruiser enters an American merchant vessel — -Offering no Justification, under 
 the law of nations, but claiming the right under the law of England — . This can- 
 not be defended./ English soil, English territory, English Jurisdiction, is the 
 appropriate sphere for tl^ operation of English law. The ocean is the sphere of 
 the law of nations; — 
 
 Mother Instance in which W. Webster observed the "salutary doctrine of 
 non-intervention" is to be observed in his correspondence in regard to the Sand- 
 wit(ch islands. Ths rights of small nations he held as sacred as those of larger 
 
 ones, and although the nearness of these islands, and their strategic position, for 
 conmerce (on the importance of which Webster held the most pronounced ideas) as 
 well as for war, was fully recognized , by him, and although he expressed solici- 
 tude that the great interest of the Ehited States in maintaining its privileges 
 there be not sacrificed, he nevertheless recognized the islands as ftilly free and 
 independent ; raised effective objection to intervention in a nximber of Instances 
 
 ^Case of the. Big Creole - Works, vol. XIV, p. 372. 
 
 Presidential message written by Webster, *ol. XII, p. 137f. 
 
 ®Sec. of State to agsnts of Sand. Isl, , vol. XII, p.151. 
 

 ■??? 
 
 J. . flr ;? ■ Sf > ” «u ■ '- ■ ■ 
 
 ;i - S^*l - V . - 
 
 i r 
 
 i- i' !<•* 
 
 •»K » / •-'m 
 
 . ■ .; •• .- j ;*! ', i:i . - 
 
 •3. 
 
 
 * ' V., ‘ • <*1^ ‘I '*!' 
 
 ^ .«• f . . i 
 
 
 k 5 - 
 
 ^ i i T -• i.v 
 
 T<ai ^ ,a i ' .*^ 
 ,f« i f c. 5:X atu: 
 
 yl [.■''■■: r -; r ^ f -— -- 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 ... : '• ■■ .. 4 *• ■'.-* ‘. f - 'K *. UT ’ S '" 
 
 * ' r ’ l *'' •■ .■■ 'I 
 
 i *; ‘ .oi tii *' ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ■ r - ,. ■'*' 
 
 :■ ^ v*r 
 
 ' • *1 
 
 I ,.' f !'. f ^ l .%’' i -. f . '. . Ut ::- .■■,*■"•■.■«■.’ - ^ . *'.* ' V.it 
 
 ■ ■ ^ ‘ it 
 
 ■ 7 • > 4 
 
 *itl < ii tx«.«a» 
 
 r‘ ..-■;V '•, 
 •*-» ■•- -I 
 
 .^, 2 ^- 0 :. .’■ '■• l : ■ .^'. ff . JA^'r ' , . o 
 
 , if ■ ’ " 
 
 }■■ ; ' ■’ ' v ; I ; 
 
 , ■" I 
 
 .. . ' - . li 
 
 • W *'* *■ ' \ ■ * ^ 
 
 'p ' 
 
 w •' ^ \ * 
 
 • 7 jL -. 4 i 3 ' r - c - v ' 
 
 :-i > , ■ . ;.- -': . '. • stfr. ir' oS -i'-i 
 
 1 * . .. * 
 
 c .> fri ©:; 1 .-: ^ U'-:r : tA : n *. ':•. t ..' 
 
 , rf 
 
 
 , r^. . 
 
 '•:*. <^( '■ 
 
 i :*» n ^*.-: - Vi *' . ■:. ^ 
 
 •■'■ ■ .:. - I 
 
 h. 
 
 
 -■- *.‘ 
 
 t/ 'i. (^: ih 'it 1 C ^ Uv-:^ : 
 
 v>' ; i • • i:’..'i*‘V'iCv:xl o4 ^.T*'^'-' 
 
 i Vi 
 
 ^ fi- ^ • 
 
 V • ' 
 
 
 V» 
 
 .'•ir- :.\ ■ 
 
 '***^'. 
 
 \i- 
 
 .'*1, XX)' 
 
 > 
 
 
 ; r 
 
 'ci i . 
 
 
 : 
 
 wt«! f ;{ ■ 
 
 .. - 
 
 ■c;i Hi ■ fjc; j' 
 
 *: r - j ; 
 
 
 - ^ ' f /^'5 
 
 . •■• i* ;• -NNa? ': 
 
 ' f.tV 
 
 !Wi 
 
 v ? s .«^ A *. : 1 
 
 ‘T.v . 
 
 
 riSV 
 
14 
 
 "by England and France^, and when the Anerican representative, secured a concession 
 
 of contingent surrender of their nationality, he ordered it to be returned, and 
 
 2 
 
 their independence reaffirmed. "In acknowledging the independence of the islands, 
 and of the government established over them, it was not aiming to promote any pe- 
 culiar object of its own,"® Although Webster declared the only purpose to be "the 
 establishment of a government at a very in 5 ) 0 rtant point in the Pacific Ocean, which 
 should be able to maintain such relations with the rest of the world as are main- 
 tained between civilized states, it is clear that he felt this policy to be in ac- 
 cord with the best interests of the United States, One of his aims in repeatedly 
 asserting that the United States would not infringe upon the rights of Hawaii, was 
 to give our country good grounds upon which to object to interference on the part 
 of any other nation. The duties of neutrality and non-interference are not con- 
 fined to instances in which nations and territories lie adjacent to each other; 
 they are just as obligatory ^^n^if the nations involved occupy opposite sides of 
 tl» world. But the application of the principle is especially necessary in such 
 caseer ' 
 
 The only exception to this principle of national sovereignty was that 
 self defense mi^t conceivably make it -naoee^ary to pursue a foe into foreign ter- 
 ritory^ and in some instances even to interfere with her domestic affairs.^ 
 
 The in^jortance which he felt belonged to this principle ^was very great 
 and justifies its being regarded as one of his fundamental theories, "On the ba- 
 sis of this independence has been reared the beautiful fabric of international law. 
 — On this principle the great commomvealth of civilized states has been hitherto 
 
 ■‘■Works, vol. XIV, pp. 434; 5; 6; 8. He even ordered the U. S. navy to protect it. 
 vol. XIV, p. 439. 
 
 ^Letter to Mr. Severence 1851. Works, Vol. XIV, p. 441. 
 
 ®Ibid, p. 437. 
 
 ^See : Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, 1841, vol. XI, p. 255. 
 
 ®See : "Law of vicenage", vol. V, p. 72. 
 
15 
 
 uplae Id . " 
 
 3. International Corarmanity of Interest 
 Peace, felt Daniel Webster, was the wisest policy of nations, except In 
 most extraordinary circumstances. For while they all had the right to develop in- 
 
 dependently and &»ch seek its own particular interest ,^'t^ often happened that the 
 Interest of one was achievedxby the same meani^-b^ which the, InteresVof another 
 was attained,’ similarly, the int^reets of several nations mi^t be forfeited by 
 the same process. 
 
 The prosperity of the country he ascribed to the long continued peace*, 
 and the fact that the competition of nations was confined to their own improvement 
 and the advancement of their interests. 
 
 Differences in products made it to the mutual advantage of nations to 
 maintain continued and peaceful trade, ^ 
 
 Mutual agreements for the regulation of intercourse aided all concerned, 
 whereas retaliation and "countervailing" w^ equally inelusive in its Injurlous- 
 
 neas.2 
 
 / 
 
 '2 
 
 u 
 
 r 
 
 The commercial bonds between the United States and Great Britain he de- 
 scribed as being particularly strong. While the United States continues to Import 
 
 British commodities, it is evidently to the interest of England that her customers 
 increase 
 
 both in numbers and the ability to buy and consume her products. On the other 
 » hand every intelligent person in America sees, not only the evils which would en- 
 sue from any Interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries, but 
 the embarrassments also which must be felt in America, whenever any disasters oc- 
 cur sufficient to damage the general prosperous course of trade and business in 
 England. " 
 
 ^Works, Vol. XIII, p. 153-7. 
 ^Ibid, p. 159. 
 
~,?v 
 
 
 
 
 {el J7..";'- :r'ft 
 
 s 
 
 vcKgtf ^ i" 
 
 «ljf'*f 
 
 •■•; V 
 
 i' 
 
 I' ' 
 
 •(' • f ‘ ■ 'U .'K..'>- 
 
 I 
 
 % 
 
 I 
 
 
 t' 
 
 V- 
 
 'v I 
 
 J Cl. 
 
 ':^C ' ?■ 
 
 li' '% •■■r'i 
 
 ' ''"'tiJ i:«. 'Vr',V t'r'' *-'.r>c'l!c . /-vi- “ , . .vi iir: 
 
 i'-. v t: . , 
 
 V ■ . I ;• . :t'- 1 \ 
 
 w; 
 
 jy.i- 
 
 t- ■’ 'c. "-:“i ' J'- 
 
 ■ a 
 
 ar: -' V. { A . -AS ^ 
 
 • ^ ,T‘ 
 
 
 j-'. vt-VAiii^a 
 
 / . . ‘ , ■-. . 
 
 r / • ; • . . 
 
 y ,., ■ ■• ’• ‘ ' • 
 
 cfa ■■ ’■ .'-* •w*> A' -Ttiq, «»■•;■ ' ,jr>v^ ■ 
 
 ' af' 
 
 y > 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 I*. 
 
 r - /! 
 
 1 ■ 
 
 
 V'^'' •' 
 
 «»4% 4H\ • 
 
 . >^ ' '■ f ■ 
 
 ';•./■■? j'i’ 
 
 |Pr>P ■-. 
 
 Be 
 
 V f O . -t 4 
 
 •'■t 
 
 f 
 
 ,: r': a i->n v* / ■ * 
 
 V . 
 
 ..:f 
 
 •; J •• ■ 
 
 \. ft .i S) 
 
 i. 
 
 
 . :./ vv w'.3 i . -i'A. ■' ■ , ' *• •. ■ V . ■ •.. • j 
 
 -• fii «fV.:..s*icAi- \*lfi^p'9 "i ...?i:'f^y - a 3^j; aa^«rfv# } 
 
 •■ tL 
 
 ‘ - V*: ::u ,t,».'j 
 
 ^ Cl . n-'i f A'if.t *r.x s «,';■-/ ■' ■■' 
 
 ,. -t .; 
 
 r.‘ »D«n' 
 
 . I 
 
 . . !' ?•■; 
 
 ,'.C •■ . ,0>r'd ' jl 
 
 . ' ■ f! 
 
 9. . .'• .'tJa ,'7A?f :..l''ihq j 
 
 ,' f 
 
 
 :.,' \r^ ■ 
 
 
 . ■ ■ i 'i*!'' 
 
 
 5; -•.;'jr: i .K>i . 
 
 / M 
 
 *" U :,A» 
 
 v.‘» 7^: J 
 
 .’ .t>ir 
 
 ' ~r't 
 
 . J. » ■ 
 
 • W. 7 '■ . ' 
 
 
 I 1^:. .ir;. 
 
 • ■ •* 
 
 7 .V:J 
 
 ';-ij • ■ v._.' irv*' ^ 
 
 r' ' 
 
 . 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 
16 
 
 He mentions other causes which "necessarily cause any embarrassment 
 which may be felt in one (country) to be extended to the other. 
 
 "Let us hope" he says, " — that between two nations connected by 
 
 three mutual ties of interest, nothing may ever exist but peace and harmony."^ 
 
 "In matters of commercial intercourse it is difference of climate, of 
 soil, of products, of habits, that really unites states. It is this very differ- 
 ence that gives them an identity of interest in one respect: that is, the mutual 
 exchange of commodities." While we enjoy the coffee and sugar of Brazil; Brazil- 
 ians use American flour and bacon. The economic world is an organic whole, and to 
 some degree, the welfare of a part is the same thing as the welfare of the whole.® 
 Nations - especially neighboring each other - should look forward to 
 cases of friction and co-operate to prevent them in so far as possible, and when 
 they arise not give way to excitement, but avoiding war, calmly come to a settle- 
 ment, In cases where nations are separated by long stretches of frontier "irregu- 
 larities, violences and conflicts" are to be anticipated; and should be looked upon 
 as inevitable consequences; no grounds for precipitate action.^ 
 
 ^See Vol. XII, p. 215. 
 
 ^Ibid, p. 216. 
 
 ^Speech at Baltimore, Vol. XIII, pp. 162,3. 
 ^See Vol. II, p. 256. 
 

 
 ,'T/Vf 
 
 'y.m-9>.Jf^'’T''’^^^ 
 
 *: 
 'fii 
 
 |kjpr' r". • ^ 
 
 -Vite . fcitU4^. d&i(> « 2^' ♦<«♦ # i 
 
 ’•■ »!».■,;•!:' >*• "i*. ‘i « •.•■!>;) .I^n.ai 
 
 ’.' • 1JI' .':c- , ?- i; ;y.,; '^™||^.— 
 
 ^.: . 5- f,: :i . ,f^ 'i 
 
 .'10^ ■ "'■»’ ■ ■•. ■-"■'■' '■fe.j 
 
 I fc",.: . Vr ' * " 
 
 -iM'sS mJt'- ''‘-1;«u o»r, c.lirf>i ■ V©^.-ii3k''-att^ 
 
 ^ h:' T ' ■ .: f’^ ■ ' ,iK , .'• ' ' ' 
 
 'wi »<ft.-7?I''^‘, . 
 
 , '. vr>.- I *.V -V' »f^ ■ 
 
 'ni9in-)(66%n^ n#f,twXo2r 
 
 »' ■ '- , , , ®,: ^:iS'..'V''' . :?j;'" 
 
 . , ' » sbllHiv^Hw' *^4'’ * -. ^ rl^ 
 
 \ ‘'^ n!-. ' ' '’^ „'. . Vi -j 
 
 ^‘j 2 
 
 r T a' '.^V 
 
 4* * ^ 
 
 
 Ts " 'v^’S " ",w 
 
 ., * '■>/''' f‘ CVf'‘ ■‘^■‘ ' ■> 
 
 , ' .OTl?! ■'' 
 > • ■ ;» 
 
 
 
 
 .©■ 
 
 
 ■/ V 
 
 ,. ff : 
 
 y 
 
 
 1 , ,-!t£ .<(' .,nj(^i 
 
 _ .' |yI -'f^' f 
 
 " . 7q , xiXJC ' S»^ ii f^rtH 
 
 ir 
 
 ,3fS .c ,jI . 
 
 r.o.., 
 
 ' I .Vi 
 
 
 
17 
 
 III, Specific Rules of International Law. 
 
 1. Rules of Warfare 
 
 l) Combatants and non-combatants. This distinction which in 1899 received 
 definite recognition by the chief states of the world was insisted upon by Webster 
 in 1842. Mexico held in that year a number of Americans as prisoners. Our Secre- 
 tary of State demanded that their condition be carefully examined and such as had 
 been traders, travellers, men of letters, and so forth, should be released, and 
 not subjected to the treatment of prisoners of war.^ 
 
 Non-combatants, he insisted, ware not subject to being made prisoners of 
 war. He did not stop ’/vith this assertion but declared that "every person found in 
 the train of an army is not to be considered as therefore a belligerent or an ene- 
 my." There are inevitably large numbers, or traders, assistants and even mere 
 envious travellers who would be made unjustly liable to capture but for this pro- 
 vision, he said. 
 
 A belligerent he defined as one "commissioned or enrolled for — raili- 
 taury service" and "being armed, was in the pay of that government." 
 
 The fact that a man carried arms in the region of hostilities was not to 
 be talsen as proof of his belli ^rency. Although he conceded that the general prac- 
 tice of modem nations raised a presumption of hostile character under these cir- 
 cumstances; still it was but a presunption and until the armed person is shown to 
 have purposes other than mere defense, or hunting, etc., he is not to be regarded 
 as a combatant, even though he be taken in the train of the hostile army. 2 
 
 2) Today there are a number of well established rules governing the treat- 
 ment of prisoners of war . Webster dohbtless made some contribution to the growth 
 
 ^Works, Vol. XII, p. 113. 
 
 ^See Vol. XII, p. 101. 
 
iv.r ' .nTv ■' ’*■ '■ ■ 
 
 ts 
 
 
 fc 
 
 » . .... ._j :_ _ . * 
 
 i:x^ 
 
 I \. 
 
 .;^e.l Tt '.v.i^^^'T'e^ii't *io. .XTJ 
 
 j, , ■• « '■ a, :5I- ■ ,. ' Au ‘ V- •• .w . ■ .« 
 
 :trl as4iis?: 04/ir^-^J (i ^ | 
 
 \ ' ' , ' "Tr . ~ *^* ■ ■ , _ . *1 
 
 iAM tab tft liHvt k\- '1 
 
 far'' * ■ ' ' '■ ^ ^ - - ■ ' ■ .'*'^ ylufi ' 
 
 ■• ■^■^' '.- %<.1I«1 ;■ . ' 1: " S/ . ’ ^, ’ ■■ '-i 
 
 
 
 mmm 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 j ^ . _. . -L i ^ ' I , , <»3||'^ 
 
 ! ^4 ^c^ijky^ * ''“' 
 
 ■ j. ir-^' V'*- ■ f';.- " li 
 
 I ?*>* . AA ■''/’ 1 \ C 
 
 it. , ' iSf»'- m-j . wt.^j i .»r "' 
 
 *r?-^ i«n^t .‘ts; k. ^^ W- 
 
 iL’ i ^ '--^ '. ' /'■■ ' . ^%em 
 
 HPit'’ '■' ■'■ r.-.''- .,V'- . 
 
 .M to»-#*.,,*,»;^;fci4»ril }j» tft ^'*,W w9 
 
 . tit-im^-z otf P.i sutf . .ilf ♦^viS 
 
 1^' .:*, *’• '.. .' ':i. A ^ Ai 
 
 ■ jL ■ ■' 6 ’ ,’ -i, . * i^’ (' **S-'. ' '■ vV '5^ ' j'J 
 
 T5 r, si.-jr4i* oixu^-.Wi *c? 
 
 W'- 
 
 ''.^1 
 
 “ituisi. <«f* aAi4-rrn*r^ A|l{'(^ Xlitt, to ^ dT^^ I 
 
 » . -I ^ r ’^.'v,. *' ^ ■' ^ ' f ■ ' -V i 
 
 Tl.' 
 
 •■ rr- 
 
 . E.,' ' 
 
 " Idl 
 
 
 •* .. 
 v^. 
 
 ■'4-' ,f '•: 
 
 ■l**. V 
 
 
 
 »rv* 
 
 
 AOi ,r rrji 
 
 5 
 
 . ^- kt. 
 
18 
 
 of these regulations. Among the regulations recognized today are the provisions 
 that such prisoners (l) shall not he deprived of their private property; (3) they 
 shall not he cruelly treated; (3) the captor is not at liberty to put them to death, 
 hut must release them if he cannot maintain them; (4) they must he paid for the 
 work they perform; (s) they must not he used for military purposes against their 
 own country; (6) quarter cannot he refused. 
 
 All of these rules were stated with more or less clearness hy Webster in 
 diplomatic correspondence with Mexico.^ The violation of these laws hy Mexico 
 calls forth from him a clear statement of the supremacy of international law and 
 the obligation of all civilized nations to observe these rules. 
 
 "This is the humane language of the law of nations — . The law of war 
 forbids the wounding, killing, impressment into the troops of the country, or the 
 enslaving or otherwise maltreating of prisoners of war, unless they have been 
 guilty of some grave crime; and from the obligation of this law no civilized state 
 can dischar^ itself."^ 
 
 Of the several rules as above given Webster's language is clear in most 
 
 cases. The obligation to release prisoners if they cannot be maintained is not 
 
 stated, although it is a corollary to the definite statement, made repeatedly, 
 
 that thsy must not be shot. On the subject of quarter he makes only the general 
 
 statement that when a soldier submits, the law demands that resentment be forgot- 
 
 I 
 
 ten. 
 
 2) Buies governing the status and actions of citizens abroad. The theory 
 enunciated on this point contains two elements which at first glance seem somewhat 
 contradictory. The true relationship between them is tbe most important point in 
 
 the doctrine, 
 
 ) 
 
 ^See: Letter to iJlr. Thompson, Vol. XI, p. 109ff. 
 
 ^ol. XII, p. 111. 
 

 «fT«; 
 
 Hi' 
 
 .v'v,> v' ^ ' -)f. ■ ;i' ... JV. ■- Ki i ^ - 
 
 .1 ^ A_L. _ iL k i* ^ -mk^ .^JUf i^ < _ «C< . . rik ^ ^ jf ^ A r X . * .\ v 
 
 ~ Tr^ V I 
 
 k ^r m a>, . J * 7' W a f » W* . .*s 
 
 X/nrF'V' '>.’•: 
 
 
 <Y.»>H 
 
 
 ^nir^F! 
 
 
 '■i 
 
 „'■ , '■ v: ^ . ■ ' ' ," '.■■ f . ‘^’'^f. . 1 . §”’“■ 'i '' ' ’'*■' ' '- V'"'' ' 
 
 >•*«?« 
 
 '■■ .“f .' '■•• • ■•• ■ :'- V «>• .^•^. .. . ' sf^-!? •«« ’ f rjl 
 
 ^'■'- ‘ ’ iiiMJs « '” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■n. 
 
 ;,Vv ■ V 
 
 ,( •!' 
 
 
 
 
 it 
 
 \' -,4;4 inxcc? .* 4;^ «i r$fcr-'Ktr ,t\yn’.70|ifce'xi^abOvg^;^ 
 
 
 4|pf 'jyvFiM ■’ “ 
 
 ,ai <?3 ta»»tv<»4 :hi*3C 
 
 .X 
 
 l.' j 
 
 .; :i .*: , p x . 
 
 
 
19 
 
 The first element is the illegality of participation of citizens of one 
 nation in the affairs of another. Nentral states are bound by the law of nations 
 to be strictly neutral and it is "a manifest and gross impropriety for individuals 
 to engage in the civil conflicts of other states, and thus to bs at war while their 
 government is at peace. War and peace are high national relations, which can prop- 
 erly be established or changed only by nations themselves." 
 
 "The doctrine of non-intervention in the affairs of another is like- 
 
 ly to be essentially impaired, if, while government refrains from interference, in- 
 terference is still allowed to its subjects, individually or in masses."^ 
 
 He reiterates the impropriety and danger of allowing individuals to make 
 war on their own authority, especially since by "smuggling themselves in the bel- 
 ligerent operations of other nations" they "run the hazard of counteracting the 
 policy, or embroiling the relations of their own government.^ 
 
 On the other hand he points out precedent for the belief that "the gen- 
 eral law of nations does not forbid the citizens or subjects of one government from 
 taking part in the civil commotions of the other. The emigration of its citizens 
 caiinot be prevented by a goveniment, he asserts, and moreover, it is no duty of the 
 government to endeavor to check such emigration. 
 
 The compatablllty of these two declarations is made possible by his 
 statement of the domicile theory of allegiance. According to this doctrine if a 
 citizen voluntarily leaves his country and settles in another, he no longer owes 
 allegiance to it, nor does it owe protection to him. Moreover, the acts of such 
 indivldualB can never be construed as violations of neutrality on the part of their 
 original father-land, since all ties of responsibility sire discontinued between 
 
 ^See Vol. XI, p. 258-9. 
 
 ^Ibld. 
 
 ^Ibld, p. 258. 
 
30 
 
 this govemnent and him. 
 
 Moreover, even when the citizens of a nation go abroad without losing 
 their characters as its citizens - as in the case of travellers, etc. - that na- 
 tion does not have the right to atteinpt to control them, while they are beyond 
 its territorial sovereigity. Its right to bind their actions and require obedi- 
 ence to its laws returns only after they come back into its territory. In brief 
 his theory on this point was that ” — every nation has an exclusive right to regu- 
 late persons and things within its territory, according to its sovereign wllland 
 
 public policy. "2 ^ , ’ 
 
 Some nations, he acknowledged, maintained this doctrine^^ but he rebutted 
 it by pointing out that no nation had enacted laws prohibiting the emigration of 
 her citizens®. Also many states had laws providing for the naturalization of im- 
 migrants, upon fulfilling the requirements of which, new-comers can throw off the 
 allegiance under which they were bom and become citizens of the new country. Be 
 also defended his theory by pointing out that it necessarily followed from the 
 recognized right which gave successful uprisings the right to supplant old alle- 
 giance with new independence. 
 
 and 
 
 Finally, on grounds of ethics, expediency as well as law, he objected to 
 the policy of demanding perpetual allegiance. It was wrong to tear men away from 
 their homes, employments, and political and domestic connections to "undergo the 
 dangers and hardships of military service for a country which has — ceased to be 
 their own country." 
 
 ^Ibid. See also Vol. XII, p. 128ff. "These persons — repair to Texas, not as 
 citizens of the United States, but as ceasing to be such citizens, and as changing, 
 at the same time, their allegiance, and their domicile." And again: we do not 
 hold and never have held "the doctrine of perpetuity of natural allegiance." 
 
 ^Vol. XI, p. 321. 
 
 3 
 
 On the contrary, England - though she entertained this theory, encouraged emigra- 
 tion. 
 
ll 
 
21 
 
 Not only were individuals wronged but conmerce was disturbed and hin- 
 dered. Moreover, it was unwise to insist on this theory because it was a probable 
 cause of "resentment, exasperation and animosity"^ between nations. 
 
 The contingency of the right of individuals to participate in one na- 
 tion's struggles, upon the renunciation of all other allegiance he consistently 
 maintained: "if any man having taken part in the Jfexican war with Texas, for ex- 
 arq>le, still claimed to be a citizen of the Ihited States, he should be punished 
 
 for violating the law; but the right of punishment belonged to the thited States.^ 
 
 i 
 
 The crime of those guilty of un-neutral intereference is not piracy, 
 however. Not only is the right to punish them reserved to their ov/n government, 
 but they do not deserve the punishment that piracy incurs. 
 
 / 
 
 The duties of neutrality he affirms, do not inteitefere with the privi- 
 lege of making financial loans to belligerent parties. Neither do they interfere 
 with the full exercise of the right of free speech, and the criticism of the bbl- 
 ligerents, if overt acts are not indulged in.*" 
 
 3) The maritime jurisdiction of a nation's law. Mr. Webster maintained 
 that ships were subject only to the jurisdiction of the country of which its own- 
 ers were citizens. IxLfact^t w_aa to be considered as truly under the dominion 
 of that country as a-pdece of the country itself, made moveable, but not on a less 
 proper sphere for the operation of its laws. "A vessel on the high seas, beyond 
 the distance of a marii^ league from the shore, is regarded as a part of the terri- 
 tory of the nation to which she belongs, and subject exclusively to the jurisdic- 
 tion of that nation.'^ 
 
 Hoi. XI, p. 324. 
 
 ^Letter to Mr. Thon^ison, 1842. In a letter to Mr. Fox, 1851, Webster expresses 
 pride in the United States observance of the principle of non-intervention, and 
 the strictest conformity in these respects to the rules of international law. 
 
 Hoi. Ill, p. 127. 
 
 Hoi. XI, p. 306. 
 
• '4 
 
 tf ^ ^ ^ TTIPP ^ T.-^'t',^ 
 
 ’ ", ■ 5 ,‘ '. ' )"\i ,‘ 
 
 
 '1 ^’1 
 
 . *i- - . .:• • -.»lJtJ %fi;* ? ’ 
 
 :pX 3 rr: ■ . . .:• ■■ r:t yu---'' '. ^ •'*«'• 
 
 '. ;!■ r si 
 
 1.1. 
 
 • „t* •' -V* ^ 
 
 :•.> 'f-X 
 
 „• 1 ;.■ >>' . 
 
 .i' 
 
 '* ! ...<W - J 
 
 * ■ ■• i«Oa.,‘?<a 5 ' ■ •• M. - ;: 3 ' , 
 
 'ii 
 
 I 
 
 ■:ir 
 
 >• 
 
 . -A. . i/V- 
 
 1 - f . 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 -v; ■’ ■ 
 
 'i?:-. Vii '•■ 
 
 ■ . ■ ' ■‘ iiii 
 
 % ; •' } > ■ :/w • 3 1 ;;;.* . wr- 
 
 
 ], ^ 
 
 
 'HiC: u-zoiri. • - '• ft ' *;r _■ ">' ••'■' 
 
 y V*' V 
 
 ' »■ , > --y ► 
 
 -C 
 
 
 't« t' . a*'i' 
 
 ^ . - .- -n i.r; Wj^sit 
 
 
 I -, • - , 4 '•‘ h* •* - f 'f? {' 
 
 ■ i ' ^ - - n O w Cl* 
 
 
 
 '^^i; 'j* .'np^ -rOi’^a^U 
 
 ■ ’ : ' tJ ; ”! ■ V 
 
 . f . r. 
 
 
 
 . ! . ^.T. 
 
 
 >i /T>X'U^ • ■ .r c -..li :-i/' .♦. C vt- .3:.nr.;dljrf^^*f«iw 
 
 - ..i:il-r'. . f^p "• - 'J-''" .^ ■"' ‘ •' t"* - .;. "" 
 
 -i 
 
 ■ , ^ -‘ ■ , > J J '• ; 
 
 . M 
 
 
 
 ix •>■ 
 
 fj ‘W - ■ V ;t'. .W'U.'< « 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 ■,.■•’ ft© »)!; 
 
 
 « < > 
 
 . i , . 'll 
 
 ii 
 
 I r 
 r 
 
 i! "I- 
 
 ■ -1 
 
 
 i r Y 
 
 , fiC>* ><,'< . 
 
 ; *t’ ’ ^ fri 
 
 .: '-i 
 
 , j-»- ^ 
 • . le 
 
 v^l 
 
 -V 
 
 r-r 
 
 m 6 t 
 
 .« 
 
22 
 
 "It is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its ter- 
 ritory, though at sea 
 
 " — To the extent of the exercise of this jurisdiction, they are consid- 
 
 2 
 
 ered as parts of the territory of the nation herself." 
 
 "Every merchant-vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as a part of 
 the territory of the country to which it belongs." 
 
 A nation's law thus extends a long arm that follows its ships throughout 
 its travels. Or a ship may be considered as a sort of floating island in the 
 
 <3 4 
 
 possession and obedient to the laws of a nation.^ 
 
 A 
 
 But not only when a ship is in mid-ocean is it thus to be regarded, but 
 even when it comes within the territorial waters of another sovereign®; or indeed 
 into the harbors of a foreign nation. If the entrance be made in a friendly way, 
 for friendly purposes, it does not matter what the motive of entrance is, or 
 whether it be voluntary, or the result of storm and necessity. Moreover this re- 
 tention of original jurisdiction, excludes the local law: a ship in a foreigi har- 
 bor enjoys a sort of "extra-territoriality".® 
 
 In cases where the entrance of a foreign port is not for purposes of 
 trade, but the urgent necessity of the weather, by which it is driven against the 
 
 ^Ibid. 
 
 ^Ibid, p. 307. 
 
 3 
 
 Letter to Lord Asburton on Inpressnent. Ibid, p. 320. 
 
 4 
 
 "The sovereignty of a nation is concerned in maintaining its exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion and possession over merchant- ships on the seas." Vol. XI, p. 323. 
 
 5 
 
 " — this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea Bub- 
 ject to a foreign dominion." Ibid. 
 
 g 
 
 " — a merchant vessel coming into any open port of another country voluntarily, 
 for the purposes of lawful trade — bring with her and keep over her to a very 
 considerable extent, the jurisdiction and authority of the laws of her own country, 
 excluding to this extent, by consequence the jurisdiction of the local law. A 
 ship - though at anchor in a foreign harbor, preserves its jurisdiction and its 
 laws. " Ibid. 
 

 JtKl 
 
 
 
 i -, 
 
 'i!^, \ 
 
 . . . , \.'^ ' .' . . ’I.- I » 
 
 
 
 H . -ii- 
 
 
 m. '■ ■ ■ ' • -'V ‘ .'■ Bf/; , ' . .. ^ 
 
 \^f: ■ ■■ • “V, *‘ ■ '-<||^ ®?»-M:^IVicf . v4’ 
 
 
 r ’Vi -,. ' , . r: -4- ^ 
 
 -f I 
 
 tti . r“ 4' ■ . * , ' 1^ * . X: 
 
 
 ^.i)c 4t$i»'' \:€in rt^f> *» jO 
 
 F.»'< ■%, ■ ■ ” _■■'■ Pj - ■ .. ’' u‘ ■ ■ I--'. '4> 
 
 1,^,' ' ■> rt V 
 
 .... !■> ■ '7Ji'j5> 
 
 , f.v>; '«■• .4 
 
 
 ftt* i.- 
 
 '■ . -* * * ' . . . -'jm — ''•' 
 
 4’fcf 
 
 4 i . 
 
 
 
 % • ' " ■ ■i*^' '?■ ',. \.wr >ift 
 
 ' ‘ ii* ■ Hiu 'V’ ' 1 ■ J 
 
 
 •;% .1 
 
 ■^Sr V' 
 
 
 .aux‘' 
 
 
 . . ir'. lliis«-!pO!.' 
 
 . ZZ-' . ,irjnM(t^'?7qp?r J-iii 
 
 f l^r .ly ,tK '. f of tr#‘ ^0' 
 
 • >• , ’ >■ ' 1 ■ -'-»'.> a 
 
 
23 
 
 will of the master or owner near land or into port, the justice of this view, Web- 
 ster declares to be even clearer. In the first place, from a purely legal point 
 of view, he inquires what Justice there is in making a distinction between the 
 rights and iranuinities of a ship in a position which she finds herself against her 
 will, as the result of superior power and absolute necessity, and her rights and 
 immunities before she was compelled by necessity to abandon her voluntary course. 
 
 Moreover, "still higher principles" support the right of ships driven by 
 necessity in foreign waters to exenption from interference: that is, the principles 
 of hospitality and courtesy, which, although they are granted, voluntarily, accord- 
 ing to the technicalities, are nevertheless "held sacred" and are demanded by "the 
 comnon sense of justice of all civilized states," 
 
 The right of merchant- ships to bring with them the jurisdiction and laws 
 of their own country into the ports of other nations, Webster did not hold to be 
 absolute, but based on the tacit permission of the other nations. This permission 
 he readily admitted, could be refused by any nation: it was entirely within her 
 power to do so. But for a nation to make such a refusal would be "irrational and 
 absurd" and such action would be equivalent to withdrawing itself "from the circle 
 of civilized nations." 
 
 In the absence of formal announcement by "appropriate enactments, edicts 
 or declarations", therefore, and so long as ports are open and trade is invited, 
 it is the ri^t of all nations to presume that this permission is granted. The 
 distinction between what a nation may do if it pleases, and what it is presumed to 
 do, or not to do, in the absence of any positive declaration of its will, he re- 
 gards as very important. The fact that it has sort of reserved power to abandon 
 certain common methods or that certain ways of doing are dependent upon its permis- 
 
 sion, does not^any degree limit the authority of these methods of procedure in the 
 absence of expressions of intention to exercise this reserve power and withdraw its 
 permission. There is no right to give the appearance of readiness to carry on inter- 
 
■'fn.-.r.- .T'T-’t • 'T- 
 
 
 
 
 Jii:'. •'. 
 
 
 , - > ... y 
 
 
 
 i % } ’ 
 
 :r> >.'' 
 
 
 <- ic 
 
 • . i .'c'es--> I--- c ifiil’ x^i»: *-;-5 .s-f 
 
 1^. 
 
 
 Si 
 
 'J« J *V ’^‘‘S -'' 
 
 
 
 r' 
 
 
 
 ■.1-- j : ' 
 
 vj 
 
 :■ ■ ■ X( ■ 
 
 is- 
 
 
 I 
 
 '■ f Cf. ' ’■■ ■»o . *' ■• ■ :-li 
 
 Ot..f 
 
 K- 
 
 ■•>;," : iftnTr<V'^<’ '•■ V ■-■(-'. • ># t , '.V / '4li5nd'i Ot,..| 
 
 ’ ' ■ . . ';. '■■ ■ ’ . ** ’ ' , ■' >1 ' 
 
 «*»rC ‘•--J 
 
 3K 
 
 t*:* 
 
 • .'a.' 
 
 
 
 
 j ' •'^i 
 
 ; ^ i .-•: •' ' ; ■■ ‘ -v-. 'f. r«' ■ ■ , • 
 
 ?’^;i rjf ' '•“jv,. i 
 
 . s .■ X i s4t 4; " ; I i. 'x '- {• 
 
 :• -5 i<t-, 
 
 i/i "fits ti/ 
 
 « ^f4A 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 vrf; 
 
 
 . a « 
 
 
24 
 
 coiirse with other nations, and then to deny the privileges which are "according 
 to general -usage." 
 
 In o-utlining the law prescribed by this "co-ca»try and law of nations, and 
 the practice of modern times" he laid en^hasis on the assertion that he was Imi- 
 tatlng no new principles but merely stating "the doctrine of the law of nations, 
 clearly laid down by writers of received authority, and entirely conformable, as 
 is supposed, with the practice of modern nations." "— the United States" he af- 
 firmed, "propose the introduction of no new principle into the law of nations. 
 
 They require only a faithful and exact observance of the Injunctions of that code 
 
 1 
 
 as understood and practiced in modem times." He regarded his position in this 
 matter as "safe and defensible" and he apprehended no controversy with England 
 on these principles.*' 
 
 He conceded several qualifications to the theory that a ship is solely 
 and exclusively -under the jurisdiction of the country of its owners. In the first 
 place, wherever there was any specific provision of international law, that, of 
 co-urse, should take precedence pf the nation’s law. That is to say, international 
 law governed ships abroad, but it provided that where it had no particular pro- 
 vision, the situation should be regulated by the law of the ship's country.^ 
 
 In the second place, he did not claim that the j-urisdiction of a nation 
 over a vessel belonging to it, v/hile lying in the port of another nation was 
 necessarily exclusive. He took pains to make it definite and clear that he did 
 not hold this position. In the relations of the passengers and crew to the^ocal 
 law functions, no exemption can be claimed if crimes are committed against the in- 
 habitants. And contracts and civil relationships of this sort are sdso subject to 
 
 ^Ibid, p. 305, 306. 
 
 2 
 
 See: Private correspondence, vol, 2, p. 120-1. 
 
 ®Ibid, p. 320-323. 
 
I 
 
 i - v'- i i vT ^ 
 
 #' 
 
 >4:‘: 
 
 if' ,Ti’-; 
 
 r*J 
 
 : ' 
 
 ?5‘'“ 'W |' 
 
 ■ ''V’ i$k -■-. ?■ 
 
 Cl- \5.1s '.••••.•. n/-|^ ' 
 
 '-••■ • 'v. /'.•■'•jsti ,•;■• ■ . . " t ■" 
 
 . \ 
 
 V i. . 
 
 
 'if « -•, i ■ 
 
 » 
 
 ■::l*ir ,i? 
 
 ■ii ■' 
 
 ' ,'-■ T V n . ' . '.|<; i; i>p . ' 
 
 t. . j{;^ro til ^9 ^ 
 
 i 
 
 '.■ : . -• i'X" 'ii'- .;j- ;■ i . /•; ■ fu 
 
 
 lira. 
 
 • ! ^ 
 
 , .• -• : :J. 
 
 ? *nyO:a 
 
 
 
 -."U) - 
 
 
 ' -, , . , 1 . . ... 
 
 i 
 
 . "r. '\riir ilSt 
 
 i : . fl? 
 
 • ^ I- *•-. 
 
 kv* • .-• • 
 
 . 9, jNt >in -■; i -Af ] ' 
 
 ,.’r ' 'I 
 
 I *1 
 
 
 
 kii ^ 
 
 'cf Ive.;,.j. -.J 
 
 0 ■•-a r’?r^‘, rJ-.J ’• ' ,,"..4rt.i '*/ ! ■ 
 
 1 
 
 ■ ■- ’^-- J - y ,'Jvi * TJ i; . r* L. 'i 
 
 '.1.1 
 
25 
 
 the local law. Nevertheless local law is quite excluded from all matters in which 
 only passengers and crew are concerned: if a crime of any sort (he uses murder 
 
 as an exan^jle) were comn'dtted by one ship-traveller upon another, the laws relat- 
 ing to tl» crime in the shdpe country would be in force, and the court of that 
 country would be the proper tribunal. 
 
 Mr. Webster had occasion to elaborate his views on this subject In con- 
 nection with two international disputes. In the case of the Brig Creole^ part 
 of a cargo of slaves had mutinied, committed murder, secured control of the ship 
 and^ turning it away from its American destination had steered it into the port of 
 Nassau in the Bahamas where the English authorities permitted the escape of the 
 culprits, instead of restoring them to their legal subservience to their overpow- 
 ered masters. To the English defense that all slaves that come within the realm 
 of English law by that act become force, Webster replied that he freely acknow- 
 ledged this fact, but that according to his law of the extraterritoriality of 
 foreign ships, the liberation of the slaves had been an interference within the 
 realm of the law of the United States. The British authorities had no more ri^t 
 under these circumstances to put an end to the legal relationship of master and 
 slave than they had to dissolve legal relationships of marriage, parenthood, or 
 indenture or other contracts under the same circumstances. 
 
 In his objection to the British practise of impressing (supposedly) Eng- 
 lish sailors from American ships, Mr. Webster argued that although a sailor might 
 be beyond any doubt a subject of England according to law, this fact gave that 
 
 country absolutely no right to take him away from the American ship, since in that 
 
 U.S. 
 
 ship Ihiited States law prevailed and according to^law a man is subject only to tl:^ 
 control of the nation in whose Jurisdiction he finds himself.^ 
 
 See: C-urtis, Vol. II, p. 121ff. 
 above-. 
 
' Tv,' ' ' 'T, ■ V Y, 
 
 
 ‘r. 
 
 m 
 
 
 ■*#? 
 
 
 
 3^- 
 
 
 T1 
 
 fr 
 
 /•' ' ^ .'. 1^' ' • ' * ‘ ' '■ ■ ' • ' ''■ i * * '* -JP ll I ' , I* * ■ ' ij"- ' 
 
 :■ ,!«lis' ii'-«l Vi' ,iji«J?nt'^4*' (tf<^Si^-.iM;' 
 
 t^'-' 
 
 < i 
 
 ' T._ 
 
 .Iffix,'. ; ■/!!.*. ■ ■ i*>j '' •'.„' , -•• ' '{’ ^ '*• . ^ -«t T «: 
 
 ^,*\ ■ ' ' ! , •* , '■^' >'. ■ >-„■'<'-? 
 
 ' ■ .' '■; '•■ ' . ■/' '^- ■'•■ ^, - 
 
 ti?' 'iyoiiiit >^m «?}■ o'^- ‘W..;V;^.. ’,4v i 
 
 '■'• -r fe •■ •• .. .^." * * •-,: ; ■• .. •' ' .'. Yfi , ' , . • K 
 
 '<W' . ■, , ‘ ' ■. ’ ,.' '■ ' l'' ' • ' , 'X '• *i’ ■ ,J *' * 
 
 ■•V 'j •• , w ,-y,. ^ ^ ./y'ai I.. ■ _ ■' ' •,• ..v^,. 
 
 V / ’ "'■ ■' V i. ' .. . ^ , -M ^ ' >■'" -.‘r 
 
 If'^ , ,. **i-' '•' '>'.. > ’ S'.l , .'/*), n-‘ ^ .j',- '.,' A ^V'.f.r* 
 
 t V 
 
 t 
 
 t’.'^t'f' 'iilpi •*i»fljfi|<ii».> '»i. • **!* 
 
 . ■.'' ..' ‘i-^.. . .i t_ ^r^.’..f- ij.».tn. ij#. i.i».,.'<^.. 4 b SSiflJSJ ^*’5lli< 
 
 *• ■ ■;> I.-'' i - ‘ ••*•'• '. «-H 
 
 L 
 
 
 ^■1 
 
 ijlSv.- .. ^,.v^V \ «■ ■•• .y., cl '■ . ■ ■' , %>..•'*, • f,'-^ ■•-'V'-i' ?'-'i 
 
 .J 
 
 ' ' • -•?.-ti»M»xr. «w>^v ^ *t<»* '«k 
 
 '. \ . g . . .'S-jJ 
 
 riff'!] 
 .. .'■ ’■*■ 
 
 
 JL ' '• a «jt ^ ' ^lu h" ' 
 
26 
 
 If the "notion of perpetual allegiance" were a provision of internation- 
 al law instead of being merely the law of Britain then indeed the English claim 
 would be Justified, he admitted, for according to the qualification of his theory 
 above noted, the regulations of international law hold within each nation's jur- 
 isdiction. 
 
 He followed these legal aa*guments with a review of considerations of 
 expediency (injury to men, to trade, to national friendship) which demanded the 
 abandonment of England's claim. 
 
 4. Extradition of Criminals 
 
 One of the most signal contributions to the body of precedent which 
 governs national relations made by Mr. Webster was the effecting of the treaty 
 with Great Britain providing for the mutual extradition of criminals. No pecul- 
 iar advsuitage to the United States would result from such an arrangement - in 
 fact Webster expressly denies that he made any atteii 5 >t to gain any such advantage. 
 On the contrary it is a law which operates equally to the interest of both na- 
 tions involved, and it is significant of Webster's ideal of international harmony 
 and co-operation that he found in a controversy which seemed to contain the grave 
 possibilities of friction^ an opportunity for advancing the common welfare of all 
 parties. 
 
 There were serious difficulties to obstruct this advancement. England 
 was very tender about anything that might possibly bind her to extradite fugitive 
 slaves; and Webster was compelled to admit repeatedly that there was nothing in 
 the existing law that required extradition of any kind of criminal, except where 
 this was provided for by special treaty. 
 
 ^The Creole case. 
 
 ^Ths govemrasnt was pressed by the Southern interests to secure such a treaty; 
 but Mr. Webster refused to make any attempt. A comparison of his stand in this 
 affair with his views on the American furtive slave law might be of some profit 
 in some other connection. 
 
 J 
 

 
 ‘T-,; - T :^T>y -^ . : m ^laPM 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 ' '% 
 
 m 
 
 
 U Vi 
 
 .^/'W»6£yJ^-#UV !iuyi'a^iy ^ m 
 
 V ’ ■« “37’,:*' ■' .'1 ..,■: 
 
 *' ■ -*' '-:§■; 7 ’ ■“ ’ '•; ,-■ - : ■'••-» ’•■' ^- , . - • ■■ . ■' * 'of 
 
 ,•>»■— ■ ■•■wW r ■ - ■ -^ ■■« ■ ■*'^ 
 
 ’ ’ ' ■ I. ' * '''■ “ ''''*. n 
 
 rftliiHUtt 
 7. ^ .■ «, 
 
 
 r ^fT'’ ‘ -. . . ■ ^ ^ 
 
 '■^ i- - ■ ■'■ V ,^, ._. »j * « '•.^- ' ■’■ Iff 
 
 - W^'-‘ '.. " ™“"" 
 
 ;.-a 
 
 r- «' - dbMf! 
 
 E»-„. - 
 
 ?#ei.r4M ,^' ■ 'i 
 
 " v" -■ ,:iP^i^ '■ '•■ 'I 
 
 »9 “ *’ ''* ^ 1 Tr 
 
 * • / " • ’ ■ • ,,• 't.~ _ ' ^.- ■!» 
 
 \; " •' .,. ,7»'.«-ii- "' ' ' . '; . iT ■ ■ ’. j'"' ' ■ . » Hi. ‘ 
 
 I' * wife 
 
 .«. B IK**' .*i * ' ' . ’ wj ' *^. ^ '* ,1 •* i 
 
 ir " '. :::■^■' ■ ■,. .' lir'i ; 
 
 - - g ( 
 
 - r" >» —— - . •■'»'-« ^ « - «•» 
 
 ■ ■■: ,'V"’^,^'%-t' M 
 
 (] 
 
 • * V. • • , . i!n^ I . w, . ■ ••{' A “' j • . ''5|||^ -ly 
 
 t-^.' *i • '*' 'r, '“. „ 4^l-'-'t^: ** ■■'.*l»*r . • . ^ 
 
 -,,,iuT‘«iW'*w 's'^^- :S^'’ f* 
 
 b|'‘ , ' -^ • ■' V ' , \SV; 7' ■••“.- ^ V"' ■ '.: ';* i*' ^ ^ '|fc*S 
 
 - - 5 f4W Kfi^' *#» 
 
 , -nsf » •4®S& « m J ^ 
 
 
 fb- , , *fiS|' ^ 
 
 £avt:kt^- ‘ 
 
 - ’ *» .V a' 
 
 " J, <Kr^Vw 
 
 ' r.' •■ ■' 
 
 ,^v. ,'.■ .^ ', ‘-V ,. ' ,^( .‘ ' ., >/ ./'r^, ' , 7 ,;■' ,■. 
 
 •■'* vvA .■ ■ ^ •' >. ' C 5/ s' 
 
 .'»» cj tp^55K.a W *;,#S ’ 
 
 ' ’■ ■"- ' ■ 'VvIjS -v’" ’■ -V i.J^iJ^^ftf{,,; 
 
 - J 
 
 < ^ yvf 
 
 ..> f, 
 
 r- 
 
 
 ' ' 1^ “* — ■ - ^ ■ ~ k 
 
 >J»- 
 
 v.7^‘' -yk^ :, 
 
 j' ef‘ • ■ ■ isjkt" :?W|ii fi(t ' ‘-'.t* ^ ’’■”’ . . _ rjS 
 
 7 y'irifiA. t< deett^ ^ 
 
 «fT. 
 
 -’i ■■ *' ■"■'.■ -./ .t^|ft)m«r(4 ‘mtfio ./Hj 
 
He made a tactful and successful appeal,^ against a system which per- 
 mitted the most terrible crimes to go unpunished, and secured an article in the 
 Treaty of Washington providing for the mutual surrender of persons accused of cer- 
 tain specified crimes. Of the provision Mr. Curtis says: "It introduced into the 
 relations of nations a new feature, which has since bean followed by many en- 
 lii^tened states. This great advance in civilization is due entirely to Mr. Web- 
 ster's forecast, and to the perseverance with which he eliminated from the case 
 
 of the Creole the question which could bs made the subject of a treaty ."2 
 
 IV. The Participation of the United States in 
 Fore 1 01 Affairs. 
 
 Besides the general and specific rules which govern international in- 
 tercourses it is thought fit to examine into Mr. Webster's ideas in regard to the 
 particular part our country has to play among the nations. The peculiarities of 
 United States history and constitution, he keenly felt, gave to the nation a uni- 
 que place in international relations, unique duties to perform, and a unique des- 
 tiny to fulfill. 
 
 1, The United States as the example of democracy 
 The most inqportant thing about the United States in Webster's mind was 
 that it was a democracy. These facts affected the character^ all its actions 
 and formed the background for its international relations. Bat not only wais it 
 a democracy, but it was the only great democracy in the world, and it was the 
 first great democracy in the world. The establishment of its government was the 
 first instance in the history of the world of an attempt to establish democracy 
 on such a scale. The ancient democratic cities and communities he maintained, 
 
 ^This is evident from the correspondence, althou^ this matter was settled chief- 
 ly as the result of personal conferences with Lord Ashburton, 
 
 2 
 
 Life of Daniel Webster, vol. 2, p. 121. T . • 
 
■■ ' SV ' 
 
 . : i50 ; <; v . r . i ^ 
 
 'j '" i ’'" . '..r ! ‘■,•■ 
 
 . V . I *. - ■ • 
 
 , : ; • 1 ..i 
 
 ■; 51 . 4 M < 
 
 4 . * :o 
 
 1 
 
 , i 4' ^ 
 
 j ^ ; C > 
 
 L ^; i j fl 
 
 
 
 
 ;tt 
 
 ■•' 0i(iiU;^ ’. v-i -v.t. • >* ' 'i 
 
 « . ' v ;.. . v t ' ef^iJ !‘ 
 
 
 
 \ . : 
 
 - k ' ./f _ 
 
 .? r * 
 
 ^ V 
 
 
 . 1.1 
 
 ’’ "■ ■'"?? '1 
 
 ^ Ci -: p .1 
 
 ■, t . 
 
 «1 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 .4 
 
 )", '1 
 
 . r. ; ./• 
 
 I*. . . 
 
 
 H. 
 
 .:jj 
 
 * Sl\ 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 7; 
 
 ft 
 
 « 
 
 ;» i r < . 
 
 i ' • j . / ' ■ 
 
 . '•.• 
 
 «uf,)f I«y< I f 
 
 1 d\iu< / - , ' 
 
 . <tiJn 1 ; / f j i;:u4 .'-•- 
 
 ■ i .< 
 
 . ‘ . V^j 
 
 t - - 1 ■'. 
 
 
 . f >6 
 
 !• 4 .*- 
 
 :» ‘to :,‘.:i 
 
 ..Ci i 
 
 40 / ..8 
 
 
 #'■ 
 
 
 I 
 
28 
 
 did not form a precednet for while they were confined to small territories in 
 which direct participation in the government .by each citizen was possible this 
 government controlled the most important part of an immense continent; and was 
 based on the relatively new principle of representation; and in fact had quite 
 different and incomparably greater problems to^deal v/ith. 
 
 The newness of the country gave it still the character of a great ex- 
 periment before the world, although internally it had achieved great success; had 
 developed an enlightened citizenry,! and^caused the prosperity which characterized 
 the country’s condition to an extraordinary degree.^ It was the peculiar duty of 
 America, the divine mission to which she had been allotted by Providence to her- 
 self and to mankizid, to demonstrate the practicability and emln nt desirability 
 of democratic government on a huge scale, so that other peoples seeing its bene- 
 fits, might establish new governments on its pattern and thus spread freedom and 
 prosperity through the world. Our actions should be carefully guarded therefore, 
 since the overthrow or disintegration of our government would not only bring dis- 
 aster on ourselves but it would quench this torch which should lighten the pro- 
 cession of progress. If the American experiment in democracy should fail, it 
 would discourage all men's hopes for free government and it might mean that such 
 an experiment would never again be undertaken, and the cause of democracy should 
 be forever lost. 
 
 Tl» fact that we ^e a powerful nation makes the role that we are to 
 play among the nations important for its size as well as its meaning. Webster re- 
 peatedly indulged in exultation in the mightiness of this country, but he oftan 
 accompanied such expressions with urgent appeal that Americans feel sharply the 
 duty and responsibility that accompanies it. The fact that conditions make it 
 

 < 
 
 X?ri> 
 
 1 < 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 ♦ 
 
 I 
 
 ) 
 
 ' ' 
 
 ■• I 
 
 » 
 
 - 1 
 
 » 
 
 I 
 
 ■•»P 
 
 
 
 ,iC ' ■■ 
 
 
 rto^ \f/.* '..' -/.w 
 
 r-Jfv/’A'orNi . icTS j>-;: --i/i 
 
 
 ; ^ ;:i '. . .-r r -‘*.ji.* 1 ^ ' I. 
 
 tj'V.r.. :•: ^ -*-v 
 
 
 ;iii . i.i-i *»*« 
 
 j vipr/r! « 
 
 
 
 f r .Jn , - i 
 
 II 
 
 
 rr- 'r. .-■ 
 
 , . ■ -r f'nvfti: : .^ 
 
 •>. 
 
 ; •.;:-v::v{p~ ' ' -j! ■•,. 
 
 > 
 
 ; ' ‘'V '• ■ ■ 
 
 l;u i :>^ . '■ ‘ - V. . •■ ' 
 
 U^-r’ 
 
 .•■••■ . ’ 
 
 - ■ ••'•'■ ■' 
 
 r f j 
 
 ..•;v’- : M V "■■'■ 
 
 '?'’U t; ■ kiv]; - "' ■■ 
 
 L- 
 
 t 
 
 :i -y ' r.--- j 
 
 • ' ■ -. . ■ ' ■ ' ■ r 
 
 ' * .■■•' ^ ' / • “■ •' a . 
 
 * '■ . ■ ■ . ‘ ' ■* * » /'■;•• . . f 
 
 V. .. •••^ 
 
 ■1 ■■ .. 
 
 * t' . ‘' 
 
 •:; ri'- “ •' -"■ 
 
 - .'s- ■ 
 
 x' ■'-■ '■ ''.JA' 
 
 1 < . 
 
 . . ’-r • I 
 
 
 e. 
 
 •i}' •*■■ ■ ^ 
 
 
 
 . 'S •rtiffil-iB' i '.' -. iJ. c 
 
 •r « >. ■ - 
 
 
 1?..1 •'{?'. ' - t .~- -' i . ■- *3 f : ? 6 W ^: : 
 
 a', 
 
 ^'«l ! m 
 
 r./j: 
 / . ❖ 
 
 I -r 
 
 . * • 
 
 ? s. 
 
 
 .> 
 
 Ai-r] 
 
 . •v.'j^ ijf'r'-.o rtv.Mr“T,- ■' . ."'i**' 
 
 ♦ J -4 
 
 “ ',,r* 
 
 ' ■ * ' / ' 
 ■' ■ .5^ ' 
 
 •■ , .iit- ^ 
 
 i' ^ 
 
 'ikky.*u‘^':s>' - »■' ;..6Xi.-v • 
 
 
 . .1 rfi 
 
 A 
 
 
 I* . '’■V*' ■■ ' '- 
 
 .t ^ . ■< •. t .■' ; XV*; 
 
 ..' ‘I ‘ 
 
 ; V ■ : . .'.r 
 
 ■• .»v. »• 
 
 y..l u. ■ ■<■ 
 
 
 
 :'t e.' 
 
 Mt 
 
 :»a r*j‘U ^ 
 
 ' y %- f r *■.:•.{ 
 
 , ,’'. ■ i i7.i' 
 
 ,‘i 
 
 
 . Ji 
 
 .1. .A • 
 
 ,1 
 
29 
 
 inevitable that we are to play a great part in international affairs ought not to 
 result in mere vain-glory on the part of Americans; repeatedly he warns against 
 
 this danger. America must cew?afully and conscientiously accept its greatness as 
 
 )V 
 
 a huge responsibility. It must make its example as brilliant and alluring as 
 possible^ and encourage by all proper means to follow it. 
 
 Webster felt that the era in which he lived was crucial, not only be- 
 cause American demooracy was new andj^its success stable, yet to be conclusively 
 demonstrated, but also in regard to affairs outside of America. Great issues were 
 being struggled over in Europe. The conflicting principles of popular and auto- 
 cratic government were contending, and doctrines promulgated, which if they 
 should become established, would make our government appear to stand on an ille- 
 gal basis. 
 
 He believed that the United States ought by no means to be indifferent 
 to the progress of events in Europe. That the progress of events in that conti- 
 nent had a very vital influence on America, he felt to be as true as the reverse. 
 The modem extreme advocates of a so-called "feonroo doctrine" who would have the 
 United States refrain from all manner of interference with E-uropean affairs, and 
 atteii5)t to live our national life in political seclusion, are entirely out of 
 sympathy with Mr. Webster's views. In his speech on the Eeo in Greece he states 
 and refutes this idea. In answer to the specious doctrine that "the wide Atlantic 
 is between us and danger" he responds that it is not only to our interest to of- 
 fer resistance or encouragement to European systems because "the enterprising 
 spirit of the age, o-ur own active commercial spirit, the great increase which has 
 taken place in the intercourse between civilized and commercial states, have giv- 
 en us a high concern" in the nature of those relationships; but "we have a duty 
 connected with this subject — ", i.e. "As the leading republic of the world" 
 
 "we must insist upon the preservation of our principles, wherever they are to be 
 
\i 
 
 Ki 
 
 ■m 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 V, 
 
fo\md exemplified.^ 
 
 The same reasons that gave us the right to object to interference by 
 
 ■Vv . 
 
 European powers between Spain and her colonies give us the right to protest a- 
 gadnst interference with any small European power. Thus the Monroe doctrine ac- 
 cording to Webster was not so much "America for Americans" as it was "America for 
 Americanism, wherever it may be, whenever it may need an advocate." "We shall 
 not, I trust, act upon the notion of dividing the world vdth the Holy Alliance, 
 and complain of nothing done by them in their hemisphere, if they will not inter- 
 fere with ours," he said.^ 
 
 In a letter to Edward Everett^ he wrote "I think we have as much com- 
 munity with the Greeks as with the inhabitants of the Andes, or the dwellers on 
 the borders of the Vermillion Sea." 
 
 When principles were enumerated in Europe contrary to our principles, 
 it was our duty to protest against them. When peoples in Europe endeavored to 
 follow our exanple of government it was our part to encourage them. America 
 should always take a keen interest in European affairs, and endeavor by all prop- 
 er means to guide them according to her interest and that of justice, both by try- 
 ing to repress undesirable happenings, and by strengthening all developments 
 which we could sanction. 
 
 2. Neutrality the National Policy 
 
 The methods by which the United States should make its influence felt 
 in Europe should be strictly neutral ones. Not only should our country strictly 
 observe all the demands of international law in regard to the duties of neutrali- 
 
 ^See Voi. V, p. 75ff. 
 
 ^Ibid, p. 76-7. 
 
 Private correspondence, vol. 1, p. 332. 
 

 
 
 
 V’ .i' v; : 
 
 ' '-.r 
 
 
 4 ... V , 
 
 ■j i’y « 
 
 .%«• no-:.. 
 
 n ; 
 
 ;llSCC' A • .6 c/ 
 
 - 
 
 .ss&r6 . 
 
 ^..f- ■ . ,-// >. l' 
 
 i;|*^ 
 
 - . » * /m- ' * . 
 
 ■.r 
 
 Tr-' ■ ' . 
 
 " i 'V’.j ; * 
 
 . -■ ' 
 
 
 
 ,. I 
 
 ■• '=£^v • » . 
 
 ■•.A? ;.» ' - , 
 
 L'« jT 4;4 ' ,V ir i 
 
 r*.vv ■ •_, 
 
 
 
 
 •j ■ ■-'^'! .’^Tj, r I.'** .. ■ -*i. ■ i ^ 
 
 
 it.. 
 
 
 
 ■■ ■ ■ " 
 
 V' - •' 
 
 j"’,' 
 
 
 
 . ; '"' ' 
 
 ,a. ■■' 
 
 •t ., v3/(-: *:,■. ' 
 
 (■'il'- *',^6 
 
 
 , - , ■ ... . - 1 , .i.- '■/« 1 
 
 ' ^ 1 ^ 
 
 ^r. rtM [ ( f nrrf >: 
 
 i ; 
 
 .' '.'/‘i, . 
 
 
 • f ^ 9 4 . ^ 
 
 , -- 
 
 .6-'- « x-'-l ;'*• ■ •■ 
 
 ...-o' *;• •.< . . .: 
 
 
 
 :,.■ J/'!',' ■ -f»v r:i 
 
 J • , 
 
 A :■ 1 ■-. •, 
 
 
 : V. 'i; 
 
 ■/ 
 
 ...•>.. % i-;= ■'••• ’■-. .V 
 
 J ' * V- ■ < 
 
 4 .. ^ - . 
 
 j. . ! . _ . , .■ , ... ' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 J A-yi ,-.V o- 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^ i 
 
 
 4^'':-' * li'i*- v'f 
 
 ‘ •* ‘ 
 
 
 ::c.l ■ V('js: ■ J 'S 
 
 %'.'5 '{,’S V 
 
 f 
 
 o'*. * , *i 
 
 *. 4 ■ ■ • V * * 
 
 -, ;. -: ■ iti -’ 
 
 
 col;rufr '^.4 ^ 
 
 '1... •) *. 44 .,: 
 i 
 
 V < 
 
 :■ > 
 
 * ‘>'1. U 4 • ^ 
 
31 
 
 ty, but even in cases where we would be legally Justified in taking a belligerent 
 position our interest decoanded that we should maintain our neutrality. 
 
 The expression of our opinions, the wei^t of our moral sx^sport, and 
 recogiition of the establishment of democratic uprisings whenever they become de 
 facto governments, were the methods - the only methods we should employ.^ These 
 would prove powerful. The success of our form of government would recommend it, 
 but only as it thus should recommend itself, should its adoption be urfeed on oth- 
 er nations. For since our govemitsnt and ideals were peculiar, since the aims 
 we sought were different from those of the other great nations, there could be no 
 profit for us in the formation of alliances. The hopes of the United States lay 
 in her internal development; if she fully exploited her possibilities in this di- 
 rection, she would enjoy a greatness which would fulfill all the hopes of patri- 
 ots. Not only her great possibility but our great dangers lie, not in the field 
 of forei^ relations, but in our internal affairs®. For the United States to en- 
 ter the game of "Welt politik" would be to abandon her true destiny. Neutrality 
 and the evidence of foreign entanglements was the "cardinal policy of this gov- 
 ernment.^ The policies initialed by Washington were the only wise course for 
 America, and all far sighted citizens should insist that these policies be main- 
 tained. ® 
 
 we prescribe no forms — we dictate to nobody — Vol. IV, p. 211. 
 
 ^very nation should be left entirely free to choose its own form of government. 
 Vol. V, p. 66. 
 
 ‘'This feeling that our fortunes are naturally unconnected with the fortunes of 
 any foreign power and that they should be kept so he put forward as the basis of 
 his protest against the embargo during the war of 1812. His great objection was 
 that its effectiveness depended on the success of France, while it was our duty 
 to take measures that would depend our rights by our own power, not that of any 
 foreign nation. See Vol. VIV, p. 43ff. 
 
 ^Letter to Alvear, Argentine minister to U.S., Vol. XIV, p. 37. 
 
 5 
 
 Vol. XVI, p. 362. See also "Character of Washington." 
 
32 
 
 3. The wisdoca of peace. 
 
 Not only did Wetster believe that this co-untry ou^t to maintain neu- 
 trality in regard to all quarrels among foreigi nations, but in disputes in which 
 we were directly involved, he thought it was our duty and to our interest to take 
 all possible measures to preserve peace. An age of peace was a blessing to the 
 world and every nation should beware of interrupting it. The repetitions and 
 doubtless often perfunctory expressions of desire to maintain peace always to be 
 found in diplomatic correspondence, were, I am convinced, sincere in the case of 
 Mr. Webster. For in his correspondence he not only expresses such a desire for 
 peace, but gives arguments for it and taJces pains to point out the evils of its 
 interruption; he did not merely make sanctimonious professions after rupture had 
 become almost unavoidable, as politicians are wont to do; but he urged that pre- 
 ventive measures be adopted, and that when friction occurs, nations magnanimously 
 look down on making it the occasion for strife.^ 
 
 He was recogiized by European governments and by those with whom he had 
 
 2 
 
 to deal as an advocate of peace. His personal influence with foreigi negotia- 
 tors was great - he was a very striking man - and apparently always firmly on the 
 2 
 
 side of peace. 
 
 "This republic", he declared in a letter to Fox, the English representa- 
 tive®, "does not wish to disturb the tranq;uility of the world. Its object is 
 peace, its policy peace. It seeks no aggrandizement by foreigi conquest, because 
 it knows that no foreign acquisitions could augment its power and isportance so 
 rapidly as they are already advancing by its own natural growth under the propi- 
 tious circumstances of its situation". Thus peace was a policy dictated by in- 
 
 ^ Vol. 7, p. 256. 
 
 2 
 
 "It is not at all inprobable that the fact known in Europe — that Mr. Webster 
 was soon to be at the head of our foreign relations, caused the British Govern- 
 ment to be less precipitate -". See (Xirtls Vol. 2, p. 62. "I-Ir. Curtis apparently 
 believes that the special mission from England in 1842 would have been impossible 
 
 had not Webster been Secretary of State." See Vol. 2, p. 96. 
 g (See next pace) - - - 
 

 
 
 jjr *'■>** R*” '1 1 
 
 - X; • ;. ' a »x^' ■.. jf ' j 
 
 sii uu ^ -■'-■»-■'; “-' ’ ".*? ‘ T' ^ '-m- r ’ >S/i?S® 
 
 s» .©j r ,"t<..U.rr ■ . . '. ' :.-•- 4^> •-■* <•• 
 
 AiVw 
 
 
 , '.vJ c;j ■'.|,..iiy£v 
 
 ; . .. . ;: 4 ^_J,i, 
 
 V 
 
 ■ ' 
 
 * 'V-* * 
 
 . ‘tj fli.' '.* . . ! '-Vfl 
 
 .• • . . Irr ' c.'-rj C ^ ■' 
 
 , -* ■* ■- -■'■ '"■ 
 
 ■ h ■ -k 
 
 
 ^ - - V A' 
 
 t) yr*^ *^*f ax u 
 
 f- 
 
 «’ .f,‘ v< '. 
 
 atX V -! jv ■• 
 
 "jjf'ff '■> *■ '' - -r - 
 
 - ■■ )a' : ^ • ' ■ ? 
 
 ■ .. : . - 4 
 
 ' ■ ' ■ ■■• ■ ,, 
 , /’■ o ■ tv 
 
 ;le-‘:noi ?cn • /i 
 
 
 ■:.. ?')i.r . ©*?r”.*OV 4 I! 
 
 -- . r ■'•?•, ■'iv>'' ■ < . ' ■ - ii 
 
 ■'■'.■< ‘'^' t. ' ' f 
 
 4 k 4 . ■'. * m _ _ • A - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '% ^ ^ ■> ' ' V,v7' >‘3*i •• ■ ?.' • ' I 
 
 V r 7 ' .' ' 
 
 >. tU' 
 
 -r 
 
 '.'/v; 
 
 • ■ ■ •> .-,4. ■ n‘ ■ ij" 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 ;v - 
 
 % j\ ^ ■ "..V' 1 .V 
 
 L • 
 
 ,-' V }■' '-. 
 
 , .■•• 't |i Hi 
 
 f'^k 
 
 ■v:s 
 
 oi, 
 
 ;;-.j »• 
 
 . f’ *^. 
 
 
 - -t . ‘ : 
 
 J I ! 
 •l»*C. 
 
 
 * -V • *. * i ’ . • ^ 
 
 . ^; ■. V ©’,j .■ •.,-'■ ■• : 
 
 - -••■• .■ , .'. \ i J ;i»i. '.. -A 
 
 i ' . i '/»*/ , Ji-JM. ■ ,', ■•( • ^ ,' 
 
 
 
 •f! 
 
 
 
 L^'rr:.^ r rJl,: r r -vrn t ; ' ' 
 
 ’., X'3-Jf'T -• v:«w &'<t< 
 
 
 
 -. ■ »■ 
 . - .|| 
 
 ii 
 
 / 
 
 
 I-.;’' n:J .7 . ' 
 
 '; .. • 1 P*; .5 '■ • v'*/« ' . a ri '>J 
 
 r y!vir'} c • . ’ - ' ^ -”■■ ’’ ■ 
 
 J . Jfl,'tiil 
 
 
 1 ,* r 
 
 • I ' 
 
 ^TT-T.-^rr-. 
 
 ' ' ' ' vr’ •■ ■ ■ , r 1 
 
 ■a»«- ■ ^1 ., • •• ••• ^ t 
 
 
 
33 
 
 terest as well as lay principle. It seems probable that in his later years he 
 came to the conclusion that it would be an extraordinary and unforseeable kind 
 of war which would bring advantages to our country in measure to conpensate for 
 the interruption of its peaceful natural growth. In any case he was ready at 
 all of the occasions in which he represented his country in disputes with foreign 
 nations to conpromise, to bend, to yield at least in matters of minor importance. 
 
 The negotiations in regard to the Northeastern boundary question illus- 
 trate his views. In 1833 before he had any official capacity in that connection, 
 he submitted a list of suggsstions to Mr. J, R. Poinsett, outlining his ideas on 
 how the negotiation ought to be conducted.^ The first point he made in that 
 paper was that the matter should be approached in a friendly spirit. He stressed 
 tte need of pronpt action to forestall grovdng animosity. The necessity of having 
 all parties yield in some particulars he maintained. The danger to peace if no 
 settlement was secured was reiterated, A number of methods were proposed in this 
 memorandum: all of them eminently pacific. If nothing else availed, he would 
 not resort to the decision of war, but was ready to attempt another joint con>- 
 mission with neutral umpirage. And if even this should fail, war should still 
 be avoided, and a survey of the disputed territory provided for. 
 
 The views expressed in this paper were often repeated, and impressively 
 carried out, when Webster became Secretary of State, Especially striking is his 
 emphasis on the point that the absolute right of the matter must not be insisted 
 
 ^.g, Mr. Everett ”was informed tqr Lord Ashburton himself that he should have de- 
 spaired of bringing matters to a settlement, but for his reliance on the — Ameri- 
 can secretary". See: similar testimony by Sir Henry Bulwar, Curtis 7ol. 2, p.l25, 
 also p. 124 ft, 
 
 ^ol, 2, p, 262. 
 lVr.1. XV, p. 119 ff. 
 
 ^ The King of Holland had rendered a decision that had been rejected by both 
 parties.' ' 
 

 
 ' ''» '* « 
 
 : ,' 0 *^ ff^'TiiJ^_'4 
 
 ' ! --'t.. r *'■•■ , ' 
 
 I.'' 1*1 -i,' V f '. $vi^.y ■ 
 
 0!?:-. '.V ■ •■ ",.‘.i f . ' -V T?, 
 
 > » 
 
 ^i'r. ?-tl 
 
 
 t.-.'i .v‘j PfUfT*;,. ..i VI 
 
 k**VfA£W?A 
 
 
 
 .-. ; • V • ■ * •’ *><"'• 
 
 i- . V:UiL-l''yr ;•,.. 
 
 f.i, :..r;v: r. <c! 
 
 A h- 
 
 
 • . ' . .1 ; i i\. L' 4 5 
 
 jAW‘r'-*fa fjM 
 
 *•'' » »■ ') 
 
 •* ' *< 
 
 > : .,r.."t -5 •> aiffi- i?" 
 
 . ■', '** . ■ 
 
 'f .v.'ii/i tjjity 
 
 ’ .t I'l.'^-.CJti o‘a 
 
 "U 
 
 \ r>, ili.‘ .-'f-...' • - /xv 'iA i 
 
 ■ - ^ ■ v"' ‘ •' .' . ■ 
 
 irl 
 
 yK\'! }V«rf • '’•'<^‘ 1 ' -• 
 -jitf- «**-v K 
 
 f ; w' 6 « f‘ 2 --i 7 ,XA^ 
 
 
 . .? ■ r. ■; ’i’ ■'. • ^ ..■'f:***<i i ; '•<' 
 
 \'.‘f ♦ •* , s > i 
 
 •X ' ^ 
 
 ■- , i' : 
 
 
 » -.n *;. ■ 
 
 jrt* I*-,,-*' 
 
 f: t. I'.r/ ' v 'Js'-’' 
 
 
 Jtrt’ 
 
 3 
 
 ^.■; Q,; u*iwr;; 
 
 
 ':i.:. aOittv ; 
 
 Y -V'-'V'S / •'* 
 
 t.-Vi: 'vw* 
 
 
 ' -fM' 
 
 
 ; j . 
 
 r*i^ r . .. . .J'" -‘i'j'X# t • ■•■ 
 
 ;• 'J-- ., «. V»v. (■?" ' * 
 
 ’■ ,t ',^X (, '.. 1 ,; • •■* 1 ^' • 
 
 •“-■'■ tr — 
 
 *' .' ■ V •• 
 
 "■ ^...„ :_A. t**:'. ! V- -- •• *'4 , 
 
 
 . ' i ' 
 
 
 ;x ' ■♦. ■■ ‘ •' ■ ■ -Mfi- •; 
 
 V t 
 
 . ^ 
 
 «*V^iLA 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
34 
 
 on, for this atteir^t had already failed, and an untending policy on either side 
 would make the achievement of a settlement of some sort, and the prevention of 
 war exceedingly difficult.^ 
 
 In fact he seemed relatively indifferent to what kind of a settlement 
 he should secure • the great thing was to get a settlement by some means, and get 
 it proir 5 >tly and peaceably. 
 
 The Oregon furor also gave occasion for Webster to express his belief 
 
 over that 
 
 in the superior desirability of peace territory. He believed it worth while 
 
 to accept the forty-ninth parallel in order to avoid the loss of peace and the 
 
 evil of war,^ Other losses and gains involved in the affair he regarded as of 
 
 secondary importance. The Oregon question, he maintained, ought to be arbitrated 
 
 as ought every international dispute which diplomatic negotiation fails to settle, 
 that matters 
 
 He vigorously denied so in^iortant as territorial rights "are not a proper subject 
 of arbitration". Such a stand would lead to war, he felt, and a decision accord- 
 ing to might only.not according to right and Justice.^ 
 
 ^ "The re must be mutual concessions. ~ Let me repeat the great object is to show 
 mutual concession, and granting what may bs regarded in the light of equivalents. 
 The absolute value of the thing is not the point of interest." Letter to Everett, 
 June 14, 1842. See Curtis Vol. 2, p. 102. In Vol. XIV, pp. 593 ff. he again ex- 
 presses the need of disregarding the absolute right and avoiding delay in order to 
 prevent popular excitement without a definite object. According to Mr. Curtis: 
 
 "It was his purpose (in the case of McLeod) to arrest the drifting tendency of the 
 two nations toward a war. He therefore stated, with equal fairness and force in 
 what respect each (nation) was in the wrong". Vol. 2, p. 68. 
 
 ^Vol. IX, p. 20 ff. 
 
 ®Vol. VII, p. 153. 
 
 ^"Do not all perceive that sentiments like those lead only to establish the rig^t 
 of the strongest? That they withdraw public questions between nations from all 
 the Jurisdiction of Justice, and all the authority of ri^t, from the control of 
 enli^tened opinion, and the ^neral Judgment of mankind, and leave them entirely 
 to the decision of the longest sword? — - The sense of modern times, the law of 
 humanity, the honor of civilized states, and the authority of religion, all re- 
 quire that controversies of this sort, which cannot be adjusted by the parties 
 themselves, should be referred to the decision of some intelligent and inpartial 
 tribunal." Speech at Banquet in Philadelphia, 1846. 
 
35 
 
 Tte I^xican war was objected to by Vfebater on a large variety of 
 
 grconds. It was an \xn constitutional "presidential war" having been inaugurated 
 
 by the executive instead of the legislature,^ It was a war to make possible more 
 2 
 
 slave states. It was a war waged for territory, he said, althou^ the people 
 did not want more territory, and although the incorporation of new territory was 
 of doubtful constitutionality,® 
 
 Some of the objections he made, however, reflect his more general ideas 
 about war and peace. The United States had nothing but dishonor to gain from the 
 war he believed. The issue was: peace, no new states, and economy and prosperity; 
 or war, new states, and large and needless expenses. 
 
 IVfexico was weak, amd it wasplain that it was no even fi^t. In order 
 to avoid all danger of falling into a policy of shameful aggresion, the Uaited 
 States ou^t to offer her peace and readiness to treat for boundaries and inden>- 
 
 4 
 
 nities. Peace without territory would be, according to Webster, "Ivfere safe, 
 durable and honorable". The war as it was being carried on he characterized as 
 "odious". 
 
 In 1835 he had given evidence of his high evaluation of peace, France 
 hesitated to pay her debts for injuring United States conmerce. President Jackson 
 was warlike. On this Juncture Webster wrote: "we are not willing to hazard tl:© 
 peace of the country without absolute necessity. We wish to show France that 
 there is but one sentiment in the United States as to the Justice of our side of 
 the question but at the same time a great reluctance to come to an open rup- 
 
 ture, and in order to avoid that, a dl position to give France full time to con- 
 elder well of her course." Under Webster's leadership a clause in the fortifi- 
 cation bill to give thjB "warlike" president three millions to spend as he liked 
 
 a 
 
 was struck out the Senate. 
 
 ^Vol. XIII, p, 334 ff. 
 
 ;Vol. X, p. 6 ff. 
 
 ®Ibid, p. 14. 
 
 4See Speech in Congress, quoted in Curtis Vol. 2, p. 303 ff. Also Vol.IX,p, 
 
 t Letter to William Sullivan quoted in Curtis Vol, 1, p. 515-6. 
 
 See Lodfls. u, 23^5. 
 
36 
 
 Ife was no advocate of "preparedness". The institutions of the United 
 States, he wote, "entirely discourage the keeping up of large standing armies in 
 tlua of peace, and their situation hax^lly exempts them from the necessity of 
 maintaining such expensive and dangerous establishments. 
 
 4. National honorr qualifications of his peacef’ol attitude. 
 
 It is probable that no conspicuous statesman, whose works have been so 
 con 5 »letely assembled as those of Vlr, Webster, will be found free from a number of 
 inconsistences and changes in attitude. It is possible, I think, to lay far too 
 much stress t^on such changes or defections. There are many causes for them 
 which remote and unsynmathetic posterity find difficult to evaluate. 
 
 While Webster, if con^jared, for example, with the foremost contertporary 
 statesmen, would shine with a relatively great freedom from inconsistency, there 
 is a striking conflict between some of his statements in regard to international 
 relations r^soma seem to be written from a point of view quite foreign to that "by 
 which he has been characterized above. 
 
 ft 
 
 In his early orations hs laid groat stress on the idea that "national 
 honor is the gnomon of natural interest". American, he urged, should be prepared, 
 should have a large and powerful navy and army.^ Our country ought to insist on 
 a proud place among the nations, and be intolerant of any Insults, or suspected 
 insults.*^ It ought to avoid contented and degenerate gratification in its peace 
 and prosperity, and readiness to overlook invasions of its right in order to main- 
 tain a profitable peace. Comfort and prosperity should be no consideration in 
 
 ^letter to Fox Vol. 11, p. 256. See also Vol, X, p. 12:against bigger army. 
 
 2"0f course this paper does not deal with the alleged inconsistence in regard to 
 slavery and other internal affairs. They are often much exaggerated: Webster's 
 respect for law above all prejudices and opinions explains such "problems" in 
 largp measure. See also Speech on Presentation of Vase, Works Vol. II, p.180. 
 ®Se6 Vol. XVIII, "Our dangers, Gentlemen, are not from without. We 
 
 4(jf p, above, have nothing to fear from foreign powers, except 
 
 5cf p, above. those interruptions of the occupation of life which 
 
 all wars occasion. The dangers to our system, as a 
 as a system, do not spring from that quarter." 
 

 
 -- 5tsa 
 
 
 
 
 ^ , ' * 1 ■ ■ >'. 
 
 ■ ••’ * * . --r^- 
 
 * • - I 
 
 
 
 • ■ ', 
 
 c " . ii:;: 
 
 Ji 
 
 1 • • C '"-■ •' f , 
 
 - . «. 1-0 
 
 . »• , - ' r.y * '■ . * 
 
 .1* 
 
 *■ :>- ^ ,*■ . 
 
 • ' j 'litj''.’ 
 
 ^ 1 
 • .i, . .^ . fw5? j 
 
 \ ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 C ’■ 
 
 ; > J-.-t 
 
 ( ' ^ ' i 
 
 *V 1 
 
 ■ . ' - J . 
 
 : ... ■:• w ,. i. 
 
 r 
 
 -^i-d 
 
 
 V 
 
 * . . f 
 
 _ _ 
 
 ^lir j.W'v'' flX '' 
 
 ■ -X . 
 
 ‘f 
 
 J ■' 
 
 *r v. i 1 . 
 
 Cf:v‘i ■ 
 
 . . .• - 
 
 ' t." -Ji s-“ ■’ 
 
 
 j „ *' ^ 
 
 .; *'. ,• - ' , i 
 
 -.4 ■■ ^■ 
 
 
 . ~v ‘" : j ; j . ' Cl.; '■■ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 i^ortf "'i 
 
 
 : i' \i.\lviiij- rt ■..•»•;•' .•'.r^Vfsrr iiiA ls-'*V)5«.'S 
 
 '*■ iJ 
 
 , ’'V '■ 
 
 “"‘l/ 
 
 ••..■ ; . ,■•■ ■ >-.■' .-ri ^o*I1 
 
 r.rt fnrr . - ‘.-•^e ? h*f •'. ' 
 
 ■ ' :i 
 
 4f: 'f 
 
 . • i'r*r t*,a-2w ■muijA*' 4 jj 
 
 .... ■ * ,•«■ ^ ^ , 'I )*. wiJJl'T ■ '.'?. » - 'Vw ‘ f ■ ■ 
 
 . ; f -,, 
 
 * »■ *■■ ■ ' (( 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 «.X. - . ► » "r 
 
 ,f. 
 
 
 -If, 'C’’- •■ 
 
 ■,:i 0,^ : 
 
 fn' ■ r '' t ' 
 
 ■; 3 ''j: '•^^'* 
 
 , 'i "< t - 'i' ';fw^ • <■•’ viw- ^ 
 
 r; r.'J r,: ■ .i ^^''S20S ' • - -. •-.' t 
 
 • ■ , ;.;j ■• ;:oo^:wo V'/.. ■ t ; .jj , 
 
 \, Tj;;' s -• :.- 
 
 ^ 4 I .«r V* . 
 
 ' -• 
 
 ■■ , . -.M’,- ^ ^ SiV‘-r : 
 
 . I 
 
 T 
 
 ■i 
 
 f 
 
 rnv :''i ■ 
 
 r«^t, 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 • • ‘ *;*r 
 
 1 • ' -I ' 
 
 1 • 
 
 C . 
 
 : j 
 
 I ,-j * ' ' • i 
 
 f/. 
 
 j ■ \ 
 
 •.'li-v. •■ 
 
 .1 *; 
 
 . 'Xviir-j ' 
 
 0 ’•C'^‘ 
 
 
 
 du-. ■■.:^ 
 
 
 V 
 
 .. iXi. t' '''' n ‘ 
 
 . ^ !l 3^ . C.-T 
 ^ \ ■ r 
 
 
 
 
 r, 
 
 “ J 
 
 . ’ ? 0 * .* " 
 
 • 
 
 k-*'. ; 
 
 >.•! <va;I 
 
 * 
 
 . 
 
 ■ ■ .'.I'J 
 
 jt w4r-;ijf 
 
 :••<) 1 r.'» 
 
 \> A ft« 
 
 * 
 
 V>*’ 
 
 i 
 
 
 9 
 
37 
 
 ■balance a^inst national honor and national ri^ta.^ 
 
 In the Bockingham Memorial of 1812 in which he objected to the war of 
 not 
 
 that year, he did say he was against war, as such; on the contrary a war which 
 should have a "clear, obtainable, just object" would secure his ST: 5 )port* 
 
 Later, when in Congress, when his statements might be expected to be 
 guarded, he advocated the most perenptory action and high toned language in re- 
 gard to the Northeastern boundary question. Further eupty palavering should be 
 avoided, and "Dnited States troops ought to march into the territory claimed, and 
 England challenged to concede the land to be ours or "put us out, if you can".^ 
 The explanation of these contradictions is not very recondite. Most of 
 his most rabid outcries were made in youthful orations, and the natural effect of 
 growing older must have changed his views. The occasion of these orations, the 
 fourth of July, also elicited all there was of pride and bluster in him. 
 
 His energetic cries for preparation were made when dangerous wars with 
 powerful European powers were a widespread fear. His later opinions against a 
 larger army were made in time of secure peace or of war with weak Ivfexico, 
 
 Most important of all, these conflicting statemsnts were made when he 
 was out of office or in congress merely. Much of the time he was in that "body he 
 was a member of the opposition party. Like most great statesmen, he was a gpod 
 deal of a politician as well, and was quite capable of saying things for effect. 
 
 I think it is fair to view his sentiments in words and in action after he had 
 come into responsible position and in which the welfare of the nation was to some 
 degree in his hands, as truly representative of him. This, as usual, doubtless 
 
 ^Cf #2, p, 34 above. 
 
 ^Vol, XIV, p. 274, "This is a sufficiently striking contrast with his later ac- 
 tual policy. In that case he did all he could to quiet just such "boisterous 
 orators for ri^ts and honors as he had once been. He even proposed to secure 
 concessions from England which he recognized to be of no value, in order to use 
 them as a pacifying "talking point", or "equivalent". 
 

 ~ G- 
 
 : I V 
 
 
 • -W {•'. •.' 
 
 
 C .i:.^.^^'.. /i-'; 'i -l/ivi’' • 
 
 ij 
 
 ' » 'iTj r:' / ■ . / > 
 
 
 .'f. ■**»'• li' ^ ■ . ' ■■ * j ■ - » ■’ K '-, * ^ v '^‘ 
 
 ■■' ..'C 
 
 ;a- I <*' ■-■ ' ■ •■'* - «■ f -««if 
 
 r .-.; yr.Jvc',.^ •*^‘^'^ . r'o^ri'srr-'J *- ’ 
 
 ^ ! i } .^ . .-• U.iJ-:-* . ^ 4 ' ' . X • ^ • ,- V % - ^ 
 
 - -:■ ■ iri'' ' *'.■; ' I' 'Uif';/" * t yf i,,'p >’~ f i'.’ ■• 4 ’|C ■ i %T*4 ?■? 
 
 . •^ '.. ^ 
 
 - , '. .;■;:. \-;cJ J'l'Jt* ' -r . • '• • 
 
 . ‘W." > ■:. o : ‘ 
 
 
 • . i-r: ij: » ■■'•« •- 
 
 W . r: 
 
 ' ' . ■■•V 
 
 / ' r ■ ■■ '. o j* »" 1 •• ■ " ''.' 
 
 , . V . J • * ■» •• 
 
 3 ., # 
 
 . t;-v ;; VI, ^0 
 
 ^ ■ '(i" 
 
 .v-f v' . -l.- : £ tu_ I ^ :■ ■^'. . y V 
 
 
 K* ’* 
 
 ': , \V> ■ .’;; 
 
 " i' ' i.V.*,.’ 1/ ■ V': • ' . 
 
 X- ;:K-;«av: V vi . '. 
 
 ... ;:rf* riJ-i. ^ ’ir Id eoBt- '' v;^v r* ? 
 
 ,...;-■ ":j? i!'.' Jl:; JfidKi 
 
 ‘\X'^ 
 
 ;:.-■ i -;V’. '..i •^^ -V 
 
 r: :r.-' *>: ■ ,;.':i?i 
 
 :*.’;■ A «u-« pr ■ 
 
 I ' * * : 7 - 
 
 ■v; :p r?*- ^ :^v&T 5 ! Ia-^' 
 
 ■ •:.: ;ir-<ra ':., :; ■■■>■':; ' 
 
 
 + i . ■ r. 'lir i ‘ "■ ' . 
 
 ' '-. "I’J: -vj/iSilv' it’ t'jcr •■•■' .P t> 
 
 ■ .-,; . -V 1 -. ' ^ 
 
 .Mj. ■•>> C,: • 
 
 r*i .tt iffn'iT iwfc'i? .• , ai 3 JS,} ' i 
 
 ■ ‘\"J ':jj . ■ ^ ' “ 
 
 
 vC- 
 
 
 ^ _ 
 , " V !ii tw . ’‘^- 
 
 4 . M- i^: 
 
 •; V £ifrjf'.v^y?- • .'V 
 
 V, j . 
 
 ’■ly.ft. \iiff ‘‘ ‘ ^*< 1 * i9 -~-'>- ’; •• ■ ^* 
 
 Rr<r:*: r/. ; '' 
 
 ' 6 * '• -rv*' - \,r ■«■■«■,. > *' ^• 
 
 :<; ’• -•:• •. c irvo '.: ,;. r )•■/ 
 
 •'■ ■# 
 
 ■ y !• • L -- •• 
 
 V U;-; 
 
 t.'K.- •-'-: &: .;..• ■♦• > - 
 
 ■ A ■?• . '-‘i i ' 2 ^*- 2 '^' ~ 
 
 n 
 
 
 V T 
 
 * ^ ■. 'S'r\:£ 
 
 ■’■ tv ■ ' c> htpsc 
 
 ,: A , ; ,V ■ f ^ )l^l 
 
 JATiWtSpr 
 
 -- - 
 
38 
 
 may have had some tendency to make him conservative. It also elicited from him 
 his truest and most sincere beliefs. He regarded the duty of a government as a 
 sincere desire to preserve peace and do Justice,^ and the purpose of a diplomat, 
 to prevent 'ftsx. 
 
 After sdl, actions speak louder than words, and It is most significant 
 that he was opposed to each of the several wars that Ms country engaged in dur- 
 ing Ms lifetime, and wMle in office as Secretary, settled an extraordinaurily 
 large number of the most puzzling and vexatious controversies, while popular 
 excitement and indignation ws^s extensive, without a single time falling to avert 
 warfare . ® 
 
 5. The influence of commercial considerations upon Webster's 
 ideas on foreign relations. 
 
 The recognition by Webster of the influence of commercial intercourse 
 in knitting the world together has alreeuiy been noted. A regard for the welfare 
 of commerce was one of the foremost considerations in Ms formulation of parti- 
 cular policies for the United States. 
 
 The in^jortance of Conraerce to this country was fully appreciated by 
 nations 
 
 tMs statesman. Much of the progress and prosperity he attributed to it. Agri- 
 culture, industry and commerce are all united aid they will prosper or wane to- 
 
 4 
 
 get her, he declared on various occasions, but commerce was plainly the most'im-. 
 
 port ant in h is opinion.® 
 
 ^Vol. 11, p. 256. 
 
 2Vol. p. 210. 
 
 ®-^he significance of tMs - although very great, I believe, - can be exaggerated. 
 England for example deserves a large part of the credit for the peaceable settle- 
 ment of our disputes with her. Lord Aberdeen was pacific; England not only grant- 
 ed a special commission, to meet in our capitol, but appointed an agent noted for 
 Ms frlendsMp to the United States. She offered to indemnify the owners of the 
 "Tigris’* and Saamew". See Webster’s Memoir, Ch. 1; works Vol. 1, p. 119, "His 
 cMef cause of his objection to Mexican war was that it was "borou^ mongering" 
 and would destroy the proportion between the Senate and House - and slave and free 
 representatives; not a mere loss of peace." Yol. X, p, 14 ff, 
 
 4Vol. XII, p. 12. 
 
 5He was against the artificial stimulation of industry by tariffs. Yol. XIY, p. 
 45-6 and Yol. XII, p. 7. "The Inportance of commerce to our internal prosperity 
 not only, was stressed by Webster, but commercial supremacy seemed to Mm the 
 wortMest aim of international competition. To secure the commercial advantage, 
 he held, was to secure the mastery of the world. "Yol. XIII, p. 164. Yol, XIY, p, 
 61Q. Commerce credited with internal improvements; etc. Yol.XIII,p. 151 ff. 
 
,| . 
 
 ■ir 
 
 \k - 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 *).■•■ VJ 
 
 ’, ‘. r y 
 
 1 .i M 
 
 <4 
 
 I 
 
 If J't 
 
 . •■ ; . I - 
 
 » . jrf -. ,r*A. < . 
 
 j -;.« '-v- i 
 
 :."nl :l'll 
 
 ■.;: -ovc:, . 
 
 i';,' r 
 
 \:-. 
 
 
 - ■ ' 1 i . 
 
 V;. 3 tV 
 
 i. - 
 
 ■ e^:X 
 
 , 'Ul 
 
 L i 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 " ■' . 'f;; 
 
 
 . ■>*■- 
 
 .! i G/,- r 
 
 . • V - »' • 
 
 i '. 'A 
 
 ■«l«^ 
 
 - i 
 
 .) ' .. ] 
 
 ' c ‘ 
 
 ; ':• / ‘ 
 
 r .' '.1 
 
 1 • • • 
 
 , ■ I*' ■■# .-j 
 
 
 . t 
 
 [/j^i ., j(». 
 
 J >•.■ ■ V r't 
 
39 
 
 Steadiness and continnlty In our forei^i relations he championed as principles of 
 fundamental in 5 »ortance, since the necessity of making readjustments to changes in 
 national politics was highly injurious to commerce.^ 
 
 The need of an effective navy to protect our commerce was ea^^hasized by 
 Webster,^ It was his solicitude for commerce in part at least that made him urge 
 that the war of 1812 be fought on the sea. 
 
 This war aroused his heartiest opposition partly because he was a con- 
 servative Whig and shared the general New England horror of developments in France 
 and the feeling that England was more a bulwark for us against our real danger 
 than our true enemy, partly because the English injuries to our coramerde were no 
 worse in intent than the French, and because while we had a feeling of grievance, 
 we hqd no definite, obtainable object to secure; but his primary and most funda- 
 mental objection was a protest against the injuries to our commerce it caused or 
 aggravated. The Embargo elicited a most vigorous series of attacks.® "Be main- 
 tained that it was unconstitutional and without precedent; but the injuries to 
 commerce were his chief motive for protesting. 
 
 ffi-s attitude on the acquisition of new territory influenced by consid- 
 erations of comnercial advantage. The securing of Louisiana and Florida had been 
 justified he repeatedly pointed out, because of their strategic positions for 
 trade. ^ Since no great commercial advantage would result from the acquisition of 
 Texas, these incidents did not provide a precedent for that action. The acquisi- 
 tion of California, on the other hand, was quite a different matter, for it con- 
 
 5 
 
 tained a highly valuable port for commerce and fishing. 
 hou TTlO and Vol. XIV, p. 40 ft, 
 
 2see Vol. XII, p, 15 and "An Appeal to Old Whigs" in Vol. XV. 
 
 3see "Article on the Embargo, 1808" and the "Rockingham Memorial" works Vol. XVIII. 
 4Vol. XV, p. 302; ibid p. 485. 
 
 5"0f course the fact that Texas would be slave and California free, territory was 
 another consideration that helped to determine Webster's attitude. But, I think 
 that commercial considerations were also weighty with him in this matter. See 
 Vol. XIV, p. 611. 
 
\ 
 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 .• ■ /f ' 
 
 
 J ^ I 
 
 
40 
 
 Webater was far-sifted and keenly alert to farther the interests of 
 trade as secretary of state. As soon as Great Britain secured privileges in 
 China, he foretold that it was the beginning of the opening of China to the world, 
 and be determined that the United States should secure advantages there, also.^ 
 
 In the interest of "coniraerce and humanity" he appointed a mission to China, and 
 took the greatest pains to secure its success in establishing cordial relations 
 with the oriental povser and in securing a comercial treaty. 
 
 He sent a special mission to Argentina to secure commercial advantages 
 from the new regime that followed revolution in that country.^ 
 
 Private war he believed should be abolished. It was to the interest of 
 the United States that it should be so, for althouf it was true that that nation 
 could muster the most effective navy of privateers which had the greatest merchant 
 navy; also it was true that there must be something to be captured and the nation 
 
 4 
 
 with the most extensive trade would be the greatest sufferer. 
 
 The only exception to our policy of neutrality that he approved was 
 
 L 
 
 commercial treaties. These, he admitted mitigates our neutral status, but the 
 formation of such treaties as "affect directly the interest of the United States" 
 — constituted a legitimate exception to the "policy — to avoid — alliances with 
 other states",® 
 
 IVol. XII, p. 139 ff, 
 
 2Vol. XIV, p. 427. 
 
 3Vol. XIV, p, 617. 
 
 ^Vol. V., p. 210 ff. 
 
 ®Vol, XIV, p. 464, "When Mxico objected to illegal trade which caused her em- 
 barrassment, he replied that no law gave the president pov/er to punish the offen- 
 ders; all the Uhlted States can do is to permit Mexico to punish them if she can. 
 It is impossible to say whether, if he had been the advocate of the other side, 
 he could have found another interpretation of our laws. It is a question whether 
 or not this was a manifestation of extreme partisanshiip for trading interests." 
 
41 
 
 V. Conclusions 
 
 Webster was not one of those intellectual leaders whom we recognize as 
 being in advance of their age. He saw clearly the issues of his day, and met them 
 wisely, according to the generally recognized principles of that day. I feel that 
 he laid down no new principles of great importance, but he was the advocate of the 
 wisest principles which were then generally recognized. In the advocacy of peace, 
 the inviolability of territory and neutrality^, the supreme and universal Juris- 
 diction of international law, and the ri^ts of small nations, it would be by no 
 means impossible to argue that he was the prophet of those principles which recent- 
 ly have been so greatly emphasized. By taking isolated sentences of his and com- 
 paring them with expressions of Wilson and others, striking results could be ob- 
 tained. I have not thou^t it worth while to do this, because I believe that 
 method fit only to illustrate already proved and accepted results, for isolated 
 quotations can easily be re^rded in an unrepresentative li^t. 
 
 While Webster was not the phrophet of the twentieth century, he may be 
 regarded as one of the predecessors of this era that hs» made its present stage of 
 advancement possible. Contemporary principles are the result of an evolution in 
 thought, and Webster was one of the links in this revolution. Althou^ he was op- 
 posed to combinations of nations for the purpose of regulating international af- 
 fairs, believing the seporte individuality, the complete sovereignty and the legal 
 equality of mtions to be a principle of fundamental importance, nevertheless he 
 regarded as hi^ly valuable friendship and co-operation between nations. He re- 
 garded cooperation as entirely voluntary - euny nation could deny it and seek its 
 own interest as it saw fit. 
 
 ^See: Correspondence on the Caroline affair. In defending the principle of neu- 
 trality in another connection he said we would be Justified in taking up arms in 
 the defense of violated neutrality, other than our own. This car be compared to 
 our attitude in regard to the invasion of Belgium in the recent war . 
 

 -'r. 
 
 
 ■<< 
 
 ■^0, 
 
 v,,|V 
 
 
 
 
 r ,7 
 
 'f 
 
 ■ uCiCif ■■■ii.i.:' . ■ ' 
 
 ■ ** ' 
 
 ■■■w:- v; Mi :c- rr'^r" < -'■ - 'cr -r\i, ■■■ - • 
 
 -'^vi i • . . .V.:.. iKKftbi ^;.' v.-i -.i- :*■' :ti ) 
 
 ' * . t ' . * , V 
 
 ,j Ut^l X 
 
 5 X... :o o^«oovi. c.'; C^.»a SU^' V Wftc «l'f tiaX ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 'io •e^jr'a.: . s»ix^j .t. t , t ‘r f ^ ^ ^ ^ .'■ ii; •£■ .’*niv 
 
 
 -i i*I4 ^ V1...V 'vXii tA.7'J"^041 #jSt , *' ? 1 t i,- •■ * i ., V iiiCiV 
 
 '■:: V" t C' \t' , ^v^^ ^*.Vu • X 9 ^ ‘"- - i . ■' ifcity-U- .. 
 
 . ' ■ J h ' *T ^ 
 
 ,'. oo^-i -Llt/.irf?; a3i'^'“~iw'* i-’ (v^ liXi - r_ j>: * sr««ui» 
 
 •-^0‘'‘' tict.? -:i to *«.*'.' iK'.JACojl .’n-^- ■;:': . :T.*i§i/^''. <*c iitcd" yv«/ v.j 
 
 • ' ' ■ ^ . ,' 
 
 -:'c> 00 i-wv’ -i «-C4/»ftJ!!' .■•..I .••:•’..••'•■■ ,..i.ir*i^O ftb ,-. •««> ei;c<. -■-*: c'tt.Tco /.tlw ^M3 »UX;;p . | 
 
 . r ' •■r' Mm ' ^ \. . . \ ^ ■'.1 i 
 
 jASiiS frv.li .-/ I ■• 
 
 l/ej.vl,;;. : 'I.-; .; ■ n .utn 0- vi/' :; 
 
 ■/'■•’ ' ‘ 1' ■ 
 
 i*rx iTr/-^ \i/'itfit 
 
 .-I : * - : *:z ftrZi t 'S’ 4 Iz. 
 
 ■^.‘f> i#.- ,Vf . r*i^* » - • . . 1 
 
 j .,, 
 
 
 ^ .4 «% -4 
 
 p. . 'f/vwoi.r « 
 
 
 
 < ^ ' "^i’> 
 
 Ic «v, wi .^0 .3r.'ies'''f.^ I '3r?ii ..ii.iJ' «“rc aidi :.c ci ; ■.•«!» #:. ■ v-yto; !-i« t-. .vio y^n. '•'. 
 
 • .•:;; id trS r-?* V U': -. ' i^^>A ■■ - ‘ • ''>-< ‘ 
 
 r, • xtyUz/fs-v: .s.: ■ ■ • ■■ •■■ ■■" 
 
 ’) * t I w» fc* • •' 
 
 
 \ -■ • f;:^'3^'^JvortvC.‘ . ;■ /X >•«?■$•, ■ t:: rst »ifts4X-'^. > ' 
 
 I .’»•> t^4i.*4fni»y^U 3Pt is '-; 
 
 ■■•».. ..' • ■/ rrn.4 ■i»x o.'s* u*;i ; ■.•■J’:'?.J'‘:«rA : :;^ j-s 
 
 4«f .y: * X’-i-Xit .•»h 2 j.V.‘ I 
 
 ■• , .•-i»jO'.'4.'' 
 
 
 , «v .' 
 
 ' ‘. -r». 
 
 •■•v - ■ ^ * 
 
 .• If^. 
 
 . -.y .. .':. "C‘ 
 
 ■.,'.-:o -,.u. '^11' 
 
 - 'T. 
 
 •j.i sv’ 
 
 
 ’•*i..^-. ' ' “ s-.ij r<c-X.V-j > rX'L 
 
 )»U:T( . X - 
 
 ••• #V*. 
 
 - r» 
 
 X4;rpj ''^• 
 
 
 j*?,- 
 
 « •-' 
 
 
 
 ■•■•' •. ,. i no fliocoXiftu;. ;• • 
 
 vH . r. ' . -■ ' VX-'5 
 
 .'lit . t:xjC-;'r Ic ‘ w 
 
 ■;i‘ ’ ."ni Ok.i.’ r,w‘ ^'t.■•,>0'l at • i 
 
 i 
 
 Irt*- 
 
42 
 
 He even strongly suggests that a nation had a ri^t to withdraw from the jurisdic- 
 tion of international law if it believed that advantages could thereby be gained, 
 that would condensate for ostracism by the rest of the world. 
 
 It is impossible to say, if he had held hie opinions at the beginning 
 
 of this century and had they been subject to the influence of recent events and 
 whether 
 
 developments,^ he would have come to the view that some "League of nations" is 
 necessary, or whether he would have been one of the ir re cone i liable "save-our-sov- 
 ereignty" statesmen. Both x^oints of view inherit something from Webster. 
 
 In answer to the question as to whether Webster was or was not an oppor- 
 tunist, it may be said that he had certain objects the accomplishment of which he 
 regarded as of paramount importance, and in all his important works these funda- 
 mental motives may be discerned. These purposes were his principles: to them he 
 was ever faithf\il; among them were his belief in the importance of maintaining the 
 integrity and vigor of the constitution; the union and solidarity of the nation as 
 a whole, etc. ^ 
 
 In the pursuit of these objects, and the prestige and interest of his 
 
 country abroad, he was not always entirely ingenuous, it- seems to me. In his 
 
 (that is 
 
 method of settling the N.E. boundary questiom^by intrinsically worthless "equiva- 
 
 lents")he was obviously not so. I believe that the marked difference between his 
 statements his 
 
 peaceful in this matter and earlier warlike statements ou^t not to bo 
 
 points of view held. 
 
 •scribed to opportunism; both,^I feel, were sincerely He followed his principles, 
 but he held different ones at different periods. 
 
 If it is opportunism to give all the plausible reasons for a course of 
 action one can think of, in addition to the real deciding motive, then Webster was 
 surely an opportunist. The long list of argument against The Mexican War, al- 
 thou^ he probably believed them to be valid, would not have been given, it seems 
 to me, had it not been for the fear of nev/ slave territory and the overbalancing 
 
43 
 
 power in the hands of the South and West which would result from the formation of 
 new states. In his diplomatic correspondence he showed a real respect for inter- 
 national law and endeavor to Increase its effectiveness, hut he was also an advo- 
 cate as well as a Judge and if he had had different objects to attain he would 
 have laid dovm the law in a different way. 
 
 Althou^ his principles clearly defended the ri^t to intervene in Euro- 
 pean affairs, in fact a duty to use our influence there; "our duty to ourselves, 
 our policy, and wisdom" exempted us from any necessity of sacrificing our interest 
 to the maintenance of consistancy in our attitude, he believed. 
 
 But whether a statesman is an opportunist in the sense that he seeks on 
 all occasions to advance his purposes, regardless of consistency with pirevious 
 methods, or whether he confines his methods for securing his ends to the grooves 
 prescribed by hie self-established precedent, is of less importance than the na- 
 ture of those purposes themselves; whether his aims are narrow, sectional, parti- 
 san and selfish; or broadvisioned, dispassionate and ^for th e advancing of wide and 
 inclusive interests, and whether he is able to subordinate smaller interests to 
 greater ones. 
 
 This test Webster can well stand. The great purposes to which he denot- 
 ed his life and by which he will always be remembered were not sectional but as 
 wide as the nation. Party issues did not alter his stand on matters of fundamen- 
 tal inportance In his management of foreign affairs he did not use his power for 
 
 I-' 
 
 small ends, but sought only the welfare of the nation. And even when issues were 
 at stake in which he was vitally interested, he did not permit quarrels with the 
 administration endanger our foreign relations. ^ And not only national benefit but 
 the mutual advantage of nations was sou^t by him. 
 
 ^An interesting treaties mi^t be written on Webster as a party roan. In one of his 
 early protests against Jefferson’s regime the chief grievances he mentions are 
 strikingly similar to those of the Hartford convention. Lodge felt he was a con- 
 senrative, politician, a party man. Curtis admires his independence. The general 
 situation of political parties was, of course, anomalous, during a large part of 
 nis career. ° ^ 
 
 ^See Curtis, vol. 2, p. 70-1. 
 

 v*««' ;■*' '■ - 
 
 . :;f 
 
 'i rt‘> 
 ' i 
 
 •:v- r 
 
 ; ;v : ‘ 
 
 rt . ' ■ 
 
 .: ‘l: ' . ;■■ •' 
 
 v.fi 
 
 r'l.. 1^,'W 
 
 .r; i 
 
 5;f*f ' , H Xp ^ 
 
 V 
 
 t v. ■ 
 
 , N I ', -f i >t 
 
 
 7 'f- ’ « 
 
 ( 
 
 tia 
 
 
 
 ?T 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 I. Works; 
 
 I . The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster . 
 
 13 vols. Boston 1893. Little, Brovm & Co. 
 
 II . The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster . 
 Boston 1879; Little, Brovm & Co. 
 
 Ill, The Works of Daniel Webster - 6 vols. Boxton 1851. 
 
 Charles C. Little and Janes Bro'/m. 
 
 IV . The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster - 
 
 edited by Fletcher Webster. 2 vols. Boston 1857. 
 Little, Brown and Co. 
 
 II. Biographical and Critical; 
 
 i 
 
 I. The Life of Daniel Webster , by George Tedmor Curtis. 
 
 2 vols. New York 1872. D. Ai^leton and Co. 
 
 II. Daniel Webster , by Henry Cabot Lodge, American States- 
 men Series. Boston 1883, Houghton Mefflm and Co. 
 
 III. Demiel Webster , by Frederic Austin, Ogg. , Ph.D., 
 
 American Crises Biographies. Plula. 1914. George 
 W. Jacobs and Co. 
 
 IV . A Discourse Occasioned by the Death of Daniel Webster , 
 by Theodore Parker .Boston 1853. Benjamin B. Murrey 
 and Co. 
 
 III. General: 
 
 I. Americans Foreign Relations . by Willis Fletcher John- 
 son. 2 vols. N. Y. 1916. The Century Co, 
 
 II. American Diplomacy . by Carl Russell Fish. N. Y. 1916. 
 Henry Holt and Co.