To Baron LIONEL de ROTHSCHILD, M.P.,
London.
New York, May 28
Dear Baron,—Since my letter by the Africa steamer we have received the proclamation of the Queen, commanding a strict neutrality to her subjects in the struggle in which the government of the United States is now engaged against a portion of its citizens, now in rebellion against their constituted authorities.
It would be difficult for me to convey to you an idea of the general feeling of disappointment and irritation produced in this country, by this manifesto of the British government, by which a few revolted States are placed, in their relations with Great Britain, upon the same footing as the government of the United States.
People naturally compare the position which England takes now against us, to her stand during the Carlist war in Spain. The rebellion in the South has not the same chances of success as there existed certainly at one time for the cause of the Spanish pretender. Yet it certainly never occurred to the British crown for one moment to acknowledge Don Carlos in the light of a belligerent. On the contrary, we saw a British legion, armed and equipped in England, and commanded by an English general officer, fight for the cause of the constitutional and rightful sovereignty.
When Hungary, some years later, made an heroic effort to reconquer her nationality and independence, England did not cease to consider her as a revolted province, although the sympathies of the majority of the English people were on the side of the rebels, and though nothing but the powerful intervention of Russia prevented a success of that revolution.
Recently, again, on the other hand, we have seen men and arms equipped by British subjects, leave the English ports to assist the cause of Italian independence under Garibaldi.
The people of the United States had certainly a right to hope and expect the same support in their struggle for their national existence against the unjust and unwarrantable revolt of an unprincipled oligarchy, based upon the most odious domestic institution, and against which no government has heretofore taken so decided a stand as Great Britain herself.
If not an actual violation of international law, it must certainly be considered an act of extreme unfriendliness on the part of any government to place itself on a footing of neutrality between a power with which it entertains intimate diplomatic and commercial relations, and a revolted portion of that nation, unrecognized by any civilized government, and having so far in no way shown any evidence that it will be able to maintain the position which it has assumed against its legitimate government.
I fear that the very cordial good-feeling which, notwithstanding the delicate questions arising, from time to time, between the two governments, has pervaded all classes of our people toward the British nation, and of which, as well as of their deep-felt veneration for the Queen, they have given such a unanimous and striking evidence on the occasion of the laying of the Atlantic telegraph cable, and the recent visit of the Prince of Wales, will make room to sentiments of bitter resentment and animosity if the British government should persist in its present attitude.
Even upon the point of strict neutrality the proclamation goes further than international law and comity would seem to require. While the prohibition of equipment and enlistment of armaments and troops by British subjects in British ports is a measure of neutrality, it is certainly stretching the point to prevent British merchant vessels from carrying arms, military stores, etc., etc., to our ports or those of the Confederate States. The ports of the latter being blockaded by our navy, this restriction is entirely aimed against us, and is, therefore, an actual assistance to the rebels.
During the Crimean war, notwithstanding the strict neutrality of our government, which forbade enlistments, etc., etc., our vessels carried troops, arms, and military stores from English and French ports into the Crimea. The American ship-owners did this at their own peril in case of capture by Russian vessels of war, but our government did not prohibit it, notwithstanding that, as in the present case, it only was done to the advantage of one of the belligerent parties, Russia being blockaded then as the South is now.
My fears that the position of England would only complicate matters, are, unfortunately, very likely to be realized. The sympathy of the British government for the South, so far from lessening the determination of our government and people, has only increased their ardor. It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity, and the choice can, of course, not be doubtful.
I have, within the last few days, seen the best informed and most influential men in our administration, and I am more than ever convinced that the war will be carried on with energy and vigor. Large numbers of troops are concentrating around Virginia and Maryland, and our navy is at once to be increased by the building of fifty steam gun-boats and several large vessels of war. The only chance for the peace of the world and the immense interests which are at stake in this struggle, is its early termination by the overshadowing power of the North.
England’s position threatens to prolong the war by giving hope and comfort to the rebels. The requirements of the cotton-spinners in Lancashire have, of course, a good deal to do with the unexpected attitude assumed by your government, but my conviction is, that if the North should be pushed to the wall by these hostile influences, and the war last more than a year, it will end in the complete destruction of the South, because what is now a war for the reconstruction of the Union, in which all the Constitutional rights of the South would be secured, would then lead to the utter annihilation of the slavery interest. The short-sighted policy of the gentlemen in Manchester, who now allow cotton to outweigh their anti-slavery professions, may therefore end in much worse consequences for them than the short supplies of one or two years.
The Morrill tariff would most assuredly have been modified, if not entirely repealed, at the next session of Congress, which is to assemble on the 4th of July next. The requirements of our revenue and the general feeling of the North called for it. I am, however, very much afraid that the unfriendly position assumed by England will produce a revulsion here, and that no modification can be obtained, unless preceded by a change in the tone and policy of your press and government.
I hope your influence and that of all those who wish to see a speedy end of our present calamities, will be exerted toward bringing about such a change.