The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-23 00:00:00

;.4 . .
f.
•
•-
•• .
•
p
•. ... 7.40„
• „
- •
'0•1111111t 61:?;t:,
• .:1111L ,w*‘ ••• • .
BOLT•
. .
• - • •
••••
•• .
g - , •
.
\.9y4 ft. •
• .4°

..

PR1CE.....—..4d.
STAMPED ....6d.

States are dependencies of the Government which is at.
ministered at Washington. Great Britain has accordingly
entertained with that Government the closest and most
intimate relations, while refusing on its demand ordinary
amicable intercourse with us, and has, under arrange-
ments made with the other nations of Europe, not only
denied our just claim of admission into the f :may of
nations, but interposed a passive though effectual bar to the
acknowledgment of our rights by other Powers. So soon
as it had become apparent, by the declarations of the British
Ministers, in the debates of the British Parliament in July
last, that her Majesty's Government were determined to
persist indefinitely is a course of policy which, under pro-
fessions of neutrality, had become subservient to the de-
signs of our enemy, I felt it my duty to recall the commis-
eionets formerly accredited to that Court, and the corres-
pondence on the subject is submitted to you.
It is duo to you and to our country that this full statement
should be made of the just grounds which exist for dissatis-
faction with the conduct of the British Government. lam
well aware that we are unfortunately without adequate
remedeifor the injustice under which we have euffered at the
hands of a powerful nation, at a juncture when our entire re-
sources are absorbed in the defence of our lives, liberties,
and independence, against an enemy possessed of greatly
superior numbers and material resources. Claiming no
favour, desiring no aid, conscious of our own ability to de-
fend our own rights, against the utmost efforts of an infu-
riate foe, we had thought it not extravagant to expect that
assistance would be withheld from our enemies, and that
the conduct of foreign nations
would be marked • by a
genuine impartiality between the belligerents. It was not
supposed that a professed neutrality would be so conducted
as to justify the Foreign Secretary of the British nation in
explaining, in correspondence with our enemies, how " the
impartial observance of neutral obligations by her Ma-
jesty's Government has thus been exceedingly advantageous
to the cause of ithe more powerful of the two contending
parties." The British Government may deem this war a
favourable [occasion for establishing, by the temporary
sacrifice of their neutral rights, a prdcedent which shall
justify the future exercise of those extreme belligerent
pretensions that their naval power renders so formid-
able. The opportunity for obtaining the tacit assent
of European Governments to a line of conduct which
ignores the obligations of the declaration of Paris, and
treats that instrument rather as a theoretical exposi-
tion of principles than a binding agreement, may be consi-
dered by the British Ministry as justifying them in seeking
a great advantage for their own country at the expense of
ours. But we cannot permit, without protest, the assertion
that international law or morals regard as "impartial
neutrality" conduct avowed to be "exceedingly advan-
tageous to one of the belligerents."
I have stated that we are without adequate remedy against
the injustice under which we suffer. There are but two
measures that seem applicable to the present condition of
our relations with neutral Powers. One is, to imitate the
wrong of which we complain, to retaliate by the declaration
of a paper blockade of the coast of the United States, and to
capture all neutral vessels trading with their ports that our
cruisers can intercept on the high seas. This measure I
cannot recommend. It is true that, in so doing, we should
but follow the precedents set by Great Britain and France
in the Berlin and Milan decrees, and the British Orders in
Council at the beginning of the present century. But it
must be remembered that we ourselves protested against
those very measures as signal violations of the law of na-
tions, and declared the attempts to excuse them on the
ground of their being retaliatory, utterly insignificant.
Those blockades are now quoted by writers on public law as
a standing reproach on the good name of the nations who
were betrayed by temporary exasperation into wrong doing,
and ought to be regarded rather as errors to be avoided than
as examples to be followed.
The other measure is not open to this objection. The
second article of the declaration of Paris, which provides
"that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the ex-
ception of contraband of war," was a new concession by bel-
ligerents in favour of neutrals, and not simply the enuncia-
tion of an acknowledged pre-existing rule, like the fourth
article, which referred to blockades. To this concession we
bound ourselves by the convention with Great Britain and
France, which took the shape of the resolution adopted by
your predecessors on the 13th August, 1831. The consi-
deration tendered us for that concession has been withheld.
We have, therefore, the undeniable right to refuse longer
to remain bound by a compact which the other party refuses
to fulfil. But we should not forget that war is but tempo.
rary, and that we desire that peace shall be permanent
The future policy of the Confederacy must ever be to uphold
neutral rights to their full extent. The principles of the
declaration of Paris commend themselves to our judgment
as more just, more humane, and more consonant with
modern civilisation than those belligerent pretensions which
great naval Powers have heretofore sought to introduce
into the maritime code. To forego our undeniable right to
the exercise of those pretensions is a policy higher, worthier
of us and our cause than to revoke our sanction to princi-
ples that we approve. Let our hope for redress rest rather
on a returning sense of justice, which cannot fail to awaken
a great people to the consciousness that the war in which
we are engaged ought rather to be made a reason for for-
bearance of advantage than an occasion for the unfriendly
conduct of which we make just complaint.
The events of the last year have produced important
changes in the condition of our Southern neighbour, The
occupation of the capital of Mexico by the French army,and
the establishment of a Provisional Government followed by
a radical change in the constitution of the country, have ex-
cited lively interest. Although preferring our own govern-
ment and institutions to those of other countries, we can
have no disposition to contest the exercise by them of the
same right of self-government which we assert for ourselves.
If the Mexican people prefer a monarchy to a republic, it is
our plain duty cheerfully to acquiesce in their decision, and
to evince a sincere and friendly interest in their prosperity.
If, however, the Mexicans prefer maintaining their former
institutions, we have no reason to apprehend any obstacle to
the free exercise of their choice. The Emperor of the French
has solemnly disclaimed any purpose to impose on Mexico
a form of government not acceptable to the nation ; and the
eminent personage to whom the throne has been tendered
declines its acceptance, unless the offer be sanctioned by the
suffrages of the people.. In either event, therefore, we may
confidently expect the continuance of those peaceful rela-
tions which have been maintained on the frontier, and even
a large development of the commerce already existing to the
mutual advantage of the two countries.
It has been found necessary since your adjournment to
take action on the subject of certain foreign consuls within
the Confederacy. The nature of this action, and the reasons
on which it was based, are so fully exhibited in the corre-
spondence of the State department, which is transmitted to
you, that no additional comment is required.
In connection with this subject of our relations with
foreign countries, it is deemed opportune to communicate
my views in reference to the treaties made by
merit of the United States at a date anterior to our s
the
separa-
tion,Govern-
merit
and which were consequently binding on us as well,W as
on foreign Powers when the separation took effeet.inein_
as
partly with a view to entering into such ear Is
that we
the change in our government bad made necessary'or the
felt it our duty to send commissioners
pur-
pose of entering into the negociations
proper'to those treaties.
rela-
tive rights and obligations of the parties
abro
to fix the
ed as foreign
to the treaties to which
As this tender on our part has been deo m
nations have refused us the benefitav ceased to be binding on
we were parties, they certainly
ashtions with European nations
us, and, in my opinion,
exclusively by the general
are therefore now eonotrollreed
it is proper to add that these
rules of the law of nations. to treaty obligati
no reference to
remarks are intended to Apply
have, and
ge relates to internal
towards foreign Governor
right of individuals.
The remainder odfesth:LMessa
affairs, and conclu
year entertained of an e •
The hope last early termination of
t been realised. carnage
the war has no Could e have satisfied
the appetite of our enemy for the destruction of human life,
or grief
have appeased their wanton desire to inflict human
suffering, there has been bloodshed enough on both sides,
and two lands have been sufficiently darkened by the weeds
of mourning teeinduce a disposition for peace.
If unanimity in a people could dispel delusion, it has
been displayed too unmistakeably not to have silenced the
pretence that the Southern States were merely disturbed by
a factious insurrection—and it must long since have been
admitted that they were but exercising their reserved right
to modify their own Government in such a manner as
would best secure their these
own happiness. But
consi-
derations have been powerless to allay the un-Christian
hate of those who, long accustomed to eraw large profitsthe
from a union with as, cannot control the rage exacted bye the
conviction that they have, by their own folly, deseteroeyv
Oda
to
richest sources of their prosperity. Tblerebteutwoon
listen to to proposals for the only peace poshstree g
ulf which di •
a peace which, recognising the impassa
arately to recover
vides us, may leave the two peoplesh
se
the causeless war
from the injuries inflicted on both
g beguny the w'er in direct
now waged against us.
nrivin;enieh forbade the attempt
violation of their constitutionb,een
hardened by crime, until
to
"el"
a State'
they
htaevsereil their purpose to destroy the
they no Inger at tempt
t the sovereignty and inde,pendenee
institutions an.l subrver
now know that the only reliable hope
of these States. W • trate* as the cessation
vieour of our rests ,
for peace is in th 9
only to be expected from the pressure
of their hostility is
of their neccseities.
tisof the people has proved equal to every
Thep utrioni b country's need. 'We have been
demanded by t
sacrifice
people never were united under like circum-
stance as a
blessedwith
u before. God hasus success propore
s
our means, and, under His divine favour, our
tionate to
must at last be crowned with the reward due to
Labours
me-
n who have given all they possessed to the righteous
defence of their inalienable rights, their homes sad their
altars.
Richmond, Dec. 7, 1863,

JEFFERSON DAVIs,