The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-27 00:00:00

THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICA.

(From the Tina Correspondent.)
NEW YORK, Feb. 13.
A personal difficulty has suddenly arisen between
M. Mercier, the able and accomplished representa-
tive of the Emperor of the French, and Mr. Seward,
which will probably lead to the withdrawal of the
former from a post which he has filled with distin-
guished ability. In a despatch to M. Thouvenel,
dated the 13th of April, 1862, recently published in
the Livre Janne of the French Government, and
which arrived in this country by the last steamer,
M. Mercier states distinctly that he visited Rich-
mond with the thorough acquiescence of Mr. Se-
ward, and " almost, as it seemed, in compliance with
his desire." He details the conversation he held
with Mr. Seward preliminary to his departure. One
of them was to the effect "that if any overtures
were made to him (M. Mercier) relative to the re-
cognition of the Southern Confederacy, he should
answer that it ought to be understood that in his
position he could only speak of the restoration of the
Union ; that in the disposition in which the popula-
tion of the North seemed to be, recognition would
not decide the Federal Government to raise the
blockade; that for us (the French) peace was the
only prayer we could form ; and that we should
be consequently disposed to do all which depended
on us in order that it might be made as BOOR as
possible in the convenience of both parties." In the
last paragraph but one of the despatch M. Mercier
records :—" It was understood besides that I should
report to Mr. Seward only what I was authorized
to repeat to him. Mr. Seward said to me that I
might add, if I found an opportune occasion, that in
his opinion the North was animated by no sentiment
of vengeance, and that for himself he should, with
pleasure, find himself again in the Senate in the
presence of all those whom the South thought fit to
send thither." No sooner was this document pub-
lished in Washington than a violent outcry against
Mr. Seward was raised by the Republican and Abo-
litionist party. A secret meeting was held to demand
his removal from office, and on Monday last, the 9th
inst., a resolution was passed by the Senate calling
upon the President, if not incompatible with the
public interests, to communicate the character of the
suggestions made by Mr. Seward to M. Mercier,
and what representations, if any, M. Mercier was
authorised to make at Richmond on the part of the
Federal Government, or of the Secretary of State.
Taking for granted that M. Mercier's despatch was
substantially and verbally correct, there was nothing
in it which Mr. Seward should have been ashamed
to avow. Mr. Seward was not not represented as en-
couraging the idea of disunion. He held oat no pro-
spects of success to the Confederates. He only said
what was quite consistent with true patriotism, as
well as discretion—that the North entertained no
vengeance, and that he, for one, would be glad if
the South would once again send its senators to
Washington. There was no treason in this—nothing,
in fact, but the kindest and best feeling. But the Re-
publican senators seemed to think there was ; and
Mr. Seward, unfortunately for his reputation, seemed
to be of the same opinion. In a communication to the
Senate the day before yesterday, he endeavoured to
put himself right, when he had not been wrong, and
did it in a manner that must render it difficult, if
not impossible, for M. Mercier ever again to hold
official or personal intercourse with him. He stated
point blank that " no suggestions were made to M.
Mercier by the Secretary of State that induced or
were designed or calculated to induce him to un-
dertake a mission to Richmond in April last, or any
other time. He (M. Mercier) was not then, nor has
he, nor any other person, ever been authorised by
this Government, or by the Secretary of State, to
make any representations of any kind to the insur-
rectionary agents or so-called authorities at Rich-
mond, or to hold any communication with them
on behalf of this Government." Mr. Seward over-
stated his case, and protested too much in this
passage, but, not contented with a denial which
virtually accused a high-minded gentleman of
stating "that which was not," he went on to say
that since the 4th of March, 1861, " no communi-
cation, direct or indirect, formal or informal, had
been held by the Government, or by the Secre-
taryi
of State, with the nsurgents, their eiders, or
abettors." it is difficult to see how M. Mercier can
remain longer in 'Washington as the representative
of France, if Mr. Seward is allowed to continue in
office with apology or explanation. Some of Mr.
Seward's friends, desirou._ at finding a loophole of
escape, suggests that, as he speaks no French, he
may have misunderstood M. Mercier's English, or
that M. Mercier (who speaks very good English)
may not have correctly interpreted Mr. Seward's
meaning. If this be a true explanation it is a pity
that Mr. Seward did not himself think of it before
rushing into print with so astounding and offensive
a denial.
But Mr. Seward is too clever by half, and alto-
gether too zealous for a diplomatist. On the 6th
inst., as soon as intelligence arrived of the new pro•
posal made on the part of the Emperor of the
French, he sat down to his desk and penned a long
and elaborate letter to Mr. Dayton, the United
States' Ambassador at Paris, which is published in
extenso in all the New York and Washington papers
of this morning. He refuses in the most peremp-
tory manner the proposals of any conference or me-
diation whatever, in a tone of defiance which gives
the utmost delight to the war party. The Now York
Times, which has not hitherto been found in the
ranks of Mr. Seward's admirers, says, " It is the old
pristine Americanism which we hear; the same
proud tone that used so signally to murk this as a
its
honour." conscious of its strength and jealous of
honour." It is a question, however, whether the de-
fiance accords with the public feeling, andf whether
the Secretary is not a little too American or t o oc-
casion. Someof the arguments by which he supports
his conclusions are sound, while others are mere
puerilities ; and the whole document is of
akind
that might be more reasonably expected from an
advocate than from a statesman and diplomatist.
He scarcely comes up to the idea of the New York
Times in the matter of conscious power when he
refuses mediation on the ground that if the possi-
bility of disunion were admitted the quick result
would be ever increasing anarchy ; nor does he alto-
gether do justice to history when he speaks of the
constitution of the United States as a " sacred in-
strument." It has certainly not been sacred to him
or to Mr. Lincoln, for both of them have trodden it
under foot. Though in this very letter he constantly
uses the words North and South to designate the
belligerents, he lectures M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
through Mr. Dayton, for the employment of those
identical terms. " I must be allowed," he says, "to
state that M. Drouyn de Lhuys errs in his descrip-
tion of the parties to the present conflict, We have
here, in a political sense, no North, no South ; no
Northern, no Southern States. We have an insur-
rectionary party which is located upon and is chiefly
adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico." Surely this is the
merest trifling—unworthy even of an ultra-casuist.
When, in aaotherpaseage of the letter, Mr. Dayton
shall learn, on Mr. Seward's authority, "that not
one voice has been raised anywhere out of the im-
mediate field of the insurrection in favour of foreign
intervention, or mediation or abitration, or compro-
mise with the relinquishment of one acre of the
national domain or the surrender of even one con-
stitutional franchise"—Mr. Dayton may well ask-
himself—supposing always that he receives the
newspapers of his own country—whether Mr. Se-
ward knows anything of what has recently passed
or is now passing in the Legislatures of New Jer-
sey, Illinois, and Indiana, where
compro-
mise are not only openly peace and
debated but vigorously
recommended. When Mr. Seward makes an asser-
tion of this kind he adds another reason to those
which may already have existed in the minds of im-
partial readers of his reply to M. Mercier for be-
lieving that in the statement of the particular facts
in dispute M. Mercier was wholly right, and the
forgetful, careless, or inaccurate Secretary as wholly
wrong.
While the war of words is raging with a vehe-
mence which threatens to grow wilder as the diffi-
culties of the Republic increase, the war of deeds
languishes at sea, on the rivers and in the field.
Charleston is more formidably protected than was
imagined. The force sent against it has been in-
adequate. General Hunter and Foster have quar-
relled on a question of precedency and authority,
and the latter, having disembarked his troops on St.
Helena Island, has left General Hunter in posses-
sion, and returned to -Washington to detail his
grievances and demand fresh instructions. On the
Mississippi General Banks makes no progress
against Port Hudson. He
has net men enough to
risk a battle, and while his army is day by day de-
creasing, that of the enemy is augmenting, until it
has become a question with the Confederates
whether they shall not assume the offensive, and
walk right over General Banks into New Orleans.
At Vicksburg the whole fortune of the war hangs
upon the success of the (t me,
that is to divert the
Channel of the Mississippi. The work makes slow
progress, and has not been attended with anything
like the results anticipated. Awaiting
its comple-
tion, military operations are postponed, and "the
father of waters" remains impenetrably closed. In
Tennessee General Rosecrans reposes on the laurels
ook the
of Murfroosborough,while.on tbiv Rappahann