Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-08-06


possession of the British troops and he
submitted note to that effect to the Russian
minister, Count Nesselrode, to be laid before
the emperor. To this note Alexander gave
an answer which is model of categorical
reply to unfounded lubtation. lie said -
The emperor having by the mutual consent
of the two plenil otentiaries given an opinion,
founded solely upon the sense which results
from the text of the article in dispute, does
not think himself called upon to decide any
qu ,stion relative TO what the laws of war
permit or forbid to the belligerants; but
always faithful to the grammatical interpre-
tntion of the first article of the treaty of Client,
His Imperial Majesty declares, n second time,
that il appears to him, according to this
Interpretation, that, in quitting the places and
territories of which the treaty of Client
clearly stipulates the restitution to the United
States, his Britanic Majesty's forces had no
right to carry AWAY from the same places and
territories, absolutely, any slave, by whatever
means he had fallen or come into their pow
err This was the second decluration-the
second decision of the point; and both
parties having bound themselves to abide the
decision, be it wbnt it might, convention
was Immediately concluded for the purpose
ofcarrying the Emperor's decision into effect,
10y establishing board to ascertain the
number and value OF the dcported slaves
1t was convention formally drawn up, signed
by the ministers of the three powers, done in
triplicate, ratified, and rntifcntions exchanged,
and the affair considered finished. Not so
the fact! New misunderstanding me-
gotiation-five years more consumed in di.
plomatic notes. and finally new convention
concluded. Certainly il was not the value
of the property in controversy = not the
amount of money to he paid, that led Great
Britain to that pertinacious resistance, bor-
derng upon caviling aud bad faith. Ii was
the loss of an advantage in war-the loss of
the future advantage of operating upon the
slave states through their slave property, and
which advantage would be lost il this COM
pensation was oniorced-to stand out so long
against her own sIipulutions and the decisions
OF her own accepted arbitrators.
This new, or third treaty, making idem-
nifty Tor these slaves, was negocinted Mt Lon
don, November, 1896, between Mr. .GallNtn
on the part of the United States, aud Messrs.'
Huskisson and Addington on the part of
Great Britain. Ii commenced with reciting
that difficulties having arisen in the exc.
cntion of tho convention concluded at st.
Pcicrsburgh, July 18th, 1922, under the
mediation of his majesty the Emperor of all
the Russias, between the United States of
America and Great Britain, for the purpose
of carrying into effect the decision of his
Imperial Majesty upon the difference which
hnd arisen between the said United States
and Great Britain, as TO the true construction
and meaning of the first article of the treaty
Ghent, therefore, the said parties agree to trent
ngnirf' &c. The result of this third nego-
iiution was to stipulate for the payment of n
al.
be by il divided among those whose slaves
had been carried of, aud the sum of one
million two hundred and four thousand nine
hundred aud sixty dollars, was the amount
agreed upon. This sum was satisfactory 10
the claimants, and was paid to the United
States for their benefit in the year 1877
just twelve years after the conclusion of the
war, and after two treaties had been made,
mud two arbtratons rendered to explain the
plain and simple meaning Of the first trenty,
and which fully explained ITSELF Twelve
years of persevering exertion to obtain the
execution of n treaty stipulation which solely
related TO private property, and which faith
and sheer justice required to have complied
with Immediately. At the commencement
of the session of Congress 1S27-2o, the
President, Mr.. John Quincy Adams, was able
to communicate the ihct OF the final settling
md closing up of this demand upon the
British government for the value of the slaves
carried off by its troops. The sum received
was large, aud ample to pay the damages;
but that was the smallest part OF the advan-
tage gained. The example and the principle
were the main points-the enforcement Of
such demand against n government so
powerful, and after so much resistance, and
the condemnation which il carried, aud the
responsibility which il implied-ths was the
grand advantage. Liberation and abduction
of slaves was one of the modes of warfare
adopted by the British and largely counted
OH as "A means of harrasing and injuring
one-hnlf of the Union. 1t had been praciised
during the revolution, and indemnity avoided.
II avoided second time, impunity would
have sanctioned the practice and rendered
it inveterate; and in oil future wars, not only
with Great Britain but with all powers, this
mode of annoyance would have become an
ordinary resort leading to servile instructions.
The indemnity exacted carried with it the
condemnation of the practice, as spolation
of private property TO he atoned for, and was
both n compensation for the past and warn
ing for the future. 1t implied n responsible
| ity which no power, or act, or time could
evade and the principle of which being
eelaUllsHeui tpeIo VIII po Ho Hoeu ioI lulule
arbi,rations.
81 have said that this article in the treaty
of Ghent for restitution or compensation o
deported slaves, was brought to better issue
than its parallel in the treaty of peace o
1888. By the seventh article of this treaty
it was declared that the evacuation (by tho
British troops) should be made without car
rying away any negroes or other property
belonging to the American inhabilants.'-
Yet three thousand slaves were carried away
and neither restitution nor compensation
made for any part of them. Both were re-
sisied-Ihe restitution by Sir Grey Carlton
in his letter of reply to Washington's demand
declaring il TO be an impossible ininmy in I
British officer to give up those whom they
had invited 10 their standard; but reseryint