Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-05-29
The London Economist on the Position Of
GFeaI Britain,

H ar. OHcul DEhthlMs a.E..-
The London EcOnomiSt-R paper whose
editorials on American affairs display equal
candOr and ability-in the leading article of
May IL, upon fThe Legal Relation Of En-
gland and Of Individual Englishmen to the
Civil Struggle in the United States" treats
upon the position which England should oc-
cUpy toward the parties-and which it has
since deeidedto occupy, in q very satisfactory
manner. After showing that Great Britain
should "0n no account recognize the South
ern States as a new nation" it proceeds to
point out why she should recognize them as
Q 6slhgsrent; and why such recognition, and
the position of neutrality in which, by that
means, she is able 20 plsce herself is favor.
able to the North. We copy o portion OF
the article: n. ai- I, s-.
'On the other. hand, we are bound by all
sound principle and by precedent to Tscog-
nize the Southern States as belligerents.
Common sense tells us that when two great
sections of q nation are contending, whether
the cause Of strife be mastery OF the one
hand or independence on the other, OF any
other cause whatever, il would not only be
absurd but wicked to treat either Of the cons
batants as a herd Of rioters or casual breakers
of the Ieace. Thetwo parties themselves are
obliged TO treat each other more or less ac-
| coIding to the international law OF belliger-
ent relations, and lockers. on must do 80
also. We adopted this course in the case Of
Greece and Turkey and though in no other
respt cts are the Northern States Of the Union
at all like the Empire of Turkey, they are
like ID in being the State from which Seces-
sion is in progress. Both are, to uSea phrase
familiar TO all Seotchmen, the residudry
States; and the entire difference Of collateral
circumstances mus. not Withdraw our atten-
ton from the single material consideration.
1t Is scarcely necessary to point out what
would be our position If We did not recog-
nize the South as having the usual rights Of
belligerents. We should then be constant
and close spectators of q martins conflict IN
which we gave one party ali the rights of
| civilization, and the other party none Of the
rights in which we recognized n party
as regular combatants, and treated the other
as tunultuons rebels in which we though
constantly protesting neutrality should be
in fact taking By distinct policy Q definite
SIDE. II will be very dificult for England as
it is TO stand clear Of all collision ip the com
Plicatsd naval war which seems TO be close
at hand. Though the force Of priYateers and
other ships that the South can raise viii be
petty in comparison with European ideas,
II is nevertheless considerable, and may
come into collision with US At very many
points, and therefore it is our clear interest
as well as our great duty 10 steer clear Of the
cobfisetby maintaining an 0bgohIle neutrality
q This absolute neutrality would ia one
respect be very favorable 70 the North, II
would compel US TO deal with q blockade Of
the Southern ports as If IL were an ordinary
blockade between hostile nations. 1t has
been questioned whether 9 nation could
blockade its lewn porta and 1t would be I
serious question whether a Government
would be justified in using such en- extreml
expedient 70 4uell a mare local disturbance
or q not IN atoWn, or some series Of acts by
mnnicipality which it did not recognize. B4
when the ordinary rules OF real war are p,
admission TO regulate the conflict, the rfeh
Of blockade must be accepted as one of tn
inseparable peculiarities Of the adopted code.