Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-06-01

AA0 OAAsAaa 49, ANSNhhAaAA
the Confederscy as a belligerent power;
now, if it can be shown that our Govern
mept has done the same, have we not fore
closed our right to complaint
Our Government has recognized, and does
recognize, the COnfederscy as a belligerent
power.
1t is making war against IL in the same
forms, and by the same means, and accord
ing to the SAM rules, which other nations
observe in making war upon each other. 1t
has not actually declared war, il is true;
but the declaration is a formslity which does
not change the relations OF the parties TO
each other, a particle.
Our Government has declared its inten-
ton to blockade the ports of the Confed-
eracy-is proceeding to carry its intention
into effect; and has appealed to European
Governments to respect the blockade.
A blockade is a war measure. II is recog-
nized as such by all the modern writers upon
international law and it is only upon the
ground that it is a war measure, that the
blockading party can claim that its hould
be respected.
By admitting the right to blockade, as Q.
war measure, Great Britain cuts herself off
from all title to disregard the blockade under
any mercantile contingency that may arise.
'It'-a blockade-ssys Mr.. Wheaton, team
not be sustained as to neutrals, otherwise
than as q belligerent measure
Here is the best of American authority for
the correctness of the position which Great
Britain has assumed.
Had Great Britain not recognised the
Confederacy as a belligerent, it would have
been In her power, it is true, to have pun
ished the privateers of Mr.. jefferson Davis
as pirates; but, as an Offset, she could not
have prohibited her merchant vessels from
violating the blockade, nor have refused to
svenge or indemnify them, in case of cap
ture and confscation by the forces of the
United States. Such a state of things would
have inevitably led to ill feelings, if not to
war.
OF the recognition of the Confederacy as
a belligerent, the declaration of neutrality
is a natural sequence.
OF this neutrality we have no right to
complain. 1t is the only position that ma
tons not parties can assume; and is all that
we can justly demand; nor is there o single
circumstance calculated to throw q doubt
upon the good faith Of the British Govern
ment in the course it has chosen to pursue.
There are those who seem to think, be-
cause the sentiment of the people of Great
Britain is opposed to slavery, and the British
Government has, on one occasion, interfsred
to abolish slavery in its colonies, that there
fore the Government should take part with
the North in this controversy, and use its
power and its influence to put an end to the
servile relation upon this continent. We
see the effect of these anti slavery notions in
newspapers whose conductors, if accused,
would loudly disclaim any approach to aboli-
ton proclivit:es but it is from this source,
in fact that comes all this discomfort at the
position which the British Government has
elected to occupy.
These people do not know what they ask.
No one civilized people of modern times has
eve ASSUMED, in peace or in war, to inter
fere directly with the domestic relations of
another. To establish the custom of doing
so, and fix it as a precedent sanctioned by
two such nations as Great Britain and the
United States, would be most unfortunate.
We do not understand the United States
Government as waring against slavery, or
as entertaining any disposition to do so.
The injury that may occur to Southern In
stitutions incidentally through the war is,
of course, non Of its concern. They who
provoke the wal must take as they come
the consequences of the war. But when q
Government carries on war for the purpose
of dissolving the domestic relations of a
people, it deserves to be resisted and de-
feated.
We may be assured that Great Britain will
take no part in a crusade against slavery on
this continent. If we do not, she knows her
duty better. When she abolished slavery
in her colonies she paid the planters for their
property. She is interested in the contin-
uanee Of American slavery, without being
implicated in it; and viii, as she has q right
to do, allow her interest TO govern her con.
duct.
The CoRneroidl-whose historical knowl
edge consists in recollecting the names o
facts, without a conception of the facts them
s~eiVes-cites the conduct of the Unite,
States in respect to the Canadian dis
turbanees Of 1888, as an example TO b
followed by the British Government il
our case. GSd forbid that the dis
reputable behavior of the people and Gov
eminent Of the United States on that occa
sion should ever pass into q precedent. W,
permitted predatory bands to organize upoI
our soil for the invasion Of British territory
and the slaughter and plumber of its inhAbi
tanta and gave shelter and protection I
their fugitiTes, and outlawed insurrection
lists. Our Government was as captiouS upo,
the one hand as it was unmindful Of ns
tionAl laws and comfy upon the other; an
nothing but the forbeArance Of Great Bril-
ain, and the urgent solicitation Of men on
Of Office, prevented a war between the tw
countries. ~
On the contrary, when we are disposed .
c~ritieise severely the conduct Of Gre1
Britain, We should bear in mind the cOnduC
Of our own Government toward that pows
under circumstances somewhat similar. Ou
record ia far from immaculate. We haV
bees the sncOuragers Of and ~sympathizsl
with insurTcctionary proceedings all ovs
werld. II our Government has observed
formal neutrality, our people have not an
In pandeTing 70 the prejudices and passion
Of the people the American press has bee
any thing but exemplary.