The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1864-01-13

the right of British subjects as neutrals to trade
with us as bellgerents, and to disregard tn,
blockade on the ground ofthis explicit confession
by our enemy of his inability to render it effect
i've, her majestys secretary Of State for foreign
affairs claimed credit with the United States fol
friendly action in respecting it. His lordshiE
stated that "the United States government, OF
the allegation of a rebellion peryading from ninC
to eleTenStates of the Union, have now, for more
than twelve months, endeayored to maintain
blockade Of three thousand miles Of coast. This
| blockade keptup irregularly, but when enforced
enforced severely has seriously injured the trade
and manufactures of the United Kingdom Thou
sands are now obliged to resort to the poor rates
for subsistence, owing to this blockade. Yethel
! maJesty's government have never sought to take
advantage Of the obvious imperfections Of this
blockade, in order to declare it Ineffective They
have to the loss and detriment Of the British ma
ton, scrupu6usly observed the duties Of Great
Britain towards friendly State"
Again, on the 22d September, 1862, the same
noble earl asserted that the United States were
Every far, indeed, from being in "a condition to
ask other nations to assume that every port oi
the coasts Of the so-styed Confederate States is
effectively blockaded'
When, in view of these facts Of the obligation
of the British nation to adhere to the pledge made
by their government at Paris, in 1855, and renew
ed to this Confederacy in 1851 and of these re-
StttCd aC Ca iiClt Off tS OI GIIS
irregularity and ineficiency Of the pretended
blockade Of our coast, directed our commissions
er at London to call upon the British government
to redeem its promise and to withhold its moral
aid and sanction from the fagrant violation OF
public law committed by our enemies, we were
informed that her maieSty's government could
not regard the blockade Of the southern ports as
having been otherwise than "practicaliY effect
i've, in February, 1852, and that ''the manner il
which it has since been enforced, gives to neu-
tral governments no excuse for asserting that the
blockade has not been efficiently maintained p
We were further informed, when we insisted that
by the terms CT our agreement no blockade was
to be considered effective unless Sufficient real
ly to prevent access to our coast" that the decla-
ration of Paris was in truth directed against
blockades not sustained by any actual force, or
sustained by anotoriously inadequate force, such
as the occasional appearance Of a man -of-War in
the oting, or the like
TWAS impossible that this mode Of construinr
an agreement, so as to make It's terms mean al
most the reverse Of what they plainly conveyed,
could be considered otherwise than as n0tifica-
ton Of the refusal of the British government to
remain bound by It's agreement, Or longer to re-
spect these articles Of the declaration CT Paris
which had been repeatedly denounced By British
statesmen, and had been characterised by earl
Russell as 'very imprudent'' and "most un8atis-
factory"
II any doubt remained ofthe motives BIZ which
the British ministry have been actuated il their
conduct, it would be completely dissipated by the
distinct aFOWais and explanations contained in
the published speech recently made by her maj
esty's secretary of foreign affairs. In comment
ing on the remonstrances Of this government
against the c0uutenarea given TO al ineffective
blockade, the following language is used 7 Is is
said we have, contrary to the declarations Of
Paris, contrary to international law, permitted
hn Cd IF i ,,,;1,
can coast. 1t is quite true we did so, and the
presumabIe cause Of complaint is quite true, that
although the blockade is kept up by a sufficient
number OF ships, yet these ships were sent into
the United States navy in hurry, and are IL
fitted for th2 purpose, and did not keep up SO
completely and effectively as was required, an
effective blockade"
This uneQuiyocal confession Of violation, both
Of agreement with Us and Of international law, is
defended on grounds the validity Of which We
submit with confidence to the candid Judgment
Of mankind.
These grounds are thus stated Still looking
st the law of nations it was blockade we, as a
great betllgerent power IN former times, should
have acknowledged. We, ourselves, had block
ade ofUpwards 0f 5000 miles, and it did seem to
me that we were bound in justice to the Federal
States Of America to acknowledge that blockade.
But there was another reason which weighed
with me. Our people were suffering severely for
the want Of material which was the main staff OF
their industry and it was question Of selfinte-
rest whether we should not break the blockade
But, IN my opinion, the men Of England would
have been forever infamous, if, for the sake CT
their own interest, they had violated the law Of
nations, and made war ID conjunction with these
slaTeholding States Of America against the Fed
cral States"
iii the second Of these reasons our rights are
not involved; although | may be permitted 10
observe that the conduct Of governments has not
heretofore to my knowledge been guided By the
principle that itsinfamous to asSertthair rights,
whenever the Invasion Of those rights creates Sc
we're suffering among their people, and niusious-
y affect greet interests. But discrimination that
relations wish these States would be discreditable
because they are siayeh0l1ing, would probably I
laye been omitted if the official personag9 who |
las published il to tie world had remembered |
has these States were, when colonies, made |
laveh0laiEg by the direct exercise Of the power /
u Great Britain, whose interests in the slave I
rade we're then supposed to require that her col I
,nios should be made siaveh0ldIng.
Bug the otf!er ground stated Ii OF q very grave I
character. 1t asserts that.a violation Of the Law
4 nations by Great Britain in 1907, wnen thai
government declared q paper blockade Of 19O0 T
niles ofcoast, Z violation then defended Or her
ourts and idriSts on the sole ground that Der ac-
ion was Tuaiagoryl, affords justification for q
!iAiIaH oHtfdE2 Oh neutral rights Dy the C1led /
tates in 1851 for which no palliation can Oesug-
-estea; and that Great Britain 'is bound il ius-
ice to the Federal States" to make return for
he war Waged against her by tie United States
! resistance Of her Illegal blockade in 1907, BIZ
Il acquiescence il the Federal illegal blockade
] 1861 The most alarming feature Ia this state
lent is its admission Of a Just claim on the part
the United States to require Of Great Britain
urlrg ibis war a disregard Of the recognised
~. IN 10 nd af
ompacts, whenever any questionable conduct
Great Britain, .'in former times, can be cited
5 a precedent 1t is not inconsistent with re
oect and admiration for the great people whose
overnment have given us this warning, to sug-
est that their history, like that of mankind in
eneral, offers exceptional instances Of indefen-
bic conduct 'in former tines ana we may
ell deny the morality Of violating recent en-
lgemen,s through Difference to the evil preced- ,