New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-05-01
FRhNuE ANu- InEArUU.

.
dated April S, 1866, declares that the evacuation
will commence in the month Of November, IN tht
present year, by the withdrawal OF one DIVISION
and will be completed in one year by the EN-
borkation of a third and last division. Th
settles the main point in controversy between thu
Government Of the United States and the govern
ment of France Practically there will remain NJ
issue between them. But it is to be remarked
that, in spite Of oil the discussions which have
taken place there has been no agreement on tht
principles which lead on either side to the fna
result
/ Mr. Seward, in a very elaborate letter to thu
Marquis de Montholon, dated February II, 1866
again enters into an elaborate argument, reopen
ing the whole question; showing why the Unitet
States had right to demand the withdrawal o
the French troops; why affairs on the American
continent come rightfully under the peculiar AM
| exclusive jurisdiction of the American powers
why the government of Macmillan could be con
| sidered only as an intrusive and hostile dynasty
imposed on the Mexican people by foreign
| agencies; and, in what manner the French inter
vention in Mexico differed entirely from that kline
of intervention which would have been involved
in the recognition of the late Confederate States
| by the French government. In this connection it
will be interesting to observe the manner in which
Mr.. Seward treats the latter branch of the sub
ject, and how widely the explanation of the
cause and character of our contest presented to
foreign government differed from the passionate
avowals of the war party of the North during the
tendency Of the conflict. For the purposes of the
present discussion he refers to former dispatch,
written in 1861 to Mr.. Dayton; in which dispatch
he says:
However other European powers may mistake
| his majesty is the last one of those European
soVereigns to misapprehend the nature of this
| controversy. He knows that the revolution of
| I7T6 in this country, was successful contest of
the great American idea of free popular govern
ment against prejudices and errors. He knows
that the conflict awakened the sympathies of
mankind, and that ultimately the triumph of that
idea has been hailed by all European nations. He
knows at what cost European nations for time
resisted the progress Of that idea and perhaps is
not unwilling to confess how much France espe
cially has proted by it, He will not fail to recop
nize the presence OF that one great idea in the
present conflict, nor will he mistake the side on
which it will be found. 1t is, in short the very
principle of universal suffrage, with its claim of
obedience to its DEGREES, on which the government
OF France is built. That is put in issue by the
insurreotion here, and is in this emergency to be
vindicated and more effeGtually than ever estab-
lished by the government of the United States.
This passage affords conspicuous illustration
Of that liability to change, and that tendency to
misconception, which characterize even the wisest
Of those who call themselves politicians and states
men. When this dispatch was written, Mr.. Sew
ard must have known that he was giving an inter-
probation to the contest which was repudiated on
both sides, and which had no other foundation than
the purely fanciful analoges loosely INDUCED in
by the metaphysical politicians of the New Eng
land school. Whatever may have been the merits
of the controversy, it is notorious that the South
ern people believed themselves to be contendng
rthe principles Of civil and political liberty as
then understood in this country and that they sup
posed themselves to occupy towards the Federal
government the same attitude that was occupied
by the colonies towards Great Britan-the posi-
ton being corroborated and confirmed by the
mere indisputable sovereignty of the States and
by the unqualified reie etion on this continent of
the dogma of the absolute and inherent rights of
governments. On the other hand it is equally no.
torious that the war party of the North assumed
to be fighting simply for the preservation of the
Union, under what was then declared to be a sac.
and indssoiuble form. The assumption
that the war was Waged in the interest of the prn
ciple Of universal suffrage on the one side, and
in opposition to the revolutionary ideas of liberty
and progress on the other side, is later invention
Of party which now finds its policy in distorting
he nature Of the contest, in order to perpetuate
divisions and maintain its power. Mr.. Seward
HIMSELF attached Importance to this view of the
ase, since he has as to domestic policy, quite
bandoned and repudiatedit, leaving it to be taken
p, and made the basis of party schemes, by the
lction which is now opposing the Presidents
olicy. 1t is unfortunate that MFR. Seward, occu-
Ying the first place in President Johnson's cab
et should choose this moment for the promuga
IN Of doctrine so palpably antagonistieaI to the
,licy which he is presumed to support. It might
1861 have served the purpose of diplomatic
,pedient; but it failed entirely when introduced
to the discussions of the Mexican question in
66.
In fact, the French government appears to have j
ken no notice either of this argument, or of any
the other reasons urged by Mr.. Seward, to
owe, on the part of the United States, the right
intervention so strennously denied to France. !
le final result is brought about by totally diff
rent considerations, NJ. Drouyn de l'Huys does
IT even notice the information conveyed to him
at the people Of this country recognize the
lsrez government alone, and regard the preten-
ms of Macmillan as those Of a foreign usurper
he only consideration by which he seems to have
en influenced is that of the permanency and
fety of the imperial government That point
ing secured, the French government is perfectly
lling--even glad, it may be said--to bring to /
ose a military Intervention which must prove ex-
emey burdensome and expensive.
Mr.. Seward, after arguing at length against the
gitimacy Of the imperial government, takes ,
caslon to assure ~. Droeyn de rHuys that the
lited States have no intention whatever of inter-
ming in Mexico. His language is very explicit c
this point: +
With these explanations, proceed to say that .
the opinion of the President, France need not $
! moment delay her promised withdrawal of 7
illtary forces from Mexico, and her putting the a
inclple Of non-interVention into full and com b
ele practice in regard to Mexico through any APP q
fenenslon that the United States will prove un.
llhiu TO the principles and policy in haGrespect q
men, on their behalf ID has been my duty to Q
lalntaln ~ this now very heightened correspond.
1ce, Ihe practice Of this government, from its f.
sglnnlng, Is guarantee to all nations Of the re-
1eeI 81 tne American people for the free SOW
telghty q the people in every other State. We ST
9esisea lhe instruction from Washington; we ap-
neq II steTnly IN our early Intercourse even with
lance. me same principle and practice has b
~ uniformly laealeated by all our own states Of
ient interpreted by all our jurists, maintained by
Il our Congresses, aud acquesced in without o
Iaeucal dissent, on all occasions, by the Ameri- n
people II Is, in reality, the chief element of n
lrelgh intercourse IN our history.