Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-09-21
u nipa aud gjspatfh.
Largest CireuIation n CitT and state.
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
A Settlement Considered Impossible
sharp Articles in the Government
Organ.

nADlCNA Vi ALN AAdbdAaA IAaAAAaa tng taAdA ttis
settlement by arbitration, originally sug
gested and pressed upon our government
by Mr.. Seward, is hindered, and, perhaps
rendered impossible by the introduction o
new condition which England cannot
possibly accept. II must be clearly under
stood that the offensive proposal TO include
in the matters for arbitration the right Of
this country to recognize the Southern Con-
federation as belligerent power is an en-
tirely, fresh stipulation. 1t has no direct
or essential connection with the Alabama
claims, and could only eomplicate the dis
cussion Of the question out of which they
arise. Ii is fair 70 presume that Mr.. Seward
has but recently arrived at this conclusion.
He has complained of this act of the
British government freely enough, but he
has never, until within the present year,
even suggested that ii constituted point Of
difference which could possibly be associa-
ted with the Alabama claims for the adiu-
dication of an arbitrator. Throughout his
lengthy and animated correspondence with
Lords Russell and Clarendon, the Wash
ing Minister has chiefly directed atten-
ton to the question of indemnity; and
the proposal that that, and that alone,
should be referred to arbitration came
from himself The more resolutely our
then Foreign Ministers repudiated such a
mode Of settlement the more persistently
the Washington Cabinet pressed it forward
and it is not until we find Lord Stanley
frankly accepting the principle Of arbitra-
ton that Mr.. Seward begins TO start fresh
difficulties and to exact new conditions It
would almost seem as if the American Min
lister had been somewhat disagreeably sur
prised at finding his own position SO favor
ably received, and that he had discovered
that political interests would render it de-
sirable TO put impediments in the way of
the settlement he had been so urgently en-
forcing upon us. One can understand re-
ferring a claim for indemnity to an arbi-
TRAITOR; but who ever heard of committing
questions of national policy to such tri-
bunal? Arbitration is not possible upon
such a point as that newly started by Mr..
Seward. Ii is quite within the province of
his government to assume that our recOg-
milton was unnecessary and premature"
and that it was ian injurious proceeding
for which Great Britain would Immediately
come under a full responsibility to Justify
ii, or TO render redress or indemnify" This
is either a serious menace or mere offensive
vaporing, but in any case the country will
uphold the government in the attitude it
has assumed upon this point England is
answerabe to America if the statesmen of
the latter country choose to make her so;
but in the meantime she will not brook the
interference Of an outsider in the quarrel
which those who are unfamiliar with the
temper Of Washington diplomacy would
imagine that Mr.. Seward seriously desires
to force upon her.
But what, after all, is the basis of the
American governments complaint on the
score Of this recognition Of the belliger-
ent rights of the South 1t is that it was
" unnecessary and premature" What in
some places Mr.. Seward has termed a
civil war" is now minimised for the pur-
poses of his new argument into a domes-
tic disturbance, which, although it had Sc
we're peculiarities. yet was, in fact. only
such a seditious instruction as is incident
al TO national progress in every state" 1t
was British Intervention, as expressed in
the recognition of the belligerent rights of
the South, which raised that trifing edo
nestle disturbance" into "a social war"
1t lent to it, Mr.. Seward contends, counte-
nance, aid and support. 1t gave it the
status of a political power. The govern
ment of the United States could have dealt
with this " domestic disturbance" easily
enough but for England, which gave TO it
the prestige of an armed, unlawful iusur-
rection, on an equality with the United
States" This, says Mr. Seward was the
effect of the action of the British govern
ment at a time while as yet the civil war
was undeveloped, while the insurgents
we're without any organized military force
or a treasury, and long before they pre-
tended 10 have a flag, or TO put either an
armed ship, or even a merchant vessel up
on the sea" The reply to all this is obvi-
GUS enough, for Mr.. Seward begs the whole
question when he starts with the al
legation that the Queens procla
nation was unnecessary and pre-
mature" Her Majesty's government hold
the exact contrary, and it is not within the
province of any foreign power to call into
question the mode in which they have exs
ercised what Mr. Seward admits to be their
undoubted prerogatiye, of deciding the
exact period in which the attitude Of this
country towards two contending sections
shall be defined upon the basis Of interns-
iional law. That which we did we did in
the exercise of our right; whether our
action was unnecessary or premature" is
a matter in which we are by no means bound
to accept the dictation of the Washington
Cabinet, although backed by the threat that
we may be called upon ito Justify it or
render redress or indemnify" Of course
Mr.. Seward does not seriously mean 1.-THE
Of what he SAYS; but what pity it is that
he should say it!
Waving this point, however, Lord Stan
lev has a very substantial reply even upon
the merits Of the case. How can it be truth
fully alleged that the Queens proclamation
the belligerent right of the
South was unnecessary and premature
when it followed, instead of preceding, an
act of the President of the United States
which had exactly the effect of the procla
nation. However Mr. Stewards views of the
Southern rising may vary, whether it was
a civil war or merely "a domestic distuT-
bance," it is certain that before the intelli-
gence Of the action of the British govern
ment could reach America the President
had called out more than 1000 troops,
that active measures had TO be taken for
the defense of the capital, sanguinary col
lisions had taken place, and, more than all
as Lord Stanley points ont with remarka-
Bile force) "the blockade of the Southernporis
had actually commenced, and the right Of
search and capture had already been exer-
cised over British vessels On the other
hand. the claim Of the Confederate States
10 have their belligerent rights recognized
had already been asserted by thearrival in
British waters of two regularly commits
stoned ships Of war, the Sumter and Nash
Vile. Of glorious renown. What was the
only possible construction to be placed
upon n condition Of things like this? 1t is
supplied ready 10 our hands By the decision
Of the American law court in the case Of
the Tropical Wind, in 1861, which sets
forth that the assertion of the right of
blockade by America amounted 10 n decla-
ration that civil war existed, and, more
over, that blockade itself is a beliigerent
right, and can only legally have place in a
state Of war The action Of the British
government then, is justified both By the
policy Of the President and the inturpreta,
ton Of the laws as expounded BY the
American tribunal. But what was the
other alternative AS Lord Russell pointed
out, the government had but two courses
open TO them, namely: either that Of &C
knowledging the blockade and proclaiming