The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-01
TIE DIFFICULTIES WITH ENGLAND.

And now, having managed, by q blatant
and hypocritical style Of bullyism, TO defeat
a somewhat oyer-refned and complicated but
essentially fair plan for adjusting the difficult
ties between England and the United States,
the Radical papers confess that it will
never do to press the claims Of the latter
power against the former in an uncompromis-
ing spirit at the hazard Of war. 1t has been
understood that General Grant, while yet
President elect, gave all the weight OF bis
prestige against the ratification Of the Ala
bama treaty, and its rejection is regarded as
the first prominent event Of his foreign policy.
He insists, it is stated, that England shall
acknowledge formally that she committed
crime under international law in recognizing
the belligerent rights Of the Confederate
States, and that she rendered herself justly
liable for all the losses to Northern commerce
inflicted by Confederate cruisers purchased
from British builders. We think we see the
diplomacy of President Grant, by any kind OF
argument or menace, after the manner OF
Jackson, or after the manner Of Seward,
extorting such an acknowledgment from the
English ministry! Even John Bright, its
Quaker member, whose partiality for the
United States amounts, in the opinion OF
many of his countrymen, almost to treason
able fanaticism, would spit with loathing
and adherence upon the idea of making so
humiliating confession. Then what does
President Grant propose to do about it? Does
he intend to urge the demand Internationally
upon the English government? Well, sup
pose that be shall do SO. 1t will be refused.
And what then2
TIE question of humiliation will be trans
ferred from England to the United States,
which must take measures to resent the re-
pudiation of its demands or degrade itself in
the sight of the world by quietly pocketing
the insulting rebuff. OF course. the adop-
ton of the former alternative could mean
nothing less than war. Is President Grant
prepared to back up the position in which he
seems to have got the government BY going
to war with England? We should judge
from the present tone of the leading organs
Of his party that he is not.
But suppose, on the other hand, that the
demand is not to be pressed formally upon
the notice of the English ministry. Then
what becomes of the ground upon which, a
the earnest desire of the new President, the
Alabama treaty was rejected? The only
fatel objection urged against the treaty was
its non-conformity with the conditions before
stated, and which, it was said, President
Grant would insist On having conceded.
Here, therefore, was the ground for the re-
lection, if it had any ground. But this
ground will be practically abandoned if the
English ministry be not called upon to do
the thing the omission to do which
caused the treaty to fail of ratification. And
what construction would be put upon such
| an abandonment? The world could only
conclude that rash and thoughtless decision
in the first instance was followed by timid
and dilatory counsels which were content to let
81 dare not wait upon l would" And
hence such is the predicament in which the
government at Washington finds itself with
reference to its difficulties with England,
that any step on its part short of war would
seem to involve inevitably an act of self
qualification and selfhumiliation.
And, as already remarked, the tone of the
Northern press is repugnant to high-handed
measures at the hazard of war. Since the
failure of the Alabama treaty the English
ministry have apparently washed their hands
| of the question, with the determination tc
maintain a mastery inactivity, leaving the
| United States to take the initiative towards
renewed negotiations. The embarrassing at
! titude in which this places the Grant admins
tration is only too obvious.
Meanwhile the papers Of the new President
party continue to admonish him with increas
ing vehemence of the impolicy of addressing
England in peremptory and warlike spirit
| on the subject of the Alabama claims. We
| find recent admonition Of this kind in the
Cincinnati Commercial, which says:
People who talk in heroics of the tremendous
losses we could infict upon Great Britain, anC
| who seem to think that such war would be o.
| small inconvenience TO rs, are lacking In SOUND
| article of common sense. There is plenty of fire
| yet in the ashes Of the rebellion, and British
| statesmen would not neglect to kindle fame thai
| would burn with consuming fury.
We are in no condition for foreign war with any
nation, even were our people. North and South
| united as band Of brothers. Financially we are
| not prepared. The burdens are sufficiently heavy
upon the people, and we need peace for years t
come to develop our resources, pay of our debts
re.establish our credit, and multiply wealth, ind
vidualIy and nationally.
The assumption in regard to lingering fire
{" in the ashes of the rebellion" is a good piec'
of rhetoric, though quite gratuitous. Thu
fear which it indicates is inseparable from
power which seeks to exalt itself by heapinl
wrong and oppression upon brave but un
fortunate people. If there is any statesman
ship in the Grant administration it mus
perceive that justice to the South is indispen
sable to thestrength, prestige and fearlessnes
of the United States in its relations to tn
great foreign powers 1t is the doom of tn
tyrant TO endure the pangs and modification
of the self-torturing coward.
| BAYOU CAsTANG, VAUDEVILLE AND PEAR