New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-13
RUSSIA AND FRANCE IN CIVIL WAR
When Latter Proposed to Interfere the
Former Opposed.

To the Editor of The Tribune:
Sir; One Of your correspondents has questioned
the friendly attitude of Russia TO the United
states during the Civil War.
Mr. Henry Watterson. OF The Louisville Courier
Journal makes the following statement:
Russia had acted the determined friend OF
the United States during the Civil War when
France and Great Britain concerted interference
in our home affairs. Even then France was the
active proposer of interference. When Andrew G.
Curtin was United States Minister 10 Russia. he
was shown by Prince Gortchakoh the original
autograph letter OF Napoleon III TO Alexander IL
proposing the action. Alexander. in autographs
reply declared that the people Of the United
States have a government of their own, which
they are defending with their best blood and
treasures, and l viii never do anything to weaken
them He followed this up by sending Russian
Heet TO American waters, ready 10 resist with
force any attempt by Great Britain and France
to Interfere CWatterson's History Of the Spanish
American War" PIP. 449-45O)
This authority, in addition those cited by other
Tribune correspondents, ought to satisfy any IN
prejudiced mind as TO Russian and French SYM
pathes during the Civil War
II is probable, however, that Louis Napoleon did
not represent the French masses in his proposed
action.
In addition to the above citation. the following
extract from Horace Greeley's American Conflict"
viii show that in ali probability Louis Napoleon
was intriguing with Southern Secessionists even
before South Carolina had passed its ordinance OF
secession:
November 7. 1850 a resolution offered by
Mr.. Trenholm. Of Charleston. in the House Of
Representatives of South Carolina. providing for
the secession of South Carolina in the event Of
the election of Abraham Lincoln Mr. Mullins. OF
Marion, in the debate this resolution, stated
follows: II we wait for cooperation, slavery
and State rights would be abandoned, state SOW
ereignty and the cause of the South lost forever,
and would be subject to a dominion, the parallel
OF which was that of the poor Indian under the
British East India Company. When they had
pledged themselves to take the State out or the
Union and placed il record, then he was willing
Southern State 10 announce our determination and
to submit the question whether they would Join US
or not, ,
I'VE have it from high authority that the repre-
sentative of one Of the imperial powers OF Europe
IN view of the prospective separation OF one or
more OF the Southern States from the present Con-
federacy, has made propositions IN advance Tor
the establishment Of such relations between 1t and
the Government about to be established IN this
Of cotton for the future their increasing de-
maEd for that article will require This 1nforma-
ton is perfectly authentic"
Mr. Greeley comments this as follows;
THUS IL Will be that foreign intrigue was
already hand-and-glOve with domestic treason in
sapping the foundations of Union and seeking
peculiar advantages from the overthrow. Greeley 5
American Conflict, vol I, p 335)
There can be no error in surmistng that this
Mullins, which wanted cotton and the dissOlu-
ton of the American Union, was none other than
Louis Napoleon. WILLIAM BARNES, SR.
Albany, Dec. 10 1903