Title: Earl Russell and the Slave Power
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Earl Russell and the Slave Power" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

POWER ***

EARL RUSSELL

AND

THE SLAVE POWER.

[ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OF THE UNION AND EMANCIPATION SOCIETY,
MANCHESTER.]


MANCHESTER: THE UNION AND EMANCIPATION SOCIETY, 51, PICCADILLY. 1863.



President.

THOMAS BAYLEY POTTER, Esq.


Vice-Presidents.

The Mayor of Manchester.
Thomas Bazley, Esq., M.P.
E. A. Leathem, Esq., M.P.
P. A. Taylor, Esq., M.P.
James Kershaw, Esq., M.P.
W. Coningham, Esq., M.P.
Charles Sturge, Esq., Mayor of Birmingham.
G. L. Ashworth, Esq., Mayor of Rochdale.
Lieut.-General T. Perronet Thompson.

Professor J. E. Cairnes, A.M., Dublin.
Professor Jno. Nichol, Glasgow.
Professor Goldwin Smith, Oxford.
Professor F. W. Newman, London.
Professor Beesly, London.
Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, London.
Rev. Thos. Guthrie, D.D., Edinburgh.
Rev. Newman Hall, L.L.B., London.
Rev. James W. Massie, D.D., L.L.D., London.
John Stuart Mill, Esq., London.
Thomas Hughes, Esq., Barrister-at-law.
F. G. Haviland, Esq., Cambridge.
W. E. Adams, Esq., London.
George Wilson, Esq., Manchester.
Dr. John Watts, Manchester.
Mr. Edward Hooson, Manchester.
Alderman Robert Kell, Bradford.
Alderman Henry Brown, Bradford.
Alderman William Harvey, J.P., Salford.
Alderman Thomas Livsey, Rochdale.
Councillor Murray, Manchester.
Councillor T. Warburton, Manchester.
Councillor Geo. Booth, Manchester.
Councillor Clegg, Manchester.
Councillor Williams, Salford.
Councillor Butterworth, Manchester.
Councillor Ogden, Manchester.
Councillor Ryder, Manchester.
Max Kyllman, Esq., Manchester.
S. P. Robinson, Esq., Manchester.
H. M. Steinthal, Esq., Manchester.
Francis Taylor, Esq., Manchester.
Thomas Thomasson, Esq., Bolton.
Joseph Leese, Esq., Bowdon.
R. Gladstone, Esq., Liverpool.
John Patterson, Esq., Liverpool.
J. R. Jeffery, Esq., Liverpool.
C. E. Rawlins, jun. Esq., Liverpool.
Charles Robertson, Esq., Liverpool.
Robert Trimble, Esq., Liverpool.
Charles Wilson, Esq., Liverpool.
Wm. Shaen, Esq. London.
Duncan M’Laren, Esq., Edinburgh.
Handel Cossham, Esq., Bristol.
S. C. Kell, Esq., Bradford.
Richard C. Rawlins, Esq., Ruabon.
J. S. Barratt, Esq., Southport.
Thomas C. Ryley, Esq., Wigan.
R. S. Ashton, Esq., Darwen.
Eccles Shorrock, Esq., Darwen.
John Crosfield, Esq., Warrington.
Jacob Bright, Esq., Rochdale.
John Petrie, Esq., Rochdale.
Oliver Ormerod, Esq., Rochdale.
J. C. Dyer, Esq., Burnage.
George Crosfield, Esq., Lymm.
F. Pennington, Esq., Alderley.
J. B. Foster, Esq., Manchester.
Jas. Galloway, Esq., Manchester.
Charles Cheetham, Esq., Heywood.
J. Cowan, jun., Esq., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Rev. Samuel Davidson, L.L.D., London.
Rev. Francis Bishop, Chesterfield.
Rev. J. Parker, D.D., Manchester.
Rev. J. Robberds, B.A., Liverpool.
Rev. M. Miller, Darlington.
Rev. T. G. Lee, Salford.
S. Pope, Esq., Barrister-at-law.
E. Jones, Esq., Barrister-at-law.


Treasurer.

SAMUEL WATTS, Jun., Esq., Manchester.


Bankers.

MANCHESTER AND SALFORD BANK.


Authorized Agent of the Society.

Mr. PETER SINCLAIR.

JOHN C. EDWARDS,     }
EDWARD OWEN GREENING,} Hon. Secs.

     _Offices, 51, Piccadilly, Manchester._



EARL RUSSELL AND THE SLAVE POWER.


On the 20th December, 1860, South Carolina signed her address to the
other Slave States, declaring her own secession from the Union on the
ground that slavery must inevitably be overthrown if Abraham Lincoln’s
party remained in power. After arguing on the certainty of that result,
if the South submitted to him, she invites all the Slave States to
join her in forming “a great Slave-holding Confederacy, larger than
all Europe.” The result was, within twenty-two days, the seizure of
thirteen fortresses, with great navy-yards and arsenals. To this they
were emboldened by the fact that the garrisons had been purposely
withdrawn by the treason of President Buchanan’s ministers, while
the Northern forts and arsenals had been emptied of their arms and
ammunition, expressly in order to afford a prize to the South. All the
State authorities who ordered the attack, were under oath of allegiance
to the Union.

Unless one could suppose the English ambassador at Washington guilty of
unparalleled negligence, or to have no duties, he must have informed
Earl Russell of these facts, which were notorious to us by the common
newspapers.

No great power can afford to patronize official treasons in
foreign governments. If the English government has no interest in
republicanism, if it has become indifferent to freedom and slavery, it
has interest in fidelity to official oaths. Earl Russell had a _right_,
by International Law, without offending its minutest punctilio, to
offer to Mr. Lincoln, on the day of his assuming the Presidential
chair, any fifty ships of the British navy which he chose to pick,
with all their accoutrements and stores, and any amount of Armstrong
guns and Enfield rifles which he desired, to be paid for within twelve
months, and delivered to the President in whatever parts he directed.
It is more than possible, that this offer would have subdued the
rebellion and have saved the bloodshed, before war became a reality. If
not, it would at least have hindered the revolt of Virginia and seizure
of Norfolk Harbour. It would have given to the North six valuable
months, which they lost in making arms. It would have won for us for
another century the warm attachment of the Free North, which for all
defensive purposes we should have virtually annexed to the English
empire. The immense discouragement to the South would have reinforced
the Unionists of the Slave-States. The whole mountain population from
Western Virginia to East Tennessee, and thence westward towards the
Mississippi, might have resisted Jefferson Davis long enough for the
North and the loyal Kentuckians to march into Eastern Tennessee before
the summer of 1861. In that case the war could not have outlasted the
year, nor would England have ever been gravely distressed for cotton.

But considering, on the one hand, the peculiar and unparalleled
interest in a foreign market, which England has had in American
cotton; on the other, the inhuman end avowed and the treasonable means
employed, by the slave oligarchy in their revolt; no foreign power
_could_ or _would_ have blamed England, if we had gone further into the
war on the side of the North.

After we had received the great official speech of March 21st, 1861,
made by the Confederate Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, in which he avows
slavery to be the end of the new Confederacy, the sacred cornerstone of
the new edifice; let us suppose that (with the consent of Parliament)
the English government had made direct alliance with the government at
Washington, to enter the war as secondary, on the following terms:--“If
you cannot terminate it in three months, we will aid you with 50,000
infantry, and with a fleet of 80 ships; provided only, that you engage
to abolish slavery for ever in all the rebel territories.” If anything
can be certain in such calculations, it is certain that, unless the
fact of this alliance forced Jefferson Davis to flee for his life, (and
then there would have been no war,) the war would have been finished
before Michaelmas, 1861, with freedom to the slaves, and very small
bloodshed. For, no Liverpool merchants would have armed the South, no
capitalist would have advanced 100 dollars to it; and without arms from
England, it would long ago have been subdued.

As to the international question; Lords Russell and Palmerston,--who,
(to the disgust of France,) took leave in 1840 to expel Ismael Pasha
from Syria at the invitation of the Sultan,--could have no difficulty
on this head. (Russell was in 1840 the Premier, and Palmerston Foreign
Secretary.) Nor did these same ministers even remonstrate, when the
Emperor Nicolas lent 200,000 men to Austria in 1849, in order to
crush the freedom of Hungary, after Hungary had won her victory over
Austria. Lord Palmerston then volunteered to say in Parliament, that
Hungary was a _nation_ fighting for its rights. Those were actually
_treaty_-rights. Hungary had a national history as old as England.
It was a cause of freedom, of free religion, and of hereditary law.
The mass of the nobility and the church were as warm in the cause as
the meanest gipsy, peasant, and Jew. England had actually mediated in
1710 the peace between Hungary and Austria, as between independent
belligerents; which peace Austria broke in 1848 by treachery and
massacre. Yet Lord John Russell _refused_ to pronounce Hungary
“belligerent,” and thereby hindered the Sultan from acknowledging
her as such; which stopped Hungary from getting arms, and caused her
overthrow. When he went so far in 1848 in the interest of Austria, who
had called in Russian aid against the Hungarian nation, insurgent in a
just cause; the same Russell cannot have imagined any _international_
objection to England aiding the Government of Washington against a
strictly traitorous conspiracy, organized in the worst of causes,
inhuman and detestable.

Nevertheless, (what pre-eminently condemns English policy,) the idea
of England aiding the North in this war was never even mooted as among
things possible or imaginable. Contingent English interference was
among all public men, assumed to mean, interference _on the side of the
South_! The certainty, that we must at last help them, was urged among
the Southern conspirators as a grand argument for secession; and if the
English ministry had intended to lure them on, to the utmost possible
bloodshed of North and South, it could not have conducted itself more
skilfully.

The English campaign opened, by Earl Russell proclaiming the South
“belligerent” when she had not a ship on the seas, and excluding the
war-ships of the North from our harbours: at the same time the London
press gave tongue with very few exceptions in favour of DISUNION as the
great desideratum of America, and its inevitable destiny. The two daily
papers which peculiarly have been regarded as under Lord Palmerston’s
inspiration, (the Morning Post and the Times,) were not only no
exception, but might seem to have been conducted by Southern agents;
whose cue it was, to vilify the North by slander and disparagement
cunningly tempered to English prejudices and English credulity. The
tone then assumed has changed little to this day; and at a very early
time gave immense encouragement to the South, with proportionate
exasperation to the North, whose enemies and dangers it multiplied.

About the same time, Mr. Massey, a nominee of the Government, spoke
at Salford a speech intensely hostile to the North, utterly ignoring
the treason of the South and its execrable objects, and aiming to stir
up the working men to desire hostilities against the North. It is
not possible to blame Earl Russell primarily, but we must blame the
Cabinet collectively and him as the second personage in it, for this
speech. For inevitably the public, both here and across the Atlantic,
understood it to be a ministerial effort to excite a war spirit against
the North; and though it utterly failed with the working men, it must
be counted among the causes which have made the ministerial press so
pertinaciously hostile to the cause of freedom.

In 1856 at the Congress of Paris the allies who were making peace
proposed in the cause of humanity to forbid Privateering. The powers
there present renounced it in their own name, and undertook to
endeavour to obtain a renunciation of it from all other maritime
powers. They were successful with the smaller states; but not so with
the great American Union. Mr. Marcy, in the name of the President, said
that as they had a vast mercantile navy and no great war fleet, they
could not renounce the right of defending their merchants by private
war vessels, unless England would join in assuring safety to merchant
vessels on the high seas in spite of war; in that case, but only in
that case could he adopt the clause of the Congress. Earl Russell, who
was already in his present post, accepted this reply as a refusal.
But no sooner was Mr. Lincoln in power, than Mr. Seward sent to Earl
Russell an unconditional acceptance of this clause for the extinction
of privateering; not that Mr. Seward agreed with the English Government
in thinking privateering inhuman, but because it would expose the
unarmed Northern merchantmen to the attack of stray ships, while the
South was unable to build a fleet that should meet the Northern ships
of war. To the exceeding surprise of the American Ambassador, Earl
Russell replied that the right of privateering must be reserved for
the South, but Mr. Lincoln was free to renounce it for the North. He
assigned as his final and decisive reason, that, as he had _already_
declared the South “belligerent,” he could not help reserving its right
of privateering. He builds wrong upon wrong. What had been an inhuman
practice, while it was believed to be the strength of the Union, is
suddenly patronized as a right of rebels, (who are not yet recognised
as a nation,) as soon as it becomes a cruel danger to the innocent
merchants of the Union, with whom we are in beneficial commerce! Will
this lessen the opinion of the South, that we are a set of hypocritical
Pharisees?

In consequence, when an English built privateer, which has been sold
to Jefferson Davis for Southern paper, takes refuge from a Northern
war ship in any harbour, in any part of the world, belonging to
England,--the Northerner is warned off by our authorities. On one
occasion, Lord Palmerston sent two ships of war expressly to watch
the Federal vessel Tuscarora off Southampton; and see to it, that
when the privateer Nashville escaped, the Tuscarora did not pursue
without giving her twelve hours’ start. What more could we do, if we
held it a right of these privateers to plunder and burn at sea (as
they do, against all international precedent) the merchantmen of the
Northerners, without even the adjudication of a prize court? Worst of
all, the English port of Nassau is a permanent rendezvous for steamers
watching to break the blockade. All this is, according to Earl Russell
himself, merely a logical deduction from his having (most gratuitously)
declared the South belligerent. And then it is pretended by our press,
that “belligerence” is a “mere matter of fact,” which we cannot help
acknowledging! These steamers from Nassau, by the arms and ammunition
they have brought to the South, have alone sustained for eight months
past the “fratricidal war” about which our Southern sympathisers
whimper. English policy alone has lent vitality to the war.

In the summer of 1861 Earl Russell publicly gave utterance to his
celebrated sentence, that the North is fighting for empire, the South
for independence. England now understands what the “independence”
means. Mr. Forster, M.P. interpreted it well,--freedom of robbery,
rape, murder, and lynch-law. The “empire” for which the Union fights,
is simply its own country, vital to its national existence, not a
distinct adjunct, such as to England is Canada, against which Earl
Russell made war “for empire” in 1838. His words had the effect of
proclaiming, that in his opinion the cause of the South was a righteous
one; and the inference was, that he would be glad to aid it, whenever
he could.

In the same summer a large reinforcement was sent to Canada; and the
Times at once explained, that this was intended to strengthen the
province against the North in certain contingencies. It was inevitable
for South and North alike to infer, that the English ministry was on
the look-out for an opportunity of striking a blow in favour of the
South, and _therefore_ wished first to make Canada safe. For none but
a madman could imagine that President Lincoln in that crisis would
volunteer to attack England. Thus the South was still further lured on
to believe that we should help her at last.

The exasperation of the North by all these events rose higher and
higher, so that, when Captain Wilkes boarded the English Steamer
Trent and carried off two eminent traitors, a general jubilee arose;
especially as America remembered (what most of us have forgotten) that
England far six years together had harassed the Union by boarding its
ships to look for Englishmen,--(which caused the War of 1812,)--had
solemnly refused to renounce the “right” when she made peace, and
even in 1856 did not renounce it. But President Lincoln was not so
carried away. He and Mr. Seward knew that Captain Wilkes’s deed was
indefensible on American principles, however justifiable by English
practice. From Mr. Seward’s dispatch of Nov. 30th, 1861, we learn
that the American ambassador had already warned Lord Palmerston that
the two nations were drifting into war, and had obtained from him far
more satisfactory assurances than before. In a very friendly spirit
it states, that they have just heard of Captain Wilkes’s exploit and
that he had acted without instructions. Mr. Seward guarantees that
his Government will receive with the best dispositions any thing that
the British Government has to say.--Of course Mr. Seward desired to
elicit from Earl Russell a condemnation of the practices which had so
aggrieved America in 1812. Mr. Adams read this letter to Earl Russell.
Meanwhile the warlike excitement in England had become intense. Day
and night without cessation preparation for war went on in the docks.
Merchant shipowners could get no freights. American funds fell low
in the market and great losses wore sustained by sellers. Suddenly
the news transpired, that a friendly dispatch from America had been
received, and for one day the funds were favourably affected by it.
Next day the Morning Post officially denied that there had been any
such dispatch. The agitation re-commenced; the Morning Star asserted
and re-asserted that there _had_ been such a dispatch; nevertheless, it
was three weeks before Earl Russell was pleased to produce tranquillity
by at last publishing it. Why was this? Was it thought politic to
keep up the public exasperation,--on the hypothesis of the Times, that
the “mob” in America would overrule the President and force a war? or
was some one in England trying to exasperate that “mob” and the mob of
the English gentry too, in hope that the exasperation must, somehow or
other, at last bring us into a war?

When the excitement was at its worst, a deputation from the Peace
Society waited on Earl Russell, recited the clause of the Congress of
Paris, which declared, that in any future disagreements, the Great
Powers will use arbitration before resorting to war. The Earl is said
to have replied, that in the present case arbitration was impossible,
_because_ our honour was here concerned! We now know what letter he
wrote in demand of redress; a letter as from one wholly unaware that
England had boarded scores of American ships and violently taken many
hundreds of men out of them, men alleged by us and denied by them to be
English subjects. His words were smooth as a razor, and had as their
comment, the ships of war on their way to Canada, and our furiously
continued preparations. An American has thus moralized on these events.
“The law you are applying to the case of the Trent is as like lynch-law
as the act of a nation can possibly be. That you do not see it thus
yourselves, does but show your excitement. The British government,
a party in the cause, takes opinion of its own counsel on a case
submitted by itself, and is proceeding to enforce their view of its own
rights _vi et armis_, and without hearing the defendant.” It is only to
weaker powers, like Burma, China, Athens, Brazil, that our Government
thus acts. While the Union was unbroken, Earl Russell tamely bore the
outrages on our coloured sailors from South Carolina and the Gulf.

No sooner had Mr. Seward frankly yielded every thing in the matter of
the Trent, than Earl Russell proceeded as if to pick a new quarrel
about the ships laden with stores sunk in Charleston harbour. Never
was any thing more impertinent. The river of Savannah is to this day
encumbered by a ship, which the English Government sunk there for its
own military purposes in the first war. President Lincoln had as much
right to block up the harbour of Charleston, as the Queen would have to
block up the Avon, if Bristol were to revolt. To the commerce of the
world he had already opened Port Royal, a neighbouring and far better
harbour, which was always previously closed.

Before long followed a decisive event, which, though it caused a burst
of impotent rage from Lord Palmerston against stout General Butler,
has wonderfully improved the conduct, if not the temper, of the English
Government The Northern fleet captured New Orleans! It is easy to see,
that our ministers thoroughly appreciated the weight of the fact.
Before, several of them stimulated the movement against the North;
since then, their general policy has been far better than the London
clubs have wished. Would that one could say more!

But in the course of last summer it was attested, that the Confederates
had received large numbers of new Enfield rifles with the Queen’s
symbol unobliterated. These must have been sold or given by connivance
of the Queen’s servants; and subordinates in England never take such
liberties, unless they fully believe that it will be acceptable to
their superiors. The Alabama was manned by the Queen’s artillerymen,
who had been trained for the Queen’s own service. After an affair
so exasperating to the American merchants, contrition rather than
self-laudation would be the tone suited to ministers who sincerely
desire to avert war. In fact, the Alabama was suffered to escape,
when a quarter of the energy which was used against Hale’s rockets or
against the arms at Galatz would have stopped her. Are the Americans to
be permitted to conclude, that connivance is now to do the work, for
which open force is no longer thought prudent?

Earl Russell _acknowledged that the Alabama is an unlawful ship_; but
excused himself to the American ambassador, on the ground that the law
did not give him power to stop it; as if this could be any satisfaction
to the foreigner! When he acknowledged the affair to be illegal, was it
not his duty to ask or to take power to stop it, or else, to rescind
the proclamation about “belligerence?” If the king of Burma had made
such a reply, an English squadron would have been sent to do the work,
to which the king avowed himself unequal.--And the Alabama which
fraudulently carries the English flag,--which by burning one ship lures
another to destruction, and hereby teaches sailors to leave others to
perish unaided,--is still systematically sheltered in our harbours!
What is this, but infamous?

The South and our Southern sympathisers are so delighted with the
doings of the Alabama and with Earl Russell’s punctiliousness, that
a fleet of 40 or 50 ships of war is said to be far advanced in
English ports, and a Southern loan of three million sterling has been
contracted in London to pay for them. Earl Russell gave lately a most
cold reply to a remonstrance against them. Let Englishmen meditate what
will follow, if these ships also get out.

Since the above was written, a telegram from New York gives words
of the New York Times as follows: “_It is certain_, that war will
come, _sooner or later_, unless these wrongs are stopped by England.”
“_Before many years_, some bold party-leader will utter the watchword,
INDEMNITY FROM ENGLAND, or WAR.” The conduct of our Ministers might
seem Satanically guided to ensure that the enemies of England shall get
the upper-hand in the next American elections, to the horrible calamity
of both nations and of the civilized world.

Once more ministers have spoken in each house. Earl Russell in reply
to Lord Stratheden, has declared that he would not like to see England
interfere on the side which is not that of freedom; yet adds, that
circumstances at any moment may arise which would justify Her Majesty’s
Government in departing from their neutral position. Are we to rejoice
that the Earl has at length discovered that the South is _not_ fighting
for freedom? or to feel disgust, that no one understands “departure
from neutrality” to mean (by any possibility) aid to the cause of
Right and Freedom? While many were meditating how much comfort could
be extracted from Earl Russell’s words, the debate in the Commons
on Mr. Forster’s motion against pirate-ships, has elicited from the
Solicitor-General and from the Prime Minister speeches which glorify
their own good conduct, attack Mr. Lincoln’s Government for alleged
misconduct of the Slave-Power in past Presidencies, and indicate a
resolution to persist in giving to the pirate-ships all legal advantage.

Palmerston and Russell may be in their graves before retribution comes
on us. Do Englishmen mean tamely to accept from them a legacy of
curses? America is scourged for the sin of allowing the slaveowners to
work their wicked will in the last 50 years. If the blood of Canada,
and Afghanistan, and China, and Scinde, and Burma, and Oude, and
Persia, guiltily shed by Britain, has not yet come down upon us in
curse; all their blood may be exacted in one payment of that generation
which connives at burning American ships for the benefit of the Slave
Power. How much longer shall we be able without shame to call ourselves
Englishmen?



MANCHESTER:

PRINTED BY JAMES F. WILKINSON, ESDAILE’S BUILDINGS,
OXFORD STREET.



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Earl Russell and the Slave Power" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.