CH. II]

MASON AND SLIDELL

71

pletely lost their heads. Having yearned for a victory, they now held in their hands the two Southern men 1 whom, next to Davis and Floyd, they hated the worst and they had struck a blow at Great Britain for her supposed sympathy with the South. All the members of the Cabinet, except Montgomery Blair, were elated at the seizure. The Secretary of War read aloud the telegram announcing it to the group of men in his office and led the cheers in which Governor Andrew and the rest heartily joined. Andrew, who thought that in comparison with Mason and Slidell, "Benedict Arnold was a saint," said, at a dinner in Boston in honor of the Captain, that Wilkes had shown "wise judgment" in the act which was "one of the most illustrious services that had made the war memorable"; "we are met tonight," he added, "to congratulate a gallant officer who, to uphold the American flag, fired a shot across the bow of a ship that bore the British lion." 2 The Secretary of the Navy wrote to Wilkes a formal letter of congratulation "on the great public service you have rendered in the capture of the rebel emissaries." 3 The House of Representatives on the first day of its session passed a resolution, thanking him "for his brave, adroit and patriotic conduct." 4

1

"un

16

Montgomery Blair denounced the act of Wilkes as authorized, irregular and illegal." 5 Senator Sumner, then⚫ in Boston, said at once, "We shall have to give them up.' The President, too, resisted the general infection. On the day that the news came to Washington, he said: "I fear the traitors will prove to be white elephants. We must stick to American principles concerning the rights of neutrals. We fought Great Britain for insisting by theory and practice

1 Mason and Slidell were imprisoned in Fort Warren in Boston harbor. 2 C. F. A. M. H. S., XLV, 49, 94; Pearson, I, 319 n. 1.

3 O. R., II, II, 1109.

1 Globe, 5.

5 Welles L. & S., 186.

6 Pierce, IV, 52.

72

MASON AND SLIDELL

[1861 on the right to do precisely what Captain Wilkes has done." 1 The President ought to have acted on his first impulse and had an immediate consultation with Sumner to be sure of his law and history. It is evident from a private letter that Sumner's advice would have been "to act on the case at once and to make the surrender in conformity with our best precedents." 2 And it is clear from Seward's subsequent action that, if urged by the President, he too would have consented to the surrender of Mason and Slidell before a demand for them was made. The President might then have adopted Blair's recommendation that Wilkes be ordered to take Mason and Slidell on an American warship to England and deliver them to the British government.3 Such an act would have been graceful, astute, honorable and politic and needed no more courage in breasting popular sentiment than Lincoln had already shown in his treatment of Frémont. He would have had at his back Sumner, Seward, Blair and General McClellan; and, if the surrender had been made immediately -before many lawyers and statesmen had fed the public excitement by alleging that the act was justifiable according to international law the country, tersely and emphatically instructed that we were carrying out the principles for which we had always contended, would doubtless have acquiesced. Yet Lincoln clearly feared to give up Mason and Slidell, although he must have appreciated that their voices were more eloquent from their prison than they would have been in London and Paris. Indeed, as a mere matter of policy, the United States ought to have made it easy for the author of the Fugitive Slave Law to reach London and the champion of filibustering in the interest of slavery to reach Paris, since their pleading 1 Lossing, II, 156. 2 Pierce, IV, 61. 3 Welles L. & S., Lothrop, 327; McClellan, 175; Russell, 575.

186.

CH. II]

MASON AND SLIDELL

73

could in no way injure the Northern cause, so well was it understood, at any rate in England, that they represented slavery. Slow to act and distrustful of his impulses, Lincoln let the great opportunity slip when with a word he might have won the equivalent of a successful campaign in the field. Alike a leader and a representative of popular sentiment, he in this instance suffered his representative character to overtop the leadership. The fellow-feeling with the American public that in any dispute with Great Britain there is but one side to be considered prevented him from making a brilliant stroke. As he took no action and made no public utterance, his silence was misconstrued, and he was reported falsely as having "put down his foot,' with the declaration, "I would sooner die than give them

As there was then no Atlantic cable, England did not receive the news of the seizure of Mason and Slidell until November 27. The opinion was general that it was an outrage to her flag. It "has made a great sensation here," wrote John Bright to Sumner from London, "and the ignorant and passionate and 'Rule Britannia' class are angry and insolent as usual."2 "The excitement is so great,' said Adams in a despatch to Seward, "as to swallow up every other topic for the moment." 3 Charles Mackay, a friend of Seward's, wrote to him for his own and for the President's information: "The people are frantic with

1 Russell, 588.

2 Nov. 29, III, 525.

Nov. 29, O. R., II, II, 1106.

4 Mackay visited the United States in 1857 and wrote a book on the country. During his visit he was entertained by Seward, who saw him again in London in 1859. Seward had a high regard and friendship for him. In February, 1862, he was appointed New York correspondent of the London Times to supplant Davis, whose "proclivities were entirely Northern." Life, W. H. Russell, II, 92.

74

MASON AND SLIDELL

[1861

rage, and were the country polled I fear that 999 men out of a thousand would declare for immediate war. Lord Palmerston cannot resist the impulse if he would. If he submits to the insult to the flag his ministry is doomedit would not last a fortnight." 1

2

The English Cabinet decided that the seizure of Mason and Slidell was 'an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law," and that their liberation and "a suitable apology for the aggression" be demanded. In accordance with this decision Earl Russell on November 30 prepared a despatch to Lord Lyons, the tone of which was softened and made more friendly on the suggestion of the Queen and Prince Consort: the Prince's direct words, somewhat at variance with the Queen's and his kindly spirit, were put into courteous diplomatic language, but the substance of the demand was in no way changed, and on Sunday, December 1, a Queen's messenger bearing it was on his way to Washington.

Instructions

Great Britain began preparations for war. for such an eventuality were sent to Lord Lyons and to the Vice Admiral commanding the British fleet in American waters. Eight thousand troops were despatched to Canada. The Queen by proclamation prohibited the export of arms and ammunition, and the government laid an embargo on 3000 tons of saltpetre, the whole stock in the market, which had been recently bought for immediate shipment to the United States.

Curiously enough, the English like the American government was acting in response to popular sentiment and not

1 Nov. 29, O. R., II, II, 1107.

2 The British minister at Washington.

3 But see Walpole, II, 44; Hansard, CLXVIII.

Сн. ІІ]

ENGLISH PRECEDENTS

75

in accordance with its law and precedents. Four days after the seizure of Mason and Slidell, but fifteen days before the news of it reached England, Adams, on the invitation of Palmerston, had an interview with him in his library [November 12]. The Prime Minister supposed that the Confederate commissioners were then approaching England as passengers in the West Indian packet, and that a United States vessel of war, then at Southampton, was on the watch for her with the intention of taking them from her by force. "I am not going into the question of your right to do such an act," Palmerston said. "Perhaps you might be justified in it . . . or perhaps you might not. Such a step would be highly inexpedient. . . . It would be regarded here very unpleasantly if the captain . . . should within sight of the shore commit an act which would be felt as offensive to the national flag. Nor can I see the compensating advantage to be gained by it. It surely could not be supposed that the addition of one or two more to the number of persons who had already been some time in London on the same errand would be likely to produce any change in the policy already adopted." 1

Palmerston's friendly advice was a mystery to Adams and remained so to American writers until 1908 when the Life of Delane was published. Delane was the edi-tor of the London Times and had a close political friendship with the Prime Minister, who thus wrote to him on the day before the interview with Adams: "My dear Delane, It may be useful to you to know that the Chancellor, Dr. Lushington,2 the three law officers, Sir G. Grey,3

1 O. R., II, II, 1078; C. F. A. M. H. S., XLV, 53. I have changed the third person to first.

2 Judge of the High Court of the Admiralty and Dean of the Arches, a famous judge.

3 Home Secretary.