DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



273 



United States on tho subject. This Government in- 



hat the United States are one whole undivided 



i, e-]Kvially so far as foreign nations are con- 



i. and that France is, by the law of nations and 



by tivaii'-s not a neutral power between two imagi- 



narv parties here, but a friend of the United States. 



In the spirit of this understanding of the case, we 



are not only not wishing to seek or to give oft'euce to 



i>, but, on the contrary, we desire to preserve 



and friendship with that great power, as with 



all other nations. We do not feel at liberty to think, 



and ilo not think, that France intended any want of 



consideration towards the United States in directing 



be instruction in question should be read to us. 



Out>ule of that paper we have abundant evidence of 



the irood feeling und good wishes of the Emperor, and 



:iis anxious solicitude for the same consummation 



which is the supreme object of our own desires and 



labors, namely, the preservation of the American Union 



in its full and absolute integrity. 



Doubtless the proceeding has been the result of in- 

 advertence. We feel ourselves at liberty to think that 

 it would not have occurred if we had been so fortunate 

 as to have been heard through you in the consultations 

 of the French Government. We think we can easily 

 see how the inadvertence has occurred. France seems 

 to have mistaken a mere casual and ephemeral insur- 

 rection here, such as is incidental in the experience 

 of all nations, because all nations are merely human 

 societies, such as have sometimes happened in the his- 

 tory of France herself, for a war which has flagrantly 

 sep'arated this nation into two coexisting political 

 powers which are contending iu arms against each 

 other after the separation. 



It is erroneous, so far as foreign nations are con- 

 cerned, to suppose that any war exists in the United 

 States. Certainly there cannot be two belligerent 

 powers where there is no war. There is here, as 

 there has always been, one political power, namely, 

 the United States of America, competent to make war 

 and peace, and conduct commerce and alliances with 

 all foreign nations. There is none other, either in 

 fact, or recognized by foreign nations. There is, in- 

 deed, an armed sedition seeking to overthrow the 

 Government, and the Government is employing mili- 

 tary and naval forces to repress it. But these facts 

 do not constitute a war presenting two belligerent 

 powers, and modifying the national character, rights, 

 aod responsibilities, or the characters, rights, and re- 

 sponsibilities of foreign nations. It is true that insur- 

 rection may ripen into revolution, and that revolu- 

 tion thus ripened may extinguish a previously ex- 

 isting State, or divide it into one or more independent 

 States, and that if such States continue their strife 

 after such division, then there exists a state of war 

 affecting the characters, rights, and duties of all par- 

 ties concerned. But this only happens when the revo- 

 lution has run its successful course. 



The French Government says, in the instruction 

 which has been tendered to us, that certain facts 

 which it assumes confer upon the insurgents of this 

 country, in the eyes of foreign powers, all the appear- 

 ances of a government de facto ; wherefore, whatever 

 may be its regrets, the French Government must con-- 

 sider the two contending parties as employing the 

 forces at their disposal in conformity with the laws 

 of war. 



This statement assumes not only that the law of na- 

 tions entitles any insurrectionary faction, when it es- 

 tablishes a de facto government, to be treated as a 

 belligerent, but also that the fact of the attainment of 

 this status is to be determined by the appearance of it 

 in the eyes of foreign nations. If we should concede 

 both of these positions, we should still insist that the 

 existence of a. dt facto government, entitled to bellig- 

 erent rights, is not established in the present case. 

 We have already heard from most of the foreign na- 

 tions. There are only two which seem so to construe 

 appearances, and France is one of them. Are the 

 judgments of these two to outweigh those of all other 

 nations? Doubtless each nation may judge and act 

 18 



for itself, but it certainly cannot expect the United 

 States to accept its decision upon a question vital to 

 their national existence. The United States will not 

 refine upon the question when and how new nations 

 are born out of existing nations. They are well aware 

 that the rights of the States involve their duties and 

 their destinies, and they hold those rights to be abso- 

 lute as against all foreign nations. These rights do 

 not at all depend on the appearances which their con- 

 dition may assume in the eyes of foreign nations, 

 whether strangers, neutrals, "friends, or even allies. 

 The United States will maintain and defend their sov- 

 ereignty throughout the bounds of the republic, and 

 they deem all other nations bound to respect that sov- 

 ereignty until, if ever, Providence shall consent that it 

 shall be successfully overthrown. Any system of pub- 

 lic law or national morality that conflicts with this 

 would resolve society, first in this hemisphere and 

 then in the other, into anarchy and chaos. 



This Government is sensible of the importance of 

 the step it takes in declining to hear the communica- 

 tion the tender of which has drawn out these explana- 

 tions. It believes, however, that it need not disturb 

 the good relations which have so long and so happily 

 subsisted between the United States and France. 



The paper, as understood, while implying a disposi- 

 tion on the part of France to accord belligerent rights 

 to the insurgents, does not name, specify, or even in- 

 dicate one such belligerent right. On the other hand, 

 the rights which it asserts that France expects, as a 

 neutral, from the_ United States, as a belligerent, are 

 even less than this Government, on the 25th of April, 

 instructed you to concede and guarantee to her by 

 treaty, as a friend. On that day we offered to her 

 our adhesion to the declaration of Paris, which con- 

 tains four propositions, namely : 1st. That privateer- 

 ing shall be abolished. 2d. That a neutral flag covers 

 enemy's goods not contraband of war. 3d. That goods 

 of a neutral, not contraband, shall not be confiscated 

 though found in an enemy's vessel. 4tb. That block- 

 ades, in order to be lawful, must be maintained by 

 competent force. We have always, when at war, con- 

 ceded the three last of these rights to neutrals; a 

 fortiori, we could not when at peace deny them to 

 friendly nations. The first-named concession was pro- 

 posed on the grounds already mentioned. We are still 

 ready to guarantee these rights, by convention with 

 France, whenever she shall authorize either you or her 

 Minister here to enter into convention. There is no- 

 reservation or difficulty about their application in the 

 present case. We hold all the citizens of the United 

 States, loyal or disloyal, alike included by the law of 

 nations and treaties ; and we hold ourselves bound by 

 the same obligations to see; so far as may be in our 

 power, that all our citizens, whether maintaining this 

 Government or engaged in overthrowing it, respect 

 those rights in favor of France and of every other 

 friendly nation. In any case, not only shall we allow 

 no privateer or national vessel to violate the rights of 

 friendly nations as I have thus described them, but we 

 shall also employ all our naval force to prevent the in- 

 surgents from violating them just as much as we do 

 to prevent them from violating the laws of our own 

 country. 



What, then, does France claim of s that we do 

 not accord to her ? Nothing. What do we refuse to 

 France by declining to receive the communication sent 

 to us through the hands of Mr. Mercier? Nothing but 

 the privilege of telling us that we are at war, when we 

 maintain we are at peace, and that she is a neutral, 

 when we prefer to recognize her as a friend. 



Of course, it is understood that on this occasion we 

 reserve, as on all others, our right to suppress the in- 

 surrection by naval as well as by military power, and 

 for that purpose to close such of our ports as have 

 fallen or may fall into the hands of the insurgents, 

 either directly or in the more lenient and equitable 

 form of a blockade, which for the present we have 

 adopted. It is thus seen that there is no practical 

 subject of difference between the two Governments. 

 The United States will hope that France will not think 



