DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



275 



exclusive sovereign, for war as well as for peace, within 

 the States and Territories of the Federal Union, and over 

 all citizens, the disloyal and loyal all alike. We treat 

 in that character, which is our legal character, or we 

 do not treat at all, and we in no way consent to com- 

 promise that character in the least degree ; we do not 

 ovoii suffer this character to become the subject of dis- 

 cussion. Good faith and honor, as well as the same 

 expediency which prompted the proffer of our acces- 

 sion to the declaration of Paris, pure and simple, in 

 the first instance, now require us to adhere to that 

 proposition and abide by it; and we do adhere to it, 

 not, however, as a divided, but as an undivided na- 

 tion. The proposition is tendered to France not as a 

 neutral but as a friend, and the agreement is to be ob- 

 ligatory upon the United States and France and all 

 their legal dependencies just alike. 



The case was peculiar, and in the aspect in which it 

 presented itself to you portentous. \V e were content 

 that you might risk the experiment, so, however, that 

 you should not bring any responsibility for delay upon 

 this Government. But you now see that by incorpo- 

 rating the Marcy amendment in your proposition, you 

 have encountered the very difficulty which was at first 

 foreseen by us. The following nations are parties to 

 the declaration of Paris, namely : Baden, Bavaria, 

 Belgium, Bremen, Brazils, Duchy of Brunswick, Chili, 

 the Argentine Confederation, the Germanic Confedera- 

 tion, Denmark, the two Sicilies, the Republic of the 

 Equator, the Roman States, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, 

 Hamburgh, Hanover, the two Hesses, Lubeck, Meck- 

 lenburgh Strelitz, Mecklenburgh Schwerin, Nassau, 

 Oldenburgh, Parma, Holland, Peru, Portugal, Saxony, 

 Saxe Altenburgh, Saxe Coburg Gotha, Saxe Meinin- 

 gen, Saxe Weimar, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuscany, 

 Wurtemburg, Anhalt-Dessau, Modena, New Granada, 

 and Uruguay. 



The great exigency in our affairs will have passed 

 away for the preservation or destruction of the Amer- 

 ican Union before we could bring all these nations 

 to unanimity on the subject, as you have submitted it 

 " M. Thouvenel. It is a time not for propagandism, 

 >ut for energetic acting to arrest the worst of all na- 

 ional calamities. We therefore expect you now to re- 

 new the proposition in the form originally prescribed. 

 But in doing this you will neither unnecessarily raise 

 a question about the character in which this Govern- 

 ment acts, (being exclusive sovereign,) nor, on the 

 other hand, in any way compromise that character in 

 any degree. Whenever such a question occurs to hin- 

 der you, let it come up from the other party in the nego- 

 tiation. It will be time then to stop and wait for such 

 farther instructions as the new exigency may require. 



One word more. You will, in any case, avow our 

 preference for the proposition with the Marcy amend- 

 ment incorporated, and will assure the Government of 

 France that whenever there shall be any hope for the 

 adoption of that beneficent feature by the necessary 

 parties, as a principle of the law of nations, we shall 

 be ready not only to agree to it, but even to propose 

 it, and to lead in the necessary negotiations. 



On the 2d of August Mr. Dayton proposed to 

 open negotiations with M. Thouvenel relative 

 to the accession of his Government to the dec- 

 laration of the Paris Congress. On the 22d of 

 August these negotiations had reached a crisis 

 which Mr. Dayton thus reports to Secretary 

 Se\vard : 



My anticipations expressed in despatch No. 10 are 

 fully realized. Both Lord John Russell and M. Thou- 

 venel refuse to negotiate for an accession by the United 

 States to the treaty of Paris of 1856, except on the dis- 

 tinct understanding that it is to have no bearing, di- 

 rectly or indirection the question of our Southern or 

 domestic difficulty, and to render the matter certain 

 they each propos'e to make a written declaration si- 

 multaneous with the execution of the convention, of 

 which I herewith send you a copy and a translation. 



I likewise send you a copy of M. Thouvenel's note to 

 me, with its translation. 



I had an interview on Tuesday, the 20th instant, with 

 M. Thouvenel by appointment in reference to the sub- 

 ject-matter of the convention, and then he gave me 

 the first notice of the purpose of the French Govern- 

 ment to execute this outside declaration, predicated as 

 it was, beyond all doubt, upon a note he had just re- 

 ceived from Lord John Russell, dated only the day 

 preceding. He said that both France and Great Brit- 

 ain had already announced that they would take no 

 part in our domestic controversy, and they thought 

 that a frank and open declaration in advance of the 

 execution of this convention might save difficulty and 

 misconception hereafter. He further said, in the way 

 of specification, that the provisions of the treaty stand- 

 ing alone might bind England and France to pursue 

 and punish the privateers of the South as pirates. That 

 they were unwilling to do this, and had already so de- 

 clared. He said that we could deal with these people 

 as we chose, and they could only express their regrets 

 on the score of humanity if we should deal with them 

 as pirates, but they could not participate in such a 

 course. He said, further, that, although both England 

 and France were anxious to have the adhesion of the 

 United States to the declaration of Paris, they would 

 rather dispense with it altogether than be drawn 

 into our domestic controversy. He insisted somewhat 

 pointedly that I could take no just exception to this 

 outside declaration, simultaneous with the execution 

 of the convention, unless we intended they should be 

 made parties to our controversy ; and that the very fact 

 of my hesitation was an additional reason why they 

 should insist upon making such contemporaneous decla- 

 ration. These are the general views expressed by him. 



In answer I assented at once to the propriety of such 

 declaration being made in advance if France and Eng- 

 land, did not mt<m to abide by the term* of the treaty. 

 I stated that I had no reason to suppose that the United 

 States desired to embroil these countries in our do- 

 mestic difficulties that in point of fact our great de- 

 sire had been that they should keep out of them ; but 

 they proposed now to make a declaration to accom- 

 pany the execution of the convention which they ad- 

 mitted would vary its obligations. That my instruc- 

 tions were to negotiate that convention, and that I had 

 no authority to do any thing or listen to any thing 

 which would waive any rights or relieve from any ob- 

 ligation which might fairly arise from a just construc- 

 tion of its terms. He said they did not mean to alter 

 its terms, that it was not like an addition of other pro- 

 visions to the terms of the treaty itself. To this I re- 

 plied, that for the purpose intended, it was precisely 

 the same as if this declaration they proposed to make 

 were to be incorporated into the treaty itself. In the 

 course of our conversation I told him that any declara- 

 tion or action which looked to or recognized a differ- 

 ence or distinction between the North and South was a 

 matter upon which pur Government was, under the 

 circumstances, peculiarly sensitive ; that we treated 

 with foreign Governments for our whole country, North 

 and South, and for all its citizens, whether true men 

 or rebels, and when we could not so treat, we would 

 cease to treat at all. He answered that they did not 

 mean to contest our right to treat for the whole coun- 

 try, and that was not the purpose of the outside decla- 

 ration they proposed to make ; but having heretofore 

 adopted a course of strict neutrality, the declaration 

 in question was right and proper to prevent miscon- 

 ception and controversy in the future. 



The reservation which the French Minister 

 proposed to the declaration of the Congress of 

 Paris, was inadmissible. The negotiation on 

 this subject failed. The remainder of the cor- 

 respondence with the French Government pos- 

 sesses less importance. 



The diplomatic correspondence with Russia, 

 although brief, was marked by a very friendly 



