214 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 



In announcing compliance with the British de 

 mand, Secretary Seward did what was possible 

 to save the face of the Americans. He wrote 

 with one eye on the British fleet and the other 

 on the Northern people. Such strabismic ad 

 justment of the gaze does not conduce to clarity 

 of vision, and Seward s paper elicited scant ap 

 plause from the experts of international law. 

 His contention was that Wilkes was wholly jus 

 tified in stopping the Trent and searching her 

 for the Confederate envoys, but committed an 

 error when, having found them, he omitted to 

 bring the ship into port as a prize and secure a 

 judicial condemnation of her for violating the 

 laws of war by carrying contraband persons and 

 despatches. The Northern people were as 

 sured, that is, that Wilkes must be disavowed 

 not because he insulted the British flag, but 

 because he did not in addition capture it. Earl 

 Russell s reply to this despatch naturally con 

 troverted this view of the law of the case, and 

 argued elaborately that there was no warrant 

 in the law of nations for the interruption of the 

 Trent s bona fide course from one neutral port 

 to another. He reinforced his argument by 

 the discomforting suggestion that the principle 

 by which the act of Wilkes was justified would 



