[975] I am aware that Seward's use of the "Privateering Bill," now to be recounted is largely a new interpretation of the play of diplomacy in regard to the question of Southern ship-building in England. Its significance became evident only when British correspondence was available; but that correspondence and a careful comparison of dates permits, and, as I think, requires a revised statement of the incident of the Laird Rams.
[976] Bullock dreamed also of ascending rivers and laying Northern cities under contribution. According to a statement made in 1898 by Captain Page, assigned to command the rams, no instructions as to their use had been given him by the Confederate Government, but his plans were solely to break the blockade with no thought of attacking Northern cities. (Rhodes, IV. 385, note.)
[977] U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, p. 134.
[978] Wallbridge, Addresses and Resolutions. Pamphlet. New York, n.d. He began his agitation in 1856, and now received much popular applause. His pamphlet quotes in support many newspapers from June, 1862, to September, 1863. Wallbridge apparently thought himself better qualified than Welles to be Secretary of the Navy. Welles regarded his agitation as instigated by Seward to get Welles out of the Cabinet. Welles professes that the "Privateering Bill" slipped through Congress unknown to him and "surreptitiously" (Diary, I, 245-50), a statement difficult to accept in view of the Senate debates upon it.
[979] Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Pt. IV, pp. 3271, 3325 and 3336.
[980] Ibid., 3rd Session, Pt. I, pp. 220, 393, and Part II, pp. 960, 1028, 1489.
[981] Brooks Adams, "The Seizure of the Laird Rams." (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, Vol. XLV, pp. 265-6.)
[982] U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, Pt. I, p. 116, Feb. 19, 1863.
[983] F.O., Am., Vol. 878, No. 180. Lyons to Russell.
[984] Ibid., Vol. 879, No. 227. Lyons to Russell, March 10, 1863.