James Buchanan.
P.S.—Your letter of the 18th November is the last I have heard from any member of my late cabinet. I have kind friends at Washington, however, who occasionally give me the news. I was glad to see that Judge Black had been appointed reporter to the Supreme Court. The position is respectable, though a descent......
[MR. BUCHANAN TO THE HON. RICHARD COBDEN.]
Wheatland, near Lancaster, Penn.,
December 14, 1861.
}
My Dear Sir:—
I ought long since to have answered your letter of September; but a protracted illness, from which, thank God! I have some time since recovered, has left me far behind with my correspondence. It is my sincere desire always to cherish the intimacy which commenced between us in better and happier days. I deeply regret that the feelings of friendship between the people of the two countries are not what they were when we parted at Washington more than two years ago. The public journals on both sides of the water have contributed much to produce this result. Still the masses on our side are far from being hostile to the English people, whilst they entertain a very high regard for Queen Victoria.
I trust that the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board the Trent may be viewed in what I consider its proper light by the British ministry. A neutral nation is the common friend of both belligerents, and has no right to aid the one to the injury of the other. It is, consequently, very clear, under the law of nations, that a neutral vessel has no right to carry articles contraband of war to any enemy, to transport his troops or his despatches. These principles are well settled by British authority. And Sir W. Scott, in the case of the Atalanta (Wheaton, 566) informs us that the writers on public law declare “that the belligerent may stop the ambassador of his enemy on his way.” And why not? If it be unlawful to carry despatches, with the greater reason it must be unlawful to carry ministers who write despatches, and to whom despatches are addressed, who are the agents of one belligerent government on their way to a neutral country for the express purpose of enlisting its government in the war against the other.
In some respects it would have been better had Captain Wilkes seized the Trent and brought her into port. It would then have become a purely judicial question, to be decided upon precedent and authority by the appropriate court of admiralty, and the two governments would not then have been brought face to face as they are now confronting each other. Under all the circumstances, I do not think that this seizure presents a justifiable cause of quarrel on the part of the British government, and I trust you may take this view of the subject.
In reference to your question in regard to blockade, no administration within the last half century, up to the end of my term, would have consented to a general declaration abolishing privateering. Our most effectual means of annoying a great naval power upon the ocean is by granting letters of marque and reprisal. We could not possibly, therefore, have consented to the Paris declaration which would have left the vessels (for example of Great Britain or France) free to capture our merchant vessels, whilst we should have deprived ourselves of the employment of the force which had proved so powerful in capturing their merchant vessels. Hence the proposition of Mr. Marcy to abolish war upon private property altogether on the ocean, as modern civilization had abolished it on the land. I do not think that a proposition was ever made to abolish blockade. I certainly have no recollection of it.