On That Occasion Mr. Chase And Mr.
Cameron, Both Of Whom Became Members Of Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, Were
Also Candidates For The White House On The Republican Side.
I
mention this here to show that though the President can in fact
dismiss his ministers, he is in
A great manner bound to them, and
that a minister in Mr. Seward's position is hardly to be dismissed.
But from the 1st of November, 1861, till the day on which I left
the States, I do not think that I heard a good word spoken of Mr.
Seward as a minister, even by one of his own party. The Radical or
Abolitionist Republicans all abused him. The Conservative or Anti-
abolition Republicans, to whose party he would consider himself as
belonging, spoke of him as a mistake. He had been prominent as
Senator from New York, and had been Governor of the State of New
York, but had none of the aptitudes of a statesman. He was there,
and it was a pity. He was not so bad as Mr. Cameron, the Minister
for War; that was the best his own party could say for him, even in
his own State of New York. As to the Democrats, their language
respecting him was as harsh as any that I have heard used toward
the Southern leaders. He seemed to have no friends, no one who
trusted him; and yet he was the President's chief minister, and
seemed to have in his own hands the power of mismanaging all
foreign relations as he pleased. But, in truth, the States of
America, great as they are, and much as they have done, have not
produced statesmen. That theory of governing by the little men
rather than by the great has not been found to answer, and such
follies as those of Mr. Seward have been the consequence.
At Boston, and indeed elsewhere, I found that there was even then -
at the time of the capture of these two men - no true conception of
the neutrality of England with reference to the two parties. When
any argument was made, showing that England, who had carried these
messengers from the South, would undoubtedly have also carried
messengers from the North, the answer always was - "But the
Southerners are all rebels. Will England regard us who are by
treaty her friend, as she does a people that is in rebellion
against its own government?" That was the old story over again,
and as it was a very long story, it was hardly of use to go back
through all its details. But the fact was that unless there had
been such absolute neutrality - such equality between the parties in
the eyes of England - even Captain Wilkes would not have thought of
stopping the "Trent," or the government at Washington of justifying
such a proceeding. And it must be remembered that the government
at Washington had justified that proceeding. The Secretary of the
Navy had distinctly done so in his official report; and that report
had been submitted to the President and published by his order.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 220 of 277
Words from 113491 to 114008
of 143277
