During the first half year of the American civil war, the policy of the English government toward that of the United States appeared to be one of studied unfriendliness. The numerous semi-hostile acts which have already been narrated followed each other in rapid succession. In the summer of 1861 troops were continually pushed into Canada by the British government. When asked for an explanation Lord John Russell said that he regarded it as necessary “in the present disturbed condition of things in the United States,” as he did not know but that the Americans “might do something.”⁠[1] In September of that year twenty-five thousand fresh troops were ordered to be sent to Canada for distribution along the southern frontier of that province. At the North these continued acts of unfriendliness seemed to indicate a strong desire for recognition of the Confederacy and early intervention in American affairs by the British government. To the friends of the Union this was a source of great fear and uneasiness; to the disloyal it was the cause of much hope; to the Confederates it was an inspiration to greater efforts and renewed enthusiasm for their slave republic.

The popular anxiety of the loyal people concerning this matter was also shared in no small degree by the president and the various members of his cabinet. After due consideration of the matter it was decided to do something to provide against foreign interference. Accordingly a circular was addressed by Mr. Seward to each of the governors of the loyal states bordering on the ocean or the great lakes. The circular was as follows:

“Department of State,

“Washington, Oct. 14, 1861.

“To His Excellency, the Governor, etc.:

“Sir—The present insurrection had not even revealed itself in arms when disloyal citizens hastened to foreign countries to invoke their intervention for the overthrow of the government and the destruction of the Federal Union. These agents are known to have made their appeals to some of the more important states without success. It is not likely, however, that they will remain content with such refusals. Indeed it is understood that they are industriously endeavoring to accomplish their disloyal purposes by degrees and by indirection. Taking advantage of the embarrassments of agriculture, manufactures and commerce in foreign countries, resulting from the insurrection they have inaugurated at home, they seek to involve our common country in controversies with states with which every public interest and every interest of mankind require that it shall remain in relations of peace, amity and friendship. I am able to state for your satisfaction that the prospect for any such disturbance is now less serious than it has been at any previous period during the course of the insurrection. It is, nevertheless, necessary now, as it has hitherto been, to take every precaution that is possible to avoid the evils of foreign war, to be superinduced upon those of civil commotion which we are endeavoring to cure.

“One of the most obvious of such precautions is that our ports and harbors on the seas and lakes should be put in a condition of complete defense, for any nation may be said to voluntarily incur danger in tempestuous seasons when it fails to show that it has sheltered itself on every side from which the storm might possibly come.

“The measures which the executive can adopt in the emergency are such only as congress has sanctioned, and for which it has provided.

“The president is putting forth the most diligent efforts to execute those measures, and we have the great satisfaction of seeing that those efforts are seconded by the favor, aid, and support of a loyal, patriotic and self-sacrificing people, who are rapidly bringing the military and naval force of the United States into the highest state of efficiency. But congress was chiefly absorbed, during its extra session, with those measures, and did not provide as amply as could be wished for the fortification of our sea and lake coasts. In previous wars the loyal states have applied themselves, by independent and separate activity, to the support and aid of the Federal government in its arduous responsibilities. The same disposition has been manifested in a degree eminently honorable by all the loyal states during the present insurrection.

“In view of this fact, and relying upon the increase and continuance of the same disposition on the part of the loyal states, the president has directed me to invite your consideration to the subject of the improvement and perfection of the defenses of the state over which you preside, and to ask you to submit the subject to the consideration of the legislature when it shall have assembled. Such proceedings by the state would require only a temporary use of its means.

“The expenditures ought to be made the subject of conference with the Federal government. Being thus made, with the concurrence of the government, for general defense, there is every reason to believe that congress would sanction what the states should do and would provide for its reimbursement.

“Should these suggestions be accepted, the president will direct the proper agents of the Federal government to confer with you, and to superintend, direct and conduct the prosecution of the system of defense of your state. I have the honor to be, sir,

“Your obedient servant,

“W. H. Seward.”

This circular at once caused great comment both in Canada and England. The Canadian press declared that fortifications along the northern frontier of the United States were a menace to their dominions, and would be immediately equaled by defenses which they proposed to erect just opposite. The press and authorities of England pretended to regard it as a menace and pronounced it “ill-timed,” and “a foolish confession of fear.” The London Post was the ministerial organ at that time. The following extracts from an editorial in that journal probably best represent the current English view of the circular. It was entitled, “Is Mr. Seward seeking a quarrel?” Comments were made as follows: “Mr. Seward, the secretary of state, is a distinguished disciple of the American school, and during the present unhappy contest he has had abundant opportunity of writing those long-winded and pretentious state papers which appear to console the American people for the absence of liberty and the ordinary administration of the law. Three documents have recently emanated from the pen of this gentleman, in all of which English interests are deeply concerned.” The documents were then enumerated, and among them was “the circular addressed to the governors of the northern states recommending the immediate construction of coast and lake defenses extending over the frontiers several thousand miles in length.”

It was said of the circular that “it may fairly be supposed to be a revival of the Monroe doctrine, which, originally was a protest against the European Holy Alliance of some forty years back, has, notwithstanding the bluster of the United States government on various occasions, never received the countenance or sanction of any foreign country. In fact the doctrine was founded upon an erroneous assumption, because it ignored the authority of Great Britain, which, in right of its American provinces, has as much to do with the balance of power upon the North American continent as the United States themselves. As it is understood that the Federal government has been invited to take part in the joint expedition which England, France and Spain are about to dispatch to Mexico, it scarcely can be believed that Mr. Seward has answered this invitation by a circular, the object of which is to place the whole coast of the republic in a state of defense against some threatened invasion.

“Does Mr. Seward imagine that the Canadians are about to ally themselves with the South, or that any foreign power is disposed to take advantage of the present condition of American affairs to threaten or insult the United States government? We doubt very much whether the conventions which make the great lakes neutral, and prohibit the employment of armed vessels in their waters, would justify either England or the United States in constructing fortresses along their coasts, which, in reality, could only be constructed as standing menaces, because they could not answer the end desired, that of protecting a frontier which, not at a hundred, but at a thousand points must always be accessible to an enemy. It suits Mr. Seward’s present purpose to arouse the American mind with one of those periodical and offensive exhibitions toward England which the statesmen of the republic have on former occasions found useful. As no foreign power, in all probability, has the slightest desire to hold permanently a foot of Mexican soil or to invade the Unites States, either from the lakes or the Atlantic, Mr. Seward’s circular may be regarded, if successful, as another illustration of the maxim, ‘Populus vult decipi, decipiatur.’⁠[2]”⁠[3]

English journals found nothing to criticise in the conduct of their own government as long as troops were being pushed into Canada to menace the United States. When the Federal government decided to resent this action in some degree by preparing for a foreign invasion, the British press immediately gave vent to its hatred for the northern cause and abused Mr. Seward for what it termed an act of menace and an exhibition of inconsistency.

It will be noticed that Mr. Seward’s circular was issued within three days after the escape from Charleston of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the Confederate commissioners extraordinary to England and France. The objects of their mission had been well understood at Washington for some time, and this probably had something to do with the issuing of the circular.

The Federal government at all times pursued a policy of the most determined and unyielding opposition to any foreign intervention in behalf of the insurgents, and it may safely be presumed that this firm and confident course exerted a much more powerful influence abroad than even the English government would care to admit.

AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.

1. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.

2. London Post, November 6, 1861.

3. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.

4. Text of the circular itself. See Indianapolis Sentinel and other northern newspapers of October 19, 1861.

5. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.