Benjamin Butler, How to Prosecute and End the War (Apr 2, 1863) 3

HOW TO PROSECUTE AND HOW TO END THE WAR

SPEECH DELIVERED BY MAJ.-GEN. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER,

MR. MAYOR , -With the profoundest gratitude for the too flattering commendation of my administra- tion of the various trusts committed to me by the government , which , in behalf of your associates , you have been pleased to tender , I ask you to receive my most heart- felt thanks . To the citizens of New York here assembled , graced by the fairest and loveliest , in kind appreciation of my services supposed to have been rendered to the country , I tender the deepest acknowledgments . I accept it all , not for myself , but for my brave comrades of the Army of the Gulf . I receive it as an earnest of your devotion to the country - an evidence of your loyalty to the constitution under which you live and under which you hope to die .

In order that the acts of the Army of the Gulf may be understood , perhaps it would be well , at a little length , with your permission , that some details should be given of the thesis upon which we fulfilled our duties . The first ques- tion , then , to be ascertained is , what is this contest in which the country is engaged ? At the risk of being a little tedious , at the risk , even , of calling your attention to what might seem otherwise too elementary , I propose to run down through the history of the contest to see what it is that agi- tates the whole country at this day and this hour .

That we are in the midst of a civil commotion , all know . But what is that commotion ? Is it a riot ? Is it an insur- rection ? Is it a rebellion ? Or is it a revolution ? pray , sir , although it may seem still more elementary , what is a riot ? A riot , if I understand it , is simply an outburst of the passions of a number of men for the moment , in breach of the law , by force of numbers , to be put down and subdued by the civil authorities ; if it goes further to be dealt with by the military authorities . But you say , sir , Why treat us to a definition of a riot upon this occasion ? Why , of all things , should you undertake to instruct a New York audience in what a riot is ? "

To that I answer , because the administration of Mr. Buchanan dealt with this great change of affairs as if it were a riot ; because his government officer gave the opinion that in Charleston it was but a riot ; and that , as there was no civil authority there to call out the military , therefore Sumter must be given over to the rioters , and such was the beginning of this struggle . Let us see how it grew up . I deal not now with causes but with effects - facts .

Directly after the guns of the rebels had turned upon Sumter , the several States of the South , in convention as- sembled , inaugurated a series of movements which took out from the Union divers States , and as each was attempted to be taken out , the riots , if such existed , were no longer found in them , but they became insurrectionary , and the adminis- tration , upon the 15th of April , 1861 , dealt with this state of affairs as an insurrection and called out the militia of the United States to suppress an insurrection . I was called at that time into the service to administer the laws in putting down an insurrection .

I found a riot at Baltimore . The rioters had burned bridges ; but the riot had hardly arisen to the dignity of an insurrection , because the State had not moved as an organ- ized community . A few men were rioting at Baltimore ; and as I marched into the State at the head of the United States troops , the question came up , what have I before me ? You will remember that I offered then to put down all kinds of insurrections so long as the State of Maryland remained loyal to the United States . Transferred from thence to a wider sphere at Fortress Monroe , I found that the State of Virginia through its organization had taken itself out of the Union and was endeavoring to erect for itself an independ- ent government , and I dealt with that State as being in rebel- lion and thought the property of the rebels of whatever name or nature should be deemed rebellious property and contra- band of war , subject to the laws of war .

I have been thus careful in stating these various steps , be cause , although through your kindness replying to eulogy , I am here answering every charge of inconsistency and wrong of intention for my acts done before the country . Wrong in judgment I may have been , but I insist wrong in intention or inconsistent with my former opinions never . Upon the same theory by which I felt myself bound to put ' down insurrection in Maryland , while it remained loyal , whether that insurrection was the work of blacks or whites- by the same loyalty to the constitution and laws I felt bound to confiscate slave property in the rebellious State of Vir- ginia . Pardon me , sir , if right here I say that I am a little sensitive upon this topic .

I am an old - fashioned Andrew Jackson Democrat of twenty years ' standing . And so far as I know I have never swerved , so help me God , from one of his teachings . Up to the time that disunion took place , I went as far as the far- thest in sustaining the constitutional rights of the States . However bitter or distasteful to me were the obligations my fathers had made for me in the compromise of the constitu- tion , it was not for me to pick out the sweet from the bitter , and , fellow Democrats , I took them all because they were constitutional obligations , and sustaining them all I stood by the South and by Southern rights under the constitution until I advanced so far as to look into the very pit of disunion into which they plunged , and then not liking the prospect I quietly withdrew .

And from that hour we went apart , how far apart you can judge when I tell you that on the 28th of December , 1860 , I shook hands on terms of personal friendship with Jefferson Davis , and on the 28th of December , 1862 , you had the pleasure of reading his proclamation that I was to be hanged at sight .

And now , my friends , if you will allow me to pause for a moment in this line of thought , as we come up to the point of time when these men laid down their constitutional ob- ligations , let me ask , what then were my rights and what were theirs ? At that hour they repudiated the constitution of the United States by vote in solemn convention , and not only that , but they took arms in their hands and undertook by force to rend from the government what seemed to them the fairest portion of the heritage which my fathers had given to you and me as a rich legacy for our children . When they did that they abrogated , abnegated , and forfeited every con- stitutional right , and released me from every constitutional obligation so far as they were concerned .

Therefore when I was thus called upon to say what should be my action thereafter with regard to slavery , I was left to the natural instincts of my heart as prompted by a Christian education in New England , and I dealt with it accordingly . The same sense of duty to my constitutional obligations , and to the rights of the several States that required me , so long as those States remained under the constitution , to protect the system of slavery , -that same sense of duty after they had gone out from under the constitution , caused me to follow the dictates of my own untrammelled conscience .

So you see and I speak now to my old Democratic friends that , however misjudging I may have been , we went along together , step by step , up to the point of disunion , and I claim that we ought still to go on in the same manner . We acknowledged the right of those men to hold slaves , because it was guaranteed to them by the compromise of our fathers in the constitution , but if their State rights were to be re- spected , because of our allegiance to the constitution and our respect for State rights , when that sacred obligation was taken away by their own traitorous acts , and we , as well as the negroes , were disenthralled , why should not we follow the dictates of God's law and humanity ?

By the exigencies of the public service removed once more to another sphere of action , at New Orleans , I found this problem coming up in another form , and that led me to examine and see how far had progressed this civil commotion now carried on by force of arms .

I believe , under our complex system of States , each having an independent government , with the United States covering all , that there can be treason to a State and not to the United States ; revolution in a State and not as regards the United States ; loyalty to a State and disloyalty to the Union ; and loyalty to the Union and disloyalty to the organized govern- ment of a State . As an illustration , take the troubles which lately arose in the State of Rhode Island , where there was an attempt to rebel against the State government and to change the form of that government , but no rebellion against the United States . All of you are familiar with the movements of Mr. Dorr ; in that matter there was no intent of disloyalty against the United States , but a great deal against the State government .

I therefore , in Louisiana , found a State government that had entirely changed its form and had revolutionized itself so far as it could ; had created courts and imposed taxes , and put in motion all kinds of governmental machinery ; and so far as her State government was concerned , Louisiana was no longer in and of itself one of the United States of America . It had , so far as depended on its own action , changed its State gov- ernment and by solemn act forever seceded from the United States of America and attempted to join a new national gov- ernment , -hostile to us , as one of the so - called Confederate States .

I found , I respectfully submit , a revolutionized State . There had been a revolution , by force ; beyond a riot , which is an infraction of the law ; beyond an insurrection , which is an abnegation of the law ; beyond a rebellion , which is an attempt to override the law by force of numbers ; a new State government formed that was being supported by force of arms.

Now , I asked myself , upon what thesis shall I deal with this people ? Organized into a community under forms of law , they had seized a portion of the territory of the United States and were holding it by force of arms ; and I respectfully sub- mit I had to deal with them as alien enemies . They had for- ever passed the boundary of " wayward sisters " or " erring brothers , " unless indeed they erred toward us as Cain did against his brother Abel . They had passed beyond brother- hood by treason added to murder . Aye , and Louisiana had done this in the strongest possible way , for she had seized on territory which the government of the United States had bought and paid for , and to which her people could advance no shadow of claim save as citizens of the United States . Therefore I dealt with them as alien enemies .

And what rights have alien enemies captured in war ? They have the right , so long as they behave themselves and are non- combatants , to be free from personal violence ; they have no other rights ; and therefore it was my duty to see to it ( and I believe the record will show I did see to it ) that order was preserved and that every man who behaved well and did not aid the Confederate States was not molested in his person . I held , by the laws of war , that everything else they had was at the mercy of the conqueror . They have claims to mercy and clemency ; but no rights . Permit me to state the method in which their rights were defined by one gentleman of my staff . He very coolly paraphrased the Dred Scott decision and said they had no rights which a negro was bound to re- spect . But , dealing with them in this way , I took care to protect all men in personal safety .

Now , I hear a friend behind me say : " But how does your theory affect loyal men ? " The difficulty in answering that proposition is this : In governmental action the government in making peace and carrying on war cannot deal with indi- viduals , but with organized communities , whether organized wrongly or rightly ; and all I could do , so far as my judgment taught me , for the individual loyal citizen , was to see to it that no exaction should be made of him and no property taken away from him that was not absolutely necessary for the suc- cess of military operations .

I know nothing else that I could do . I could not alter the carrying on of the war because loyal citizens were , unfor- tunately , like Dog Tray , found in bad company ; to their per sons , and to their property even , all possible protection I caused to be afforded . But let me repeat - for it is quite necessary to keep this in mind , and I am afraid that for want of so doing some of my old Democratic friends have got lost in going with one portion of the country rather than the other in their thoughts and feelings - let me repeat that , in making war or making peace , carrying on governmental ope- rations of any sort , governments and their representatives , so far as I am instructed , can deal only with organized communi- ties , and men must fall or rise with the communities in which they are situated .

You in New York must follow the government as expressed by the will of the majority of your State until you can revo- lutionize that government and change it ; and those loyal at the South must , until this contest comes into process of settle- ment , also follow the action of the organized majorities in which their lot has been cast , and no man , no set of men , can see the possible solution of this or any other governmental problem as affecting States , exeept upon this basis .

Now , then , to pass from the particular to the general , to leave the detail in Louisiana , of which I have run down the account , rather as illustrating my meaning than otherwise , I come back to the question : What is now the nature of the contest with all the States that are banded together in the so - called Confederate States ? Into what form has it come ? It started in insurrection : it grew up a rebellion ; it has be- come a revolution , and carries with it all the rights and inci- dents of a revolution .

Our government has dealt with it upon that ground . When the government blockaded Southern ports they dealt with it as a revolution ; when they sent out cartels of exchange of prisoners they dealt with these people no longer as simple in- surrectionists and traitors , but as organized revolutionists who had set up a government for themselves upon the territory of the United States .

Sir , let no man say to me , " Why then you acknowledge the right of revolution in these men ! " I beg your pardon , sir ; I only acknowledge the fact of revolution - that which has actually happened . I look these things in the face and I do not dodge them because they are unpleasant ; I find this a revolution and these men are no longer , I repeat , our erring brethren , but they are our alien enemies , foreigners carrying on war against us , attempting to make alliances against us, I attempting surreptitiously to get into the family of nations . agree that it is not a successful revolution and a revolution never to be successful , —pardon me , I was speaking theoretic ally , as a matter of law , -never to be successful until ac- knowledged by the parent State . Now , then , I am willing to unite with you in your cheers when you say a revolution , the rightfulness or success of which we , the parent State , never will acknowledge .

Why , sir , have I been so careful in bringing down with great particularity these distinctions ? Because in my judg- ment there are certain logical consequences following from them as necessarily as various corollaries from a problem in Euclid . If we are at war , as I think , with a foreign country , to all intents and purposes , how can a man here stand up and say that he is on the side of that foreign country and not be an enemy to his country ?

A man must be either for his country or against his coun- try . He cannot , upon this theory , be throwing impediments all the time in the way of the progress of his government , under pretence that he is helping some other portion of his country . If any local man thinks that he must do something to bring back his erring brethren ( if he likes that form of phrase ) at the South , let him take his musket and go down and try it in that way . If he is still of a different opinion and thinks that is not the best way to bring them back , but he can do it by persuasion and talk , let him go down with me to Louisiana and I will set him over to Mississippi and if the rebels do not feel for his heart - strings , but not in love , I will bring him back . Let us say to him : " Choose ye this day whom ye will serve . If the Lord thy God be God , serve him ; if Baal be God , serve ye him . But no man can serve two masters , God and Mammon . "

Again , there are other logical consequences to flow from the view which I have ventured to take of this subject , and one is as regards to our relations from past political action . If they are now alien enemies I am bound to them by no ties of party fealty or political affinity . They have passed out of that , and I think we ought to go back only to examine and see if all ties of party allegiance and party fealty as regards them are not broken , and satisfy ourselves that it is your duty and mine to look simply to our country and to its ser- vice , and leave them to look to the country they are attempt- ing to erect , and to its service ; and then let us try the conclu- sion with them , as we are doing by arms and the stern arbitra- ment of war .

Mark , by this I give up no territory of the United States . Every foot that was ever circumscribed on the map by the lines around the United States belongs to us . None the less because bad men have attempted to organize worse govern- ment upon various portions of it . It is to be drawn in under our laws and our government as soon as the power of the United States can be exerted for that purpose , and therefore , my friends , you see that next one of the logical consequences that proceed from our theory : that we have no occasion to carry on the fight for the constitution as it is .

Who is interfering with the constitution as it is ? Who makes any attacks upon the constitution ? the constitution ? We are fighting with those who have gone out and repudiated the constitu- tion , and made another constitution for themselves . And now , my friends , I do not know but I shall speak some heresy , but as a Democrat , and as an Andrew Jackson Democrat , I am not for the Union as it was . I say , as a Democrat , as an Andrew Jackson Democrat , I am not for the Union to be again as it was . Understand me , I was for the Union because I saw or thought I saw the troubles in the future which have burst upon us , but having undergone those troubles , having spent all this blood and this treasure I do not mean to go back again and be cheek by jowl with South Carolina as I was before , if I can help it .

Mark me , let no man misunderstand me , and I repeat , lest I may be misunderstood - there are none so slow to understand as those who do not want to - mark me , I say I do not mean to give up a single inch of the soil of South Carolina . If I had been in public life at that time and had had the position , the will , and the ability , I would have dealt with South Carolina as Jackson did and kept her in the Union at all hazards , but now she has gone out , and I will take care that when she comes in again she comes in better behaved , that she shall no longer be the firebrand of the Union — aye , and that she shall enjoy what her people never yet have en- joyed the blessings of a republican form of government .

Therefore in that view I am not for the reconstruction of the Union as it was . I have spent treasure and blood enough upon it , in conjunction with my fellow citizens , to make it a little better . I think we can have a better Union the next time . It was good enough if it had been let alone . The old house was good enough for me , but as they have pulled down all the L - part , I propose , when we build it up , to build up with all the modern improvements .

Another of the logical sequences , it seems to me , that follow in inexorable and not - to - be - shunned sequence upon this proposition , that we are dealing with alien enemies , is with regard to our duties as to the confiscation of rebel property , and that question would seem to me to be easy of settlement under the constitution and without any discus- sion , if my first proposition is right . Has it not been held from the beginning of the world down to this day , from the time the Israelites took possession of the land of Canaan , which they got from alien enemies - and is it not the well- settled law of war to - day , that the whole property of alien enemies belonged to the conqueror , and that it is at his mercy and his clemency what should be done with it ?

For one I would take it and give the loyal man who was loyal in his heart , at the South , enough to make him as well as he was before , and I would take the balance of it and dis- tribute it among the volunteer soldiers who have gone [ The remainder of the sentence was drowned in a tremendous burst of applause ] . And so far as I know them , if we should settle South Carolina with them , in the course of a few years I would be quite willing to receive her back into the Union .

This theory shows us how to deal with another proposi- tion : What shall be done with the slaves ? Here again the laws of war have long settled , with clearness and exactness , that it is for the conqueror , for the government which has maintained or extended its jurisdiction over conquered terri- tory , to deal with slaves as it pleases , to free them or not as it chooses . It is not for the conquered to make terms , or to send their friends into the conquering country to make terms for them . Another corollary follows from the proposition that we are fighting with alien enemies , which relieves us from a difficulty which seems to trouble some of my old Democratic friends , and that is in relation to the question of arming the negro slaves .

If the seceded States are alien enemies , is there any ob- jection that you know of , and if so , state it , to our arming one portion of the foreign country against the other while they are fighting us ? Suppose that we were at war with England . Who would get up here in New York and say that we must not arm the Irish , lest they should hurt some of the Eng- lish ? And yet at one time , not very far gone , all those Englishmen were our grandfathers ' brothers . Either they or we erred , but we are now separate nations . There can be no objection , for another reason , because there is no law of war or of nations , -no rule of governmental action that I know of , which prevents a country from arming any por- tion of its citizens ; and if the slaves do not take part in the rebellion , they become simply our citizens residing in our territory which is at present usurped by our enemies to be used in its defence as other citizens are . At this waning hour I do not propose to discuss but merely a hint at these various subjects .

There is one question I am frequently asked , and most frequently by my old Democratic friends : " General Butler , what is your experience ? Will the negroes fight ? "

To that I answer , I have no personal experience , because I left the Department of the Gulf before they were fairly brought into action . But they did fight under Jackson at Chalmette . More than that ; let Napoleon III answer , who has hired them to do what the veterans of the Crimea can- not do - to whip the Mexicans . Let the veterans of Na- poleon I , under Le Clerc , who were whipped by them out of San Domingo , say whether they will fight or not .

What has been the demoralizing effect upon them as a race by their contact with white men I know not , but I cannot forget that their fathers would not have been slaves , but that they were captives of war in their own country in hand - to - hand fights among the several chiefs . They would fight at some time , and if you want to know any more than that I can only advise you to try them .

Passing to another logical deduction from the principle that we are carrying on war against alien enemies ( for I pray you to remember that I am only carrying out the same idea upon which the government acted when it instituted the blockade ) , I meet the question whether we thereby give foreign nations any greater rights than if we considered them as a rebellious portion of our country . We have hereto- fore seemed to consider that if we acknowledged that this was a revolution , and the rebels were alien enemies in this fight , that therefore we should give to foreign nations greater apparent right to interfere in our affairs than they would have if the insurgents were considered and held by us as rebels only , in a rebellious part of our own country .

The first answer to that is this : that so far as the rebels are concerned , they are estopped to deny that they are exactly what they claim themselves to be , alien enemies ; and so far as foreign nations are concerned , while the rebels are alien to us yet they are upon our territory , and until we acknowledge them there is no better settled rule of the law of nations than that the recognition of them as an independent nation is an act of war . They have no right to recognize them , because we say to them , “ We will deal with you as belligerent alien enemies , " than they would have to treat with them if we hold them simply as rebels ; and no country is more sternly and strongly bound by that view than is England , because she claimed the recognition by France of our independence to be an act of war and declared war accordingly .

Therefore I do not see why we lose any rights . We do not admit that this is a rightful rebellion - we do not recognize it as such - we do not act toward it except in the best way we can to put it down and to re - revolutionize the country .

What is the duty then of neutrals if these are alien enemies ? We thus find them a people with whom no neutral nation has any treaty of amity or alliance : they are strangers to every neutral nation . For example let us take the English . The English nation have no treaty with the rebels - have no relations with the rebels - open relations I mean , none that are recognized by the laws of nations . They have a treaty of amity , friendship , and commerce with us , and now what is their duty in the contest between us and our enemies to whom they are strangers ? They claim it to be neutrality , only such neutrality as they should maintain between two friendly nations with each of whom they have treaties of amity . Let me illustrate : I have two friends that have got into a quarrel - into a fight if you please ; I am on equally good terms with both and I do not choose to take a part with either . I treat them as belligerents and hold myself neutral . That is the position of a nation where two equally friendly nations are fighting .

But again I have a friend who is fighting with a stranger , with whom I have nothing to do , of whom I know nothing that is good , of whom I have seen nothing except that he would fight - what is my duty to my friend in that case ? To stand perfectly neutral ? It is not the part of a friend so to do between men and it is not the part of a friendly nation as between nations . And yet from some strange misconcep- tion our English friends profess to do no more than to stand perfectly neutral while they have treaties of amity and com- merce with us and no treaty which they acknowledge with the South .

And therefore I say there is a much higher duty on the part of foreign nations toward us when we are in contest with a people with which they have no treaty of amity than there possibly can be toward them . To illustrate how this fact bears upon this question : the English say , the English say , “ Oh ! we are going to be neutral ; we will not sell you any arms , because to be neutral strictly we should have to sell the same to the Con- federates . "

To that I answer : You have treaties of amity and com- merce with us by which you have agreed to trade with us . You have no treaty of amity and commerce with them by which you agree to trade with them . Why not then trade with us ? Why not give us that rightful preference except for reasons of hostility to us that I will state hereafter ? I have been thus particular upon this , because in stating my proposition to gentlemen in whose judgment I have great confidence they have said to me , " I agree with your theory , Mr. Butler , but I am afraid you will involve us with other nations by the view that you take of that matter . "

But I insist , and I can only state the proposition for want of time - your own minds will carry it out particularly — I insist that there is a higher and closer duty to us - treating the rebels as a strange nation not yet admitted into the family of nations — that there is a higher duty from our old friend- ship on her part , from our old relations toward Great Britain , than there is to this rebellious , pushing , attempting - to - get- into - place member of the family of nations .

There is still another logical sequence which in my judg- ment follows from this view of the case . The great question put to me by my friends and the great question which is now agitating this country is , How are we to get these men back ? How are we to get this territory back ? How are we to re- construct the nation ? I think it is much better answered upon this hypothesis than any other . There are but two ways in which this contest can be ended ; one is by re - revolutionizing a portion of this seceding territory and have the people ask to be admitted into the Union ; another is , to bring it all back so that if they do not come back in the first way they shall come back bound to our triumphal car of victory . Now when any portion of the South becomes loyal to the North and to the Union , or to express it with more care when any portion of the inhabitants of the South wish to become again a part of the nation and will throw off the gov- ernment of Jefferson Davis , erect themselves into a State , and come and ask us to take them back with such a State constitution as they ought to be admitted under , there is no difficulty in its being done . There is no witchery about this . This precise thing has been done in the case of Western Virginia . She went out - stayed out for a while .

By the aid of our armies and by the efforts of her citizens she re - revolutionized , threw off the government of the rest of the State of Virginia ; threw off the Confederate yoke ; erected herself into a State with a constitution such as I be- lieve is quite satisfactory to all of us , especially the amend- She has asked to come back and has been received back and is the first entering wedge of that series of States who will come back that way .

But suppose they will not come back ?

We are bound to subjugate them . What then do they become ? Territories of the United States - acquired by force of arms - precisely as we acquired California , precisely as we acquired Nevada , precisely as we acquired — not exactly though - as we acquired Texas - and then is there any diffi- culty in treating with these men ? Was there any difficulty in dealing with the State of California when our men went there and settled in sufficient numbers so as to give that State the benefits of the blessings of a republican form of government ? Was there any difficulty in obtaining her beyond our transactions with Mexico ?

None whatever . Will there be any difficulty in taking to ourselves the new State of Nevada when she is ready to come and ripe to come ? Was there any difficulty in taking into the Union any portion of the Louisiana purchase when we bought it first ? Will there be any difficulty when her people get ready to come back to the United States of our taking her back again more than perhaps to carry out the parallel a little further , to pay a large sum of money besides , as we did in the case of California after we conquered it from Mexico ? These States having gone out without cause , with- our right , without grievance , and having formed them- selves into new States and taken upon themselves new alliances , I am not for having them come back without readmission .

I feel , perhaps , if the ladies will pardon the illustration , like a husband whose wife has run away with another man , and has divorced herself from him ; he will not take her to his arms until they have come before the priest and been re- married . I have , I say , the same feeling in the case of these people that have gone out ; when they repent and ask to come back I am ready to receive them , and I am not ready until then .

And now , having gone by far too discursively over many of these points which I desired to bring to your attention , let us return to what has been done in the Department of the Gulf , to which you have so flatteringly alluded , and to which I will answer . While I am very much gratified at the kind expression of your regard , whether that expression is jus- tified can be told in a single word . When I left the Depart- ment of the Gulf , I sat down and deliberately put in the form of an address to the people of that Department , the exact acts I had done while in their Department ; I said to them , " I have done these things . " I have now waited more than three months , and I have yet to hear a denial from that Depart- ment that the things therein stated were done .

And to that alone , sir , I ean point as a justification of your too flattering eulogy , and to that I point forever as my answer to every slander and every calumny . The ladies of New Orleans knew whether they were safe ; has any one of them ever said she was not ? The men of New Orleans knew whether life and property were safe ; has any man ever said they were not ? The poor of New Orleans knew whether the money which was taken from the rich rebels was applied to the alleviation of their wants ; has any man denied that it was ? To that record I point - and it will be the only answer that I shall ever make ; and I only do it now because I desire that you shall have neither doubt nor feeling upon this sub- ject - it is the only answer I can ever make to the thousand calumnies that have been poured upon me and mine , and upon the officers who worked with me for the good of our country .

I desire now to say a single word upon the question , what are the prospects of this war ? My simple opinion would be no better than that of another man ; but let me show you the reason for the faith that is in me that this war is progressing steadily to a successful termination . Compare the state of the country on January 1 , 1863 , with the state of the country on January 1 , 1862 , and tell me whether there has not been progress . At that time the Union armies held no considerable portion of Missouri , of Kentucky , or of Ten- nessee ; none of Virginia , except Fortress Monroe and Arling- ton Heights ; none of North Carolina save Hatteras , and none of South Carolina save Port Royal . All the rest was ground of struggle at least , and all the rest furnishing sup- plies to the rebels .

Now they hold none of Missouri , none of Kentucky , none of Tennessee , for any valuable purpose of supplies , because the western portion is in our hands , and the eastern portion has been so run over by the contending armies that the sup- plies are gone . They hold no portion of Virginia valuable for supplies , for that is eaten out by their armies . We hold one third of Virginia and half of North Carolina . We hold our own in South Carolina , and I hope that before the eleventh of this month we shall hold a little more . We hold two thirds of Louisiana in wealth and population . We hold all Arkansas and all Texas so far as supplies are con- cerned , so long as Farragut is between Port Hudson and Vicksburg . And I believe the colored troops held Florida at the last accounts .

Now , then , let us see to what the rebellion is reduced . It is reduced to the remainder of Virginia , part of North and South Carolina , all of Georgia , Alabama , and Missis- sippi , and a small portion of Louisiana and Tennessee ; Texas and Arkansas , as I said before , being cut off . Why I draw strong hopes from this is , that their supplies come either from Kentucky , Tennessee , Missouri , Arkansas , or Texas , and these are now completely beyond their reach . To this fact I look largely for the suppression of this rebellion and the overthrow of this revolution .

They have got to the end of their conscription ; we have not begun ours . They have got to the end of their national credit ; we have not put ours in any market in the world . And why should any man be desponding ? Why should any man say that this great work has gone on too slowly ? Why should men feel impatient ? The war of the Revolution was seven years . Why should men be so anxious that nations should march faster than they are prepared to march — faster than the tread of nations has ever been in the Providence of God ? Nations in war have ever moved slowly . We are too impatient — we never learn anything , it would seem to me , from reading history - I speak of myself as well as you — I have shared in that impatience myself . I have shared in your various matters of disappointment .

I was saying but the other day to a friend of mine , " It seems strange to me that our navy cannot catch that steamer ' Alabama , ' there must be something wrong in the Navy De- partment , I am afraid , " and I got quite impatient . I had hardly got over the wound inflicted by the capture of the " Jacob Bell , " when came the piracies of the " Golden Eagle , " and the " Olive Jane , " and as one was from Boston , it touched me keenly .

He replied : " Don't be impatient ; remember that Paul Jones , with a sailing - ship on the coast of England , put the whole British navy at defiance for many months , and wandered up and down that coast , and worked his will upon it , and England had no naval power to contend with , and had not twenty - five hundred miles of sea coast to blockade as we have . "

I remember that in the French war , Lord Cochrane , with one vessel , and that was by no means a steamship , held the whole French coast in terror against the French navy . And so it has been done by other nations . Let us have a little patience , and possess our souls with a little patriotism and less politics , and we shall have no difficulty .

But there is one circumstance of this war , I am bound to say in all frankness to you , that I do not like the appearance of , and that is because we cannot exactly reach it . I refer to the war made upon our commerce , whieh is not the fault of the navy , nor of any department of the government , but is the fault of our allies . Pardon me a moment , for I am speaking now in the commercial city of New York , where I think it is of interest to you , and of a matter to which I have given some reflection - pardon me a moment , while we ex- amine and see what England has done . She agreed to be neutral - I have tried to demonstrate to you that she ought to have been a little more than neutral - but has she been even that ? [ " No , no , no . " ] Let us see the evidences of that " No. "

In the first place there has been nothing of the Union cause that her orators and her statesmen have not maligned ; there has been nothing of sympathy or encouragement which she has not afforded our enemies ; there has been nothing which she could do under the cover of neutrality which she has not done to aid them . Nassau has been a naval arsenal for pirate rebel boats to refit in . Kingston has been their coal depot , and Barbadoes has been the dancing hall to fête pirate chieftains in .

What cause , my friends ; what cause , my countrymen , has England so to deal with us ? What is the reason she does so deal with us ? Is it because we have never shown sym- pathy toward her or love to her people ? And mark me here , that I make a distinction between the English people as a mass and the English government . I think the heart of her people beats responsive to ours - but I know her government and aristocracy hate us with a hate which passeth all under- standing . I say , let us see if we have given any cause for this . I know , I think , what the cause is ; but let us see what we have done .

You remember that when the famine overtook the Irish in 1847 , the " Macedonian " frigate carried out the bread from this country to feed the poor that England was starv- ing . When afterward the heir to her throne arrived here , aye , in this very house , our people assembled to do him welcome in such numbers that the very floor would not up- hold them , and to testify our appreciation of the high quali- ties of his mother and sovereign , and our love of the English people we gave him such a reception as Northern gentlemen give to their friends , and his present admirers at Richmond gave him such a reception as Southern gentlemen give to their friends . What further has been done by us ? No , I have no right to claim any portion of it . What has been done by the merchants of New York ? The " George Gris- wold " goes out to feed the starving poor of Lancashire , to which yourselves all contributed , and it was only God's bless- ing on that charity that prevented that vessel being over- hauled and burned by the " Alabama , " fitted out from an English port .

And to - day at Birkenhead the " Sumter " is being fitted out - at Barbadoes the captain of the " Florida " is being fêted - and somewhere the " 290 , " the cabalistic number of the British merchants who contributed to her construction , is preying upon our commerce , while we hear that at Glas- gow a steamer is being built for the Emperor of China , and at Liverpool another is about to be launched for the Emperor of China . Pardon me , I don't believe the Emperor of China will buy many ships of Great Britain until they bring back the silk gowns they stole out of his palace at Pekin . And even now , I say that our commerce is being preyed upon by ships in the hands of the rebels built by English builders . And I ask the merchants of the city of New York whether it has not already reached the point where our commerce , to be safe , has to be carried in British bottoms .

Now I learn from the late correspondence of Earl Russell with the rebel commissioner Mason , that the British have put two articles of the treaty of Paris in compact with the rebels : First , that enemies ' goods shall be covered by neutral flags , and there shall be free trade at the ports and open trade with neutrals . Why didn't Great Britain put the other part of the treaty in compact ; namely , that there should be no more privateering , if she was honest and earnest , and did not mean our commerce should be crippled by rebel piracy ?

Again , when we took from her deck our two senators and rebel ambassadors , Slidell and Mason , and took them , in my judgment , according to the laws of nations , what did she do but threaten us with war ? I agree that it was wisely done , perhaps , not to provoke war at that time — we were not quite in a condition for it -- but I thank God , and that always , that we are fast getting in a condition to remember that threat always and every day ! Why is it all this has been done ? Because we alone can be the commercial rivals of Great Britain ! and because the South has no commercial marine .

There has been in my judgment a deliberate attempt on the part of Great Britain , under the plea of neutrality , to allow our commerce to be ruined for her own benefit , if human actions indicate human thoughts . It is idle to tell me Great Britain does not know these vessels are fitted out in her ports . It is idle and insulting to tell me that she put the " Alabama " under $ 20,000 bonds not to go into the service of the Confederate States . The " Jacob Bell " alone would pay the amount of the bond over and over again .

We did not so deal with her when she was at war with Russia . On the suggestion of the British minister our gov- ernment stopped , with the rapidity of lightning , the sailing of a steamer supposed to be for Russia , until the minister himself was convinced of her good faith and willing to let her go . We must take some means to put a stop to these piracies and to the fitting out of pirate vessels in English ports . They are always telling us about the inefficiency of a republican government , but as they are acting now , we could stop two pirates to their one . We must in some way put a stop to the construction and fitting out of these pirate vessels in English ports to prey upon our commerce or else consent to keep our ships idle at home . We must stop them —we must act upon the people of England if we cannot secure a stoppage in any other way .

I have seen it stated that the loss to our commerce already amounts to $ 9,000,000 - enough to have paid the expense of keeping a large number of vessels at home and out of the way of these cruisers .

What shall we do in the matter ? Why , when our govern- ment takes a step toward putting a stop to it ( and I believe it is taking that step now , but it is not in my province to speak of it ) we must aid it in so doing . We , the people , are the government in this matter , and when our government gets ready to take a step we must get ready to sustain it .

England told us what to do when we took Mason and Slidell , and she thought there was a likelihood to be war . She stopped exportation of those articles which she thought we wanted , and which she had allowed to be exported before . Let us do the same thing .

Let us proclaim non - intercourse , so that no ounce of American food shall ever by any accident get into an English- man's mouth until these piracies cease . [ A voice : " Say that again ! " ] I never say anything , my friends , that I am afraid to say again . I repeat - let us proclaim non - intercourse , so that no ounce of American food shall by any accident get into an Englishman's mouth until these piracies are stopped . That we have a right to do ; and when we ever do do it , my word for it , the English government will find out where these vessels are going to , and they will write to the Emperor of China upon the subject . But I hear some objectors say , " If you proclaim non - intercourse England may go to war . "

Now I am not to be frightened twice running . I got frightened a little better than a year ago , but I have gotten over it . Further , this is a necessity ; for we must keep our ships at home in some form to save them from these piracies when a dozen of these privateers get loose upon the seas . It will become a war measure which any nation , under any law , under any construction , would warrant our right to enforce .

And this course should be adopted toward the English nation alone , for I have never heard of any blockade runners under the French flag , nor under the Russian flag , nor under the Austrian flag , nor under the Greek flag . No ! not even the Turks will do it . Therefore I have ventured to suggest the adoption of this course for your consideration as a pos- sible , ―aye , not only possible , but , unless this state of things has a remedy , a probable event ; for we must see to it that we protect ourselves and take a manly place among the nations of the earth . But I hear some friend of mine say , " I am afraid your scheme would bring down our provisions ; and if we do not export them to England we shall find our West- ern markets still more depressed . " Allow me , with great deference to your judgment , gentlemen , to suggest a remedy for that at the same time .

I would suggest that the exportation of gold be prohibited and then there would be nothing to forward to meet the bills of exchange and pay for the goods we have bought , except our provisions . And , taking a hint from one of your best and most successful merchants , we could pay for our silks and satins in butter , and lard , and corn , and beef , and pork , and bring up the prices in the West , so that they could afford to pay the increased tariff in bringing them forward , now ren- dered necessary , I suppose , upon your railroads . And if our fair sisters and daughters will dress in silks , and satins , and laces , they will not feel any more troubled that a portion of the price goes to the Western farmer to enhance his gains instead of going into the coffers of a Jew banker in Wall street.

You will observe , my friends , that in the list of grievances with which I charge England , I have not charged her with tampering with our leading politicians . So far as any evi- dence I have , I don't know that she is guilty ; but what shall we say of our leading politicians that have tampered with her ? I have read of it in the letters of Lord Lyons with much surprise - with more surprise than has been excited in me by any other fact of this war - I had , somehow , got an ink- ling of the various things that came up in previous instances , so I was not very much surprised at them ; but when I so read a statement , deliberately put forward , that here in New York leading politicians had consulted with the British min- ister as to how these United States could be separated and broken up , every drop of blood in my veins boiled ; and I would have liked to have met that leading politician . I do not know that Lord Lyons is to blame . I suppose , sir , if a man comes to one of your clerks and offers to go into partner- ship with him to rob your neighbor's bank , and he reports him to you , you do not blame the clerk ; but what do you do with the man who makes the offer ?

I think we had better take a lesson from the action of Wash- ington's administration - when the French minister , M. Genet , undertook even to address the people of the United States by letter , complaint was made to his government and he was recalled , and a law was passed preventing for all future time any interference by foreign diplomatists with the people of the United States .

I want to be understood , -I have no evidence of any inter- ference on the part of Lord Lyons ; but he says in his letter to Earl Russell that , both before and after a certain event , leading politicians came to him and desired that he would do what- ( I am giving the substance and not words ) -desired that he would request his government not to interfere be- tween the North and South . Why ? Because it would aid the country not to interfere ? No ! Because , if England did interfere the country would spurn the interference and be stronger than ever to crush the rebellion

Mark again the insidious way in which the point was put . They knew how we felt because of the action of England ; they knew that the heart of this people beat true to the con- stitution and that it could not brook any interference on the part of England . What , then , did these politicians do ? They asked the British minister to use the influence of British diplomacy to induce other nations to interfere , but to take care that Great Britain should keep out of sight , lest we should see the cat under the meal . This is precisely the proposition that they made . You observe that in speaking of these men I have up to this moment used the word politicians . What kind of politicians ? They cannot be Democratic poli- ticians .

How I should like to hear Andrew Jackson say a few words upon such politicians who call themselves Democrats ! [ " He would hang them . " ] No , I don't think he would have an opportunity to do so ; he never would be able to catch them . I have felt it my duty here in the city of New York , because of the interest I have in public affairs , to call attention to this most extraordinary fact that there are men in the commu- nity so lost to patriotism , so bound up in the traditions of party , so selfish , as to be willing to tamper with Great Britain in order to bring about the separation of this country.

It is the most alarming fact that I have yet seen . I had rather see a hundred thousand men set in the field on the rebel side - aye , I had rather see Great Britain armed against us openly , as she is covertly - than to be forced to believe that there are amongst us such men as these , lineal descendants of Judas Iscariot , intermarried with the race of Benedict Arnold .

It has shown me a great danger with which we are threat- ened , and I call upon all true men to sustain the government -to be loyal to the government . As you , sir , were pleased to say , the present government was not the government of my choice , I did not vote for it or for any part of it ; but it is the government of my country , it is the only organ by which I can exert the force of the country to protect its integrity ; and so long as I believe that government to be honestly ad- ministered I will throw a mantle over any mistakes that I may think it has made and support it heartily , with hand and purse , so help me God !

I have no loyalty to any man er men ; my loyalty is to the government ; and it makes no difference to me who the people have chosen to administer the government as long as the choice has been constitutionally made and the persons so chosen hold their places and powers . I am a traitor and a false man if I falter in my support . This is what I understand to be loyalty to a government ; and I was sorry to learn , as I did the other day , that there was a man in New York who professed not to know the meaning of the word loyalty . I desire to say here that it is the duty of every man to be loyal to the government , to sustain it , to pardon its errors and help to rectify them , and to do all he can to aid it in carrying the country on in the course of glory and grandeur in which it was started by our fathers .

Let me say to you , my friends - to you , young men , that no man who opposed his country in time of war ever prospered . The Tory of the Revolution , the Hartford Conventionist of 1812 , the immortal seven who voted against the supplies for the Mexican War - all history is against these men . Let no politician of our day put himself in the way of the march of this country to glory and greatness , for whoever does so will surely be crushed . The course of our nation is onward and let him who opposes it beware .

" The mower mows on - though the adder may writhe , Or the copperhead coil round the blade of his scythe . "

It only remains , sir , for me to repeat the expression of my gratitude to you and the citizens of New York here assem- bled for the kindness with which you and they have received me and listened to me , for which please again accept my thanks .