This has been the cry all
through the war. "We should have conquered the South," says an American
paper which I read this very day, "but for England." Was there ever such
puling heard from men who have an army of a million, and who turn and
revile a people who have stood as aloof from their contest as we have
from the war of Troy? Or is it an outcry made with malice prepense? And
is the song of the New York Times a variation of the Herald tune?--"The
conduct of the British in folding their arms and taking no part in the
fight, has been so base that it has caused the prolongation of the war,
and occasioned a prodigious expense on our part. Therefore, as we have
British property in our hands, we &c. &c." The lamb troubled the water
dreadfully, and the wolf, in a righteous indignation, "confiscated" him.
Of course we have heard that at an undisturbed time Great Britain would
never have dared to press its claim for redress. Did the United States
wait until we were at peace with France before they went to war with
us last? Did Mr. Seward yield the claim which he confesses to be just,
until he himself was menaced with war? How long were the Southern
gentlemen kept in prison? What caused them to be set free? and did
the Cabinet of Washington see its error before or after the demand for
redress?* The captor was feasted at Boston, and the captives in prison
hard by.
Pages:
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337