As well declare “neutrality” between Right and Wrong, between Good and Evil, with concession to Evil of belligerent rights, and then set up the apology of “necessity.

With indefensible exaggeration, it was changed by the British nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli,--as if an unauthorized incident, obviously involving no question of self-defence, could justify war between two…

And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a stone blockade in a war to put down Rebel Slavery.

It was bad enough to declare neutrality, when the question was between a friendly power and an insulting barbarism; but it is worse, after the declaration, to depart from it, if in words only.

Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost when you begin to talk about it.

But they are more specious than true, revealing nothing but the side espoused by the orators.

Clearly, on our side it is a contest for national life, involving the liberty of a race.

It is said that Rebel slave-masters should have their “rights under the Constitution.” To this plausible language is added that other phrase, “the Constitution as it is.” All this means Slavery, and nothing else.

Clearly, on the other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for this hateful crime new recognition and power; and it began in rebellion against the solemn judgment of the American people, declaring, in the election of…

Their independence is but the unrestrained power to whip and sell women and children.

For Slavery men resort to this odious duplicity.

But any compromise recognizing Slavery in the Rebel States is impossible, even if you are disposed to accept it.

That such a rebellion should be elevated by the unneutral “words” of a foreign Cabinet into respectability which it deserves so little is only another sign we have to watch.

It is apparent that their utterance, though made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, was founded less on special information from the seat of war--disclosing its secret--than on political theory, if not prejudice.

Slavery, by the very act of rebellion, ceased to exist, legally or constitutionally.

The difference becomes a contrast, so that whatever was once generously said in favor of American Independence now tells with unmistakable force against this new-fangled pretension.

Men change, but principles are the same now as then.

Nor do I stop to consider how far such prophecies uttered in public places by British ministers are consistent with that British “neutrality” so constantly boasted.

Opinions are allies more potent than subsidies, especially in an age like the present.

Of course no royal proclamation can change wrong into right, or make such business otherwise than immoral; but the proclamation may take from it the character of felony.

Even the royal manifesto gives no sanction to the fitting out in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of the United States.

As England is not at war with the United States, these ships can be nothing else than pirates; and their conduct is that of pirates.

I wish there were not too much reason to believe that all these performances are sustained by prevailing British sympathy.

And yet, for the honor of England be it known, there are Englishmen who stand firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.