War had hardly begun, when, in 1793, the port of Genoa was the scene of an incident differing from that in Bahia only in its very aggravating circumstances, and in the bloodshed that ensued.
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
gutenberg.org
This act was a violation of the Law of Nations doubly noticeable, as the immunity of our coast “within cannon-shot” had been expressly recognized in the Treaty of 1794 between Great Britain and the United States.
The outrage upon the frigate Chesapeake properly belongs to this list, for it was a barefaced and most insulting violation of territorial jurisdiction.
The newspapers of the time assert that “an Admiralty order was issued, commanding the officers of British ships in the South Seas not to respect any port as neutral where the Essex should be found.” It is certain that the British commander…
The President’s message at the opening of the next Congress, while commending the gallantry of Captain Porter, does not even allude to the violation of International Law in his capture.
I refer to the case of the steamboat Caroline, which, while moored to the American shore, was entered in the darkness of night by a British expedition from Canada, set on fire, and pushed into the rapids to be precipitated over the…
For this unquestionable violation of our territory there was no offer of reparation,--“no acknowledgment, no explanation, no apology,” as Mr.
The latest instance, in point of time, worth while to name in this list, is that of the Brazilian ship Santa Cruz, which, in 1850, was seized and burned, with all her lading and papers, by a British cruiser in the Brazilian waters.
The excuse for the seizure was that the ship was engaged in the slave-trade, and for the burning that she was unseaworthy; but both these assertions were denied point-blank by the Brazilian Government, which branded the transaction as…
In face of this long array, it is difficult to see how British critics or British ministers can venture to reproach us.
He might have burned the Florida or scuttled her at once, and his offence would have been no greater than now, while, according to the precedents, his Government would have been relieved from embarrassment.
The Florida was illegitimate and piratical in origin and conduct, being little more than a lawless gypsy of the sea,--born contrary to the Law of Nations, and living in constant defiance of that law.
The Florida pretended to belong to a Rebel combination of slave-masters, now engaged in rebellion for the sake of Slavery.
The case of Koszta, forcibly taken by an American frigate from an Austrian ship-of-war in the territorial waters of Turkey, shows how the conduct of governments is sometimes inconsistent with strict law.
It is well understood that the seizure of the Florida was wrong only with respect to Brazil, and not with respect to the Rebel enemy.
Even admitting that the capture was null by the Law of Nations, yet the nature of the reparation to be demanded rests absolutely in the discretion of Brazil, and in this age no power can be justified in any exercise of discretion adverse…
Our Government has distinctly recognized the inviolability of territorial sovereignty, and made reparation for the original act of violence, so much discussed.
Seward has been careful to exclude the assumption that the Rebels have belligerent rights on the ocean, and also the other assumption that the Florida was anything but a pirate.
My object at that time was to furnish materials for final judgment, and especially to repel British objurgations which befogged the whole question.
It was important that our national conduct should be determined calmly, according to the best principles, and with perfect knowledge of the past.
There are precedents to be shunned as well as to be followed, and both should be studied.
And another authority, which will not be questioned, expressly enjoins on the censor to extract the beam from his own eye before he complains of the mote in the eye of another.
But this was a very hasty suggestion, forgetting the piratical origin of the vessel, and forgetting the piratical slavemonger character of its pretended owners, having no ocean rights.
Admitting the inviolability of neutral waters, it does not follow that such a vessel could be claimed, or, if Brazil were so ill-advised as to make such a claim, that our Government could hearken to it.
It was because I saw this clearly that I sought to set up a breakwater against such claim, and to prepare public opinion on the subject.
Politicians like Charles Sumner
