John Slidell to Judah P. Benjamin, December 1, 1864

Mr. Slidell to Mr. Benjamin

Sir. Since I last had the honor of addressing you, your missing despatch, No. 42, of 20th September, has come safely to hand. You will have seen by my recent despatches that my views of the course of the government are almost identical with your own, and that I have been so fortunate as to have adopted in advance the line of conduct which you have pointed out to me. There is one point, however, in regard to which it is proper that I should remove false impressions, viz: that of this government “having refused permission to finiscine ves sels for delivery to us, after the restoration of peace, and actually forced the builders to sell them to third parties.” I do not think that there would have been any difficulty about finishing the vessels for delivery to us after the restoration of peace; I am sure that the builders were never forced to sell them to third parties; and that no pressure for that object was ever exercised towards them by the government, The builder of the Bordeaux ships did, as lam informed, make assertions to that’ effect, but I am fully convinced that they were pure fictions, gotten up to subserve his own views, he being deeply interested in finding purchasers to whom the ships could be delivered and their entire price paid; while, under his contract with Cap-tain Bullock, full payment was only to be made when the actual delivery of the ships should have been made to him, and such delivery would not have been permitted. I am happy to say that the conduct of Mr. Vorhees, the builder of the corvettes at Nantes, is in strong contrast with that of Mr. Armand.

In my last despatch I referred to the complaints of Mr. T. S. Bigbee, agent of the Albion Trading Company, of the refusal to deliver cotton in exchange for certificates, in compliance with the stipulations of the contract made with Mr. McRae and myself. I have since received from Messrs. Schroeder & Co., agents in London of the seven pei cent cotton loan, a letter on that subject of which I send you a copy. I suggest the propriety of transmitting it either to the secretary of the treasury, or to the secretary of war, as I am in doubt to which of these departments the subject more appropriately belongs.

Lord Cowley, for some reason or other, did not avail himself of his invitation to Compiegne, of which I spoke in my last despatch, and only returned from London a few days since; but during his absence Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys did not neglect to call, as he had promised, the attention of the British government. to the subject of your No. 43, as will appear by the following extract from a letter from my friend at the Foreign Office:

“M. Drouyn de Lhuys, a ecrit a notre ambassadeur à Londres, au sujet de la proposition de votre gouvernement relative aux marchandises, neutres, à vere des bâtiments ennemis et pour connaitre I’ opinion du cabinet Anglais a cet égard. Il en a également entretenu les ministres de la marine et des commerce, en exprimant l’avis que la preposition seraib fût acceptable. Il attend une réponse dont je d’omettrai pas de le prier de rue faire part.”

I expect soon to hear the result of this overture to the British government.

I have received the answer of the Holy See to the joint note of 11th November; I annex copy of Cardinal Antonelli’s letter, with a translation. As I feel it less decided in its tone than the letter of 3d December last of his Holiness to the President, I do not think it expedient to publish it, and have so said to Messrs. Mason and Mann. Should they, however, entertain a different opinion, I will cheerfully yield to it. I send you an interesting account from Mr. Soutter of his presentation to the Pope.

Our joint note was not of a nature to call for a reply from the government to which it was addressed, nor did I expect any—less, indeed, from Great Britain than from any other power. The letter of Earl Russell, on which I had not time to comment in my No. 75, has for me a greater significance on that account, as his lordship voluntarily went out of his way to say the most disagreeable things possible to the northern government; his reference to the treaty of ‘83 will, I think, be especially distasteful to them, placed in connexion with his twice-re-peated recognition of the separate existence of the north and south—as never merged in a single nationality. I should be much surprised if this letter does not Call forth a universal howl against his lordship from the northern press.

I learn from Mr. Carvalho de Moreira that the Brazilian diplomatic agents in Europe have received no instructions to invoke the good offices of the neutral powers in the case of the’ Florida, but he informs me that he has seen the instructions given to the minister at Wash-ington. He is to demand an amplo apology; the delivery of the Florida, in good order, with her officers, crew, and armament, at Bahia; and the exemplary punishment of the commander of the Wachusett.

The return of the Florida being rendered impossible by the scurvy trick of sinking her in port as if by accident, I presume that the Brazilian government will demand that she be replaced by another Vessel of a similar character and armament. Mr. C, de Moreira says that the Emperor of Brazil is incensed to the highest degree by the outrage, and, being a man of great firmness, will not be satisfied with anything short of the most ample reparation.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient servant,