Mr. Sanford to Mr. Seward, May 26, 1861

Mr. Sanford to Mr.
Seward.

Sir: I had a conversation to-day with M. de
Vrière on the subject of the efforts of the commissioners of the
so-called “Confederate States” to obtain recognition of the European
powers.

He informed me that no application had been made to him in this view, nor
would it now be entertained if made. The revolution would receive no sanction by any act of Belgium.
A small State, he continued, whose prosperity depended on the full
exercise of the industrial pursuits of its people, they did not mingle
in foreign politics, their policy being not to imperil their interests
by stepping beyond the limits of strict neutrality in their intercourse
with other States. They should, therefore, remain “neutral,” as he
expressed it, in respect to this question. They had not even yet
recognized the Italian government, he added. We desired, I told him, not
to be subjected to any interference in the settlement of our domestic
affairs, whether in the form of recognition of political existence or of
belligerent rights of those who were in open rebellion to the government
and laws of the United States. It was an issue between order and anarchy
which we were fully able to cope with, and all Europe was interested
that its settlement be in the most prompt and effective manner, as least
liable to cause permanent derangement to commerce.

In reply to my inquiry, he said he had received no official information
of the blockade of our southern ports, proclaimed by the President,
although he had late advices from the Belgian minister at Washington. He
had only knowledge of it, he said, as printed in the papers. In answer
to his inquiry, I said I thought it would not injuriously affect the
supply of cotton, as the crop of the past year had mostly gone forward;
and, moreover, that while the blockade would be rigorously enforced with
regard to supplies, or vessels bearing the “confederate” flag, I
presumed, although I had no instructions on the subject, that the
vessels now loading, or under engagements to load in those ports, would
be allowed reasonable time to leave; that there was every desire to make
this condition of things, which was but temporary, as little
embarrassing as possible to foreign commerce. The minister expressed
great satisfaction at this, and said that the possibility of failure of
the cotton supply, growing out of these troubles in our southern States,
was causing great anxiety.

M. de Vrière then spoke of the new tariff with a great deal of feeling;
said that it was highly prejudicial to their interests, instancing in
point that forty furnaces for the manufacture of window glass had been
stopped inconsequence, and expressed his surprise that, in this age of
progress, when Europe was abandoning the exploded system, as he
expressed himself, of differential duties, the United States should
pursue such a course. Their own experience as a manufacturing people had
convinced them of the bad policy of such a system for the interests of
the manufacturers themselves. I replied that I presumed the general
interruptions of trade consequent upon apprehended war in the United
States was, quite as much as the new tariff, a cause for suspension of
the traffic he referred to. The tariff had been augmented by the last
Congress to produce more revenue; if it failed to produce such result,
it would probably be changed; it was a matter dependent on the will of
Congress, and he was aware we had had several changes in the past few
years, none of which had apparently given satisfaction to the
manufacturing States of Europe which desired to supply our markets;
still, it was our main source of revenue, and the system of raising
means for the expenses of the government by a duty on importations would
probably long continue.

* * * * * * * * * *

I took my leave of M. de Vrière with the repeated assurance that no
countenance would be given, in any form, to the rebellion in our
southern States.

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