Some have contended that the British procla mation of neutrality of 13 May 1861 was a premature recognition of the Confederate States and that by selling munitions of war and other merchandise to the South and buying her cotton Great Britain was aiding rebellious citizens against the parent government, and, in fact, filibustering. They have compared the protest of the United States against the recog nition of Confederate belligerency and the ship ment of arms to her by Great Britain with Germany's protest against shipments of muni tions to the Allies from the United States in the war of 1914. The fact often overlooked, in the ca.se of the Civil War, is that England, France, The Netherlands and other nations, by their proclamations of neutrality, recognized the belligerency of the Confederacy; this did not mean that these powers recognized the Con federate States as an independent, sovereign goverrunent but merely that these foreign states considered the conditions to warrant the con ferring of belligerent rights so that both sec tions would be treated allice and impartially. In his dispatch of 6 May 1861 to Lord Crowley, Lord John Russell states athat Her Majesty s Government cannot hesitate to admit that such confederacy is entitled to be considered as a belligerent, and, as such, invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a belligerent.° .( 'The Casc of the United States before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva,) Senate Ex. Doc. 31, 42d Congress, 2d session, pp. 24-27). If a civil war affect the relations of the community with foreign countries, if such countries find a new government de facto applying belligerent rights on the seas, if the rules of blockade, contra band and search hamper their commerce, and if they be called upon to decide whether ships carrying a new flag may enter their ports, then such countries are warranted by international law and a due regard for the commorcial inter ests of their subjects in recognizing the bellig erency of the insurgent and declaring their town. neutrality. Hence, England's course in ac knowledging the belligerent rights of the Con federacy was justifiable. (Dana, R. H., ed., Wheaton's 'Elements of International Law,' § 23, Boston 1866; Woolsey, T. D., 'Inter national Law,' § 180, New York 1875). The British believed their commerce needed pro tection on the high seas and that by issuing a proclamation of neutrality they would not only bring the management of the conflict within the rules of civilized warfare but would pre vent inroads on their commerce by pirates, since, in the eyes of the world, the neutrality proclamations placed all vessels that accepted letters of marque from the Confederacy on the level of privateers instead of considering them pirates and their crews amenable. for piracy, as Lincoln's proclamation of 19 April had declared them to be. ' (See PRIVATEERS; PIRACY). On 15 May 1861 the London Times said: " Being no longer able to deny the existence of a dreadful civil war, we are compelled to take official notice of it. — . Our foreign relations are too extensive. the stake we hold in the commerce of the world is too vast, and, we may add, our attitude is a matter of too much importance for us to allow ourselves the gratification of saying ' Peace, when there is no peace,' so krgely indulged m up to the very latest moment by the stateemen of America herself. Yee, there is war, . . . Eteocles and Polynices are con fronting each other with hostile weapons. and England, like the venerable queen of Thebes, stands by to behold the unnatural combat of her children. Ptom aclmowkdging the state of war. the next step is to acknowledging the belligerent rights of the contending parties. . . As belligerents they are as equal in our eyes as Trojan or Tyrian was in the eyes of Queen Dido. We are bound equally to respect their blockades and equally to abstain from any act which may violate the conditions of the most impartial and un discriminating neutrality." (Consult also Earl Russell's letter to Adams, 30 Aug.. 1865; Bernard, Montague, ' An Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britiun during the American Civil War.' p. 162 d seq.. London 1870).
The conferring of belligerent rights gave the Confederacy the powerful moral support which, insurgent movements gain from international recognition, and among these rights were respect for the lives and property of non combatants, the regarding of captives as prisoners of war, the privilege of negotiating foreign loans, the recognition of its flag, and the right to purchase arms and am munition in the open market. Hence foreign
countries could sell munitions of war to both sides without fear of violating neutrality, and the Northern government had no more justifi cation than Germany in protesting. But when. these nations conferred belligerent rights upon the Confederacy they could not hold the Northern government liable for injuries in flicted on their subjects by the Confederates in the territory occupied by the latter, whereas Turkey, not having issued a proclamation of neutrality, was able to claim indemnity for losses sustained at the hands of rebellious sub jects of the United States. Some state that the European nations were unduly hasty in placing the Confederate States on an equality with the Union as to belligerent rights, as is witnessed by the speeches of John Bright and other prominent men, since such action seemed to presage the recognition of their independ ence at an opportune moment. (Consult Curtis, G. W., ed., (Correspondence of J. L. Motley,' Vol. I, p. 380; Rogers' ed. of (John Bright's Speeches,' Vol. I, p. 132; Woolsey, T. D., in The New Englander, July 1869, p. 579). Seward wrote to Adams: " The proclamation of neutrality was a concession of belligerent rights to the insurgents and was deemed by this government as unnecessary and in effect as unfriendly. . . . The United States stand upon what they think impregnable ground when they refuse to be derogated. by an act of the British government, from their position as a sovereign nation in amity with Great Britain and placed upon a footing of equality with domestic insurgents who have risen up in resistance against their authority." (' Diplomatic Correspondence,' 1863, Pt. I. p. 393).
John Jay said also: °The Proclamation . . . in a moral view lowered the American Gov ernment to the level of the rebel Confederacy, and in the next place, it proceeded, in an inter national view, to place the rebel Confederacy on a par with the American Government.* ((The Great Conspiracy: Address at Mount Kisco,' 4 July 1861). Seward claimed that war did not exist in an international sense and that foreign powers should not take cognizance of the in surgents in territory over which the United States had not relinquished its sovereignty. He claimed for the North the rights of a belligerent to blockade and search which im plied a legal war but denied the existence of a war, in which case there could not be a body of neutrals. But Seward's opinion was not binding on European nations then any more than Germany's wishes in 1914 could be con strued into law for the United States to fol low. Moreover, at its December term of 1862, the Supreme Court decided that Lincoln's blockade proclamation of 19 April 1861 (Con sult Richardson, J. D., 'Messages and Papers of the Presidents,' Vol. VI, p. 14) was in itself °official and conclusive evidence to the court that a state of war existed." (Consult also Snow, Freeman, and Opinions on In ternational Law,' pp. xvi, 254, Boston 1893). Judge Chase also stated from the bench that ethe rights and obligations of a belligerent were conceded to it [the Confederacy] in its military character very soon after the war began from motives of humanity and expediency by the United States.* (Wallace, Court Reports,) 1868, p. 10). Hence, when Adams complained, to Lord Russell of the dispatch of °numbers of steam vessels laden with arms, and munitions of war of every description, together with other supplies, well adapted to procrastinate the struggle with a purpose of breaking a blockade legitimately established and fully recognized by her majesty* ((Diplomatic Correspondence,' 1863, Pt. 1, p. 314), Lord Russell was fully justified in replying as fol lows: / With regard to the general duties of a neutral, according to international law, the true doctrine has been laid down repeatedly by presidents and judges of eminence of the United States, and that doctrine is that a neutral may sell to either or both of two belligerent parties, any implements or munitions of war which such belligerent may wish to purchase from the subjects of the neutral. . . . Admitting also, that which is believed to be a fact, that the Confederates have derived a limited supply of arms and ammunition from the United Kingdom notwithstanding the Federal blockade of their ports; yet, on the other hand. it is perfectly notorious that the Federal government have purchased in and obtained from the United Eingdom a far quantity of arms and warlike stores.' (' ihllfcnalie 1863. Pt. 1, p. 373).