0

February 16, 1863, The Charleston Mercury

The laws of nations can not be really laws, until nations join in enforcing them. As things now are, the strong observe or break them, according to their volition or interest, and the weak are their victims. But the other day, in 1856, the great nations of Europe, in solemn council assembled, determined to settle what these laws should be hereafter on certain disputed points; and yet in 1862, but six years after, they submit to their violation, in every form and manner, by the United States. They determined to put an end to paper blockades. They declare precisely what a blockade shall be:

‘Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective – that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of an enemy.’

Dr. JOHNSON’S definition of a blockade – shut up by obstruction – seems to be realized by these words of the Paris Conference. Yet, either from prejudice towards one of the belligerents, or fear of the other, the great European nations which put forth this declaration have totally disregarded it, in the war between the United and the Confederate States. The British Queen’s Solicitor, Sir ROUNDEL PALMER, in debate in the House of Commons, on 7th March, 1862, undertook to state what a blockade was. He said:

‘A bona fide blockade must be by a force sufficient to maintain it on the spot; and there must be a sufficient notification of some kind or other of that blockade. These are the two principles. Whatever may be found in some writers, not now of recent date, it is perfectly clear that we have no exact technical definition of what constitutes a sufficient force. What, from the beginning of this century, has been laid down as the test in this matter? Why in the first place, that of evident danger; and then, that due credit must be given to the judgment of naval officers entrusted with the execution of the service.’

Here is the marvelous retrocession from the declaration of the Paris Conference.

Sir ROUNDEL PALMER was mistaken when he said that is perfectly clear that we have no exact definition of what constitutes a sufficient force. The object of the declaration of the Paris Conference was to do this very thing – to define exactly what shall be a force to constitute a blockade. It lays down that the force must be – and then, to settle what it meant by an effective force, it adds a definition, as follows: ‘That is to say, it must be maintained by a sufficient force really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.’ It does not say that if one nation at war with another nation, puts war vessels on the coast of its enemy, sufficient to make it dangerous for neutrals to pass them to enter the ports it affects to blockade, that such a blockade is effective. One single war steamer off a coast or port may establish such a blockade. Why does Sir ROUNDEL PALMER go back a half century to crude and uncertain precedents, when he has a recent and authoritative exposition of the law as understood and most carefully settled, with the assent and sanction of the parties concerned in the present case. ‘Evident danger’ may or may not have been the criterion of an effective blockade before the declaration of the Paris Conference; but now, by the declaration of that Conference, with due deference to Sir ROUNDEL PALMER, it appears to us clear that another distinct and unmistakable criterion is established. The blockading force must sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. Inability, not danger; real power to prevent access, not mere threats or pretensions, are made the criterion of sufficient force to establish blockades. If the declaration of the Paris Conference did not do this, it did nothing. It was nothing but an ostentatious folly, of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It is barely possible that the Queen’s Solicitor General might have intended to ignore the declarations of the Paris Conference to which Great Britain was so important a party. Yet he repudiates a contrary doctrine to that which he announces, which be found in some writers not now of recent date. He seems to vindicate the law of nations as it now stands. Are the declarations of the laws of nations, put forth but six years before by all the great European Powers, not of date? Or must we come to the conclusion that, in the opinion of Sir ROUNDEL PALMER, neither the Confederate nor the United States can have any interest in them? This can hardly be; for Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain Proclamation, dated the 13th May, 1861, more than a year previous, clearly recognized the Confederate States as belligerents with the United States, and, therefore, the war between them as a regular war. The Government of the United States, also, by repeated acts, such as exchange of prisoners, have recognized the war as a regular war. The Emperor of the French, in his late proposal of an armistice, speaks of the Confederate States as an existing power. Nor should it be forgotten by the Queen’s Solicitor General that the Confederate States, at the express instance of the British Government, did accept and ratify all the declarations of the Paris Conference, excepting that relative to privateering. As a belligerent power, therefore, in a regular war, and as a solicited party to the terms of the Paris Conference, defining and declaring what shall be the requisites of a legal blockade, the Confederate States have a right to the enforcement, by the great European States, of their plighted faith, and the laws of nations, as they have declared them to be.

We deny that danger is the criterion by which they can be governed with respect to our ports, by the sham blockade of our enemies. They are bound to see that the blockade of our ports is really to prevent access to our coasts, or to break it. Not only the interests of all nations in future times, and their immediate interests with their populations starving and dying – but the honor of every nation in Europe, which was a party to the Paris Conference, requires that the Yankee blockades of our coast should no longer be respected.