[Footnote 973:  It is interesting that the opinion of many Continental writers on international law was immediately expressed in favour of the American and against the British contention.  This was especially true of German opinion. (Lutz, Notes.)]

[Footnote 974:  Lyons Papers.  To Lyons, Dec. 20, 1862.]

[Footnote 975:  I am aware that Seward’s use of the “Privateering Bill,” now to be recounted is largely a new interpretation of the play of diplomacy in regard to the question of Southern ship-building in England.  Its significance became evident only when British correspondence was available; but that correspondence and a careful comparison of dates permits, and, as I think, requires a revised statement of the incident of the Laird Rams.]

[Footnote 976:  Bullock dreamed also of ascending rivers and laying Northern cities under contribution.  According to a statement made in 1898 by Captain Page, assigned to command the rams, no instructions as to their use had been given him by the Confederate Government, but his plans were solely to break the blockade with no thought of attacking Northern cities. (Rhodes, IV. 385, note.)]

[Footnote 977:  U.S.  Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, p. 134.]

[Footnote 978:  Wallbridge, Addresses and Resolutions.  Pamphlet.  New York, n.d.  He began his agitation in 1856, and now received much popular applause.  His pamphlet quotes in support many newspapers from June, 1862, to September, 1863.  Wallbridge apparently thought himself better qualified than Welles to be Secretary of the Navy.  Welles regarded his agitation as instigated by Seward to get Welles out of the Cabinet.  Welles professes that the “Privateering Bill” slipped through Congress unknown to him and “surreptitiously” (Diary, I, 245-50), a statement difficult to accept in view of the Senate debates upon it.]

[Footnote 979:  Cong.  Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Pt.  IV, pp. 3271, 3325 and 3336.]

[Footnote 980:  Ibid., 3rd Session, Pt.  I, pp. 220, 393, and Part II, pp. 960, 1028, 1489.]

[Footnote 981:  Brooks Adams, “The Seizure of the Laird Rams.” (Mass.  Hist.  Soc. Proceedings, Vol.  XLV, pp. 265-6.)]

[Footnote 982:  U.S.  Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, Pt.  I, p. 116, Feb. 19, 1863.]

[Footnote 983:  F.O., Am., Vol. 878, No. 180.  Lyons to Russell.]

[Footnote 984:  Ibid., Vol. 879, No. 227.  Lyons to Russell, March 10, 1863.]

[Footnote 985:  Ibid., No. 235.  Lyons to Russell, March 13, 1863.  Privately Lyons also emphasized American anger. (Russell Papers.  To Russell, March 24, 1863.)]

[Footnote 986:  U.S.  Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, Pt.  I, p. 141.  Seward to Adams, March 9, 1863.]

[Footnote 987:  F.O., Am., Vol. 869, No. 147.  Russell to Lyons, March 24, 1863.]

[Footnote 988:  Ibid., Vol. 869, No. 155.  Russell to Lyons, March 27, 1863.]