But what injury was _that_ to England,
compared to the seizure of Mexico by France?
England had not for two hundred years made it the chief object of her
foreign policy to resist the expansion of the Russian empire. She had
acquiesced in the partition of Poland, and by the Treaty of Vienna made
herself a party to that nefarious spoliation by Russia, Austria, and
Prussia. She knew that Austria, Prussia, and the German Confederation
were pledged to protect Turkey from Russia.[7] Her subserviency to
France in separately with her making war on Russia, upon the pretence of
the protection of Turkey, was supererogatory as well as needless.
The truth is, and so will history make up the record, the French emperor
desired to humiliate England, and England dare not refuse to be
humiliated by him. It was a 'GREAT SURRENDER.'[8]
It will not do for England to excuse herself for not resisting the
French invasion of Mexico by any such allegation as that she has
received Napoleon's assurances that he does not intend to make a French
province of Mexico. She must know, that no confidence can be placed in
his veracity. She must know, that such assurances are but a flimsy veil
to deceive her and other nations. They are designed to meet the
contingency--of Federal success in crushing rebellion.
He has been willing to be fooled by those who surround him, into the
belief that the rebels will achieve their independence.
Pages:
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135