Schuyler's American Diplomacy

MR. SCHUYLER was well advised in deciding to give permanent form to the two courses of lectures which he lately delivered at Cornell University and elsewhere.¹ The first series espedaily is full of information, both useful and interesting, for that personage whom it is the fashion, we believe, to call the average citizen, about a branch of our public service concerning which he has very vague notions, not unmixed with grave republican scruples. Even those exceptional citizens, who are sent to Congress to make the laws on which our diplomatic system rests, and to vote the appropriations by which it is supported, can learn some things from a man who served us abroad for a score of years in every part of Europe. For the work furnishes the most complete and the most judicious account of that system which exists in print.

We suspect, however, that the foreigner into whose hands the book may fall will find much of the first part surprising, not to say unintelligible. He will be puzzled to know why Mr. Schuyler should labor so gravely to defend propositions which are axiomatic in the diplomatic philosophy of all other states, and to expose errors which seem to be survivals from barbarism. If a German or a Frenchman were writing a treatise on the subject, he would not think it necessary to argue that an envoy should be a gentleman ; that he should speak the language of the country ; that he should be personally acceptable to the court which is asked to receive him ; that he should not make himself conspicuous and offensive by his costume or conduct. These truths he would treat as self-evident, and in need of no demonstration. Even without other specific support, they could all be deduced from the one general proposition that the best equipped and most agreeable envoy is likely to render the best service to the country which he represents. No European understands this better than Mr. Schuyler. But he also understands the audience which he is addressing and the prejudices which he has to combat, so that he patiently labors to enforce the most elementary lessons of diplomatic common sense as if they were novel and startling discoveries. Nowand then his explanations are relieved by a certain grave humor, and by anecdotes which are both characteristic and felicitous. Let us illustrate by one or two examples.

It pleased Congress, some twenty years ago, to pass an act which in effect declared that our envoys abroad should no longer appear in costume acceptable to their hosts. A captious person might say that this meant that the envoys should cease to conform to the ordinary rules of good breeding. Nothing of the kind. The principle was that the representatives of the American republic should wear in their official capacity only the ordinary garments of the American citizen. It is true that the garments of American citizens vary somewhat according to their rank in our democratic society, and according to their geographical location. The great point apparently was, not to secure a costume characteristic of America, but to reject a costume, or all costumes, which usage and precedent prescribed for the diplomatic agents of other countries. Did not Benjamin Franklin appear at the court of Louis XVI. in the ordinary homespun garments which he brought with him from America, and captivate the brilliant French capital by his homely simplicity ? Here Mr. Schuyler interposes with his realistic facts, and shows the exact significance of the famous incident. Franklin was summoned to an audience immediately after his arrival at Versailles, and was expressly enjoined not to delay for a change of toilet, but to appear as he was. Nothing could have been further from the intentions of Louis, or from the interpretation which the philosopher himself would have put upon the invitation, than the use which has since been made of the incident. But Mr. Schuyler has other facts which still further illustrate the burning question. It appears that the act of Congress forbidding the use of diplomatic costume was passed at the instance of a gentleman who at the time was our envoy at Brussels, and who, fired by a holy zeal for democratic simplicity, took up with enthusiasm the cause of the American toilet. Then he caused himself to be appointed a brigadier-general or majorgeneral in the militia of his native Western State, and in the proper uniform of his rank thenceforth solved the problem for himself. This is one of the many ways in which our envoys avoid the necessity of appearing at foreign courts in the costume of the waiters. For the act is so drawn that while, if broadly interpreted, it might be taken to forbid the wearing of any clothes whatever, it does not, when read strictly, inhibit court dress, which, as Mr. Schuyler points out, is neither an official costume nor a uniform. Where there is no prescribed court dress, envoys of the republic have been known to appear in ordinary black evening dress, with a sword and chapeau bras, — a combination which we refer to the consideration of Herr Teufelsdrbckh.

The aversion to a diplomatic costume is in strange contrast to the belligerent character which the average citizen seems to ascribe to our foreign representatives. On reading the diplomatic articles in the public prints, or hearing the speeches of our more impressionable congressmen, one is forced to believe that we send envoys abroad to make war on behalf of the republic. Not for us the weak theory that a minister should represent the dignity, the culture, the self-restraint, the good breeding, of his country, and should strive by an affable demeanor and correct conduct to make himself, and through himself his government, popular. Such a man is at once suspected as a traitor. What is needed is a representation of militant Americanism ; and to secure this in the highest degree it might seem natural to send out envoys in the most warlike uniform that could be devised, — men with heavy swords, rattling spurs, and ferocious epaulets ; with a stride to awe the courtiers, and a voice to make despots tremble. Instead of that we employ men in mild civilian dress, of which the only peculiarity is that the wearers are more or less likely to be ordered by their fellow-guests at any time to bring a napkin or a finger-bowl. The inconsistency is, however, more apparent than real. The dress of our ambassadors being offensive to their hosts is itself in the nature of a challenge, and thus asserts the superiority of the republic to the servile rules of courtesy and good breeding. The same spirit finds frequent expression in the choice of individuals to fill our diplomatic missions, and according to a certain school of reformers ought always to prevail. Fortunately, too, for this system, it is never difficult to find men who are personally obnoxious to foreign governments. We can or could appoint a Fenian to London, an ultramontane to the Quirinal, a fierce Protestant to Madrid, a denouncer of Austrian tyranny to the court of the Hapsburgs, a sand-lot politician to China, a Prussian revolutionary exile to Berlin. It may happen that our nominees are accepted by foreign statesmen with only an indifferent shrug of the shoulders, or an ironical inquiry about the principles of selection that prevail on this side of the Atlantic, Or, if they are rejected, our secretary of state has an opportunity for a fine outburst of rhetoric, which is sure to split the ears of the groundlings. We can pursue, and at times have pursued, this policy. But Mr. Schuyler, like a stem iconoclast, gives a rude shock to this precious tradition by showing that it not only dies in the face of courtesy and good sense, but that it is distinctly unwise from a selfish point of view, and prejudicial alike to the reputation and the real interests of the republic.

The same objection applies to a practice which seems at first view to have much in its favor. We refer to the practice — for it can perhaps be called such — of sending to foreign countries, as our diplomatic and especially our consular representatives, natives of those countries, who have become naturalized American citizens. The primct facie reason for such a custom is that it insures us officials who are familiar with the language, the institutions, the usages, and the society of the country, and are on that account likely to render the more efficient service. But Mr. Schuyler shows that this is a delusion. lie gives several excellent reasons against the practice, and we may add one general consideration which seems conclusive. We ought not to send naturalized citizens as ministers or consuls to the countries of their birth, because they are not welcome in such capacities. This alone impairs their usefulness, and on any true system ought to make their selection impossible. If they are political refugees, their appointment is in the nature of an insult; and, even when not, their presence among their former countrymen, with their acquired American citizenship, excites reflections and comparisons which cause annoyances and many disagreeable frictions. And it ought not to be true that only our German compatriots understand the language and the institutions of the Fatherland, that Gauls alone are proper to send to Gaul, or that the only men fit to negotiate at Home are Italian counts from Union Square.

The state department, under the different secretaries, has been largely responsible for the evils of which we have spoken. Favoritism, partisanship, ignorance of diplomatic usage, and indifference to international courtesy have been often and arrogantly displayed by it, and upon it must rest the blame for the extraordinary folly which has too frequently marked the selection of envoys. What choice specimens of Southern chivalry used to represent us abroad in the palmy days of slavery! What an interesting study in human nature is afforded by the case of the gentleman who, becoming secretary of state on the

accession of his friend to the presidency, changed, according to Mr. Schuyler, nearly the entire personnel of the service during his tenure of six days, and then retired to accept one of the leading legations ! The history of the department is full of scandals, though fortunately of few so gross as this.

Yet the state department is not the worst offender. The secretaries have long had to administer it under the spoils system, and, like their colleagues in the cabinet, they have a right to insist on a division of the blame with Senators and members of Congress. And there is one class of evils for which the legislature is primarily and mainly responsible. One is the neglect to establish the rank of ambassador, which is no longer, if it ever was, an exclusively monarchical institution, and which would put our country on a level with the other great powers of the world. Another is the refusal to equip the legations properly, and to remunerate the ministers so liberally that men without fortunes could accept appointments and live within their salaries. Mr. Schuyler is not ignorant of the current sophisms by which demagogues defend and many honest men excuse the policy of keeping our envoys on a plane with those of Belgium and Switzerland, and of compelling those who are not millionaires to be content with establishments out of all relation to the wealth, pride, and dignity of the republic. But his arguments for a more liberal system, though they may not change the opinion of demagogues, will, we believe, prove irresistibly convincing to all thoughtful persons who earnestly consider them. We might say a word, finally, about the frequent and capricious changes in the rank and pay of the legations ; the creation of posts for party favorites, and the abolition of posts which happen to have no patronage ; and especially the heartless system of legislating men out of office by refusing to appropriate their salaries. The latter practice is perhaps frequent enough to be called a system. We believe Mr. Schuyler was himself a victim of it; and though he puts forward no personal grievance, there is a touch of just indignation in his reference to faithful envoys or consuls who, thousands of miles away from home, learn from the newspapers that their salaries ceased mouths before. No secretary of state would venture to commit such an injustice. But a member of Congress can propose it in the interest of “ economy,” and when the House ratifies the proposal the point of responsibility is lost among three hundred persons.

Mr. Schuyler’s work is divided, as the title indicates, into two parts. The first consists of three lectures or chapters, — one on the department of state, one on the consular system, and one on diplomatic oilicials. Together they form a complete treatise on what, in the language of physics, may be called the statics of our foreign service. These are then appropriately followed by the dynamics of the subject, or the institution in action in many grave controversies and many acute crises of history. This second part includes chapters on the piratical Barbary powers, the right of search and the slave-trade, the free navigation of rivers, neutral rights, the fisheries, and commercial treaties. Our relation to some of the most important of international questions is thus discussed.

It is no reproach to Mr. Schuyler to say that in our judgment these chapters are less successful and less useful than those in the first part. The first series is full of important practical information ; and being also critical in treatment, it invites further discussion, and points out the way to useful reforms. But the topics embraced in the second part are each vast enough for a volume. In the small space which was at the author’s command it was impossible to give more than a hurried sketch, a limitation which nobody probably feels more keenly than he. This fact has not. however, lessened his sense of responsibility, or been made an excuse for negligence, since the pages give evidnece of laborious research, often among authorities little used and scarcely known. Yet Mr. Schuyler keeps his own person modestly, perhaps too modestly, in the background. He gives succinct, dispassionate, and strictly historical accounts of the conduct of American diplomacy, and withholds his own opinion even at times when it would be welcome and valuable.

It will nevertheless be a relief for the reader to turn from our diplomatic machine to a contemplation of what that machine, in spite of its defects, has accomplished in the cause of international progress. This will afford him almost unmixed satisfaction. With singular uniformity, under all administrations and at all periods of our national history, we have been on the side of freedom as against restriction, of humanity as against cruelty, of equality as against privilege, of progress as against reaction, of light as against darkness, in nearly all the discussions and quarrels which have agitated the diplomacies of the world. We were the first to resist successfully the English claim to search the vessels of other powers in time of peace. We were the pioneers in asserting the free navigation of international rivers. We were the first to resist, and, so far as our own ships and citizens were concerned, to put an end to, the outrages of the Barbary pirates. Our influence has supported the rights of neutral commerce in time of war, and even the principle of the immunity from capture of private property of belligerents on the ocean. This is certainly a flattering record, and it is scarcely marred by our refusal to accede to the Declaration of Paris in 1856. To accept the four rules as they were seemed at the time suicidal, while we showed our good faith by proposing an amendment which, carrying the reform still further forward, made it possible for us, on that condition, to give in our adhesion. The selfishness of England alone defeated this humane proposition. Nor does it seem necessary to adopt Dr. Woolsey’s magnanimous theory, that our good record is due principally to the accident of our remoteness from the scene of European disputes, That has undoubtedly had a conservative influence, favorable to a pacific and unaggressive policy. But we think it may justly be claimed that the public sentiment of the country has in the main taken a liberal and elevated view of the principles which should regulate the relations of states, alike in war and in peace. This public sentiment our statesmen, too, have fairly represented. At times they have even trained, encouraged, and led it. Our diplomacy has often been unnecessarily brusque and peremptory in tone, and it has been served by awkward instruments. But in spirit it has been sound, healthy, and honorable.

The author’s literary style calls for no special comment. The reader will fiud the work written without any attempt at rhetorical elegance, but rather in the easy, unaffected language of a man of the world, thoroughly familiar with his subject. Once or twice, indeed, a careless statement or an obscure sentence appears. Thus a slip of the pen makes Mr. Schuyler say (page 234) that “at the formation of the Constitution in 1787 an article was inserted prohibiting entirely the importation of slaves after January 1, 1808.” And we are not quite sure that the lay reader will catch the sense of the passage where the author, after describing the impatience of the Russian government at the interference of belligerent vessels, in 1778, with commerce to the port of Archangel, says, “ If they ” (the ships engaged in this trade) “ were taken, the goods might wait for a whole year for a foreign purchaser; but once the goods having been bought and dispatched to a foreign port, it made no difference to Russia whether the English or the Americans profited by them.” It is possible, also, that an English critic might have some reply to Mr. Schuyler’s discussion of the legislation and negotiations for the suppression of slavery and the slave-trade. But we have observed few errors which slight changes would not correct.