Why did Britain stay out of the American Civil War?

[EnglishCanuck]

The fact that the meeting was addressed and organised by prominent people isn't the point, it was the audience and the result that mattered, as Lincoln knew.

No, he didn't. It also matters who put them up to this meeting and voted on it, which is here pointed out, as middle class men who organized the meeting and were already Union supporters.

Not exactly a spontaneous declaration of the people. Much like the meetings organized by Confederate supporting meetings just happened to include people who were already Southern supporters who then had these votes on breaking the blockade.

A drawn-out war with the Union would have had to involve conscription, even for the first time.

You're kidding right? That's just absurd.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sadly, no...

Well that would be nice save for Radical Republicans in Congress decrying the Lincoln administration for not doing enough towards emancipation in these early years (a sentiment shared by British abolitionists) and the fact that the Lincoln administration had explicitly dismissed a noted abolitionist general (John C. Fremont) for making an emancipation proclamation of his own. Nor were they interfering at all with the rights of loyal slave owners.

And as you could well note from robcraufurd's posted quotes, that men like Gladstone and Russell certainly are aware of slavery, (and these men are not idiots or anything but thoughtful observers) and discussed it, but with all these attendant facts you mention, do not arrive at the conclusion that the North is fighting to end slavery versus contain it.

Sadly, no...

The reality of the election of a free-soil president, from a free-soil party, and with a majority free-soil legislature (both houses in the 37th Congress), dedicated (obviously) to suppressing the rebellion, the admission of Kansas as a free state and the organization of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota as free soil territories, presumably should have clued even the most obtuse Englishman there was something happening here...


If not, than the passage of the First Confiscation Act in August, 1861, authorizing US officers to seize any slaves employed by the rebels, probably should have clued them in....the fourth section of the statute read:

“That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.”

Although the First Confiscation Act was not an explicit freedom statute, by neither attempting to define the legal status of the “forfeited” slaves, nor by fully addressing the concerns of the so-called contrabands, it nonetheless had the effect of increasing the spread of freedom almost immediately because of instructions from Secretary of War Simon Cameron (August 8, 1861) that directed army officers to receive and protect fugitives from both disloyal and loyal masters...

The much-balleyhooed relief of Fremont - which, as Lincoln pointed out to Lyman Trumbull, the author of the 1st CA and a radical's radical (who, nonetheless, was so close to Lincoln that he went with him to the cemetery to bury Willie in February, 1862) - came all of three months AFTER the 1st Confiscation Act had been passed, was in the same period (before Mill Springs) that Kentucky was in the balance, and came after the defeat at Wilson's Creek and the death of Nathaniel Lyon, and all that Lincoln originally asked of Fremont was to bring his orders into allignment with the First CA ... the Fremonts (Jessie or John C., take your pick) were trying to avoid John C.'s being relieved of command because of his poor leadership in Missouri. It's really not difficult to suss this out, especially given that even with the reversal of Fremont's martial law orders, Halleck and Curtis et al were able to force the rebels out of the state in 1861-62 and, in fact, defeated them utterly in northwest Arkansas at Pea Ridge in March.

The 2nd CA explicitly included slaves in "loyal" territory, and the "forever free" language that ended up in the "last card" Emancipation Proclamation.

So, um, no, actually.

The British knew what was happening, before their very eyes (as witness Benjamin Butler's orders regarding "contrabands" in the Department of Virginia in '61) - any decision to intervene on the side of the rebellion, in 1861 or at any time thereafter, is British support of slavery, period, end of story.

As was, after all, British willingness to provide arms and supplies to the rebels through to the end in '65 ... there was money to be made, after all!

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Prussia and France had clashed before, you know?

Yup Napoleon the one who pushed for recognition harder than Great Britain, gave just as much in terms of material gain and political/financial support to the Confederacy (and somehow the Union believed Napoleon was partial to them ) despite Sewards stated intention to declare war on a power that recognized the CSA would never have acted in a manner that would get him involved

Though funny that Napoleon is facing down Prussia roughly six years early, before Bismarck has risen to power and taken care of Austria or had his diplomatic coup which isolated France...

Prussia and France had clashed before, you know?

Blucher? Napoleon? Those guys?

The question on the continent in the 1860s was which of three powers would be dominant in Western and Central Europe, and if one of two of those three was going to come out on top in the conflict with yet another in the fight over which would dominate Central and Eastern Europe.

This isn't really that hard to follow.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Sadly, no...

The reality of the election of a free-soil president, from a free-soil party, and with a majority free-soil legislature (both houses in the 37th Congress), dedicated (obviously) to suppressing the rebellion, the admission of Kansas as a free state and the organization of Colorado, Nevada, and Dakota as free soil territories, presumably should have clued even the most obtuse Englishman there was something happening here...

So then what pray tell were the Radicals in Congress so upset about if this is such an obvious action then? Were they blind obtuse idiots who just couldn't fathom the genius of Lincoln and all their railing against him as late as the 1864 election is them holding the idiot ball?

Or is it actually possible that Lincoln was not making any overt moves towards freeing all the slaves and general abolition that angered them? I dunno maybe Lincoln's own words to Horace Greeley is what put them in opposition to him:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."[1] If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.[2] My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery[3]. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union[4]; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

[1] Funny how the Union as it was would still include slavery, which Gladstone so handily realized.

[2] So he doesn't agree with those who seek to save slavery, but he also doesn't agree with those who would destroy it either. That's of course an amazingly obvious statement of Lincoln's intention to end slavery

[3] More of the same about saving the Union, not ending slavery. The British would find that totally palatable. Or maybe they would say something like this:

“The most miserable exhibition of imbecile weakness has been made by the President in addressing a deputation of the coloured people who were invited to meet him at the White House and hear his oracular utterances... He tells the coloured people that their presence in the republic is a great embarrassment... The proud, tyrannical, dominant race, who make fine professions of universal freedom and world-wide philanthropy, are the humble suitors to the despised and down-trodden coloured people, and entreat them to go.... America is as much the native country of the men of African, as those of English, Irish, or German descent.” (Sheffield Independent, 4 September 1862)

[4] Once again from the man himself, to save the Union.

I don't possibly think he could have spelled his views on the subject in 1862 out clearer. Or is it really that difficult to understand that Lincoln's attitudes on slavery changed from 62-64 to the point where he was pushing for the 13th Amendment?

If not, than the passage of the First Confiscation Act in August, 1861, authorizing US officers to seize any slaves employed by the rebels, probably should have clued them in....the fourth section of the statute read:

“That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.”

Although the First Confiscation Act was not an explicit freedom statute, by neither attempting to define the legal status of the “forfeited” slaves, nor by fully addressing the concerns of the so-called contrabands, it nonetheless had the effect of increasing the spread of freedom almost immediately because of instructions from Secretary of War Simon Cameron (August 8, 1861) that directed army officers to receive and protect fugitives from both disloyal and loyal masters...

The much-balleyhooed relief of Fremont - which, as Lincoln pointed out to Lyman Trumbull, the author of the 1st CA and a radical's radical (who, nonetheless, was so close to Lincoln that he went with him to the cemetery to bury Willie in February, 1862) - came all of three months AFTER the 1st Confiscation Act had been passed, was in the same period (before Mill Springs) that Kentucky was in the balance, and came after the defeat at Wilson's Creek and the death of Nathaniel Lyon, and all that Lincoln originally asked of Fremont was to bring his orders into allignment with the First CA ... the Fremonts (Jessie or John C., take your pick) were trying to avoid John C.'s being relieved of command because of his poor leadership in Missouri. It's really not difficult to suss this out, especially given that even with the reversal of Fremont's martial law orders, Halleck and Curtis et al were able to force the rebels out of the state in 1861-62 and, in fact, defeated them utterly in northwest Arkansas at Pea Ridge in March.

The 2nd CA explicitly included slaves in "loyal" territory, and the "forever free" language that ended up in the "last card" Emancipation Proclamation.

So, um, no, actually.

So in all of that in 1862 is there anything about freeing all the slaves in the Union, or is it just punishing slave holders in the South who are in rebellion? Is there anything in there about freeing slaves belonging to men loyal to the Union or general abolition?

No?

Ah yes that would be because these are military/political measures designed to deprive only rebels of slaves, the nearly half a million in the Union, or those in the hands of loyalists remain untouched.

So where precisely is this explicit crusade to end slavery in 1862 again? Why is it so weird for the abolitionists in the Union or Britain to be upset about half measures and no commitment to abolition again?

The British knew what was happening, before their very eyes (as witness Benjamin Butler's orders regarding "contrabands" in the Department of Virginia in '61) - any decision to intervene on the side of the rebellion, in 1861 or at any time thereafter, is British support of slavery, period, end of story.

So calling them contrabands (less than human) which is something all abolitionists find objectionable, is supposed to point to general abolition? That's some fine mental gymnastics right there.

Face it, before the Emancipation Proclamation the Union can't even pretend it's fighting a war to stop slavery, and not even until the 13th Amendment is ending slavery a political goal.

As nice a fantasy as it is to look back and pretend the Union had the moral high ground in ending slavery from the start of the Civil War versus simply leaving it to wither on the vine in the South, that's all it is, a fantasy.

Anything else is pure historic revisionism of the worst kind.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Prussia and France had clashed before, you know?

Blucher? Napoleon? Those guys?

Funny, so had England and France in the same period, against a man named Napoleon no less! Yet here they were in 1853 and 1860 all cozy making trade agreements and fighting against the Russians and Chinese in their respective spheres of influence and Napoleon rabidly supporting Britain in those regions!

Prussia has what to gain from war with France in 1862?

The question on the continent in the 1860s was which of three powers would be dominant in Western and Central Europe, and if one of two of those three was going to come out on top in the conflict with yet another in the fight over which would dominate Central and Eastern Europe.

This isn't really that hard to follow.

Best,

Yeah but Bismarck already had a plan for that. He can't attack France if they're friends with England (it would be ruinous and he doesn't even know if the army is up to snuff) and if he is weakened in doing so he risks losing influence over the German states to Austria.

So why would he abandon the schemes he's forming to seize land from Denmark in 1864 and his attempts to knock Austria down a peg in order to potentially weaken himself in the act before he can isolate the nation he regarded as his most dangerous opponent?

It's not exactly hard to follow Bismarck's thought process. It's also rather telling how he took advantage of France being distracted in Mexico until 1866 really.

 

[TFSmith121]

The question is not what the American radicals

The question is not what the American radicals - who were, after all, the ones who introduced and passed the 1st CA in 1861 to give legislative sanction to policies like Butlers - did, however; it is whether even the most obtuse Englishman would not recognize the reality that the U.S. was moving toward further limits on slavery as early as January, 1861 (Kansas' admission) and throughout the secession winter, the opening of hostilities, and the first eight months of the war (ie, before the flap over Trent .... And then, despite their undoubted occupation of the moral high ground since the 1830s (well, except for the places within the Empire where abolition didn't occur in the 1830s) still miss all of the above in favor of going to war in support of a slaveholders' rebellion over the results of a free election...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

And there is a difference between war and the threat thereof

And there is a difference between war and the threat - or even the possibility - thereof...

And, as Lord Cupid himself said, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests...

Best,

 

[funnyhat]

The problem though is was that what the man on the ground thought about the Civil War early on? Lincoln wrote his rather infamous letter to Horace Greeley; "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." in August 1862, which didn't go unnoticed in Britain.

I'm familiar with this quotation, but was it really well-known at that time? Was this letter published in one of Greeley's newspapers or was it private correspondence?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The question is not what the American radicals - who were, after all, the ones who introduced and passed the 1st CA in 1861 to give legislative sanction to policies like Butlers - did, however; it is whether even the most obtuse Englishman would not recognize the reality that the U.S. was moving toward further limits on slavery as early as January, 1861 (Kansas' admission) and throughout the secession winter, the opening of hostilities, and the first eight months of the war (ie, before the flap over Trent .... And then, despite their undoubted occupation of the moral high ground since the 1830s (well, except for the places within the Empire where abolition didn't occur in the 1830s) still miss all of the above in favor of going to war in support of a slaveholders' rebellion over the results of a free election...

Best,

The same men who said these were half measures and whose most vocal members tried to undermine Lincoln at the polls in 1864, who were well known as vocal radicals in Britain, who also continued to criticize Lincoln for not doing enough yes?

Again, none of this is in any way stopping the institution of slavery. It is merely containing it. That is still perpetuating slavery, the exact same thing you would accuse Britain of doing. There is no supposed moral high ground the other side would be losing here.

British assumptions and personal opinions on the matter can be seen very clearly. They believed in progressive determinism, and as Gladstone states so nicely in the quote below "You cannot invade a nation in order to convert its institutions from bad ones into good ones, and our friends in the North have, as we think, made a great mistake in supposing that they can bend all the horrors of this war to philanthropic ends." and considering they have direct "proof" that outside pressure and the progress of liberalism can rectify bad institutions in Russia's abolition of serfdom, there is nothing wrong with the assumptions they are making at the time.

I get that you want to look back with rose-tinted glasses and see the Civil War as some great crusade to end slavery from the get-go, but it wasn't. Real life is more nuanced than that.

And there is a difference between war and the threat - or even the possibility - thereof...

And, as Lord Cupid himself said, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests...

Best,

None of which of course answers why Prussia would so foolishly turn against its own interests of not antagonizing France when they were unprepared and why the master statesman Bismarck would see any reason to rock the Continental boat in favor of events on the other side of the Atlantic he has no interest in of course.

I'm familiar with this quotation, but was it really well-known at that time? Was this letter published in one of Greeley's newspapers or was it private correspondence?

The letter was sent to Greeley in response to an editorial Greeley had written in the New York Times and the response was published in that paper, and it was freely available to anyone in the North, or in Britain, who cared to read it.

While a masterful piece of political writing in not latching on to any one position while making his own position on the subject obscure enough that he doesn't have to side with any one faction in Congress, what it is (to anyone with eyes) is definitive proof that in this period the Civil War is not being waged by the North in response to the institution of slavery, but rather the preservation of the Union.

Something few in Britain have any real interest in on a practical level.

Meanwhile the Southern agents in Britain and France preach their view of states rights and liberation which allows Gladstone to say:

"we may have our own opinions, and I imagine we have our own opinions about the institutions of the South- ('hear hear,' and applause)- as unfortunately we may have our own private opinions about the countenance that has been given to those institutions in the North- ('hear hear' and applause)... Why, no doubt if we could say this was a contest of slavery or freedom, there is not a man in the length and breadth of this room- there perhaps is hardly a man in all England- who would for a moment hesitate upon the side which he would take- (hear, hear)- but we have no faith in the propagation of our institutions at the point of the sword ('Hear hear' and cheers)... You cannot invade a nation in order to convert its institutions from bad ones into good ones, and our friends in the North have, as we think, made a great mistake in supposing that they can bend all the horrors of this war to philanthropic ends. (Hear, hear). Now, gentlemen, there are those among us who think- and I confess, for one, I have shared the apprehension- that if in the course of the vicissitudes of the war the Southern States of America should send an embassy to Washington, and should say, 'Very well; we are ready to lay down arms... upon one condition- that you shall ensure us that there shall be no interference with our domestic institutions.' Ah, gentleman, we have had a fear that that application, if it were made, would receive a very favourable reply. ("Hear hear", and cheers)." (Liverpool Mercury, 25 April 1862)

Now this is before the Greeley letter of course, but nothing in the Greeley letter could even hope to contradict Gladstone's views here, or even be made to look as though the British are intervening in a war to perpetuate slavery.

To claim otherwise is simply ludicrous.

 

[David T]

So then what pray tell were the Radicals in Congress so upset about if this is such an obvious action then? Were they blind obtuse idiots who just couldn't fathom the genius of Lincoln and all their railing against him as late as the 1864 election is them holding the idiot ball?

The problem with that reasoning is that one could turn it around--why did Confederates, *when speaking to each other* (rather than to, for example, the British) say from the beginning that Lincoln's victory would mean the doom of slavery. (Just read, among other things, any of the states' declarations of the reasons for secession--which *endlessly* quoted Lincoln on the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, e.g., http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp Or Stephens' "cornerstone speech" on "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html ) Were *they* idiots any more than the Radicals?

And by the way, when we talk about the Radicals and Lincoln, some conservative Republicans disliked Lincoln because they thought he *was* a Radical. David Donald quotes one Pennsylvania conservative who wrote that thousands of conservative Republicans were "'disappointed in Mr. Lincoln. He has abandoned himself...to the impracticable schemes of the radicalists...Mr. Lincoln has given a death blow to our party by his insane course.' Seward had correspondents who were ready to leave the Republican party because the President was 'under the control of the Greeley's--Sumners and the band of 'fanatics' of the North.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=_47AoFUWtQsC&pg=PA111 Of course, as Donald notes, most of the opposition to Lincoln, whether from Radicals or Conservatives, did not stem from whatr he did or didn't do about slavery but simply from the fact that he seemed to be a failure--victory over the Confederacy seemed to be nowhere in sight.

 

[robcraufurd]

The problem with that reasoning is that one could turn it around--why did Confederates, *when speaking to each other* (rather than to, for example, the British) say from the beginning that Lincoln's victory would mean the doom of slavery.

Though this is a good point, the problem is that the Confederates are basing their assumptions on ignorance. They have a few speeches Lincoln made several years ago, before he expected to be president, and assumptions about what he would do in office. No detailed statements of policy from presidential candidates back in those days, remember? The election campaign, with all the rhetoric about this being the only way to protect their "domestic institution", heats things to boiling point; when Lincoln is elected, fears and anger grow; when he claims to be prepared to ignore slavery, as he did at the Cooper Institution, they can point to his earlier speeches and claim he's lying; eventually, secession follows. On the other hand, the Radical Republicans have several years of Lincoln's administration to base their criticism on.

Thanks I really had looked and wondered at that for it did not feel quite right. Thanks for the detailed research into the actual background of the affair.

The sad thing is that Mary Ellison proved that there was a sizeable amount of working-class support for intervention in Lancashire almost 45 years ago, and yet the myth keeps getting peddled. I've found examples of such meetings in similarly depressed areas elsewhere in Britain: the only reason you'd be surprised to see them is if you believe, for some ideological reason, that the working class can do no wrong. Even then, a moment's reflection would permit those people to construct an alternative explanation. The working-class still care about the plight of the slave, but they know that their social betters do too; the best way of drawing attention to Lancashire and encouraging the relief efforts is to vote for something as utterly abhorrent as indirect support of a slave state in order to publicise the depths to which they've sunk. Simple, really.

The fact that the meeting was addressed and organised by prominent people isn't the point, it was the audience and the result that mattered, as Lincoln knew.

Here's the question. If someone had posted an example of a working-class meeting with the South, and I had pointed out that there were a large number of middle-class delegates and representatives there, would you have been so quick to defend it as a genuine expression of the sentiment of the working class?

I'm familiar with this quotation, but was it really well-known at that time? Was this letter published in one of Greeley's newspapers or was it private correspondence?

I was curious to see exactly how well-known it was, so I looked on the BL's collection of digitised 19th century newspapers. Here's a list of those which mentioned it in the fortnight or so after news arrived, based on the search terms "Lincoln", "Greeley", and "slave*"

Liverpool Mercury (Liverpool, England), Saturday, September 6, 1862
Reynolds's Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, September 7, 1862
The Era (London, England), Sunday, September 7, 1862
Birmingham Daily Post (Birmingham, England), Monday, September 8, 1862
The Caledonian Mercury (Edinburgh, Scotland), Monday, September 8, 1862
Daily News (London, England), Monday, September 8, 1862
Glasgow Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), Monday, September 8, 1862
The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England), Monday, September 8, 1862
The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, September 08, 1862
The Standard (London, England), Monday, September 08, 1862
The Bury and Norwich Post, and Suffolk Herald (Bury Saint Edmunds, England), Tuesday, September 09, 1862
Dundee Courier & Argus (Dundee, Scotland), Tuesday, September 09, 1862
The Aberdeen Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), Wednesday, September 10, 1862
The Derby Mercury (Derby, England), Wednesday, September 10, 1862
Newcastle Courant (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England), Friday, September 12, 1862
Nottinghamshire Guardian (London [sic], England), Friday, September 12, 1862
The Examiner (London, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
The Lancaster Gazette, and General Advertiser for Lancashire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, &c. (Lancaster, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
Manchester Times (Manchester, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
The Hampshire Advertiser (Southampton, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
The Penny Illustrated Paper (London, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
The Leicester Chronicle: or, Commercial and Agricultural Advertiser (Leicester, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
Jackson's Oxford Journal (Oxford, England), Saturday, September 13, 1862
Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, September 14, 1862
The Bradford Observer (Bradford, England), Thursday, September 18, 1862
The Essex Standard, and General Advertiser for the Eastern Counties (Colchester, England), Friday, September 19, 1862

Allowing for those newspapers which paraphrased its remarks, or referred to Lincoln's letter in subsequent editorials without printing the original, and for the fact that many British newspapers have not been preserved and only a handful have been digitised, I think it's safe to say they've heard about it.

Meanwhile the Southern agents in Britain and France preach their view of states rights and liberation

Among other topics. In December 1863 the main Confederate spokesman, James Spence of Liverpool ("S" in many of his letters to the papers) is informed that the South no longer requires his services. The grounds are that he has been denouncing slavery and predicting its abolition in an independent Confederacy.

before the Emancipation Proclamation the Union can't even pretend it's fighting a war to stop slavery

The Union didn't even try- at least formally. Seward instructs Adams that "you will not consent to draw into debate before the British government any opposing moral principles, which may be supposed to lie at the foundation of the controversy between those (the Confederate) States and the Federal Union" (Seward to Adams, 10 April 1861). He made it more explicit to Dayton in Paris- "refrain from any observation whatever concerning the morality or immorality, the economy or the waste, the social or the unsocial aspects of slavery... the condition of slavery in the United States will remain the same whether [the revolution] shall succeed or fail" (Seward to Dayton, 22 April 1861). Are we particularly surprised the British and French governments take a sceptical view of the Union's anti-slavery credentials when these are the instructions the ambassadors are working under?

Seward only removes this ban on 28 May 1862. Unfortunately, rather than use it to announce that the Union is determined to overthrow slavery to the best of its ability, he warns the British that any attempt to mediate or intervene would result in the North starting a servile war in the South. Probably not what the British wanted to hear to convince them that the Union can be trusted to look after the best interests of the slaves.

Prussia has what to gain from war with France in 1862?

If people are going to claim that European nations are ready to leap into war while others are distracted, it would be nice if they took the time to find out what was going on in those countries first. On 22 September 1862 Bismarck- not yet chancellor- is walking through the grounds of the royal palace at Babelsberg with the King, who has in his pocket an unsigned declaration of abdication. The country is in the midst of a political crisis over army reform; the liberal parliamentary majority, holding c.230 of the 352 seats, is blocking the budget; the cabinet has concluded that constitutionally William cannot govern without the support of the chamber; William would rather abdicate than back down; Bismarck has been summoned back from a holiday in Toulouse by a coded telegram from the war minister to try and resolve the panic. This is not a country ready to leap into war against France, nor is this the army that which beat the French almost ten years later. The slightest familiarity with European history will tell you that.

 

[TFSmith121]

There is this thing called the balance of power

There is this thing called the balance of power, which - along with the general weakness of France period during this era and the reality the build-up of the French fleet in this era (the good ships Napoleon and Gloire for example) were built, and prompted reactions by the other European naval power, in the same way the French Army was being organized and equipped to fight on the Continent AND overseas - because there was no formal alliance system, none of the powers knew when something important in Europe (not 3,000 miles away) was going to be at risk...

There's a reason the British maintained fleets of capital ships in the Channel and Mediterranean, after all - it was not because they were beating up on the Chinese alongside the French. And there's a reason the French expeditionary force in Mexico was so small, and Max et al were recruiting Belgians et al as mercenaries.

Europe was so volatile that in the course of two decades, Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia-Germany, Sardinia-Italy, various and sundry lesser German states, Denmark, AND the Papacy (!) found themselves at war with each, often in temporary alliance with or against a power they had fought with or against, within the previous decade ... this is the most unstable era in European power politics between 1815 and 1914, and yet the Europeans are supposedly going to go to war 3,000 miles away across the bounding main, and to the knife, and in defense of slavery.

Yeah, that will happen.

Cripes, even the French (in Mexico) and the Spanish (in the Dominican Republic and the southeast Pacific) figured out that wars in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s were loss leaders for them (despite the lessons of ~1760 to ~1830); props to Pam et al for not being idiotic enough to need to be reminded of how 1775-83 and 1806-07 and 1812-15 had worked out for the British. Apparently one could teach an old dog new tricks... but to give him his due, the British were smart enough to stay out of the Danish War, as well. Amazing what the realities of power politics can do...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Don't question the meme!

The problem with that reasoning is that one could turn it around--why did Confederates, *when speaking to each other* (rather than to, for example, the British) say from the beginning that Lincoln's victory would mean the doom of slavery. (Just read, among other things, any of the states' declarations of the reasons for secession--which *endlessly* quoted Lincoln on the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, e.g., http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp Or Stephens' "cornerstone speech" on "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html ) Were *they* idiots any more than the Radicals?

And by the way, when we talk about the Radicals and Lincoln, some conservative Republicans disliked Lincoln because they thought he *was* a Radical. David Donald quotes one Pennsylvania conservative who wrote that thousands of conservative Republicans were "'disappointed in Mr. Lincoln. He has abandoned himself...to the impracticable schemes of the radicalists...Mr. Lincoln has given a death blow to our party by his insane course.' Seward had correspondents who were ready to leave the Republican party because the President was 'under the control of the Greeley's--Sumners and the band of 'fanatics' of the North.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=_47AoFUWtQsC&pg=PA111 Of course, as Donald notes, most of the opposition to Lincoln, whether from Radicals or Conservatives, did not stem from whatr he did or didn't do about slavery but simply from the fact that he seemed to be a failure--victory over the Confederacy seemed to be nowhere in sight.

Don't question the meme!

Good points - couple that with the reality that a free soil government was in power, four new free states or territories were admitted or organized, and the enslaved were being liberated - de facto and de jure - throughout 1861, and even the thickest head could not have avoided the reality the situation of slavery in the United States was changing...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

That's not the reality, or the contention

... As nice a fantasy as it is to look back and pretend the Union had the moral high ground in ending slavery from the start of the Civil War versus simply leaving it to wither on the vine in the South, that's all it is, a fantasy. Anything else is pure historic revisionism of the worst kind.

That's not the contention, and it takes willful self-delusion to suggest it is; the reality there was slavery in the US, and the US was at war in 1861 over a rebellion organized to protect slavery, and the US was (by the way) limiting or even prohibiting slavery where the federal government lawfully could - including Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, and the Dakota Territory, and had passed the First Confiscation Act in August

And, as early as December, 1861, the introduction of the bill in Congress to end slavery in Washington, DC, which was passed three months ahead of the second Confiscation Act (the "forever free" one); the Senate passed the DC Emacipation bill on April 3, 1862 and the House of Representatives passed it on April 12, 1862. Lincoln signed the legislation on April 16, 1862.

Now, perhaps the British could have ignored all of the above, but it takes a certain amount of work to do so ...

Again, given the realities of 1861, the idea that British intervention on the behalf of the rebels means anything other than British support of the perpetuation of slavery is what is "fantastic"...

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

There is this thing called the balance of power, which - along with the general weakness of France period during this era and the reality the build-up of the French fleet in this era (the good ships Napoleon and Gloire for example) were built, and prompted reactions by the other European naval power, in the same way the French Army was being organized and equipped to fight on the Continent AND overseas - because there was no formal alliance system, none of the powers knew when something important in Europe (not 3,000 miles away) was going to be at risk...

There's a reason the British maintained fleets of capital ships in the Channel and Mediterranean, after all - it was not because they were beating up on the Chinese alongside the French. And there's a reason the French expeditionary force in Mexico was so small, and Max et al were recruiting Belgians et al as mercenaries.

Yet despite these worries it's pretty easy to see where the French position on any Anglo-American war would lie, and it aint neutrality considering Napoleon leapt to the defence of Britain for all he was worth and his calls for Confederate recognition were louder and more vocal than anyone else in Europe.

Sure he wouldn't jump.

As a side note the force France send was over 40,000 strong, not piffling. And they didn't recruit mercenaries from Belgium, they were men sent to honor the dynastic ties of Europe between this new Empire and the Old World, similarly to how the 8,000 Austrians were a token of support from Austria to this new Hapsburg Empire.

The Egyptians and Poles I would grant, but they seem to have been in the same league as the Sardinian commitment to Crimea, as well as looking for military experience for their respective causes. Though the nearly 3000 Confederates post-ACW would count, but that's small potatoes.

Europe was so volatile that in the course of two decades, Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia-Germany, Sardinia-Italy, various and sundry lesser German states, Denmark, AND the Papacy (!) found themselves at war with each, often in temporary alliance with or against a power they had fought with or against, within the previous decade ... this is the most unstable era in European power politics between 1815 and 1914, and yet the Europeans are supposedly going to go to war 3,000 miles away across the bounding main, and to the knife, and in defense of slavery.

So other than an assessment of the powers who are in no way involved in the struggle we're taking about and yet another baseless assertion about any potential war being in 'defence of slavery' have you got anything to add?

Cripes, even the French (in Mexico) and the Spanish (in the Dominican Republic and the southeast Pacific) figured out that wars in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s were loss leaders for them (despite the lessons of ~1760 to ~1830); props to Pam et al for not being idiotic enough to need to be reminded of how 1775-83 and 1806-07 and 1812-15 had worked out for the British. Apparently one could teach an old dog new tricks... but to give him his due, the British were smart enough to stay out of the Danish War, as well. Amazing what the realities of power politics can do...

Best,

Well other than propagating the myth of the British defeat in the War of 1812, and a weirdly deterministic view of the Mexican War (and an interesting omission of Spanish success in Cuba) you don't list any solid evidence for why this is a loss.

The Danish War was also not a British concern, because the Danes broke the clause in the treaty which allowed Prussia to attack them. Britain wasn't going to intervene on their side when they were politically in the wrong.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The problem with that reasoning is that one could turn it around--why did Confederates, *when speaking to each other* (rather than to, for example, the British) say from the beginning that Lincoln's victory would mean the doom of slavery. (Just read, among other things, any of the states' declarations of the reasons for secession--which *endlessly* quoted Lincoln on the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, e.g., http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp Or Stephens' "cornerstone speech" on "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html ) Were *they* idiots any more than the Radicals?

The problem is that people are again conflating 'containing' with 'ending' slavery. It was the assumption that if slavery didn't expand it would die. That assumption wasn't shared by many hardcore abolitionists on either side of the Atlantic.

The free soil party wanted no more slave states, which would adversely effect Western settlement in their opinion. They didn't care if slavery persisted in the South (mostly, since they believed it would die out naturally that way) which again, isn't the same as fighting for immediate abolition.

And by the way, when we talk about the Radicals and Lincoln, some conservative Republicans disliked Lincoln because they thought he *was* a Radical. David Donald quotes one Pennsylvania conservative who wrote that thousands of conservative Republicans were "'disappointed in Mr. Lincoln. He has abandoned himself...to the impracticable schemes of the radicalists...Mr. Lincoln has given a death blow to our party by his insane course.' Seward had correspondents who were ready to leave the Republican party because the President was 'under the control of the Greeley's--Sumners and the band of 'fanatics' of the North.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=_47AoFUWtQsC&pg=PA111 Of course, as Donald notes, most of the opposition to Lincoln, whether from Radicals or Conservatives, did not stem from whatr he did or didn't do about slavery but simply from the fact that he seemed to be a failure--victory over the Confederacy seemed to be nowhere in sight.

Yet Lincoln (until 1864, and even then wasn't Radical enough for men like Stephens) was not a Radical, and was constantly dancing between the demands of Republican Radicals and Republican Conservatives, there's a reason why he doesn't explicitly side with any one policy in my much mentioned letter to Greeley, and why he still hadn't solidified his position on the matter.

There's a reason why he left so much open to interpretation after all, even he wasn't sure what course he would take in the matter at the time.

Again, is it so hard to understand that his views were evolving and changing based on his personal opinions and the state of the war between his speeches from 1858-1865?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Don't question the meme!

Good points - couple that with the reality that a free soil government was in power, four new free states or territories were admitted or organized, and the enslaved were being liberated - de facto and de jure - throughout 1861, and even the thickest head could not have avoided the reality the situation of slavery in the United States was changing...

What meme exactly?

Once again, free-soil =/= pro-wholesale abolition. There was no drive to free Southern slaves, no drive for the legal cessastion of slavery, and no attempt to interfere with Southern 'property' as it was.

No one could be fooled into believing this is anything but business as usual, and its certainly not going to turn heads in Europe. The Duke and Duchess of Argyll (the most adamant abolitionists and among some of the staunchest Union supporters in Britain) certainly weren't convinced.

Once again, it's a nice fantasy, but that's all it is.

That's not the contention, and it takes willful self-delusion to suggest it is; the reality there was slavery in the US, and the US was at war in 1861 over a rebellion organized to protect slavery, and the US was (by the way) limiting or even prohibiting slavery where the federal government lawfully could - including Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, and the Dakota Territory, and had passed the First Confiscation Act in August

And, as early as December, 1861, the introduction of the bill in Congress to end slavery in Washington, DC, which was passed three months ahead of the second Confiscation Act (the "forever free" one); the Senate passed the DC Emacipation bill on April 3, 1862 and the House of Representatives passed it on April 12, 1862. Lincoln signed the legislation on April 16, 1862.

Now, perhaps the British could have ignored all of the above, but it takes a certain amount of work to do so ...

Again, given the realities of 1861, the idea that British intervention on the behalf of the rebels means anything other than British support of the perpetuation of slavery is what is "fantastic"...

Best,

Once again, as you so seem to be eager to engage in historic revisionism, the Union had publicly and adamantly stated that it was not fighting to end slavery, and had no policies to that effect. Containment is not emancipation (is that really so difficult to understand?) and as you can plainly see (you claim to have read Foreman's work, but I'm starting to think you've done so selectively) the measures you are talking about were not self-evident to those in Britain, and Lincoln's firm commitment to not talking about slavery at this time (and his prohibition on its discussion throughout 1861 and much of 62) make your revisionism pretty baseless.

Your continuous repetition of 'forever free' does not change the facts on the ground that slavery was still legal in the Union at this time, the confiscation act was not an emancipation decree (abolitionists took offense at the word contraband remember?) Lincoln had publicly dismissed a noted abolitionist general for his own attempt at emancipation, it was the stated goal of the Union that they were not fighting to end slavery but to preserve the Union, and there was a muzzle on the use of slavery in the debate in Britain.

It takes a certain amount of work to arrive at your conclusions, which include a bizarre amount of historic revisionism on what the basic Union position was in 1861 and early 62. Despite the numerous quotations offered here which quite easily show the opposite of your position you still assert that the British would be intervening to perpetuate slavery, despite the fact the Union, by its own admission, is doing the same thing to preserve the Union. You also still ignore the British views on the subject.

While your fantasy is a nice thing in hindsight, the realities on the ground in 1861-1862 are far different from the picture you would like to paint.

 

[TFSmith121]

And British intervention on the part of the south was

What meme exactly?

And British intervention on the part of the south was going to end slavery?

Pull the other one.

You and Rob keep managing to avoid the reality that because the US was actively fighting the rebellion, slavery was being ended by the simple reality of slaves no longer being enslaved whenever and wherever they could escape into US lines... where, of course, the Fugitive Slave Law was no longer in force under the 1st Confiscation Act and the Contraband Policy you seem eager to disparage...

Here's an example of one such individual, who brought more than a few with him - and long before the Emancipation Proclamation - you may even have heard of him (there's a reason I included him in BROS):

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...history/which-slave-sailed-himself-to-freedom

Smalls was far from alone; it's not hard to find accounts of many such men and women (and children); David Herbert Donald estimates some 500,000 former slaves had crossed into the lines of the US forces during the Civil War, before the 13th Amendment, and availed themselves of the status of "contraband" - which whatever else it was, certainly was better than being enslaved.

Perhaps you disagree, since apparently that reality would be too much for the British to have figured out, in your world; however, historically, apparently the British recognized it, and so chose NOT to perpetuate slavery by active intervention in the conflict.

Unless you're arguing the British didn't recognize the realities of the contraband policy, which if so, says volumes about the British leadership...none of it particularly impressive, morally or otherwise.

Now an interesting question would be how much coverage of the "contraband" policy, and its realities, made it to Britain in 1861-62; obviously, it was widely covered in the US (and, apparently, in the rebel states, given that it appears a significant percentage of the enslaved population were well aware of it in 1861), see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03CivilWar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Perhaps Rob, being so capable at digging out British newspapers clippings of the day, can discover if the names of Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, and James Townsend and their arrival at Fort Monroe were reported there after May 23, 1861 - much less those of the eight who showed up May 24, the 47 who came across May 25, or the 500 who were inside the lines by June? The story was in the Chicago Tribune before June, apparently; one would imagine it had penetrated to London via Russell of the Times, if not Lyons, by July...

As Seward said at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862: "...the Emancipation Proclamation was uttered in the first gun fired at Sumter, and we have been the last to hear it.”

Presumably even Pam et al had heard it, as well...

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

And British intervention on the part of the south was going to end slavery?

Pull the other one.

Well since no one is actually claiming that I don't see your assertion here being remotely relevant.

You and Rob keep managing to avoid the reality that because the US was actively fighting the rebellion, slavery was being ended by the simple reality of slaves no longer being enslaved whenever and wherever they could escape into US lines... where, of course, the Fugitive Slave Law was no longer in force under the 1st Confiscation Act and the Contraband Policy you seem eager to disparage...

That's not even close to true. Tens of thousands remained enslaved in Kentucky and Missouri alone, thousands in Delaware and Maryland, and in Tennessee, inspite of Union intervention.

I'm not disparaging the policy, but claiming it is anything like emancipation or general abolition is a bald faced lie. IE it did not look like anything but the transfer of property from the hands of private owners, into the hands of the Federal Government, with no end game for those people in sight.

Considering the pretty appalling conditions in many of those contraband camps, also aware to the British (again, just read Foreman) this isn't saying much either. Consider even Frederick Douglas's words on his treatment in Britain versus that in America:

"Eleven days and a half gone and I have crossed three thousand miles of the perilous deep. Instead of a democratic government, I am under a monarchical government. Instead of the bright, blue sky of America, I am covered with the soft, grey fog of the Emerald Isle [Ireland]. I breathe, and lo! the chattel [slave] becomes a man. I gaze around in vain for one who will question my equal humanity, claim me as his slave, or offer me an insult. I employ a cab—I am seated beside white people—I reach the hotel—I enter the same door—I am shown into the same parlour—I dine at the same table—and no one is offended... I find myself regarded and treated at every turn with the kindness and deference paid to white people. When I go to church, I am met by no upturned nose and scornful lip to tell me, 'We don't allow niggers in here!'" (My Bondage and My Freedom - published 1855, passage regarding 1846 trip to Britain)

This has not changed since his first trip, and the casual attitude in the 1860s, is no different.

The Confiscation Act is not an excellent example of the Union fighting for the 'freedom' of the enslaved, versus depriving the South of a war resource, which is exactly what the Union said it was doing.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's an example of one such individual, who brought more than a few with him - and long before the Emancipation Proclamation - you may even have heard of him (there's a reason I included him in BROS):

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...history/which-slave-sailed-himself-to-freedom

Smalls was far from alone; it's not hard to find accounts of many such men and women (and children); David Herbert Donald estimates some 500,000 former slaves had crossed into the lines of the US forces during the Civil War, before the 13th Amendment, and availed themselves of the status of "contraband" - which whatever else it was, certainly was better than being enslaved.

Inspiring as his story is, it is again irrelevant to the point at hand. Though it is relevant that the casual racism of the time tended to impede his prospects for jobs, and military service.

Other contrabands didn't even have that luxury.

Perhaps you disagree, since apparently that reality would be too much for the British to have figured out, in your world; however, historically, apparently the British recognized it, and so chose NOT to perpetuate slavery by active intervention in the conflict.

Unless you're arguing the British didn't recognize the realities of the contraband policy, which if so, says volumes about the British leadership...none of it particularly impressive, morally or otherwise.

I'm simply stating what existed in reality. The Union was not fighting to free slaves or end slavery, the contrabands in Union hands were not free to do as they wished, seek employment, or even seek citizenship in the Union. They were still not even people in the eyes of many they served under, and in many cases still worked without pay (and if they did get pay it was far less than what a white laborer would get, a problem endemic throughout the war).

Your assertion is unsupported and contradicted by even the briefest glance at actual British perceptions of the time right here in this very thread. The realities of the contraband policy as they saw it were:

1) Slaves have bee confiscated as property by the Federal Government, of which they are now the de-facto property of.

2) They are not free to do as they please, in many cases cannot leave the camps established for them, are not citizens, and do not have even basic rights under the law.

3) This contraband policy does not effect persons indentured inside of loyal states like Kentucky, Maryland, or Missouri, and loyal Union slave holders are not effected by this policy.

4) The Union's stated goal is not the abolishment of slavery, and continues to be the preservation of the Union, which at this time still includes slavery legally.

So with all these attendant facts as they existed on the ground in 1861-1862 the British (who we have seen the opinions of some of the highest movers and shakers on what they know to be happening) are supposed to realize that the Union is fighting to end slavery and enact wholesale emancipation of slaves throughout the Union?

Not without the power of foresight, or if they assume that the Union has 100% benign intentions towards the black populace (considering the words of Frederick Douglas above, that's laughable).

Your entire argument does not rest in the facts present as they were available to the men and women of the time period. In instead rests completely on acting with knowledge of hindsight and knowing that all these measures would lead where they do. That is not self-evident to the people on the ground at this time (not in the Union, and certainly not in Britain) so all of your arguments are purely based on historic revisionism of what the people and policies of the time period were actually doing.

So again, you paint a nice fantasy of what you would like the facts to be, but they don't even remotely line up with the words or actions of people at this time.

 

[TFSmith121]

Again, sadly, no...

Again, sadly, no...

Now an interesting question would be how much coverage of the "contraband" policy, and its realities, made it to Britain in 1861-62; obviously, it was widely covered in the US (and, apparently, in the rebel states, given that it appears a significant percentage of the enslaved population were well aware of it in 1861), see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/ma...anted=all&_r=0

Perhaps Rob, being so capable at digging out British newspapers clippings of the day, can discover if the names of Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory, and James Townsend and their arrival at Fort Monroe were reported there after May 23, 1861 - much less those of the eight who showed up May 24, the 47 who came across May 25, or the 500 who were inside the lines by June, 1861? The story was in the Chicago Tribune before June, apparently; one would imagine it had penetrated to London via Russell of the Times, if not Lyons, by July...

As Seward said at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862: "...the Emancipation Proclamation was uttered in the first gun fired at Sumter, and we have been the last to hear it.”

Presumably even Pam et al had heard it, as well... again, 500,000 "contrabands" crossed into US lines before the 13th Amendment, beginning in (yes) 1861.

Your inability to admit the reality of what was happening in reality in the US in 1861-62 (tell me - how does a US officer, like Ben BUtler, for example, know if a slave had escaped from a loyal or a disloyal owner?) would suggest you have not done a lot of reading on emancipation.

I'd suggest Eric Foner's The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery to start. There is a lot of work that has been done in recent years on the contrabands, including digitizing the registers and records of the various camps, which make it quite clear the numbers were in the thousands and tens of thousands, from 1861 onwards.

An a Frederick Douglass quote from 1855, regarding conditions in the 1840s? That's your trump card? Seriously?

Best,