Why did Britain stay out of the American Civil War?

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? 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,

You can say "no" or "forever free" till your blue in the face, it does not change any of the facts, opinions, or realities on the ground in the time frame we are discussing, and you have provided precisely zero evidence to the contrary to show where either the Union is fighting to end slavery (by which I mean they explicitly state this in 1861-62 which could not be in any way misinterpreted like the official release of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st 1863), or where the British opinions (which you have not even addressed) are incorrect based on the facts as they know it.

Until you can do that, or actively address the issue of how the British saw it (not what you would like to think) your engaging in revisionist history, and simply painting a fantasy.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And seriously, you're suggesting that Smalls and the

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.

And seriously, you're suggesting that Smalls and the tens of thousands like him risked their lives, and those of their families, for a chance at a job or military service?

Rather than escaping bondage with his wife and children?

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

That's your argument? That the British - abolitionists all - would see that human beings who had, by their own agency and decision-making, had escaped from slavery and were living in a contraband camp - but that and low pay was worse than slavery?

Because it sure sounds like it is...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, Rob enjoys looking up British newspaper clippings;

You can say "no" or "forever free" till your blue in the face, it does not change any of the facts, opinions, or realities on the ground in the time frame we are discussing, and you have provided precisely zero evidence to the contrary to show where either the Union is fighting to end slavery (by which I mean they explicitly state this in 1861-62 which could not be in any way misinterpreted like the official release of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st 1863), or where the British opinions (which you have not even addressed) are incorrect based on the facts as they know it.

Well, Rob enjoys looking up British newspaper clippings; perhaps he can go spend some time in the library.

Given that the British, in fact, did not intervene to save slavery in 1861-62 (historically), I think we can safely find the British presumably saw the realities of what the war was about, despite the bluster of the Di Lorenzo school of Civil War studies?:rolleyes:

Je me souviens...
 
And seriously, you're suggesting that Smalls and the tens of thousands like him risked their lives, and those of their families, for a chance at a job or military service?

Rather than escaping bondage with his wife and children?

Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

No, but his story is still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

That's your argument? That the British - abolitionists all - would see that human beings who had, by their own agency and decision-making, had escaped from slavery and were living in a contraband camp - but that and low pay was worse than slavery?

Because it sure sounds like it is...

No, go back and actually read any of my arguments which I have made based on what the facts as the British saw them at the time.

Or better yet! Go back and address any one of the quotes provided from the time period by British politicians in this very thread on the subject at hand and show how it lines up with your version of events.

I'll wait.
 
Well, Rob enjoys looking up British newspaper clippings; perhaps he can go spend some time in the library.

Given that the British, in fact, did not intervene to save slavery in 1861-62 (historically), I think we can safely find the British presumably saw the realities of what the war was about, despite the bluster of the Di Lorenzo school of Civil War studies?:rolleyes:

Je me souviens...

Or how about you address one of the quotes by British policy makers in this very thread (made in the time period where these "obvious facts" were published) and see how that lines up?

Again, I'll wait.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You'll be waiting a long time, since, obviously, the

You'll be waiting a long time, since, obviously, the British decision makers chose not to go to war in support of slavery.

Here's a concept - a group detonates a bomb in Ottawa. Say it's the Red Greene Liberation Front, or the Great White North People's Army. Doesn't matter, really, except that said group is being supplied with weapons by an outside power.

(Dastardly Americans, probably):mad:

Said power says "oh, we don't support their goals; we're just providing them with weapons because we really think Ottawa had not freed Red Greene enough, or allowed the self-determination of the Great White Northern People. But we're don't support their goals, no sirree. In fact, we're actually OPPOSED to their goals ... we stopped oppressing Red Greene in 1833, after all, and we've never prevented the self-determination of our OWN Great White Northern People. Never; we just don't think Ottawa is moving fast enough to free Red Greene, much less they're moving too slowly in allowing the self-determination of the Great White Northern People...but no, we don't support the goals of the Great White North People's Army..."

Should the Dominion take that at face value, you think?

Best,
 
Last edited:
You'll be waiting a long time, since, obviously, the British decision makers chose not to go to war in support of slavery.

Or how about you give any evidence to support this claim hm? That would be a welcome change from your "take my word for it" attitude.

Here's a concept - a group detonates a bomb in Ottawa. Say it's the Red Greene Liberation Front, or the Great White North People's Army. Doesn't matter, really, except that said group is being supplied with weapons by an outside power.

(Dastardly Americans, probably):mad:

Said power says "oh, we don't support their goals; we're just providing them with weapons because we really think Ottawa had not freed Red Greene enough, or allowed the self-determination of the Great White Northern People. But we're don't support their goals, no sirree. In fact,, wer're actually OPPOSED to their goals ... we stopped oppressing Red Greene in 1833, after all, and we've never prevented the self-determination of our OWN Great White Northern People. Never; we just don''t think Ottawa is moving fast enough to free Red Greene, much less they're moving too slowly in allowing the self-determination of the Great White Northern People...but no, we don't support the goals of the Great White North People's Army..."

Should the Dominion take that at face value, you think?

Best,

:rolleyes:

Well since you seem determined to not engage with any of the facts at hand and are asking me to take your word for it how about this newspaper clipping then?

In response to Abraham Lincoln's announcing the Emancipation Proclamation, the London Spectator observed that: "The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government." (insert mine)

So, where in the wording of the document that Lincoln issued is this assertion made incorrect?

Or here is one regarding Lincoln's evident respect towards colored folks from earlier in the thread:

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)

Where in here is an incorrect fact?

Or even more damning, here is one of Russell's speeches for intervention from October 61, again from earlier in the thread:

"We now see two parties contending together, not upon the question of slavery- though that, I believe, is the origin of the conflict- not contending with respect to free trade and protection, but contending, as so many States in the New World have contended, one side for empire and the other for independence... Supposing this contest ending by the re-union of its different parts, that the South should agree to enter again with all the rights of the Constitution, should we not again have that fatal subject of slavery brought along with them? (Hear, hear). Because while one party contended that slavery was an institution of perpetual force, and ought to be extended over other parts of the world, another party contended that slavery must be acknowledged and respected wherever the constitution said it must be reported, but that it was a thing detestable in itself, and the time must come when it must cease from the face of the earth. (Applause). Well, then, gentlemen, as you will see, if this quarrel could be made up by the measures of those who opposed Mr Lincoln at the last election being carried, then some disputes would recommence, and perhaps a long civil war follow... If these should be the unhappy results to which we alone can look forward- if, by means of such as these the union of the States should be brought about, is it not the duty of those who so lately were citizens together, who have embraced the precepts of Christianity, and who wish to preserve their sacred inheritance of liberty, is it not their duty to see whether this sanguinary conflict cannot be stayed? (Hear, hear)”

Again, here we have an excellent example of the reasoning the British use in their arguments in justifying the idea of intervention (which according to you don't exist). And where in here with all the attendant "obvious facts" which you have discussed (which would be known at the time of this speech) is there a contradiction in the wording of what Lincoln has explicitly publicly stated, publicly done, or in policies his government has enacted?

So if you can answer that question, without arguing that the British will be prescient and somehow know he intends to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864 thanks to his actions in early 1861, great! You're not engaging in historical revisionism and have actually mounted a successful argument in favor of your theory.

Until then, again, a nice fantasy you paint. But a fantasy it remains.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The reality the British DIDN'T intervene in the Civil War

Or how about you give any evidence to support this claim hm? That would be a welcome change from your "take my word for it" attitude.

The reality the British DIDN'T intervene in the Civil War is a "claim" that needs evidence to support it?:rolleyes:

Really?

Wow...

Best,
 
The reality the British DIDN'T intervene in the Civil War is a "claim" that needs evidence to support it?:rolleyes:

Really?

Wow...

Best,

EDIT: Misread this. But you still haven't answered any of the arguments posed by me.

Also could you provide some form of evidence other than your own opinion that if the British intervened it would be to save slavery? That would be a welcome change. I see now you're not being deliberately obtuse, but I still have to ask you actually back this up, otherwise it's as worthless as all of your other arguments thus far in the thread.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You're the one who ran off into the weeds with this, after

Yep, there is that...

One point on the "the Union wasn't fighting slavery until after the Emancipation Proclamation and so the British could have intervened" meme:

Any thoughtful observer would have picked up on the realities of the First Confiscation Act (August 8, 1861) and the Second (July 17, 1862); the entrance of Kansas as a free state in January, 1861, after the internal conflict of Bleeding Kansas should have made it clear what the realities were going to be... any reading that slavery was not going to be diminished, if not prohibited, as a result of the war was an intentionally "mistaken" interpretation on the part of individuals with intentions that had nothing to do with slavery; far from it.

Best,

You're the one who ran off into the weeds with this after the above post, which is pretty straightforward; there's nothing particularly controverted in any of it.

But if you really think whatever it is you and Rob are trying to say is compelling (it reads like warmed-over Tom Di Lorenzo to me), good luck with that.

Good night and good luck.
 
You're the one who ran off into the weeds with this after the above post, which is pretty straightforward; there's nothing particularly controverted in any of it.

But if you really think whatever it is you and Rob are trying to say is compelling (it reads like warmed-over Tom Di Lorenzo to me), good luck with that.

Good night and good luck.

Ok, so no real answers to any of my questions, and the same tripe you've made unsupported and claim is 'true' with the power of historical revisionism. Once again, its a fun fantasy you paint, but its unsupported by any historical facts or the opinions of those living at the time.

You are of course welcome to this belief, but it doesn't make it any less incorrect.

Next time perhaps engage even one of the arguments put forward instead please.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I have no idea what you arguments even are

Ok, so no real answers to any of my questions, and the same tripe you've made unsupported and claim is 'true' with the power of historical revisionism. Once again, its a fun fantasy you paint, but its unsupported by any historical facts or the opinions of those living at the time.You are of course welcome to this belief, but it doesn't make it any less incorrect. Next time perhaps engage even one of the arguments put forward instead please.


I have no idea what your arguments even are; something about Lincoln said nasty things about people of African ancestry, so he was the moral equivalent of Jefferson Davis, or something...and Frederick Douglas had a nicer time in England in the 1840s than he did in the US, so that means he would have supported Britain going to war in support of the confederacy, or something...

Kind of faded after that, to be frank.

Best,
 
I have no idea what your arguments even are; something about Lincoln said nasty things about people of African ancestry, so he was the moral equivalent of Jefferson Davis, or something...and Frederick Douglas had a nicer time in England in the 1840s than he did in the US, so that means he would have supported Britain going to war in support of the confederacy, or something...

Kind of faded after that, to be frank.

Best,

Ok now I see you're being deliberately obtuse. The entire thread (and arguments) have revolved around why the British stayed out of the Civil War, in discussing the hypotheticals myself and others have pointed to the British opinions of the time and how they interpreted the various actions undertaken by the Americans.

You on the other hand have made numerous unsupported assertions (or personal opinion arguments) which have no relation to the thread other than in your own imaginary version of history and have blissfully ignored the material related to British reactions to events in the American Civil War.

Instead of actually engaging that material (which I have quoted in abundance for you above and asked you to fit into your version of events, which you seem incapable of doing) you have instead made bizarre ahistorical arguments which argue for opinions, ideas, and interpretations, which demonstrably did not exist at this time.

So either you're going to engage the material, back up any of what you've said with a demonstrable fact versus your personal opinion of events, or as seems to be much more likely, make numerous unrelated claims and assertions based purely on your personal opinion, and pointedly ignore the questions asked of you.

If you actually have an argument to be made I'd be glad to hear it, otherwise your just positing your own personal fantasy repeatedly without evidence.

Once again, its a nice fantasy you have, but it has no basis in historical fact.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
This about sums it up

"We want the South to succeed in seceding, so that we hamstring our global economic competitor."

"But the South is moustache-twirlingly eeeeeevil, and we've been categorically opposed to slavery - using the RN to stamp out that terrible trade - for absolute donkey's years."

"Good point, well made. Maybe we should just get some popcorn and watch?"

"Probably best, yes."

"Maybe we should intervene on the North's side? That would shorten the war and reduce the human cost."

"What about the actual cost? In sterling?"

"Well, it would be... hmm... carry the one... gosh. I say, old bean, that's really quite a large number."

"So... butter on your popcorn?"

"Top hole, old bean."

This about sums it up, and with all the seriousness the question demands.;)

Best,
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Why didn't Britain intervene in the American Civil War?

OP

Much as I have enjoyed reading the splendidly erudite , sermoneously lengthy and occasionally delightfully snide posts in this thread I have to conclude that most of them are missing the point by mile. In part I think that this is because the question is posed in the negative. You might have had better results if you had posed it in terms of 'What circumstances might have caused Great Britain to intervene in the American Civil War?' On the other hand as there are so many entrenched positions and so much cantankerousness involved it might not.

There are very few reasons that the British would intervene:

1 If incidents on the blockade or on the border of BNA became serious threats to British interests that could not be resolved by diplomacy.
2 If even larger scale loss of life occurred early in the war than in OTL especially civilian life and if accompanied by slave revolt.
3 A threat to British interests in Mexico or British lines of communications (primarily in what is now Panama).
 
You might have had better results if you had posed it in terms of 'What circumstances might have caused Great Britain to intervene in the American Civil War?'
Your faith in humanity is touching, but possibly misplaced. The original question could have been something as innocuous as "how many ships travelled between Halifax and Southampton in 1861?" and I suspect we'd still end up with a ten page thread with half the posts insisting that the American Civil War was about slavery from the start and the other half pointing out that the British had plenty of evidence to support their belief that this wasn't the case.

1 If incidents on the blockade or on the border of BNA became serious threats to British interests that could not be resolved by diplomacy.
2 If even larger scale loss of life occurred early in the war than in OTL especially civilian life and if accompanied by slave revolt.
3 A threat to British interests in Mexico or British lines of communications (primarily in what is now Panama).
Though these are cogent reasons for considering intervention, I'm not sure they would merit actually taking the step of joining the war any more than the suffering in Lancashire did. Whatever issues are being fought out in the war- slavery, nationalism, protectionism- they're serious ones. Rather than act and cause more problems, the British are inclined to tolerate quite a lot- a phenomenon that anybody who has travelled on public transport in Britain may be familiar with.
 
This about sums it up, and with all the seriousness the question demands.;)

Best,

I'm glad to see we've answered the question of whether you're capable of supporting your assertions.

OP

Much as I have enjoyed reading the splendidly erudite , sermoneously lengthy and occasionally delightfully snide posts in this thread I have to conclude that most of them are missing the point by mile. In part I think that this is because the question is posed in the negative. You might have had better results if you had posed it in terms of 'What circumstances might have caused Great Britain to intervene in the American Civil War?' On the other hand as there are so many entrenched positions and so much cantankerousness involved it might not.

It probably wouldn't. Most of the posters you'd get would still be somewhere around wankery of one side with few people actually looking at what the people of the time had said, or believed.

It's a contentious question, made worse by how much of a sore spot the ACW is in general between people who have an axe to grind for either side. You throw a foreign power into the mix and well it becomes even worse.

There are very few reasons that the British would intervene:

1 If incidents on the blockade or on the border of BNA became serious threats to British interests that could not be resolved by diplomacy.
2 If even larger scale loss of life occurred early in the war than in OTL especially civilian life and if accompanied by slave revolt.
3 A threat to British interests in Mexico or British lines of communications (primarily in what is now Panama).

Generally I agree that it takes something like a Trent Affairx10 to force Britain's hand in the matter, and slave revolt and attendant unrest would cause intervention for humanitarian reasons (because the British people loved to hold the moral high ground in the era).

Though I do disagree with the Mexican one, they were quite happy to tacitly support Napoleon's adventure OTL despite the potential havoc it could cause. I don't think there is any way that the US could even intervene in the conflict and make it worse in the period where intervention is ripe enough.

I should probably add that when looking at OTL you have a pretty small window for any potential British direct intervention, which stretches roughly from September of 61 to August of 62 or so (when all the facts surrounding Antietam, Lee's failed invasion, and the probably military situation became clear across the Pond). It would take a truly massive understanding, or some massive incompetence on the part of the North (and considering Seward's success at creating an attitude of suspicion on American motives in Britain we really have the abilities of Lord Lyons to thank in keeping things under control) to force Britain's hand. They wouldn't intervene lightly, and if they did it would be pretty disastrous for the Union.
 
From reading quotations in this thread, I seem to be considered rather gauche for my habit of looking for actual evidence about what the British thought about slavery, and posting it in this thread so that others have the opportunity to engage with it. As it happens, writing a thesis leaves you with a lot of relevant quotes about certain topics. Some of us, a happy few, even come out of it with our intellectual curiosity about the topic intact.

Normally I wouldn’t dream of fulfilling requests any more than I would be prepared to complete coursework for the sixth form students that I volunteer with. However, they say the first step to wisdom is admitting you know nothing. So, to commemorate TFSmiths’ admission that he knows not a damn thing about the British view of the “contraband” policy, here’s a reasonably representative selection of contemporary British attitudes to it in its early days:

"Slaves [Frank Baker, Shepard Mallory and James Townsend] have fled to the camp of General Butler; and when their owner, under a flag of truce, claimed their restoration, Yankee ingenuity raised the curious pretence that they were 'contraband of war', but said they should be restored on the owner taking an oath of fidelity to the Union... After great perplexity, the Cabinet of Washington has instructed the Commanders to receive escaped slaves and set them to work, keeping an account of their work and the cost of their keep. Is it thus that men make war to put down slavery?... what is 'the anti-slavery sentiment' that, instead of saying to these fugitive slaves- 'Go forth; we shall do nothing to return you to bondage;' detains them, keeping an account of their food and earnings, that a balance may be duly made when they shall be returned to their former owners, or sold to reimburse the Federal treasury? Dr Beecher and Mr Phillips had better teach 'the anti-slavery sentiment' at Washington, before they trouble themselves to cross the Atlantic. Our 'anti-slavery sentiment' tells us to scorn this miserable paltering. Providence has destroyed, by the appalling judgement of civil war, the old devices by which the Free States propped up the system of the Slave States; and even in the midst of that war, the men who say they are fighting for liberty, actually embarrass themselves with the care of the human chattels in the interest of slave owners. We console ourselves with the belief that this shallow expedient will break down. The army may take charge of a few hundred slaves, but it can do nothing with them when they come forth by thousands; and the movement of slaves having commenced, it must go on spreading and strengthening while the war continues." (Sheffield Independent, 15 June 1861, p. 7)

“They have proclaimed theirs to be the land of freedom, while they have become utterly oblivious to the fact that their Union involved a system of slavery more cruel, degrading, and damning to the human feelings, intellect, and spirit, than ever before disgraced the world… Do the Northern States seek to free themselves from these heavy charges? Hypocrisy impotent as contemptible! Where under the canopy of heaven did colour stamp a man with such hopeless misery as in the streets of New York, Philadelphia, or Boston?... The triumph of the South cannot make Slavery worse; the triumph of the North can hardly make the position of the slave better, when even now she designates him as a 'chattel', and talks of him as being 'contraband of war'.” (Huddersfield Chronicle, 13 July 1861 p. 5)

"Another piece of news brought by the last steamer, is the remarkable proclamation which General Fremont has issued in Missouri... The slaves held by rebels are, by this proclamation, declared to be free, and not 'contraband of war', as has hitherto been the case. This is a most important distinction, and we regard it as the first step towards making the present struggle a war of emancipation... A movement of this kind will not be easily put back... We are thankful that the patriotic Fremont... has had the courage to act as he has done, and we trust that before long, the principle which he has thus broadly and publicly avowed, will obtain the enlightened and energetic support of the Federal Government." (York Herald, 21 September 1861, p. 8)

“It is certainly stretching the doctrine of contraband of war very far… the argument is as absurd and untenable as an argument could possibly be… when the necessity of emancipating the slaves is so strongly felt that people are ready to seize upon the most obviously absurd pretext as reasons to justify it, it is evident that the day of action is drawing nigh. We have always anticipated its advent, and are not at all surprised to see it coming so soon, nor sorry to see it coming with such ridiculously awkward excuses.” (Leeds Mercury, 8 October 1861)

"Mr Lincoln- long the chosen representative of Illinois, a State which has always signalised itself by a reluctance to allow of the settlement of free negroes on its soul... It is probable that even at the seat of the Federal Government no one is able to tell exactly what becomes of the 'contrabands' who flock to the camp of the army of the Potomac, and few persons, perhaps, feel much curiosity on the subject. Every military officer is allowed carte blanche, and follows his own lights in the matter. Wherein it is observable that those belonging to the regular army generally show a disposition to pay more attention to the vested rights of the master than to the inherent rights of the fugitive." (Bradford Observer, 6 February 1862, p. 7)

Another clipping which I found interesting- I had understood that the Fugitive Slave laws were unenforceable in Washington D.C. before their abolition in June 1864. Sadly, that appears to have been only partially true.
“Walter S. Cox, the commissioner under the Fugitive Slave Law, to-day [11 June 1863] remanded seven runaway slaves, two of them children, from Maryland, to their claimants. An affidavit of the loyalty of the claimants had been made.” (Leeds Mercury, 25 June 1863)

I also liked this quotation, taken from a private letter from Frederick Douglass to a friend in Leeds, for its encapsulation of the growth of anti-slavery attitudes during the war.
“I never was listened to with such attention as now. My leading idea now before the people is, ‘No war but an abolition war; no peace but an abolition peace.’ The Government and people still need line upon line, and precept upon precept… think of me in Washington, where, three years ago, I should have been murdered in ten minutes had I dared to open my mouth for my enslaved people.” (Leeds Mercury, 21 January 1864)
 
Last edited:
“They have proclaimed theirs to be the land of freedom, while they have become utterly oblivious to the fact that their Union involved a system of slavery more cruel, degrading, and damning to the human feelings, intellect, and spirit, than ever before disgraced the world… Do the Northern States seek to free themselves from these heavy charges? Hypocrisy impotent as contemptible! Where under the canopy of heaven did colour stamp a man with such hopeless misery as in the streets of New York, Philadelphia, or Boston?... The triumph of the South cannot make Slavery worse; the triumph of the North can hardly make the position of the slave better, when even now she designates him as a 'chattel', and talks of him as being 'contraband of war'.” (Huddersfield Chronicle, 13 July 1861 p. 5)

The whole "North can hardly make the position of the slave better" line here really seems to echo Gladstone's comments on enforcing good institutions at the point of a sword I think.

"Another piece of news brought by the last steamer, is the remarkable proclamation which General Fremont has issued in Missouri... The slaves held by rebels are, by this proclamation, declared to be free, and not 'contraband of war', as has hitherto been the case. This is a most important distinction, and we regard it as the first step towards making the present struggle a war of emancipation... A movement of this kind will not be easily put back... We are thankful that the patriotic Fremont... has had the courage to act as he has done, and we trust that before long, the principle which he has thus broadly and publicly avowed, will obtain the enlightened and energetic support of the Federal Government." (York Herald, 21 September 1861, p. 8)

“It is certainly stretching the doctrine of contraband of war very far… the argument is as absurd and untenable as an argument could possibly be… when the necessity of emancipating the slaves is so strongly felt that people are ready to seize upon the most obviously absurd pretext as reasons to justify it, it is evident that the day of action is drawing nigh. We have always anticipated its advent, and are not at all surprised to see it coming so soon, nor sorry to see it coming with such ridiculously awkward excuses.” (Leeds Mercury, 8 October 1861)

Now these are interesting. Its a nice contrast to the outrage over the use of the term contraband, but also points out the tedious excuse making even abolitionist sympathizers in the North had to latch on to in order to make their ideas plausible.

I like how they discuss Fremont's proclamation, they must have been terribly disappointed when Lincoln quashed it.

Another clipping which I found interesting- I had understood that the Fugitive Slave laws were unenforceable in Washington D.C. before their abolition in June 1864. Sadly, that appears to have been only partially true.
“Walter S. Cox, the commissioner under the Fugitive Slave Law, to-day [11 June 1863] remanded seven runaway slaves, two of them children, from Maryland, to their claimants. An affidavit of the loyalty of the claimants had been made.” (Leeds Mercury, 25 June 1863)

Wow, if accurate that's pretty dark. Then again, when one considers that similar events happened out West where in Kentucky and Tennessee the slaves of pro-Union plantation owners were not interfered with this really puts to rest the myth that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, which seems to be so ridiculously enduring.

"Forever free" indeed :rolleyes:

Maybe now people can realize these are attitudes and actions that evolved rather than were present and 'obviously apparent' at the start of the conflict.
 
Top