I don't have the time to read another of Allen essays, but skimming through it, I am surprised that there is not mention of the fact that Britain eventually (1872) did agree to pay damages to the US in the amount of $15,500,000 (about $275 billion today) in no small part for their actions during the Civil War (though, admitted no guilt).
Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== Allen Esterson wrote: > Chris Green writes: > >> "Sided with" was indeed too strong. It is true that Britain was >> > officially > >> neutral, but they were, shall we say, sympathetic to the South >> (entirely on grounds of self-interest -- an independent Confederacy >> would be a very weak country, very much dependent on the British >> appetite for "CSA" cotton. The remaining USA would be weakened >> too, to the benefit of Britain). Britain was involved in a number of >> disputed actions during the war (running blockades, making warships, >> etc.), each of which "just happened" to favor the Confederacy.[…] >> > > This, I gather, is in line with received American views on the British > position on the American Civil war. But is it accurate? In *Great > Britain and the American Civil War* (2006) (cited in my previous post) > Ephraim Douglas Adams quotes the British historian, George Grote > writing: 'The perfect neutrality of [Great Britain] in this destructive > war appears to me almost a phenomenon in political history'." > > Adams goes on to say that this is not the view prevalent in America, > and that the question his book sets out to answer is "Did Great Britain > in spite of her long years of championship of personal freedom and of > leadership in the cause of anti-slavery seize upon the disruption > offered in the destruction of the American Union… [and] react only to > selfish motives of commercial advantage and national power?" (p. 18) > His conclusion from a detailed analysis of the historical evidence is > very different from Chris's. > > Chris mentions "making warships", something I already dealt with in my > previous post, showing that an examination of the actual events does > not support Chris's interpretation of British Government support for > the South. It is certainly not the case that Britain (by which I > presume he means the British government) was "sympathetic to the South" > – as I already pointed out, the notion that British policy was largely > predicated on commercial self-interest (Chris: "the British appetite > for 'CSA' cotton") is simplistic and does not tally with close > examination of the policies and motivations of the British government > as discussed in great detail in Adams's book. > > Chris write of Britain's "running blockades". On the contrary, Britain > accepted the Northern blockade of the South, and any British ships that > ran the blockade were not sanctioned, either officially or > unofficially, by the British government. > > So let's look at the historical information in Adams's book in the > light of Chris's contentions. > > Did Britain wish for the success of the South in the Civil War? > > "In the months preceding the outbreak of the Civil War all British > governmental effort was directed toward keeping clear of the quarrel > and toward conciliation of the two sections… as the war dragged on, the > ministry, pressed from various angles at home, ventured, with much > uncertainty, upon a movement looking toward conciliation." (p. 605) > > Did the British Government "run" the blockade of the South (or > unofficially sanction such running of the blockade)? > > Adams writes, first quoting Lord Russell [British Prime Minister]: > "'His Majesty's Government are of the opinion, assuming the blockade is > duly notified [etc, etc,], …the fact that various ships may have > successfully escaped through it will not of itself prevent the blockade > from being an effective one in international law.' From this view > Russell never departed in official instructions. England's position as > the leading Maritime power made it inevitable that she should > immediately approve the American blockade effort and be cautious in > criticizing its legitimate operation. Both her own history, and > probable future interests, required such a policy far more important in > the eyes of statesmen than any temporary injury to British commerce." > (p. 273) > > (That doesn't mean that English merchants would not (and did not) > attempt to break the blockade, but it was not the policy of the British > government that they should do so.) > > In February 1862, Adams writes, Prime Minister Russell "gave challenge > to pro-Southern sentiment by asserting the effectiveness of the > blockade, a challenge almost immediately made known to Parliament by > the presentation of papers." In response to a motion in Parliament by > sympathisers of the South who argued that the blockade was ineffective, > a supporter of Government policy, W.E. Forster, "showed that nearly all > the alleged blockade runners were in reality small coasting steamers, > which, by use of shallow inner channels, could creep along the shore > and then make a dash for the West Indies… To raise the blockade, he > argued, would be a direct violation by Britain of her neutrality." (p. > 278) > > Adams later raises an issue he says is "vital" to British home > politics, "one the ran like a constant thread through the whole pattern > of British attitude toward America.. This was the question of the > future of democracy. Was its fate bound up with the future of [the > Civil War]? And if so where lay British interest?" (p. 607) > > This aspect of British policy and public concerns is so important that > Adams devotes his last chapter to it. Even in the truncated form on > Google Books it is worth looking through as it illustrates again that > to view British government policy through the lens of commercial > interests does not do justice to the complexity of the actual issues > that contributed to the making of British official policy towards the > American Civil War. > > On the "cotton" issue on which Chris sets so much store: > > Maldwyn Jones (*The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992*) > writes: "Thanks to heavy imports in the previous two years British > manufacturers held large stocks of cotton when the war broke out; > shortages of raw material did not become acute until 1863, by which > time alternative supplies were beginning to arrive from India and > Egypt." (p. 231) Similarly Adams: "There was no immediate shortage of > supply [of cotton] when war came in America, rather an unusual > accumulation of raw stocks…" (p. 333) > > In response to a French suggestion [in 1863] that Britain together with > France break the blockade, Adams writes that Lord Lyons, the British > Minister to the United States, "acknowledged the general pressure for > cotton, but thought there was no need of great alarm as yet and also > advanced the idea that in the end Europe would benefit by being forced > to develop other sources of supply, thus being freed from such > exclusive dependence on the United States." (p. 204) > > Maldwyn Jones again: "At the outset the South confidently expected that > Great Britain in particular would be forced by her dependence on > Southern cotton to intervene and break the blockade… But Southern faith > in King Cotton was misplaced… […] Economic factors do not, however, > explain why in the end neither Great Britain nor France was prepared to > intervene [and break the Northern blockade]" (p. 231) > > Here is an account showing that the Confederacy's two attempts to > persuade the British Government to depart from its policy of neutrality > were failures: > http://tinyurl.com/355wlp2 > > And more generally: "…All kinds of journals [in Britain] expressed > differing views, regardless of their size and circulation. But the > general sentiment backed a British neutrality that in reality favored > the North." (In Robert L. Beisner, *American Foreign Relations Since > 1600: A Guide to the Literature.Vol. 1*, p. 393 note 8: 397) > http://tinyurl.com/ > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > [email protected] > http://www.esterson.org > > --------------------------------------- > > Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance > Christopher D. Green > Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:03:01 -0800 > Allen Esterson wrote: > >> Chris Green writes: >> >> >>> Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you >>> may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially >>> about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton) >>> >>> >> That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral >> throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South" >> during any part of it. >> > > "Sided with" was indeed too strong. It is true that Britain was > officially neutral, but they were, shall we say, sympathetic to the > South (entirely on grounds of self-interest -- an independent > Confederacy would be a very weak country, very much dependent on the > British appetite for "CSA" cotton. The remaining USA would be weakened > too, to the benefit of Britain). Britain was involved in a number of > disputed actions during the war (running blockades, making warships, > etc.), each of which "just happened" to favor the Confederacy. US > diplomacy throughout the early part of the war was aimed at heading off > official British recognition of the CSA, which the British gov't was > ever alert for an opportunity to offer. The Emancipation Proclamation > served, among other things, to take that option off the table for the > duration. > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=6551 > or send a blank email to > leave-6551-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6554 or send a blank email to leave-6554-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
