First a correction to my last post: It was Palmerston, not Lord Russell, who was the British Prime Minister at the time of the American Civil War; Russell was the Foreign Minister. Also: The Google Books edition *Great Britain and the American Civil War* by Ephraim Douglas Adams is dated 2006, but the book was first published in 1925. http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv
Now to what Chris wrote on 17 September 2010: >I don't have the time to read another of Allen essays… I have often been only too aware, whether writing on Freud, Jeffrey Masson, or the Mileva Maric "controversy", that erroneous assertions made in a sentence or two quite often take several paragraphs to rebut adequately, especially when quotations and references are supplied. >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). Having insinuated that my response was too lengthy, Chris is now expressing surprise I didn't include an item that would have made it even more lengthy! Actually by several paragraphs if the circumstances are to be explained adequately, as shown below. (Adams devotes a whole chapter to just one aspect of the ships issue, that of the "The Laird Rams", chapter 13, which I recommend for Chris to read when he gets the time.) In fact I did devote a lengthy paragraph to the ships issue in my first post on this thread, on 16 November, but since Chris wants me to go into further detail I shall be happy to oblige. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1861 forbade British subjects to be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of a belligerent, and provided for punishment of individuals and forfeiture of vessels if this prohibition were disobeyed. Such punishment or forfeiture would follow on due proof of the offence. (Adams 2006, p. 446.) The Confederacy sent agents to Liverpool (a part of the country where the Northern blockade had had an adverse effect on the cotton industry) to find ways to circumvent the Act. They were able to get a number of ships built as non-military vessels, which would later be armed once on the high seas, before the efforts (in particular) of Thomas Haines Dudley, the United States consul in Liverpool, to block this subterfuge by legal action was successful. Dudley employed detectives, quizzed seamen and water-front workers, combed newspapers and so on, to gain accurate information. These spying activities were necessitated by the fact that it was the policy of the Confederate purchasing agent, James D. Bulloch, not to tell shipbuilder, carpenters, or crew just what intentions he had for the vessels. (It is also reported that Bulloch gave misleading information as to where the vessels were destined, see references below.) Matters actually came to a head with the building of "The Laird Rams", two vessels that, although without arms at that stage, were built to the specification of warships with iron hulls. It's a long and complicated story (sorry Chris!), but here's a brief summary, if anyone's still with me. :-) The warships were built clandestinely, but the indefatigable efforts of Dudley brought about a successful court action against Laird Brothers, the shipbuilders in question. The Government ordered the "rams" to be seized, but one of them, the Alabama, had managed to make good its escape from Liverpool. It was largely the damage done to United States ships by the Alabama that led to the US later suing the British Government for reparations. An arbitration panel in Geneva awarded the United States $15,500,000 (as Chris cited above). Though admitting no guilt for alleged tardiness in their response to Bulloch's providing evidence of infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, the British government paid up and apologised for the losses caused by vessels built in the Liverpool shipyards. References: http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv (Chapter 13) http://tinyurl.com/3xk4jsj http://tinyurl.com/32jwfac Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher D. Green <chri...@yorku.ca> Subject: Re: Canada's early intolerance Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:59:11 -0500 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 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6579 or send a blank email to leave-6579-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
