THE KEY-NOTE OF BRITISH ATTITUDE
On May 8, 1865, the news was received in London of Johnston's surrender
to Sherman. On that same day there occurred in the Commons the first
serious debate in thirty-three years on a proposed expansion of the
electoral franchise. It was a dramatic coincidence and no mere
fortuitous one in the minds of thoughtful Englishmen who had seen in the
Civil War a struggle as fateful in British domestic policy as in that of
America herself. Throughout all British political agitation from the
time of the American revolution in 1776, there had run the thread of the
American "example" as argument to some for imitation, to others for
warning. Nearly every British traveller in America, publishing his
impressions, felt compelled to report on American governmental and
political institutions, and did so from his preconceived notions of what
was desirable in his own country[1323]. In the ten years immediately
preceding the Civil War most travellers were laudatory of American
democracy, and one, the best in acute analysis up to the time of Lord
Bryce's great work, had much influence on that class in England which
was discontented with existing political institutions at home. This was
Mackay's _Western World_ which, first published in 1849, had gone
through four editions in 1850 and in succeeding years was frequently
reprinted[1324]. Republicanism, Mackay asserted, was no longer an
experiment; its success and permanence were evident in the mighty power
of the United States; Canada would soon follow the American example; the
"injustice" of British aristocrats to the United States was intentional,
seeking to discredit democracy:
"... Englishmen are too prone to mingle severity with their
judgments whenever the Republic is concerned. It is the
interest of aristocracy to exhibit republicanism, where-ever
it is found, in the worst possible light, and the mass of the
people have too long, by pandering to their prejudice, aided
them in their object. They recognize America as the
stronghold of republicanism. If they can bring it into
disrepute here, they know that they inflict upon it the
deadliest blow in Europe[1325]."
On the opposing side were other writers. Tremenheere argued the
inapplicability of American institutions to Great Britain[1326]. The
theoretical bases of those institutions were in some respects admirable
but in actual practice they had resulted in the rule of the mob and had
debased the nation in the estimation of the world; bribery in elections,
the low order of men in politics and in Congress, were proofs of the
evils of democracy; those in England who clamoured for a "numerical"
rather than a class representation should take warning from the American
experiment. Occasionally, though rarely, there appeared the impressions
of some British traveller who had no political axe to grind[1327], but
from 1850 to 1860, as in every previous decade, British writing on
America was coloured by the author's attitude on political institutions
at home. The "example" of America was constantly on the horizon in
British politics.
In 1860, the Liberal movement in England was at its lowest ebb since the
high tide of 1832. Palmerston was generally believed to have made a
private agreement with Derby that both Whig and Tory parties would
oppose any movement toward an expansion of the franchise[1328]. Lord
John Russell, in his youth an eager supporter of the Reform Bill of
1832, had now gained the name of "Finality John" by his assertion that
that Reform was final in British institutions. Political reaction was in
full swing much to the discontent of Radicals like Bright and Cobden and
their supporters. When the storm broke in America the personal
characteristics of the two leaders North and South, Lincoln and Davis,
took on, to many British eyes, an altogether extreme importance as if
representative of the political philosophies of the two sections.
Lincoln's "crudity" was democratic; Davis' "culture" was
aristocratic--nor is it to be denied that Davis had "aristocratic" views
on government[1329]. But that this issue had any vital bearing on the
quarrel between the American sections was never generally voiced in
England. Rather, British comment was directed to the lesson, taught to
the world by the American crisis, of the failure of democratic
institutions in _national power._ Bright had long preached to the
unenfranchised of England the prosperity and might of America and these
had long been denied by the aristocratic faction to be a result of
democratic institutions. At first the denial was now repeated, the
_Saturday Review_, February 23, 1861, protesting that there was no
essential connection between the "shipwreck" of American institutions
and the movement in England for an expanded franchise. Even, the article
continued, if an attempt were made to show such a connection it would
convince nobody since "Mr. Bright has succeeded in persuading a great
number of influential persons that the admission of working-men into the
constituencies is chiefly, if not solely, desirable on the ground that
it has succeeded admirably in America and has proved a sovereign panacea
against the war, taxation and confusion which are the curses of old
Governments in Europe." Yet that the denial was not sincere is shown by
the further assertion that "the shallow demagogues of Birmingham and
other kindred platforms must bear the blame of the inference, drawn
nearly universally at the present moment, that, if the United States
become involved in hopeless difficulties, it would be madness to lower
the qualification for the suffrage in England."
This pretended disclaimer of any essential relation between the American
struggle and British institutions was not long persisted in. A month
later the _Saturday Review_ was strong in contemptuous criticism of the
"promiscuous democracy" of the North[1330]. Less political journals
followed suit. The _Economist_ thought the people of England would now
be convinced of the folly of aping America and that those who had
advocated universal suffrage would be filled with "mingled alarm,
gratitude and shame[1331]." Soon W.H. Russell could write, while still
at Washington "... the world will only see in it all, the failure of
republican institutions in time of pressure as demonstrated by all
history--that history which America vainly thought she was going to set
right and re-establish on new grounds and principles[1332]." "The
English worshippers of American institutions," said the _Saturday
Review_, "are in danger of losing their last pretext for preferring the
Republic to the obsolete and tyrannical Monarchy of England.... It now
appears that the peaceable completion of the secession has become
impossible, and it will be necessary to discover some new ground of
superiority by which Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Lincoln may be advantageously
contrasted with Queen Victoria[1333]."
These expressions antedated the news of the actual opening of the war
and may be regarded as jeers at Bright and his followers rather than as
attempts to read a lesson to the public. No such expressions are to be
found in the letters of leading officials though minor ones occasionally
indulged in them[1334]. As late as June, 1861, Adams declared that while
some in England welcomed American disunion as a warning to their
countrymen it was evident that but a small number as yet saw the cause
of the North as identical with the world progress of free
institutions[1335]. Evidently he was disappointed that the followers of
Bright were not exhibiting more courage and demanding public support of
the North as fighting their battle at home. They were indeed strangely
silent, depressed no doubt by American events, and discouraged. It
required time also to arouse intensity of feeling on the American
question and to see clearly the issues involved. Aristocratic Britain
was first to declare a definite lesson to be learned, thereby bringing
out the fighting qualities of British democracy. Throughout 1861, the
comment was relatively mild. In July, _Blackwood's_ declared:
"It is precisely because we do not share the admiration of
America for her own institutions and political tendencies
that we do not now see in the impending change an event
altogether to be deplored. In those institutions and
tendencies we saw what our own might be if the most dangerous
elements of our Constitution should become dominant. We saw
democracy rampant, with no restriction upon its caprices. We
saw a policy which received its impulses always from below
... nor need we affect particularly to lament the exhibition
of the weak point of a Constitution ... the disruption of
which leaves entirely untouched the laws and usages which
America owes to England, and which have contributed so
powerfully to her prosperity...."
"With a rival Government on the frontier ... with great
principles to be not vapoured about but put to the proof we
should probably see the natural aristocracy rise from the
dead level of the Republic, raising the national character
with its own elevation[1336]."
In the same month the _Quarterly_, always more calm, logical and
convincing than _Blackwood's_, published "Democracy on its Trial[1337]."
"The example of America kept alive, as it had created, the party of
progress"; now "it has sunk from the decrepitude of premature old age."
If England, after such an example, permits herself to be led into
democracy she "will have perished by that wilful infatuation which no
warning can dispel."
Adams had complained that few British friends of progress identified the
cause of the North with their own, but this was true of Americans also.
The _Atlantic Monthly_ for July 1861, discussed British attitude wholly
in terms of cotton supply. But soon there appeared in the British press
so many preachments on the "lesson" of America that the aristocratic
effort to gain an advantage at home became apparent to all[1338]. The
_Economist_ moralized on the "untried" character of American
institutions and statesmen, the latter usually as ignorant as the
"masses" whom they represented and if more intellectual still more
worthy of contempt because of their "voluntary moral degradation" to the
level of their constituents[1339]. "The upper and ruling class" wrote
Bright to Sumner, were observing with satisfaction, "that democracy may
get into trouble, and war, and debt, and taxes, as aristocracy has done
for this country[1340]." Thus Bright could not deny the blow to
democracy; nor could the _Spectator_, upbraiding its countrymen for lack
of sympathy with the North: "New England will be justified in saying
that Old England's anti-slavery sympathies are mere hollow sentimental
pretences, since she can rest satisfied to stuff her ears with cotton
against the cries of the slaves, and to compensate her gentle regret
over the new impulse given to slavery by her lively gratification over
the paralyzing shock suffered by Democracy[1341]." This was no taking up
of cudgels for the North and "Progress" such as Adams had hoped for.
Vigour rested with the opposing side and increased when hopes of a short
war vanished. The _Saturday Review_ asserted:
"In that reconstruction of political philosophy which the
American calamities are likely to inaugurate, the value of
the popular element will be reduced to its due
proportions.... The true guarantee of freedom will be looked
for more in the equilibrium of classes than in the equality
of individuals.... We may hope, at last, that the delusive
confusion between freedom and democracy is finally banished
from the minds of Englishmen[1342]."
"The real secret," wrote Motley, "of the exultation which manifests
itself in the _Times_ and other organs over our troubles and disasters,
is their hatred, not to America, so much as to democracy in
England[1343]." It was scarcely a secret in the columns of the journals
already quoted. But no similar interpretation had as yet appeared in the
_Times_ and Motley's implication was justified for it and other leading
daily newspapers. The Reviews and Weeklies were for the moment leading
the attack--possibly one reason for the slowness in reply of Bright and
his followers. Not all Reviews joined in the usual analysis. The
_Edinburgh_ at first saw in slavery the sole cause of the American
dispute[1344], then attributed it to the inevitable failure in power of
a federal system of government, not mentioning democracy as in
question[1345]. _Blackwood's_ repeatedly pushed home its argument:
"Independent of motives of humanity, we are glad that the end
of the Union seems more likely to be ridiculous than
terrible.... But for our own benefit and the instruction of
the world we wish to see the faults, so specious and so
fatal, of their political system exposed, in the most
effective way.... And the venerable Lincoln, the respectable
Seward, the raving editors, the gibbering mob, and the
swift-footed warriors of Bull's Run, are no malicious tricks
of fortune played off on an unwary nation, but are all of
them the legitimate offspring of the great Republic ...
dandled and nursed--one might say coddled--by Fortune, the
spoiled child Democracy, after playing strange pranks before
high heaven, and figuring in odd and unexpected disguises,
dies as sheerly from lack of vitality as the oldest of
worn-out despotisms.... In the hope that this contest may end
in the extinction of mob rule, we become reconciled to the
much slighter amount of suffering that war inflicts on
America[1346]."
Equally outspoken were a few public men who early espoused the cause of
the South. Beresford Hope, before a "distinguished audience" used
language insulting to the North, fawning upon the South and picturing
the latter as wholly admirable for its aristocratic tendencies. For this
he was sharply taken to task by the _Spectator_[1347]. More sedately the
Earl of Shrewsbury proclaimed, "I see in America the trial of Democracy
and its failure. I believe that the dissolution of the Union is
inevitable, and that men now before me will live to see an aristocracy
established in America[1348]." In all countries and at all times there
are men over-eager in early prophecy on current events, but in such
utterances as these there is manifest not merely the customary desire to
stand in the limelight of assured knowledge and wisdom, but also the
happy conviction that events in America were working to the undoing of
the Radicals of Great Britain. If they would not be supine the Radicals
must strike back. On December 4, at Rochdale where, as the _Times_
asserted, he was sure of an audience sympathetic on purely personal
grounds, Bright renewed his profession of faith in the American Republic
and sang his accustomed praises of its great accomplishments[1349]. The
battle, for England, on American democracy, was joined; the challenge
issued by aristocratic England, accepted.
But apart from extreme factions at either end of the scale there stood a
group holding a middle ground opinion, not yet sure of the historical
significance of the American collapse. To this group belonged Gladstone,
as yet uncertain of his political philosophy, and regretful, though
vainly, it would appear, of the blow to democracy. He wrote his thought
to Brougham, no doubt hoping to influence the view-point of the
_Edinburgh_.
"This has without doubt been a deplorable year for poor
'Democracy' and never has the old woman been at a heavier
discount since 1793. I see no discredit to the founders of
the American constitution in the main fact of the rupture.
On the contrary it was a great achievement to strike off by
the will and wit of man a constitution for two millions of
men scattered along a seaboard, which has lasted until they
have become more than thirty millions and have covered a
whole continent. But the freaks, pranks, and follies, not to
say worse, with which the rupture has been met in the
Northern States, down to Mr. Chase's financial (not
exposition but) exposure have really given as I have said the
old lady in question such a heavy blow and great
discouragement that I hope you will in the first vigour of
your action be a little merciful and human lest you murder
her outright[1350]."
On this middle group of Englishmen and their moral conceptions the
American Minister, Adams, at first pinned his faith, not believing in
1861 that the issues of democracy or of trade advantage would lead Great
Britain from just rules of conduct. Even in the crisis of the _Trent_
affair he was firm in this opinion:
"Much as the commercial and manufacturing interests may be
disposed to view the tariff as the source of all our evils,
and much as the aristocratic classes may endeavour to make
democracy responsible for them, the inexorable logic of
events is contradicting each and every assertion based on
these notions, and proving that the American struggle is,
after all, the ever-recurring one in human affairs between
right and wrong, between labour and capital, between liberty
and absolutism. When such an issue comes to be presented to
the people of Great Britain, stripped of all the disguises
which have been thrown over it, it is not difficult to
predict at least which side it will _not_ consent to
take[1351].
April, 1861, saw the beginning of the aristocratic challenge on American
democracy and December its acceptance by Bright. Throughout 1862 he
practically deserted his seat in Parliament and devoted himself to
stirring up labour and radical sentiment in favour of the North. In
January, 1862, a mass meeting at New Hall, Edgware Road, denounced the
daily press and was thought of sufficient moment to be reported by
Adams. A motion was carried:
"That in the opinion of this meeting, considering the
ill-disguised efforts of the _Times_ and other misleading
journals to misrepresent public opinion here on all American
questions ... to decry democratic institutions under the
trials to which the Republic is exposed, it is the duty of
the working-men especially as unrepresented in the National
Senate to express their sympathy with the United States in
their gigantic struggle for the preservation of the
Union[1352]...."
The daily press was, in fact, now joining more openly in the
controversy. The _Morning Post_, stating with conviction its belief that
there could be no re-union in America, added:
"... if the Government of the United States should succeed in
reannexing them [the Southern States] to its still extensive
dominions, Democracy will have achieved its grandest triumph
since the world began. It will have demonstrated to the ample
satisfaction of its present and future proselytes that it is
even more puissant in war than in peace; that it can navigate
not only the smooth seas of unendangered prosperity, but can
ride safely through the fiercest tempests that would engulf
every other craft laden with human destinies; that it can
descend to the darkest depths of adversity, and rise from
them all the stronger for the descent.... And who can doubt
that Democracy will be more arrogant, more aggressive, more
levelling and vulgarizing, if that be possible, than it ever
had been before[1353]."
By midsummer, 1862, Adams was more convinced than in 1861 that the
political controversy in England had an important bearing on the
attitude toward America. Even the alleged neutrality of _Fraser's
Magazine_ seemed turning to one-sided presentation of the "lesson" of
America. Mill's defence of the North, appearing in the February number,
was soon followed in July by the first of a series of articles,
"Universal Suffrage in the United States and Its Consequences,"
depicting the war as the result of mob rule and predicting a military
despotism as its inevitable consequence. The Liberals were losing
strength, wrote Adams:
"That the American difficulties have materially contributed
to this result cannot be doubted. The fact that many of the
leading Liberals are the declared friends of the United
States is a decided disadvantage in the contest now going on.
The predominating passion here is the desire for the ultimate
subdivision of America into many separate States which will
neutralize each other. This is most visible among the
conservative class of the Aristocracy who dread the growth of
liberal opinions and who habitually regard America as the
nursery of them[1354]."
From all this controversy Government leaders kept carefully aloof at
least in public expression of opinion. Privately, Russell commented to
Palmerston, "I have been reading a book on Jefferson by De Witt, which
is both interesting and instructive. It shows how the Great Republic of
Washington degenerated into the Democracy of Jefferson. They are now
reaping the fruit[1355]." Was it mere coincidence or was there
significance in an editorial in Palmerston's alleged "organ," the
_Morning Post_:
"That any Englishman has looked forward with pleasure to the
calamities of America is notoriously and demonstrably false.
But we have no hesitation in admitting that many thoughtful
Englishmen who have watched, in the policy of the United
States during the last twenty years, the foreshadowing of a
democratic tyranny compared with which the most corrupt
despotisms of the Old World appear realms of idyllic
happiness and peace, have gratefully recognized the finger of
Providence in the strife by which they have been so
frightfully rent asunder[1356]...."
In October the heavy artillery of the Conservatives was again brought
into action and this time with more explicit diagnosis than heretofore.
"For a great number of years," said the _Quarterly_, "a certain party
among us, great admirers of America ... have chosen to fight their
English battles upon American soil." Now the American Government "has
disgracefully and ignominiously failed" at all points. It is evident
that "political equality is not merely a folly, it is a chimera[1357]."
At last, in November, the _Times_ openly took the position which its
accusers declared to have been the basis of its editorial utterances
almost from the beginning of the Civil War.
"These are the consequences of a cheap and simple form of
government, having a rural attorney for Sovereign and a city
attorney for Prime Minister. We have already said that if
such a terrible exposure of incapacity had happened in
England we should at the earliest moment possible have sent
the incapables about their business, and put ourselves in the
hands of better men...."
"This Republic has been so often proposed to us as a model
for imitation that we should be unpardonable not to mark how
it works now, when for the first time it has some work to do.
We believe that if the English system of Parliamentary action
had existed in America, the war could not have occurred, but
we are quite sure that such Ministers would have long since
been changed[1358]."
In addition to a Conservative ringing the changes upon the failure of
democracy, the open friends of the South dilated also upon the
"gentlemanly" characteristics of Southern leaders and society. This was
the frequent burden of articles in _The Index_ in the early weeks of its
publication. To this was soon added a picture of Northern democracy as
composed of and controlled by the "immigrant element" which was the
source of "the enormous increase of population in the last thirty years"
from revolutionary areas in Europe. "Germans, Hungarians, Irish carried
with them more than their strong arms, they imported also their theories
of equality.... The revolutionary party which represents them is at this
moment master in the States of the North, where it is indulging in all
its customary licence[1359]." This fact, complained _The Index_, was not
sufficiently brought out in the English press. Very different was the
picture painted by Anthony Trollope after a tour of the Western states:
"... this man has his romance, his high poetic feeling, and
above all his manly dignity. Visit him, and you will find him
without coat or waistcoat, unshorn, in ragged blue trousers
and old flannel shirt, too often bearing on his lantern jaws
the signs of ague and sickness; but he will stand upright
before you and speak to you with all the ease of a lettered
gentleman in his own library. All the odious incivility of
the republican servant has been banished. He is his own
master, standing on his own threshold, and finds no need to
assert his equality by rudeness. He is delighted to see you,
and bids you sit down on his battered bench, without dreaming
of any such apology as an English cotter offers to a Lady
Bountiful when she calls. He has worked out his independence,
and shows it in every easy movement of his body. He tells you
of it unconsciously in every tone of his voice. You will
always find in his cabin some newspaper, some book, some
token of advance in education. When he questions you about
the old country he astonishes you by the extent of his
knowledge. I defy you not to feel that he is superior to the
race from whence he has sprung in England or in Ireland."
* * * * *
"It is always the same story. With us there is no level of
society. Men stand on a long staircase, but the crowd
congregates near the bottom, and the lower steps are very
broad. In America men stand upon a common platform, but the
platform is raised above the ground, though it does not
approach in height the top of our staircase. If we take the
average altitude in the two countries, we shall find that the
American heads are the more elevated of the two[1360]."
A comparison of dates shows that the unanimity of conservative and
aristocratic expression on the failure of American democracy and its
lesson to England was most marked and most open at the moment when the
Government was seriously considering an offer of mediation in the war.
Meanwhile the emancipation proclamation of September, 1862, had
appeared. It did not immediately affect governmental attitude, save
adversely to the North, and it gave a handle for pro-Southern outcry on
the score of a "servile war." Indeed, the radicals were at first
depressed by it; but when months passed with no appearance of a servile
war and when the second emancipation proclamation of January, 1863,
further certified the moral purpose of the North, a great element of
strength was added to the English advocates of democracy. The numerous
"addresses" to Lincoln exhibited both a revived moral enthusiasm for the
cause of anti-slavery and were frequently combined with a laudation of
American political institutions. The great mass-meeting at Exeter Hall,
January 29, 1863, was described by the correspondent of an American
paper as largely deriving its strength from the universal
dissatisfaction of the lower orders of the English people with their
existing conditions under the Crown:
"The descendants of the Roundhead commoners, chafing under
the limitations of the franchise, burdensome taxation, the
contempt with which they are regarded by the lords of the
soil, the grievous effects of the laws of entail and
primogeniture, whereby they are kept poor and rendered liable
to starvation and pauperism--these have looked to America as
the model democracy which proves the poor man's capacity for
self-government." The meeting was called for seven o'clock
but at half after five the hall was filled, and at six
crowded. A second hall was filled and outdoor meetings of two
thousand people organized in Exeter Street. "All
working-class England was up in arms, not so much against
slavery as against British oligarchy[1361]."
The correspondent further reported rumours that this meeting had caused
anxious consideration to the managers of the _Times_, and the decision
to step more warily. No doubt this was exaggeration of the political
character and effect of the meeting, but certain it is that the
political element was present joining hands with anti-slavery
enthusiasm. Also it is noteworthy that the last confident and vigorous
expression of the "failure" of democracy, from sources professedly
neutral, appeared immediately after the St. James' Hall meeting, but was
necessarily written before that meeting took place. _Blackwood's_, in
its issue of February, 1863, declared, as before: "Every sensible man in
this country now acknowledges ... that we have already gone as far
toward democracy as is safe to go.... This is the great moral benefit
which we have derived from the events in America." John Blackwood was an
intimate friend of Delane, editor of the _Times_, holding similar views
on political questions; but the _Times_ was suddenly grown cautious in
reading English political lessons from America. In truth, attack now
rested with the Radicals and Bright's oratory was in great demand[1362].
He now advanced from the defensive position of laudation of the North to
the offensive one of attacking the Southern aristocracy, not merely
because it wished to perpetuate African slavery, but because it desired
to make all the working-classes as subservient to it as was the
negro[1363]. It was now Radical purpose to keep the battle raging and
they were succeeding. Bigelow believed that the United States might well
recognize its opportunity in this controversy and give aid to
its friends:
"After all, this struggle of ours both at home and abroad is
but a struggle between the principle of popular government
and government by a privileged class. The people therefore
all the world over are in a species of solidarity which it is
our duty and interest to cultivate to the utmost[1364]."
But Adams gave contrary advice. Wholly sympathetic with the democratic
movement in England as now, somewhat to his surprise, developed, he yet
feared that the extremes to which Bright and others were going in
support of the North might create unfortunate reactions in the
Government. Especially he was anxious that the United States should not
offer opportunity for accusation of interference in a British political
quarrel. It is noteworthy that while many addresses to Lincoln were
forwarded by him and many were printed in the annual publication of
diplomatic correspondence, those that thus appeared dealt almost
exclusively with emancipation. Yet Adams was also forwarding addresses
and speeches harping on American democracy. A meeting at Edinburgh,
February 19, found place, in its emancipation aspect in the United
States documents[1365], but the burden of that meeting, democracy, did
not. It was there proclaimed that the British press misrepresented
conditions in America, "because the future of free political
institutions, as sketched in the American Declaration of Independence
and in the State Constitutions of the Northern States, would be a
standing argument against the expansion of the franchise and the
enjoyment of just political rights among us, as well as a convenient
argument in favour of the continued domination of our aristocratic
parties[1366]." The tide of democratic feeling was rising rapidly in
England. On March 26, Adams wrote to Seward of a recent debate in
Parliament that that body was much more judicious in expressions on
America than it had been before 1862. "It will not escape your
observation that the question is now felt to be taking a shape which was
scarcely anticipated by the managers [of the _Times_] when they first
undertook to guide the British mind to the overthrow of free
institutions in America[1367]."
On the evening of the day on which this was written there occurred the
greatest, most outspoken, and most denunciatory to the aristocracy, of
the meetings held to support the cause of the North. This was the
spectacular gathering of the Trades Unions of London at St. James' Hall,
on March 26, usually regarded as the culminating effort in Bright's tour
of England for the cause of democracy, but whose origin is somewhat
shrouded in mystery. Socialist tradition claims that Karl Marx conceived
the idea of the meeting and was responsible for its organization[1368].
The press generally reported it as a "Bright Meeting." Adams wrote to
Seward of the pressure put on him by Professor Beesly, of the University
of London, to send a representative from the American Ministry, Beesly
expanding upon the importance and high standing of the Trades Unions. To
this Adams demurred but finally sent his son to sit in the audience and
report the proceedings.
Whatever its origin there can be no doubt that this was the most
important of all pro-Northern meetings held in England during the Civil
War, nor that its keynote was "America fighting the battle of
democracy." Save for some distinguished speakers those in attendance
consisted almost wholly of three thousand picked representatives of the
Trades Unions of London. Adams transmitted to Seward his son's report of
the meeting, its character, composition, names of speakers and their
emphatic expressions of friendship for the North[1369], but it is again
noteworthy that Henry Adams' clear analysis of the real significance of
the meeting was not printed in the published diplomatic correspondence.
Giving due praise to the speeches of Bright and Beesly, and commenting
on press assertions that "the extraordinary numbers there were only
brought together by their curiosity to hear Mr. Bright," Henry Adams
continued: "That this was not the case must have been evident to every
person present. In fact, it was only after he closed that the real
business of the evening began." Then followed speeches and the
introduction of resolutions by "Mr. Howell, a bricklayer ... Mr. Odgers,
a shoemaker ... Mr. Mantz, a compositor ... Mr. Cremer, a joiner, who
was bitter against Lord Palmerston ... Mr. Conolly, a mason...." and
other labouring men, all asserting "that the success of free
institutions in America was a political question of deep consequence in
England and that they would not tolerate any interference unfavourable
to the North." No one, the report emphasized, "could doubt what was
intended."
"The meeting was a demonstration of democratic strength and
no concealment of this fact was made. If it did not have a
direct political bearing on internal politics in England it
needed little of doing so. There was not even a profession of
faith in the government of England as at present constituted.
Every hostile allusion to the Aristocracy, the Church, the
opinions of the 'privileged classes,' was received with warm
cheers. Every allusion to the republican institutions of
America, the right of suffrage, the right of self-taxation,
the 'sunlight' of republican influence, was caught up by the
audience with vehement applause. It may therefore be
considered as fairly and authoritatively announced that the
class of skilled workmen in London--that is the leaders of
the pure popular movement in England--have announced by an
act almost without precedent in their history, the principle
that they make common cause with the Americans who are
struggling for the restoration of the Union and that all
their power and influence shall be used on behalf of the
North[1370]."
Bright's words of most scarifying indictment of "Privilege," and his
appeal to workers to join hands with their fellows in America have been
given in a previous chapter[1371]. Evidently that appeal, though
enthusiastically received for its oratorical brilliance, was unneeded.
His was but an eloquent expression of that which was in the minds of his
audience. Upon the American Minister the effect was to cause him to
renew warnings against showing too keen an appreciation of the support
of political radicalism in England. The meeting, he wrote, had at once
stirred anxiety in Parliament and verged:
"... much too closely upon the minatory in the domestic
politics of this Kingdom to make it easy to recognize or
sympathize with by Foreign Governments.... Hence it seems to
me of the greatest consequence that the treatment of all
present questions between the two nations should be regulated
by a provident forecast of what may follow it [the political
struggle in England] hereafter. I am not sure that some
parties here would not now be willing even to take the risk
of a war in order the more effectually to turn the scale
against us, and thus, as they think, to crush the rising
spirit of their own population. That this is only a feeling
at present and has not yet risen to the dignity of a policy
may be true enough; but that does not the less impose upon
the Government at home a duty so to shape its actions as, if
possible, to defeat all such calculations and dissipate such
hopes.... We owe this duty not less to the great body of
those who in this kingdom are friends to us and our
institutions, than to ourselves[1372]."
[Illustration: JOHN BRIGHT (_From a photograph taken of him in the
attitude in which he usually spoke_) (_From Trevelyan's "Life of John
Bright_")]
Thus Adams advised his Government to tread lightly in respect to
democratic agitation in England. Over a month later he received a
deputation headed by Bright, come to present to him the resolutions
passed at the Trades Unions' meeting. The deputation expressed fears
that a rupture was imminent in the relations of Great Britain and
America, and that this would have a disastrous influence on the
aspirations of working-class Europe. Adams replied in general terms of
appreciation for the sympathies expressed by the meeting but
carefully avoided specific comment on its democratic purpose. "He was
too prudent," said the _Times_ in reporting the deputation, "to appraise
the importance of the particular demonstration to which his notice was
invited ..." and his reply was given favourable comment[1373]. This
reply, wrote Adams, "appears to have had a sedative effect[1374]."
Meanwhile, Bright continued his preachment to the English people though
modifying his tone of fierce accusation against "privilege," and
confining himself to declaring the interest of the unenfranchised in the
American conflict. In a speech before the Union and Emancipation Society
of London, on June 16, he asserted for the "twenty millions of people in
this country" as yet without representation in Parliament, "I say that
these have an interest, almost as great and direct as though they were
living in Massachusetts or New York, in the tremendous struggle for
freedom which is now shaking the whole North American Continent[1375]."
Like utterances were repeated at further public meetings and so
insistent were they as to require reply by the conservative faction,
even if, as was supposed, the effect of the Trades' Union attitude had
been to give a halt to the vehemence of those who had been sounding the
"lesson" of American failure in democracy. Bright became the centre of
attack. The _Times_ led.
"His is a political fanaticism. He used to idolize the
Constitution of the United States as the one great dominant
Democracy of the world. He believes in it still, and, if it
must go, he is ready to idolize its memory. For this he gives
up all his most cherished notions and all his less absorbing
principles...."
"Yet Mr. Bright is consistent. He has one master passion and
his breast, capacious as it is, can hold no more. That master
passion is the love of that great dominant Democracy. He
worshipped it while rising to its culminating point, and he
is obliged to turn right round to worship it while setting.
He did not himself know, until tested by this great trial,
how entirely his opinions as to war and peace, and slavery
and freedom, and lust of conquest and hatred of oppression,
were all the mere accidents which hung loosely upon him, and
were capable of being detached at once in the interest of the
ruling passion of his soul for that great dominant Democracy.
Nor need we wonder; for if that great Democracy has been a
failure, then men will say that the life of Mr. John Bright
up to this time has been but a foolish dream[1376]."
Evidently Bright's speeches were causing anxiety and bitterness; but an
"if" had crept into the estimate of the future of American democracy,
caused less by the progress of the war than by the rising excitement of
democratic England. The _Times_ editorial just quoted appeared when the
faith was generally professed that Lee was about to end the war through
the invasion of Pennsylvania. In the reaction created by the arrival of
the news of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Adams still again warned his
Government against either a belligerent or interfering attitude toward
Great Britain, but stated plainly that Northern victory was of supreme
importance in Europe itself. "We have a mission to fulfill. It is to
show, by our example to the people of England in particular, and to all
nations in general, the value of republican institutions." There was
still a general belief in the incompetency of those institutions. "The
greatest triumph of all would be to prove these calculations vain. In
comparison with this, what would be the gain to be derived from any
collision with the powers of Europe[1377]?"
It is strange that with so clearly-expressed a division of English
opinion on American democracy few in America itself appreciated the
significance of the British controversy. J. M. Forbes, who had been on a
special mission to England, wrote to Lincoln, on his return[1378]:
"Our friends abroad see it! John Bright and his glorious band
of English Republicans see that we are fighting for Democracy
or (to get rid of the technical name) for liberal
institutions; the Democrats and the liberals of the old world
are as much and as heartily with us as any supporters we have
on this side.
Our enemies too see it in the same light; the Aristocrats and
the Despots of the old world see that our quarrel is that of
the People against an Aristocracy[1379]."
But there are few similar expressions and these few nearly always came
from men who had been abroad and had thus come into direct contact with
British political movements. Meanwhile, Lee's retreat from Pennsylvania
had produced a like retreat in the opinions on the failure of democracy
earlier confidently held by the professedly neutral press. In September,
having arrived at the point by the usual process of gradually facing
about, the _Times_ was bold enough to deny that England had any personal
feeling or concern about democracy in America or that this had anything
to do with English attitude on the war[1380]. Thenceforth neither the
_Times_ nor any of the leading papers saw fit to revive with vigour the
cry of "democracy's failure," no matter how persistent in proclaiming
ultimate victory for the South. Aristocratic exultation had given place
to alarm and it seemed wiser, if possible, to quiet the issue[1381]. Not
so the Radicals, who made every effort to keep the issue alive in the
minds of the British public, and whose leaders with less violence but
increased firmness debated the question in every public meeting
favourable to the North[1382]. Many Conservatives, Adams reported, were
now anxiously sitting on the fence yet finding the posture a difficult
one because of their irritation at Bright's taunts[1383]. Bright's star
was rising. "The very moment the war comes to an end," wrote Adams, "and
a restoration of the Union follows, it will be the signal for a reaction
that will make Mr. Bright perhaps the most formidable public man in
England[1384]."
The continuation of the controversy was not, however, wholly one-sided.
In the silence of the daily press it seemed incumbent upon the more
eager and professed friends of the South to take up the cudgels. Hence,
in part, came the organization of the Southern Independence Association
and the attempt to hold public meetings favourable to the South, in the
early months of 1864. Much talk had been spent on the "British issue"
involved in the war; there was now to be vigorous work to secure
it[1385]. _The Index _plunged into vigorous denunciation of "The
Manchester School, which, for convenience and truth, we had better for
the future call the American School." Even the Government was attacked
for its complacence under the "American danger" and for retaining as a
member Milner-Gibson, who, in a recent speech, had shown that he shared
Bright's views on democracy:
"That gentleman [Bright] could not be asked to enter the
Cabinet in person. The country abhorred him; Parliament
despised him; his inveterate habits of slander and
vituperation, his vulgarity, and his incurable want of
veracity, had made him so hateful to the educated classes
that it would have required no common courage to give him
office; his insolent sneers at royalty would have made his
appointment little less than a personal insult to the Queen;
and his bad temper would have made him an intolerable
colleague in the Council. But Mr. Bright had another self; a
faithful shadow, which had no ideas, no soul, no other
existence but what it borrowed from him, while its previous
life and education had accustomed it to the society of
statesmen and of gentlemen[1386]."
Such expressions gained nothing for the Conservative cause; they were
too evidently the result of alarm at the progress of Radical and
pro-Northern sentiment. Goldwin Smith in a "Letter" to the Southern
Independence Association, analysed with clarity the situation. Answering
criticisms of the passionate mob spirit of Northern press and people, he
accused the _Times_ of having
"... pandered to the hatred of America among the upper
classes of this country during the present war. Some of us at
least had been taught by what we have lately seen not to
shrink from an extension of the suffrage, if the only bad
consequence of that measure of justice would be a change in
government from the passions of the privileged class to the
passions of the people.... History will not mistake the
meaning of the loud cry of triumph which burst from the
hearts of all who openly or secretly hated liberty and
progress, at the fall, as they fondly supposed, of the Great
Republic." British working men "are for the most part as well
aware that the cause of those who are fighting for the right
of labour is theirs, as any nobleman in your Association can
be that the other cause in his[1387]."
The question of democracy as a political philosophy and as an
institution for Great Britain was, by 1864, rapidly coming to the front
in politics. This was very largely a result of the American Civil War.
Roebuck, after the failure of his effort for mediation in 1863, was
obsessed with a fear of the tendency in England. "I have great faith in
my countrymen," he wrote, "but the experience of America frightens me. I
am not ashamed to use the word _frightened_. During my whole life I have
looked to that country as about to solve the great problem of
self-government, and now, in my old age, the hopes of my youth and
manhood are destroyed, and I am left to reconstruct my political
philosophy, and doubt and hesitation beset me on every point[1388]."
More philosophically Matthew Arnold, in 1864, characterized the rule of
aristocracy as inevitably passing, but bent his thought to the discovery
of some middle ground or method--some "influence [which] may help us to
prevent the English people from becoming, with the growth of democracy,
_Americanized_[1389]." "There is no longer any sort of disguise
maintained," wrote Adams, "as to the wishes of the privileged classes.
Very little genuine sympathy is entertained for the rebels. The true
motive is apparent enough. It is the fear of the spread of democratic
feeling at home in the event of our success[1390]."
The year 1864 had witnessed a rapid retreat by wiser Conservative
elements in proclaming the "lesson" of American democracy--a retreat
caused by alarm at the vigour with which Radicals had taken up the
challenge. Conservative hopes were still fixed upon Southern success and
Conservative confidence loudly voiced. Even the pride of the _Times_ in
the accuracy of its news and in its military forecasts was subordinated
to the purpose of keeping up the courage of the faction it
represented[1391]. Small wonder, then, that Delane, on receiving the
news of Sherman's arrival before Savannah, should be made physically ill
and write to Dasent: "The American news is a heavy blow to us as well
as to the South." The next day he added: "I am still sore vexed about
Sherman, but Chenery did his best to attenuate the mischief[1392]."
"Attenuation" of Northern progress in arms was, indeed, attempted, but
the facts of the military situation were too strong for continued
concealment. From January, 1865, only the most stubborn of Southern
friends could remain blind to the approaching Northern victory. Lord
Acton, a hero-worshipper of the great Confederate military leader,
"broke his heart over the surrender of Lee," but was moved also by keen
insight as to the political meaning of that surrender[1393].
So assured were all parties in England that the great Civil War in
America was closing in Northern victory that the final event was
discounted in advance and the lines were rapidly being formed for an
English political struggle on the great issue heralded as involved in
the American conflict. Again, on the introduction of a motion in
Parliament for expansion of the franchise the ultra-Conservatives
attempted to read a "lesson" from America. The _Quarterly_ for April,
1865, asserted that even yet "the mass of educated men in England retain
the sympathy for the South which they have nourished ever since the
conflict assumed a decided shape." America was plainly headed in the
direction of a military despotism. Her example should warn England from
a move in the same direction. "The classes which govern this country are
in a minority," and should beware of majority rule. But events
discredited the prophecy of a military despotism. The assassination of
Lincoln gave opportunity not merely for a general outpouring of
expressions of sympathy but also to the Radicals a chance to exalt
Lincoln's leadership in democracy[1394].
In July Great Britain was holding elections for a new Parliament. Not a
single member who had supported the cause of the North failed of
re-election, several additional Northern "friends" were chosen, and some
outspoken members for the South were defeated. Adams thought this a
matter deserving special notice in America, and prophesied a new era
approaching in England:
"As it is, I cannot resist the belief that this period marks
an era in the political movement of Great Britain. Pure
old-fashioned conservatism has so far lost its hold on the
confidence of the country that it will not appear in that
guise any more. Unless some new and foreign element should
interpose, I look for decided progress in enlarging the
popular features of the constitution, and diminishing the
influence of the aristocracy.... It is impossible not to
perceive traces of the influence of our institutions upon all
these changes.... The progress of the liberal cause, not in
England alone, but all over the world, is, in a measure, in
our hands[1395]."
The "Liberal progress" was more rapid, even, than Adams anticipated.
Palmerston, ill for some months past, died on October 18, 1865. Russell
succeeded him as head of the Ministry, and almost immediately declared
himself in favour of Parliamentary reform even though a majority in both
Houses was still opposed to such a measure. Russell's desertion of his
earlier attitude of "finality" on franchise expansion correctly
represented the acceptance, though unwillingly, by both political
parties of the necessity of reform. The battle, long waged, but reaching
its decisive moment during the American Civil War, had finally gone
against Conservatism when Lee surrendered at Appomatox. Russell's
Reform Bill of 1866 was defeated by Tory opposition in combination with
a small Whig faction which refused to desert the "principle" of
aristocratic government--the "government by the wise," but the Tories
who came into power under Derby were forced by the popular demand voiced
even to the point of rioting, themselves to present a Reform Bill.
Disraeli's measure, introduced with a number of "fancy franchises,"
which, in effect, sought to counteract the giving of the vote to British
working-men, was quickly subjected to such caustic criticism that all
the planned advantages to Conservatism were soon thrown overboard, and a
Bill presented so Radical as to permit a transfer of political power to
the working classes[1396]. The Reform Bill of 1867 changed Great Britain
from a government by aristocracy to one by democracy. A new nation came
into being. The friends of the North had triumphed.
Thus in addition to the play of diplomatic incidents, the incidental
frictions, the effect on trade relations, the applications of British
neutrality, and the general policy of the Government, there existed for
Great Britain a great issue in the outcome of the Civil War--the issue
of the adoption of democratic institutions. It affected at every turn
British public attitude, creating an intensity and bitterness of tone,
on both sides, unexampled in the expressions of a neutral people. In
America this was little understood, and American writers both during the
war and long afterwards, gave little attention to it[1397]. Immediately
upon the conclusion of the war, Goldwin Smith, whose words during the
conflict were bitter toward the aristocracy, declared that "the
territorial aristocracy of this country and the clergy of the
Established Church" would have been excusable "if they could only have
said frankly that they desired the downfall of institutions opposed to
their own, instead of talking about their sympathy for the weak, and
their respect for national independence, and their anxiety for the
triumph of Free Trade[1398]." This was stated before the democratic hope
in England had been realized. Three years later the same staunch friend
of the North, now removed to America and occupying a chair of history at
Cornell University, wrote of the British aristocracy in excuse of their
attitude: "I fought these men hard; I believed, and believe now, that
their defeat was essential to the progress of civilization. But I
daresay we should have done pretty much as they did, if we had been born
members of a privileged order, instead of being brought up under the
blessed influence of equality and justice[1399]."
Such judgment and such excuses will appear to the historian as
well-founded. But to Americans who conceived the Civil War as one fought
first of all for the preservation of the nation, the issue of democracy
in England seemed of little moment and little to excuse either the "cold
neutrality" of the Government or the tone of the press. To Americans
Great Britain appeared friendly to the dissolution of the Union and the
destruction of a rival power. Nationality was the issue for the North;
that democracy was an issue in America was denied, nor could it, in the
intensity of the conflict, be conceived as the vital question
determining British attitude. The Reform Bill of 1867 brought a new
British nation into existence, the nation decrying American institutions
was dead and a "sister democracy" holding out hands to the United
States had replaced it, but to this the men who had won the war for the
North long remained blind. Not during the generation when Americans,
immersed in a life and death struggle for national existence, felt that
"he who is not for me is against me," could the generally correct
neutrality of the British Government and the whole-hearted support of
Radical England be accepted at their true value to the North. For nearly
half a century after the American Civil War the natural sentiments of
friendship, based upon ties of blood and a common heritage of literature
and history and law, were distorted by bitter and exaggerated
memories.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1323: See my article, "The Point of View of the British
Traveller in America," _Pol. Sci. Quarterly_, June, 1914.]
[Footnote 1324: Alexander Mackay, _The Western World; or Travels in the
United States in_ 1846-47.]
[Footnote 1325: _Ibid._, Fourth Edition, London, 1850, Vol. III, p. 24.]
[Footnote 1326: Hugh Seymour Tremenheere, _The Constitution of the
United States compared with Our Own_, London, 1854.]
[Footnote 1327: e.g., William Kelly, _Across the Rocky Mountains from
New York to California_, London, 1852. He made one acute observation on
American democracy. "The division of parties is just the reverse in
America to what it is in England. In England the stronghold of democracy
is in the large towns, and aristocracy has its strongest supporters in
the country. In America the ultra-democrat and leveller is the western
farmer, and the aristocratic tendency is most visible amongst the
manufacturers and merchants of the eastern cities." (p. 181.)]
[Footnote 1328: Monypenny, _Disraeli_, IV, pp. 293-4, states a Tory
offer to support Palmerston on these lines.]
[Footnote 1329: Dodd, _Jefferson Davis_, p. 217.]
[Footnote 1330: March, 30, 1861.]
[Footnote 1331: March 16, 1861.]
[Footnote 1332: To John Bigelow, April 14, 1861. (Bigelow,
_Retrospections_, I, p. 347.)]
[Footnote 1333: April 27, 1861.]
[Footnote 1334: Bunch wrote to Russell, May 15, 1861, that the war in
America was the "natural result of the much vaunted system of government
of the United States"; it had "crumbled to pieces," and this result had
long been evident to the public mind of Europe. (F.O., Am., Vol.
780, No. 58.)]
[Footnote 1335: State Department, Eng., Vol. 77, No. 9. Adams to Seward,
June 21, 1861.]
[Footnote 1336: I have made an effort to identify writers in
_Blackwood's_, but am informed by the editors that it is impossible to
do this for the period before 1870, old correspondence having been
destroyed.]
[Footnote 1337: July, 1861.]
[Footnote 1338: The _Atlantic Monthly_ for November, 1861, takes up the
question, denying that democracy is in any sense "on trial" in America,
so far as the permanence of American institutions is concerned. It still
does not see clearly the real nature of the controversy in England.]
[Footnote 1339: Aug. 17, 1861.]
[Footnote 1340: Sept. 6, 1861. (Mass. Hist. Soc. _Proceedings_, XLVI, p.
94.)]
[Footnote 1341: Sept. 7, 1861.]
[Footnote 1342: Sept. 14, 1861.]
[Footnote 1343: Motley, _Correspondence_, II, p. 35. To his mother,
Sept. 22, 1861.]
[Footnote 1344: April, 1861.]
[Footnote 1345: Oct., 1861.]
[Footnote 1346: Oct., 1861. Article, "Democracy teaching by Example."]
[Footnote 1347: Nov. 23, 1861.]
[Footnote 1348: Cited by Harris, _The Trent Affair_, p. 28.]
[Footnote 1349: Robertson, _Speeches of John Bright_, I, pp. 177 _seq._]
[Footnote 1350: Gladstone Papers, Dec. 27, 1861.]
[Footnote 1351: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 78, No. 95. Adams to Seward,
Dec. 27, 1861. As printed in _U.S. Messages and Documents, 1862-63_, Pt.
I, p. 14. Adams' emphasis on the word "_not_" is unindicated, by the
failure to use italics.]
[Footnote 1352: _Ibid._, No. 110. Enclosure. Adams to Seward, Jan. 31,
1862.]
[Footnote 1353: Feb. 22, 1862.]
[Footnote 1354: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 80, No. 206. Adams to Seward,
Aug. 8, 1862. Of this period in 1862, Rhodes (IV, 78) writes that "the
most significant and touching feature of the situation was that the
cotton operative population was frankly on the side of the North." Lutz,
_Die Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten
während des Sezessionskrieges_, pp. 49-53, makes an interesting analysis
of the German press, showing it also determined in its attitude by
factional political idealisms in Germany.]
[Footnote 1355: Palmerston MS., Aug. 24, 1862.]
[Footnote 1356: Aug. 30, 1862.]
[Footnote 1357: October, 1862. "The Confederate Struggle and
Recognition."]
[Footnote 1358: Nov. 4, 1862.]
[Footnote 1359: _The Index_, Nov. 20, 1862, p. 63. (Communication.)]
[Footnote 1360: Anthony Trollope, _North America_, London, 1862, Vol. I,
p. 198. The work appeared in London in 1862, and was in its third
edition by the end of the year. It was also published in New York in
1862 and in Philadelphia in 1863.]
[Footnote 1361: _The Liberator_, March 13, 1863, quoting a report in the
_New York Sunday Mercury_.]
[Footnote 1362: Lord Salisbury is quoted in Vince, _John Bright_, p.
204, as stating that Bright "was the greatest master of English oratory
that this generation--I may say several generations--has seen. I have
met men who have heard Pitt and Fox, and in whose judgment their
eloquence at its best was inferior to the finest efforts of John Bright.
At a time when much speaking has depressed, has almost exterminated,
eloquence, he maintained that robust, powerful and vigorous style in
which he gave fitting expression to the burning and noble thoughts he
desired to utter."]
[Footnote 1363: Speech at Rochdale, Feb. 3, 1863. (Robertson, _Speeches
of John Bright_, I, pp. 234 _seq._)]
[Footnote 1364: Bigelow to Seward, Feb. 6, 1863. (Bigelow,
_Retrospections_, I, p. 600.)]
[Footnote 1365: _U.S. Messages and Documents_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 123.]
[Footnote 1366: State Dept., Eng., Adams to Seward. No. 334. Feb. 26,
1863. enclosing report of the Edinburgh meeting as printed in _The
Weekly Herald, Mercury and News_, Feb. 21, 1863.]
[Footnote 1367: _U.S. Messages and Documents_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 157.]
[Footnote 1368: Spargo, _Karl Marx, _pp. 224-5. Spargo claims that Marx
bent every effort to stir working men to a sense of class interest in
the cause of the North and even went so far as to secure the presence of
Bright at the meeting, as the most stirring orator of the day, though
personally he regarded Bright "with an almost unspeakable loathing." On
reading this statement I wrote to Mr. Spargo asking for evidence and
received the reply that he believed the tradition unquestionably well
founded, though "almost the only testimony available consists of a
reference or two in one of his [Marx's] letters and the ample
corroborative testimony of such friends as Lessner, Jung and others."
This is scant historical proof; but some years later in a personal talk
with Henry Adams, who was in 1863 his father's private secretary, and
who attended and reported the meeting, the information was given that
Henry Adams himself had then understood and always since believed Marx's
to have been the guiding hand in organizing the meeting.]
[Footnote 1369: _U.S. Messages and Documents_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 162.
(Adams to Seward, March 27, 1863.)]
[Footnote 1370: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 82, No. 358. Adams to Seward,
March 27, 1863, enclosing report by Henry Adams. There was also enclosed
the printed report, giving speeches at length, as printed by _The Bee
Hive_, the organ of the London Trades Unions.]
[Footnote 1371: See _ante_, p. 132.]
[Footnote 1372: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 82, No. 360. Adams to Seward,
April 2, 1863.]
[Footnote 1373: May 5, 1863.]
[Footnote 1374: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 243.
Adams to Seward, May 7, 1863.]
[Footnote 1375: Robertson, _Speeches of John Bright_, I, p. 264. In a
letter to Bigelow, March 16, 1863, Bright estimated that there were
seven millions of men of twenty-one years of age and upward in the
United Kingdom, of whom slightly over one million had the vote.
(Bigelow, _Retrospections_, I, p. 610.)]
[Footnote 1376: July 2, 1863. The editorial was written in connection
with Roebuck's motion for mediation and is otherwise interesting for an
attempt to characterize each of the speakers in the Commons.]
[Footnote 1377: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863_, Part I, p. 319.
To Seward, July 23, 1863.]
[Footnote 1378: See _ante_, p. 130, _note_ 2.]
[Footnote 1379: MS. letter, Sept. 8, 1863, in possession of C. F. Adams,
Jr.]
[Footnote 1380: Sept. 24, 1863.]
[Footnote 1381: Even the friendly Russian Minister in Washington was at
this time writing of the "rule of the mob" in America and trusting that
the war, "the result of democracy," would serve as a warning to Europe.
(Russian Archives, Stoeckl to F.O., Nov. 29-Dec. 11, 1864, No. 1900.)]
[Footnote 1382: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 84, Nos. 557 and 559. Adams to
Seward, Dec. 17, 1863. Adams repeated his advice to "keep out of it."]
[Footnote 1383: _Ibid._, Vol. 85, No. 587. Adams to Seward, Jan. 29,
1864. Adams here expressed the opinion that it was partly the
aristocratic antipathy to Bright that had _produced_ the ill-will to the
United States.]
[Footnote 1384: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 1385: See Ch. XV.]
[Footnote 1386: _The Index_, Jan. 28, 1864, p. 58.]
[Footnote 1387: Goldwin Smith, _A Letter to a Whig Member of the
Southern Independence Association_, London, 1864, pp. 14, 68, and 71.]
[Footnote 1388: Leader, _Roebuck_, p. 299. To William Ibbitt, April 26,
1864.]
[Footnote 1389: Arnold, _Mixed Essays_, p. 17. N.Y., Macmillan, 1883.]
[Footnote 1390: State Dept., Eng., Vol. 86, No. 709. Adams to Seward,
June 9, 1864]
[Footnote 1391: See _ante_, Ch. XVI.]
[Footnote 1392: Dasent, _Delane_, II, pp. 135-6. Delane to Dasent, Dec.
25 and 26, 1864. The _Times_ on December 26 pictured Sherman as having
_escaped_ to the sea, but on the 29th acknowledged his achievements.]
[Footnote 1393: _Lord Acton's Letters to Mary Gladstone_, p. 183.]
[Footnote 1394: These were not confined to Great Britain. The American
Legation in Berlin received addresses of sympathy from many
organizations, especially labour unions. One such, drawn by W.
Liebknecht, A. Vogt, and C. Schilling read in part: "Members of the
working-class, we need not affirm to you the sincerity of these our
sympathies; for with pride we can point to the fact, that, while the
aristocracy of the Old World took openly the part of the southern
slaveholder, and while the middle class was divided in its opinions, the
working-men in all countries of Europe have unanimously and firmly stood
on the side of the Union." (_U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1865_, Pt.
IV, p. 500.)]
[Footnote 1395: _U.S. Messages and Documents, 1865_, Pt. I, p. 417.
Adams to Hunter, July 13, 1865.]
[Footnote 1396: Disraeli was less disturbed by this than were other Tory
leaders. He had long before, in his historical novels, advocated an
aristocratic leadership of democracy, as against the middle class. Derby
called the Bill "a leap in the dark," but assented to it.]
[Footnote 1397: Pierce, _Sumner_, IV, pp. 151-153, summarizes the
factors determining British attitude and places first the fear of the
privileged classes of the example of America, but his treatment really
minimizes this element.]
[Footnote 1398: Goldwin Smith, "The Civil War in America: An Address
read at the last meeting of the Manchester Union and Emancipation
Society." (Jan. 26, 1866.) London, 1866, pp. 71-75.]
[Footnote 1399: Goldwin Smith, _America and England in their present
relations_, London, 1869, p. 30.]
INDEX
Aberdeen, Lord, i. 10, 13, 14, 15; ii. 117 _note_[1]
Acton, Lord, ii. 301
Adams, Brooks, _The Seizure of the Laird Rams_, cited, ii. 120
_note_[2], 125 _note_[1], 147 _note_[1], 150
_note_[1]
Adams, Charles Francis, i. 49, 62-3, 80-1;
attitude in the early days of the American crisis, 49 _and
note_, 55, 63;
appointed American Minister in London, 62, 80-1, 96;
impressions of English opinion on the crisis, 96, 97, 98, 107;
alarm at Seward's Despatch No. 10, i. 127;
attitude of, to the Palmerston-Russell ministry, 170;
controversy on General Butler's order, 302-5;
reports to Seward on British public meetings on Emancipation
Proclamation, ii. 107 _and note_[3], 223;
view of the popular manifestations on Emancipation, 108;
view as to decline of British confidence in the South, 184;
and the London Confederate States Aid Association, 191, 192;
receives deputations of allegiance during rumours before the fall
of Savannah, 245 _and note_[1];
quoted on rumours in Britain of possible reunion and foreign war,
ii. 251-2, 253;
on effect in England of the Hampton Roads Conference, 253;
advice of, to Seward on attitude to be observed to Britain, 253-255;
attitude to Seward's complaints of British and Canadian offences,
253-4;
comments of, on parliamentary debate and Bright's speech of
confidence in Lincoln, 255 _and note_[1];
on feeling in Britain over Lincoln's assassination and the attempt
on Seward, 257, 262-3;
receives addresses of sympathy from British organizations, 262-3;
and formal declaration of the end of the war, 268;
faith of, in ultimate British opinion on the issues in the Civil
War, ii. 283;
views of, on the political controversy in England as influencing
attitude to America 284, 285;
advice to Seward on the political position in relation to
democracy, 290, 294, 296, 298 _note_[1];
quoted on the rising of democratic feeling in Britain, 291;
disappointed in attitude of British friends of progress, 278, 279,
280;
report of, on London mass meeting in favour of the North, 284;
and the Trades Unions of London meeting, 292, 294-5;
quoted on John Bright, 298;
on the attitude of the privileged classes to democracy,
298 _note_[2], 300;
on the influence of American institutions on the political
movement in Great Britain, 302
_Diplomatic action and views of, in regard to:_
_Alabama case_: ii. 35, 120 _and note_[2], 121, 131
British Foreign Enlistment Act, i. 135, 148-9; ii. 201-2
Bunch controversy, i. 186, 187, 190, 193, 195
Confederate Commissioners: representations on intercourse with,
i. 105-6, 107
Confederate Cotton Loan: reported connection with, ii. 161
_and note_[4];
views on, 179
Confederate Shipbuilding in England: protests against, ii. 118,
128, 131, 137, 143, 145 _note_[2];
and U.S. Navy Department plan to stop, 130 _note_[2];
Laird Rams incident, 144, 146, 147 _note_[1], 150
Cotton: report on British position, ii. 99
Declaration of Paris negotiation:
action on proposed convention, i. 141-69 _passim_;
view of American intention, 144, 169;
failure of his negotiation, 137, 145-6, 169-71
Gladstone and Lewis speeches, ii. 55
Irish emigrants, enlistment of, ii. 201-2
Lindsay's efforts for mediation, ii. 34-5. 212
Mediation:
presents the "servile war" threat against, ii. 18-19, 95;
view of England's reply to French proposals on, 71;
advantages of an anti-slavery avowal, 98-9
Neutrality Law, _See_ British Foreign Enlistment Act _supra_
Privateering Bill, ii. 122-3, 125, 127;
advises against issue of privateers, 131
Proclamation of Neutrality, The:
representations on, i. 98-100, 101, 105, 107 _and note_[2], 300-1;
despatch on settlement of peaceful policy, 134;
protests against British recognition of belligerency, 159;
advice to Seward on, 275
Roebuck's motion: report on, ii. 144
"Servile War" threat, ii. 18-19, 95 _and note_[4]
Slavery:
urges Northern declaration on, ii. 98-9;
comments on _Times_ criticism of anti-slavery meetings, 108
Southern Ports: plan of collecting duties at, ii. 198
_Trent_ Affair, the:
interviewed by Palmerston, i. 208-9;
statement on the _James Adger_, 209-10;
suspicion of British policy in, 218;
views on public opinion in, 222-3;
officially states Wilkes acted without authorization, 226;
report on English hope of peaceful settlement, 228, 229;
on British opinion after settlement of, 238, 240;
on effect of, in Great Britain, 243;
view of popular attitude in Britain in the crisis of, ii. 283
Appreciation and criticisms on:
Characterized in _The Index_, ii. 196
Lord Lyons', report on, i. 62-3;
opinion on, ii. 71 _note_[4]
Lord Russell's view of his diplomacy, ii. 128
Tory approval of, ii. 197
Otherwise mentioned, i. 1, 2, 129, 198, 263, 274, 276;
ii. 31, 100
Adams, C.F., Jun.,
view of British attitude and the Proclamation of Neutrality, i. 109, 110;
view of the delay in his father's journey to England, 112 _note_;
view on Seward's attitude in Declaration of Paris negotiation, 138,
153-6;
examination of British action in the negotiation, 154-5;
review of the _Trent_ affair, cited, 203 _note, et seq.
passim_;
on American feeling over seizure of Mason and Slidell, 218;
and the Hotze materials, ii. 154 _note_
Adams, E.D.:
_British Interests and Activities in Mexico_, cited ii. 117 _note_[1]
"The Point of View of the British Traveller in America," cited,
i. 23 _note_; ii. 274 _note_[1]
Adams, Henry, i. 138;
ii. 292 _note_[1];
view of, on W.E. Forster, i. 58 _note_[2];
on British Proclamation of Neutrality, 110;
on American exultation in _Trent_ affair, 223;
on British attitude in _Trent_ affair, 230;
view of Gregory's speech on the blockade, 270;
on British view of prospects in the War, 297;
on possibility of intervention, ii. 23;
on advantage of a Northern declaration on slavery, 23;
on the Trades Unions of London meeting, 292 _and note_[1] 293
"Declaration, The, of Paris,"
1861 ... reviewed, 146 _et seq._, 153;
view of Russell's policy in, 146-150, 159;
view of Lyons, 147, 150
_Education of Henry Adams_ quoted, i. 149 _note_[3];
ii. 172 _note_[2];
cited, ii. 50 _note_[1]
Adams, John (Second President of the U.S.), i. 62, 81
Adams, John Quincy, i. 11, 20, 62, 81
African Slave Trade, attitude of the South to, i. 85-6;
ii. 88;
suppression of, international efforts for, i. 8-10;
punishment to slave traders in American law, 9;
American attitude to right of search, 9, 10, 219;
British anti-slavery policy, 31-2;
wane of British interest in, 10, 32;
ii. 90;
Slave Trade Treaty signed, i. 10, 275, 276;
ii. 90, 91
Agassiz, L., i. 37 _note_.
Akroyd, Edward, ii. 193 _note_.
_Alabama_, The, ii. 35, 116, 119-120;
departure of, from Liverpool, 118;
British order to stop
departure, 119, 120 _and note_[2], 133;
Russell's private feelings as to, 121, 124;
public opinion in Great Britain on, 129-130;
Palmerston's defence of Government action on, 134-5;
American anger over, 119, 127;
measures against, 121-3, 127;
New York Chamber of Commerce protest on, 126;
claim for damages on account of, 151 _note_[1];
mentioned, i. 138; ii. 129 _note_[1], 131, 134, 136, 145, 146
_Alexandra_, case, The:
Seizure of the vessel, ii. 136, 139, 140, 152, 161 _note_[4];
public approval, 136;
law actions on, 136 _note_[2], 142, 149, 152, 185, 195;
American anxiety at Court decision, 143;
final result, 196 _note_[2]
America, Central: British-American
disputes in, i. 16, 17
American:
Civil War: i. 86, 87 _and note_[2], 99;
British public and official views at the commencement of, 40-60;
origins of; American and British views, i. 47-8;
efforts at compromise, 49;
British official attitude on outbreak of, 73;
European opinion of, after duration of three years, ii. 219;
compared with the Great War in Europe, 219;
British attitude to democracy as determining attitude to the War,
i. 77; ii. 303-5;
bearing of, on democracy in Great Britain, 299
Union, The: British views of, i. 15;
prognostications of its dissolution, 36, 37
War of Independence, i. 2-3, 17;
adjustments after the Treaty of Peace, 3;
as fostering militant patriotism, 7, 8 _note_;
commercial relations after, 17-18
"War of 1812" i. 4, 7, 18;
causes leading to, 5-7;
New England opposition to, 7, 18;
effect of, on American National unity, 7
_See also under_ United States
Anderson, Major, Northern Commander at Fort Sumter, i. 117
Anderson's Mission, ii. 53 _note_[3];
reports, ii. 53 _and note_[2]
Andrews, Governor of Massachusetts, i. 219-20
Anthropological Society of London, ii. 222
Antietam, defeat of Lee by McClellan at, ii. 43, 85, 105;
effect of, on Lord Palmerston, 43
Archibald, British Consul at New York, i. 63, 64
Argyll, Duke of, i. 179, 212;
anti-slavery attitude of, i. 179, 238; ii. 112;
views of, in _Trent_ crisis, i. 212, 215, 229, 238;
on calamity of war with America, 215, 238;
on Northern determination, ii. 30
Arkansas joins Confederate States, i. 172
_Army and Navy Gazette_, The, ii. 228, 229;
attitude in the conflict, 229-30, 236;
on the Presidential election, 235-6, 238;
summary of military situation after Atlanta, 243;
on "foreign war" rumours, 251;
cited or quoted, 68, 166, 232-3, 243.
(_See also under_ Russell, W.H.)
Arnold, Matthew, views on the secession, i. 47;
on British "superiority," 258;
on the rule of aristocracy and growth of democracy, ii. 300
Arnold, _The History of the Cotton Famine_, ii. 6 _note_[2], 10, 11;
quoted: first effects of the war on the cotton trade, 9-10;
cotton operatives' song, 17 _note_[6];
on the members for Lancashire, 26-7
Ashburton, Lord, i. 13;
Ashburton Mission, i. 13
Aspinwall and Forbes, Mission of, in England, ii. 130 _note_[2]
Atlanta, captured by Sherman, ii. 233-5;
effect of, on Northern attitude, 233-4;
effect of, on Lincoln's re-election, 235
_Atlantic Monthly_, The, ii. 109 _note_[3]; 279 _and note_[3]
Bagley, Mr., ii. 224
Balch, _The Alabama Arbitration_, cited, ii. 129 _note_[1]
Baligny. _See_ Belligny
Bancroft, Frederic, cited, i. 117 _note_;
analysis of Seward's object in Declaration of Paris negotiation, 150-3;
view on Russell's aims in, 152 _and note_[2]
_Life of Seward_, cited or quoted, i. 106 _note_[1], 118 _note_,
130 _note_[3]; 132 _note_[3], 138, 150-3, 186 _notes_,
191 _note_[4], 196 _note_[1], 200 _note_[2],
213 _note_[4], 231 _note_[3], 280
_and note_[1], 281; ii. 1-2, 96,
99 _note_[2], 143 _note_[3], 253 _note_[1],
258 _note_[1]
Banks, Governor, i. 37 _note_
Baring, ii. 96 _note_[3]
Bath, Marquis of, ii. 193 _note_
Beals, Mr., ii. 191
Bedford, Duke of, i. 96 _and note_[3]
_Bee Hive, The, _cited, ii. 293 _note_
Beecher, Henry Ward, ii. 184 _and
note_[3]
Beesly, Professor, speech of, at
Trades Unions of London Meeting,
ii. 292
_Belfast Whig_, The, i. 70 _note_[1];
231 _note_
Belligny, French Consul at Charleston,
i. 185 _note_[1], 186, 188, 189,
191 _and note_[4]
_Bell's Weekly Messenger_, quoted,
ii. 104
Benjamin, Confederate Secretary
of State, ii. 5; Mercier's interview
with, i. 284, 285; report of,
to Slidell on Mercier's visit,
284 _note_[2]; instructions of, to
Slidell offering commercial advantages
for French intervention,
ii. 24 _and note_[2]; on idea
of Confederate loan, 158-9; recalls
Mason, 179; and recognition
of the Confederacy, 217; on the
attitude of France to the Confederacy,
236 _note_[2]; plan of
offering abolition of slavery in
return for recognition, 249;
otherwise mentioned, i. 292;
ii. 88 _note_[2], 148, 154 _note_[1], 213
_note_[1]
Bentinck, i. 268, 269
Bernard, Montague:
_Neutrality, The, of Great Britain
during the American Civil War_,
quoted, i., 100 _and note_[1],
137-8; ii. 118; cited, i. 171
_note_[1], 245 _note_[3], 246 _note_[2],
263 _notes_; ii. 136 _note_[2]; on
the American representations
on the British Proclamation
of Neutrality, i. 100; on
Declaration of Paris negotiations,
137-8; on the Blockade,
263 _and notes_
"Two Lectures on the Present
American War": on recognition,
cited, i. 183
Bigelow, John, ii. 71 _note_[3]:
_France and the Confederate Navy_,
cited, ii. 57 _note_[2]
_Retrospections of an Active Life_,
cited, i. 56 _note_, 217 _note_[2];
ii. 71 _note_[3], 88 _note_[2], 128 _note_[3],
130 _note_[2]; Gladstone and the
Cotton Loan, 163 _note_[2]; U.S.
stimulation of immigration,
200 _note_[1]; cited, 229 _note_[1];
Quoted, ii. 254; advice of, on the
political position in Britain;
quoted, 290; cited, 295 _note_[3]
Billault, M., i. 288, 289 _and note_[1]
Birkbeck, Morris, _Letters from Illinois_,
quoted, i. 25
_Birmingham Post_, The, i. 70 _note_[1];
ii. 231 _note_; letters of S.A.
Goddard in support of emancipation
in, ii. 108-9
Bishop, Rev. Francis, ii. 224
Bismarck, ii. 203
Black, Judge, American Secretary
of State, i. 52, 244
Blackwood, John, political views
of, ii. 289
_Blackwood's Magazine_, ii. 279 _note_[1];
on cotton and the blockade, 10;
on French mediation proposals,
68; on the Emancipation Proclamation,
103; on democracy
as cause of the war, 278-9, 281,
289
Blair, member of the United States
Cabinet, i, 130 _note_[1], 231; ii. 85,
251, 252
Blockade of Southern Ports, the:
Lincoln's declaration on, i. 83,
89, 90, 92, 111, 121, 122, 244,
245; commencement of, i. 245;
method of warning at the port,
245, 246; as involving hardship
to British merchants, 245-6;
effectiveness of, 252-71 _passim_;
effect on British Trade, 252, 254,
263; effect on Cotton Trade,
262; ii. 8, 9; statistics as to
effectiveness, i. 268 _note_[3]
Southern Ports Bill, i. 246 _et seq._
Stone Boat Fleet Blockade,
i. 253 _et seq._, 269, 302
British attitude to, i. 95, 244, 245,
246, 263 _and note_[2], 267, 270;
ii. 5, 265; Parliamentary debate
on, i. 267 _et seq._; Gregory's motion
268 _et seq._; press attitude,
246; Bright's view, ii. 14, 15
Confederate representations on,
i. 265
Napoleon's view of, i. 290
Booth, assassinator of Lincoln,
ii. 258, 259, 263
Border States, The: efforts at
compromise, i. 49; sympathies
in, 173; the "Border State
policy" of Lincoln, 173, 176,
272 _note_[1]; ii. 82; and Confiscation
Bill, Lincoln's fears, 82;
attitude of, to emancipation,
ii. 83, 84, 87; not affected in Proclamation
of Emancipation, 86
Bourke, Hon. Robert, ii. 187, 193
Boynton, Rev. C.B., _English and
French Neutrality, etc._, cited
and quoted, ii. 225 _note_[1]
Bright, John, i. 58 _note_[2], 77;
quoted on _Times_ attitude towards
the United States, 55
_note_[3]; view of the Northern
attempt at reconquest, 72; views
of, on the Proclamation of Neutrality,
108, 110; speech on
_Trent_ affair, 221-2; letter to
Sumner on _Trent_ affair, influence
on Lincoln, 232; speech on
Britain's attitude on conclusion
of _Trent_ affair, 241-2; view on the
war as for abolition, 241; on
distress in Lancashire, ii. 13, 14;
view of the blockade, 14, 15;
on the cotton shortage, 15;
and Gladstone's Newcastle
speech, 48; view of Emancipation
Proclamation, 48 _note_[2],
105-6, 111-12; on England's
support if emancipation an object
in the war, 88-9; the escape
of the _Alabama_, 120; at Trades
Unions of London meeting, 132-3,
134, 291-3; support of the
North, 132, 283-4, 290, 291-295;
on the interests of the unenfranchised
in the American conflict,
132, 295; on the unfriendly
neutrality of the Government,
134; rebuked by Palmerston,
135; trouncing of Roebuck, 172
_and note_[2]; on Britain's neutrality
(Nov., 1863), 184; championship
of democratic institutions, i.
221-2; ii. 132-3, 276-7, 282, 283;
popularity of, as advocate of
Northern cause, 224, 225; influence
of, for the North, i. 58
_note_[2]; ii. 224; Lincoln's pardon
of Alfred Rubery in honour of,
225 _and note_[1]; quoted on feeling
of the British Government and
people towards United States in
Jan., 1865, etc., 247; confidence
of, in pacific policy of Lincoln,
255 _and note_[1]; quoted on the
ruling class and democracy, 280;
attack on Southern aristocracy
by, 290; heads deputation to
Adams, 294; eulogy of George
Thompson by, 224 _note_[1]
Adams' opinion on, ii. 298;
view of, in _The Index_, ii. 298-9;
Laird's view of, ii. 134;
Karl Marx's view of, 292
_note_[1]; Lord Salisbury, quoted
on the oratory of, 290 _note_[1],
the _Times_ attack on, 295-6
Otherwise mentioned, i. 69, 179,
289; ii. 68, 69, 132 _note_[1], 172
_note_[1], 186, 187, 191, 278, 281.
(See also under _Morning Star_)
British, _See also under _Great
Britain
British emigration to America, i.
23 _et seq_, 35; effect of American
political ideals on, 23, 24, 25, 26
British Foreign Enlistment Act,
ii. 116-7, 118; application of, in
American crisis, question in
Commons, i. 94; Russell's idea
of amending, ii. 124, 196;
Russell's advice to Palmerston
on, 131; debate in Parliament
on, 132, 133-4, 135; Forster and
the violation of, 133; Government
reply to Liverpool shipowners
on, 142; _Kearsarge_ incident,
202
British Press. _See under names
of Papers and under subject
headings_
_British Standard_, The, i. 70 _note_[1]
British travellers' views on America,
i. 23 _and note_, 24, 28, 30; ii. 274-5
Brooks, i. 80
Brougham, i. 94 _note_[2]; ii. 282
Brougham, Lord, i. 19
Brown, John, raid of, i. 33 _note_[2]
Browning, Robert, pro-Northern
sentiment of, i. 70; on stone-boat
blockade, 256; on Slavery a
factor in the struggle, 238-9; on
British dismay at prospect of
war in _Trent_ crisis, 240; mentioned,
228 _note_[4]
Bruce,--, British Ambassador in
Washington, ii. 255 _note_[4]; report
of American intentions against
France in Mexico, 255 _note_[4];
comment of, on Lincoln, Seward
and Sumner, 262; warns Russell
of probable American demands
at end of war, 266, 268; attitude
to "piracy" proclamation, 268.
Otherwise mentioned, ii. 262, 269.
Brunow, Baron de, Russian Ambassador:
on British policy,
i. 50-1, 74; interpretation of
Russell's "three months" statement,
272 _note_[1]; report of, on
Russell's mediation plan, ii. 45
_note_[3]; interview of, with Russell
on joint mediation offer, 73
_note_[1]
Bryce, Lord, i. 30; ii. 188 _note_[3], 274
Buchanan, President, i. 16, 49, 52, 117, 259; ii. 278
Buckingham, James Silk, _America, Historical, Statistic and Descriptive_,
cited, i. 29
Buckley, Victor, ii. 120 _note_[2]
Bull Run, Northern defeat at, i. 135, 154, 176, 201;
as affecting Seward's policy, considered, 154, 155-6;
effect of, in Great Britain:
press views, 176, 177-8, 179;
official views, 178, 179 _and note_[1];
public opinion, 201
Bullock, Captain J.D., Confederate Agent in Britain, ii. 118, 129, 145;
on the proposed use of the Laird rams, 122 _note_[1], 143;
shipbuilding contracts of, ii. 156, 157;
_Secret Service under the Confederacy_, cited, ii. 118, 149 _note_
Bunch,--, British Consul at Charleston,
description of Jockey Club dinner, i. 43;
on Southern anti-British sentiment, 44 _note_[2], ii. 71 _note_[2];
instructions to, on the secession, i. 53 _note_[1];
appeal of, to Judge Black on seizure of Federal customs house, 52;
characterizations of Southern leaders, 59;
view of President Davis, 59;
views on the South and secession, 59, 93;
characterizations of Southern Commissioners, 63;
negotiations of, with the Confederates on Declaration of Paris,
168 _note_[4], 184-6, 188, 193;
attitude of, to the South, 185 _and note_[4], 103, 195 _note_[2];
American complaints of, 187, 189, 193-4;
recall of exequatur of, 184, 187 _et seq_., 193, 194-5, 201;
defence of his action in the Mure case, 187, 188, 192, 199;
subsequent history of, 195 _note_[2];
view of, as scapegoat, 195 _note_[2];
on attitude to the Blockade, 252 _note_[2], 253 _note_[2], 268;
on Southern intentions, 252 _note_[2];
view of Southern determination, 252 _note_[2];
on Southern views of England's necessity for cotton, 63,
252 _note_[2]; ii. 4, 5;
on effect of the blockade on Southern cotton industry, 9 _note_[2];
on burning of Mississippi cotton, 16 _note_[1], 17 _note_[4];
on the American system of government as the cause of the Civil War,
278 _note_[2]
British attitude to the controversy over, i. 188-9, 190, 191, 194;
French attitude, i. 189, 191 _and_ _note_[4], 192, 201 _note_
Lyons' views on Bunch controversy, i. 187, 193, 194 _and note_[1]
Russell's views, i. 187, 190, 193, 194 _and note_[4]
Otherwise mentioned, i. 66; ii. 88
Burnley, British Ambassador, report of, on prospective war with America,
ii. 254
Butler, General,
order to Federal soldiers in New Orleans, i. 302-4, 305; ii. 68;
Palmerston and Adams controversy on, i. 302-5;
Lord Russell's advice to Palmerston, 303, 304
Cairnes, Professor, ii. 224 _note_[3];
pamphlet by, on "Slave Power," 112
_Caledonian Mercury_, The, i. 70 _note_[1]; ii. 231 _note_
California, acquisition of, by U.S., i. 15, 16
Callahan,--, _Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy_, cited,
i. 261 _note_, 289 _note_[2]; ii. 167 _notes_, 169 _note_[4]
Campbell, Lord, i. 271, 292; ii, 28, 77, 169, 172, 193
Canada:
Rebellion of 1837 in, i. 4, 109; ii. 117;
British fear of American attack on, i. 4;
sentiment in, as affected by the American Wars against England, 8 _note_;
suggestions of annexation to Northern States of the U.S., 54-5;
"compensation" in, idea in British press, 54-5;
and in views of American political leaders, 55;
Gladstone's idea regarding, ii. 69-70;
military defence of, in _Trent_ crisis, i. 213, 241-2;
views in, on _Trent_ affair, 222 _note_;
on British policy and defence, 222 _note_;
view of the _Times_ in, 222 _note_
Free Trade policy and, a Southern premonition as to, i. 22
Reciprocity Treaty of, with U.S., ii. 198, 253-4
Otherwise mentioned, ii. 251, 254, 275
Canning, i. II, 12, 20
Cardwell, ii. 64
Carolina, North, joins Confederate States, i. 172
Carolina, South, secession of, i. 41, 43-44, 55; ii. 3-4;
seizes Federal customs at Charleston, i. 52;
requests Federal relinquishment of Fort Sumter, 117
"Caroline" affair, The, i. 109
Case, Walter M., _James M. Mason--Confederate Diplomat_,
cited and quoted, i. 261 _note_; ii. 161 _and note_[3]
Catacazy, C., and mediation by Russia, ii. 251 _note_[1]
Cecil, Lord Eustace, ii. 187, 189, 193
Cecil, Lord Robert, supports Gregory's motion on blockade, i. 268;
supports Roebuck's motion, ii. 171, 175-6;
on Committee of Southern Independence Association, 187, 193
Charleston, S.C.:
Sentiment to Great Britain in, i. 43, 44 _note_;
seizure of customs house at, 52;
British appeal on question of port dues at, 52, 244;
"Stone Boat" blockade of harbour at, 253;
evacuation of, ii. 248, 249
Charleston _Mercury_, "King Cotton" theory of, ii. 5
Chase, Secretary of Treasury, i. 115, 121; ii. 72, 283;
quarrel with Seward, 72
Chase, W. H. (of Florida), quoted, ii. 4
Chattanooga, ii. 185
Cheever, Rev. Dr., ii. 224
Chenery, ii. 301
Chesney, Captain, cited, ii. 165
Chesson, F. W., ii. 224
Chicago Convention, the, i. 175
Chicago abolitionists, Lincoln and, ii. 49 _note_[3]
Chicamauga, Rosencrans defeated at, ii. 184
Chittenden, cited, ii. 130 _note_[2]
Christian IX, of Denmark, ii. 203
Clanricarde, Lord, ii. 168
Clarendon, Earl of, i. 199 _note_[3], 215;
ii. 3, 51-8 _passim_, 63, 203 _note_[2];
on Russell's mediation project and Lewis' Hereford speech, quoted, 57-8
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty: Seward's attack on British interpretation of, i. 113
Cobden, i. 77; quoted, on the _Times_, 222 _note_;
opinion of Seward, 222 _note_;
and Sumner, 222 _note_;
on Palmerston's action in _Trent_ affair, 226 _note_[3];
letter to Sumner read at American Cabinet meeting, 232
Otherwise mentioned, i. 289; ii. 26, 67, 80, 95 _and note_[4], 166, 276
Collie, ii. 189
Collier, legal advice of, on _Alabama_, ii. 118-9
Columbia District, freeing of slaves in, ii. 83
Columbia, S.C., burning of, ii. 248, 249
Combe, George, _Notes on the United States, etc._, cited, i. 29
Confederate Commissioners to Europe, the:
Bunch's characterization of, i. 63;
unofficial interview with Russell, 85-6, 106, 158;
protest against closing of British ports, 170 _note_[2];
replaced by "Special Commissioners," 203;
attempt to make use of the _Trent_ affair, 214;
British attitude to, not modified by _Trent_ affair, 235;
policy of, with regard to recognition and the blockade,
i. 264-5, 267, 273, 300;
acquire a "confidential" document, 265 _and note_[2];
hopes of, from Parliament, 265, 266, 272;
instructions of the first Commissioners, ii. 4 _and note_[3];
failure of the first Commission, 4-5;
suggest a treaty on African Slave Trade, 88 _note_[2];
slavery abolition offer, 249
Confederate Agents' correspondence, collections of, i. 261 _note_[1]
_See also under personal names_
Confederates, _See under_ Southern States
Confiscation Bill, The, ii. 82, 84, 85, 86, 92, 95;
Lincoln's attitude to, 82, 84;
Lord Russell's comment on, 97
_Constitutionel_, The, cited, ii. 236 _note_[2]
Continental Press and American News, ii. 71 _note_[2]
Corcoran, ii. 169
Cotton supplies and slavery, i. 13;
in British-American commercial relations, 21, 22;
British manufacturers' dependence on, 22;
effect of the Civil War on, 55, 246; ii. 53;
the crop of 1860 ... ii. 7
Blockade, The, and, i. 252 _and note_[2], 253; ii. 9;
effect of, on price, i. 262, 270;
Napoleon's views on, 290
England, need of, for, i. 196-7, 200 _note_[1], 294, 296; ii. 17, 99;
cotton famine in, 294; ii. 6, II _et seq._, 16 _note_[1];
cotton manufacturing industry of, in 1860-1, ii. 6-7, 8;
first effects of the war on, 8, 9, 10.
_See also under_ Lancashire.
France, necessity of, for cotton, i. 279, 290, 293, 294, 296, 300;
ii. 17; Mercier's plan to relieve, i. 196-201
Gladstone's Newcastle speech, effect of, on price of, ii. 48;
"King Cotton" theory, i. 63; ii. i _et seq._;
belief of the South in cotton as a weapon of diplomacy, 2-3, 4, 5
Southern orders for destruction of, ii. 16, 17 _note_[4];
effect of, on British officials, 17
Cowley, Lord, British Ambassador in Paris, i. 88;
reports French agreement with British policy on Southern belligerent
rights, 88;
in the Declaration of Paris negotiations, 88, 143, 156, 157, 158,
162, 167;
conversations with Thouvenel in Bunch affair, 189;
disturbed at French evasion of direct support, 189, 192, 201 _note_[1];
in _Trent_ affair fears war with America, 214;
communications on Southern Ports Bill, 247 _and note_[2];
view of French attitude on Southern Ports Bill, 247;
on French policy in Mexico, 260, 261 _note_; ii. 46;
quoted, on Thouvenel's view on mediation in Feb., 1862 ... i.
266 _note_[1]; on Mercier's Richmond visit, i. 288;
statement of, to Lindsay, after interview with Napoleon, 290;
on the possibility of reunion, 290;
on the blockade, 290-1;
denial of Napoleon's "offer" to England, 290, 291;
reports of, on Lindsay's mission, 291-2, 293, 295 _note_[1];
conversations with Thouvenel on Lindsay, 291, 293-4;
Napoleon's letter to, on Lindsay, quoted, 295 _note_[2];
interview with Thouvenel on Russell's mediation plan, ii. 38, 39
_and note_, 46;
on Napoleon's suggestion of joint mediation, 59;
instructed to notify France of England's view of the war as ended and
of attitude to Confederate cruisers, 266-7
Otherwise mentioned, i. 218 _note_
Crawford, Consul-General at Havana, ii. 148
Crimean War: Anglo-French agreement regarding neutral commerce, i. 139
Crittenden, i. 49
_Daily Gazette_, The, cited, ii. 109 _note_
_Daily News_,
attitude of, during the American Civil War, i. 69-70 _and note_
1, 176, 181-2; ii. 230 _note_[3],
on Lincoln's message to Congress, i. 176;
letters of W.W. Story in, 228
_Daily Telegraph_, cited, ii. 50 _note_[1],
attitude and circulation of, 189 _note_[2], 226, 230 _note_[3]
Dallas, American Minister to Great Britain, i. 62;
lack of instructions on American intentions, 62, 108, 112;
communications with Lord Russell, 62, 66, 74;
despatches to Seward on Russell's intentions, 66-7;
Russell's pledge of delay to, 67, 84, 85, 107, 108;
report on proposed British joint action with France, 84-5, 86
Otherwise mentioned, i. 74, 96, 156 _note_[1]
Dana, R.H., cited, i. 218;
_The Trent Affair_, cited, 203 _note_, 205 _note_[2], 237 _note_
Danish question, The, ii. 203-5, 214
Darwin, Charles, quoted, i. 180 _and note_[4]
Davis, Bancroft, _Times_ correspondent in New York, i. 56
Davis, Jefferson,
personal characteristics of, i. 59, 81, 82: ii. 276;
attitude of, in the opening of the crisis, i. 49;
elected President of the Southern Government, 59, 81;
foreign policy of, 81-2;
aristocratic views of, on government, ii. 276;
proclamation of, on marque and privateering, i. 83, 89, 90, 92, 111,
121, 122, 141, 160;
defensive measures of, in the South, 172;
on Bunch's negotiations on Declaration of Paris, 186;
replaces Confederate agents to Europe, 203;
and the African Slave Trade, ii. 88 _note_[2];
proclamation of retaliation against Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation,
106 _and note_[4];
on England's conduct towards the South, 184;
on Southern disorganization, 219;
flight of, from Richmond, 248;
approves plan of offering abolition of slavery in return for
recognition, 249;
capture of, 267
British views on, ii. 276
Bunch's characterization of, i. 59, 185 _note_[4]
Gladstone's Newcastle speech on, ii. 47
Otherwise mentioned, i. 163 _note_[1], 185 _note_[4], 254, 265
_note_[2], 283; ii. 5, 6, 176 _note_[3], 251, 252, 285
Dayton, American Minister at Paris, i. 129, 142, 143, 145, 150, 151, 163,
165, 167 _note_[3], 168, 200, 231, 300
de Brunow, Russian Ambassador. _See under_ Brunow
de Flahault, French Ambassador. _See under _Flahault
_Debats_:
French press views on military situation, cited, ii. 174 _note_[3]
_De Bow's Review_,
eulogies of the South in, quoted, ii. 2, 3, 4;
on cotton and slavery, 3;
view of England's action on blockade, 4
Declaration of Paris, The, i. 102, 139-40;
attitude of United States to, 140-1, 156;
American offer of adherence during the Civil War, 104, 137, 141-2,
150, 151
Declaration of Paris Negotiation, The, i. 137 _et seq._, 184, 201;
British suggestion to France in, i. 88, 91, 142, 146-7, 156, 157
_and note_[3];
American offer of adherence, 104, 137, 141-2, 150, 151;
convention agreed between Britain, France, and America, 142-3;
addition of a declaration in support of British neutrality proposed
by Lord Russell, 143-6, 149, 151, 154, 68, 170, 201;
American rejection of convention, 145, 168, 201
American argument at Geneva on effect of British diplomacy in, i. 146
_note_[2]
Confederates:
approach of, in the negotiation, i. 161, 164, 165, 166, 168
_note_[4], 184-6, 188, 192, 193;
Confederate Congress resolution of approval in, 186
Convention, the, proposed by U.S.
Cowley's opinion on, i. 167 _and note_[3];
Thouvenel's opinion on, 167;
Palmerston's suggestion on, 167 _and note_[4]
Seward's motives in, _See under_ Seward
Delane, editor of the _Times:_
Palmerston's letters to, on American rights in interception of
Confederate Commissioners, i. 207-8, 209;
close relations of, with Palmerston, 229 _note_[2]; ii. 145;
anticipations of Southern victory, ii. 204 _and note_[2];
on prospective war with America, 254;
effect of Sherman's arrival at Savannah on, 245 _and note_[2], 300-1
Otherwise mentioned, i. 177, 178, 180; ii. 65, 289
de Lhuys, M. Drouyn, French Premier,
ii. 59 _and note_[4], 60, 63 _note_[5], 168
Democratic element in British Society:
lack of press representation, i. 24, 41
Democracy:
British views on American institutions, i. 24, 28, 30, 31; ii. 274-5;
view of the American struggle as a failure of, 276 _et seq. passim;_
Press comments on the lesson from failure of American democratic
institutions, 279, 280, 281, 285, 286, 297;
bearing of the Civil War on, 299;
aristocratic and conservative attitude to, 286, 287, 297, 298, 300, 301;
rise of democratic feeling in Great Britain, 291;
effect of the Reform Bill of 1867, 304
Derby, Lord (Leader of the Opposition), i. 76, 77, 79, 94
_and note_[2], 240, 241;
attitude to recognition and mediation, i. 240; ii. 51, 52, 53, 54, 77;
attacks governmental policy in relation to Laird Rams and Southern
shipbuilding, 149-50, 197;
approves attitude to Napoleon's mediation proposals, 154-5;
speech in motion for address to the Crown on Lincoln's assassination,
263;
attacks Government on American "piracy proclamation" at end of the war,
267-8;
attitude to expansion of the franchise, i. 77;
ii. 276, 303 _and note_[1]
Otherwise mentioned, i. 292, 295; ii. 51 _note_[2], 166, 210, 214
_Dial_, The, i. 70 _note_[1]
Disraeli, Benjamin (Tory leader in the Commons), i. 79;
on _Trent_ affair, 241;
connection with Lindsay's motion, 292, 295, 296, 306;
ii. 213 _and note_[1];
approval of neutrality, ii. 77, 174 _note_[1];
in Roebuck's motion, 153, 171, 174;
attitude to stoppage of Southern shipbuilding, 197;
speech, of, on the motion for the
Address to the Crown on Lincoln's assassination, 263-4;
Reform Bill of (1867) ... 3 03 _and note_[1]
Mentioned, ii. 270 _note_[3]
Donoughmore, Earl of, ii. 204 _and note_[2];
reply to Mason, 250-1
D'Oubril, ii. 59 _note_[4], 62 _note_[5]
Doyle, Percy, i. 218 _note_[1]
_Dublin News_, quoted, i. 45, 46 _note_[1]
_Dubuque Sun_, The, ii. 22 _note_
Dudley, U.S. Consul at Liverpool,
ii. 118, 130 _note_[2], 144, 145 _note_[2]
Dufferin, Lord, i. 240
Duffus, R. L., "Contemporary English Popular Opinion on the American Civil
War," i. 41 _note_[1]; quoted, 41, 48;
cited, 70 _note_[1]; ii. 112 _note_[1]
Dumfermline, Lady, i. 224 _note_[3]
Dumping of British goods:
effect on American feeling, i. 19, 21