_THE CIVIL WAR AND THE PART TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN IN SAME._
For the first fifty years after the Revolution, the wealthy aristocratic
slave-holding Southern states governed the Union and controlled its
destiny. The acquisition of Florida and the Louisiana purchase doubled
the area of the United States, and the territory derived from the
Mexican War doubled it again. It was the intention of the South to
extend slavery over this immense territory, but they were checked in the
northern part of it by the enormous European immigration that poured
into it and prevented it from becoming slave territory. Then came the
"irrepressible conflict," the border war in Missouri and "bleeding
Kansas," the battle of Ossawatomie and Harper's Ferry raid, and the
constant pin-pricking of the abolition societies in the North, the
headquarters of which were in Boston.
The presidential election of 1860 showed the South that they had lost
control of the government and that the free states were increasing
enormously in wealth and population, and that, following the example of
Great Britain, it would be only a question of time before they would
insist on abolishing slavery. Then it was that the Southerners decided
to do what their fathers had done eighty-five years before, secede and
become Dis-unionists. They could not believe that there would be any
opposition to their leaving, especially from Massachusetts, that place
that had always been foremost in disunion sentiments. Besides, had not
the Abolitionists said repeatedly in Faneuil Hall, "The Cradle of
Liberty," that if they would leave the Union they would "pave their way
with gold" to get rid of them, and did not the New York Tribune, which
had been the organ of the Abolitionists, and which now declared that "if
the cotton states wished to withdraw from the Union they should be
allowed to do so"; that "any attempt to compel them to remain by force
would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and to the fundamental idea upon which human liberty is based," and that
"if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the
British Empire of three million subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it
would not justify the secession of five million of Southerners from the
Union in 1861." This was quite consistent with the remark of a leading
Abolitionist paper in Boston that "the Constitution was a covenant with
hell." The South also contended that even if they were not justified in
becoming Dis-unionists in 1776, they had established their right to
independence by force of arms and that when they had entered into a
confederation with the other seceding colonies, they had never assigned
any of their rights which they had fought for, that they were sovereign,
independent states, and that the bond that bound them together was
simply for self-protection and was what the name signified "United
States," and not a nation. In proof of this they stated that when the
convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, for the purpose of adopting
a constitution for a stronger form of government, the first resolution
presented was, "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that
a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme
legislature, executive and judiciary." This was followed by twenty-three
other resolutions as adopted and reported by the committee in which the
word "national" occurred twenty-six times. Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut
moved to strike out the word "national" and to insert the words
"Government of the United States." This was agreed to unanimously, and
the word "national" was stricken out wherever it occurred, and nowhere
makes its appearance in the Constitution finally adopted. The prompt
rejection of this word "national" is obviously much more expressive of
the intent of the authors of the Constitution than its mere absence from
the Constitution would have been. It is a clear indication that they did
not mean to give any countenance to the idea that the government which
they organized was a consolidated nationality instead of a confederacy
of sovereign members. The question of secession was first raised by men
of Massachusetts, the birthplace of secession. Colonel Timothy Pickering
was one of the leading secessionists of his day. He had been an officer
in the Revolution; afterwards Postmaster General, Secretary of War,
Secretary of State in the cabinet of General Washington and senator from
Massachusetts.
Writing to a friend on December 24, 1803, he says: "I will not despair.
I will rather anticipate a new confederacy exempt from the corrupt and
corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the
South. There will be (and our children, at farthest, will see it) a
separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary."[96]
In another letter, written in January 29, 1804, he said: "The principles
of our Revolution point to the remedy--a separation. This can be
accomplished and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little
doubt. It must begin in Massachusetts."[96]
[96] Life of Cabot, p. 491.
In 1811, on the bill for the admission of Louisiana as a state of the
Union, the Hon. Josiah Quincy, a member of Congress from Massachusetts,
said: "If this bill pass, it is my deliberate opinion that it is
virtually a dissolution of this Union; that it will free the states from
other moral obligations, and as it will be the right of all, so it will
be the duty of some definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably, if
they can, violently if they must."
The war between the North and the South produced an abundant crop of
bitter prejudices against the mother country. This sentiment was shared
by the South as well as by the North. Each imagined it had been unfairly
treated by the British Government.
Americans continually point to the period of the Civil war and
triumphantly declare that Englishmen were unfriendly to the United
States at that time. So they were. And Englishmen were unfriendly to the
Confederate states during that time. In fact, Englishmen did exactly
what Americans did at that time--some took the side of the North and
others took the side of the South. This it was their privilege to do.
They simply asserted the right of free men to think as they pleased, and
to express those thoughts freely. But that in so doing they showed
hostility to the United States it is false and foolish to assert. There
was neither unfriendliness nor malice. This hostility to the South, so
far as it existed, was based solely upon the existence of slavery there.
That which existed against the North was based solely upon the belief
that a stronger power was taking advantage of its strength to trample
upon the political rights of a weaker one. Any person living either
North or South at that time cannot deny that they met many examples of
both of these opinions among their respective acquaintances in both
these sections.
At the commencement of the Civil War, the Queen issued a proclamation of
neutrality, forbidding the sale of munitions of war to either party,
warning her subjects against entering any blockaded port for purposes of
trade under penalty of forfeiture of vessel and cargo if captured by
either contestant.
Great Britain, as well as all other civilized powers, granted to the
Confederacy belligerent rights, the same as had been accorded to them by
the United States. Many, through cupidity, were tempted to enter into an
illegal traffic with the seceded states.
A writer at that time says: "It is to the disgrace of our country that
some of the goods smuggled into the Confederacy via Nassau were from
Northern ports, as for example, shiploads of pistols brought from Boston
in barrels of lard." There was also a considerable trade between Boston
and Confederate ports via Halifax during the war, as well as an immense
amount of contraband trade along the border even by the United States
officials, as for example, the exploits of General Benjamin F. Butler
while in command at Norfolk, Va., in 1864. If citizens of the United
States, even those of Massachusetts, the home of the abolitionists,
entered into this traffic, what could be expected of Great Britain with
her mills closed and thousands of operatives obliged to resort to the
poor rates for subsistence, because she was prevented from buying cotton
with which the wharves of the Southern states were loaded down awaiting
shipment. It was claimed by Unionists that the British ministry and
aristocracy, from political and commercial considerations, openly and
heartily sympathized with the South, and that, under the friendly flag
of Great Britain, secessionists and blockade-runners were welcomed and
assisted in the nefarious traffic; that this unfriendliness of the
British government at that time furnished a solid foundation upon which
the rebellion rested their hopes, thereby protracting the war. It
should not be forgotten, however, that the Queen and the royal family
stood faithfully by the Union in the days of its sorest peril, and
refused to listen to the importunities of the French emperor, to
recognize the Southern Confederacy and open the southern ports.
France, having taken advantage of the Civil War, set the Monroe Doctrine
at defiance and conquered Mexico. Her remaining there depended on the
success of the Confederacy, as after events proved. Had Great Britain
listened to France and joined her in recognizing the Southern
Confederacy, the South would have surely succeeded. It is generally
admitted that the strict blockade of the Southern ports is what defeated
the Confederacy. It is due to Great Britain that the United States is
not dismembered. It should be remembered that during the Civil War the
great body of British workmen were on the side of the North. Even in the
cotton famine districts they preferred to starve rather than have the
Southern ports opened whereby they could obtain an abundance of cotton,
thereby relieving their sore necessities.
It is also true that the Confederacy had many friends in Great Britain;
that Gladstone, the great Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far
forgot what was due to his position as to make a speech in which he said
"he expected the liberation of the slaves by their own masters sooner
than from the North; that Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the South
have made an army; they are soon, I understand, to have a navy, but
greater than all this, they have made a nation."
It must be admitted that in building a navy the government connived at
the building of cruisers, such as the Alabama, in British shipyards, for
which they had to pay dearly afterwards. In answer to this speech of
Gladstone, the robust yet tender tones of John Bright's voice rang out
for the Northern cause in the darkest hour of the Civil War. His voice
was heard with no uncertain sound when he uttered his indignant protest
at anything like a reception being tendered Mason and Slidell on their
release. John Bright for a long time sustained the enormous loss of
keeping his mills open at hast half time with no material to work with.
There he stood, all Quaker as he was, praying that the North might not
stay its hand till the last slave was freed, even if no bales of cotton
were sent to relieve his grievious losses protesting against outside
interference. When the day came that marked the passing away of this
venerable patriot, one of earth's greatest and best, an attempt was made
in Congress to pass a vote of sympathy to his family and to the shame
and disgrace of the United States it must be said that Congress refused
to pay even this poor tribute to the memory of the best friend the
United States had in the whole wide world in the hour of her great
distress. This was done because it would be "offensive to the Irish."
John Bright could see no difference between dis-union in the United
States and dis-union in the United Kingdom. He had written to Mr.
Gladstone concerning Parnell, Dillon, O'Brien, etc., saying, "You deem
them patriots; I hold them not to be patriots, but conspirators against
the crown and government of the United Kingdom." These men were
afterwards found guilty of criminal conspiracy and Parnell was received
with honor on the floor of Congress.
Henry Ward Beecher stated that during the American Civil War there were
thousands of mass meetings held in Great Britain in favor of the Union
cause, and not one in favor of the Confederacy.
Jefferson Davis complained bitterly of the action of Great Britain. He
says "The partiality of Her Majesty's government in favor of our enemies
was further evinced in the marked difference of its conduct on the
subject of the purchase of supplies by the two belligerents. This
difference was conspicuous from the commencement of the war."(*) Great
Britain endeavored to deal justly with both parties in the contest, but
pleased neither and was blamed by both. This is probably the best
evidence that can be given to show the impartiality of Great Britain in
the great Civil War, and it is safe to say that there were ten times
more British subjects serving in the Northern armies than there were in
the Southern.
As previously stated, Great Britain has been greatly blamed by American
historians for her treatment of American prisoners of war during the
Revolution, and at Dartmouth prison in the war of 1812. In view of these
facts it will be interesting to see how the Americans treated their
prisoners when at war between themselves in the Civil War of 1861. One
of the worst cases recorded in the history of the world is that of
Andersonville. The first prisoners were received there in March, 1864.
From that time till March, 1865, the deaths were 13,000 out of a total
of 50,000 or 26 per cent. This enormous loss of life was due to the fact
that in order to subjugate the South their crops were destroyed, their
fields devastated, their railroads broken up, which interrupted their
means of transportation, which reduced their people, troops and
prisoners to the most straitened condition for food. If the troops in
the field were in a half-starved condition, certainly the prisoners
would fare worse.(*) The Confederates have been blamed for this enormous
loss of life, but when the facts are examined it is found that it was
due to the cold-blooded policy of the Federal Government, who would not
exchange prisoners for the atrocious reason set forth in the dispatch
from General Grant to General Butler, dated West Point, August 18, 1864.
General Grant says: "On the subject of exchange, however, I differ from
General Hitchcock. It is hard on our men in Southern prisons not to
exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight
our battles. Every man released on parole or otherwise becomes an active
soldier against us at once, either directly or indirectly. If we
commence a system of exchange, which liberates all prisoners taken, we
will have to fight on till the whole South is exterminated. If we hold
those caught, they amount to no more than dead men. At this particular
time to release all rebel prisoners North would insure Sherman's defeat
and would compromise our safety."
What brought forth this letter was a statement made by the Confederate
government concerning the excessive mortality prevailing among the
prisoners of Andersonville. As no answer was received, another
communication was sent on Aug. 22, 1864 to Major General E. A.
Hitchcock, United States Commissioner of Exchange, concerning the same
proposal. But again no answer was made. One final effort was made to
obtain an exchange. Jefferson Davis sent a delegation of prisoners from
Andersonville to Washington. "It was of no avail. They were made to
understand that the interest of the government required that they should
return to prison and President Lincoln refused to see them. They carried
back the sad tidings that their government held out no hope of their
release."[97]
[97] Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. II., p. 606.
Up to this time the mortality among the prisoners had been far greater
in the Northern prisons than in the Southern prisons, notwithstanding
there was an abundance of food and clothing and medical supplies in the
North. In proof of this it is only necessary to offer two facts. First,
the report of the Secretary of War, E. M. Stanton, made on July 19,
1866, shows that of all the prisoners held by the Confederates during
the war, only 22,576 died, while of the prisoners held by the Federal
government, 26,246 died.
Second, the official report of Surgeon General Barnes, an officer of the
U. S. Government, stated that the number of Confederate prisoners in
their hands amounted to 220,000. The number of U. S. prisoners in
Confederate hands amounted to 270,000. Thus out of 270,000 held by the
Confederates 22,000 died, and of the 220,000 Confederates held in the
North, 26,000 died. Thus 12 per cent of the Confederates died in
Northern prisons and only 9 per cent U. S. prisoners died in the
South.[98]
[98] Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. II., p. 606.