Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 December 2010
The ripening of the Anglo-American friendship in the first half of the nineteenth century was truly an evolutionary process, but most observers agree that in the diplomatic sphere the significant aspects of that early rapprochement took place about the time of the Webster–Ashburton agreement. One previously unknown factor involved in this development centred on British and American cooperation in the Belgian indemnification dispute in the late thirties and forties. This struggle by several major powers aimed at receiving indemnities from the newly created state for property damages incurred during the Belgian revolution of 1830 in Antwerp.
1 Allen, H. C., Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (NewYork: St Martins, 1955), pp. 389–442;Google ScholarDeConde, Alexander, A History of American Foreign Policy (New York: C. Scribners and Sons, 1963), pp. 150–74;Google ScholarPerkins, Dexter, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1955), pp. 73ffGoogle Scholar.
2 Shea, Donald R., The Calvo Clause (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955), p. 11;Google Scholar and the significant analysis provided in Anzilotti, Dionisio, ‘La responsabilité internationale des états à raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers’, Revue générale de droit international, XIII (01. 1906), 2–28Google Scholar.
3 Calvo, Carlos, ‘De la non-responsabilite des États à raison des pertes et dommages éprouvés par les étrangers en temps de troubles intérieures ou de guerre civil’, Revue de droit internationale, III (1869), n.p.Google Scholar
4 The standard acceptance and argument is concisely stated by Hackworth, Green H., ‘The Responsibility of States for damages caused in their Territory to the Persons or Property of Foreigners’, American Journal of International Law, XXIV, no. 3 (07, 1930), 500–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 See Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangers at du Commerce extérieure, Dossier L'incendie-Anvers 1830Google Scholar (hereafter cited as MAEC Incendie); Diplomatic Despatches and Diplomatic Instructions, Belgium, National Archives, Record Group 59, 1 and 11 (hereafter cited as DDB I and DIB II); and Copies and Extracts from the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Mission at Brussels relative to the Claims of British Merchants (London: T. H. Harrison, 1842),Google Scholar hereafter cited as Copies and Extracts.
6 Legaré to Forsyth, 28 Feb. 1836, DDB I.
7 Ibid.
8 Forsyth to Legaré. Jan. 1836, DIB I.
9 Legaré to Forsyth, 28 Feb. 1836, DDB I.
10 The de Latour-Mabourg and Adair notes are found in the Legaré despatch of 28 Feb. 1836.
11 Borchgrave, Emile, Les Premiers Relations diplomatiques entre la Belgique et les États-Unis (Bruxelles: Academie Royale, 1874), pp. 36–7.Google Scholar
12 Legaré to Forsyth, 28 Feb. 1836, DDB I.
13 Ibid.
14 Legaré to de Muelenaere, 3 March 1836, MAEC Incendie.
15 Behr to de Muelenaere, 10 Oct. 1836, AEB Correspondance Politique-États-Unis, I (hereafter cited as MAEC CP-EU1), which includes a copy of the American Secretary's note.
16 Forsyth to Maxcy, 12 June 1837, DIB I.
17 Maxcy to Forsyth, 10 Nov. 1837, DDB II.
18 Maxcy to Forsyth, 11 Dec. 1837, DDB II.
19 Ridder, A. de, Histoire diplomatique du traité de 1839 (Paris: Vromant et Cie., 1920), pp. 266–92;Google ScholarWebster, Charles, The Foreign Policy of Palmerston (London: G. Bell, 1951), pp. 619 ffGoogle Scholar.
20 Webster, op. cit.
21 Maxcy to Forsyth, 21 March 1838, DDB 11.
22 Lannoy, Fleury de, Histoire diplomatique de l'indépendance beige, 1830-1839 (Bruxelles: L. Dewit, 1930).Google Scholar
23 Maxcy to Forsyth, 8 May 1838, DDB 11.
24 Ibid.
25 de Theux to Maxcy, 2 May 1838, MAEC Incendie.
26 Maxcy to Forsyth, 8 May 1838, DDB II.
27 Seymour to de Theux, 6 May 1838, in Copies and Extracts.
28 Seymour to de Theux, 6 May 1838, in Copies and Extracts.
29 The de Theux note is in Maxcy to Forsyth, 23 May 1838, DDB II.
30 Maxcy to Forsyth, 18 Dec 1838, DDB II.
31 The Seymour note is in Maxcy to Forsyth, 18 Dec. 1838, DDB II.
32 Maxcy to Forsyth, 23 Aug. 1839, DDB II. The Swedish Minister in Brussels was a great friend of chargé Maxcy.
33 Ibid.
34 Palmerston to Waller, 23 Aug. 1839, in Copies and Extracts.
35 The full Maxcy note is in Maxcy to Forsyth, 15 Dec. 1839, DDB II.
36 This de Theux note is in Seymour to Palmerston, 2 March 1840, in Copies and Extracts.
37 Maxcy to de Theux, 3 Sept. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
38 Maxcy to Forsyth, 15 March 1840, DDB II.
39 Maxcy to de Theux, 29 Oct. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
40 de Theux to Maxcy, 13 Nov. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
41 Van de Weyer to de Theux, 1 Nov. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
42 Vermeersch, A., De Structuur Van de Belgische Pers, 1838-1848 (Brussels: Interuniversitair Centrum, 1958), pp. 73–81.Google Scholar
43 L'Indépendance Beige, 18 Nov. 1839.
44 Serruys to de Theux, 17 Oct. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
45 Serruys to de Theux, 16 Nov. 1839, MAEC Incendie.
46 The de Theux note is in Seymour to Palmerston, 16 Nov. 1839, in Copies and Extracts.
47 Moniteur Beige, 4 Dec. 1840.
48 Maxcy to Forsyth, 20 Feb. 1841, DDB II.
49 Ibid.
50 Maxcy to de Muelenaere, 19 April 1841, MAEC Incendie.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 Seymour to Lebeau, 14 April 1841, in Copies and Extracts.
55 Maxcy to Webster, 20 July 1841, DDB II. On the American economic ideas and policies and her attitude toward Texas, see Maxwell, Lloyd W., Discriminating Duties and the American Merchant Marine (New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1926), andGoogle ScholarSchmitz, J. W., Texas Statecraft (San Antonio, 1941), pp. 228 ffGoogle Scholar.
56 Maxcy to Webster, 12 Jan. 1842, DDB II.
57 Laurent, Pierre-Henri, ‘Antwerp versus Bremen: Transatlantic Steamship Diplomacy and European Port Rivalry, 1839-1846’, Journal of World History, IX, no. 4 (1966).Google Scholar
58 See Sproemberg, H., Beitrāge zur Belgisch-neiderlāndischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1959), pp. 142–51.Google Scholar
59 Laurent, ‘Antwerp versus Bremen, etc.’.
60 Seymour to the Earl of Aberdeen, 25 Feb. 1842, in Copies and Extracts.
61 de Briey to Serruys, 21 March 1842, AEB CP-EU, II.
62 Moniteur Beige, 15 March 1842; L'Indépendence Belge, 14 March 1842.
63 Maxcy admitted that the accommodative path was Seymour's idea in Maxcy to Webster, 4 April 1842, DDB II.
64 C. de Briey, ‘Sur les indemnités de 1830’, n.d. MAEC Incendie.
65 Moniteur Belge, 8, 9, 19 March and 3 April 1842.
66 de Briey, op. cit.
67 Shea, passim; Hartmann, Frederick H., The Relations of Nations (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962), pp. 112–14Google Scholar.
68 The author is grateful for the award of a Belgian-American Foundation Fellowship, which assisted his archival research in the preparation of this article.
