Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:11:10.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Portents of War: English Opinion on Secession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

D. P. Crook
D. P. Crook
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One would expect from the relatively sophisticated industrial society into which Britain had developed by the 1860s a complex reaction to the immense crisis which struck the United States in that decade, euphemistically described in the British press as ‘the American Difficulty’. The enormous heterogeneity of economic, ideological, political and group interests involved in the English response – together with the spectrum of issues raised by the break-down of the Union – should enforce caution upon the historian who wishes to paint his Civil War scene in bold and simple strokes. During the war itself it was natural that Americans of both sections should make the simple demand of European opinion ‘is it pro-North or pro-South ?’ But the continuation of this tradition by later historians lasted too long, and has ended by befuddling rather than clarifying the situation. The search for partisan alignments too often provides a kind of distorting mirror through which events are viewed, or becomes a Procrustean device by which the data is chopped or stretched into the required form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 1971 , pp. 163 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 163 note 1 For more sophisticated, if not necessarily conclusive, recent analyses see: Hernon, Joseph M. Jr., ‘British Sympathies in the American Civil War: A Reconsideration’, J. Sth. Hist. 33 (1967), 356–67Google Scholar, which possibly over-reacts against the traditional interpretations of Adams, E. D., Great Britain and the American Civil War (Gloucester, 1925)Google Scholar, and Jordan, D. and Pratt, E. J., Europe and the American Civil War (New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Whitridge, A., ‘British Liberals and the American Civil War’, History Today, 12 (10 1962), 688–95Google Scholar; Nevins, Alan, The War for the Union, vol. IIGoogle Scholar, War Becomes Revolution 1862–1863 (New York, 1960), pp. 243–74Google Scholar; Harrison, Royden, Before the Socialists: Studies in Labour and Politics 1861–1881 (London, 1965), ch. 2Google Scholar, ‘British Labour and American Slavery’, pp. 40–69Google Scholar, which shows the existence of a small group of southern sympathizers in the Labour movement, but which hardly dislodges the tradition that pro-northern sentiment was ascendant among the labouring classes; Pender, Neal, English Opinion on the American Civil War (unpub. B.A. thesis, University of Queensland, 1967)Google Scholar, a thematic treatment of causes and major issues of the war. This paper will not deal directly with the general issues at stake in the above writings, but it may throw some light upon them from a brief examination of journals which influenced the intelligentsia and middle-class readers during a period when debate flourished about the nature of the sectional crisis. For the preceding period see the author's American Democracy in English Politics 1815–1850 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965).Google Scholar

page 164 note 1 National Review, 13 (07 1861), 163.Google Scholar

page 164 note 2 See, for example, Thistlethwaite, Frank, The Anglo-American Connection in the early Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia, 1959), ch. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 165 note 1 North British Review, 34 (05 1861), 550.Google Scholar

page 165 note 2 National Review, 13 (07 1861), 156.Google Scholar

page 165 note 3 Quoted, Buchan, Alastair, The Spare Chancellor (London, 1959), p. 155.Google Scholar See also Churchman, M., ‘Bagehot and the American Civil War’, in Stevas, N. St John, Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, vol. IV (London, 1968), pp. 179–94.Google Scholar

page 165 note 4 Economist, 2 03 1861 (Progress of American Disunion), 226.Google Scholar

page 166 note 1 Fraser's, 63 (04 1861), 404.Google Scholar

page 166 note 2 Saturday Review, 19 01 1861, 58–9.Google Scholar

page 166 note 3 Nat. Rev. 13 (07 1861), 155–6.Google Scholar

page 166 note 4 Fraser's, 63 (01 1861), 133.Google Scholar

page 167 note 1 New Monthly, 122 (1861), 357.Google Scholar

page 167 note 2 de Gasparin, Count Agénor, Un Grand peuple qui se relève: les Etats-Unis en 1861 (Paris, 1861), published in Britain in abridged translationGoogle Scholar, Uprising of a Great People: the U.S. in 1861 (London, 1861).Google Scholar

page 167 note 3 Sat. Rev. 26 01 1861, 82.Google Scholar

page 167 note 4 N. Br. Rev. 34 (05 1861), 563.Google Scholar

page 168 note 1 Sat. Rev. 12 01 1861, 27–8.Google Scholar

page 168 note 2 Sat. Rev. 2 02 1861, 108.Google Scholar

page 169 note 1 Ibid. 19 January 1861, 59.

page 169 note 2 Ibid. 26 January 1861, 82.

page 169 note 3 N. Br. Rev. 34 (05 1861), 562.Google Scholar

page 169 note 4 Ibid. 562.

page 169 note 5 Ibid. 561.

page 169 note 6 Sat. Rev. 2 02 1861, 108Google Scholar

page 170 note 1 Sat. Rev. 16 02 1861, 151.Google Scholar

page 170 note 2 Fraser's, 63 (04 1861), 404.Google Scholar

page 170 note 3 Econ. 2 03 1861.Google Scholar

page 171 note 1 Fraser's, 63 (04 1861), 404.Google Scholar

page 171 note 2 See Auken, Sheldon Van, English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy: The Glittering Illusion (unpub. thesis, Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar Van Auken finds few examples of positive regard for the Confederacy before the secession of Virginia, e.g. pp. 29–30.

page 171 note 3 Nat. Rev. 13 (07 1861), 168–9.Google Scholar

page 172 note 1 Fraser's, 63 (04 1861), 411.Google Scholar See also Edinburgh Review, 113 (04 1861), 579.Google Scholar

page 172 note 2 N. Br. Rev. 34 (05 1861), 563.Google Scholar

page 172 note 3 Edin. Rev. (ER), 113 (04 1861), 585–6.Google Scholar

page 173 note 1 Sat. Rev. 23 03 1861, 281.Google Scholar

page 173 note 2 Fraser's, 63 (04 1861), 411–12.Google Scholar

page 173 note 3 N. Monthly, 122, 362.Google Scholar

page 173 note 4 Econ. 23 03 1861, 311.Google Scholar

page 174 note 1 The ambiguities of the inaugural led to the widespread impression in England that Lincoln intended to retake the forts; in fact he had deleted the promise to ‘retake’ the forts from his first draft of the speech.

page 174 note 2 Sat. Rev. 23 04 1861, 282.Google Scholar

page 174 note 3 Ibid. 18 May 1861, 489. See also 26 January 1861, 83; and cf. Sixpenny Mag. July 1861 (The American Discussion), 13–14. The ardently pro-Northern magazine declared that ‘if…, as historians assure us, money be the sinews of war, a very brief campaign must settle the question in favour of the North’.

page 174 note 4 Ibid, 11 May 1861, 465; 25 May, 1861, 516.

page 174 note 5 Econ. 2 03 1861, 227 (his emphasis).Google Scholar

page 174 note 6 Econ. 4 05 1861, 478.Google Scholar

page 175 note 1 Ibid. 478.

page 175 note 2 Ibid. 479.

page 176 note 1 George Cornewall Lewis raised the problem without solving it when he pointed out the possibility of a Western Confederation also being formed if the process of separation were allowed to continue. Since the process had begun ‘there is a difficulty in assigning a limit to it, or in determining the new centres round which the wandering stars of the Union may cluster’. (ER, 113 (04 1861), 581.)Google Scholar

page 176 note 2 On the other hand, as Van Auken points out, the secession of Virginia after Sumter tended to dispel the Northern allegation that the seceding states were in the grip of a few lawless conspirators. As Lord Lothian emphasized, the ‘accession of her splendid and powerful name to the role of the Confederate States’ was an enormous blow to the Union, while the ‘unanimous resolve’ of the other states to transfer the capital from Montgomery to Richmond made unlikely the prospect of a Unionist revival in the South. (Van Auken, , op. cit. p. 31.)Google Scholar

page 177 note 1 Sat. Rev. 19 01 1861, 597.Google Scholar

page 177 note 2 Dublin Univ. Mag. 03 1861, 378.Google Scholar

page 177 note 3 Econ. 2, 03 1861Google Scholar, (Progress of American Disunion), 226–7. For George Cornewall Lewis's similar views see ER, 113 (04 1861), 581.Google Scholar

page 178 note 1 Econ. 4 05 1861 (‘Evil and Good in the American Civil War’), 478.Google Scholar

page 178 note 2 Ibid. 479.

page 178 note 3 Dub. Univ. Mag. 06 1861, 751.Google Scholar Centralized despotism, it claimed, would result from the bloated hope ‘that the American eagle should touch the Atlantic or Pacific oceans with her outstretched wing, and brood over the continent with her beak in Cuba and her claws in Canada’.

page 178 note 4 Nat. Rev. 13 (07 1861), 157, and generally 150–69.Google Scholar

page 178 note 5 Ibid. 158.

page 178 note 6 Ibid. 158. Like Bagehot, this writer doubts the wisdom of ‘forcible reincorporation’: ‘It would be uncomfortable, turbulent, precarious and transient’.

page 179 note 1 Fraser's, 63 (01 1861), 403.Google Scholar