Great Britain and the American Civil War Part 8

[Footnote 129: Adams, _Charles Francis Adams_, p. 165.]

[Footnote 130: Dodd, _Jefferson Davis_, pp. 227-8.]

[Footnote 131: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 132: It was generally whispered in Southern political circles that Davis sent Yancey abroad to get rid of him, fearing his interference at home. If true, this is further evidence of Davis'

neglect of foreign policy.]

[Footnote 133: Du Bose, _Yancey_, p. 604.]

[Footnote 134: Adams, _Charles Francis Adams_, pp. 149-51.]

[Footnote 135: Possibly the best concise statement of the effect on the North is given in Carl Schurz, _Reminiscences_, Vol. II, p. 223. Or see my citation of this in _The Power of Ideals in American History_, ch. I, "Nationality."]

[Footnote 136: Hansard, 3rd. Ser., Vol. CLXII, pp. 1207-9.]

[Footnote 137: See _ante_, p. 60.]

[Footnote 138: _U.S. Messages and Doc.u.ments, 1861-62_, pp. 83-4. Dallas to Seward, May 2, 1862.]

[Footnote 139: An error. Mann did not arrive in London until May 15. Du Bose, _Yancey_, p. 604.]

[Footnote 140: Richardson, _Messages and Papers of the Confederacy_, Vol. II, p. 34. This report also shows that Mann was not present at the first interview with Russell.]

[Footnote 141: F.O., America, Vol. 755, No. 128, Russell to Lyons, May 11, 1861. This doc.u.ment is marked "Seen by Lord Palmerston and the Queen." The greater and essential part has been printed in _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on Civil War in United States." No. 33.]

[Footnote 142: Du Bose, _Yancey_, p. 604.]

[Footnote 143: Lyons Papers. The copy of the Memorandum sent to Lyons is undated, but from Russell's letter to Lyons of May 4, in which it was enclosed, it is presumable that the date of May 3 for the Memorandum is correct.]

[Footnote 144: _Ibid._, Russell to Lyons, May 4, 1861.]

[Footnote 145: F.O., Am., Vol. 755, No. 121, Russell to Lyons, May 6, 1861.]

[Footnote 146: It is to be remembered that the United States had given no notice of the existence of a state of war.]

[Footnote 147: In diplomatic usage official notification of neutrality to a belligerent has varied, but Russell's letters show him to have appreciated a peculiar delicacy here.]

[Footnote 148: F.O., France, Vol. 1376, No. 553. Draft. Printed in _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on International Maritime Law." No. 1.]

[Footnote 149: It is interesting that on this same day Lyons was writing from Washington advocating, regretfully, because of his sympathy with the North, a strict British neutrality:

"The sympathies of an Englishman are naturally inclined towards the North--but I am afraid we should find that anything like a quasi alliance with the men in office here would place us in a position which would soon become untenable. There would be no end to the exactions which they would make upon us, there would be no end to the disregard of our neutral rights, which they would show if they once felt sure of us. If I had the least hope of their being able to reconstruct the Union, or even of their being able to reduce the South to the condition of a tolerably contented or at all events obedient dependency, my feeling against Slavery might lead me to desire to co-operate with them. But I conceive all chance of this to be gone for ever."

Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell, May 6, 1861.]

[Footnote 150: F.O., France, Vol. 1390. No. 677.]

[Footnote 151: _Ibid._, No. 684. Printed in part in _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence on International Maritime Law." No. 3.]

[Footnote 152: _Times_, May 9, 1861.]

[Footnote 153: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Lords_, Vol. XXV.

"Correspondence on Civil War in the United States." No. 31.]

[Footnote 154: So stated by the _Times_, May 9, 1861.]

[Footnote 155: Hansard, 3rd. Ser., Vol. CLXII, pp. 1378-9. This blunt expression of Great Britain's Foreign Secretary offers an interesting comparison with the words of the American President Wilson, in a parallel statement at the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. Wilson on August 3, 1914, gave a special audience to newspaper correspondents, begging them to maintain an att.i.tude of calm impartiality. On August 4 he issued the first of several neutrality proclamations in which, following the customary language of such doc.u.ments, the people were notified that neutrality did not restrict the "full and free expression of sympathies in public and in private." But on August 18 in an address to the people of the United States, this legal phraseology, required by traditional usage was negatived by Wilson's appeal that "we must be impartial in thought as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another." And three weeks later, on September 8, came the proclamation setting aside October 4 "as a day of prayer to Almighty G.o.d," informing Him that war existed and asking His intervention. Possibly Russell's more blunt and pithy expression was better suited to the forthrightness of the British public.]

[Footnote 156: Hansard, _ibid_., pp. 1564-7. Gregory, a "Liberal-Conservative," though never a "good party man" was then supporting Palmerston's ministry. He was very popular in Parliament, representing by his prominence in sport and society alike, the "gentleman ruling cla.s.s" of the House of Commons, and was a valuable influence for the South.]

[Footnote 157: This subject is developed at length in Chapter V on "The Declaration of Paris Negotiation."]

[Footnote 158: See _ante, p_. 88. The chronology of these rapidly succeeding events is interesting:

April 29--Malmesbury states in the Lords that "news was received this day."

May 1--Naval reinforcements sent to American waters.

May 1--Russell's interview with Dallas.

May 2--Russell's plea in Parliament, "For G.o.d's sake keep out of it."

May 3--Russell's first interview with Yancey and Rost.

May 3--Attorney-General's memorandum.

May 4--Russell's note to Lyons that this is a "regular war."

May 6--Cowley instructed to ask France to recognize Southern belligerency.

May 6--Lyons notified that England will recognize Southern belligerency.

May 6--Russell states in Parliament that privateers can not be treated as pirates.

[Presumably, since parliamentary sittings begin in the late afternoons, the instructions to diplomats were drawn before the statement in Parliament.]

May 9--Russell's second interview with Yancey and Rost.

May 9--Sir George Lewis announces that a Proclamation of Neutrality will be issued soon.

May 13--The Proclamation authorized.

May 13--Adams reaches Liverpool.

May 14--The Proclamation officially published in the _London Gazette_.

May 14--Adams in London "ready for business."

It would appear that Russell's expressions in Parliament on May 2 indicated clearly the purpose of the Government. This was notified to Lyons on May 4, which may be taken as the date when the governmental position had become definitely fixed, even though official instructions were not sent Lyons until the 6th.]

[Footnote 159: F.O., Am., Vol. 780, No. 50. Bunch to Russell, April 19, 1861.]

[Footnote 160: F.O., Am., 789, Monson to Alston, received May 21.]

[Footnote 161: F.O., Am., 763, No. 197, Lyons to Russell, received May 26. The full statement is:

"To an Englishman, sincerely interested in the welfare of this country, the present state of things is peculiarly painful. Abhorrence of slavery, respect for law, more complete community of race and language, enlist his sympathies on the side of the North. On the other hand, he cannot but reflect that any encouragement to the predominant war feeling in the North cannot but be injurious to both sections of the country. The prosecution of the war can lead only to the exhaustion of the North by an expenditure of life and money on an enterprise in which success and failure would be alike disastrous. It must tend to the utter devastation of the South. It would at all events occasion a suspension of Southern cultivation which would be calamitous even more to England than to the Northern States themselves."

[Footnote 162: Hansard, 3rd. Ser., CLXII, p. 1763.]

[Footnote 163: _Ibid._, pp. 1830-34. In the general discussion in the Lords there appeared disagreement as to the status of privateering.

Granville, Derby, and Brougham, spoke of it as piracy. Earl Hardwicke thought privateering justifiable. The general tone of the debate, though only on this matter of international practice, was favourable to the North.]