Add. Mss., Brit. Lib.
Additional Manuscripts, British Library, London
AR
Duke of Argyll
BFSP
Great Britain, Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Papers
Bodleian Lib.
Bodleian Library, Oxford University, Oxford
BPP
Great Britain, British Parliamentary Papers
CFA
Charles Francis Adams
CFA Diary, Letterbook
Adams Family Papers, Historical Society, Boston
CFA Jr.
Charles Francis Adams Jr.
CG
Congressional Globe
CL
Fourth Earl of Clarendon
CWL
Roy P. Basler, ed., Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
Dip. Instructions, France (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions to U.S. Ministers to France (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
Dip. Instructions, Russia (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Instructions to U.S. Ministers to Russia, 1801–1906 (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
Disp.
Diplomatic Dispatches
Disp., France (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Dispatches from U.S. Ministers to France (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
Disp., GB (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Dispatches from U.S. Ministers to Great Britain (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
DS
Department of State, United States
FO
Foreign Office, Great Britain
FRUS
U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs
Great Britain
GC
General Correspondence
JD
Jefferson Davis
LC
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
MHS
Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston
NA
National Archives, Washington, D.C.
NFBL, GB (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Notes from the British Legation in the United States to the Department of State, 1791–1906 (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
NFFL, France (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Notes from the French Legation in the United States to the Department of State, 1789–1906 (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
NTFL, France (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Notes to Foreign Legations in the United States, from the Department of State, 1834–1906, France (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
NTFL, GB (NA)
U.S. Department of State, Notes to Foreign Legations in the United States, from the Department of State, 1834–1906, Great Britain (National Archives), Washington, D.C.
ORN
U.S. Department of the Navy, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion
Parl. Debates
Thomas C. Hansard, ed., Hansard's Parliamentary Debates
PM/J
Prime Minister/Journal
PRO
Public Record Office, Kew, England
RU
Lord John Russell
1. For the horrors and high casualties of trench warfare, see Hess, Trench Warfare, 91–98, 193–202, 208–12. Glatthaar examines the impact of atrocities and the rising number of deaths on the soldiers' growing turn to religion in his study, General Lee's Army, 57, 144, 163, 174, 330–32, 371, 380–81.
2. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 1, 3–6, 12, 15, 17, 19; Potter, “Atlantic Economy.” A recent study by Myers (Caution and Cooperation) highlights the Anglo-American ties that had developed before the Civil War, but then contains the questionable argument that this rapprochement overrode the importance of the recognition issue and virtually eliminated the chance of British intervention.
3. Schantz, Awaiting the Heavenly Country, 2, 10; Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 76, chap. 2. For the war's atrocities, see Faust, This Republic of Suffering.
4. Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 1, secs. 114–15, chap. 12, secs. 196–97; bk. 3, chap. 3, sec. 249, chap. 7, secs. 269–70, chap. 18, sec. 340.
5. Coletta, “Recognition Policy,” 889–90.
6. Adams cited ibid., 888–89.
7. For a useful examination of the legal issues relating to diplomatic recognition, see Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law.
8. For some of the important works used in writing this book, see the “Historiographical Note” following this section. Full citations for all works consulted are in the Bibliography.
1. JD Inaugural Address, Feb. 18, 1861, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:183, 188. For the Confederate argument, see McPherson, What They Fought For, 10–11, 13, 27, 30.
2. Lincoln's original manuscript, [July?] 1861, CWL, 4:434 n. 83; Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861, CWL, 4:264–65, 268.
3. For Davis's legal approach to the war, see Eaton, Davis, chap. 17. For the Confederacy's belief that foreign recognition would come because of its righteous cause, see E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 169.
4. Jenkins, Britain, 1:1–2; Blackett, Divided Hearts, 26, 54, 56, 87–88; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 47–49; Lorimer, “Role of Anti-Slavery Sentiment.”
5. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:2 (Hammond); CG, 36th Cong., 2nd sess., pt. 1, 73 (Wigfall). See also Hoslett, “Southern Expectations”; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 15–16; S. R. Cockerill (the leading southerner), Arkansas planter, politician, and soldier, to Gen. J. H. Walker, June 2, 1861, cited in Owsley, 19. Owsley's work is the classic study of this economic argument.
6. D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 120; Jenkins, Britain, 1:2–3; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 3. Nearly 17 percent of the British people were dependent on cotton and the textile industry. Ball, Financial Failure, 66.
7. Jenkins, Britain, 1:3; Richmond Whig, Dec. 12, 1861, quoted in D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 21.
8. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 1–5; Economist, Apr. 13, 1861, quoted ibid., 5.
9.Times, Apr. 29, June 1, 1861, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 11; Maj. W. H. Chase (of Florida), “The Secession of the Cotton States: Its Status, Its Advantages, and Its Power,” De Bow's Review 30 (January 1861): 93–101 (quote, 95); V. H. Davis, Jefferson Davis, 2:160, 165.
10.Saturday Review, Jan. 12, 1861, quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 50; Economist, Jan. 26, 1861, quoted in Campbell, 51; Campbell, 49–54; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 7; Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 137–38; Eaton, History, 68–69; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 172; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 158, 161–64, 178–79, 181, 184; Khasigian, “Economic Factors”; Schmidt, “Influence of Wheat and Cotton”; Economist, Feb. 2, 1861, quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 51; Pecquet, Diplomacy of the Confederate Cabinet, 35. In sharp disagreement on the northern grain issue are two less convincing articles and E. D. Adams's two-volume study: Ginzberg's “Economics of British Neutrality,” which argues that wheat did not have a major impact on British neutrality; Robert H. Jones's “Long Live the King?” which insists that Britain experienced no shortage in either cotton or wheat and that the products had no impact on government policy toward the American war; and E. D. Adams's GB and the American Civil War (2:13–14 n. 2), which found no expressions of concern among cabinet members about wheat shortages but numerous worries about cotton.
11. Case and Spencer, United States and France, chaps. 4–5; Blumenthal, “Confederate Diplomacy”; Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 136–37; Eaton, Davis, 167; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 79 (Apr. 16, 1861).
12. Robert Mure (private citizen in Charleston) to W. H. Russell, Dec. 13, 1860, FO 5, vol. 744 (PRO), cited in Jenkins, Britain, 1:6; Jenkins, 1:78; Confederate States of America, Journal of the Congress, 1:27.
13. Blackett, Divided Hearts, 75–77, 80–81, 91, 102, 119–20; D. P. Crook, “Portents of War”; Park, “English Workingmen”; Greenleaf, “British Labor”; R. Harrison, “British Labour”; Economist, Mar. 2, 1861, quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 47; Campbell, 100–101; Punch, Feb. 9, 1861. Campbell shows that British Conservative reaction to the American conflict was much more complex than the traditional claim that political conservatives and aristocrats supported the Confederacy and radicals and working classes were pro-Union. See his study cited above, pp. 2–3, and numerous other references throughout the book. For examples of the traditional argument, see Bellows, “British Conservative Reaction,” and Hernon, “British Sympathies.” The pendulum threatened to swing the other way, when Ellison, in Support for Secession, argued that Lancashire's textile workers supported the Confederacy because of the need for cotton. But Blackett's highly important and well-researched study, Divided Hearts, brought a much needed balance to the literature by showing the deep divisions in Britain while establishing that most workers supported the Union. Wilbur D. Jones (“British Conservatives”) likewise challenges the traditional argument, asserting that most members of the Conservative Party followed the problems in Denmark and Poland more than they did those in America.
14. W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion, 10, 17, 113, 136; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 26–31; Gavronsky, “American Slavery” and French Liberal Opposition; Pecquet, Diplomacy of the Confederate Cabinet, 25, 28–29, 105.
15. Jenkins, Britain, 1:9–10; W. C. Davis, Jefferson Davis, 690, 693; Eaton, Davis, 272.
16. Jenkins, Britain, 1:14–15; JD speech in Stevenson, Ala., Feb. 14, 1861, in JD, Papers, 7:42; Hendrick, Statesmen, 140; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 16.
17. Hendrick, Statesmen, 141; New York Tribune, Jan. 1, 1861; Bunch to RU, Mar. 21, 1861, FO 5/780 (PRO). For a first-rate biography, see Walther, Yancey.
18. Williams, Diary from Dixie, 126 (1st quote); Woodward, Chesnut's Civil War, 25 (2nd quote); Jenkins, Britain, 1:15–17; Myers, Caution and Cooperation, 196.
19. Bunch to RU, Mar. 21, 1861, FO 5/780 (PRO); French noble (Marquis de Lapressange) to Pecquet du Bellet, quoted in Hendrick, Statesmen, 140. Du Bellet acted as an agent of the South; he likewise considered Rost a poor choice. Pecquet, Diplomacy of the Confederate Cabinet, 30. See also D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 28; W. C. Davis, Jefferson Davis, 384–86.
20. Jenkins, Britain, 1:15–16; Owsley, “Mann”; V. H. Davis, Jefferson Davis, 1:557 (JD); Eaton, Davis, 166.
21. Cobb to wife, Feb. 21, 1861, quoted in Jenkins, Britain, 1:19.
22. Sickles quoted in CG, 36th Cong., 2nd sess., p. 1153 (Feb. 23, 1861).
23.Times, Mar. 20, 1861.
24. Confederate States of America, Journal of the Congress, 1:113; Cobb to wife, Mar. 7, 1861, quoted in Jenkins, Britain, 1:19–20.
25. Commissioners' directives of Mar. 16, 1861, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 2:3–8; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 22; Du Bose, Yancey, 600 (Rhett); Hendrick, Statesmen, 142; Blumenthal, “Confederate Diplomacy,” 151–52, 155, 162–64, 169.
26. Lutz, “Rudolph Schleiden,” 210. Schleiden was the minister from Bremen.
27. Bancroft, Seward, 2:151 (Seward); Jenkins, Britain, 1:29–30, 90. During the Canadian rebellions against the crown in 1837–38, British sheriff Alexander McLeod allegedly killed an American in the destruction of a rebel gun-running steamer, the Caroline, in December 1837. Four years later American authorities brought him to trial in New York, where, after British prime minister Lord Palmerston threatened war, the jury returned an acquittal. Seward, then governor of the state, stirred up Anglophobia in the crisis by publicly attacking the crown. See H. Jones, Webster-Ashburton Treaty, chaps. 2, 4; Stevens, Border Diplomacy; and H. Jones and Rakestraw, Prologue to Manifest Destiny, chaps. 2–3.
28. Lyons to RU, Dec. 18, 1860, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:12; Jenkins, Britain, 1:44.
29. Lyons to RU, Feb. 4, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; CFA to CFA Jr., Dec. 20, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:88 (contemporary quote).
30. For this argument, see Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy. On the decision by the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell, to meet with the Confederate representatives on an unofficial basis, see RU to Lyons, Apr. 6, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96.
31. Jenkins, Britain, 1:87. Britain and France had defeated Russia in the Crimean War of 1854–56.
32. Lyons to RU, May 8, Nov. 25, 1860, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/34; Lyons to RU, Dec. 4, 18, 1860, FO 5/740 (PRO).
33. RU to Lyons, Feb. 16, 1861, cited in Jenkins, Britain, 1:91; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 14–15; Lyons to RU, Mar. 18, 26, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35.
34. Lyons to RU, Mar. 26, 29, May 6, June 18, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 214 n. 26 (Lyons's warning to Seward).
35. Lincoln to Seward, Apr. 1, 1861, CWL, 4:316–17; Seward memo, “Some Thoughts for the President's Consideration,” Apr. 1, 1861, CWL, 4:317–18. See Brauer, “Seward's ‘Foreign War Panacea,'” 136–37, 153–55; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 15. For a defense of Seward, see Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 10–12. According to Landry (“Slavery and the Slave Trade,” 184–207), in the memorandum Seward tried to promote nationalism over the slavery issue.
36. Lincoln to Seward, Apr. 1, 1861, CWL, 4:317; Brauer, “Seward's ‘Foreign War Panacea,'” 156–57; Sowle, “Reappraisal of Seward's Memorandum”; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 15. Lincoln and Seward soon developed a close relationship, although the president maintained control over foreign affairs, particularly during crises. Van Deusen, Seward.
37. Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 441, 443–45; McPherson, Tried by War, 11, 34–35; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 15–16.
38. According to D. A. Campbell, the British never fathomed the depth of northern commitment to the Union and yet understood the southerners' drive for nationhood. See his English Public Opinion, 244. For Confederate emphasis on the liberty inherent in American Revolutionary ideology, see Eaton, History, 67.
39. St. Clair, “Slavery as a Diplomatic Factor,” 262; Charles Greville (the Englishman) to CL (former foreign secretary), Jan. 26, 1861, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:237; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:35; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 16; Crawford, Anglo-American Crisis.
40. Monaghan, Lincoln Deals.
41. Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 450; Beale, Diary of Edward Bates, 179 (Mar. 31, 1861); Dennett, Lincoln and the Civil War, 22 (May 10, 1861); H. Jones, Union in Peril, 17.
42. RU to Lyons, Dec. 29, 1860, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 51 (Mar. 28, 1861).
43.Boston Evening Transcript, Mar. 19, 1861; CFA to CFA Jr., Nov. 8, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:68; CFA Jr., Autobiography, 112; Jenkins, Britain, 1:32–33. Seward had recommended Adams's appointment.
44. Jenkins, “William Gregory” and Britain, 1:21 (Ravenel).
45.Economist, Apr. 27, 1861 (Forster), cited in Jenkins, Britain, 1:92; T. W. Reid, Forster; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 55; Palmerston to RU, Apr. 27, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21. After succeeding William Wilberforce in Parliament, Buxton campaigned for the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 ending slavery in the British Empire and fought against the African slave trade for the remainder of his life.
46. Hardman, Letters and Memoirs, 8 (British observer); CFA to Everett, Jan. 24, 1862, Adams Papers (MHS); Economist, Jan. 19, 1861; Times, Jan. 7, 1861.
47.London Morning Post, May 4, 1861, quoted in Jenkins, Britain, 1:81.
48.Cornhill Magazine 4 (Aug. 1861), 153, cited ibid., 1:81; Times, Apr. 30, May 9, 1861; Blackett, Divided Hearts, 17–18, 26, 34–35; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 55, 102, 104; Jenkins, Britain, 1:81–82; D. P. Crook, “Portents of War”; W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion, 18–19; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 57, 95, 137; Lorimer, “Role of Anti-Slavery Sentiment”; Ausubel, Bright; Trevelyan, Bright; Zorn, “Bright and the British Attitude”; AR, Argyll.
49. Lewis to Lord Clarendon, Jan. 24, 1861, Clarendon Papers, ca. 533 (Bodleian Lib.); Times, May 10, 1861; Punch, n.d., and London Morning Post, Apr. 30, 1861, cited in Jenkins, Britain, 1:82.
50. Palmerston to RU, Dec. 30, 1860, Apr. 14, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21; Bell, Palmerston, 2:276–77, 291; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 20; Palmerston to [?] Normanby, Feb. 28, 1848 (1st quote), in Ashley, Palmerston, 1:73; Palmerston to RU, Apr. 25, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21.
51. Jenkins, Britain, 1:84–85; Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:206 (quote by contemporary). For Russell and Palmerston's collaboration in diplomacy, see Scherer, “Partner or Puppet?”
52. Jenkins, Britain, 1:85–86. The name “Peelites” came from the followers of Sir Robert Peel, who had been prime minister during the early 1830s and again in the 1840s; he died in 1850. Gladstone and others had allied with the Whigs to become the Liberal Party in 1859 led by Palmerston. Peel's eldest son was now chief secretary for Ireland. Ibid., 2:240.
53. RU to Lyons, Mar. 22, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:177; George Dallas (Union minister to London) to Seward, Apr. 9, 1861, FRUS 1861, 81; RU to Lyons, Apr. 12, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,593, vol. 508 (Brit. Lib.); Tilby, Russell, 19–20, 72, 156; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 20–22.
54. Palmerston to Somerset, Dec. 29, 1860, Palmerston Letterbooks, Add. Mss., 48582 (Brit. Lib.); Morley, Gladstone, 2:82.
55. AR to Gladstone, Dec. 25, 1860, Add. Mss., 44098 (Brit. Lib.); D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 55; AR, Argyll.
56. Lyons to RU, Mar. 26, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; Lyons to RU, Apr. 9, 1861, FO 5/762 (PRO), quoted in Jenkins, Britain, 1:89–90.
57. Donald, Sumner and the Rights of Man, 21 (Seward); H. Jones, Union in Peril, 32.
58. W. H. Russell, My Diary, 65–66 (Apr. 8, 1861).
59. Seward to CFA, Apr. 10, 1861, FRUS 1861, 72–79.
60. Bunch to RU, Apr. 18, 1861, encl. in Lyons to RU, Apr. 26, 1861, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:65.
61. Palmerston to Queen Victoria, Jan. 1, 1861, in Ridley, Palmerston, 548; RU to Lyons, Jan. 10, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 110 (Apr. 30, 1861— Georgian's quote); H. Jones, Union in Peril, 22–24.
62. Palmerston to RU, Apr. 14, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21. For a masterful discussion of the South's interests in the Caribbean, see May, Southern Dream.
63. Bunch quoted in JD, Jefferson Davis, 5:62–63.
64. Lincoln quoted in Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 570 n. 235; Seward to CFA, May 21 (p. 89), June 8, 1861 (p. 103), FRUS 1861; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 27–28.
65. Lyons to Seward, Apr. 29, 1861, NFBL, GB (NA); Lyons to RU, May 2, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:22.
66. Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, chap. 7, secs. 103–4, and chap. 18, secs. 293–94, 338, 340; Tilby, Russell, 185; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 22, 27–28.
67. H. Jones, Union in Peril, 42. See RU to CFA, Aug. 28, 1861, encl. in CFA to Seward, Sept. 7, 1861, FRUS 1861, 146.
68. Lyons to RU, Apr. 27, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; RU to Lyons, May 18, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,593, vol. 508 (Brit. Lib.); Case and Spencer, United States and France, 122; Monaghan, Lincoln Deals, 82 (Lyons's 2nd quote).
69. RU to Lyons, June 1, 1861, encl. in RU to Lords Commissioners of Admiralty, June 1, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:80; Lyons to RU, June 14, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; CFA to Seward, June 14, 1861, FRUS 1861, 105; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 42–43. The Confederacy changed its maritime strategy in June 1861.
70. Jenkins, Britain, 1:43, 45–46. Seward's dispatch appeared on May 5. Seward had earlier told his minister in Paris, William Dayton, that the Lincoln administration regarded intervention of any type as making “allies of the insurrectionary party,” which necessitated “war against them as enemies.” Seward to Dayton, Apr. 22, 1861, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
71. Jenkins, Britain, 1:91–92; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 20–21; GB, Parliament, Brit. Sess. Papers, 3rd ser., 167:1378–79 (Commons, May 2, 1861).
72. Law Officers Memorandum, undated, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25; RU to Lyons, May 4, 1861, cited in Jenkins, Britain, 1:93; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 47.
73. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 56–57. Rost soon met informally with the Paris government, where he learned of an Anglo-French understanding to cooperate regarding American affairs. The French people, their government, and the public journals appeared favorable to the southern cause. Those interested in restoring the French Empire did not oppose a permanent division of “the late United States,” but others were concerned that the destruction of the U.S. Navy would open the door to British maritime domination. France intended to postpone any attempt to deal with the recognition issue. The commission recommended that President Davis send letters of credence to the queen of Spain with the objective of opening discussions with that government. Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Toombs, June 1, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:219–21. The last item, known as the “Pickett Papers,” is a large compilation of diplomatic and consular papers and correspondence that Col. John T. Pickett took from the State Department in Richmond and hid in a Virginia barn in order to deny their confiscation by federal authorities. Negotiations ultimately led to their transfer to the U.S. government.
74. RU to Lyons, May 11, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:186–87; Lyons to RU, May 6, June 10, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; RU's (May 21, 1861) and Palmerston's (May 23, 1861) comments on the need for strengthening British North America, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; Bourne, Britain, 212–15; Jenkins, Britain, 1:93, 98–99.
75. See Whiting, War Powers, 38–57; Claussen, “Peace Factors,” 512; Merli, Great Britain, 58–59; Spencer, Confederate Navy, 9–10; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 29.
76. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 134 (Cushing); Coulter, Confederate States, 184–85, 195. Huse overcame many of these obstacles by buying numerous arms and other supplies in England along with 100,000 rifles and 60 cannons from Austria. Boaz, Guns for Cotton, 13–18, 46, 52–53, 68–69.
77. CFA Jr., Charles Francis Adams, 107–8 (quote, 111); Richmond Whig, May 18, 1861, quoted in Jenkins, Britain and the War, 1:109. Sumner quoted in Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 60–61 (Seward). For the Prize Cases, see U.S. Supreme Court Reports, 17 Law. Ed., 2 Black [U.S. 67], secs. 665–74. See also Bernath, Squall across the Atlantic, 25; Kelly, Harbison, and Belz, American Constitution, 304; Randall, Constitutional Problems, 51 n. 2, 53–54; Merli, “American War”; and Seward to CFA, June 3, 1861 (97–98), June 8, 1861 (100–101), FRUS 1861; “British Proclamation for the Observance of Neutrality in the Contest between the United States and the Confederate States of America, May 13, 1861,” BFSP 1860–1861, 51:165–69; and Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 167 n. 84. The French had also decided on neutrality between “two belligerents” shortly after Lincoln's announcement. Thouvenel to Mercier, May 11, 1861, NTFL, France (NA). France declared neutrality on June 10, followed by Spain a week later. Spain, however, never formally awarded belligerent status to the Confederacy. H. Jones, Union in Peril, 235 n. 21; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 59; Cortada, Spain, 54, 58. The Spanish court opposed emancipation and the democratic reforms advocated in the Union because of their impact on its control of Cuba and its hold on home government. Some in the Spanish cabinet supported recognition of the Confederacy to protect slavery in Cuba. Cortada, 55, 60. For Britain's practical considerations in announcing neutrality, see B. Adams, “British Proclamation of May, 1861,” and R. H. Jones, “Anglo-American Relations.” For British concern about Canada, see Winks, Canada and the United States. D. A. Campbell (English Public Opinion, 241–42) sharply disagrees, arguing that the British did not fear losing Canada and that the dominion was not as vulnerable to American attack as numerous writers have claimed. Given the heated context of the times, the British did not want to risk a policy of inaction.
1. “Act Passed by the Confederate Congress, Prohibiting the Exportation of Cotton except through Southern Seaports, May 21, 1861,” quoted in BFSP 1860–1861, 51:200; Bourne, Foreign Policy, 90; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 20; Bernath, Squall across the Atlantic, 12; Charleston Mercury, June 4, 1861, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 24; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 79 and 82 (Apr. 16), 92 (Apr. 18), 95 (Apr. 20), 107 (Apr. 28), 112 (May 2), 130 (May 7, 1861).
2. CFA to Seward, May 21, 1861, FRUS 1861, 91–93. Seward approved Adams's strong statements to Russell and emphasized the Union's “integrity” above everything while expressing the wish to avoid all controversy with England. Seward to CFA, June 8, 1861, ibid., 100–101.
3. CFA Diary, May 18, 1861 (MHS); CFA to Seward, May 21, 1861, FRUS 1861, 95. Seward published the entire dispatch in the annual Diplomatic Correspondence series he inaugurated in the following autumn of 1861. See Seward to CFA, May 21, 1861, FRUS 1861, 87–90; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 32; and Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 68–69. Warren termed Russell “One of the few British leaders who favored the Confederacy” (p. 74).
4. Wallace and Gillespie, Journal of … Moran, 2:820 (May 28, 1861); CFA Diary, May 27, 1861 (MHS); Parl. Debates, 168:134 (Commons, May 27, 1861); CFA to Seward, May 31, 1861, FRUS 1861, 96; Tilby, Russell, 196–97 (Russell).
5. CFA to Seward, June 7, 1861, FRUS 1861, 98–99.
6. RU to Lyons, May 6, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,593, vol. 508 (Brit. Lib.); Bourne, Foreign Policy, 92; Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, chap. 18, secs. 292, 292k. See also Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1836 ed.), pt. 1, sec. 23; Kelly, Harbison, and Belz, American Constitution, 306–7; and Randall, Constitutional Problems, 60–65.
7. “British Proclamation of Neutrality,” May 13, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:165–69.
8. CFA Diary, May 26, 1861 (MHS); CFA to Seward, June 14, 1861, FRUS 1861, 104–5.
9. Yancey and Rost (from Paris) to Toombs, June 10, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:221 (Gregory motion); CFA to Seward, June 14 (104, 106), June 21 (109–10), June 28, 1861 (111), FRUS 1861.
10. T. W. Reid, Forster, 1:337–39; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 29; Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1836 ed.), pt. 1, secs. 21, 23. See also Dana's extensive notes in Wheaton (1866 ed.), 31 n. 15. Since at least the 1720s, blockades had existed without recognition of the existence of war. R. E. Johnson, “Investment by Sea,” 46. For the argument that British neutrality benefited the Union, see Baxter's two articles, “British Government and Neutral Rights,” 29, and “Some British Opinions as to Neutral Rights,” 518.
11. McPherson, Battle Cry, 500, and Tried by War, 4–5, 269; Lincoln, “Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations,” Sept. 13, 1862, CWL, 5:419.
12. Dayton to Seward, May 22, 30, 1861, Disp., France (NA); Thouvenel to Mercier, May 16, 1861, NFFL, France (NA); Seward to Mercier, May 23, 1861, NTFL, France (NA); Seward to Dayton, May 30, June 8, 1861, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
13. W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion, 14, 27–28; Constititionnel, May 7 (28), May 16, 1861 (29), quoted in West; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, x–xi, 5, 8; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 38–43.
14. RU to Lyons, June 27, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 218–19 (June 25–30, 1861). For the cotton crisis in France, see Case and Spencer, United States and France, 161–64, 374–81.
15. Seward to CFA, June 8, 1861, FRUS 1861, 102–3. On the port closing issue, see Brauer, “Seward's ‘Foreign War Panacea,'” 147–48, and Anderson, “1861: Blockade vs. Closing Confederate Ports.” For the constitutional provision on ports, see U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 9.
16. Lyons to RU, Mar. 18, 1861, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:44; Lyons to RU, Apr. 15, June 14, 24, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; RU to Lyons, July 6, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:89. For French opposition to the port closings and their growing closeness to the British, see Case and Spencer, United States and France, 150–57.
17. Lyons to RU, June 8, 1861, Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:113; Palmerston to RU, Dec. 11, 30, 1860, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21; RU to Lyons, June 21, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,593, vol. 508 (Brit. Lib.). For Tropic Wind, see 28 Federal Cases 218–22 (case no. 16, 541a). In the Prize Cases of 1863, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision by declaring the blockade proclamation an act of war and drawing no distinction between a public war and a civil war. U.S. Supreme Court, Reports, 17 Law. Ed., 2 Black U.S. 67, secs. 635–99.
18. Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1866 ed.), Dana's notes, 575 n. 239; Seward to CFA, July 21, 1861, FRUS 1861, 120–21; Lyons to RU, July 8, 19, 20, Aug. 12, 1861 (PRO 30/22/35), and RU to Lyons, July 6, 1861 (PRO 30/22/96), RU Papers; Lyons to RU, July 12, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:97–98; Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:489 (July 28, 1861).
19. RU to First Earl of Cowley (Henry Richard Charles Wellesley), June 12, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/104; F. W. Seward, Reminiscences, 179–80; Lyons to RU, June 17, 1861, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:558–61; Seward to Dayton, June 17, 1861, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Case and Spencer, United States and France, 69–71; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 127; Seward to CFA, June 19, 1861, FRUS 1861, 106–9; Carroll, Mercier, 78–79 (Seward to Lyons).
20. Seward to CFA, June 19 (107, 109), July 1 (112), and July 21, 1861 (117–21), FRUS 1861; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 227–28 (July 4, 1861).
21. Dayton to Seward, June [20?], 1861, Disp., France (NA).
22. RU to Cowley, June 12, July 13, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/104.
23. CFA to Seward, Aug. 16, 1861, FRUS 1861, 128; CFA to CFA Jr., July 18, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:19–20; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., June 10 (1:238), July 4, 1861 (quote, 1:243), in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams; CFA to Richard Henry Dana Jr., June 4, CFA to Seward, June 21, and CFA to Edward Everett, July 26, 1861, CFA Letterbook (MHS); CFA Diary, July 25, 1861 (MHS); Economist, July 6, 1861, quoted in Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 152; Saturday Review, July 13, 1861, quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 50.
24. Lyons to RU, June 4, 1861, Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:106; New York Herald, July 22, 26, 1861, cited in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:178 n. 2; Adams, 1:177–78; Times, Aug. 20 (p. 7), Aug. 24, 1861 (p. 10); W. H. Russell, My Diary, 267–77 (July 21), 278–79 (July 22), 304 (Aug. 1, 1861); Crawford, “William Howard Russell”; Ridley, Palmerston, 551 (Palmerston); Bell, Palmerston, 2:292.
25. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 84–87, 91; Katz, Belmont, 100–101.
26. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 88–89; Katz, Belmont, 97–98.
27. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 91–92; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 41–43; Katz, Belmont, 101–3.
28. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 152–53.
29. Lyons to RU, July 30, 1861, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:149; W. H. Russell, My Diary, 279 (July 22, 1861).
30. Yancey and Mann to Toombs, Aug. 1, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:339–30; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Toombs, Aug. 7, 1861, ibid., 3:235–37; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to RU, Aug. 14, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:219–28.
31. RU to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Aug. 24, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:248; RU to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Aug. 7, 1861, encl. in Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Toombs, Aug. 7, 1861, ibid., 3:237; RU to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Aug. 24, 1861, ibid., 3:248; CFA to CFA Jr., Sept. 7, 1861, Adams Papers (MHS); CFA to Seward, Aug. 8, 1861, quoted in Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 89.
32. Lyons to RU, July 30, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35.
33. Seward to CFA, Aug. 17, 1861, FRUS 1861, 131; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 62.
34. Seward to CFA, Aug. 17, 1861, FRUS 1861, 131. See also Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 99–116; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:184–96; Jenkins, Britain, 1:136–39, 157; and Case and Spencer, United States and France, 116–17.
35. Seward to CFA, Aug. 17, 1861 (no. 63), FRUS 1861, 131–33; Seward to CFA, Aug. 17, 1861 (no. 64), ibid., 133.
36. CFA Diary, Sept. 2, 1861 (MHS); CFA to RU, Sept. 3, 1861, encl. (151–53), CFA to Seward, Sept. 9 (149–50), and CFA to Seward, Sept. 14, 1861 (155–57), FRUS 1861; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 117–18.
37. RU to Palmerston, Oct. 29, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35; Palmerston to RU, Sept. 9, 1861, ibid., PRO 30/22/31; RU to Palmerston, Sept. 11, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/RU/670 (U. of Southampton); RU to Palmerston, Nov. 12, 1861, GC/RU/680 (U. of Southampton); Bell, Palmerston, 2:293.
38. RU to Lyons, Nov. 21, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; Bunch to Lyons, Sept. 30, 1861, encl. in Lyons to RU, Oct. 8 (16:626–27), RU to Lyons, Oct. 26 (16:627), and Bunch to Lyons, Oct. 31, 1861, encl. in Lyons to RU, Nov. 14, 1861 (633–34), BPP: Civil War.
39. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 115; Baltimore Sun, Aug. 16, 1861, cited in Lyons to RU, Aug. 16, 1861 (55:579), and Charleston Mercury (n.d.), cited in Lyons to RU, Aug. 23, 1861 (579–80), BFSP 1864–1865.
40. Gladstone to Lewis, Sept. 21, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,236, vol. 151 (Brit. Lib.); Lyons to RU, Sept. 24, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/33/35.
41. Seward to CFA, Oct. 22 (p. 163), and Oct. 23, 1861 (pp. 165–66), FRUS 1861.
42. CFA to RU, Aug. 15, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:229–30; CFA to RU, Oct. 1, 1861, ibid., 51:237; Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 172–73; Robert M. T. Hunter, Confederate Secretary of State, to Hotze, Jan. 16, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:659; Eaton, History, 72–73; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 177–78; Cullop, Confederate Propaganda; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 33. The full title of Hotze's publication was Index: A Weekly Journal of Politics, Literature, and News. For a first-rate introductory analysis of Hotze's work as a propagandist, along with a collection of his writings on the recognition issue, see Burnett, Hotze, 1–33, 130–57.
43. Reference to RU to Everett, July 12, 1861, in Everett to RU, Aug. 19, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/39. For characterizations of Russell, see miscellaneous draft in unidentified hand and undated, ibid., PRO 30/22/118A, and Tilby, Russell, 50. For Russell's hatred of slavery, see Tilby, 197, and RU to Cowley, Apr. 15, 1865, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/106.
44. Everett to RU, Aug. 19, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/39.
45. Ibid.
46. Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 1, sec. 114; bk. 3, chap. 3, sec. 249, and chap. 7, secs. 269–70.
47. Napoleon III quoted in Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 6.
48. Quotes in Evans, Benjamin, 156.
49. RU to Cowley, Sept. 24, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/104; Bourne, Foreign Policy, 96.
50. W. H. Russell, My Diary, 290 (Aug. 2, 3), 292 (Aug. 6, 1861); Lyons to RU, Oct. 4, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35. For the prince's visit, see Carroll, Mercier, 86–90, and H. Jones, Union in Peril, 73–74.
51. Mercier's views in Lyons to RU, Oct. 4, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35. For British and French cotton interests, see Duberman, Adams, 277; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 127, 374–75; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 154–55; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 155; and Pomeroy, “French Substitutes.” France tried to secure cotton in North Africa, Central America, Mexico, Haiti, Italy, Cambodia, Cyprus, and Syria. See Pomeroy.
52. Lyons to RU, Oct. 4, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35.
53. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 18, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/RU/1139/1–2 (U. of Southampton); Palmerston to RU, Oct. 6, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21.
54. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 18, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/RU/1139/1–2 (U. of Southampton); Palmerston to Sir Austen Henry Layard, Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Oct. 20, 1861, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,987, vol. 57 (Brit. Lib.).
55. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 39.
56. CFA Diary, Sept. 12, 1861 (MHS); CFA to Seward, Sept. 28, 1861, CFA Letterbook (MHS); Seward to Dayton, Sept. 24, Oct. 11, 1861, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Dayton to Seward, Nov. 6, 1861, Disp., France (NA).
57. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 38–39, 53; Schoonover, Dollars over Dominion, 56–58; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 152–53; Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 161–62 (Palmerston, 162).
58. Barker, “France, Austria,” 225–27, 229, 243, “French Legation,” 423, and “Monarchy in Mexico,” 53–59, 62–65; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 338–39. See also Hanna, “Roles of the South.”
59. Thouvenel to Mercier, Sept. 29, 1861, NTFL, France (NA); Seward to Dayton, Oct. 30, 1861, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
60. Dayton to Seward, Nov. 6, 1861, Disp., France (NA); Dayton to Seward, Dec. 6, 24, 1861, cited in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 71–72; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 38–39. The three powers signed the London Treaty on Oct. 31, 1861. For an exhaustive treatment, see Bock, Prelude to Tragedy.
61. Dayton to Seward, Sept. 27, 1861, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 509.
62. Barker, “France, Austria,” 225, “French Legation,” 409, 423–24, and “Monarchy in Mexico,” 51, 68; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 98–100, 183 (Maximilian, 100).
63. RU to Queen Victoria, Sept. 27, 1861, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:320–21; RU to Cowley, Sept. 27, 1861, BFSP 1861–1862, 52:329–30; Lewis to Gladstone, Oct. 5, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,236, vol. 151 (Brit. Lib.); Clarendon to Lewis, Oct. 4, 1861, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:240 (Clarendon on Palmerston); Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 167.
64. Dayton to Seward, Nov. 6, 1861, Disp., France (NA); Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy, 167 (quote from three European governments). See also Ferris, 154–70; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 39–40; Schoonover, Dollars over Dominion, 145–46; and Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 169.
65. Van Deusen, Seward, 365–70.
66. CFA to CFA Jr., Sept. 20, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:48; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Oct. 25, 1861, ibid., 1:61–62; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Nov. 7, 1861, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:262.
67. RU to Lyons, Nov. 2, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; Bellows, “British Conservative Reaction,” 512–13, 522. Cecil counted on world pressure persuading the Confederacy to emancipate its slaves. See Lorimer, “Role of Anti-Slavery Sentiment,” 409; see also 407, 420.
1. Mason to Hunter, Oct. 12, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:283; Charles J. Helm (special agent to Spanish, English, and Danish islands) to Hunter, Oct. 22, 1861, ibid., 3:284; Helm to Hunter, Nov. 8, 1861, ibid., 3:284–85. For the voyage, see Mason to Hunter, Oct. 9, 1861, ibid., 3:280; William H. Trescott (lawyer and former diplomat) to Hunter, Oct. 12, 1861, ibid., 3:281; Mason to Hunter, Oct. 18, 1861, ORN, 1st ser., 1:151–52; and V. Mason, James M. Mason, 200, 202, 209–13. Spain's neutrality and concern over Cuba encouraged its consul on the island to extend cordial treatment to Mason and Slidell. Cortada, Spain, 55–56.
2. Hunter to Mason and Slidell, Sept. 23, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:257–73; Mason to Hunter, Oct. 12, 1861, ibid., 3:282–83; Coulter, Confederate States, 184–85 (contemporary's quote). See also Hammond, Cotton Industry, 252–54, and Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 3, 8.
3. JD to Confederate Congress, Nov. 18, 1861, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:142.
4. Woodward, Chesnut's Civil War, 170–71.
5. Ibid., 170 (Russell); H. C. Perkins, Northern Editorials (New York paper), 2:1028; CFA Jr., Adams, 215.
6. W. H. Russell, My Diary, 164 (May 24, 1861) (1st Russell quote); Times, Dec. 10, 1861, p. 9 (2nd Russell quote); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 6–7 (CFA Jr.).
7. G. S. Smith, “Charles Wilkes,” 136–38; Long, “Glory-Hunting off Havana,” 133; Rawley, Turning Points, 77.
8. Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 11–13.
9. Shufeldt to Seward, Nov. 9, 1861, cited in Ferris, Trent, 209 n. 6; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 108 (Stowell's decision); Kent, Commentaries, 1:47; Wilkes to Welles, Nov. 16, 1861, ORN, 1st ser., 1:130; Times, Dec. 5, 1861. Wilkes later attested that he had consulted these specialists in international law in deciding to remove Mason and Slidell. U.S. Cong., Senate Exec. Docs., 1, 37 Cong., 2nd sess., 3:123.
10. The Confederate secretaries were George Eustis and James Macfarland. Hunter to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Nov. 20, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:297; Rawley, Turning Points, 77.
11. Fairfax, “Wilkes's Seizure,” 141 (Fairfax's account); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 18 (passenger's quote); Ferris, Trent, 20, 23–24, 232 n. 4; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 106; Hunter, “Capture of Mason and Slidell,” 797–98 (eyewitness account). Rawley (Turning Points, 79) believes that Fairfax apparently did not think of seeking the dispatches. Warren (Fountain of Discontent, 192), however, concludes that Fairfax tried to seize them but failed. See also Crook, The North, the South, 106 n. 13, and Ferris, Trent, 209 n. 10.
12. Ferris, Trent, 25–26; Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 22 (Supreme Court cases, 192); The Dos Hermanos, U.S. Supreme Court, Reports, 17 Law. Ed., 2 Wheaton 78 (1817).
13.New York Times, Dec. 19, 1861, p. 1; Mason to wife, Nov. 15, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:296.
14. Mason to wife, Nov. 17, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:296; U.S. Cong., House Exec. Doc. 102, 38th Cong., 1st sess., 1864, p. 157 (Wilkes).
15. Ferris, Trent, 32; Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 26–27 (poem).
16.New York Times, Nov. 18, 19, 22, 1861, New York Daily Tribune, Nov. 18, 22, 23, 1861, and New York Herald, Nov. 17, 1861, all cited in Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 39–40.
17. Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 28 (Everett, 28; Stowell, 196); Gurowski, Diary, 1:109. For Gurowski's views on the Civil War, see Fischer, Lincoln's Gadfly.
18. Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 37–38 (Lincoln, 38); Ferris, Trent, 130; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 116–17.
19. Donald, Sumner and … the Civil War, 129, and Sumner and the Rights of Man, 31–32; Long, “Glory-Hunting off Havana,” 140; Cohen, “Sumner and the Trent Affair,” 208–9; Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 29–30.
20. Rawley, Turning Points, 80 (Governor Andrew); CG, 37th Cong., 2nd sess., pt. 1, p. 5; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 100.
21.Atlanta Southern Confederacy, Nov. 19, 1861, quoted in Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 43; New Orleans Bee, Dec. 24, 1861, cited ibid.; New Orleans Bee, Dec. 19, 1861, cited in Ferris, Trent, 128.
22. Rawley, Turning Points, 81 (Davis); Ferris, Trent, 117 (Benjamin); Mallory to Bulloch, Nov. 30, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:113; Hunter to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Nov. 20, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser. 3:297.
23. H. Jones, Union in Peril, 83; Rost to JD, Dec. 24, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:311–12; Mann to Hunter, Dec. 2, 1861, ibid., 3:307; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Hunter, Dec. 2, 1861, ibid., 3:305; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to RU, Nov. 27, 1861, ORN, 1st ser., 1:154; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to RU, Nov. 29, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:298–301; Yancey, Rost, and Mann to Hunter, Dec. 2, 1861, ORN, 1st ser., 1:156; Mann to Benjamin, Dec. 18, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:631.
24. Henry Adams, Education of Henry Adams, 119; Wallace and Gillespie, Journal of … Moran, 2:914 (Nov. 27, 1861), 915 (Nov. 28, 1861); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Nov. 30, 1861, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:263–64; CFA Diary, Nov. 29, 30, Dec. 1, 1861 (MHS).
25. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:217 (Americans' quotes); CFA to Seward, Nov. 29, 1861, FRUS 1861, 6–7.
26. Lyons to RU, Nov. 19, 1861, FO 115/258 (PRO); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 109 (Palmerston in cabinet meeting); Palmerston to Queen Victoria, Nov. 29, 1861, in Benson and Esher, Letters of Queen Victoria, 3:469; Palmerston to RU, Nov. 29, 1861 (2 letters), RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21; RU, Recollections, 275.
27.London Morning Post, Nov. 30, 1861, cited in D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 130; Ferris, Trent, 57; Lewis to Twisleton, Nov. 30, 1861, in G. F. Lewis, Letters of … George Cornewall Lewis, 406; Lewis to Palmerston, Nov. 27, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/LE/147 (U. of Southampton).
28. Palmerston to Gladstone, Nov. 29, 1861, cited in Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 110–11; AR, Argyll, 2:182; AR to Gladstone, Nov. 29, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099 (Brit. Lib.); Mitford, ed., Stanleys, 321.
29. D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 145, 147; Bourne, “British Preparations for War” and Britain, 35, 44, 53, 223, 236; Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 82–85, 136; Bernath, Squall across the Atlantic, 162–63; Baxter, “British Government and Neutral Rights,” 10; Courtemanche, No Need of Glory, 40–56; Palmerston to Lewis, Nov. 27, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/LE/234 (U. of Southampton); Ferris, Trent, 67.
30. Palmerston to Gladstone, July 19, 21, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,272 (Brit. Lib.); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 84–85; Wellesley, Secrets of Second Empire, 223–25 (Clarendon).
31. Ferris, Trent, 58 (Lord chief justice [John Duke Lord Coleridge]); Twisleton to Lewis, Nov. 28, Dec. 4, 1861, ibid., 103; Twisleton to Lewis, Dec. 4, 1861, ibid., 107–8; Grote to Layard, Dec. 1, 1861, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,987 (Brit. Lib.).
32. Cobden to Bright, Dec. 3, 1861, quoted in Ferris, Trent, 71–72.
33. Twisleton to Lewis, Dec. 10, 1861, ibid., 239–40 n. 28.
34. Vattel, Law of Nations, v–xv, bk. 1, chap. 2, secs. 18, 19, bk. 2, chap. 4, sec. 49.
35. Law officers to RU, Nov. 28, 1861, cited in Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 109–10; Confidential memo for use of cabinet, Dec. 4, 1861, ibid., 120–21; Fitzmaurice, Granville, 1:402; Gladstone to AR, Dec. 3, 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099 (Brit. Lib.); Lewis to Twisleton, Nov. 30, 1861, in G. F. Lewis, Letters of … George Cornewall Lewis, 405–6; RU to Palmerston, Dec. 1, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/RU/681 (U. of Southampton).
36. Queen Victoria to RU, Dec. 1, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/21; Martin, Prince Consort, 5:421–23; RU to Lyons, Nov. 30, 1861 (1st dispatch), FO 5/758; Ferris, “Prince Consort,” 154–55, and Trent, 51–52.
37. RU to Lyons, Nov. 30, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:646–47; RU to Lyons, Nov. 30, 1861, ibid., 16:647; “British Proclamation, Prohibiting the Export of Gunpowder, Saltpetre, Nitrate of Soda, and Brimstone,” Nov. 29, 1861, BFSP 1860–1861, 51:170; Ferris, Trent, 62; Bell, Palmerston, 2:294–95.
38. Palmerston to Lewis, Dec. 6, 1861, Palmerston Papers, GC/LE/237 (U. of Southampton); Memorials from Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia to Newcastle, Dec. 2, 1861, BPP: Papers Relating to Canada, 1861–63, 24:293–307; MacKintosh, British Cabinet, 147–48; Bourne, Britain, 220; Ferris, Trent, 65. The War Committee had come into existence during the Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, and the expanded defense campaign against the French in 1859.
39. RU to Yancey, Rost, and Mann, Dec. 7, 1861, FO 5/807 (PRO); K. J. Logan, “Bee-Hive Newspaper”; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 85–86, 246 n. 8; Lindsay to Layard, Dec. 10, 1861, Ripon Papers, Add. Mss., 43,512, vol. 22 (Brit. Lib.); Bee-Hive, Nov. 23, Dec. 7, 1861, cited in Foner, British Labor, 29.
40. Dayton to Seward, Nov. 30, Dec. 3, 1861, Disp., France (NA).
41. Dayton to Seward, Dec. 5, 6, 1861, ibid.
42. Thouvenel to Mercier, Dec. 3, 1861, ORN, 1st ser., 1:164–65. Three days later, Thouvenel emphasized to Dayton that the Union had violated international law. Dayton to Seward, Dec. 6, 1861, Disp., France (NA). See also Dayton to Seward, Nov. 30, 1861, Disp., France (NA).
43. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 207 (Gorchakov). For Russian ties with the Union, see Saul, Distant Friends, 320–26.
44. Lyons to RU, Nov. 24, 1861 (PRO 30/22/36), and Nov. 29, 1861 (PRO 30/22/14C), RU Papers,; Newton, Lord Lyons, 1:59.
45. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 196; Rawley, Turning Points, 85; Lewis to Twisleton, Nov. 30, 1861, G. F. Lewis, Letters of … George Cornewall Lewis, 406–7; Ferris, Trent, 80 (Cowley); RU to Cowley, Dec. 5, 1861 (PRO 30/22/104), and Dec. 7, 1861 (PRO 30/22/106), RU Papers.
46. D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 128–29; Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 154–55; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 199–201; Carroll, Mercier, 105–18; Bourne, “British Preparations for War,” 631; RU to Cowley, Dec. 5, 9, 11, 16, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/104; RU to Gladstone, Oct. 13 [Dec.], 1861, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,292, vol. 207 (Brit. Lib.); RU to Clarendon, Dec. 9, 1861, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:321. The three powers sent military forces to Mexico, ostensibly to collect debts.
47. Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 159, 162–63; Ferris, Trent, 77–78; B. P. Thomas, Russo-American Relations, 129.
48. Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:515 (Dec. 15, 1861).
49.CG, 37th Cong., 2nd sess., 101 (House, Dec. 16, 1861), 119–22 (House, Dec. 17, 1861); W. H. Russell, My Diary, 331 (Dec. 16, 1861); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 174–75.
50. CFA Jr. to Henry Adams, Dec. 10, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:79, 81; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Dec. 13, 1861, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:265–66.
51. CFA to Seward, Dec. 11, 12, 1861, CFA Letterbook (MHS); Duberman, Adams, 280–81; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Dec. 13, 1861, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:265–66; Seward to CFA, Nov. 27, 1861 (arrived December 16), vol. 18, Dip. Instructions, GB (NA). See also Seward to CFA, Nov. 30, 1861, Disp., GB (NA), and CFA to CFA Jr., Dec. 20, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:88.
52. CFA to CFA Jr., Dec. 20, 1861, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:88–89.
53. Silver, “Henry Adams' ‘Diary of Visit to Manchester'”; Cobden to Bright, Dec. 7, 18, 1861, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,651, vol. 5 (Brit. Lib.); Bright to Cobden, Nov. 16, 1861, Jan. 10, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,384, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.); J. M. Mackay (businessman) to Layard, Dec. 9, 1861, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 39,102, vol. 172 (Brit. Lib.); Jenkins, Britain, 1:205; Carroll, Mercier, 134–35.
54. Lyons to RU, Nov. 29, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:155; RU to Lyons, Dec. 20, 1861, ibid., 16:156; Lyons to RU, Jan. 14, 1862, ibid., 16:179–80. For the legality of the stone fleet, see Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Dana's notes, 360–61 n. 166.
55. Rost to JD, Dec. 24, 1861, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:311–12; Mann to JD, Jan. 18, 1862, ibid., 3:318.
56. Yancey to Hunter, Dec. 31, 1861, ibid., 3:313.
57. Lyons to RU, Dec. 23, 1861, cited in Ferris, Trent, 135. Although Lyons had unofficially furnished Seward with a copy of the dispatch on December 19, they agreed to meet in the State Department on December 21 for its official delivery and the beginning of the seven-day countdown. When Seward asked for two additional days, Lyons consented and made the formal presentation of British demands on the morning of Monday, December 23. The Lincoln administration thus had to make a decision by December 30. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 216; Ferris, Trent, 133.
58. RU to Lyons, Dec. 19, 1861, FO 115/250 (PRO); RU to Cowley, Jan. 1, 2, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/105.
59. Lyons to RU, Dec. 23, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14C; Dayton to Seward, Dec. 24, 1861, Disp., France (NA); Carroll, Mercier, 8, 69, 110.
60. Ferris, Trent, 181; Rawley, Turning Points, 89; Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:516 (Dec. 21, 1861); Parish, Civil War, 412; Cohen, “Sumner and the Trent Affair” (Sumner recommended the king of Prussia or some other European sovereign to arbitrate the dispute); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 178.
61. Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 148, 151–63, 167, 179, 181–82; Cohen, “Sumner and the Trent Affair”; Ferris, Trent, 76, 78–79; Parish, Civil War, 412; Sumner to Bright, Dec. 23, 1861 (2:85–87), Sumner to Francis Lieber (lawyer and friend), Dec. 24, 1861 (2:88–89), Sumner to Seward, ca. Dec. 24, 1861 (2:90), Sumner to Bright, Dec. 27, 1861 (2:91), and Sumner to Cobden, Dec. 31, 1861 (2:92–94, 87 n. 2, 90 n. 1), all in Palmer, Selected Letters of … Sumner; Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:518–19 (Dec. 25, 1861); W. H. Seward, Autobiography, 3:26 (Lincoln).
62. W. H. Seward, Autobiography, 1:52, 2:586; Seward to Lyons, Dec. 26, 1861, NTFL, GB (NA). See Welles, “Capture and Release,” for the navy secretary's summary of the Lincoln administration's legal views providing the basis for releasing the two Confederate emissaries.
63. W. H. Seward, Autobiography, 1:52, 2:586; Seward to Lyons, Dec. 26, 1861, NTFL, GB (NA); Lyons to Seward, Dec. 27, 1861, NFBL, GB (NA); Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:519 (Dec. 27, 1861); Warren, Fountain of Discontent, 183–84; Ferris, Trent, 183–84; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 161; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:232–33.
64. CFA to Seward, Dec. 3, 1861, cited in Ferris, Trent, 184–85.
65. Lowell quoted in Rawley, Turning Points, 90–91.
66. Ferris, Trent, 192, 194–96; RU to Lyons, Jan. 23, 1862, cited ibid., 196; Times, Jan. 14, 1862, p. 6. Warren (Fountain of Discontent, 197–98) argues that the Trent was passing lawfully between neutral ports, that Mason and Slidell were civilians and therefore not subject to removal, and that neutral nations had the right to deal with belligerents.
67. Seward to Lyons, Dec. 26, 1861, NTFL, GB (NA). See Vattel, Law of Nations, v–xv, bk. 1, chap. 2, secs. 18–19, bk. 2, chap. 4, sec. 49.
68. Wheaton cited Lord Stowell's decision in the Anna Maria case of 1813 in arguing that a belligerent has the right of visit and search to inquire whether the ship was free of contraband and warranted seizure. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, pt. 4, secs. 525–26, p. 578. See also D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 108. An American specialist in international law, Francis Wharton, later argued that if emissaries carried dispatches designed to promote belligerent goals, those dispatches became contraband and thus subject to confiscation. Crook, 109.
69. Lyons to RU, Dec. 27, 31, 1861, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/35.
70. Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Dec. 28, 1861, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:267; Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:324; RU to Lyons, Feb. 8, 1862, cited in Gooch; RU to Lyons, Jan. 11, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; RU to Gladstone, Jan. 26, 1862, cited in Ferris, Trent Affair, 198.
71. Survey cited in Cobden to Bright, Jan. 8, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.).
72. Dayton to Seward, Jan. 2, 20, 27, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
73.Times, Jan. 9, 1862, p. 8, Jan. 10, 11, 1862, both p. 6.
74. Rawley, Turning Points, 92 (Pollard); Hotze to Hunter, Mar. 11, 1862, cited in Ferris, Trent, 191; CFA to Seward, Jan. 10, 24, 1862, CFA to Everett, Feb. 21, 1862, and CFA to Richard Henry Dana Jr. (the friend), Feb. 6, 1862, all in CFA Letterbook (MHS)
75. Clerk quoted in Ferris, Trent, 191.
1. Lewis to William Vernon Harcourt (stepson-in-law), Feb. 4, 1862, Harcourt Papers, box 12 (Bodleian Lib.); RU to Lyons, Feb. 1, 1862, encl. in RU to Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, Jan. 31, 1862, BPP: Civil War, 16:181–82; RU to Lyons, Feb. 8, 1862 (PRO 39/22/96), and Lyons to RU, Feb. 11, 1862 (PRO 30/22/36), RU Papers; Lyons to RU, Mar. 3, 1862, FO 146/1023, Cowley Papers (PRO).
2. RU to Lyons, Feb. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 39/22/96; RU to Confederate Commissioners, Dec. 7, 1861, Mason Papers (LC); Mason to Hunter, Feb. 7, 1862, and Gregory to Mason, Feb. 7, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:332–33.
3. Mason to Hunter, Feb. 22, 1862, plus encls.: Mason to RU, Feb. 8, 1862, and RU to Mason, Feb. 8, 1862, Mason Papers, Disp. (LC); H. Jones, Union in Peril, 102; Blumenthal, “Confederate Diplomacy” and Reappraisal, 158–59.
4.New York Tribune (n.d.), quoted in McPherson, Battle Cry, 396–404; Moran Diary, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, 1862 (LC); CFA Diary, Mar. 5, 1862 (MHS); JD to Confederate Congress in Lyons to RU, Mar. 3, 1862, cited in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 1:302; V. Mason, James M. Mason, 266.
5. Eaton, Davis, 165 (quotes). The contemporary colleague was Robert Kean, head of the War Bureau. At the age of fourteen at Yale, Benjamin was accused of thievery, a charge never proved. Benjamin was the first Jew to hold a U.S. Senate seat. Evans, Benjamin, 47–48.
6. Evans, Benjamin, 17–48, 98–99, 156; Eaton, Davis, 164–65, and History of the Southern Confederacy, 69; Meade, “Relations between … Benjamin and … Davis,” and Benjamin; JD, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 1:242. Evans and Meade establish Benjamin's integral role in Confederate foreign relations.
7. Walker quoted in Evans, Benjamin, 116.
8. Ibid., 146, 154–56. See also JD, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (2 vols.) and Short History of the Confederate States of America.
9. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 211; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:267, 268 n. 2, 271; Forster to Ellis Yarnall, May 10, 1861, in T. W. Reid, Forster, 1:334; Parl. Debates, 165:1158–1230 (Commons, Mar. 7, 1862), 1233–43 (Lords, Mar. 10, 1862); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Mar. 15, 1862, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:119–20.
10. A. S. Green of British FO, “Memorandum relative to Blockades” (for cabinet use and based on Wheaton and other international legal theorists), Mar. 3, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,594, vol. 509 (Brit. Lib.). Russell had been promoted to the Lords on July 30, 1861. Historians disagree on the effectiveness of the blockade. Wise claims that the Confederate blockade-runners repeatedly ran the Union blockade and could have done more had the Richmond government supported the effort from the beginning of the war. See his work, the first to examine the entire blockade, Lifeline of the Confederacy. Neely (“Perils of Running the Blockade”) argues that international law and uncertain Union policies limited the blockade's effectiveness. Lebergott (“Through the Blockade”) insists that Confederate blockade-runners profited from cotton smuggling but often declined follow-up voyages because of the risks in challenging the blockade. Laas (“‘Sleepless Sentinels'”) shows the Union's problems in implementing the blockade in the North Atlantic during the crucial first two years of the war. According to Coddington (“Civil War Blockade Reconsidered”), the British took a pragmatic approach to the Union blockade in acknowledging its effectiveness.
11. Hotze to Hunter, Mar. 11, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:360–62; Addendum to above letter, Mar. 18, 1862, ibid., 3:363; Burnett, Hotze, 144.
12. CFA Diary, Mar. 8, 1862 (MHS); CFA to Seward, Mar. 13 (pp. 47–48), Mar. 20 (p. 51), and Mar. 27, 1862 (53–54), FRUS 1862.
13. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:7–9, 12; Jenkins, Britain, 2:74–75; Ashmore, “Diary of James Garnett,” vol. 1, 121:77–78, vol. 2, 123:112–14 [Sept. 5, 1861]; Brigg, Journals of a Lancashire Weaver, 122:130 (Nov. 16, 1861), 131 (Dec. 31, 1861), 132 (Jan. 1, 1862), 134 (Mar. 4, 1862).
14. Parish, Civil War, 398–400; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 174–75; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 43, 211, 213–14; RU to Cowley, Apr. 19, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/105.
15. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:271–72, 272 n. 1. For the sources of England's racial fears, see D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 237–38, and McPherson, Battle Cry, 558.
16. CFA to Seward, Feb. 21, 1862, CFA Letterbook (MHS); Seward to CFA, Mar. 10 (p. 46), Apr. 1, 1862 (p. 60), FRUS 1862; D. P. Crook, “Portents of War,” 175. Lincoln did not reveal his decision for emancipation until mid-July 1862, about four months after Seward had moved in that direction.
17. McPherson, Battle Cry, 353.
18. CFA Diary, Mar. 19, 1862 (MHS); Dayton to Seward, Mar. 26, 1862, Disp., France (NA); RU to Lyons, Mar. 22, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:82–83; Hotze to Hunter, Mar. 24, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:371.
19. Lyons to RU, Mar. 31, Apr. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Seward to CFA, Apr. 8, 1862, FRUS 1862, 65; treaty text in BPP: Papers Relating to Slave Trade, 1861–74, 91:161–70; Milne, “Lyons-Seward Treaty,” 511; Henderson, “Anglo-American Treaty of 1862,” 314. E. D. Adams (Great Britain, 1:275, 2:10, 90) rejects Lyons's calculating view of Lincoln's motives and insists that both reconstruction and antislavery were important to the president.
20. St. Clair, “Slavery as Diplomatic Factor.”
21. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:83–84; Thomas and Hyman, Stanton, 232–33; Lincoln to U.S. Congress, Apr. 16, 1862, CWL, 5:192, 370–71 n. 1.
22. References to Schurz and to Lincoln quote in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:91–92.
23. Lincoln's speech at Springfield, Ill., June 16, 1858, CWL, 2:461; Lincoln's speech at Peoria, Ill., Oct. 16, 1854, CWL, 2:248; Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery (signed by Congressman Lincoln), Mar. 3, 1837, CWL, 1:75. On Lincoln's evolving views toward slavery, see H. Jones, Lincoln and “Toward a More Perfect Union.”
24. Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1861, CWL, 4:265. The phrase, of course, comes from the U.S. Constitution. For a superb analysis of the threat of disunion from 1789 to 1859, see Varon, Disunion.
25. Moran Diary, Apr. 16, 1862 (LC).
26. Ibid., Mar. 20, 1862; CFA to Seward, Feb. 27, 1862, encl.: CFA to RU, Feb. 18, 1862, RU to CFA, Feb. 26, 1862, and CFA to RU, Feb. 27, 1862 (encl.: report of British Commissioners of Customs, Feb. 22, 1862), all in FRUS 1862, 39–40; RU to Lyons, Mar. 22, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96. For the Florida, see Maynard, “Escape of the Florida,” and Owsley Jr., C.S.S. Florida. For the agent's activities in Europe, see Roberts, “Bulloch and Confederate Navy.”
27. Moran Diary, Apr. 5, 1862 (LC); CFA to Seward, Apr. 3, 1862, FRUS 1862, 62; CFA Diary, Mar. 29, 1862 (MHS); Duke of Newcastle to Governor Gen. of Canada, and to Lt. Governors of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Apr. 12, 1862, BPP: Papers Relating to Canada, 1861–1863, 24:314–15; Bourne, Foreign Policy, 96.
28. Seward to CFA, Apr. 14, 1862, FRUS 1862, 67–70; Van Deusen, Seward, 320–21; Benjamin to Mason, Apr. 12, 1862, Mason Papers (LC).
29. Carroll, Mercier, 280; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 183 (Castilla), (Spanish minister, 101), 102; Dayton to Seward, Feb. 13, 1862, Disp., France (NA). Europe was a tangled web of familial relationships. In addition to Princess Marie Charlotte Amélie and her brother, the Count of Flanders—their father and king of Belgium—was the uncle of Queen Victoria of England.
30. CFA to Seward, Jan. 24, 1862, CFA Letterbook (MHS); Dayton to Seward, Feb. 21, 1862, Disp., France (NA); Seward to Dayton, Mar. 3, 1862, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 510. For Lincoln's efforts to block European intervention in North America, particularly the French in Mexico, see Tyrner-Tyrnauer, Lincoln and the Emperors.
31. Dayton to Seward, Mar. 31, 1862, Disp., France (NA), and Thouvenel to Mercier, Mar. 7, 27, 1862, both cited in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 511; Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 63, and French Experience, 185.
32. Palmerston to RU, Jan. 19, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/22; Jenkins, Britain, 1:177; Bourne, Foreign Policy, 89.
33. Lyons to RU, Mar. 3, 1862 (FO 146/1024), and RU to Cowley, Mar. 8, 1862 (FO 146/1022), Mar. 11, 1862 (FO 146/1023), Apr. 29, 1862 (FO 146/1029), all in Cowley Papers (PRO); Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 42–44; Bock, Prelude to Tragedy, 447; Jenkins, Britain, 1:176–77; Crook, The North, the South, 183–84; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:259–60.
34. Lyons to RU, Mar. 3, 1862, FO 146/1024, Cowley Papers (PRO).
35. Seward to Dayton, Mar. 31, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Dayton to Seward, Apr. 22, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
36. Thouvenel to Flahault, Sept. 19, 1861, quoted in Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 63. British foreign secretary Russell also considered the proposed connection between Mexico and Europe a useful idea. But he had reservations. In addition to his fear of the project's alienating the Union, he thought Maximilian should occupy the throne of Greece; the Mexican people, Russell warned, would never accept a prince sponsored by the French army. Maximilian, however, was not interested in Greece. Barker, “France, Austria,” 224–27; Cunningham, Mexico, 48–49; Cowley to RU, Oct. 2, 1861, cited in Cunningham, 51; Ridley, Maximilian and Juárez, 67–71, 79, 90–91, 106.
37. Dayton to Seward, Apr. 22, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
38. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 513–14.
39. Dayton to Seward, Mar. 4, 16, 25, 1862, Disp., France (NA); Slidell to Hunter, Feb. 11, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:336.
40. RU to Lyons, Dec. 20, 1861, BPP: Civil War, 16:156. For the legality of the stone fleet, see Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Dana's notes, 360–61 n. 166. See also Confidential memo from London to the State Department in Richmond, Jan. 31, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); and Mann to JD, Feb. 1, 1862 (3:324–25), and Slidell to Hunter, Feb. 11, 1862, encl. in Notes of interviews with Thouvenel, Persigny, Baroche, and Fould (3:340–41), ORN, 2nd ser.
41. Notes of interviews with Thouvenel, Persigny, Fould, and Baroche, encl. in Slidell to Hunter, Feb. 11, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:339–41; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 260 (Morny).
42. Slidell to Hunter, Feb. 26, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:347–49.
43. CFA to Seward, Apr. 16 (70–73—Dayton's meeting and Adams's reaction), Apr. 25 (77), and May 8, 1862 (83–84), FRUS 1862; CFA Diary, Apr. 7, 15, May 3, 1862 (MHS); Moran Diary, Apr. 17, 1862 (LC).
44. Lyons to RU, Mar. 3, 1862, FO 146/1023 (PRO); Palmerston to Gladstone, Apr. 29, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,272, vol. 187 (Brit. Lib.).
45. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 269; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:289; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 56–58.
46. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 269; Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 14, 1862, encl. in Memo of dispatch no. 5, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:393–94.
47. Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 14, 1862, encl. in Memo of dispatch no. 5, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:394.
48. Ibid.; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 161.
49. Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 14, 1862, encl. in Memo of dispatch no. 5, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:394.
50. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:292; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 270–71.
51. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 271; Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 14, 1862, encl. in Memo of dispatch no. 5, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:394–95.
52. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:293; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 271.
53. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:291–92.
54. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 271–72.
55. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:293–94.
56. Ibid., 1:295 (Disraeli); Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 280.
57. Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 18, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:395–96; Mason to Benjamin, Apr. 21, 1862, ibid., 3:398.
58. Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 18, 1862, ibid., 3:395–96; Mason to Benjamin, Apr. 21, 1862, ibid., 3:397–98; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 273; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 280–81.
59. Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 14 (3:393–95—Memo encl.), Apr. 18, 1862 (3:395–96), Mason to Benjamin, Apr. 21, 1862, (3:397–99), and Hotze to Hunter, Apr. 25, 1862 (3:399–400), all in ORN, 2nd ser.; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 269–73.
60. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 273. Napoleon's response came in a note dated Apr. 23, 1862.
61. Ibid., 273–74.
62. Dayton to Seward, May 5, 1862, Disp., France (NA); Case and Spencer, United States and France, 273–75 (Napoleon, 275).
63. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 277; Carroll, Mercier, 148–50.
64. Carroll, Mercier, 151. Napoleon, like Thouvenel, knew nothing about Mercier's mission until afterward. If the emperor had wanted to side with the South, he could have done so by challenging the Union blockade. That he refused to act except in conjunction with England provides evidence that he would not have risked breaking up the entente by sending Mercier to Richmond. Ibid., 180. Blumenthal (Reappraisal, 141–42) agrees that Napoleon had nothing to do with the trip. But Owsley (King Cotton Diplomacy, 268, 273, 282–91) argues—with no documentary evidence—that Mercier's mission was part of Napoleon's well-orchestrated plan to learn the Confederacy's potential for independence. Both Slidell and Mason believed that Napoleon had masterminded Mercier's visit without telling Thouvenel. Owsley, 291–92; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:288. Although the evidence does not support their conclusion, such a belief certainly encouraged the Confederacy's hopes for French intervention.
65. Stoeckl to Gorchakov, Apr. 25, May 5, 1962, quoted in Saul, Distant Friends, 334. See also Carroll, Mercier, 151, and Woldman, Lincoln and the Russians, 94–95.
66. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 1:281–82, 283 n. 1; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 275–78; Carroll, Mercier, 146–47, 151–52; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 284; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 141. England originally believed that the Confederacy had won at Shiloh, but Grant had rallied his forces on the second day and, at horrendous cost, held the field. For the battle, see McPherson, Battle Cry, 405–15. Slidell and Mason thought it possible that the emperor had directed Mercier to Richmond without consulting Thouvenel. Slidell to Benjamin, May 9 (3:415), May 15, 1862 (3:419–20), and Mason to Benjamin, May 15, 1862 (3:421), all in ORN, 2nd ser. But no evidence has appeared to support their claim. See Carroll, Mercier, 176. Mason found everyone “mystified” by Mercier's visit. Mason to JD, May 16, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:425.
67. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 278–79; Carroll, Mercier, 155.
68. Carroll, Mercier, 154–55; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 283.
69. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 279; Carroll, Mercier, 155–56, 160–61 (Benjamin, 161). The contemporary was Sam Ward, a Washington lobbyist and himself a gourmet. Carroll, 156.
70. This and the preceding paragraphs are from Carroll, Mercier, 161.
71. Mercier and Benjamin quotes on slavery in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 280.
72. Carroll, Mercier, 162–63.
73. Ibid., 163.
74. Quotes in this and the following paragraph are from Case and Spencer, United States and France, 281.
75. Ibid., 279–82; Carroll, Mercier, 157, 158; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 142; Evans, Benjamin, 174–75; Benjamin to Slidell, July 19, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:463–64.
76. Mercier to Thouvenel, May 12, 1862, quoted in Carroll, Mercier, 173.
77. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 283, 285; Carroll, Mercier, 182, 184.
78. Seward to CFA, Apr. 28, 1862, FRUS 1862, 78; CFA to Seward, May 15, 1862, ibid., 91; Williams, Diary from Dixie, 215 (Apr. 27), 216 (Apr. 29, 1862); Woodward, Chesnut's Civil War, 326–27, 330, 333, 339; Moran Diary, May 12, 1862 (LC); Ashmore, “Diary of James Garnett,” vol. 2, 123:115 (May 12, 1862); McPherson, Battle Cry, 418–20; Duberman, Adams, 287.
79. Presidential proclamation, May 12, 1862, encl. in Seward to CFA, May 12, 1862, FRUS 1862, 88–89; Slidell to Benjamin, May 15, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:419–20; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 282–85; Blumenthal, Reappraisal, 142.
1. Henry Adams to CFA Jr., May 16, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:297–98; CFA to Seward, Dec. 20, 1861, CFA Letterbook (MHS); CFA to Seward, May 22, 1862 (98–99), RU to CFA, May 17, 1862, encl. (99), and CFA to Seward, May 23, 1862 (100), FRUS 1862; Atkins, Russell, 1:vii, 2:3; Dayton to Seward, Mar. 25, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
2. CFA Diary, May 3, 1862 (MHS).
3. Lyons to RU, May 16, 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; RU to Lyons, May 17, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/96. Russell also mentioned the Union's military successes in Yorktown, Va., and Corinth, Miss.
4. Lyons to RU, May 23, June 9, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/36.
5. Lyons to RU, May 16, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:514–18 (National Intelligencer, 516–18). For southerners' destruction of cotton, see Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 43–50.
6. Seward to CFA, May 28, 1862, Disp., GB (NA). Moran thought Seward's note a “wholesome threat.” Moran Diary, June 16, 1862 (LC).
7. For the extensive correspondence on this issue, see Palmerston to CFA, June 11, 1862, PM/J/1, Palmerston Letterbook, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); CFA to Palmerston, June 12, 16, 20, 1862, CFA to Seward, June 13, 1862 (2 notes), and Palmerston to CFA, June 15, 1862, all in CFA Letterbook (MHS); CFA Diary, June 12, 13, 19, 20, 29, 1862 (MHS); Palmerston to RU, June 14, 1862, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:325–26; Seward to CFA, June 28, 1862, Disp., GB (NA). Seward later expressed regret for failing to see the danger in the “woman order.” Seward to CFA, July 5 (124), July 9 (127), and Sept. 8, 1862 (188), FRUS 1862. See also H. Adams, Education, 137, and Duberman, Adams, 288–91.
8. CFA Diary, June 13, 19, 20, 1862 (MHS); Moran Diary, June 12, 13, 24, 1862 (LC); Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 66–67; Mason to State Department in Richmond, June 13, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Palmerston to RU, June 13, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/22. For a convincing refutation of the charge that the Times was biased toward the Confederacy, see Crawford, Anglo-American Crisis.
9. Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 66 (Henry Adams and Lyons, 67–68); Moran Diary, June 14, 1862 (LC).
10. Lindsay to Mason, June 18, 1862, Mason Papers (LC).
11. Palmerston to Layard, June 19, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,988, vol. 57 (Brit. Lib.); CFA to Seward, June 20, 1862, FRUS 1862, 115.
12. CFA to Seward, June 20, 1862, FRUS 1862, 115; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 128–29.
13. CFA Diary, June 29, 1862 (MHS); CFA to Seward, July 3, 1862 (122–23), and Seward to CFA, July 18, 1862 (142–44), FRUS 1862. For convincing refutations of the arguments for strong Confederate sympathy in England, see Blackett, Divided Hearts, and D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion. Ellison (Support for Secession) focuses on Lancashire in offering the most detailed claim for southern support among the British. Her argument is not persuasive in that she relies on the local press rather than worker sentiment, and on petitions urging recognition that she does not show to be signed by workers and that, she admits, the British government ignored. For a critical analysis of Ellison's work, see Frank J. Merli's review in Civil War Times Illustrated 13 (February 1975): 49–50.
14. McPherson, Battle Cry, 471, 490–91, 500; Gallagher, Confederate War, 137–38, 145–46, Richmond Campaign, ix–x, and “Civil War Watershed,” 3, 8, 17; Blair, “Seven Days,” 153–54, 173–76; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 57; H. Jones, Union in Peril, 133–36. For the best narrative of the Seven Days' battle, see S. W. Sears, To the Gates of Richmond.
15. CFA Diary, July 1, 1862 (MHS); Seward to CFA, June 24, 1862 (116–17), and CFA to Seward, June 26, 1862 (118–19), FRUS 1862; Moran Diary, June 21, 1862 (LC).
16. Seward exchange with Mercier, ca. July 1, 1862, in Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 73, and Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 309. See also Carroll, Mercier, 200.
17. De Leon, Secret History, xiii–xiv; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 162; Monaghan, Lincoln Deals, 223. This section draws primarily from Davis's version of De Leon's account.
18. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 155, 163–68. See also Monaghan, Lincoln Deals, 223. Monaghan mistakenly claims that the instruction to bribe Napoleon went to De Leon; Owsley shows that the instruction went to Slidell. Benjamin to Slidell, Apr. 12, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:390; Eaton, History, 81, and Davis, 171; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 178, 256; Cullop, Confederate Propaganda, 77–84; De Leon, Secret History, xiv, xvi–xvii, xix, xxiv.
19. De Leon to JD and Benjamin, Spring 1962, in De Leon, Secret History, 103, 112–13, xvi. De Leon published his account of this meeting of June 30, 1862 in the New York Citizen, Feb. 22, 1868, chap. XIII. One can perhaps question the reliability of De Leon's rendition of his conversation with Palmerston, particularly since it first appeared in published form just six years afterward. But the spirit of the conversation fits well with other evidence showing the Confederacy's growing disenchantment with the prime minister's reluctance to intervene in the American contest and its increasing turn toward the French.
20. This and the preceding paragraphs are from De Leon, Secret History, 113–15, 115 n. 8, 116–19.
21. Ibid., 110–12, 119.
22. Ibid., 70.
23. Henry Adams to CFA Jr., July 4, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:305–6; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 136–37, 140–42.
24. Mason to RU, July 7, 1862, encl. in Mason to Benjamin, July 30, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:495–96; Benjamin to Mason, Apr. 8, 1862, ibid., 379–83; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 45–46.
25. Monaghan, Lincoln Deals, 183, 226; “Appeal to Border State Representatives to Favor Compensated Emancipation,” July 12, 1862, in CWL, 5:317–19; McPherson, Battle Cry, 503–4; Current, Lincoln Nobody Knows, 221–22; Thomas and Hyman, Stanton, 238; Beale, Diary of Gideon Welles, 1:70–71 (July 13, 1862). For an extended treatment of Lincoln's views, see Cox, Lincoln and Black Freedom. Cox does not think Lincoln merely followed Congress in making emancipation policy. The president, she argues, led the way (pp. 14–15). For an analysis of Lincoln's evolving views toward slavery, see H. Jones, Lincoln, chaps. 1–2, and “Toward a More Perfect Union,” 15–28.
26. Mason to Benjamin, June 23, 1862 (3:445–46), Slidell to Benjamin, June 1, 1862 (3:428–29), and Mann (in Brussels) to Benjamin, June 3 (3:429), July 5, 1862 (3:453), ORN, 2nd ser; Cobden to Bright, July 12, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.); Palmerston to Queen Victoria, July 14, 1862, quoted in Bell, Palmerston, 2:327; Mason to State Department in Richmond, July 15, 1862, and Slidell to Mason, July 16, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Stuart to RU, July 15, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Johnson to Lincoln, July 16, 1862, in CWL, 5:343 n. 1. Johnson was in New Orleans investigating charges of undisciplined behavior by the Union occupation force. See also L. M. Sears, “Confederate Diplomat,” 262–63. Stuart headed the British legation in Washington until Lyons returned from England in early November.
27. CFA Diary, July 14, 17, 1862 (MHS); CFA to Seward, July 17, 1862, FRUS 1862, 139–40; Mason to RU, July 17, 1862, encl. in Mason to Benjamin, July 30, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:499; CFA to Seward, July 17, 1862, FRUS 1862, 136–37; CFA Diary, July 15, 1862 (MHS); Jenkins, Britain, 2:94; Parl. Debates, 168:569–73 (Commons, July 18, 1862); Matthew, Gladstone Diaries, 6:136 (July 18, 1862); Mason to Slidell, July 11, 13, 1862, Mason Papers (LC).
28.Economist, July 5, Aug. 2, 1862, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 137; Owsley, 137–38, 142. By September the cotton stock in England had plunged to 100,000 bales, with a weekly drain of 30,000 to either industrial use or exportation. Unemployment and hardship would peak the following December 1862. The cotton stores on hand would meanwhile climb back up, primarily because of supplies confiscated by the Union blockade vessels and by new sources in Brazil, China, Egypt, and India. Even though the latter goods were of inferior grade, their availability permitted an increase in working hours that eased unemployment numbers. But all this did not come until the end of the year. Owsley.
29. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 152; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 159, 162, 164–66, 319–23. The autumn of 1862 found thousands of French workers unemployed and marked the country's worst period of unemployment and deprivation. Case and Spencer.
30. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, xiii–xiv, 4, 19, 79, 199, 303 (Napoleon, 78); Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 59, 63, and “French Legation,” 411, 423.
31. Slidell's July 16 meeting with Napoleon (here and in the following paragraphs) in Slidell memo of conversation, encl. in Slidell to Benjamin, July 25, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:479, 482–83, 485–87, and Case and Spencer, United States and France, 300–305.
32. Davis, Benjamin, and the Confederate Congress approved an effort in the spring of 1862 to bribe the French to challenge the Union blockade by offering free trade and 100,000 bales of cotton. Eaton, Davis, 171. This was the arrangement De Leon read about in the dispatches.
33. Slidell's confidence in French intervention even without the British becomes plain in L. M. Sears, “Confederate Diplomat.”
34. Case and Spencer, United States and France (Napoleon, 307; Thouvenel, 308). Napoleon's prognosis on the Union loan to Mexico was correct. Less than a week before this conversation (hence unknown to the emperor), the U.S. Senate had tabled the proposal after Lincoln had sent it up without a recommendation. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 72. Dayton had recently emphasized to the emperor that French withdrawal of belligerent rights from the Confederacy would break the rebellion and end the war. The “moral support” gained from the concession had given the Confederacy hope that recognition of independence would soon follow and thereby prolonged the war. Dayton to Seward, Mar. 25, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
35. Case and Spencer, United States and France (Gorchakov, 309).
36.Economist, Feb. 15, June 14, 1862 (Bagehot). Both issues are cited in Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 153–54.
37. Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 95.
38.Parl. Debates, 168:569–73 (Commons, July 18, 1862); Matthew, Gladstone Diaries, 6: 136 (July 18, 1862); Mason to Slidell, July 11, 13, 18, 1862, and Benjamin to Mason, July 19, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., July 19, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:307–8; Hammond to Layard, July 18, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); CFA to CFA Jr., July 18, 1862, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:166; CFA Diary, July 18, 1862 (MHS). See also Blumenthal, “Confederate Diplomacy.” For the claim that the Times had already seemingly admitted that a failed mediation would lead to recognition, see W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion, 79.
39. Moran Diary, July 19, 1862 (LC); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., July 19, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:308.
40. Moran Diary, July 19, 1862 (LC); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., July 19, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:308; CFA Diary, July 18, 1862 (MHS); Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 67.
41. Moran Diary, July 19, 1862 (LC); Wallace and Gillespie, Journal of … Moran, 2:1041 n. 13; Parl. Debates, 168:511–12 (Lindsay in Commons, July 18, 1862), 522–27 (Taylor in Commons, July 18), 527–34 (Vane-Tempest in Commons, July 18), 534–38 (Forster in Commons, July 18); E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:22.
42.Parl. Debates, 168:569–73 (Commons, July 18, 1862); Moran Diary, July 19, 1862 (LC); Wallace and Gillespie, Journal of … Moran, 2:1044.
43. Moran Diary, July 19, 1862 (LC); Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 67.
44. CFA Diary, July 19, 1862 (MHS); CFA to Seward, July 10, 1862, CFA Letterbook (MHS); CFA to Seward, July 31, 1862, no. 197, FRUS 1862, 159–60; Henry Adams to CFA Jr., July 19, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:308.
45. For the argument that the great numbers of British were not southern sympathizers, see D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, chap. 5. According to Blackett (Divided Hearts, 102, 119–20, 143), most British workers and a large number of cotton manufacturers favored the Union because of its interest in political reform. He also argues that exchanges between editors and readers demonstrate that most of the British press did not support the Confederacy.
46. Slidell's July 23 meeting with Thouvenel (here and in the preceding paragraphs) is from Slidell to Benjamin, July 25, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:480–81.
47. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 311–12 (Thouvenel, 312).
48. Mason to Benjamin, July 30–Aug. 4, 1862, with encls., ORN, 2nd ser., 3:490–504; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:25–29.
49. Case and Spencer, United States and France (Thouvenel, 313–14). Two years after the Civil War, the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy came into existence, exemplifying many of the principles advocated by Thouvenel regarding the American war.
50. De Leon, Secret History, xvii, 22, 42–44, 122, 126–27, 142, 216. De Leon even shared some of his own funds with Hotze. Ibid., xvii. De Leon argued for recognition in a pamphlet entitled La Vérité sur des États Confédérés (The Truth about the Confederate States of America), published in August 1862; it included a picture of Davis intended to impress Europeans with his magisterial bearing. Ibid., xiii. For a reprint of the entire pamphlet, see ibid., app. 3, pp. 209–19. De Leon published his French views in the New York Citizen, Dec. 21, 1867, Jan. 4, Feb. 22, 29, 1868. See also Benjamin to Slidell, Apr. 12, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:390; Eaton, History, 81; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 178, 256; Cullop, Confederate Propaganda, 77–84; and Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 163–68.
51. De Leon, Secret History, 23–26, 131.
52. Ibid., 103.
53. Ibid., 32, 43. De Leon published his conclusions on England in the New York Citizen, Feb. 15, 1868.
54. Adams warned the Union government that England needed grain from abroad—and mainly from the United States. See CFA to Seward, July 24, 1862, Disp., GB (NA). For British interest in grain as a counterbalance to their need for cotton, see Schmidt, “Influence of Wheat and Cotton,” 431, 437, 439, and Khasigian, “Economic Factors.” British wheat needs, however, were never great enough to have an important impact on the intervention issue. See Ginzberg, “Economics of British Neutrality,” 151, 155; R. H. Jones, “Long Live the King?,” 167–69; and E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:13–14 n. 2.
55. Seward to Dayton, July 10, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
1. RU to Stuart, July 19, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96; Stuart to RU, July 21, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/36; Slidell to Mason, July 20, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Slidell memo, July 25, 1862, encl. in Slidell to Benjamin, July 25, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:481–87; Bourne, Foreign Policy, 91.
2. Seward to CFA, July 28, 1862, FRUS 1862, 157; Stuart to RU, July 21, 29, Aug. 4, 1862 (PRO 30/22/36), and RU to Stuart, July 25, 1862 (PRO 30/22/96), RU Papers; Stuart to RU, July 21, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:519; RU to Stuart, Aug. 7, 1862, BPP: Civil War, 17:29; Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 450. Stuart thought Russell's dispatch of July 28 important enough to read it to Seward on August 16; two weeks later, Stuart gave Seward a copy. See Stuart to Seward, Aug. 30, 1862, with encl.: RU to Stuart, July 28, 1862, NFBL, GB (NA).
3. H. Jones, Union in Peril, 139–40; Blair, “Seven Days,” 153–54, 175.
4. Seward to CFA, July 28, 1862, FRUS 1862, 156–58.
5. Gallagher, “Civil War Watershed,” 17; Beale, Diary of Gideon Welles, 1:70–71 (July 13, 1862); Lincoln, “Emancipation Proclamation—First Draft,” July 22, 1862, in CWL, 5:336–37; Thomas and Hyman, Stanton, 238–40; H. Jones, Lincoln, 86.
6. Blair to Lincoln, July 23, 1862, in CWL, 5:337 n. 1; Donald, Inside Lincoln's Cabinet, 99–100. On Lincoln's fear of alienating the Border States, see his “Remarks to Deputation of Western Gentlemen,” Aug. 4, 1862, in CWL, 5:357; W. H. Seward, Autobiography, 3:74 (1st Seward quote); Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 452; McPherson, Battle Cry, 505 (2nd Seward quote); H. Jones, Lincoln, 86–87; and Van Deusen, Seward, 328–29.
7. Lincoln to Reverdy Johnson, July 26, 1862, in CWL, 5:343 (Lincoln's 1st quote); Lincoln to Belmont, July 31, 1862, ibid., 5:350 (Lincoln's 2nd quote); Belmont to Lincoln, Aug. 10, 1862, ibid., 5:351 n. 1 (Belmont); Lincoln to Cuthbert Bullitt, July 28, 1862, ibid., 5:344–45 (remainder of Lincoln's quotes); Randall, Constitutional Problems, 377–78; H. Jones, Lincoln, 88.
8. Pease and Randall, Diary of … Browning, 1:562 (July 24, 1862); E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:87.
9. For Lincoln's religious views, see Donald, Lincoln, 15, 114, 337, 514–15, and Thomas, Lincoln, 108–9. For an expanded treatment of Lincoln's views toward slavery and their relation to the concept of Union, see H. Jones, Lincoln.
10. Lincoln's speech at Peoria, Ill., Oct. 16, 1854, CWL, 2:276.
11. McPherson, What They Fought For (South Carolina officer, 49; Kentuckian, 51), For Cause and Comrades (Mississippi officer, 171), and Drawn with the Sword (Georgian, 60).
12. On Lincoln's view that a better Union depended on the death of slavery, see H. Jones, Lincoln; Diggins, On Hallowed Ground; Jaffa, New Birth of Freedom; and Striner, Father Abraham.
13. Donald, Inside Lincoln's Cabinet, 105–6 (Aug. 3, 1862); McPherson, Battle Cry (Grant and Grenville Dodge [officer], 502).
14. Gasparin to Lincoln, July 18, 1862, in CWL, 5:355 n. 1; Lincoln to Gasparin, Aug. 4, 1862, ibid., 5:355–56.
15. McPherson, Battle Cry, 505–8; Cox, Lincoln and Black Freedom, 5, 14; Fehrenbacher, “Only His Stepchildren,” 293–310; Fredrickson, “A Man but Not a Brother,” 53; Oates, With Malice toward None, 41, and “‘Man of Our Redemption,'” 15–16, 19–20; Randall, Constitutional Problems, 370; Guelzo, Lincoln, 338–44; Carnahan, Act of Justice, chap. 7. For Lincoln's longtime aversion to slavery, see, among numerous examples, his protest in the Illinois legislature on slavery, Mar. 3, 1837, in CWL, 1:75; Lincoln to Williamson Durley, Oct. 3, 1845, in CWL 1:348; and Lincoln's speech at Bloomington, Ill., Sept. 26, 1854, in CWL, 2:239. In the 1854 speech he called slavery “a moral, social and political evil.”
16. RU to Mason, July 31, 1862, Mason Papers, Disp. (LC); RU to Mason, July 24, 1862 (3:499), and Mason to RU, July 24, 1862 (3:501), encls. in Mason to Benjamin, July 30, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser.; Mason to RU, Aug. 1, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:731–33.
17. RU to Mason, Aug. 2, 1862, Mason Papers, Disp. (LC).
18. Mason to Benjamin, Aug. 4, 1862, ibid.; Mason to Mrs. Mason, July 20, 1862, quoted in McPherson, Battle Cry, 555; Gladstone to Col. [?] Neville, July 26, 1862, quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:26; Gladstone to wife, July 29, 1862, quoted in Morley, Gladstone, 2:75; Randall and Donald, Civil War and Reconstruction, 507.
19. Hammond to Layard, July 20, 28, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); Lyons to Stuart, July 29, 1862, quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:26.
20. CFA to Seward, July 31 (p. 162), Aug. 1, 1862 (p. 163), FRUS 1862; CFA Diary, July 31, 1862 (MHS); Ridley, Palmerston, 557; Duberman, Adams, 293–94; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:35, 118–22. See reference to British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 in “British Proclamation for the Observance of Neutrality in the Contest between the United States and the Confederate States of America, May 13, 1861,” BFSP 1860–1861, 51:165, 167. For Confederate shipbuilding activities in England, see Merli, Great Britain, and Spencer, Confederate Navy.
21. Merli, Alabama, 24, 199 n. 4, and Great Britain, 136–37, 178; Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, 19, 29, 34; Dudley to Edwards, July 9, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863 (2:379), and Testimony by Dudley to Edwards at customhouse in Liverpool, July 21, 1862 (2:385–86), ORN, 2nd ser. Spencer (Confederate Navy) maintains that both Britain and France hurt the Confederacy's shipbuilding efforts by adhering to a neutrality based on self-interest.
22. Jenkins, Britain, 2:120–21; Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, xix; Cross, Lincoln's Man in Liverpool; Merli, Great Britain, 63–65, 68–69, and Alabama, 54–57, 92; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 395–96; Tucker, Blue and Gray Navies, 274; Hearn, Gray Raiders of the Sea, 53–55.
23. Merli, Great Britain, 62–65; Dudley to Samuel Price Edwards (customs collector, Liverpool), July 9, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:378–79.
24. Merli, Alabama, 48–49. Captain Matthew Butcher wrote in his diary that “290” was used to conceal the intended name of Alabama (p. 129).
25. Dudley to Customs Collector, Liverpool, July 9, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:380.
26. Merli, Alabama, 49–50.
27. Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, 37; Merli, Alabama, 56; Report by Edward Morgan (customs surveyor), June 28, 1862, encl. in Samuel Price Edwards (customs collector, Liverpool) to Commissioners of Customs, June 28, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:377.
28. Merli, Alabama, 57.
29. Ibid., 55–56.
30. Ibid., 58.
31. Ibid., 58–62.
32. Ibid., 61–62, 73; Jenkins, Britain, 2:122; Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, 43; Maynard, “Union Efforts”; Edwards to Commissioners of Customs, July 10, 1862, and Report by Morgan, July 10, 1862, both encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:378; Frederick Goulburn and R. W. Grey to Customs Collector, Liverpool, July 15, 1862, 381.
33. Merli, Alabama, 65.
34. Cross, Lincoln's Man in Liverpool, 48; Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, 44; Edwards to commissioners of customs, July 21, 1862, and Testimony by William Passmore to Edwards at customhouse, Liverpool, July 21, 1862, 381–82, both encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:381; Merli, Alabama, 67–68. For a useful collection of essays and annotated bibliography of primary and secondary materials, see Merli, Journal of Confederate History.
35. Testimonies by Henry Wilding and Matthew Maguire to Edwards at customhouse, Liverpool, July 21, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:384.
36. Opinion of Collier, July 16, 23, 1862, in FRUS 1862, 151–52; Merli, Alabama, 66–72, 82–83.
37. T. F. Fremantle and G. C. L. Berkeley (the commissioners of customs) to Edwards, July 22, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:386; Merli, Alabama, 82–83; Jenkins, Britain, 2:124–25; Milton, Lincoln's Spymaster, 46; MacChesney, “Alabama.”
38. Merli, Alabama, 86–88; Jenkins, Britain, 2:125.
39. Morgan to Edwards, July 30, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:387–88; Edwards to Commissioners of Customs, July 30, 1862, ibid., 2:388; Edwards to F. G. Gardner, July 31, 1862, ibid., 2:388–89; Examination of Thomas Miller by collector at customhouse, Liverpool, Aug. 1, 1862, ibid., 2:390; Hearn, Gray Raiders of the Sea, 156–57.
40. Dudley to Edwards, July 30, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:387; Maynard, “Plotting the Escape” and “Union Efforts.” Two recent works attribute the Alabama's escape to a bungled British policy and not to complicity. See Merli, Alabama, chap. 4, and D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 245.
41. Edwards to Commissioners of Customs, Aug. 1, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:389; Merli, Alabama, 84.
42. W. G. Stewart (assistant collector, Liverpool) to Commissioners of Customs, Sept. 3, 1862, encl. in Alabama docs. requested by House of Commons, Mar. 20, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 2:391; Report from J. Hussey (assistant surveyor, Liverpool), Sept. 2, 1862, ibid., 2:391–92; Report from E. Morgan (surveyor), Liverpool, Sept. 3, 1862, ibid., 2:392.
43. Bulloch to Mallory, Sept. 10, 1862, ibid., 2:263–64.
44. Merli, Alabama, 61.
45. Ibid., 88; Stuart to RU, Aug. 16, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:520–21; McPherson, Battle Cry, 555 (Dudley); Layard to [?] Horsfall, July 5, 1862, encl. in RU to CFA, Aug. 4, 1862, encl. in CFA to Seward, Aug. 7, 1862, FRUS 1862, 171.
46. Wallace and Gillespie, Journal of … Moran, 2:1182 (July 11, 1863); Merli, Great Britain, 197–201.
47. Merli, Alabama, 23, and Great Britain, 202, 203 (Palmerston), 204, 211; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:122; Krein, “Russell's Decision.” For a detailed examination of British policy leading to seizure of the rams, see W. D. Jones, Confederate Rams at Birkenhead. The two rams became the HMS Scorpion and the HMS Wivern.
48. Merli, Great Britain, 216–17; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 418 (Bigelow).
49. Merli, Great Britain, 95–99; Robinson, Shark of the Confederacy; Fox, Wolf of the Deep; Taylor, Confederate Raider; Marvel, Alabama; RU, Recollections, 235; Eaton, Davis, 171; Tucker, Blue and Gray Navies, 286. Bonding meant that the Confederate captain allowed a commercial vessel carrying passengers or neutral goods if that vessel's captain signed a paper promising to pay a condemnation fee after the war. Tucker, 272. For the Alabama claims settlement, see Cook, Alabama Claims.
50. Seward to CFA, Aug. 2, 1862, Disp., GB (NA).
51. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:154; Matthew, Gladstone Diaries, 6:139 (July 31, 1862), 6:142 (Aug. 12, 1862), 6:142 n. 2, 6:154 n. 10; Gladstone memo on “Southern Gentleman,” July 31, 1862, and Gladstone to RU, Oct. 17, 1862, in Guedalla, Gladstone and Palmerston, 230–31. See also R. L. Reid, “Gladstone's ‘Insincere Neutrality'”; Butler, Gladstone, 122; Spence to Mason, Apr. 28, 1862, encl. in Mason to Benjamin, May 2, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:401–4.
52. Gladstone to AR, Aug. 3, 1862, in AR, Argyll, 2:191; Morley, Gladstone, 2:81; Magnus, Gladstone, 153.
53.Times, July 9, 12, 1862, and London Morning Post, Aug. [?], 1862, quoted in CFA Jr., Before and after the Treaty of Washington, 43–44.
54. Palmerston to Queen Victoria, Aug. 6, 1862, quoted in Bell, Palmerston, 2:327; CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 13–14. One of Victoria's biographers, Elizabeth Longford (Queen Victoria, 26, 66), points out that Leopold was not only the queen's uncle but also a father figure.
55. RU to Palmerston, Aug. 6, 1862, GC/RU/721, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); RU to Stuart, Aug. 7, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:519; RU to Stuart, Aug. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96.
56. Granville to Lord Stanley, Oct. 1, 1862, in Fitzmaurice, Granville, 1:442. Granville made his remark to Stratford Canning, British minister to Washington, during the early 1820s.
57. CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 12; AR to Gladstone, Aug. 6, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099, vol. 14 (Brit. Lib.); Bright to Cobden, Aug. 6, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,384, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.); Cobden to Bright, Aug. 7, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.). Cobden's argument for joint intervention is summarized in CFA Diary, June 29, 1862 (MHS). See also Bright, Speeches, and Gwin, “Slavery and English Polarity.”
58. CFA Diary, Aug. 7, 1862 (MHS); Stuart to RU, Aug. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Parish, Civil War, 393; Eaton, History, 84; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 226–27; Golder, “American Civil War,” 454, 456–57; Adamov, “Russia and the United States,” 596–97; Saul, Distant Friends, 321–23, 331; Woldman, Lincoln and the Russians, viii, 125, 127–30.
59.Times, Aug. 15, 1862, p. 6; Hammond to Layard, Aug. 17, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); Stuart to RU, Aug. 18, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Lewis to Sir George Grey, Aug. 27, 1862, Ripon Papers, Add. Mss., 43,533, vol. 43 (Brit. Lib.); Seward to CFA, Aug. 18, 1862, circular no. 20, FRUS 1862, 179; Moran Diary, Aug. 18, 1862 (LC). Moran was referring to Seward's dispatch to CFA of Aug. 2, 1862, Disp., GB (NA).
60. Greeley to Lincoln, Aug. 19, 1862, in CWL, 5:389 n. 1; Lincoln to Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862, ibid., 5:388.
61. Stuart to RU, Aug. 22, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; AR to Gladstone, Aug. 26, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099, vol. 14 (Brit. Lib.); AR to Palmerston, Sept. 2, 1862, GC/AR/25/1, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton).
62. Stuart to RU, Aug. 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Hammond to Layard, Aug. 28, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); Dayton to Seward, Aug. 8, 1862, Disp., France (NA) (Slidell's rebuff); Slidell to State Department in Richmond, Aug. 24, 1862, in Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 69–70.
63. Cobden to Bright, Aug. 28, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.); Bright to Cobden, Aug. 30, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,884, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.); Gladstone to AR, Aug. 29, 1862, and Gladstone to RU, Aug. 30, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Letter-Book, 1862–63, Add. Mss., 44,533, vol. 448 (Brit. Lib.); Zorn, “Bright and the British Attitude,” 145.
64. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics, 355 (British industrial figures), 618 (British shipping); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., May 8, 1862, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:139; Lyons to Stuart, July 29, 1862, quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:26; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 137, 140; McPherson, Battle Cry, 548–51; Hotze to Benjamin, Dec. 20, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:632–33. From 1861 on, the amount of cotton imported from India increased; in 1864, 67 percent of Britain's supply came from India and during the American war, 55 percent. See Logan, “India—Britain's Substitute for American Cotton,” 475–76. England eventually found India's cotton inferior to that from the Confederate South and turned to Egypt, whose cotton equaled the quality of that from the South, except for the Sea Island variety. See Earle, “Egyptian Cotton,” 527. New York business leaders and philanthropists worked to feed unemployed textile workers in Lancashire, helping to ease the pressure for Britain's intervention in the war. Carpenter, “New York International Relief Committee.”
65. Jenkins, Britain, 1:214; Lincoln, “Message to Congress in Special Session,” July 4, 1861, in CWL, 4:438; McPherson, Battle Cry, 550 (8); Eaton, History, 75–76 (Hotze). See also Marx and Engels, Civil War in the United States. Workers supported the Union as guardian of freedom, according to Park, “English Workingmen,” and Greenleaf, “British Labor.” Textile workers favored the Confederacy, argues Ellison in Support for Secession. For the most convincing refutation of the argument for southern sympathy, see Blackett, Divided Hearts, and D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion.
66. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics, 355, 618; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 289–90 (Thouvenel); Stuart to RU, Sept. 1, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
67. Stuart to RU, Sept. 9, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/33/36.
68. Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Feb. 13, 1863, in Ford, Adams Letters, 1:253; AR to Gladstone, Sept. 2, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099, vol. 14 (Brit. Lib.).
69. F. O. Mitchell to Layard, Sept. 3, 1862, Layard Papers, Dipl. Ser., Add. Mss., 39,104, vol. 174 (Brit. Lib.); Stuart to RU, Sept. 5, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Bright to Cobden, Sept. 6, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,384, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.); Gladstone to AR, Sept. 8, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Letter-Book, 1862–63, Add. Mss., 44,533, vol. 448 (Brit. Lib.).
70. Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Sept. 5, 1862, in Levenson et al., Letters of Henry Adams, 1:309–10.
71. CFA Diary, Sept. 14, 1862 (MHS); CWL, 5:404 n. 1 (top) (Bates), 486 n. 1 (top); RU to Cowley, Sept. 13, 1862 (PRO 30/22/105), Palmerston to RU, Sept. 14, 1862, and RU to Palmerston, Sept. 17, 1862 (PRO 30/22/14), all in RU Papers; Walpole, Lord John Russell, 2:349; Duberman, Adams, 294; McPherson, Battle Cry, 528, 555–56 (Lincoln, 533); Brauer, “British Mediation,” 57; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:38, 41.
72. Stuart to RU, Aug. 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
73. Dayton to Seward, Sept. 13, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
74. Seward conversation with Mercier is from Seward to Dayton, Sept. 8, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA). See also CFA Diary, Sept. 21, 1862 (MHS). In a recommendation made by his staff in early summer of 1862 (see chap. 5), Thouvenel proposed a boundary between Union and Confederacy that created two republics, one slave and one free. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 313–14; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 330–31; Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy,” 73–74. Russell had advocated this kind of solution at the beginning of the conflict.
1.Times, Sept. 16, 1862, p. 6; London Morning Post and Morning Herald, both Sept. 16, 1862, quoted in Jenkins, Britain, 2:151; Jenkins, 167.
2. Palmerston to RU, Sept. 14, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D; RU to Palmerston, Sept. 17, 1862, GC/RU/728, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton). Lewis agreed that the Union's great defeat had eased British fear of an invasion of Canada that winter of 1862. Lewis to Sir George Grey from the Home Office, Sept. 18, 1862, Ripon Papers, Add. Mss., 43,533, vol. 43 (Brit. Lib.).
3. Palmerston to RU, Sept. 22, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D; RU to Palmerston, Sept. 22, 1862, GC/RU/729, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton). Mercier's comment in Stuart to RU, Sept. 9, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/33/36.
4. Palmerston to RU, Sept. 23, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D. One writer argues, erroneously, that by mid-September Palmerston was still unaware of Russia's opposition to intervention or of Seward's dependence on Russia for assistance. B. P. Thomas, Russo-American Relations, chap. 8.
5. Palmerston to RU, Sept. 23, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
6. Palmerston to Gladstone, Sept. 24, 1862, in Morley, Gladstone, 2:76; RU to Gladstone, Sept. 26, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,292, vol. 207 (Brit. Lib.).
7. See Chapter 2 of this book. For the legal argument, see Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 2, chap. 1, sec. 114, and bk. 3, chap. 3, sec. 249, chap. 7, secs. 269–70.
8. RU to Cowley, Sept. 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/105.
9. Gladstone to Palmerston, Sept. 25, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44, 272, vol. 187 (Brit. Lib.).
10. Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xvi–xvii, 37, 66.
11. McPherson, Crossroads, 177 n. 56, and Battle Cry, 545 (McClellan, 569). For the most balanced coverage of the battle, see McPherson, Crossroads. See also Murfin, Gleam of Bayonets, L. M. Sears, Landscape Turned Red, and two edited works by Gallagher, Antietam and Antietam Campaign.
12. Benjamin to Mason, Sept. 26, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:538–39; Gallagher, Antietam Campaign, ix–x.
13. Benjamin to Mason, Sept. 26, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:539–40.
14. Ibid., 3:540–43. In the context of recognition expectations, Benjamin noted that the United States and Denmark had recently signed an agreement pertaining to Africans captured from slave ships at sea. Union officials intended to transfer Africans from captured slavers to Danish colonies in the West Indies in an attempt, he argued, to pull Denmark into the war against the Confederacy. The Lincoln administration had already made the war one of “indiscriminate robbery and murder” by authorizing the confiscation of property—including slaves—from anyone participating in the so-called rebellion. That law effectually emancipated the slaves, for an executive order directed Union military commanders to employ them as workers in the army. Union generals had already made it a practice to arm the slaves against their masters in an effort to instigate an insurrection. The Union's racial prejudice blocked a black migration into its states, so this treaty with Denmark was an attempt to rid the Union of freed slaves. President Davis had linked this potential problem with the Danish treaty. Ibid., 3:543; Benjamin to Mann, Aug. 14, 1862, ibid., 3:512–13.
15. CFA Jr. claimed that the news of Antietam reached England on September 26. CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 32. Case and Spencer (United States and France, 339–40) show that the first stories of the battle appeared in the Paris Moniteur on September 27 and 30, 1862. In England, Moran first referred to the Union victory on September 30. Moran Diary, Sept. 30, 1862 (LC). For the Shaftesbury episode, see Slidell to Benjamin, Sept. 29 (3:546), and Oct. 9, 1862 (3:551), ORN, 2nd ser.
16. Slidell to Benjamin, Sept. 29, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:546–47.
17. Ibid., 3:546, and Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 9, 1862, ibid., 3:551. For Adams's assessment of Shaftesbury, see CFA to Everett, May 2, 1862, CFA Letterbook (MHS). Brauer (“British Mediation,” 50–51) argues that Antietam exemplified the war's futility and thereby explains the British move toward mediation.
18. Benjamin to Mason, Sept. 26, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Lewis to Grey, Sept. 27, 1862, Ripon Papers, Add. Mss., 43,533, vol. 43 (Brit. Lib.); Hammond to Layard, Oct. 6, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); Moran Diary, Sept. 27, 1862 (LC); Gladstone to James Hudson, Sept. 27, 1862, and Gladstone to AR, Sept. 29, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,533, vol. 448 (Brit. Lib.).
19. Stuart to RU, Sept. 29, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Palmerston to RU, Sept. 30, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/14D.
20. Stuart to RU, Sept. 23, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/36; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 326–28, 338.
21. AR to Gladstone, Sept. 23, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,099, vol. 14 (Brit. Lib.); Granville to RU, Sept. 27, 1862, in Fitzmaurice, Granville, 1:443–44; Granville to RU, Sept. 29, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25. Granville sent Russell two letters from correspondents who argued that the Union would not approve mediation and that England had missed opportunities to ask the Russian tsar to propose the good offices of England, France, and Russia. J. Winslow to Lord Henry Brougham, Aug. 30, 1862, and Joseph Parkes to Brougham, Sept. 11, 1862, both encl. in Granville to RU, Sept. 30, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25. See also D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 225.
22. Jenkins, Britain, 2:63, 68; Clarendon to Lewis, Sept. 29, 1862, Clarendon Papers (Bodleian Lib.); CFA to Seward, Sept. 12, 1862, FRUS 1862, 189–90.
23. Ashmore, “Diary of James Garnett,” 2:115 (May 14, 19, July–Aug., Sept. 23, 1862), 126. Garnett served as mayor of Clitheroe from November 1863 to November 1865. Ibid., 2:131. For the introduction of improved equipment and methods, see Blaug, “Productivity of Capital,” 360. See also Brigg, Journals of a Lancashire Weaver, 138 (Apr. 10, 1864), 144 (Oct. 9, 1864). Cobden wrote Bright that all England was “thriving” except Lancashire. Cobden to Bright, Sept. 19, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add., Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.).
24. For the argument against a cotton famine, see Brady, “Reconsideration of the Lancashire ‘Cotton Famine'”; Broadbridge, “Lancashire Cotton ‘Famine'”; R. H. Jones, “Long Live the King?” In The Lancashire Cotton Famine, W. O. Henderson argues that a shortage of cotton affected nearly a half million Lancashire textile workers. Owsley (King Cotton Diplomacy, 136) also claims there was a cotton famine, dating its beginning in late 1862. Mill owners, mill workers, and residents of London attested to the hard times in Lancashire during the winter of 1862–63. James Garnett recorded in his diary that the cotton famine reached its worst level in Low Moor. He made many references throughout October 1862 to relief for the distressed. Clitheroe and other cotton towns had local relief committees who secured assistance from poor law officials. The previous month the Garnetts furnished their own relief at first. Ashmore, “Diary of James Garnett,” 2:115–19, 131. See also Foner, British Labor, 5. For the argument that textile workers supported the Confederacy, see Ellison, Support for Secession. For the more convincing counterargument, see Blackett, Divided Hearts, and D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion.
25. Blackett, Divided Hearts, 24, 119–20, 143. Ernest Jones was the reformer and lawyer.
26. Ibid., 24 (quote), 243.
27. CFA to Seward, Oct. 3, 1862, FRUS 1862, 205; Seward to CFA, Oct. 18, 1862, ibid., 212–13. According to one writer, the Emancipation Proclamation led to a “battle for democracy” in England as well as the United States. St. Clair, “Slavery as a Diplomatic Factor,” 275.
28. Lincoln, “Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations,” Sept. 13, 1862, in CWL, 5:422–23.
29. Ibid., 5:419–21, 423; Chicago Tribune, Sept. 23, 1862, and National Intelligencer, Sept. 26, 1862, both cited ibid., 5:419 n. 1.
30. Seward to CFA, Sept. 8, 1862, FRUS 1862, 188; Seward to CFA, circular, Sept. 22, 1862, ibid., 195; Donald, Inside Lincoln's Cabinet, 149–51 (Sept. 22, 1862); Lincoln, “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation,” Sept. 22, 1862, in CWL, 5:434.
31. Jenkins, Britain, 2:153; Franklin, Emancipation Proclamation, 129–40; McPherson, Battle Cry, 510, 557–58; Oates, “‘Man of Our Redemption,'” 17, 19–20; McPherson, Abraham Lincoln, 34–35; T. J. Barnett to Samuel L. M. Barlow, Sept. 25, 1862 (Lincoln), quoted in McPherson, Battle Cry, 558.
32. McClellan to Mary Ellen (wife), Sept. 25, 1862, in S. W. Sears, Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan, 481.
33. Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 467; Van Deusen, Seward, 333; McConnell, “From Preliminary to Final Emancipation Proclamation,” 275; Dennett, Diaries and Letters of John Hay, 50 (Sept. 26, 1862); George S. Denison (collector of internal revenue for Louisiana after Lincoln lifted the blockade) to Chase, Oct. 8, 1862, American Historical Association, Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, 319.
34. Stuart also told Lyons about the Confederate retreat from Maryland and the announcement of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Stuart to Lyons, Sept. 23, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Stuart to RU, Sept. 23, 26, Oct. 7, 10, 1862, ibid.; Hammond to Layard, Oct. 6, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.); Cobden to Bright, Oct. 6, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.); E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:103 n. 5.
35. Heckman, “British Press Reaction”; Times, Oct. 7, 1862 (p. 8), Oct. 21, 1862 (p. 9); Spectator, n.d., quoted in Whitridge, “British Liberals,” 694; Bee-Hive, Oct. 11, 1862, quoted in K. J. Logan, “Bee-Hive Newspaper,” 341; “The Crisis of the American War,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 92 (November 1862): 636–46 (quote, 636).
36. Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 65–66, 95. The Conservative papers cited included the Pays; among the Liberal papers was the Temps. For a breakdown of the French newspapers by political affiliation, see Blackburn, 9.
37. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 2, 3, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
38. Ibid.; Jenkins, Britain, 2:170. Merli (Great Britain, 118, 257, 259) shows Palmerston's reluctance to consider mediation after the battle of Antietam.
39. RU to Palmerston, Oct. 2, 4, 6, 1862, GC/RU/731–33, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton).
40. Stoeckl to Gorchakov, Sept. 25, 1862, in Brauer, “Slavery Problem,” 463. Brunow quoted and Gorchakov cited from E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:45 n. 2.
41. Dayton to Seward, Oct. 14, 1862, Disp., France (NA); Times, Oct. 7, 1862, p. 8.
42. Seward to CFA, Sept. 26, 1862, FRUS 1862, 202. McPherson (Battle Cry) argues that the battle of Antietam “frustrated Confederate hopes for British recognition and precipitated the Emancipation Proclamation. The slaughter at Sharpsburg therefore proved to have been one of the war's great turning points…. Thus ended the South's best chance for European intervention…. By enabling Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation the battle … ensured that Britain would think twice about intervening against a government fighting for freedom as well as Union” (pp. 545, 556–57). S. W. Sears (Landscape Turned Red) largely agrees: “If Antietam abruptly halted the movement toward foreign intervention, the proclamation on emancipation put the seal on the matter.” He admits that the latter impact “was not immediately apparent” because of the venomous reaction in England to the belief that Lincoln was trying to stir up slave revolts. Sears then claims that Lincoln's Proclamation “made it virtually impossible for any civilized power to enter the conflict on the side of the South” (p. 334). Owsley (King Cotton Diplomacy) declares that Antietam marked “the death-blow of Confederate recognition,” for Palmerston “turned against present mediation when the news of Confederate military failure arrived” (p. 347). For the counterargument that the Emancipation Proclamation had no substantial impact on British public opinion, see Hernon, “British Sympathies.”
43. See CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 24; Jenkins, Britain, 2:33, 63–64, 71; Brauer, “British Mediation”; Graebner, “European Interventionism.”
44. Matthew, Gladstone Diaries, 6:152 n. 6; Times, Oct. 8, 1862 (p. 7), Oct. 9, 1862 (pp. 7–8); Ridley, Palmerston, 558.
45. Mann to Benjamin, Oct. 7, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:551 (1st quote); Mann to Benjamin, Oct. 26, 1862, ibid., 3:567; Lawley to Gladstone, Dec. 23, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,399, vol. 314 (Brit. Lib.); CFA to Seward, Oct. 10, 1862, FRUS 1862, 209. Lawley had been a member of Parliament and a private secretary to Gladstone but left England because of financial problems caused by gambling. See also CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 32–33; CFA Diary, Oct. 8, 9, 12, 1862 (MHS); Crawford, Anglo-American Crisis, 132, 172 n. 8; and Jenkins, “Frank Lawley” and Britain and the War, 2:47–50. Two writers have found no evidence for the charge that Gladstone's speech was the cabinet's “trial balloon” to gauge popular feeling. Rather, they believe it likely that Gladstone was out of touch with the cabinet. See Merli, Great Britain, 100, 107–8, and Matthew, Gladstone, 133.
46. Cobden to Bright, Oct. 7, 1862, Cobden Papers, Add. Mss., 43,652, vol. 6 (Brit. Lib.); Bright to Cobden, Oct. 8, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,384, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.). See also D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 241.
47. AR to RU, Oct. 11, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25.
48. Clarendon to Lewis, Oct. 13, 1862, Clarendon Papers (Bodleian Lib.) (Derby); Clarendon to Palmerston, Oct. 16, 1862, GC/CL/1207, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 241.
49. Gladstone to RU, Oct. 17, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,292, vol. 207 (Brit. Lib.); D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 178–79. See also R. L. Reid, “Gladstone's ‘Insincere Neutrality.'”
50. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 12, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/22; Palmerston to RU, Oct. 17, Dec. 17, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/14D.
51. CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 32; Matthew, Gladstone, 133–34, 186; Gladstone to Arthur Gordon (the correspondent), Sept. 22, 1862, in Matthew, 134; Jenkins, Britain, 2:22–23. Palmerston expressed to Clarendon the same reservations about Gladstone's speech. See Palmerston to Clarendon, Oct. 20, 1862, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:267.
52. Hammond to Layard, Oct. 12, 18, 26, 27, 1862, Layard Papers, Add. Mss., 38,951, vol. 21 (Brit. Lib.).
53. RU to Gladstone, Oct. 20, 26, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,292, vol. 207 (Brit. Lib.).
54. CFA Diary, Oct. 8, 9, 23, 1862 (MHS); Morley, Gladstone, 2:80; Moran Diary, Oct. 9, 24, 1862 (LC); CFA to Seward, Oct. 24, 1862, FRUS 1862, 224.
55. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
56. RU to Cowley, Oct. 11, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/105.
57. All quotes in RU, “Memorandum” for FO, Oct. 13, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.). See also E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:49–50.
58. AR to RU, Oct. 15, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25.
59. G. F. Lewis, Letters of … George Cornewall Lewis, vi, viii–ix, xi; Earl of Aberdeen to Lewis, Nov. 6, 1858, ibid., 352; Lewis to W. Twisleton (first friend), Jan. 21, 1861, ibid., 391–92; Lewis to Sir Edmund Head, governor of Canada (second friend), Mar. 10, 1861, ibid., 393; Lewis to Head, May 13, Sept. 8, 1861, ibid., 395, 402; Head to Twisleton, Nov. 30, 1861, ibid., 405–6. Characterization of Lewis by Argyll in AR, Argyll, 1:540.
60. CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 37 (Lewis at Hereford); Clarendon to Lewis, Oct. 13, 1862 [Derby's view], Clarendon Papers (Bodleian Lib.); Palmerston to Clarendon, Oct. 20, 1862, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:267; Clarendon to Palmerston, Oct. 16, 1862, GC/CL/1207/1–3, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); Lewis, “Memorandum on the American Question,” Oct. 17, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.); Morley, Gladstone, 2:80; Merli, Great Britain, 107–9. There were rumors that Palmerston had arranged for Lewis to deliver the speech at Hereford, but they now seem unfounded. See E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:50, 50 n. 1; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 233.
61. Regarding Lewis's mention of the Emancipation Proclamation, Gladstone inserted a marginal comment on the memo: “May have about played their last very great card.” Lewis, “Memorandum on American Question,” Oct. 17, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.).
62. Ibid. Lewis's quote was a loose rendition of Hamlet's words in William Shakespeare's play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, act 3, scene 1.
63. Dayton to Seward, Oct. 17, 1862, Disp., France (NA); RU to Cowley, Oct. 18, 1862 (PRO 30/22/105), and RU to Stuart, Oct. 18 [?], 1862 (PRO 30/22/96), RU Papers; RU to Palmerston, Oct. 18, 20, 1862, GC/RU/734–35, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton). As Dayton thought at the time, Thouvenel's dismissal probably stemmed primarily from his disagreements with Napoleon over Italian policies. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 346, 352.
64. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 20, 21, 22, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
65. Russell claimed that Palmerston had decided against a cabinet meeting and only told him the day before. RU to Grey, Oct. 28, 1862, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:331–32. See also Lewis to Grey, Oct. 23, 1862 [Lewis quote], Ripon Papers, Add. Mss., 43,533, vol. 43 (Brit. Lib.); CFA Diary, Oct. 23, 1862 (MHS); CFA to Seward, Oct. 14, 1862, FRUS 1862, 224; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:55; and Clarendon to Lewis, Oct. 24, 1862, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:265.
66. Clarendon to Lewis, Oct. 24, 1862, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:265–66.
67. RU to Palmerston, Oct. 24, 1862, GC/RU/736, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton). See also RU to Cowley, Oct. 11, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/105.
68. Seward to Dayton, Oct. 8, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
69. H. Percy Anderson (British agent) to Stuart, Oct. 1, 1862, encl. in Stuart to RU, Oct. 7, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.).
70. Gladstone, “The War in America,” Oct. 24, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.).
71. RU Memo for FO, Oct. 23, 1862, Gladstone Papers, ibid.
72. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 23, 24, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
73. Lewis to RU, Oct. 25, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/25; RU to Lewis, Oct. 26, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/14D; Jenkins, Britain, 2:177.
74. Grey to RU, Oct. 27, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/25.
75. RU to Grey, Oct. 28, 1862, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:332.
76. Palmerston to RU, Oct. 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
77. Seward to Dayton, Oct. 20, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
78. Dayton to Seward, Oct. 2, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
1. D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 248; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:60; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 335; Carroll, Mercier, 239–40; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 356–61. Case and Spencer argue that Napoleon “apparently” based his plan on Russell's September objectives (p. 356).
2. Stuart to RU, Oct. 17, 24, 26, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36. Stuart expressed his support for intervention to George Elliott (Stuart to Elliott, Oct. 24, 1862, ibid.). For Mercier's proseparatist feelings, see Case and Spencer, United States and France, 353. Stuart's pro-Confederate sympathies become plain in his dispatches to Russell while Lyons was in London from June through early November 1862.
3. Taylor to Seward, Oct. 29, 1862, cited in Saul, Distant Friends, 333 (emphases are Taylor's); Gorchakov to Stoeckl, Oct. 27, 1862, cited ibid., 335.
4. Dayton to Seward, Nov. 6, 21, 1862, Disp., France (NA).
5. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:153, 155; Sanford to Seward, Aug. 13, Sept. 2, 1862, both cited in Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 81; Hanna and Hanna, 118; Mann to Benjamin, Sept. 1, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:523; C. E. Crook, “Benjamin Théron.”
6. Cowley to RU, Oct. 27, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D; Cowley's memo of his conversation with Drouyn, Oct. 28, 1862, FO 27/1446 (PRO).
7. Slidell memo on interview with Napoleon, encl. in Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:575.
8. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ibid., 3:573–74; Slidell memo on interview with Napoleon, encl. ibid., 3:575.
9. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ibid., 3:575. See also Case and Spencer, United States and France, 356–57, and Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 333–36. Whether Drouyn did not know of Napoleon's implied assurance of military action or had convinced him to change course, the new foreign secretary two days later assured Mercier that the Paris government would not attempt to force the Union into accepting the proposal. Probably Drouyn was unaware of Napoleon's assurance. Drouyn to Mercier, Oct. 30, 1862, cited in Owsley, 336. Owsley does not explore this important matter, simply stating that Drouyn assured Mercier that there should be no use of force against the Union.
10. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:576.
11. Memo of Slidell interview with Napoleon, encl. ibid.; Slidell to Mason, Oct. 29, 1862, Mason Papers (LC). Although Slidell's note of October 29 did not reach Richmond until December 31, he wrote Mason the same day—October 29—about the interview. Mason presumably informed Benjamin soon afterward (and long before December 31), for on December 11 Benjamin wrote Mason of the Confederacy's support for a six-month armistice (in Mason Papers). See also Case and Spencer, United States and France, 356–57, 364.
12. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 20, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:561.
13. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ibid., 3:576.
14. Ibid., 3:576–77.
15. Ibid., 3:577.
16. Ibid. For Chevalier's influence on Napoleon III, see Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 60 n. 3, 60–68, 199.
17. Slidell to Benjamin, Oct. 28, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:578. The heavy casualties at the battles of Solferino and Magenta in June 1859 convinced Napoleon III to seek a truce with Austria that soon ended the Second War of Italian independence and contributed to the country's unification.
18. Slidell memo on interview with Napoleon, encl. ibid., 3:577–78.
19. Mason to Benjamin, Nov. 8, 1862, ibid., 3:603; Benjamin to Mason, Jan. 15, 1863, ibid., 3:656; Bulloch, Secret Service, 2:23–24; Benjamin to Mason, Dec. 11, 1862, Mason Papers (LC); Mason to Benjamin, Nov. 6, 1862, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 2:359.
20. Benjamin to Mason, Oct. 28, 31, 1862, Mason Papers (LC).
21. Cowley to RU, Oct. 31, 1862, FO 27/1446/1236 (PRO); RU to Lyons, Nov. 1, 1862 [Seward's assertion], RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96 (Cobden); RU to Cowley, Nov. 1, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/105.
22. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 361. E. D. Adams (Great Britain, 2:60 n. 2) argues that Napoleon never offered a mediation, although it was implied.
23. RU to Palmerston, GC/RU/739, Nov. 3, 1862, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton).
24. Leopold to Palmerston, Oct. 30–Nov. 3, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D; Leopold to RU, Oct. 31, 1862, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:332; Palmerston to RU, Nov. 2, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D. Palmerston focused on Greek problems in his November 2 letter and in others through December. Palmerston to RU, Nov. 2, 1862, and after. See RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D.
25. Stuart to RU, Nov. 4, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
26. Stuart to RU, Nov. 7, 1862, ibid., RU to Grey, Oct. 28, 1862, in Gooch, Later Correspondence, 2:332; McPherson, Battle Cry, 561–62; Graebner, “Northern Diplomacy”; Brauer, “British Mediation.”
27. Lyons to RU, Nov. 11, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
28. Ibid.
29. Slidell to Benjamin, Nov. 11, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:603–4.
30. Mercier's views reported in Lyons to RU, Nov. 14, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
31. Lyons to RU, Nov. 14, 1862, ibid., PRO 30/22/36; Lyons to RU, Nov. 17, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:534–39. Russell demonstrated his lack of understanding of the American political system when he asked Lyons if the election of the next president would be in autumn 1864. RU to Lyons, Nov. 8, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/96. Lyons's biographer remarks in vague terms that while the minister was home in London, he was in “constant communication with the cabinet” and that the ministers opposed interference in the American war but thought it “might be forced upon them.” See Newton, Lord Lyons, 1:89–90. Lincoln had relieved McClellan on November 7, saying the general had moved too slowly toward Richmond. When McClellan kept “delaying on little pretexts of wanting this and that,” the president complained to his private secretary: “I began to fear that he was playing false—that he did not want to hurt the enemy.” McPherson, Battle Cry, 562, 569–70.
32. Lyons to RU, Nov. 14, 18, 24, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36; Lyons to RU, Nov. 18, 1862 (confidential), FO 5/838, PRO.
33. Gardiner, Life of … Harcourt, 1:125, 127, 132–37; Jenkins, Britain, 2:179–80; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 241; Merli, Great Britain, 114–15.
34. Historicus letter dated Nov. 4, 1862, in Times, Nov. 7, 1862, pp. 6–7; Letter reprinted in Harcourt, Letters by Historicus, 3–15 (quotes, 8, 9–10); Historicus, “Neutrality or Intervention,” in Harcourt, Letters, 41–51 (quotes 42–43, 46–51) (letter in Times, Nov. 17, 1862, p. 9). Historicus claimed that in October Palmerston had been wrong in defining “Lewis's Doctrine” as an argument for England to postpone recognition until the Union first recognized the Confederacy; Lewis had called instead for “de facto independence” (Letter of Nov. 8, 1862, in Harcourt, Letters, 8). See also E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:63; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 251; and CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 40–41. Hotze wrote Benjamin that the Times's refusal to print his rebuttal to Historicus demonstrated that it was partial to the Palmerston ministry. Hotze to Benjamin, Nov. 22, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:611–12.
35. Lewis, “Recognition of the Independence of the Southern States of the North American Union,” Nov. 7, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,595, vol. 510 (Brit. Lib.) (hereafter cited as Lewis, “Recognition of Independence). The original draft (though incomplete) is in the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth. See Lewis Papers, War Office and India, 3509, 3510, and 3514. The assistant keeper of the Department of Manuscripts and Records, Gwyn Jenkins, assured me that Lewis's papers contain no other references to this aspect of the Civil War.
36. When Lewis wrote that recognition of independence by a foreign government was “recognition of a fact,” Gladstone responded in the margin: “in what sense?” Lewis, “Recognition of Independence.” The United States itself sent a secret agent to Hungary in 1850 to determine how far the revolt had progressed before deciding whether to extend recognition. Austria lodged a formal complaint, causing the U.S. government to refrain from making a decision. In supporting his argument regarding recognition, Lewis cited and quoted John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), 215 (quote). See also Austin, 206–7. Austin was the first professor of jurisprudence (philosophy of law) at the University of London on its founding in 1826. Two years later, Lewis was among a number of Benthamites who attended Austin's lectures on jurisprudence. In 1836 Austin joined Lewis as a commissioner to offer advice on constitutional and legal reforms in Malta. See Introduction to Austin by H. L. A. Hart, viii. Lewis's other historical examples were the Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Belgium, the South American colonies and Spain, and the South American colonies and Portugal. Lewis, “Recognition of Independence.” Lewis also cited Wheaton, Elements of International Law (1836 ed.), pt. I, sec. 26. The Benthamites were followers of the mid-eighteenth-century British reformer, Jeremy Bentham.
37. Lewis, “Recognition of Independence.” Lewis cited Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, sec. 295. Lewis's reference to recognition was to Mason's letter, which appeared in the Times on October 22, 1862, p. 8. On the question of what recognition could have done for the South, Gladstone wrote in the margin of Lewis's memo that the action would “accelerate the issue” of independence.
38. Lewis, “Recognition of Independence”; Lewis to Harcourt, Nov. 21, 1862, Harcourt Papers, box 12 (Bodleian Lib.). Lewis cited Vattel, Law of Nations, bk. 3, sec. 295; see also sec. 296. The law of nature is, of course, the basis of international law.
39. Lewis, “Recognition of Independence.”
40. Ibid.
41. Lord Napier (Brit. ambassador in St. Petersburg) to RU, Nov. 8, 1862, cited in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:63, 66; Lewis to Clarendon, Nov. 11, 1862, in Maxwell, Clarendon, 2:268; Jenkins, Britain, 2:180. Russell had first learned of the French proposal unofficially on November 1.
42. Lewis to Clarendon, Nov. 11, 1862, Clarendon Papers (Bodleian Lib.); Gladstone to wife, Nov. 12, 13, 1862, in Morley, Gladstone, 2:85. On November 13 an article appeared in the Times, Lewis noted, “throwing cold water on the invitation.” He assumed that someone had informed the editor, John Delane, of the cabinet's decision. See Times, Nov. 13, 1862, p. 8. Palmerston, one might note, maintained close ties with Delane. See Crawford, Anglo-American Crisis, 18.
43. Lewis to Clarendon, Nov. 11, 1862, Clarendon Papers (Bodleian Lib.).
44. RU to Cowley, Nov. 13, 1862, Cowley Papers, FO 146/1046 (PRO); Cowley to RU, Nov. 18, 1862, cited in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 363.
45. Lewis to Harcourt, Nov. 11, 1862, Harcourt Papers, box 12 (Bodleian Lib.); Gladstone to wife, Nov. 12, 1862, in Morley, Gladstone, 2:85; Lyons to RU, Nov. 28, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/36.
46. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 358–59; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 247, 254; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 336, 355, 357; Dayton to Seward, Nov. 14, 21, 24, 1862, Disp., France (NA); De Leon, Secret History, 157 (Moniteur quote, 158).
47. W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion, 88; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion, 92 (quote), 98.
48. Moran Diary, Nov. 11, 12, 1862 (LC); Times, Nov. 13, 1862, p. 8.
49. Moran Diary, Nov. 15, 1862 (LC); CFA Diary, Nov. 15, 1862 (MHS); Russian letter in Journal of St. Petersburg, Nov. 15, 1862, published in Times, Nov. 17, 1862, p. 12, and enclosed in CFA to Seward, Nov. 15, 1862, FRUS 1863, 3; CFA to Seward, Nov. 13, 1862, FRUS 1863, 1. (Adams was referring to the Journal of St. Petersburg.) See also Saul, Distant Friends, 334–35, and Woldman, Lincoln and the Russians, 133–35.
50. Moran Diary, Nov. 12, 13, 15, 1862 (LC).
51. Lyons to RU, Dec. 2, 1862, BFSP 1864–1865, 55:539–40; Seward to Dayton, Nov. 30, 1862, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Seward to CFA, Dec. 8, 1862, FRUS 1863, 12–13; Seward to Bayard Taylor, Dec. 7, 1862, Dip. Instructions, Russia (NA). Taylor had sent dispatches dated Nov. 11, 12, and 15, all assuring Lincoln of the tsar's friendly policy.
52. Lawley to Gladstone, Dec. 23, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,399, vol. 314 (Brit. Lib.); Index, Nov. 20, 1862, p. 56, quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:68.
53. E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:69; CFA Diary, Nov. 15, 1862, May 3, 1868 (MHS); Seward to CFA, Aug. 2, 1862, FRUS 1862, 165–66; Duberman, Adams, 297–98; CFA, “Reminiscences of His Mission to Great Britain, 1861–1862” (begun in September 1867), in CFA, Miscellany, Adams Family Papers, reel 296 (MHS).
54.Index, Jan. 15, 1863, p. 191 (Richmond Whig), quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:68; Harcourt to Lewis [1863?], Harcourt Papers, box 12 (Bodleian Lib.).
55. Palmerston to RU, Dec. 17, 1862, RU Papers, PRO 30/22/14D; Palmerston to Leopold, Nov. 18, 1862, PM/J/I, Palmerston Letterbook, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); Gladstone to Field, Nov. 27, 1862, Gladstone Papers, Add. Mss., 44,399, vol. 314 (Brit. Lib.). Field helped develop the transatlantic cable.
56. Slidell to Benjamin, Nov. 29, 1862, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:612–13; Slidell to Mason, late November 1862, quoted in CFA Jr., “Crisis of Foreign Intervention,” 51.
57. JD speech in Jackson, Miss., Dec. 26, 1862, in JD, Papers, 8:576.
58. McPherson, “‘Whole Family of Man,'” 131–32; Stoeckl to Gorchakov, Dec. 24, 1862/Jan. 5, 1863, cited in Saul, Distant Friends, 335.
59. JD to Confederate Congress, Jan. 12, 1863, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:280–81, 290, 292; Lyons to RU, Jan. 19, 1863, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 2:303.
60. Gurowski, Diary, 278; Lincoln, Emancipation Proclamation, Jan. 1, 1863, CWL, 6:30; Franklin, Emancipation Proclamation, 86–87.
61. Paludan, Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, 187–88 (Marx); Lincoln, Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Sept. 22, 1862, CWL, 5:433–34.
62.London Morning Star, Oct. 6, 1862, quoted in Nevins, War Becomes Revolution, 270.
63. Bright to Cobden, Dec. 24, 1862, Bright Papers, Add. Mss., 43,384, vol. 2 (Brit. Lib.); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., Jan. 27, 1863 (1:243–45), and CFA to CFA Jr., Dec. 25, 1862 (1:220–21), both in Ford, Adams Letters; CFA Diary, Jan. 2, 13, 16, 17, Feb. 27, 1863 (MHS); CFA to Seward, Jan. 2, 1863, Disp., GB (NA); Blackett, “Pressures from Without,” 71–74, 90–91, and Divided Hearts, 75–77, 80–81; Jordan and Pratt, Europe and the American Civil War, 145–63; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:152. For intervention as the real threat to Anglo-American relations but coming to an end in November 1862, see Beloff, “Historical Revision,” 47. For the argument that commercial concerns helped maintain Anglo-American ties, see Claussen, “Peace Factors.”
64. Lincoln to Workingmen of Manchester, England, Jan. 19, 1863, CWL, 6:64; Lincoln to Workingmen of London, Feb. 2, 1863, CWL, 6:88–89; Donald, Lincoln, 415.
65. Blackett, “Pressures from Without,” 77–81, 87–90; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 177; RU to Lyons, Feb. 14, 1863, quoted in E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:155; Gregory to Mason, Mar. 18, 1863, Mason Papers (LC). On the lack of significant southern support in England, see Blackett, Divided Hearts, and D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion.
66. McPherson, Battle Cry, 568–75 (Lincoln, 574), 580–83, 645–46. For the definitive account of the battle, see Rable, Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!
67. Lincoln, “Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day,” Mar. 30, 1863, CWL, 6:156.
68. McPherson, Abraham Lincoln, 35; Lincoln to Johnson, Mar. 26, 1863, CWL, 6:149–50; Lincoln to James C. Conkling, Aug. 26, 1863, CWL, 6:408–9; Paludan, Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, xv; McPherson, Negro's Civil War, 158. Before the war ended, some 180,000 black soldiers had worn Union blue (along with 29,000 more in its navy, or a fourth of its rolls), which made up nearly 12 percent of the Union's fighting force in 1865 while depleting much of the Confederacy's labor supply.
69. Lincoln to Chase, Sept. 2, 1863, CWL, 6:428–29; Cox, Lincoln and Black Freedom, 15; H. Jones, “To Preserve a Nation,” 174–75.
70. Other writers who have noted Lewis's role in countering the interventionists are E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:44–46, 52–58, 62–63, 73–74; Ellsworth, “Anglo-American Affairs in October 1862,” 94–95; Merli and Wilson, “British Cabinet and the Confederacy,” 254, 256, 258, 261–62; Merli, Great Britain, 109–15; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 233–36, 240–41, 251; and Jenkins, Britain, 2:169–70, 173–76, 179. Merli and Wilson attribute nonintervention primarily to Palmerston. Their argument, however, does not show that the prime minister had opposed the timing of an intervention rather than the step itself.
71. McPherson, What They Fought For, 19, and For Cause and Comrades, 148–49. On nationalism in Europe, see Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 52.
72. For thought-provoking speculation on what British intervention would have meant for Anglo-American relations, see Nevins, War Becomes Revolution, 2:242.
73. Seward to CFA, Aug. 27, 1866, folder 6302: DS Printed Material, Seward Papers (U. of Rochester).
1. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 385.
2. Ibid., 386–88; Drouyn to Mercier, Jan. 9, 1863, NFFL, France (NA).
3. Drouyn and Dayton conversation quoted in Dayton to Seward, Jan. 15, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
4. Ibid. (Drouyn); Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 58, and “France, Austria,” 230; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 371, 548.
5. Dayton to Seward, Jan. 27, 30, 1863, Disp., France (NA). See also Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 93, 117. Owsley did not believe Drouyn trustworthy; see, e.g., King Cotton Diplomacy, 516.
6. Napoleon's Annual Address to the National Assembly, Jan. 15, 1863, cited in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 392; ibid., 393.
7. Donald, Lincoln, 416–18 (1st three quotes). CG, 37th Cong., 3rd sess., Jan. 14, 1863, p. 314, app., 52–60 (last two quotes).
8. Donald, Lincoln, 414–15 (quotes); Case and Spencer, United States and France, 393–94. See also Spencer, “Jewett-Greeley Affair.”
9.New York Tribune, Jan. 28, 29, 1863, quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 394.
10. Carroll, Mercier, 251–57; Donald, Sumner and the Rights of Man, 103, and Lincoln, 414 (quote).
11. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 393–95; Donald, Lincoln, 414–15.
12. Donald, Lincoln, 415.
13. Merli, “Crown versus Cruiser,” 167–77, Great Britain, 161–77, and Alabama, 88 (judge), 179; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 183; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 398–99 (Russell, 399), 407–8, 410 (Russell, 399). Bernath gives the Peterhoff case exhaustive treatment within the context of international law and national self-interest; see his Squall across the Atlantic and his two articles: “British Neutrality” and “Squall Across the Atlantic.” For the Peterhoff and other cases, see Hanna, “Incidents of the Confederate Blockade.”
14. JD to Confederate Congress, Jan. 12, 1863, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:288. For reference to Davis's January 12 address to the Confederate Congress, see Lyons to RU, Jan. 19, 1863, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 2:303. See also Schoonover, “Napoleon Is Coming!,” 107, 112–14, 121; Blumenthal, Reappraisal of Franco-American Relations, 172.
15. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 159–60.
16. Ibid., 161–62; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 365.
17. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 162–65 (Economist, 165); Lyons to RU, Mar. 6, 1863, in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 3:17 (reference to Mercier); Gentry, “Confederate Success,” 159–61. The loan offer originated in September 1862. Gentry, 182.
18. McPherson, Battle Cry, 683–84; Kutolowski, “Effect of the Polish Insurrection”; Orzell, “‘Favorable Interval'”; Sanford to Seward, May 19, 1863, cited in Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 90.
19. For the European context of the visits, see Golder, “Russian Fleet and the Civil War”; Adamov, “Russia and the United States”; Nagengast, “Visit of the Russian Fleet”; Higham, “Russian Fleet on the Eastern Seaboard”; and Orzell, “‘Favorable Interval.'” Pomeroy (“Myth after the Russian Fleet”) agrees with the argument, asserting that the American press understood at the time that the visit did not indicate support for the Union or opposition to slavery. Kushner (“Russian Fleet”) argues that Lincoln and Seward exploited the fleet's presence to suggest Russian support for the Union. For the more convincing and broader argument, see Saul, Distant Friends, 340–45.
20. McPherson, Battle Cry, 683–84; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 110–11; Barker, “France, Austria,” 224–45.
21. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 399–401; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 441, 513–14; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 264–65, 335–36; Hanna, “Roles of the South,” 9–10; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 90.
22. Mann to Benjamin, Mar. 19, 1863, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 2:419; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 336; Berwanger, “Union and Confederate Reaction.” C. E. Crook (“Benjamin Théron”) analyzes two letters from the French consular agent and vice-consul for Spain in Galveston indicating French interest in detaching Texas from the Confederacy. Hanna (“Roles of the South”) shows that the Confederacy welcomed the French intervention in Mexico as a way to block Union soldiers from entering northern Mexico en route to attack Texas.
23. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 401–2; Paul to Drouyn, Mar. 15, 1863, cited ibid., 401.
24. Cowley to RU, Apr. 10, 1863 (Napoleon), cited in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 402; ibid., 402, 404, 408; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 369–82; E. D. Adams, Great Britain, 2:158–63; Hubbard, Burden of Confederate Diplomacy, 128–29; Dayton to Seward, Mar. 13, 20, 27, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
25. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 408.
26. Ibid., 409.
27. Ibid.; Slidell memo on meeting of June 18, 1863, encl. in Slidell to Benjamin, June 21, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:812–14; Slidell to Mason, June 29, 1863, Mason Papers (LC). Why Slidell thought Spain would send its fleet to help France remains a mystery. The Madrid government had remained neutral throughout the war, joining other powers in arguing that reunion seemed impossible but that the Confederacy must prove itself on the battlefield. It did not want to risk alienating the Union or the Confederacy, for either one as victor could pose a postwar threat to Cuba and other Spanish possessions in the hemisphere. Furthermore, Spain faced a host of foreign problems as well as political instability at home. Finally, Spain's earlier withdrawal from Mexico suggested disenchantment with Napoleon's intentions. For Spain's adherence to neutrality, see Cortada, Spain, 58, 63.
28. Slidell memo, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:812–14 (quote, 813). See also Case and Spencer, United States and France, 409.
29. Slidell to Benjamin, June 21, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:810–12. See also Case and Spencer, United States and France, 409–10.
30. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 410–11; Slidell to Benjamin, June 21, 1863 (Drouyn), cited ibid., 411.
31. Slidell to Benjamin, June 21, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:811; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 411.
32. Hotze to Benjamin, June 6, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:783–86; Bigelow, Retrospections, 2:26 (Carlyle); Henry Adams to CFA Jr., June 25, 1863, in Ford, Adams Letters, 2:40; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 398. See also Leader, Roebuck. A. W. Kinglake, Liberal MP from Bridgewater, made the Robespierre comparison; quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 175. Maximilien Robespierre was a leader of the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution. As a powerful member of the Committee of Public Safety, he pushed for the execution of King Louis XVI during the Reign of Terror that ended with his own execution in 1794.
33. Lindsay's account in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 449.
34. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 412–16; Napoleon to Drouyn, July 14, 1863, cited ibid., 415–16.
35. Ibid., 331, 403, 420 (La France); Dayton to Seward, May 29, 1863, cited 420; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 315.
36. Dayton to Seward, June 26, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
37. U.S. DS, Correspondence concerning Claims, June 30, 1863, pp. 650–54, 674 (Roebuck); D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 175. For the full debate, see U.S. DS, Correspondence concerning Claims, pp. 650–80. The State Department account comes from Parl. Debates, 171:1769, 1771–1841.
38. U.S. DS, Correspondence concerning Claims, June 30, 1863, p. 653.
39. H. Adams, Education, 187; Monaghan, Lincoln Deals, 317–19; Myers, Caution and Cooperation, 203. See also Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 452–56, and D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 313–14.
40. U.S. DS, Correspondence concerning Claims, June 30, 1863, pp. 669–70.
41. Hotze to Benjamin, July 11, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:839–41; Mason to Slidell, July 1, 1863, Mason Papers (LC); Case and Spencer, United States and France, 413; Myers, Caution and Cooperation, 203.
42. Palmerston to Roebuck, July 9, 1863, GC/RO/5, Palmerston Papers (U. of Southampton); Palmerston's speech of July 13 in the Commons, in U.S. DS, Correspondence concerning Claims, July 13, 1863, pp. 684–85.
43.Economist, July 4, 1863, quoted in D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion, 172; Saturday Review, July 4, 1863, quoted ibid., 173; Illustrated London News, July 4, 1863, quoted ibid., 172.
44. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 420–21; Dayton to Seward, July 2, 1863, Disp., France (NA) (Drouyn).
45. Napoleon to Drouyn, June 22, 1863, quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 417; Drouyn to Gros, June 23, 1863, quoted ibid.; Gros to Drouyn, July 1, 1863, quoted ibid., 418.
46. Dayton to Seward, July 2, 10, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
47. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 422–23; Seward to Dayton, July 8, 1863, cited ibid.
48. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 165–69; Gentry, “Confederate Success,” 160, 163, 165; Lester, “Confederate Finance.”
49. Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 162–74; Economist, Mar. 21, 1863, quoted ibid., 165; Gentry, “Confederate Success,” 157, 188; E. M. Thomas, Confederate Nation, 188. Sexton sharply disagrees with Gentry, who argues that the Erlanger loan was the only one by either side in the Civil War and that it was a success in securing arms, matériel, and ships for the Confederacy until early 1864. Sexton's argument is more persuasive because it places the issue within the broader context of the recognition question. Ball (Financial Failure) contends that poor financial management and economic problems were largely responsible for the Confederate defeat in the war.
50. Seward to Dayton, July 10, 1863, quoted in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 423; Seward to Dayton, July 29, 1863, quoted in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 464.
51. Dayton to Seward, July 30, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
52. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 423–24; Paul to Drouyn, Aug. 24, 1863, cited ibid., 424; Dayton to Seward, July 30, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
53. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 414.
54. Ibid., 417–18.
55. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 357; Napoleon to Drouyn, July 14, 1863, cited in Case and Spencer, United States and France, 416.
56. Case and Spencer, United States and France, 416 (Napoleon); Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 460–61; Layard to Cowley, July 15, 1863, PRO/FO 519/195.
57. Benjamin to Mason, Aug. 4, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:852–53; Mason to RU, Sept. 21, 1863, and RU to Mason, Sept. 25, 1863, both encl. in Mason to Benjamin, Oct. 19, 1863, ibid., 3:934–35; Benjamin to Mason, Nov. 13, 1863, ibid., 3:950–51; Eaton, Davis, 170; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 465–66.
58. Saul, Distant Friends, 344; Cortada, “Florida's Relations with Cuba,” 48–51, and Spain, 57–58.
59. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 508.
60. Ibid., 507–8.
61. Dayton to Seward, Apr. 9, Aug. 21 (Drouy), Sept. 7, 1863, Disp., France (NA). Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was French foreign minister during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
62. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 58 (Moniteur and Documents diplomatiques); New York Times, Sept. 25, 1863, and pamphlet, both cited ibid., 60.
63. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 66–68. In suggesting that American historians have focused too much on Napoleon's anti-American motives for intervening in Mexico, Cunningham (Mexico, 127) argues that Chevalier nowhere indicated that his views “reflected the Emperor's ideas.” Yet Napoleon's actions followed many of those ideas expressed by Chevalier. On Chevalier's influence on Napoleon, see Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 56–57, and Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 60–68.
64. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 60–64 (quote, 63); Schoonover, “Napoleon Is Coming!,” 106.
65. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 64–66.
66. Napoleon to Gen. Achille François Bazaine (commander in Mexico City), Sept. 12, 1863, cited ibid., 169; ibid., 170–71; Black, Napoleon III and Mexican Silver, 2; Ridley, Maximilian and Juárez, 67. In a questionable argument, Cunningham (Mexico, 4, 127) downplays Black's emphasis on Napoleon's silver interests and hence his goal to build a dominant France by asserting that the emperor's correspondence during the venture did not emphasize the mineral and that he wanted all countries to use the markets and commodities in Mexico in an effort to regenerate its economy. An examination of Napoleon's Grand Design for the Americas makes it difficult to refute his interest in tying the Mexican project to his objectives in Europe. For Napoleon's strong interest in Sonora's silver, see Barker, “Monarchy in Mexico,” 68. See also Schoonover, Dollars over Dominion, chap. 6.
67. Drouyn to Bazaine, Aug. 17, 1863, quoted in Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 93; Case and Spencer, United States and France, 548.
68. Motley to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sept. 22, 1863, quoted in Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 130.
69. McPherson, Battle Cry, 683; Harrington, Fighting Politician, 128, 130–31.
70. Seward to Dayton, Sept. 26, Oct. 5, 1863, Dip. Instructions, France (NA).
71. Seward to Dayton, Sept. 26, 1863, ibid.
72. Dayton to Seward, Oct. 9, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
73. Ibid.
74. Seward to Dayton, Oct. 23, 1863, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Lyons to RU, Feb. 23, 1864 (Seward's assurances to U.S. Congress), in Barnes and Barnes, American Civil War, 3:149; Dayton to Seward, Nov. 27, Dec. 21, 1863, Disp., France (NA).
75. Seward to Dayton, Sept. 21, 1863, Dip. Instructions, France (NA); Seward to Dayton, Feb. 14, 1864, cited in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 517.
76. Maximilian to Slidell, Nov. 7, 1863, encl. in Slidell to Benjamin, Dec. 3, 1863, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:968–70; Contacts with Davis's friend and another southerner reported ibid.; Mann to Benjamin, Mar. 11, 1864, ibid., 1057–59; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 335, 339–41. Owsley (King Cotton Diplomacy, 521) believes that Mann's source for this information was King Leopold of Belgium.
77. JD to Confederate Congress, Dec. 7, 1863, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:348, 359–60; JD to Maximilian, Jan. 7, 1864, in JD, Papers, 10:158; Slidell to Benjamin, ca. early February 1864, ibid., 337 n. 8.
78. Slidell to Mason, Mar. 22, 1864, Mason Papers (LC) (Slidell's conversation with Maximilian's aide); Slidell to Benjamin, Mar. 16, 1864 (3:1063–65), and Benjamin to Slidell, June 23, 1864 (3:1156–57; quote, 1157), ORN, 2nd ser.; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 508, 521–22, 524–25 (Slidell warning, 524).
79. JD, Papers, 10:337–38 n. 8; Mann to Benjamin, Mar. 11, 1864, ibid.; Slidell and Mason to Benjamin, Mar. 16, 1864, ibid.
80. Dayton to Seward, Oct. 23, 1863, Mar. 11, May 16, 1864, Disp., France (NA); McPherson, Battle Cry, 684; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 525–26; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 122 (Napoleon). Confederate agent James Bulloch went to court to gain control over the ships he had contracted for construction. He won back one ironclad, the CSS Stonewall, which did not arrive in American waters until a month after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. McPherson, Battle Cry, 684. Questions remain about whether the rams would have had any impact on the war because of design and construction problems. See Strong, Buckley, and St. Clair, “Odyssey of the CSS Stonewall.”
81. JD to Confederate Congress, May 2, 1864, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:444–45.
82. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 525–26; Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 125, 133.
83. Slidell to Benjamin, Mar. 16, 1864, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:1063–65; Slidell to Benjamin, Apr. 7, 1864, ibid., 1077–79; Slidell to Mason, May 2, 1864, ibid., 1107–11; Dayton to Seward, Mar. 21, 1864, cited in Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 527; Owsley, 526–28 (Slidell on Mercier, 527).
84. Benjamin to Slidell, June 23, 1864, ORN, 2nd ser., 3:1156–57.
85. McPherson, Battle Cry, 766–67; Hubbard, Burden of Confederate Diplomacy, 166; Coulter, Confederate States, 547–48.
86. Blair memo of conversation with JD, Jan. 12, 1865, in JD, Papers, 11:315–19; JD memo of meeting with Blair, Jan. 12, 1865, ibid., 320; JD to Blair, Jan. 12, 1865, ibid., 323; Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell to JD, Feb. 5, 1865, ibid., 378–79; Lincoln to Seward, Jan. 31, 1865, CWL, 8:279; McPherson, Battle Cry, 821–24 (Lincoln, 823); E. B. Smith, Francis Preston Blair, 363–68.
87. JD's Message to Confederate Congress, Feb. 6, 1865, in JD, Papers, 11:378; McPherson, Battle Cry, 824.
88. Art. I, sec. 9, clause 4, Confederate Constitution, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 1:43; Benjamin to Slidell, Dec. 27, 1864, ibid., 2:694–97; Hubbard, Burden of Confederate Diplomacy, 168–69; Bauer, “Last Effort” and Kenner; Meade, “Relations between … Benjamin and … Davis”; Evans, Benjamin, 262–64, 268–69, 275, 278–79; Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy, 184–86; D. P. Crook, The North, the South, 356–59; Coulter, Confederate States, 194–95. Both Mason and Slidell had predictably opposed the deal but gave in when shown Kenner's instructions.
89. JD, Papers of Jefferson Davis, 11:271 n. 7, 271–72 n. 9; Hubbard, Burden of Confederate Diplomacy, 170.
90. H. Jones, Union in Peril, 272 n. 4; Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 532, 536–41; Bauer, “Last Effort”; Mason to Benjamin, Mar. 31, 1865 (2:709), Minutes of Mason's conversation with Palmerston, Mar. 14, 1865, encl. in Mason to Benjamin, Mar. 31, 1865 (2:713–17), and Mason to Benjamin, Mar. 31, 1865 (2:710), all in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy; Hubbard, Burden of Confederate Diplomacy, 170–71; Evans, Benjamin, 279; Levine, Confederate Emancipation, 111–12 (Richmond Dispatch, Feb. 6, 1865, quoted on 111); Myers, Caution and Cooperation, 197–98.
91. Minutes of Mason's conversation with Donoughmore, Mar. 26, 1865, encl. in Mason to Benjamin, Mar. 31, 1865, in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, 2:717. See also Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy, 530, 540–41. Donoughmore was Richard John Hely-Hutchinson, Fourth Earl of Donoughmore of the Peerage of Ireland and a Conservative Party member; he had served in Lord Derby's second administration as paymaster general and president of the Board of Trade.
92. Hanna and Hanna, Napoleon III, 153, 271, 296.
93. Ibid., 300.
94. McPherson, Battle Cry, 859; Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, 58–62, 90; Donald, Lincoln, 460–66; Final text of Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863, CWL, 7:22–23 (“a new birth of freedom”); Lyons to RU, July 26, Nov. 1, 1864, PRO 30/22/38.
1. See, among other studies cited earlier, W. C. Davis, Jefferson Davis, and Eaton, Davis.
2. For Lincoln, see, e.g., H. Jones, Union in Peril and Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom; Monaghan, Diplomat in Carpet Slippers; and Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg.
3. Among numerous studies, see Sexton, Debtor Diplomacy; Ball, Financial Failure; Saul, Distant Friends; Blackett, Divided Hearts; D. A. Campbell, English Public Opinion; Blackburn, French Newspaper Opinion; W. R. West, Contemporary French Opinion; and Ferris, Desperate Diplomacy.