Thespitron 6000
I accept you're point but I think it's a damned stupid and dangerous one as it could easily backfire. Not only by backing the US into a corner where their got to fight. Also if the news leaks out their deliberately continuing a very costly war then the government would almost certainly fall. [I would say it's virtually ASB for any British government, or from any other 'democratic' state to take such an approach. Play hard-ball yes but they would be looking for a favourable end to the conflict].
If they really want to torpedo an agreement, since I would expect that they would have some knowledge of how illegal Polk's approach is, then play him along a bit and get some details and concessions out then have the news leaked.
How is Polk concluding any approaches? It needs to be done relatively secretly. Also there is no trans-altantic cable yet so unless there is a representative in the other's country trusted by both sides discussions are being passed via ships? Which would be slow and unreliable.
Steve
I accept you're point but I think it's a damned stupid and dangerous one as it could easily backfire. Not only by backing the US into a corner where their got to fight. Also if the news leaks out their deliberately continuing a very costly war then the government would almost certainly fall. [I would say it's virtually ASB for any British government, or from any other 'democratic' state to take such an approach. Play hard-ball yes but they would be looking for a favourable end to the conflict].
If they really want to torpedo an agreement, since I would expect that they would have some knowledge of how illegal Polk's approach is, then play him along a bit and get some details and concessions out then have the news leaked.
How is Polk concluding any approaches? It needs to be done relatively secretly. Also there is no trans-altantic cable yet so unless there is a representative in the other's country trusted by both sides discussions are being passed via ships? Which would be slow and unreliable.
Steve
Blackadder, Gunslinger, stevep,
I suppose I haven't been clear; the British fully intend for these demands to be rejected. They don't genuinely believe the Americans would consent to such demands, and an American rejection would result in the war continuing, which is what Stanley's ministry wants.
stevep,
Gladstone was committed to peaceful foreign relations, it's true, but I think in this case his desire for long-term international peace would trump the short term desire for normalized relations with America. The United States is, from the British point of view, an extreme aggressor over the past six years--and beyond that, to the War of 1812 and before. If the United States can't be trusted not to attack its neighbors, then Britain will hold it down until it can.
As to ending the war now, that would be a bad idea from the British perspective, since it would give the North a free hand in crushing the South and reuniting, something Britain does not want.