Why did Britain stay out of the American Civil War?

The whole "North can hardly make the position of the slave better" line here really seems to echo Gladstone's comments on enforcing good institutions at the point of a sword I think.
I think it's more "you cannot make the slave's life better without acknowledging him to be a human being and not property". This stems back to the "am I not a man and a brother" argument of British abolitionism and is in line with their rejection of discrimination against free blacks in the north.

"it is difficult to see what is to become of the liberated negroes, unless some scheme of colonisation be adopted. If they go South into the cotton states, they will once again be sold into slavery; if they go to the West, they will find the legislatures of every state passing laws to prevent their admission; and if they go to New York or the New England States in any considerable numbers, they will find it impossible to procure a subsistence... fearful of any influx of free negroes within their limits, such Western States as have not already passed laws to exclude them are about to revise their constitutions with that especial object. At a state convention just held in the great free state of Illinois, for the amendment of the constitution, it was resolved that for the future no negro or mulatto should be allowed to migrate into or settle in the state; and that no negro or mulatto previously domiciled within its boundaries should have the right of suffrage, or hold any public office whatever... considering that most, if not all, of the Western states have adopted a similar law of exclusion against the African races, it seems most probable that the people of Illinois will ratify it, and that a new belt of fertile land will be shut against poor Sambo. The question is one of the highest interest to the people of this country, whatever may be the ultimate fate of the slaveholding States of the South... In either case slavery must disappear from the Border lands, and the 'everlasting nigger,' or the 'eternal contraband', as it is now the fashion to call him, will trouble this republic in a new fashion as irritating as the old, and raise the question of black pauperism as distinguished from that of black slavery." (Huddersfield Chronicle, 3 May 1862, p. 7; the language is theirs not mine.)

I like how they discuss Fremont's proclamation, they must have been terribly disappointed when Lincoln quashed it.
It varies: for most, I would say, the major disappointment is when Lincoln doesn't come out immediately in favour of abolition. The Fremont case is more confirmation that Lincoln isn't going to do anything, though- as you can see- there are some papers which get their hopes up as a result of it.

Maybe now people can realize these are attitudes and actions that evolved rather than were present and 'obviously apparent' at the start of the conflict.
I don't know why anti-slavery attitudes evolving is such a problem. I like Palmerston because he's got the arrogance of the nobility: he knows firmly that the slave trade is wrong, and he's going to put it down no matter whose feet he tramples on in the process- his colleagues, his opponents, other countries. Lincoln, on the other hand, I like because you can see him reasoning his way towards abolitionism; not just balancing his personal beliefs with the need to hold together a very broad coalition of interests, but also altering his beliefs on whether slavery could be ended suddenly as the war goes on. I don't think Palmerston changed his opinions on the slave trade between c.1839 and his death.

Unfortunately, all the hesitancy goes down terribly in Britain because they want him to do God's work and proclaim a war against slavery, doing the right thing at the cost of the worldly power that the Union represents- fiat justitia et ruat caelum, so to speak. I don't think it's his fault that he didn't do so, but I don't think it's their fault that they wanted him to either.
 
I think it's more "you cannot make the slave's life better without acknowledging him to be a human being and not property". This stems back to the "am I not a man and a brother" argument of British abolitionism and is in line with their rejection of discrimination against free blacks in the north.

Hmm that's a fairly compelling argument. Sounds like one Thaddeus Stevens would make. From what I recall he was pretty popular amongst abolitionist circles in England.

It varies: for most, I would say, the major disappointment is when Lincoln doesn't come out immediately in favour of abolition. The Fremont case is more confirmation that Lincoln isn't going to do anything, though- as you can see- there are some papers which get their hopes up as a result of it.

From the British perspective I think this makes sense. The Empire has been acting against slavery for decades now, and it sees in the US an Anglo nation which still practices that institution while having a vocal abolitionist group which agrees with their views on the subject. Any lack of action (and to be honest his own need to downplay the role of slavery to pacify the border states, which British people can't be blamed for not totally understanding) would look remarkably bad from the British perspective.

This would in turn explain how many could see the Emancipation Proclamation as a cynical move not meant to improve the standing of the black population within the Union. The language of the Proclamation doesn't help either.

I don't know why anti-slavery attitudes evolving is such a problem. I like Palmerston because he's got the arrogance of the nobility: he knows firmly that the slave trade is wrong, and he's going to put it down no matter whose feet he tramples on in the process- his colleagues, his opponents, other countries. Lincoln, on the other hand, I like because you can see him reasoning his way towards abolitionism; not just balancing his personal beliefs with the need to hold together a very broad coalition of interests, but also altering his beliefs on whether slavery could be ended suddenly as the war goes on. I don't think Palmerston changed his opinions on the slave trade between c.1839 and his death.

Unfortunately, all the hesitancy goes down terribly in Britain because they want him to do God's work and proclaim a war against slavery, doing the right thing at the cost of the worldly power that the Union represents- fiat justitia et ruat caelum, so to speak. I don't think it's his fault that he didn't do so, but I don't think it's their fault that they wanted him to either.

I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of Lincoln's views evolving over time because of the legend built up around him as the Great Emancipator, in their minds he has this legendary aura and he can't have ever held views to the contrary. He's elevated instead of being treated like a human being with flaws, which while understandable, is useless in the study of history.

The view of Lincoln as a man who changed in his views and ideas in response to the Civil War, his interaction with African Americans (and Frederick Douglas in particular), and the need to navigate the deadly waters of politics is a far more interesting figure than the perscient demi-god some people would like to paint him as. He was without a doubt a great man, but he was constrained by his own needs in running a war, and his own changing views on the subject which culminated in the abolishment of slavery in the United States. That he rose above those constraints to accomplish what he did is remarkable, and to hear some of the things he was saying in the months of his life makes you really wonder how Reconstruction would have been different had he lived.

You've got the money on how foreign reaction in England would perceive it though I think.
 
Sounds like one Thaddeus Stevens would make. From what I recall he was pretty popular amongst abolitionist circles in England.
It sometimes surprises me how relatively obscure American figures become the darlings of the British abolitionist scene- I remember one editorial confidently averring that the only possible Republican candidate in 1864 was Charles Sumner. Honestly, though, when you consider the close links between Britain and Garrisonian abolitionists, British opposition to physical force and indifference to the continuance of the Union makes a lot more sense.

it sees in the US an Anglo nation which still practices that institution
One that actively opposes British attempts to defeat that institution, moreover. Remember the Anglo-American boarding dispute of 1858, and the fact that William Walker brought back slavery in Nicaragua. I've no doubt that some of those who expected the North to lose the Civil War were hoping to see the emergence of a less aggressive, expansionist power which now has a firm anti-slavery majority and an incentive to stick it to the Confederacy by acting against slavery externally.

Any lack of action (and to be honest his own need to downplay the role of slavery to pacify the border states, which British people can't be blamed for not totally understanding) would look remarkably bad from the British perspective.
It was D.P. Crook who made the point that the British see Lincoln's election as "a triumphant but essentially responsible reformist movement, not unlike their own Great Reform of 1832 or the Corn Law Repeal of 1846. South Carolina's defection from the Union, and the string of secessions which followed it, was accordingly interpreted as the defiant gesture of a corrupt ancien regime." ('Portents of War: English Opinion on Secession,' Journal of American Studies, vol. 4 p. 2 (Feb. 1971) p.165). What's supposed to happen after that Lincoln announces a scheme of compensated abolition and Fremont leads the Union armies into Richmond as poetic revenge for his defeat in the 1856 presidential election. It's probably right in hindsight that Lincoln decided to play down slavery to hold onto the border states instead, but you can't then blame the British for getting a bit narked when Cassius Clay and Harriet Beecher Stowe write them long querulous letters about how they should be supporting the anti-slavery side.
 

It's

Banned
Back to the original question

Britain didn't intervene because
1) America had been no friend to Britain since the AWoI.
2) it hated slavery.
 
I like how they discuss Fremont's proclamation, they must have been terribly disappointed when Lincoln quashed it.

It was easier for them as civilians to ignore the reality that it would have meant the quick loss of Kentucky, [1] closure of the Ohio River, and probably the loss of the war during a very dark time for the Union.

1] Didn't pass the 13th Amendment until 1976! Probably to remove the embarrassment for the Bicentennial.:rolleyes:

Wow, if accurate that's pretty dark. Then again, when one considers that similar events happened out West where in Kentucky and Tennessee the slaves of pro-Union plantation owners were not interfered with this really puts to rest the myth that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, which seems to be so ridiculously enduring.

"Forever free" indeed :rolleyes:

The Emancipation Proclamation may be seen as cynical, or a military move only, or as a sword in the heart of slavery. But with the advancement of Union armies after 1/1/1863, so many thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed any idea of returning them to a status of slavery was a complete non-starter. Attempt to return the 180,000 freed former slaves under arms in the Union Army and you are declaring the start of the Second American Civil War.

Yes, "Forever Free" indeed.:p

Maybe now people can realize these are attitudes and actions that evolved rather than were present and 'obviously apparent' at the start of the conflict.

At best only 1 in 3 of Union troops that enlisted immediately after Fort Sumter did so in the name of the abolition of slavery, and even that minority could be counted, some, for having other reasons as well (fighting for the restoration of the Union, avenging Fort Sumter, or for personal reasons like establishing a home in the army rather than in sweat shops after just getting off the boat).

But the longer the war went on, and the deeper the Union Army got into the Confederacy, where they saw the horrors of slavery for the first time, the more Abolitionist the army became. Especially as by 1863 the "insult to our flag" bunch were long gone.

From the British perspective I think this makes sense. The Empire has been acting against slavery for decades now, and it sees in the US an Anglo nation which still practices that institution while having a vocal abolitionist group which agrees with their views on the subject. Any lack of action (and to be honest his own need to downplay the role of slavery to pacify the border states, which British people can't be blamed for not totally understanding) [2] would look remarkably bad from the British perspective.

2] Exactly. How many Britons actually understood the nature of the circumstances of the Mason-Dixon Line? That it was created decades ago to keep the Slave States in the Union? That slavery had long since been abolished north of the M-D Line? That if not pressed by the pre-war Deep South (future CSA) states, then the Border States of Missouri and Delaware would likely have moved towards abolition? Even Maryland might have at least taken a look at the idea (unlikely though with all the slaves in central Maryland).

So the phrase "The Union has slaves too, so it too is a Slave Power" was often heard in Britain.:( And for that matter, in the CSA. There was a difference between being a Slave Power and having slaves. :( See the Confederate Constitution.:(

This would in turn explain how many could see the Emancipation Proclamation as a cynical move not meant to improve the standing of the black population within the Union. The language of the Proclamation doesn't help either.

The millions of slaves in Confederate-controlled territory on the day the proclamation went into effect would like a word with you.

Not that passage of the 13th Amendment making it official didn't hurt.:cool: Also, the results of the 1862 off-year congressional elections meant the number of Democrats elected that year would block passage in the US House until the war news became so good that even borderline Copperheads had to, in some cases, vote for the amendment.

Adding the slaves in the border states (and sad to say, Union-controlled territory in the CSA) would only have led to the fragmentation of the Union war effort. God knows, the revolts and desertions in the Union Army following the announcement of the EP was bad enough, in reaction to the idea that the ACW was becoming a "N-----'s" war.:eek::eek::mad: Those in the Union Army who opposed emancipation certainly thought that slavery was doomed with that announcement.

I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of Lincoln's views evolving over time because of the legend built up around him as the Great Emancipator, in their minds he has this legendary aura and he can't have ever held views to the contrary. He's elevated instead of being treated like a human being with flaws, which while understandable, is useless in the study of history. [3]

3] What about for the study of hagiography?:confused: One could say quite honestly say that Lincoln's action's reflected battlefield realities as much as his personal desires.

The view of Lincoln as a man who changed in his views and ideas in response to the Civil War, his interaction with African Americans (and Frederick Douglas in particular), and the need to navigate the deadly waters of politics is a far more interesting figure than the prescient demi-god some people would like to paint him as.

Agreed. The story is probably apocryphal, but I recall a tale about Lincoln suggesting "voluntary emigration back to Africa" to Black leaders, with the idea that their people down South had no experience in "caring for themselves". One of them responded that without the need to support their White masters in the lap of luxury, they would do very well for themselves.:p

That was that for "Back to Africa":rolleyes:

He was without a doubt a great man, but he was constrained by his own needs in running a war, and his own changing views on the subject which culminated in the abolishment of slavery in the United States. That he rose above those constraints to accomplish what he did is remarkable, and to hear some of the things he was saying in the [4] months of his life makes you really wonder how Reconstruction would have been different had he lived.

4] Did you meant to insert "final" here?

As to a different Reconstruction, with Lincoln rather than Andrew Johnson [5] in charge of the first three years of that era, it could hardly be worse.

5] Second only to James Buchanan as our worst president, bunched down at the bottom with Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, John Quincy Adams, and IMVHO George W. Bush.:mad: As I see it William Henry Harrison rates only a grade of "Incomplete". Unlike a lot of people, I can't condemn a man for dying 40 days into his only term.:(

It sometimes surprises me how relatively obscure American figures become the darlings of the British abolitionist scene- I remember one editorial confidently averring that the only possible Republican candidate in 1864 was Charles Sumner. Honestly, though, when you consider the close links between Britain and Garrisonian abolitionists, British opposition to physical force and indifference to the continuance of the Union makes a lot more sense.

True. And don't forget that Jerry Lewis is seen as a has-been in the USA and a God in France.:cool:

One that actively opposes British attempts to defeat that institution, moreover. Remember the Anglo-American boarding dispute of 1858, and the fact that William Walker brought back slavery in Nicaragua.

Ignore politics pre-ACW for matters IN the ACW. The South pretty much had far too much influence over American politics since its founding, with every POTUS except (IIRC) John Adams being a Southerner, a Southern sympathizer, or had a Southern VP.

I've no doubt that some of those who expected the North to lose the Civil War were hoping to see the emergence of a less aggressive, expansionist power which now has a firm anti-slavery majority and an incentive to stick it to the Confederacy by acting against slavery externally.

Another misunderstanding. Actually, with losing the ACW, it was far more likely the reverse would be true.:( In 1868 the Democrats threw Horatio Seymour, the Democratic governor of New York, as a sacrificial goat before the inevitability of the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. But in a world where the Republicans would be seen as the party of defeat? The novel "Guns of the South" had Seymour winning the 1864 election!

It was D.P. Crook who made the point that the British see Lincoln's election as "a triumphant but essentially responsible reformist movement, not unlike their own Great Reform of 1832 or the Corn Law Repeal of 1846. South Carolina's defection from the Union, and the string of secessions which followed it, was accordingly interpreted as the defiant gesture of a corrupt ancien regime." ('Portents of War: English Opinion on Secession,' Journal of American Studies, vol. 4 p. 2 (Feb. 1971) p.165). What's supposed to happen after that Lincoln announces a scheme of compensated abolition and Fremont leads the Union armies into Richmond as poetic revenge for his defeat in the 1856 presidential election. It's probably right in hindsight that Lincoln decided to play down slavery to hold onto the border states instead, but you can't then blame the British for getting a bit narked when Cassius Clay and Harriet Beecher Stowe write them long querulous letters about how they should be supporting the anti-slavery side. [6]

Very good on-point and informative post.:cool:

All the problems with launching abolition on D+1 have been listed here. But you can't expect the starry-eyed to accept the hard realities on the ground.

6] Why narked? The old abolitionists were desperate. People like Thaddeus Stevens must have worried that they wouldn't live to see the end of slavery.

Britain didn't intervene because
1) America had been no friend to Britain since the AWoI.

And vice-versa. Remember the WoET.:D
 
Last edited:
But Britain did intervene in the Civil War

Some of it is disguised because the Union was the previously recognised government but its real.

The initial fracas is a dispute over an election between two factions in the US body politic. The US is a friendly state and despite the issue of slavery one where there have been amicable if not cordial relations for decades.

If Britain continues to broker US credit, allows armament and munition exports (big ones) and most significantly makes no move to recognise the CSA as a belligerent until after the US does.

After Trent Britain makes a point of stationing RN ships to ensure the USN is allowed to carry put its legitimate inspections for contraband (words of the CinC America station) and has ships accompanying the USN coastal incursions to evacuate British Subjects who choose to leave the War zone.

Parsing the statements of various pols is something that no doubt the embassy did if it had time but the sense of the positions is Republicans in Government, Republics against slavery Republicans good. CSA in favour of slavery, CSA bad.

(and if you don't believe please quote the actual position of Syriza.)

The other factor touched on is the influence of sections of Congress on UK politics. A very large crossover is between the New England radicals and the MPs from dissenting areas, mainly urban which have been enfranchised since the 32 Act.

Whatever may be supposed the government is constrained by the fact that it has a majority of 59, more than 30 are abolitionist and Disraeli will take advantage.
 
with the advancement of Union armies after 1/1/1863, so many thousands upon thousands of slaves were freed any idea of returning them to a status of slavery was a complete non-starter.
But the British have been here before: they liberated thousands of slaves during the American War of Independence and further thousands in 1812, and yet the institution of slavery continued. The Emancipation Proclamation ends slavery only if the North fights the war to a successful conclusion: if they can't beat the South, or the South agrees to return to the Union via a negotiated settlement, slavery continues to exist. And even in 1863, it's not entirely clear that the North can win: that's why the British see it as a ruse.
Ignore politics pre-ACW for matters IN the ACW. The South pretty much had far too much influence over American politics since its founding
And the British are well aware of this:
MR. GREGORY ... The disruption of the American Republic was another circumstance which gave him hopes that they might at length be able to aim an effective blow at the slave trade. It was notorious that the real traffickers in the flesh and blood of their fellow men were citizens of the Northern States. It was in Yankee ships, floated by Yankee capital, commanded by Yankee skippers, sailing forth on their abominable errand, with the connivance of bribed Yankee authorities, that this work of the devil was carried on. ... The United States were no longer hampered by what were called Southern prejudices. Now was the time to test the truth of all the statements they had made that Southern prejudices had prevented a really vigorous opposition to the slave trade, and to see whether, when an appeal was made to the United States authorities, we might not be able to obtain from them that real hearty co-operation which would enable us eventually to put down this traffic.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON... before this civil contest broke out, it was the influence of the South which prevailed at Washington ... when an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them, and, although most of the cruisers were fitted out at New York and at Boston, and, perhaps, with capital from the North, yet it was the spirit of the South which animated these expeditions.
(HC Deb 26 July 1861 vol 164 cc1641-59)

As Palmerston makes clear, in the event of the states splitting, he expects to be able to work with the North. Incidentally, note how he takes Gregory's rhetoric about "Yankees" and twists it to criticise the South. Which side was he supposed to favour again?
Another misunderstanding. Actually, with losing the ACW, it was far more likely the reverse would be true.
You're not thinking like a Victorian here, though- take the mentality of the average American c.1990 and replace "democracy" with "anti-slavery". The Republicans may suffer a temporary setback when the war ends, but the abolitionist cause will continue. As a free-labour Christian state, there's simply no way that the North can continue to hold out against its innate anti-slavery instincts as it has done previously. Crook again (p.178): "So attractive to the English was the vision of an emancipated North achieving a moral renaissance by sloughing off the South, and then steadily growing in strength and excellence at the expense of an independent but decadent rival, that it became something of a cliche in the next year or so."
Why narked?
Immediately after Britain has reconciled herself to the war not ending slavery and announced that she will remain neutral, both Cassius Clay and Harriet Beecher Stowe write open letters to the British proclaiming that they are betraying their anti-slavery tradition by not formally supporting the Union.

"If the "Confederate States" are right, then is England wrong. If slavery must be extended in America, then must England restore it in the West Indies, blot out the most glorious page of her history, and call back her freedmen into chains! Let her say to the martyrs of freedom from all the nations who have sought refuge and a magnanimous defence on her shores, return to your scaffold and your prison-house; England is no more England. Let the Times cease to appeal longer to the enlightened opinion of the world: nay, let the statues of the great dead, through which I passed in reverence yesterday, to the Houses of her political intelligence, be thrown from their pedestals, when England shall forget the utterances of her Chathams, her Wilberforces, and her Broughams — that natural justice is the only safe diplomacy and lasting foundation of the independence of nations. (Cassius Clay to the Times, 17 May 1861)

To suppose that all this class in England, fresh in the traditions of Clarkson and Wilberforce... has suddenly become blinded by interest on a great vital question, relating to the cause of universal humanity, is not possible... Our cause must have been misunderstood. By false representations and false issues, our friends in England have been blinded to the real significance of the sublime movement which the American nation has just commenced... We consider it as the great decisive issue of the slavery question in the civilised world... We consider that this war is a great anti-slavery war, not in form, but in fact... That this war has not been proclaimed a war for the emancipation of the negro specifically was because the extent and magnitude of the issue transcended the wants of any particular race... Though national existence, not negro emancipation, was the announced battle-cry, yet existence in this case was felt to mean the extinction of slavery... I think the North has come to this conviction, that the Union never shall be used to sustain slavery
... (Harriet Beecher Stowe to Lord Shaftesbury, 1 August 1861)

It's not clear which offends the British most: the barely-veiled threats made by Clay (which remind me of some of the posts I've seen on here, come to think of it):
Twenty millions of people to-day... In another half century we will be one hundred millions... Is England so secure in the future against home revolt or foreign ambition as to venture now in our need to plant the seeds of revenge in all our future?... shall we enter into a piratical war with our race and ally, and capture and sell in our ports the property, and endanger the lives of peaceable citizens of the British empire all over the world? I enter not into the discussion of details. England, then, is our natural ally. Will she ignore our aspirations? If she is just, she ought not. If she is honorable and magnanimous, she cannot. If she is wise, she will not.

or the special pleading performed by Stowe:
it seems to the friends of the anti-slavery cause but a slight abatement that individual generals have promised to put down slave insurrections, and that slaves have been, in isolated instances, returned from Federal camps... already the number of slaves liberated by our army is counted by hundreds... The refusal of the North to enlist negro regiments has also been criticised in England, as showing a want of proper feeling to the race.

If Clay had avoided the threats, and if Stowe had thanked Britain for its neutrality and said that the priority was avoiding constitutional protections of slavery both North and South (with a view to accelerating the ultimate demise of the institution), the letters might have been worth writing. As it is, you just can't send the kind of fundamentally mixed messages which the Union was doing in 1861 and expect not to annoy people.

Some of it is disguised because the Union was the previously recognised government but its real.
Similar to support for the Qing government during the Taiping rebellion, in many respects. I think there are two inherent questions in the OP:
1) Why didn't Britain join in and help the Confederacy when they had the ability to kick a potential rival and currant irritant while they were down?
2) Why didn't Britain join in and help the Union defeat slavery in the South, if they were so committed to abolition?

And the answer to both is:
a) Britain very rarely joined in any civil wars during the period.
b) Both the Confederacy and the Union were too tainted by slavery to overcome the inertia against joining a civil war on either side.
 
Last edited:
Top