Neutrality

[samgrant]

The Queen's Proclamation:

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereign powers and States:
And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America:
And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the Unites States have declares our royal determination to maintain a strict and partial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:
We therefore have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy counsil, to issue this our royal proclamation:
And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

[unionblue]

samgrant,

Thanks for this bit of unknown history.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Great Britain must have been somewhat like the parent of two unruly kids who had left home a while back and were discovered trying to beat the stuff out of each other? First intervention meant that you could get your own nose bloodied, though it would have been VERY difficult to transport troops outside the US. Otherwise an invasion from Canada? Somewhere I think I remember reading about that one being a possibility? Trade would have to be developed with either emerging nation so neutrality seemed somewhat in order from that perspective. I assume Britain had other sources for cotton? Interesting subject. Were the French in a similar position? Seems to me our own revolution against Britain was akin to civil war. Opinions, anyone?

[cw1865]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Great Britain must have been somewhat like the parent of two unruly kids who had left home a while back and were discovered trying to beat the stuff out of each other?

Probably viewed as proof positive to them that Americans couldn't run their own affairs!

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

First intervention meant that you could get your own nose bloodied, though it would have been VERY difficult to transport troops outside the US. Otherwise an invasion from Canada?

The English had brought soldiers to Canada, though not enough to really launch an invasion. If the English are going to intervene, I do not believe that they would have actually landed ground soldiers to fight alongside Confederate armies. I think the most likely intervention would have been an attempt to break the blockade. I don't think they even go as far as say blockading New York. The intervention would be narrowly tailored to their interests (trade).

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Somewhere I think I remember reading about that one being a possibility?Trade would have to be developed with either emerging nation so neutrality seemed somewhat in order from that perspective.

Yes, the English have to be concerned about trade with both, and protection of Canada. Active support of the South could alienate the North and compel England to devote substantial resources to defending Canada for a long time to come.

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

I assume Britain had other sources for cotton?

The textile mills do suffer from a shortage of cotton. After the war, check out the British occupation of Egypt where you definitely see an effort to secure alternate sources.

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Interesting subject. Were the French in a similar position?

To say that England's interests are solely maritime and France's interests are solely Continental is a simplistic analysis (England has Continental interests and of course France did have an overseas empire). Nevertheless, the French are beginning to look nervously at the Rhine and are about to fight the Franco-Prussian War.

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Seems to me our own revolution against Britain was akin to civil war. Opinions, anyone?

It really is. There are aspects of the conflict in NJ which are more akin to feuds than to even a Civil War!

[whitworth]

Even the Confederate representative to Great Britain, realized early in the war, that Great Britain had no interest in intervening militarily in the Civil War.
After WWI, an American historian had access to the British government papers of the time and found no rush for war, even during the Trent Affair.
The British government knew their interests, better than the Confederacy.

One of the great foreign policy disasters of the Confederate government, in their false hope that much aid would come from Great Britain.

[Freddy]

Britain imported cotton from both Egypt and India during the CW. This is a link to a study of Egyptian cotton and British policy.
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/brmill10...ch-Cotton.html

[5fish]

Originally Posted by samgrant

The Queen's Proclamation:

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereign powers and States:
And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America:
And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the Unites States have declares our royal determination to maintain a strict and partial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:
We therefore have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy counsil, to issue this our royal proclamation:
And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

England and the other world powers of the day had no choice but to follow a policy of neutrality. Our government made it unambiguous that if any nation recognized the rebellion or gave it direct aid. It would be consider an act of war. We would then be obliged to take any and all assets in the new world of the offending nation and threaten their commercial trade on the high seas.

If one thinks about it backing the rebellion was nothing short of a losing bet of any other nation at that time.

If one looks at the international politics of that day our nation was well like by the other nations of the world. We help or even led the world in ending pirates on the high seas. We help if feebly to stop the slave trade out of Africa with our Navy. We were a good neighbor to our fellow nations of the world.

Being a good neighbor to the other nations of the world and having no true adversary in the world limited the rebellion in finding support from other nation. Without a true advarsary at the time, the rebellion had no nature ally in their cause. The rebellion had no France to turn to like our Founding Fathers' had in the revolutionary war.

The Rebellion again misjudge the world!

[OpnDownfall]

In his early communications with the major powers in Europe Sec'y of State Seward, implied that the southern rebellion was an internal affair, subject only to wishes of the immediate combatants. But that interference from outside gov'ts might turn the local war of rebellion into a world conflict, becoming a war for the rights of man 'everywhere' in the world and suggesting that the United States might be better able to fight and win such a war than could the monarchies of Europe.
This put the noses of British and French Officials out of joint and raised some hackles, but it was a threat that could not be ignored; it might just be that the American Civil War was a war that the European Government really could not afford to be in and on the wrong side, at the same time.

[whitworth]

When a historian mentions Great Britain and the Confederacy, the next sentence should highlight the absolute ineptness of Confederate government foreign policy.