Ami's SOA Civil War Diplomacy Papers

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#1
Diplomats at war: a critical analysis of American and Confederate diplomacy, 1861-1862.

Collection: Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title:
Diplomats at war: a critical analysis of American and Confederate diplomacy, 1861-1862.
Author:
Houston, John P.
Branch/Country:
United States Navy

Abstract: The
period from winter of 1861 until fall of 1862 proved pivotal in the Civil War. There were key victories and defeats on the battlefield, there was political change, there was debate over slavery, and, often overlooked, there was diplomatic maneuvering. Concerning diplomacy, the task for the Confederacy was to convince European powers that it was in the vital interest of those nations to intervene in the war. Intervention, by way of recognition, mediation, or temporary armistice, would be a major success for the Confederacy. If recognized as legitimate by other major powers, the Confederacy would gain the right to negotiate alliances, acquire loans to finance the war, and call on allies to challenge the legality of the blockade. The task for the United States proved more simplistic. Its task was to prevent European powers from recognizing the Confederacy. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the application of the diplomatic instrument of power by the United States and Confederate States from the winter of 1861 to the fall of 1862. Specific events this study evaluates during that time period include the Trent Affair, the Blockade, the Second Battle of Bull Run, and Battle of Antietam.

Series:
Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Focus: Program
Art of War Scholars
Publisher:
Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date: Original
2014-06-13
Date: Digital
2014-06-13
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library: Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created:
2014-10-02

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,513
Location
Corona, California
#2
You are familiar with the events of summer and fall pre-Antietam 1862 in which Confederate counteroffensives in the East and West as well as other events helped lead to the Maryland and Kentucky Campaigns which drew in British and French to possibly recognize the Confederacy
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,513
Location
Corona, California
#4
As far as the Trent Affair goes it's a very popular Civil War POD thanks in part because Britain is a very powerful country and it would surpass the United States thus benefitting the Confederate States.
 

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#5
Thought I would turn this thread into a collection of free Diplo e-pubs instead of having a bunch of individual threads - next up...

Kent State University
Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries
New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations Kent State University Press
2008
Caution and Cooperation: The American Civil War in British-American Relations
by Phillip Myers

This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Kent State University Press at Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Kent State University Libraries. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@kent.edu.

The most earnest task confronting British and American statesmen when the American Civil War broke out in April 1861 was to stave off an international war. Fortunately, the two Anglo-Saxon nations had enjoyed nearly a half-century of peace since 1815, and in 1861 British-American relations were more dependable than at any time since American independence. But they were also ridden with distrust. Neither Britain’s shaky Liberal government that was still shy of completing two years in office nor America’s new Republican government wanted the American civil conflict to make them enemies. Neither power (nor anyone else) had any idea of the course the Civil War would take, and both decided to adhere to the traditional policies of caution and cooperation.
Despite the desire of both powers for peace, the Civil War seriously threatened relations between the two. Hard-pressed Union leaders believed on scanty evidence that many British upper-, middle-, and working-class subjects were pro-
South despite being adamantly opposed to slavery. Ultimately, so Unionists heard, pro-Southerners argued that an independent Confederate state would eventually abolish slavery and become a modern nation. As a result, Unionists’ fears that Britain would recognize Confederate independence strained relations...

120

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#8
Calculated Caution: Seward and France’s Invasion of Mexico
By Laura Grove
Vanderbilt University

The American Civil War was a critical event in the history of the United States, and thus captured the attention of
the country’s leaders at the time. While this internal crisis was not the only issue facing the United States, all other
concerns became secondary when the continuation of the country was at risk. Thus, during the war, Secretary of
State William Henry Seward made every effort to keep the conflict contained internally despite the seemingly imminent
threat from the French who occupied Mexico at the time.


http://vanderbilthistoricalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Calculated-Caution.pdf
173

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#9
The Peril of Intervention: Anglo-American Relations during the American Civil War
Author: Paul Schell

The most decisive campaign of the American Civil War was waged in neither Virginia, nor Pennsylvania, nor along the Mississippi River, but rather in Great Britain. Northern military advantages in the prosecution of the war effort could have been completely negated by a serious diplomatic setback in Great Britain. In order to win the Civil War, the North had to prevent Great Britain from entering the conflict. British intervention (which would have also included France), whether in the form of actually entering the war on the side of the South, official recognition of the Confederacy, foreign mediation, or a call for an armistice followed by peace negotiations, would have been a diplomatic disaster for the North and a fatal blow in its attempt to re-unify the nation. Military setbacks on the battlefield were not nearly as threatening as diplomatic setbacks abroad. The North had greater manpower, a stronger and more balanced economy, an industrial infrastructure, and a better equipped army; yet, in order for these advantages to translate into military victory at home, the North first needed to ensure that the domestic conflict did not spread to an international war.


https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:102284/datastream/PDF/view
194

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#10
Anglo-American Relations During The Civil War: The Trent Affair
by Marvin Bryan Moorhead
Utah State University

The Trent Affair re-ignited latent controversies and exposed the diplomatic issues and personalities of the Civil War. Neutral rights, impressment, slavery, free trade, self-determination, "King Cotton"--the incident embraced all of these. It severely tested the capacities of government leaders: Prime Minister Palmerston, Foreign Minister Russell, Ambassador Lyons, President Lincoln, Secretary of State Seward, and Ambassador Adams. Woven into this fabric the seemingly insignificant incident becomes meaningful.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact dylan.burns@usu.edu.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=honors

PDF to large to attach - please see above link.
220

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#11
Why the Outlaw Won the War: How Civil War Foreign Diplomacy Pivoted Around an Illegal Blockade
by Angela Ford

As a result, both the Union's and the Confederacy's war strategies pivoted around obtaining Britain's diplomatic favor. Although many factors affected Britain's willingness to intervene and the Northern ability to win, this paper will focus on the effects of the Northern blockade. The Union had constructed a rickety blockade that she hoped to keep intact. Ineffective though it was, the Confederacy longed for its demise. As a result, both powers petitioned the British. The South pled for two tightly interwoven demands: diplomatic recognition and a blockade broken by British forces. The Union had a simpler but more rigorous request: that the British keep out of the conflict altogether. After all, the Union leaders clearly understood that any outside intervention could signal their doom.

At the same time, however, the British realized that remaining unentangled in the conflict could also bear fruit. Having just extracted themselves from the Crimean War, they were not eager to squander their thriving economy and vast resources on another conflict, however small it might be. They realized that there were plenty of economic advantages available to them as neutrals. 4 Besides, although the British needed Southern cotton to meet their manufacturing needs, they realized that the North could offer them something that would be equally valuable in the long run: a new naval precedent.


This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Southern Scholars at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact jspears@southern.edu.

https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=senior_research
250

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#12
Lincoln’s Gamble: Bargaining Failure, British Recognition, and the Start of the American Civil War
by Paul Poast
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
paul.poast@rutgers.edu

Abstract; Why do leaders respond to bargaining failures with violence? Bargaining theory, while useful for understanding why states fail to reach agreement in the face of a costly lottery, is too abstract to link bargaining failures directly to any specific policy. The American Civil War is an excellent case for beginning to bridge this gap. There was an obvious bargaining failure and US President Abraham Lincoln had several options for responding to that failure. Well into June 1861, Lincoln hoped a blockade would compel the Southern states to rejoin the Union without bloodshed. Drawing from a variety of primary source documents and using preventive war logic, I argue that as the prospect of British recognition became more acute, Lincoln, believing a demonstration of force could prevent such recognition, chose to strike Southern forces at Manassas Junction, Virginia. The subsequent Northern defeat emboldened Southern military planners and ignited a long and bloody conflagration.

http://www.princeton.edu/politics/a...ublic/Poast_Lincoln-Gamble-September-2012.pdf
281

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#13
Duquesne University
Duquesne Scholarship Collection
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Summer 2012
Propaganda Use by the Union and Confederacy in Great Britain during the American Civil War, 1861-1862
by Annalise Policicchio

This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact phillipsg@duq.edu.

Abstract
At the beginning of the American Civil War, the United States (the Union) already had international diplomatic status, whereas the Confederate States of America wanted foreign recognition of its independence. The two governments sent agents and propagandists across the Atlantic, in particular to Great Britain to support their objectives. The Confederacy and the Union used various avenues, including rallies, talking with members of Parliament, and publications to convince the British that supporting the Confederacy was the correct action to take. The Union's most well-known weapon emerged in January 1863: the Emancipation Proclamation. From the moment President Abraham Lincoln announced in September 1862 that he would emancipate slaves in the rebelling states, the nature of the American Civil War as viewed by the British changed. It could no longer be viewed simply as a war for southern independence, for it became more explicitly about the maintenance or abolition of slavery. For the British, slavery was a moral issue that they would never countenance.

https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=etd
304

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,908
Location
Chicagoland
#14
Diplomats at war: a critical analysis of American and Confederate diplomacy, 1861-1862.

Collection: Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title:
Diplomats at war: a critical analysis of American and Confederate diplomacy, 1861-1862.
Author:
Houston, John P.
Branch/Country:
United States Navy

Abstract: The
period from winter of 1861 until fall of 1862 proved pivotal in the Civil War. There were key victories and defeats on the battlefield, there was political change, there was debate over slavery, and, often overlooked, there was diplomatic maneuvering. Concerning diplomacy, the task for the Confederacy was to convince European powers that it was in the vital interest of those nations to intervene in the war. Intervention, by way of recognition, mediation, or temporary armistice, would be a major success for the Confederacy. If recognized as legitimate by other major powers, the Confederacy would gain the right to negotiate alliances, acquire loans to finance the war, and call on allies to challenge the legality of the blockade. The task for the United States proved more simplistic. Its task was to prevent European powers from recognizing the Confederacy. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the application of the diplomatic instrument of power by the United States and Confederate States from the winter of 1861 to the fall of 1862. Specific events this study evaluates during that time period include the Trent Affair, the Blockade, the Second Battle of Bull Run, and Battle of Antietam.

Series:
Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Focus: Program
Art of War Scholars
Publisher:
Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date: Original
2014-06-13
Date: Digital
2014-06-13
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library: Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created:
2014-10-02

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Wow, @USS ALASKA ! I missed this when you first posted it. Great thread. Thanks for sharing it with the forum members.
 

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#15
Southern Adventist Univeristy
KnowledgeExchange@Southern
Senior Research Projects Southern Scholars
1993
Charles Francis Adams and the Laird Rams Crisis of 1863
by David Martin Bryan

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Southern Scholars at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact jspears@southern.edu.

In March of 1861, as high hopes for a peaceful resolution of the sectional conflict faltered, few Americans anticipated British intervention in Union struggles with the South. Most Americans heard Britain's proclaimed interest in steering clear of the conflict. Congress rarely mentioned England when discussing the conflict. Secretary of State Seward believed the conflict did not concern other nations. Even President Lincoln underestimated English interest, seeming more concerned with solving the Chicago Post
Office controversy than with preparing his new Minister to England with pretravel instructions.


But Lincoln had reason to worry. If anyone outside the United States could help secure Southern victory and subsequent independence it was the British. They had what the South needed--a latent rivalry with the commercial North, the best navy in the world, shipyards and technology to manufacture the best war vessels, and the ability to bestow official recognition on the South. Short of granting the latter, however, Britain could not openly aid the South without breaking neutrality laws. Realizing this, on March 16, Confederate President Jefferson Davis sent the first Confederate emissaries to England, their prime diplomatic objective to win official recognition. The Union's primary diplomatic task, conversely, immediately became preventing foreign recognition of the Confederacy.

https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=senior_research
317

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#16
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Mid-West Quarterly, The (1913-1918) Mid-West Quarterly, The (1913-1918)
1915
French Opinion of Our Civil War
by Louis Martin Sears

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mid-West Quarterly, The (1913-1918) at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mid-West Quarterly, The (1913-1918) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University

FRENCH OPINION OF OUR CIVIL WAR
In these days when America is the spectator of world war, it is of increased interest to notice the views of Europe when America was the battle ground itself. An awakening interest in this study has recently impressed upon our public the paramount importance of the English attitude toward the war; and our vast debt to Cobden, Bright, and John Stuart Mill and other English Liberals has stirred the national gratitude. The Liberals of France played an equal role. Their voice, not loud but deep, operated to curb the opportunism and militancy of Napoleon III and his cabinet of adventurers. The spirit of liberalism was abroad in the world, and Europeans instinctively recognized the Unionists as champions of a common cause wherein all lovers of humanity claimed a stake.

The nineteenth century witnessed the popularizing of liberalism. Only the Titans of the eighteenth century had burst the chains wherewith bigotry had held the world enslaved. In an age of "enlightened despots" the masses had remained in outer darkness. It was not till the nineteenth century that the first fruits of emancipation were garnered into a new social consciousness. The philosophy of voices crying in the wilderness had become the practical creed of the average man. The common man was to animate, if not to dominate, the nineteenth century, and with his newly awakened instincts of democracy, he clung to liberalism. The attitude of the toiler, were he English, or were he French, was to be a most unwonted and astonishing factor in governmental policy. Whether blind or intelligent, this attitude was instinctively liberal.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=midwestqtrly
329

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#17
College of William and Mary
W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1984

Southern Attitudes Towards Europe during the Civil War
by Kevin Quinlan

College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.

ABSTRACT; This study has tried to clarify Confederate popular attitudes towards England and, to the extent she impinged on the
subject, to France. Since the major source of information by far was the newspaper press, an attempt has been made, at the outset, to argue for the significance of local newspapers as legitimate voices of popular opinion. The hypothesis is that local papers simultaneously influenced and were influenced by the communities they served. The study is divided into three parts. The first looks at the major issues: The English declaration of neutrality, the Northern blockade, and the question of European recognition. The second traces the movement of attitudes from high optimism in the prospect of European intervention, through doubt, and then to the loss of hope. The third part examines the influence of "King Cotton" and the shift of attention from England as a potential ally to France.


https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4782&context=etd
350

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#18
City University of New York (CUNY)
CUNY Academic Works
Master's Theses City College of New York 2017
Hidden History: The role of Great Britain in the American Civil War As told by cultural artifacts
by Mary Griffiths
CUNY City College

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the City College of New York at CUNY Academic Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of CUNY Academic Works. For more information, please contact AcademicWorks@cuny.edu.

What do statues and songs tell us about the Civil War? If the monuments are in the United States – a marker on a battlefield for instance- it is easy to decipher the context and historical significance. Soldiers passed their time with song and their lyrics are preserved to this day, performed by both pop artists and living historians. But what if these cultural artifacts reside outside the United States? Why is there a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the city of Manchester? How does a monument dedicated to the martyrs at the Lune Street Riots on Preston, Lancashire relate to the Civil War? Why does a sea shanty about one of the arguably most famous and successful ships in the Confederate Navy make mention of British individuals and geography? The quick answer is that all these fragments reveal the complicated role the British had in the American Civil War.

Foreign military aid, munitions and troops given during the American Revolution are well-known. School children learn of Marquis de Lafayette’s role in bringing French troops over to fight, aiding in Cornwallis’ defeat at Yorktown. Polish Americans are quick to discuss their hero, Tadeusz Kościuszko. For the American Civil War, popular historical knowledge shares no analogy. Yet a statue of Abraham Lincoln stands in Manchester, England. At least one sea shanty about one of the most successful Confederate vessels makes explicit mention of British people and geography. While no evidence exists of Great Britain taking sides in the American Civil War at the government level, that doesn’t mean no private citizen ever felt some pull to one cause or another. Exploring these investments of expression in greater detail can only enrich historical discourse and reveal its greater impact on the world.

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1713&context=cc_etds_theses
370

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#19
University of Richmond
UR Scholarship Repository
Master's Theses Student Research
8-1969
The Diplomatic Mission of Yancey, Rost and Mann: The Inadequacies of Confederate Foreign Policy, 1861
by Paul Zingg

During the secession movement of January February, 1861, which culminated in the Montgomery Constitutional Convention, the young Confederate government established well-defined policy objectives for the purpose of securing European allies and material assistance. Basically these aims were three-fold: to secure recognition of the sovereign status of the Confederate states; to induce intervention by the European powers on the side of the Confederacy; and after April, 1861, to gain a repudiation of the Union blockade from these same powers. Relying predominantly on the coercive power of cotton, the South began its quest for these objectives with diplomatic efforts directed at the leading European commercial nations.

This paper, then, attempts to investigate and evaluate Confederate foreign policy through the Yancey Rost Mann mission to Great Britain. The approach is largely chronological, although there is some topical presentation. The basic intent of the study is to examine the foundation and formation of Southern foreign policy, the actual operation and strategy of the Yancey Rost Mann mission, and finally, the failures and inadequacies of the policy both in execution and in theory.

https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2266&context=masters-theses
437

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

USS ALASKA

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,448
#20
Best Integrated Writing
Volume 3 2016
Confederate Delusions: “King Cotton” and the Dream of Intervention
by Shane Hapner
Wright State University

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Best Integrated Writing by an authorized editor of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact corescholar@www.libraries.wright.edu, library-corescholar@wright.edu.

Dr. Swanson notes:
Mr. Hapner’s research paper examines the Confederacy’s efforts at cotton diplomacy in France and Britain during the Civil War. Although the subject is a familiar one to historians of the conflict, he managed to find a fresh interpretive angle (an astonishing thing for an undergraduate to do). This essay argues that on the eve of the war a southern economist had artificially inflated European dependence on southern cotton by cleverly misreading export statistics, and that the resulting report influenced Confederate officials and diplomatic policy. In addition to its novel argument, the paper is well written, logically organized, and grounded in a solid secondary source base. In sum, it is graduate-level work.


https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=biw
498

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top