England Supported the Confederacy?

Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#21
I have read that England supported the Confederacy. Here is a rather long review of Lincoln and Tsar of Russia working together against England.:

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017...d-british-led-intervention-against-the-union/

i have read the Bankers in Europe were involved with the financing of the cotton industry. I am coming to the conclusion the International Investors never gave up on "owning" America.

Does anyone have other information?
The above source " The Millennium Report" is blatantly Anti-Semetic. It states on the first few lines that the "Rothchilds lost the American Revolution" . Any crediable source that the Rothchild family played a major role in the American Revolution?
Also it states the Confederacy mounted "Blitzkrieg operations" in 1861. I didn't know the Confederacy was so advanced that they had tanks, planes and artillery used in a coordinated fashion.
Maybe our moderators such need to look at this Millennium Report . Hopefully sources from racist or anti Semetic organizations will not be used.
Leftyhunter
 

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

Waterloo50

Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
4,030
Location
Banana Republic. UK
#22
sorry now I'm really struck
there is a city in Frankonia called Erlangen (woulde be Erlangen[e]r) which was at the time of the ACW nearly neclectable

has it anything to do with Erlangen / Frankonia (the only location by that name in Europe)
Erlanger was a French finance company, it was originally started by Baron Frederic Emile d’Erlanger, a German. You could be correct in assuming there is a connection with Erlangen.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,576
Location
Denver, CO
#24
The British wanted the United States to either, 1. concede disunion, or 2. prosecute the war vigorously and restore cotton production and the export of cotton. What the British did not want was a general race war in which one group or another in the south was murdered.
There was plenty of reason for the British to think the United States was not prosecuting the war and would not win, in 1861 and 1863.
But by June of 1863 the British were aware of the pending fall of Vicksburg.
When it appeared that the United States was going to win, British policy changed.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,576
Location
Denver, CO
#25
In the post war situation, it was Charles Sumner who advocated demanding billions of dollars in indirect damages. The British were outraged by this demand.
The US administration publicly backed these demands. There was a pending presidential election. However Charles Francis Adams, on behalf of the US went to London and privately informed the British about a compromise in terminology that would solve the issue.
In the post war situation, if the US adhered to hard money, and made steps to returning to the gold standard, there was going to be substantial reasons to for the British to give the Republicans the blue ribbon for first in show.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#26
My tour guide in Halifax, Canada insisted that the British stationed soldiers in Halifax after the Civil War because England feared the United States would invade in retaliation for the British support of the Confederacy. I said I thought England might fear that, but that essentially the British did NOT support the Confederacy. Was I right or was he?
One should study the Laird-Ram Affair which showed how complex US-UK relations were during the Civil War. There should be at least a few threads about that in our Naval Forum. There should be a Wiki article and other articles on it.
Leftyhunter
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,326
#27
Plenty of English(and other Britons) were pro-Union. The Union opposed slavery, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, and there was a strong abolitionist community in Britain. The Union represented a more democratic society, and working class people were sympathetic to the US.
 
#30
The British in essence supported both sides. They freely sold weapons to both sides and their colonial ports in the West Indies allowed blockade runners to come and go at will.
And to be accurate, the weapons sales were not by the British government but rather private firms which was permissible under international laws as the private firms in this country did with the British and French governments during their 8 year Anglo-French war that began in 1793.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#31
And to be accurate, the weapons sales were not by the British government but rather private firms which was permissible under international laws as the private firms in this country did with the British and French governments during their 8 year Anglo-French war that began in 1793.
True but when the proverbial " stuff " was about to hit the fan the British government did prevent the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
After the Civil War there is an example in one of the first international law cases ; " the Alabama Claims Case" where the British government did have to pay a substantial sum to the United States government for the damages incurred by the Alabama which was built and armed by private British firms.
Leftyhunter
 
#32
True but when the proverbial " stuff " was about to hit the fan the British government did prevent the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
After the Civil War there is an example in one of the first international law cases ; " the Alabama Claims Case" where the British government did have to pay a substantial sum to the United States government for the damages incurred by the Alabama which was built and armed by private British firms.
Leftyhunter
Agree but the Laird Rams were definitely ships of war that were prohibited by English law from being built and sold to any internationally recognized belligerent but almost made it through due to the complicity of a handful of Confederate sympathizing British government officials. The Alabama Claims were made possible because basically the same thing happened with the building of the Alabama except that ship made it to sea and into the Confederacy's hands.
 
#34
The following is an excerpt from a May 15, 1793 letter from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, British Minister to the U.S. explaining our policy of a neutral whose citizens/private businesses sell arms to a belligerent. This policy remained the same throughout the 19th Century (my bold):

Sir,—Your several memorials of the 8th instant have been laid before the President, as had been that of the 2d, as soon as received. They have been considered with all the attention and the impartiality which a firm determination to do what is equal and right between all the belligerent powers, could inspire.

In one of these, you communicate, on the information of the British consul at Charleston, that the consul of France at the same place had condemned as legal prize, a British vessel, captured by a French frigate, and you justly add that this judicial act is not warranted by the usage of nations, nor by the stipulations existing between the United States and France. I observe further, that it is not warranted by any law of the land. It is consequently a mere nullity; as such it can be respected in no court, can make no part in the title to the vessel, nor give to the purchaser any other security than what he would have had without it. In short, it is so absolutely nothing as to give no foundation of just concern to any person interested in the fate of the vessel; and in this point of view, Sir, I am in hopes you will see it. The proceeding, indeed, if the British consul has been rightly informed, and we have no other information of it, has been an act of disrespect towards the United States, to which its government cannot be inattentive; a just sense of our own rights and duties, and the obviousness of the principle, are a security that no inconveniences will be permitted to arise from repetitions of it.

The purchase of arms and military accoutrements by an agent of the French government, in this country, with an intent to export them to France, is the subject of another of the memorials. Of this fact we are equally uninformed as of the former. Our citizens have been always free to make, vend and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be hard in principle, and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal derangement in their occupations. It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced in the President's proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their way to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned; and that even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, the benefits of them will be left equally free and open to all.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#36
Agree but the Laird Rams were definitely ships of war that were prohibited by English law from being built and sold to any internationally recognized belligerent but almost made it through due to the complicity of a handful of Confederate sympathizing British government officials. The Alabama Claims were made possible because basically the same thing happened with the building of the Alabama except that ship made it to sea and into the Confederacy's hands.
Both cases show that while British weapons and or warships were produced by private firms ultimately it is the British government that determines who they go to. The British government still allowed arms sales to the Confederacy until the closure of Wilmington made it impracticable to ship them.
Leftyhunter
 
#37
The British government still allowed arms sales to the Confederacy until the closure of Wilmington made it impracticable to ship them.
Leftyhunter
While there was complicity with certain British officials revolving around the Alabama and a few other warships, this simply is incorrect when it came to the sales of small arms and ammunition. Payment for the contraband was made to the private firms that manufactured the arms and they were transported on private ships. The only involvement the British government had with the shipment of small arms to either belligerent was a stern warning that "you were on your own if you got caught" as spelled out in the final paragraph of Queen Victoria's May 13, 1861 Proclamation of Neutrality (my bold):

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do hereby farther warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty, as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf; as for example and more especially by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship or vessel of war or transport, of or in the service of either of the said contending parties; or by serving as, officers, sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties ; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas, with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure, within her Majesty's dominions at home or abroad others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war or privateer or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavouring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations,in that behalf imposed or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects, and persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or, penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.





 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#38
While there was complicity with certain British officials revolving around the Alabama and a few other warships, this simply is incorrect when it came to the sales of small arms and ammunition. Payment for the contraband was made to the private firms that manufactured the arms and they were transported on private ships. The only involvement the British government had with the shipment of small arms to either belligerent was a stern warning that "you were on your own if you got caught" as spelled out in the final paragraph of Queen Victoria's May 13, 1861 Proclamation of Neutrality (my bold):

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do hereby farther warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty, as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf; as for example and more especially by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship or vessel of war or transport, of or in the service of either of the said contending parties; or by serving as, officers, sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties ; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas, with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure, within her Majesty's dominions at home or abroad others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war or privateer or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavouring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations,in that behalf imposed or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects, and persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or, penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.




Actions always speak louder then words. Small arms flowed freely to the Confederacy until Willmington was captured. The Union openly recruited British citizens on British soil. Only strong U.S. political pressure kept the Laird Rams from being sold to the Confederate Navy.
The UK openly sold weapons to both sides.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,322
Location
los angeles ca
#39
While there was complicity with certain British officials revolving around the Alabama and a few other warships, this simply is incorrect when it came to the sales of small arms and ammunition. Payment for the contraband was made to the private firms that manufactured the arms and they were transported on private ships. The only involvement the British government had with the shipment of small arms to either belligerent was a stern warning that "you were on your own if you got caught" as spelled out in the final paragraph of Queen Victoria's May 13, 1861 Proclamation of Neutrality (my bold):

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do hereby farther warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty, as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf; as for example and more especially by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship or vessel of war or transport, of or in the service of either of the said contending parties; or by serving as, officers, sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties ; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas, with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure, within her Majesty's dominions at home or abroad others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war or privateer or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavouring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations,in that behalf imposed or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects, and persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or, penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.




In addition the UK government openly cast a blind eye towards the blockade runners. Blockade Runners were built in the open a Clydesdale , Scottland. In Bruce Catton's book ( I can get the citation and page number latter) there is a photo in Bermuda Harbor jammed with blockade runners.
To be fair the UK in no way had a unique foreign policy in regards to the American Civil War. Other West European nations sold weaponry to both sides. Both France and Spain were more the happy for blockade runners to use their Caribbean ports.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,576
Location
Denver, CO
#40
It is difficult to believe that the sale and arming of a few maritime raiders by the British for use by the Confederates was unintentional. It put pressure on the US government to, 1. adopt emancipation as a national policy, and 2. intensify the war effort. It put pressure on the US shipping to abandon the US flag and adopt the British flag. Giving the Yanks a bit of their own medicine was seen as a bit of dry humor, and good business.
However, by 1863 the US had adopted emancipation. They had adopted the British example of freeing and arming the slaves. The British could not complain about that, they adhered to the ancient custom, and the Yankees were doing the same thing. The Yanks conquered the Mississippi, which ended most of the internal slave trade and demonstrated that cotton production would resume at some point. The US had conquered New Orleans, something the British attempted at great cost of human life.
British policy then revealed itself. Confederate raiders were one thing, armed rams capable of breaking the blockade were thrown into court.
The British navy knew where each ship was on the high seas. Its hard to credit that once the US was co-operating with suppressing the slave trade, British officers did not give valuable tips as to the location of the raiders. For some reason I do not believe the Kearsage found the Alabama without a few hints.
 
Last edited:



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