Need some background- "The Earl Russell"

[JohnDLittlefield]

I came across the following passage and need some background or some references where I can find some background info.
"By the decision of the so-called Earl Russell, there can be no difficulty in having vessels built in England as shot-proof blockade runners, ..."

 

[Ptarmigan]

Lord John Russel, British Foreign Secretary 1859 to 1865 . A man of huge influence .

 

[Ptarmigan]

There is a Wikipedea page on him but it cause problems when I posted the link.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Not sure what decision specifically by Lord Russell is referred to here, but he was a champion of British shipbuilders looking to profit from Confederate contracts.

This infuriated U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams, who famously threatened war if the British kept it up.

 

[Rio Bravo]

You want to read or get hold of a copy of World on Fire An Epic history of two Nations divided by Amanda Foreman, published by Penguin Books in 2011. There is a lot about him in this book !

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Not sure what decision specifically by Lord Russell is referred to here, but he was a champion of British shipbuilders looking to profit from Confederate contracts.

This infuriated U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams, who famously threatened war if the British kept it up.

Actually not. It wasn't Russell's actions that led Adams to threaten war but that of Lord Henry Palmerston, the British Prime Minister. If this "Earl Russell" is the same person as Lord John Russell, the British Foreign Secretary, which I suspect it is, then he worked closely with the U.S. through Secretary of State Seward and Charles Francis Adams, our ambassador to the British. If in fact these two are one and the same, then the statement does not make sense because Russell raised an outcry with the Prime Minister Palmerston's cabinet about Confederate raiders being built in England and Scotland and in fact, he was informing Ambassador Adams when and where Confederate raiders were being built with Russell finally seizing the Alexandria on April 5, 1863 as she was preparing to put to sea. Following the legal wrangling over Russell's seizure of the Alexandria, the Confederacy never had another ship built in the British Isles. Russell was also adamant that the Confederate raiders Florida and Alabama not be allowed ever to enter any British ports around the world because the crews were primarily British and the ships and crews were violating British neutrality by "carrying on belligerent operations against a friendly power." Prime Minister Palmerston disagreed with Russell and the Foreign Secretary lost his argument when Colonial Secretary, the duke of Newcastle, ruled that to ban Confederate ships but allow United States' ships into British ports would be a violation of international neutrality laws.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Actually not. It wasn't Russell's actions that led Adams to threaten war but that of Lord Henry Palmerston, the British Prime Minister. If this "Earl Russell" is the same person as Lord John Russell, the British Foreign Secretary, which I suspect it is, then he worked closely with the U.S. through Secretary of State Seward and Charles Francis Adams, our ambassador to the British. If in fact these two are one and the same, then the statement does not make sense because Russell raised an outcry with the Prime Minister Palmerston's cabinet about Confederate raiders being built in England and Scotland and in fact, he was informing Ambassador Adams when and where Confederate raiders were being built with Russell finally seizing the Alexandria on April 5, 1863 as she was preparing to put to sea. Following the legal wrangling over Russell's seizure of the Alexandria, the Confederacy never had another ship built in the British Isles. Russell was also adamant that the Confederate raiders Florida and Alabama not be allowed ever to enter any British ports around the world because the crews were primarily British and the ships and crews were violating British neutrality by "carrying on belligerent operations against a friendly power." Prime Minister Palmerston disagreed with Russell and the Foreign Secretary lost his argument when Colonial Secretary, the duke of Newcastle, ruled that to ban Confederate ships but allow United States' ships into British ports would be a violation of international neutrality laws.

Hmmm....

"Lord John Russell

Lord John Russell (also commonly referred to as 'Earl Russell' from 1861), served as Foreign Secretary in Lord Palmerston's Government during the American Civil War, making him the first contact for the United States Minister to London, Charles Francis Adams. Russell also met informally with Confederate emissaries, most notably William Yancey and James Murray Mason, with the latter becoming increasingly frustrated with him as the war progressed owing to his unwillingness to receive him after their first meeting. This also caused Russell to be a frequent target of attacks from Confederate Commercial Agent Henry Hotze's Index during the second half of the war. Equally critical of him were numerous Members of Parliament who felt his approach towards the United States was too soft, particularly when British ships had been suspected of being seized illegally by the Union navy in international waters in the second half of the war. Conversely, US authorities were never able to forgive him for allowing Confederate naval cruisers to be built in British shipyards, setting the stage for the postwar 'Alabama Claims'.

Although the Earl was far less revealing of his personal feelings towards the American Civil War than were other cabinet members, his private papers and letters do reveal a Southern sympathy and general distrust of Lincoln, Seward, and the Republican Party. In October 1862, Russell informed Lord Palmerston that he was ready to recognise the Confederate States as an independent nation, though he shortly after agreed with the Prime Minister that the time had not yet arrived to take such a step. By the end of the war, his attitudes towards the South had changed sharply, stating he was indifferent towards the possible hanging of Confederate President Jefferson Davis."

from http://www.acwlondon.org/figures/profiles/russell.html

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Hmmm....

"Lord John Russell

Lord John Russell (also commonly referred to as 'Earl Russell' from 1861), served as Foreign Secretary in Lord Palmerston's Government during the American Civil War, making him the first contact for the United States Minister to London, Charles Francis Adams. Russell also met informally with Confederate emissaries, most notably William Yancey and James Murray Mason, with the latter becoming increasingly frustrated with him as the war progressed owing to his unwillingness to receive him after their first meeting. This also caused Russell to be a frequent target of attacks from Confederate Commercial Agent Henry Hotze's Index during the second half of the war. Equally critical of him were numerous Members of Parliament who felt his approach towards the United States was too soft, particularly when British ships had been suspected of being seized illegally by the Union navy in international waters in the second half of the war. Conversely, US authorities were never able to forgive him for allowing Confederate naval cruisers to be built in British shipyards, setting the stage for the postwar 'Alabama Claims'.

Although the Earl was far less revealing of his personal feelings towards the American Civil War than were other cabinet members, his private papers and letters do reveal a Southern sympathy and general distrust of Lincoln, Seward, and the Republican Party. In October 1862, Russell informed Lord Palmerston that he was ready to recognise the Confederate States as an independent nation, though he shortly after agreed with the Prime Minister that the time had not yet arrived to take such a step. By the end of the war, his attitudes towards the South had changed sharply, stating he was indifferent towards the possible hanging of Confederate President Jefferson Davis."

from http://www.acwlondon.org/figures/profiles/russell.html

Wow, quite the opposite of the way he is portrayed by Phillip E. Myers in his book Caution & Cooperation. I'll do a follow up with a excerpt from the book.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Wow, quite the opposite of the way he is portrayed by Phillip E. Myers in his book Caution & Cooperation. I'll do a follow up with a excerpt from the book.

Not at all an area of my expertise, so I have little idea of what Russell's personal feelings were.

The policy of the British government was that British shipbuilders should be free to pursue Confederate contracts at will -- that is, until Adams started threatening war.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Hmmm....

"Lord John Russell

Lord John Russell (also commonly referred to as 'Earl Russell' from 1861), served as Foreign Secretary in Lord Palmerston's Government during the American Civil War, making him the first contact for the United States Minister to London, Charles Francis Adams. Russell also met informally with Confederate emissaries, most notably William Yancey and James Murray Mason, with the latter becoming increasingly frustrated with him as the war progressed owing to his unwillingness to receive him after their first meeting. This also caused Russell to be a frequent target of attacks from Confederate Commercial Agent Henry Hotze's Index during the second half of the war. Equally critical of him were numerous Members of Parliament who felt his approach towards the United States was too soft, particularly when British ships had been suspected of being seized illegally by the Union navy in international waters in the second half of the war. Conversely, US authorities were never able to forgive him for allowing Confederate naval cruisers to be built in British shipyards, setting the stage for the postwar 'Alabama Claims'.

Although the Earl was far less revealing of his personal feelings towards the American Civil War than were other cabinet members, his private papers and letters do reveal a Southern sympathy and general distrust of Lincoln, Seward, and the Republican Party. In October 1862, Russell informed Lord Palmerston that he was ready to recognise the Confederate States as an independent nation, though he shortly after agreed with the Prime Minister that the time had not yet arrived to take such a step. By the end of the war, his attitudes towards the South had changed sharply, stating he was indifferent towards the possible hanging of Confederate President Jefferson Davis."

from http://www.acwlondon.org/figures/profiles/russell.html

"By the end of 1863 all signs pointed to a stronger British-American relationship despite the continuing ravages of the Alabama. British national interest prevailed again to ensure cooperation over the second most heated issue in relations concerning the high seas. This time it was the construction of the Laird rams, which Russell lost no time in trying to curtail. In March 1863, he continued his outcry against Confederate raiders being built in Britain by remarking that the trade in such ships was "an evasion by every subtle intricacies of our law of foreign enlistment." His persistent singular actions in cooperation with the United States brought closure to the potential for war by the fall of the year. Yet except for Russell and Argyll (as far as is known) the rest of the cabinet remained quiet about the matter.64 On 14 March, Russell voluntarily informed Adams that two ^more ships were being built in Scotland for the Confederates. This admission made Adams understand that the ministry was 'without power to take the necessary steps' to prevent the construction of the raiders but was under pressure to do so.65
Russell yielded to Adams's evidence and public opinion about the raiders. Such machinations were popular in neither country. On 21 March, Lord Russell informed Adams that two Confederate ships were being built in Scotland, which caused Adams to expect support from the ministry. He was correct. Russell prepared for a debate on the United States and the Foreign Enlistment Act on 27 March. He informed Palmerston that 'the fitting out and escape of the Alabama ... was clearly an evasion of our law.' "
Caution & Cooperation - The American Civil War in British - American Relations, Phillip E. Myers, pp.159-160

another to follow

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Russell continued-

"In the event, Seward had not needed to go so far with his threats against Britain because Russell continued to work against the Confederates. The foreign secretary helped allay the bad feeling created by Palmerston's speech, which Adams downplayed as resulting from senility. Lord Russell maintained goodwill by continuing to enforce the neutrality laws on the basis of the intent and structure of suspicious vessels in the shipyards. He decided to make a test case of the Alexandra, which had just been built for the Confederacy and, supported by the law officers, informed Palmerston of his intent. On 5 April 1863, with Palmerston's approval but without full evidence, Russell seized the Alexandra and requested American consul Thomas Dudley in Liverpool and British officials to collect evidence against the vessel. Russell's arbitrary action overturned Palmerston's speech of 27 March not to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act with the prime minister's prior assent and caused Adams to believe that the British wanted American cooperation against Confederate activities in the British Isles. The Alexandria case meant that Britain continued the policy of cooperation with the Union, for the ship's detention was a blow to the Confederacy. British policy did not go unnoticed: Henry Hotze wrote secretary of state Judah P. Benjamin that Russell's action 'proves undoubtedly a strong desire to propitiate our enemies.'69

"As a further boon to the Union, Russell got the Alexandra trial moved to London because of Liverpool's Confederate bias. But most importantly, he had set out on a brave new course that put the ministry above the law on the raiders' issue, because national self-interest deemed it proper. In other words, if the lawyers balked, Russell decided to detain suspicious vessels and either negotiate with the owners or buy them. The government lost the case, but the prosecution of a ship built for the Confederacy sent Richmond the message to cease using England as its naval arsenal. Most important, Russell did not wait until the law was amended to modernize the neutrality policy to help him detain suspected raiders. After the Alexandra decision, the Confederates did not build a single ship in the British Isles, and the ministry made decisions without consulting the law officers to uphold peace and protect its interests. Finally, Russell saw that the Alexandra was captured at Nassau and held for the duration of the war.70"
Caution & Cooperation - The American Civil War in British - American Relations, Phillip E. Myers, pg. 161

Since I might be stretching copyright, this will be the last excerpt, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I came across the following passage and need some background or some references where I can find some background info.
"By the decision of the so-called Earl Russell, there can be no difficulty in having vessels built in England as shot-proof blockade runners, ..."

This is the correspondence that the above sentence came from, to put things in context:

Hdqrs. Dept. South Carolina, Georgia, And Florida,
Charleston, S. C, November 25, 1863.

Mr. Theodore Stoney,
Sec. and Treas. Southern Torpedo Co., Charleston, S. C:

Sir: Your letter of the 23d instant, announcing the formation of a Southern Torpedo Company, and asking my "official sanction and aid in pressing the undertaking to rapid completion," has heen received. Allow me to express my gratification at the organization of such a company, which I trust will meet with ample success in driving from our coast the enemy's hlockaders. Believe me, it is a step in the right direction. For over one year I have endeavored in vain to induce our Government to undertake the construction of a shotproof sea-going steamer, armed with Capt. F. D. Lee's repeating torpedo apparatus.

By the decision of the so-called Earl Russell, there can be no difficulty in having vessels built in England as shot-proof blockade runners, which can be armed, as desired, at sea or in Charleston Harbor. The gallant attempt of the David against the New Ironsides shows what can be accomplished by such a method of naval warfare. There can be no doubt now that she has been so seriously injured as to be unable to participate further in the enemy's bombardment of Sumter.

In conclusion, I will be most happy to afford the company all the facilities in my power for carrying into effect their proposed plans and operations, and may fortune smile on their patriotic efforts. Respectfully, your obedient servant,
P.G.T. BEAUREGARD,
General, Commanding

O.R. Series I, Vol. 28, Part II, pg. 525

 

[Bruce Vail]

This is the correspondence that the above sentence came from, to put things in context:

Hdqrs. Dept. South Carolina, Georgia, And Florida,
Charleston, S. C, November 25, 1863.

Mr. Theodore Stoney,
Sec. and Treas. Southern Torpedo Co., Charleston, S. C:

Sir: Your letter of the 23d instant, announcing the formation of a Southern Torpedo Company, and asking my "official sanction and aid in pressing the undertaking to rapid completion," has heen received. Allow me to express my gratification at the organization of such a company, which I trust will meet with ample success in driving from our coast the enemy's hlockaders. Believe me, it is a step in the right direction. For over one year I have endeavored in vain to induce our Government to undertake the construction of a shotproof sea-going steamer, armed with Capt. F. D. Lee's repeating torpedo apparatus.

By the decision of the so-called Earl Russell, there can be no difficulty in having vessels built in England as shot-proof blockade runners, which can be armed, as desired, at sea or in Charleston Harbor. The gallant attempt of the David against the New Ironsides shows what can be accomplished by such a method of naval warfare. There can be no doubt now that she has been so seriously injured as to be unable to participate further in the enemy's bombardment of Sumter.

In conclusion, I will be most happy to afford the company all the facilities in my power for carrying into effect their proposed plans and operations, and may fortune smile on their patriotic efforts. Respectfully, your obedient servant,
P.G.T. BEAUREGARD,
General, Commanding

O.R. Series I, Vol. 28, Part II, pg. 525

Gen. Beauregard seems to have been unaware of diplomatic developments in London. By November 1863 Ambassador Adams had threatened the British with war over the issue of the Laird rams, and Britain was backing down. Gen. Beauregard was just wrong if he thought the British would build a powerful new warship for the Confederacy in 1864.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Gen. Beauregard seems to have been unaware of diplomatic developments in London. By November 1863 Ambassador Adams had threatened the British with war over the issue of the Laird rams, and Britain was backing down. Gen. Beauregard was just wrong if he thought the British would build a powerful new warship for the Confederacy in 1864.

Agree. British political leaders during the War have always been confusing to me but I remember that a couple of cabinet members were pro-North and a couple were pro-Southern. I had thought that Russell was pro-North because I recall reading a Seward bio where the author came across that Russell and Seward developed a fairly close and friendly political relationship after Seward's initial sword waving at the British. That's what caused me to check Myers' book when the op was made. I have one more book on British- American relations during the War that I have to find and dig out to see what that author says about Russell.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Agree. British political leaders during the War have always been confusing to me but I remember that a couple of cabinet members were pro-North and a couple were pro-Southern. I had thought that Russell was pro-North because I recall reading a Seward bio where the author came across that Russell and Seward developed a fairly close and friendly political relationship after Seward's initial sword waving at the British. That's what caused me to check Myers' book when the op was made. I have one more book on British- American relations during the War that I have to find and dig out to see what that author says about Russell.

I don't think Earl Russell was pro-North or pro-South -- he was just pro-British.

I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica and was surprised to learn that he had earlier served as Prime Minister 1846-1852.

He was actually sort of an old duffer by the time the Civil War rolled around -- he was 69 years old in 1861.

 

[Bruce Vail]

You want to read or get hold of a copy of World on Fire An Epic history of two Nations divided by Amanda Foreman, published by Penguin Books in 2011. There is a lot about him in this book !

Foreman's book received very good reviews:

In 2011, A World on Fire was "highly commended"[citation needed] by the judges of the PEN Hessell-Tiltman Prize. It was chosen as a "Book of the Year" by The New Yorker[13] and The Economist[14] and named one of the "Ten Best Books of 2011" by The New York Times,[15] Bloomberg,[16] The Washington Post,[17] the Chicago Tribune,[18] and NPR.[19]

In 2012, A World on Fire won the Fletcher Pratt Award for excellence in Civil War history writing.[20] It was a finalist for the 2012 Lincoln Prize,[21] the Lionel Gelber Prize,[21] and the National Book Critics Circle Award.[22] It was also nominated for the Jefferson Davis Prize.[21]

 

[JohnDLittlefield]

This is the correspondence that the above sentence came from, to put things in context: O.R. Series I, Vol. 28, Part II, pg. 525

Yes, this is precisely the reference in which I am interested.
I had a feeling this reference was to a specific piece of legislation, but perhaps not.
Thanks everyone for the input. Very helpful.