Oops, big lump of your posts....

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
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 [email protected].

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

Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Location
Chicagoland
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

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Southern Adventist Univeristy
[email protected]
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 [email protected] It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Research Projects by an authorized administrator of [email protected] For more information, please contact [email protected].

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

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
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 [email protected] of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mid-West Quarterly, The (1913-1918) by an authorized administrator of [email protected]

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

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
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 [email protected].

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

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
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 [email protected].

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

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
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

CivilWarTalk

Lieutenant General
Managing Member & Webmaster
Joined
Apr 1, 1999
Location
Martinsburg, WV
THIS WILL BE THE ONLY STICKY THREAD IN THIS FORUM!

REMEMBER when using this forum, or any forum on CivilWarTalk: AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH RESPECT - Have a healthy exchange of opinions. You can agree to disagree. You may challenge another member's opinions, but challenge RESPECTFULLY. Do not insult, abuse or verbally attack others. Failure to comply will meet disciplinary action.

Important Threads:

by @civilwartalk from 2002​
by @ami from 2014​
by @wilber6150 from 2010​
by @redfish from 2002​
by @jgoodguy from 2015​
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Fellow Posters,

I weary of reading about all the cultural conflict and differences between the North and the South during this period with virtually no mention, let alone emphasis, upon what the sections had in common. I wonder if some of you might think with me along these lines and share your thoughts with me. In thinking of a divorce in marriage that I know about, one spouse, having determined upon a course of action, could find absolutely no good or common ground with her mate because to do so might have halted her pre-determined course of action. In short, the spouse in question was far from objectivity and balance. Her course of action dictated what she had to pile up as negative excuses about her mate for justifying her pre-determined conduct. And so I am wondering just how many things the North and South had IN COMMON that the South, especially South Carolina, ignored in the ultimate crafting of Secession Declarations. E.g., in the Declarations I find NO MENTION of the $10 million subsidy given to the South by Congress in 1853. Simple question: What other good and common things did these Sections enjoy but that the Seceshers ignored? For the sake of discussion feel free to widen the time period from 1850-186 to 1845-1861.

James
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Blessmag

Captain
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Location
Minnesota
"White settlers continued to flood into Indian country. As the population increased, the homesteaders could petition Congress for creation of a territory. This would initiate an Organic Act which established a three-part territorial government. The governor and judiciary were appointed by the President of the United States, while the legislature was elected by citizens residing in the territory. One elected representative was allowed a seat in the U. S. House of Representatives. The federal government took responsibility for territorial affairs. Later, the inhabitants of the territory could apply for admission as a full state. No such action was taken for the so-called Indian Territory, so that area was not treated as a legal territory.[5]
olton_Map_of_Kansas_and_Nebraska_%28first_edition%29_-_Geographicus_-_NebraskaKansas-colton-1855.jpg

Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota Territories 1855
The reduction of the land area of Indian Territory (or Indian Country, as defined in the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834), the successor of Missouri Territory began almost immediately after its creation with:
  • Wisconsin Territory formed in 1836 from lands east of the Mississippi and between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Wisconsin became a state in 1848
    • Iowa Territory (land between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers) was split from Wisconsin Territory in 1838 and became a state in 1846.
      • Minnesota Territory was split from Iowa Territory in 1849 and part of the Minnesota Territory became the state of Minnesota in 1858
  • Dakota Territory was organized in 1861 from the northern part of Indian Country and Minnesota Territory. The name refers to the Dakota branch of the Sioux tribes.
Indian Country was reduced to the approximate boundaries of the current state of Oklahoma by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which created Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory
 

Blessmag

Captain
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Location
Minnesota
"The Panic of 1857 was a financial panic in the United States caused by the declining international economy and over-expansion of the domestic economy. Because of the interconnectedness of the world economy by the 1850s, the financial crisis that began in late 1857 was the first worldwide economic crisis ...

By the spring of 1858, "commercial credit had dried up, forcing already debt-ridden merchants of the West to curtail new purchases of inventory"; as a result of limited purchasing in the west, merchants around the country began to see decreases in sales and profits.[6] The railroads "had created an interdependent national economy, and now an economic downturn in the West threatened ... [an] economic crisis".[6] Since many banks had financed the railroads and land purchases, they began to feel the pressures of the falling value of railroad securities. The Illinois Central; Erie; Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago; and Reading Railroad lines were all forced to shut down owing to the financial downturn. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad and the Fond du Lac Railroad companies were forced to declare bankruptcy.[16] The Boston and Worcester Railroad Company also experienced heavy financial difficulties. The employees were informed, in a memo written in late October 1857, "the receipts from Passengers and Freight have fallen off during [the] last month (as compared with the corresponding month of last year), over twenty thousand dollars, with very little prospect of any improvement during the coming winter."[17] The company also announced that their workers would receive a "reduction in ... pay of ten percent".[18] In addition to the decreasing value of railroad securities, farmers began to default on payments on their mortgaged lands in the west, which put more financial pressure on banks.[16]
The prices of grain also decreased significantly, and farmers experienced a loss in revenue, causing banks to foreclose on recently purchased lands. Grain prices in 1855 had skyrocketed to $2.19 a bushel, and farmers began to purchase land to increase their crop supply, which in turn would increase their profits. However, by 1858, grain prices dropped severely to $0.80 a bushel.[19] Many Midwest towns felt the pressures of the Panic. For example, the town of Keokuk, Iowa experienced financial strife due to the economic downturns of 1857.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
"White settlers continued to flood into Indian country. As the population increased, the homesteaders could petition Congress for creation of a territory. This would initiate an Organic Act which established a three-part territorial government. The governor and judiciary were appointed by the President of the United States, while the legislature was elected by citizens residing in the territory. One elected representative was allowed a seat in the U. S. House of Representatives. The federal government took responsibility for territorial affairs. Later, the inhabitants of the territory could apply for admission as a full state. No such action was taken for the so-called Indian Territory, so that area was not treated as a legal territory.[5]
View attachment 218431
Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota Territories 1855
The reduction of the land area of Indian Territory (or Indian Country, as defined in the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834), the successor of Missouri Territory began almost immediately after its creation with:
  • Wisconsin Territory formed in 1836 from lands east of the Mississippi and between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Wisconsin became a state in 1848
    • Iowa Territory (land between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers) was split from Wisconsin Territory in 1838 and became a state in 1846.
      • Minnesota Territory was split from Iowa Territory in 1849 and part of the Minnesota Territory became the state of Minnesota in 1858
  • Dakota Territory was organized in 1861 from the northern part of Indian Country and Minnesota Territory. The name refers to the Dakota branch of the Sioux tribes.
Indian Country was reduced to the approximate boundaries of the current state of Oklahoma by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which created Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory
So, would one answer to my question be this: "The North and South held some territories together as partners"?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
"The Panic of 1857 was a financial panic in the United States caused by the declining international economy and over-expansion of the domestic economy. Because of the interconnectedness of the world economy by the 1850s, the financial crisis that began in late 1857 was the first worldwide economic crisis ...

By the spring of 1858, "commercial credit had dried up, forcing already debt-ridden merchants of the West to curtail new purchases of inventory"; as a result of limited purchasing in the west, merchants around the country began to see decreases in sales and profits.[6] The railroads "had created an interdependent national economy, and now an economic downturn in the West threatened ... [an] economic crisis".[6] Since many banks had financed the railroads and land purchases, they began to feel the pressures of the falling value of railroad securities. The Illinois Central; Erie; Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago; and Reading Railroad lines were all forced to shut down owing to the financial downturn. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad and the Fond du Lac Railroad companies were forced to declare bankruptcy.[16] The Boston and Worcester Railroad Company also experienced heavy financial difficulties. The employees were informed, in a memo written in late October 1857, "the receipts from Passengers and Freight have fallen off during [the] last month (as compared with the corresponding month of last year), over twenty thousand dollars, with very little prospect of any improvement during the coming winter."[17] The company also announced that their workers would receive a "reduction in ... pay of ten percent".[18] In addition to the decreasing value of railroad securities, farmers began to default on payments on their mortgaged lands in the west, which put more financial pressure on banks.[16]
The prices of grain also decreased significantly, and farmers experienced a loss in revenue, causing banks to foreclose on recently purchased lands. Grain prices in 1855 had skyrocketed to $2.19 a bushel, and farmers began to purchase land to increase their crop supply, which in turn would increase their profits. However, by 1858, grain prices dropped severely to $0.80 a bushel.[19] Many Midwest towns felt the pressures of the Panic. For example, the town of Keokuk, Iowa experienced financial strife due to the economic downturns of 1857.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857
And so this reduces to what short phrase to capture what the North and South had in common?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top