Worker Solidarity

[Ann Prehn]

I recently came across a blip by Karl Marx in the New York Tribune, 1862, having to do with the starving workers of the British cotton mills siding with the slaves against their own interests. Marx seems to credit these workers with discouraging Britain from joining the war on the Southern side. (Lincoln was so grateful that he sent food aid and they erected a statue of him.) Anybody know anymore about it?

 

[matthew mckeon]

There is a famous petition from Lancastershire textile workers in support of Lincoln and the Union. The Union was seen to be the side of the working man and democracy as well as emancipation.

Henry Hammond had popularized the phrase "cotton is king" and predicted that no power on earth would make war on cotton. But besides being a thoroughly unpleasant human being, he turned out to be dead wrong.

 

[civilken]

this brings up a interesting question if people from another country were willing to go hungry rather than support the South. How can they say the ideals were honorable it's easy to point to the north and say we were the aggressors but we must always remember not one European country was willing to support a slaveholding country. the only reason England looked at the idea was in hopes that America would fall the crown never liked the idea of individuals taking care of themselves if this happens who nead''s a monarchy

 

[Ann Prehn]

There is a famous petition from Lancastershire textile workers in support of Lincoln and the Union. The Union was seen to be the side of the working man and democracy as well as emancipation.

Henry Hammond had popularized the phrase "cotton is king" and predicted that no power on earth would make war on cotton. But besides being a thoroughly unpleasant human being, he turned out to be dead wrong.

Was there just a petition or was there more than that? How influential was it? Britain had no shame in its Opium Wars, so I don't credit any idealism on the government's part. What role did Marxism or the Union Movement have?

 

[matthew mckeon]

Was there just a petition or was there more than that? How influential was it? Britain had no shame in its Opium Wars, so I don't credit any idealism on the government's part. What role did Marxism or the Union Movement have?

Its complicated. While the British were building an empire, with all the violence and oppression that entails, a large and influential community in England was anti slavery, and had ended slavery in the Empire, as well as maintaining an effective naval anti-slavery patrol. Working people saw the US as much more democratic than Britain.

 

[leftyhunter]

Was there just a petition or was there more than that? How influential was it? Britain had no shame in its Opium Wars, so I don't credit any idealism on the government's part. What role did Marxism or the Union Movement have?

We have quite a few threads on foreign relations during the Civil War and British govermental views and actions . Any mod should help you find them if you send a private message.
The U.K. along with most of West Europe were quote " neutral" but in reality sold weapons and lots of them at that to both sides. In particular the U.K. , France, Belgium and Austria.
The British openly built smuggling ships in particular in Clyde, Scotland. British and French Islands in the Carribean were chock full of blockade runners. The Spanish allowed blockade runners to use Havana aa well. Montomoros, Mexico was a major smuggling port until the Union captured Brownsville, Texas.
The Confederate Naval Raiders the Shenandoah and Alabama were British ships with British sailors and British cannon but were not part of the Royal Navy.
European countries granted " belligerent" status to the Confederate Navy meaning they could use their docks for 72 hours.
A major change in British policy came about during the "Laird Ram Affair" when U.S. diplomatic pressure forced the U.K. not to allow the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
Intrestingly enough the U.K. did allow Union Army recruiting on British soil.
Leftyhunter

 

[Bruce Vail]

We have quite a few threads on foreign relations during the Civil War and British govermental views and actions . Any mod should help you find them if you send a private message.
The U.K. along with most of West Europe were quote " neutral" but in reality sold weapons and lots of them at that to both sides. In particular the U.K. , France, Belgium and Austria.
The British openly built smuggling ships in particular in Clyde, Scotland. British and French Islands in the Carribean were chock full of blockade runners. The Spanish allowed blockade runners to use Havana aa well. Montomoros, Mexico was a major smuggling port until the Union captured Brownsville, Texas.
The Confederate Naval Raiders the Shenandoah and Alabama were British ships with British sailors and British cannon but were not part of the Royal Navy.
European countries granted " belligerent" status to the Confederate Navy meaning they could use their docks for 72 hours.
A major change in British policy came about during the "Laird Ram Affair" when U.S. diplomatic pressure forced the U.K. not to allow the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
Intrestingly enough the U.K. did allow Union Army recruiting on British soil.
Leftyhunter

British sailors?

 

[leftyhunter]

British sailors?

Yes . Most if not all of the crew on the Alabama and Shenandoah were British sailors but not Royal Naval Sailors. I will respectively ask our naval experts @Mark F. Jenkins and @AndyHall to confirm this and if possible briefly outline the Laird Ram Affair for our new friend @Ann Prehn .
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

this brings up a interesting question if people from another country were willing to go hungry rather than support the South. How can they say the ideals were honorable it's easy to point to the north and say we were the aggressors but we must always remember not one European country was willing to support a slaveholding country. the only reason England looked at the idea was in hopes that America would fall the crown never liked the idea of individuals taking care of themselves if this happens who nead''s a monarchy

As noted the British and European countries may not of diplomatically recognized the Confederacy or made any military alliances but they did indeed sell as much armaments to the Confederacy as the Confederacy could afford. The British, Spanish and French allowed blockade runners unlimited access to their Caribbean ports.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

Yes . Most if not all of the crew on the Alabama and Shenandoah were British sailors but not Royal Naval Sailors. I will respectively ask our naval experts @Mark F. Jenkins and @AndyHall to confirm this and if possible briefly outline the Laird Ram Affair for our new friend @Ann Prehn .
Leftyhunter

Because both those vesssels were Commere Raiders and pretty much had to recruit over seas. Alabama had her keel laid in England as well as other vessel's so crewing her on delivery almost had to British if it was to have a crew. Also Commerce Raiders paid prize money in addition to a wage.

 

[AndyHall]

Yes . Most if not all of the crew on the Alabama and Shenandoah were British sailors but not Royal Naval Sailors. I will respectively ask our naval experts @Mark F. Jenkins and @AndyHall to confirm this and if possible briefly outline the Laird Ram Affair for our new friend @Ann Prehn .
Leftyhunter

Alabama's officers were southerners who had assembled in Liverpool to take Alabama to sea under an assumed name. Most of her crew were British merchant seamen, some of whom would undoubtedly be RN veterans. As @Borderruffian suggests, because both Alabama and Shenandoah were commerce raiders, they had to do all their recruiting overseas.

 

[leftyhunter]

Because both those vesssels were Commere Raiders and pretty much had to recruit over seas. Alabama had her keel laid in England as well as other vessel's so crewing her on delivery almost had to British if it was to have a crew. Also Commerce Raiders paid prize money in addition to a wage.

True but in theory Confederate sailors could just take a blockade runner to any Caribbean port and board the ship when it makes it's 72 hour layover. On the other hand the Confederacy was short staffed and more likely then not most if not all the sailors on board the Shenandoah and Alabama were ex Royal Naval sailors. Our naval experts @Mark F. Jenkins or @AndyHall would know more about that.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Alabama's officers were southerners who had assembled in Liverpool to take Alabama to sea under an assumed name. Most of her crew were British merchant seamen, some of whom would undoubtedly be RN veterans. As @Borderruffian suggests, because both Alabama and Shenandoah were commerce raiders, they had to do all their recruiting overseas.

Just saw your post after I typed mine. I thought almost all the officers would be British but I was wrong.
Leftyhunter

 

[AndyHall]

I recently came across a blip by Karl Marx in the New York Tribune, 1862, having to do with the starving workers of the British cotton mills siding with the slaves against their own interests. Marx seems to credit these workers with discouraging Britain from joining the war on the Southern side. (Lincoln was so grateful that he sent food aid and they erected a statue of him.) Anybody know anymore about it?

Well, he would claim that.

Marx was living in the UK and very active in organizing labor and especially mill workers. He (and many of them) had a natural affinity for the Union, because it was open to free labor. How much direct influence Marx or his ideas had on Union leaders or policy -- remember, Das Kapital was not published until after the war -- is highly questionable.

 

[AndyHall]

FWIW, I just did a quick search for Karl Marx in American newspapers at GenealogyBank, and he comes up a few times in the 1850s, and then skips to 1870 at the time of the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune -- not a mention of him in the American papers indexed there during the war. Not a particularly influential guy at that time.

 

[WJC]

[British] Working people saw the US as much more democratic than Britain.

Which was true. The United States, a republic, had more individual participation in its government- local, state and national- than any other nation. In spite of changes in the early 19th century, Britain remained a monarchy, increasingly limited by Parliament, but still with clear stratification by 'class'.

 

[AndyHall]

but still with clear stratification by 'class'.

There's an old joke about an American sitting next to an Englishman on a flight from London to New York. The American asks the Englishman why he's traveling to the United States. The Englishman replies, "to study how you perpetuate the class system in America."

The American laughs and says, "we don't have a class system in the United States."

To which the Englishman replies, "that's how you perpetuate it."

 

[WJC]

I recently came across a blip by Karl Marx in the New York Tribune, 1862, having to do with the starving workers of the British cotton mills siding with the slaves against their own interests. Marx seems to credit these workers with discouraging Britain from joining the war on the Southern side. (Lincoln was so grateful that he sent food aid and they erected a statue of him.) Anybody know anymore about it?

I was not aware of Marx' views, but historians and other objective writers have long made the point that the workers, together with British religious leaders and champions of abolition heavily influenced the Palmerston government to remain neutral.
Another- perhaps equally important- factor in refusing to become involved was the threatening situation in Europe.

 

[Ann Prehn]

FWIW, I just did a quick search for Karl Marx in American newspapers at GenealogyBank, and he comes up a few times in the 1850s, and then skips to 1870 at the time of the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune -- not a mention of him in the American papers indexed there during the war. Not a particularly influential guy at that time.

Actually, Marx and Engels were regular correspondents with Greeley's NY Tribune. Das Capital had not been written, but Communist Manifesto had, and a wave of German immigration to New York was spreading those ideas. Despite that the Manifesto was not published in this country till after the war (by Victoria Woodhull), the NY Times was railing against all kinds of collectivism well before the war. Many of the Abolitionists wanted slavery and factory worker conditions to be addressed together as a workers' issue. Marx did not live in a bubble. He was influenced by forces already in play.

 

[leftyhunter]

I was not aware of Marx' views, but historians and other objective writers have made the point that the workers, together with British religious leaders and champions of abolition heavily influenced the Palmerston government to remain neutral.
It is also worth noting that Britain was threatened elsewhere in Europe at the time. This was also an important factor in not taking sides in our struggle.

Also due to a drought in the Ukraine the U.K. depended on the U.S. for forty plus percent of it's grain imports. In fact per Catton grain sales to the U.K. exceeded cotton sales.
Also while their indeed was a severe shortage of cotton in 1862 cotton was also being exported by Egypt and British India. In addition the Union could export cotton from the liberated Islands off South Carolina and Louisiana. The Confederacy could still export a limited amount of cotton via blockade runners.
Leftyhunter