A War of the World
Britain during the American Civil War
Jasper Koops
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank all members of the American Studies department - when I began my studies I made a point of stating multiple times that I would avoid any course that had anything to do with American history. My failure is their success.
I wish to thank my thesis advisor George Blaustein in particular who, despite
having apparently resigned himself to the fact that I would write ‘A certain kind of
thesis’ has successfully tricked me into learning an enormous amount literary
history and - worse- gaining an appreciation for it.
I wish to thank a certain group of friends for all of their support over the past years and for making my time here so enjoyable.
I also want to thank another group for interrupting my studies at all the right times to get some chicken diner together.
Finally I wish to thank my parents who helped me through these hectic past few weeks.
Contents
Acknowledgements
1
Contents
2
Introduction
3
Liberty
7
1.1 Republicanism in two Revolutions
7
1.2 Europe and the specter of 1848
18
1.3 Brittain as the great exception?
2
4
1.4 Democracy in America
30
War
3
5
2.1 Peace in our time
3
5
2.2 Reframing the Civil War
4
5
Slavery
6
6
3.1 Slavery in two resolutions
6
6
3.2 Cotton and the irrelevance of British abolitionism
69
Conclusion
72
Bibliography
7
6
Introduction
On November the 8th, 1865 the CSS Shenandoah, the last remnant of the Confederate military, officially surrendered to the United States of America. 1865 was a year that had seen a lot of Confederates surrender, but this particular event stands out for a number of reasons. First of all, the surrender was 6 months late - with the war having come to an end in May. It also took place in Liverpool which was almost 6000 kilometers removed from the front lines.
Four and a half years before Earl Russell, the British foreign secretary, had ensured his queen that Britain would not be involved in the war that was being fought in America. Britain would stay neutral, respect the rights of both combattants and would not "infringe the rules of justice" to make sure that those "rules would not be infringed against her" Later that week he addressed the house of commons with a similar message. "We have not been involved in any way in that contest by any act or given any advice in the matter". Noting that his argument was met with resounding cheers from those attending Russell erupted in a rare moment of passion. "For god's sake, let us stay out of it!" 1
Now, four years later the ceremony closed with British police officers asking any of the crewman to state their nationality, to which all of them answered - in accents that seemed to represent every dialect of the British isles- that they were, in fact, Americans. Russell was not among the many dignitaries who came to witness the event, he was in London working out a response to what would end up being a 15 million dollar claim from the United States, for damages sustained
1 Jones, Howard. Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations. (University Of North
during the war. Clearly, somewhere in the past four years something had gone very wrong. 2
The history of the American Civil War is often written as national affair. This is not surprising considering both the events of the war and its consequences. Lincoln's emancipation declaration forms a landmark event in the United States its troubled history with race. The military history focuses on the maneuvers on the relatively small strip of land between Richmond and Washington. But in many ways the American Civil War was a international event. One of the combatants was a critical part of the international cotton industry, threatening the stability of one of the largest economic sectors of the world. The Confederacy also could not survive without European involvement. Many of the weapons used in the war were imported from Europe. Trade in general was now conducted primarily with blockade runners, many of them financed, built and manned by citizens of Europe and many of the soldiers in the war had recently arrived from Europe.
The Union created powerful fleet of armored warships that threatened to make every wooden navy absolute. The Confederacy their attempt to do so took place in British shipyards. Distressed European politicians suddenly had to deal with the partially completed hulls of the 19th century superweapons, which they could not allow to finish, but also could not seize or sell for fear of upsetting the balance of power. A similar Confederates ruse involving merchant raiders did succeed and helped drive the once dominant United States merchant marine from the seas, a calamity from which it would never recover.
But the international effects of the American Civil did not limit themselves to these material factors. The war was not something that just happened to Europeans, but something that they experienced through their own perspective
2Wilson, Walter E., and Gary L. McKay. James D. Bulloch: Secret Agent and Mastermind of the Confederate Navy.
and on their own terms. While the American fought it out over slavery, the Europeans were involved in a struggle of their own. Democracy had now firmly entrenched itself on the continent, but autocracies were slow to give way and sometimes regained the ground they had lost. Even among liberals there was plenty of disagreement on exactly how much democracy was enough.
The American conflict rekindled this ideological struggle - something which both the Union and Confederacy were eager to encourage as each sought to discourage or encourage the European powers to intervene in the war. Europeans
and Americans struggled to establish to a common vocabulary, with
misunderstandings arising not just from misjudged intentions, but from different historical outlooks.
This thesis will focus on the British experience of the American civil war and argue that it had the effect of disrupting the established political order, rekindled the suffrage movement and put into question any existing ideas about British superiority regarding slavery.
This thesis will consist of three chapters. Chapter one will explore the ideological struggle between liberalism and conservatism as it existed on the eve of the American civil war, in it I will argue that the success of the American and failure of the French revolution served as rallying points for both liberals and conservatives around which both the Union and Confederacy would later realign themselves.
Chapter two, taking place against the backdrop of Britain's struggle to remain neutral , will demonstrate how both Union and Confederate diplomacy 3
3Foreign involvement is often treated somewhat like an afterthought by historians who try to
provide an overview of the entire war. See for example James McPherson his account. In contrast, Historians who do focus on the diplomatic history, Howard Jones chiefly among them, write a narrative of how close other nations did come to intervening, perhaps in part as an answer to the more generalist historians. What stands out to me is the British desire to stay out of a conflict that they inexplicably kept being dragged into.
only became successful when they aligned themselves with the existing debates, stoking the fires the British politicians would have to deal with when the war came to an end.
In chapter three I will argue that the Union’s emancipation declaration
shattered British perceptions on slavery, emancipation and any perceived
superiority.
Liberty
‘When I finished Carlyle's French Revolution in 1871, I was a Girondin; every time I have read it since, I have read it differently – being influenced and changed, little by little, by life and environment ... and now I lay the book down once more, and recognize that I am a Sansculotte! And not a pale, characterless Sansculotte, but a Marat’
- Mark Twain 4
1.1 Republicanism in two Revolutions
Two questions, two revolutions
The history of democracy is as much as about inclusion as it is about exclusion. Revolutions broke out when the first was found to be lacking, but once successful the victors often fretted about the second point. In the early 19th century, those who pondered the first question tended to quote the writings from men such as John Locke and Thomas Paine while those that worried about the latter one had read the work of Thomas Carlyle. The latter would read Carlyle not just because he expressed the same misgivings about mass democracy that they did, but because he was one of the prime scholars on the French revolution - a revolution that began
with the enfranchisement of every French male but ended in a reign of terror. 5
The late 18th century had witnessed two great democratic revolutions. The results of the first revolution, the American War of independence, provided enlightenment philosophers around the world with an example of a nation that had
4"Mark Twain - Mark Twain's Letters 1886-1900 Page 12". 2018. mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk. Accessed June 25
2018. https://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/mark-twains-letters-1886-1900/ebook-page-12.asp.
5It’s worth noting that he was a prominent voice among not just intellectuals, but a favorite among politicians as
well. When scanning all excerpts of the British parliament he is quoted with some regularity. . (database accessible on www.americanstudies.nu)
been founded on liberal ideals and where its citizens were granted rights that were considered unalienable. Though its constitution boasted that the whole state of affairs was self evident - the country did have something to prove. It if failed, the whole aristocratic body of Europe could sigh in relief, if it succeeded it would inspire liberals around the world. Washington's resignation was seen as the successful passing of a litmus test for not just the young republic, but republicanism in general. The would be king had become an modern Cincinnati and the United States had proved the viability of Republican government. Men acting on the first question now had a mythical figure to look up to and a country that they could visit. Ofcourse, at the time of Washington's resignation only around 6% of the population could vote and population of 'the land of the free' consisted for a large part of slaves. But it didn't matter, its mere existence inspired liberals
around the world to attempt revolutions of their own. 6
If the success of the first - American- revolution had become a rallying point for democracy, the failure of the second - the French revolution - became a rallying point for conservatism. The seeds of the second revolution - the French revolution - were planted during the American war of independence. During the war Louis the 14th had supported the American revolution for strategic reasons. It was a move that succeeded in both bringing victory to the Americans as well as utterly bankrupting the French state. Amidst growing tensions Louis called the
States General, but rather solving the crisis he lost control completely. France was a prime example of the old aristocratic society that 18th century liberals abhorred. A nominal parliament existed in the form of the States General , but had not been called
in more than 150 year. Now that they had been called, they were found to be heavily rigged towards the King. Representatives were divided by estate - and voted
6Doyle, Don Harrison. The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War. (Basic Books, 2014),
by estate. The clergy and Nobility would almost always favor the king,
overpowering the numerically superior third estate. 7
However, a lot had happened in the last 150 years. Liberalism had happened, the American revolution had happened. A demand to vote by head was made and, when rejected, the entire third estate simply walked out. Liberal minded nobles joined with them in an alternate meeting to compose a constitution and with that the old system was doomed. The French had supported revolution in America and now this revolution had come to France. The document that was to form the basis for the new French state, the 'Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789' , was written in part by both Thomas Jefferson and 'the Marquis de Lafayette'. The French made no attempt to hide the connections between the
two revolutions, they celebrated them. 8
The Marquis - born as Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier - was an example of the liberal minded nobles who helped spearhead the early phase of the Revolution. These were not fire breathing radicals, but enlightened reformers and in the coming years they to would utterly lose control of the revolution they had unleashed. Some of the most radical elements were not the ‘coffeehouse’ liberals of Jeffersonian variety, but the sans-culottes – lower class workers motivated by not just political but also social grievances. War with an
increasing number of European nations combined with loyalist uprisings
overwhelmed the young republic and it quickly started losing ground. The complete mobilization of the French state managed to turn an impending defeat into a series of stunning victories, but it also reframed the revolution as an armed struggle against the ‘enemies of the revolution’. The fear for a fifth column turned
7Kinser, Brent E. The American Civil War in the Shaping of British Democracy. (Ashgate, 2011), p120.
8Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815. (Greenwood
into violent terror and the French revolution began to devour its children as successive regimes were led to the guillotine. After a failed attempt to counter the radicals left Lafayette fleeing for his life. He had tried to emulate his experiences in the United States, but instead had helped unleash terror. The events of the French revolution - and more specifically The Terror - scarred the romantic image of liberal revolution and - among conservatives and moderates - led to a growing fear and distrust for both the ‘radical republicanism’ and mass enfranchisement that had led to mob rule. 9
Swarmery and Sansculottism
It is difficult to make sense of any large historical event, especially so for the French revolution: a confusing maelstrom of coups, counter-coups and general bloodshed that began as a protest against absolutism yet somehow ended with the coronation of an emperor. Thomas Carlyle is noteworthy not just for the fact that he managed to do so, but on the manner that he did it. Published in 1837 The French Revolution: A History quickly came to be known as one of the best works on the revolution. It was a book that was written in a prose that was highly unusual for a historian, rather than a detached overview Carlyle provided an account that was written as a 'on the ground' report of the events as they transpired. Take for example his description of the execution of Robespierre. Carlyle did not just write about it, he forced his readers to witness it.
All eyes are on Robespierre's Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with his half-dead Brother and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered, their "seventeen hours" of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their swords at him, to show the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand, waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: "The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m'enivre de joi"; Robespierre opened his eyes; "Scélérat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!" -- At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his
turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; — hideous to hear and see. Samson, thou canst not be too quick! 10
Though Carlyle duly reports on the attempts of the liberal nobles to create a constitutional government, he argues that they had unleashed forces beyond their control. With the fall of the old regime and the relocation government to Paris the project languished “like a cut branch ('Let Lafayette water it as he will')” . The moment Paris became the center of power for this new French state, its urban masses begin to feature prominently in Carlyle his account. The sans-culottes became the driving force behind the new “young reality ” of what Carlyle derisively describes as Sansculottism. Something that “has the property of growing by what other things die of: by agitation, contention, disarrangement; nay in a word, by
what is the symbol and fruit of all these: Hunger.” 11
As other things started dying the Parisian masses started swarming. These masses were spirited and enthusiastic but these were not the attributes Carlyle, or
many of his contemporaries, wished for of a large agitated population.
"Enthusiasm in the general means simply excessive Congregating — Schwärmerey, or Swarming.” 12
Schwärmerey is a term that will features prominently in many of Carlyle critiques of democracy and mass enfranchisement - in Carlyle's writings it has become synonymous with the radicalized mob that tore through society like a force of nature. In The French revolution leaders such as Robespierre might have given the orders, both the violence was committed by a crowd that did not only go along, but reveled in it. In Carlyle his work the mob is not something that anyone could
10 Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History. (Chapman & Hall, 1837), p743-744. 11Ibidem, p.243.
control, it was something that was either unleashed or contained. In France it had been unleashed and it would eventually consume the very leaders that had done it. The style of his prose allows Carlyle to both humanize the characters and highlight the often cruel events that they were subjected to. When Carlyle writes about the individual, he tends to write about victims - their scenes often contain tragic human moments that are contrasted with the hysteria of the crowd.
Take for example his description of the execution of Louis the 14th. The execution of the king was a highly symbolic moment, but Carlyle is quick to humanize him. “ at bottom it is not the King dying, but the Man! Kingship is a coat; the grand loss is of the skin. The man from whom you take his Life, to him can the whole combined world do more? ” 13 Whatever ideological considerations had moved the revolution to justify the execution of a king, in the end a man was about to die, but “A hard scene yet remains: the parting with our loved ones” . 14A particularly moving paragraph is dedicated to this last goodbye. The king only has limited privacy as the moment takes place in a room with glass doors. Not knowing what is said but seeing - through the narrator - their response creates an almost cinematic effect.
“they all flung themselves into the arms of the King. Silence reigned for some minutes; interrupted only by sobs. (...) They all leaned towards him, and often held him embraced. This scene of woe lasted an hour and three-quarters; during which we could hear
nothing; we could see only that always when the King spoke, the sobbings of the Princesses redoubled, continued for some minutes; and that then the King began again to speak.' —And so our meetings and our partings do now end! The sorrows we gave each other; the poor joys we faithfully shared, and all our lovings and our sufferings, and confused toilings under the earthly Sun, are over. Thou good soul, I shall never, never through all ages of Time, see thee any more!—NEVER! O Reader, knowest thou that hard word?” 15
13Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History, p557. 14Ibidem, p.557.
With individualism being reserved for the victims, the perpetrators are described as great mobs or masses that operate as part of a larger hystria. In a way, even the executioners are victims in Carlyles description. Individuals who, like their victim, got caught up in the revolution.
"Executioners do your duty!" The Executioners, desperate lest themselves be murdered (for Santerre and his Armed Ranks will strike, if they do not), seize the hapless Louis: six of them desperate, him singly desperate, struggling there; and bind him to their plank." 16
In ' The French revolution' things are inflicted on individuals by the masses. The are defined by their humanity, the latter by there hysteria. Carlyle drives his point home by contrasting the tenderness of Louis last moments with his family with the response to the execution.
“[A] fierce shout of Vive la Republique rises, and swells; caps raised on bayonets, hats waving: students of the College of Four Nations take it up, on the far Quais; fling it over Paris. Orleans drives off in his cabriolet; the Town Hall Councillors rub their hands, saying, "It is done, It is done." There is dipping of handkerchiefs, of pike-points in the blood. Headsman Samson, though he afterwards denied it, sells locks of the hair: fractions of the puce coat are long after worn in rings. And so, in some half-hour it is done; and the multitude has all departed. Pastrycooks, coffee-sellers, milkmen sing out their trivial quotidian cries: the world wags on, as if this were a common day. In the coffeehouses that evening, says Prudhomme, Patriot shook hands with Patriot in a more cordial manner than usual.” 17
The depravity of the dipping in blood, the selling of souvenirs, all to celebrate the
death of a man who was saying his goodbyes to his family just a few pages ago. Readers come away from these passages seeing Louis as a victim of a movement that has little to do with the civilized society, instead seeming to consume it. This is a central theme that is repeated many times over the course of the book. When Carlyle writes about the death of Marie-Antoinette he contrast her ride to the scaffold with her departure from Vienna. 'Two Processions, or Royal Progresses,
16Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History, p.559. 17Ibidem, p.560.
the-and-twenty years apart, have often struck us with a strange feeling of contrast '. It is a contrast of not just the moments, but of the society in which they take place. Her departure from Vienna was marked not just by her grief of leaving her home country, but also by the grief of the immense crowd of spectators from 'the good nation' that was sad to see her go and shared in her tears. “Then arose not only tears; but piercing cries, on all sides. Men and women alike abandoned themselves to such expression of their sorrow." 18
Twenty three years later “The young imperial Maiden of Fifteen has now become a worn discrowned Widow of Thirty-eight; grey before her time ”.19 Over the past few years she had been threatened, relocated, her husband had been executed, her son had been taken from her and now she had been sentenced to die. In most revolutionary literature Marie Antoinette was portrayed as a member of the decadent elite. Someone who dined while the country starved. In Carlyle his writings she becomes something of a tragic hero. The loss of her son is described in such a way that it seems the boy is literally consumed by Sansculottism. 20
“The boy, once named Dauphin was taken from his Mother while she yet lived; and given to one Simon, by trade a Cordwainer, on service then about the Temple-Prison, to bring him up in principles of Sansculottism. Simon taught him to drink, to swear, to sing the carmagnole. (...) the poor boy, hidden in a tower of the Temple, from which in his fright and bewilderment and early decrepitude he wishes not to stir out, lies perishing, 'his shirt not changed for six months;' amid squalor and darkness, lamentably, so as none but poor Factory Children and the like are wont to perish, unlamented!” 21
The moment the revolutionaries turn the son against his mother and force him to give false testimonies of incest is perhaps one of the most harrowing episodes in an already cruel revolution. When written by Carlyle his prose turns it not just into one of the most dramatic scenes in the book - but in a scene where
18Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History, p.627-628. 19Ibidem, p628.
20Ibidem, p679-680. 21Ibidem, p680.
the symbol of the decadence of the old regime is transformed into a virtuous mother.
“Scandalous Hebert has borne his testimony as to many things: as to one thing,
concerning Marie-Antoinette and her little Son,—wherewith Human Speech had better not further be soiled. She has answered Hebert; a Juryman begs to observe that she has not answered as to this. ‘I have not answered," she exclaims with noble emotion,
"because Nature refuses to answer such a charge brought against a Mother. I appeal to all the Mothers that are here.’” 22
No speech could save her however, as the outcome of the trial was likely determined beforehand. As Carlyle describes her humiliating ride to the scaffold he pays particular attention to the crowd that lined the roads. The great mass of people jeered at her, but she paid them no mind. Instead when the time came he notes that “She mounted the Scaffold with courage enough”.
“At a quarter past Twelve, her head fell; the Executioner shewed it to the people, amid universal long-continued cries of "Vive la Republique."' 23
In The French Revolution Marie-Antoinette died a virtuous christian widow, with a
frenzied crowd celebrating her death. It was the same frenzied crowd that the celebrated the death of her husband and the same crowd that would celebrate the death of Pétion, Danton, Robespierre and so many others. Carlyle acknowledges the significance of the revolution, but his account reads more as a warning. One that often comes too late for the protagonists of the various chapters but one that can be headed by the reader. When the dust had settled, what lesson could be
learned from the revolution? Chiefly - that it could happen again, as long as the
powerful of the world remained blind to the suffering of the lower classes.
“If the gods of this lower world will sit on their glittering thrones, indolent as Epicurus' gods, with the living Chaos of Ignorance and Hunger weltering uncared for at their feet, and smooth Parasites preaching, Peace, peace, when there is no peace,' then the dark Chaos, it would seem, will rise; has risen, and O Heavens! has it not tanned their skins
22 Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History, p679-680. 23 Ibidem, p.628
into breeches for itself? That there be no second Sansculottism in our Earth for a thousand years, let us understand well what the first was; and let Rich and Poor of us go and do otherwise” 24
For many, Carlyles The French Revolution was thus is not just an account of the revolution itself, but a warning against mob rule. Reforms from well intentioned liberals had unleashed the rule of the street, Sansculottism which had torn through society like a natural disaster. Carlyle's lively prose firmly imprinted the many atrocities in the readers minds and left a lasting impression. Carlyle himself would maintain an active presence British political debates as well. He voiced concern for the position of the lower classes, but feared them as well. He would write multiple
essays addressing what he called the 'condition of England' question. 25
Carlyle argued that, just like France on the eve of the Revolution, England was tethering on the edge of growing instability. Industrialism had changed British society - rich and poor increasingly lived in separate worlds. The poor lived in destitution, the rich were corrupted. The aristocracy of old had become 'idle' was being replaced by a new industrial elite that cared only for the pursuit of money.
Money increasingly replaced morals even religion. “Were we required to
characterise this age of ours by any single epithet, we should be tempted to call it, not an Heroical, Devotional, Philosophical, or Moral Age, but, above all others, the Mechanical Age .” 26 Thus opens his essay ‘Sign of the Times’ (1829) where he argues that mechanisation is changing not just society but the people living in it. In a society where “nothing is now done directly, or by hand ” man no longer worships man, but machine. Moral sciences are declining at the cost of the physical sciences, as materialism takes hold not just of the physical world but the
24Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History, p719
25Carlyle, Past. 2018. "Past And Present By Thomas Carlyle". Project Gutenberg. Accessed June 24 2018.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26159.
philosophical world as well. 27 Carlyle recognizes that some measure of political reform is required, but how could this come to pass when the great philosophers of old had been replaced by the likes of “Smith, De Lolme [and] Bentham?” The theme of moral decline features prominently in Carlyle's critiques and he uses it as
a broadside against any argument for further enfranchisement of the population. 28
Freedom, he argues 'depends on infinitely more complex influences than either the extension or the curtailment of the ‘democratic interest'. When Carlyle looked around he saw a people that were industrious, but working for the wrong reasons. Master of a material world, but lacking in morality. The trouble was that “the noble People that makes the noble Government”. And, as the French revolution had demonstrated, nobleness was a quality that few people could aspire to have.
Sharing the same ideals, yet differing so much in outcome, both the American and French revolutions featured prominently in most 19th century discussions about democracy. The first representing the viability of Republicanism, the latter representing the terror of mob rule. In Europe, the viability of mass democracy remained an unanswered question, yet one that increasingly became more and more pressing. When Carlyle wrote “That there be no second Sansculottism in our Earth for a thousand years, let us understand well what the first was; and let Rich and Poor of us go and do otherwise ” it was a desire that was shared by most European heads of state and a advice followed by almost none of them. 29 A decade after the publication of Carlyle history of the French revolution a new wave of revolutions would flood over Europe, demonstrating to all that the struggle that began with the American Revolution had not come to an end in France.
27Carlyle, Thomas. The Sign of the Times, p2. 28Ibidem, p5.
1.2 Europe and the specter of 1848
“The Force of Public Opinion! What King or Convention can withstand it?” - Thomas Carlyle 30
“The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar”
- John Stuart Mill 31
The events 1848 formed the inconclusive third chapter to the sage of the American and French revolutions and their influence on the struggle between liberalism and conservatism. This chapter will show that despite their best efforts the conservative heads of state could only contain, not kill, 'the spirit of the French revolution'. At the end of 1848 both sides would lay down and lick their wounds, but neither of them were defeated. The battle of liberal democracy had been won in America and lost in France, but the fate in Europe remained undecided. .
The end of the Napoleonic wars was marked not just by the exile of ‘ The Little Corporal ’ but also by a comprehensive attempt to exile the liberal ideology that had giving rise to the whole enterprise in the first place. The solution to the ‘Napoleon situation’ was disrupted by a brief encore in 1815 but finally settled with the victory at Waterloo and a indefinite excursion to Saint Helena. If Arthur Wellesley, - better known as the first Duke of Wellington – is regarded as the man
30Carlyle, Thomas. The French Revolution: A History. (Chapman & Hall, 1837), p436.
31" The Project Gutenberg Ebook Of On Liberty, By John Stuart Mill. ". 2018. gutenberg.org. Accessed June 22 2018.
who ultimately killed revolutionary France, Klemens von Metternich should be known as the man who tried to bury the corpse. In his capacity as foreign minister of the Austrian Empire Metternich was one of the driving forces behind the ‘Concert of Europe’. A system set up by the victorious powers with the goal of both maintaining the status quo and preventing the rise of future revolutionary
movements. 32
Napoleon would never leave Saint Helena alive, but it proved much easier to contain a man than to contain an ideology. Even ‘the Concert’ had to admit that Europe had changed irreversibly. The Napoleonic code would form the basis for the legal systems of many of the restored monarchies, old feudal traditions disappeared in western Europe. And even a ballroom filled with noblemen proved unable to revive the Holy Roman Empire.
The French revolution had shattered the old order of Europe and
demonstrated the fragility of a system that had been in place – in one way or another – for a thousand years. Those within the room desperately wanted to believe that their victory at Waterloo marked the final nail in the coffin of radical republicanism – but there would be no turning back and what would become
known as the age of Metternich was beset by setbacks from the start.
The new system was supposed to ensure peace and stability for ages to come, but barely more than a decade pasts its implementation, the restored French Bourbon dynasty had already been deposed by a popular revolution and an uprising in Belgium led to its secession from the Netherlands. These blows were alleviated somewhat by the fact that in both countries the new regimes were to be headed by a king. But that was cold comfort, considering unrest was spreading through Austria and Italy as well, and just as Metternich and his colleagues got a
handle on that situation news came of another uprising in France, though this time
the new Orleans dynasty managed to suppress it. 33
Now these where exactly the kind of situations that Metternich’s new system sought to prevent yet proved increasingly unable to. Conservatives were driven by memories of the terror of the French revolution, but liberals around Europe could still look towards America and believe Republicanism was possible. Unlike France The United States had not descended into violent chaos. In both countries a military hero turned politician. In France he would became emperor, in America he became president but ultimately a citizen. There would be no would be no dictators or guillotines in the United States of America. The leaders of the conservative resurgence in Europe could propagate their gospel about the anarchy and dangers of republicanism all they wanted, but no argument could prove as convincing as a single look across the Atlantic. It also did not help that ‘the great liberator’ Simon Bolivar was well on his way with his project to liberate Spanish America establish a grand republic.
Worse, US president James Monroe would soon after declare his famous doctrine – threatening war against any European power that intervened. The implications were clear: Metternich and his allies could try as they might in Europe, but America was beyond their reach. Liberalism, nationalism and republican ideals seemed to thrive there, protected by the growing strength of the United States. Metternich was furious, declaring that the Monroe policy would strengthen “The apostles of sedition and reanimate the courage of every conspirator”. 34 It was an astute observation – neither Metternich nor the liberals in Europe were blind to the fact that despite the best efforts of the ‘concert of Europe’ liberalism was
33Schroeder, Paul W. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763-1848. (Clarendon Press, 1996.), p798-800. 34The American Spirit. United States History as Seen by Contemporaries. (Houghton Mifflin, 2006.), p276
spreading through the world, the question was: when would it rear its head in Europe again?
It turned out the answer was 1848, the year when the entire continent seemed to explode in a chain reaction of uprisings and revolutionary fever. Inspiring and being inspired by each other, protest sprung up across Europe.
Liberals demanded representation, workers demanded better conditions and
everyone seemed to demand a country of their own – terrifying the leadership of multi-ethnic Austria and giving hope to nationalists in Italy, Germany and virtually every minority group within the Austrian Empire. The now seemingly obligatory revolution in France was successful and let to the establishment of a liberal republic, Hungary rose in a nationalist revolt – as did many German states and large parts of Italy. In many places protest turned to violence or outright insurrection, as was the case in Berlin, Prague, Vienna and Budapest. In others, protests remained peaceful. Marches and demonstrations led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Denmark, fear of such protests and marches led to
the establishment of a similar system in the Netherlands. 35
As for Metternich, he soon found himself in the crosshairs of popular protest as well. A large crowd of students and workers cheered at the Austrian Imperial family but jeered at Metternich. With Emperor Ferdinand suffering from the effects of the politically expedient but genetically unwise marriage of his parents, the de facto head of the family - Archduke Louis - took the hint and forced Metternich to abdicate. The disgraced minister went to exile in London, but it was to be a short exile, as the pendulum had already begun to swing to the other side. Just like they had done 50 years before, the conservative forces within Europe
where rallying and preparing to strike back. 36
35Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics, p. 796-796. 36 Ibidem, p. 781.
One of the causes behind the sudden reversal of fortunes where divisions among the protesters themselves, as the legacy of the French revolution had sown deep distrust among the groups that had worked together a few decades earlier. As back then the current protests consisted not just of enlightened liberal intellectuals but also large masses of poor urban laborers. The first group was generally interested in the political rights whereas the latter also demanded many economic reforms. In doing so they became the most radical group – and large amount of radical lower class workers marching through the streets automatically evoked images of the sans-culottes of the French revolution and all its excesses. These images terrified not just conservatives, but a good amount of liberals as well. In a way the protests of 1848 marked one of the last times liberalism was a purely
revolutionary movement and the more moderate liberals increasingly found
themselves siding with conservatives against the new kid on the block - socialism. In France they banded together in a violent crackdown of left wing protests, marking a more conservative turn that would once more end with a Napoleonic
Emperor, but it was a pattern that was repeated all over Europe.3738
As the protesters became more fractured the counter revolutionary forces became more united. The sickly emperor of Austria, Ferdinand I resigned in favor of his nephew Franz Joseph. The new emperor sent his army on a counter offensive. The Austrians managed to quell - for now - the uprisings in Italy. The war of Hungarian independence likewise ended in a conservative victory after the Hungarian army surrendered to a Austrian/Russian alliance. When the dust settled both sides must have experienced something of a deja vu. Conservatives could proclaim victory, yet several smaller countries had in fact become democracies. Liberals had suffered a major defeat yet across the Atlantic stood the United States,
37Doyle, Don Harrison. The Cause of All Nations, p92. 38Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics, p. 774.
a proud republic ready to receive the many liberal refugees from Europe. Continuing to prove the validity democratic Republicanism, the country had – depending on your alliance – the ability to inspire or terrify. 39
1.3 Brittain as the great exception?
“The history of the world in all Times and countries shows that Power in the hands of the masses throws the scum of the community to the surface and that Truth and justice are soon banished from the land” 40
- Lord Palmerston
Conspicuously missing from the list of revolutions and counter revolutions was Great Britain. Yet it would be wrong to classify the country as an exception. The tensions that were present in the rest of Europe existed in Britain as well, and its parliamentary system left plenty to be desired for those that wished to expand the suffrage. Rather, unlike other European countries bourgeois liberals and working class workers had little reason to cooperate, as the first had already established most of the political rights they desired. This section will demonstrate that Britain was a variation of the norm, not an exception to it.
Britain traditionally had one of the most representative systems of government in Europe. British monarchs had their power limited by charters such as the Magna Carta and parliamentary authority had been codified in the Bill of Rights. Property requirements barred most people from participating in election and the aristocratic House of Lords remained superior to the house of Commons. Still, in 1831 more than 400.000 people were eligible to vote in Britain, more than twice the number in France despite England having less than halve of France its population 32 million. 41
40Doyle, Don Harrison. The Cause of All Nations,, p41.
41The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England." The American Historical Review, 04
This being the early 19 th century it is far from a glowing endorsement
however, and the British system was fought with problems of its own. Districts had been set centuries ago, often leading to peculiar situation. For example the city of Manchester was not represented in any way whilst Old Sarum could sent two representatives to parliament - which must have happened at some demographic cost as it only had 11 voters. Amid growing calls for reforms the burden fell on prime minister Arthur Wellesley to find a solution. But the Duke of Wellington was not about to pass some liberal bill, declaring that he would “always feel it his duty to resist reform measures” he instigated a political crisis that would lead to a vote of no confidence and his resignation. The Duke had met his own Waterloo, but resistance continued in the House of Lords. The Reform Act, as the bill came to be named, needed a champion and it found one in John Russell. The child of a wealthy aristocrat family, Russell came to parliament as a Tory but would undergo a gradual transformation. First towards but ending up liberal, twice serving as prime minister. His energetic support for the Reform Act can be seen as an early indication of his political evolution and helped pass it through parliament in 1832.
42
In his support for the bill, Russell found himself operating side by side with Henry John Temple - better known by his title: the third viscount of Palmerston. Like Russell, Palmerston came to parliament as a Tory before starting a similar transformation that would end up with him being what is now recognized as the first liberal prime minister.
With the act coming into effect, many districts were reorganized, making sure all cities were represented whilst dooming the borough of Old Sarum. It also reduced the property requirements to the point that the voting population in
42 The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England." The American Historical Review, 04
England grew by 60%. The effects where even more profound in Scotland, where the growth amounted to 1200%. However, the reduced property requirements still locked out substantial parts of the population and had failed to address the growing demand for universal (male) suffrage. This was by design, as neither Russell, Palmerston or most of their allies desired such far reaching reforms. Both
men distrusted the lower classes and feared the consequences of
mass-enfranchisement. Despite their similarities, both men would develop
something of a rivalry. 43
Palmerston would serve as foreign secretary from 1830 until 1841 and from 1846 to 1851. During these years he would prove himself to be equally assertive and stubborn. With his style often being a textbook example of gunboat diplomacy
Palmerston did not shy away with the (threat of) the use of force to get his way. He fought an Opium War with China, threatened the use of force in the Belgium Crisis, orchestrated an an armed intervention in both the Ottoman-Egyptian war and Schleswig war and blockaded the Kingdom of Greece to avenge the abuse of a British citizen. As a firm believer in the principle of self determination (unless, of course, it interfered with British interests) he supported the Greek war of
independence and sympathised with the revolutions of 1848. 44
The latter to the great annoyance of now prime minister John Russell, who sought to maintain a very strict neutrality. Things came to an head when Palmerston invited the now exiled Lajos Kossuth - hero of the failed Hungarian revolution - to his own country house. Russell and the rest of his cabinet managed to derail the meeting last minute, but the damage had already been done. As an completely unacceptable compromise, Palmerston settled on receiving a delegation of unionists instead. Once received, they proceeded to read a proclamation
43 "The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England." The American Historical Review, 04
1995. 413-414
declaring the autocratic victors of the Hungarian war to be tyrants. 45 The opposition in parliament smelled blood and attempted to impeach Palmerstons policy. The debate would last multiple days and include a fidellian five hour speech where Palmerston defended Britain's right to intervene in foreign revolutions by “giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and whenever she thinks that wrong has been done .” 46 It was a career saving speech that saved Palmerston from impeachment but could not save the Russell ministry. In time it would also provide valuable ammunition for the Confederate diplomats in the war to come.
With the political question settled to some extend, the economic question would prove to be Britain's achilles heel. Men like Russell believed firmly in the laissez-faire principle, but the policies it inspired would have devastating effects during the Irish famine, and do little to better the worsening conditions of British workers. 'Radical' reformers, both of the liberal and socialist variety, became convinced that the only way to solve the problems the lower classes were facing was to make sure that they would be represented in parliament.
In 1837 six working man and an equal number of sympathetic members of parliament published the People’s Charter which laid out demands for electoral reform. The demands included universal male suffrage but also the removal of property qualifications for members of parliament and equal constituencies. These demands would form the basis for Chartism, a movement that distinguish itself by being made up primarily of working class people. Spreading their message through pamphlets and newspapers the movement grew in size and held frequent protests and rallies. In 1839 they attempted to present a petition to parliament, which had
45 Ibidem, p394.
46TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE—CHARGES AGAINST VISCOUNT PALMERSTON. (Hansard, 1 March
1848)". 2018. Api.Parliament.Uk. Accessed June 24 2018.
been signed by more than a million people but was rebuked. Protests had mostly been peaceful so far, but when parliament refused them riots followed. More radical members began to argue for strikes or even armed uprisings. In November 1839 several thousand chartists marched on Newport in an attempt to liberate
fellow members from imprisonment. After a fierce firefight this British
re-imagination of the Bastille ended with victory for the defenders and the ringleaders where sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered as traitors. 47
Though most Mp’s certainly did not welcome armed insurrection of workers they also renounced these medieval forms of justice. The campaign to aid these men received not just the support of chartists but of many liberals as well. In the
end the sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in a penal colony. 9
In the years that followed chartists presented several petitions, all of which where rejected. A wave of strikes followed in 1842, which were crushed by the government leaving several dead and thousands in prison. When the revolutions of 1848 spread across Europe the Chartists organized a large rally in London, which more than a 100.000 supporters attended. The government was prepared however and prepared a force of equal number with the military ready to intervene. No violence broke out and after a small delegation delivered yet another petition to
parliament the chartists went returned home. 48
Like in France during the ‘ June days’ rebellion, liberals generally sided with conservatives against what they saw as a dangerous armed rabble. In both cases they had acquired most of the political reforms that they desired and had little interest in securing economic reforms. Yet the chartists also demonstrated both the ability of the lower classes to organize themselves and a large amount of support for more liberal voting laws. The issue had been settled, for now, but no-one knew
47Chase, Malcolm. Chartism: A New History. (Manchester University Press, 2007), p 136-153. 48Goodway, David. London Chartism, 1838-1848. Cambridge University Press, 2002), p 117-121.
for how long. In 1852 one of the ringleaders of the 1842 uprising, John Frost, was granted a pardon on the condition that he would never return to Britain. He traveled to the United States, touring the country and lecturing about the unfairness of the British system. The rooms were packed with Americans but he made sure transcripts of his speeches were sent to Britain as well.
The defeat of the Chartist movement did not mean the defeat of the movement that advocated mass-enfranchisement, though it was severely weakened by it. Prominent supporters included politicians like John Bright and William Edward Gladstone continued to support the suffrage movement and frequently clashed with Palmerston in parliament. Gladstone especially resented Palmerston for role in the opium wars, having seen first hand the effects of the drug on his beloved sister.
In 1859 Palmerston was chosen to head a new government and both Russell and Gladstone agreed to serve in it, the former as foreign secretary, the latter as chancellor of the Exchequer. Though these former opponents had agreed to set their differences aside, the scars remained. As this mix of moderates and radicals prepared to tackle the tasks ahead of them, events were transpiring across the atlantic that would lay bare the divisions underneath the surface. Britain had withstood the pressure from inside, but how would it respond when the pressure came from the outside?
1.4 Democracy in America
“The great danger of the time-a danger which the policy of the European System would have fostered, was a division of the World into European and American, Republican and Monarchical; a league of worn-out Governments, on the one hand, and of youthful and stirring Nations, with the United States at their head, on the other”
- George Canning, foreign secretary of Britain 49
The United States were the role model for modern republicanism - which is why so many conservatives were so critical of it. But by the mid 19th century many liberals found it wanting as well. The American Civil War was welcomed by many of them as it brought 'revolutionary zeal' that was required to reinvigorate the country - but what motivated these man to take such a drastic stance?
“We hold these truths to be self evident” begins the American declaration of independence. Yet at the time Jefferson penned these words these truths - the equality of all men and their right for liberty among them - where hardly evident at all. In the tumultuous decades that followed revolutionaries in many countries made a case for them, with some enjoying success and some suffering the effects of their failure. It is difficult to say when these truths reached their pinnacle (perhaps at an early stage of the French revolution? Or perhaps at some points during the South American revolutions?) but by 1860 they were heavily contested. Some inroads had been made in Europe, but the large influx of ‘ 1848'ers to the
American continent demonstrated the success of conservative forces. The
Republics in South America had proved rather unstable and most of the rest of the world still lived under autocratic governments. As the great liberal Republic the United States inspired liberal thinkers, but these observers increasingly grew
troubled as well. When they looked closely at their champion they could see the veneer had started to crack.
Many in Europe looked at the United States through the lense of Democracy is America - the famous investigation of American society by Alexis de Tocqueville. It provides its readers with a study of America, not just as a country but as a political system as well. Describing the country as a “Great experiment” where society was being built on 'theories hitherto unknown' Tocqueville argues that one day Europe would become very much like it. Thus by studying America he could this learn about the type of society that would inevitably come about in Europe as well, one where aristocracy would decline and democracy would reign supreme. Tocqueville’s account was widely read and cited in almost any discussion concerning American politics and society. The version for the British market was announced in a widely read review from the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill - who reflected on the impact of the work by stating that:
“All who write or speak on either side of the dispute, are prompt enough in pressing America into their service (...) Democrats have sought to prove by it that we should be Democrats; aristocrats that we should cleave to aristocracy, and withstand the democratic spirit.” 50
Like Tocqueville, Mill believed America to be in the vanguard of civilization. More importantly; to him it also provided proof that democratic revolutions did not have to succumb in revolutionary terror. 5152 Mill was generally more optimistic
about democratic government than many of his contemporaries. Where
Tocqueville warned his readers for the risk of the “tyranny of the majority” rising in the American system, Mill believed that adequate education of the population would avert risk. This also meant that, in time and after sufficient education,
50Kinser, Brent E. The American Civil War in the Shaping of British Democracy. (Ashgate, 2011), p128.
51Compton, John W. "The Emancipation of the American Mind: J.S. Mill on the Civil War." The Review of Politics 70 52Kinser, Brent E. The American Civil War , p129.
suffrage could be extended to all citizens. (Which in Mill's mind included women as well). He gave The French revolution: A History a favorable review, but noted that Carlyle underestimated “what constitutions and forms government can do ”. Mill and Carlyle developed an unlikely friendship that would ultimately fall apart over their differences. As the great utilitarian philosopher Mill championed most of the things that were scathingly attacked in Carlyle's essays. As a polemic critic of ideas of both political and racial equality Carlyle in turn defended the ideas that Mill so maligned. 5354
One thing they did agree upon was their low opinion on the American middle class. It is one of the rare themes where both liberal and conservative intellectuals were in agreement. The growing middle class that that responsible for the prosperity of the United States was admired for their industriousness but simultaneously disdained for their perceived focus on material goods above all else. Thomas Carlyle decried bourgeois capitalism as unnatural for its pursuit for profit instead of the enterprise itself, Tocqueville wryly noting that “A man will carefully construct a home in which to spend his old age and sell it before the roof is on” while Mill accused them of having “A general indifference of those kinds of
knowledge and mental culture which cannot be immediately converted into
pounds, shillings and pence ”. 5556 Mill's worry was motivated primarily by his believe that the country's founding ideals were threatened by this 'intellectual stagnation', as in time they would pass from living memory.
Furthermore Mill and others were quick to note the hypocrisy inherent in the American constitution. In the land of the free, millions where living in slavery. This did not stop Tocqueville from regarding the United States as the supreme example of modern democracy - but Mill disagreed. As long as slavery continued
53Kinser, The American Civil War. p129- 130. 54Ibidem, p 136-137.
55Tocqueville, Alexis De, Henry Reeve, and John C. Spencer. Democracy in America. J. & H.G. Langley, 1840), p623. 56Compton, John W. "The Emancipation of the American Mind: J.S. Mill on the Civil War." The Review of Politics 70.
to exist within American society, “the aristocracy of skin retains its privileges”. (It
is worth noting that Mill makes a similar argument for the 'aristocracy of sex') 57
While American politicians skirmished towards a series of unpopular
compromises in an attempt to stave of conflict some liberals began to see the conflict as necessary, desirable even. It was hoped that the ever escalating issue over slavery would force Americans to reflect on their founding privileges and end the perversion of slavery that inexplicably existed within the land of the free. It should be noted that 'freedom' and not 'equality' was often used as the principle being violated, as though most liberals opposed the enslavement of the African Americans, few considered them equal.
American abolitionist philosophers like David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo
Emerson feared the effects the continued existence of slavery had on the countries ideals. Tocqueville argued that in many ways it already had. According to him, Slavery was accompanied by a change of lifestyle that changed the people living it - thereby changing the country around it. While the Northerners had “the qualities and failings which characterize the middle classes .” the Southerners had become idle. Factories and railroads remained largely confined to the north, the south still was a pastoral society. Looking down on manual labor its people had become haughty, but intellectual, violent, but passionate. Tocqueville described Southern men as people who loved ' grandeur, luxury, reputation, excitement, pleasure and idleness'. Any 19th century European reading democracy in America already must have already guessed Tocqueville's concluding remark: “ The southerner has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses and greatness of all aristocats”. 58
Captured within America, this vanguard of liberal democracy, was the same duality that existed in Europe today. Conservative Europe's quick disdain for the
57Compton, "The Emancipation of the American Mind: J.S. Mill on the Civil War, p120 58 Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America, p431
country was inspired by their opponents championing it, but if they looked closely they could see a society not much unlike their own.
Not all agreed with the bipolar world view espoused by the champions and opponents of democracy, especially so amongst those that fell somewhere in between. In the context of British politics both Palmerston and Russell believed that the British mixed monarchical model provided a valid 'third way' alternative that had neither the disadvantages of hereditary rule nor the risks of mass democracy. Carlyle also leaned towards this system - admitting the flaws of traditional hereditary aristocracy, which he considered to have a 'deadening effect' on the country he was a firm believer in the 'great man' theory of history. These great man would not be found among the common folk, nor did most of the industrial elite currently demonstrate the virtues that such a qualification required. Among the latter existed the potential for such men to arise, if only they could rise above the 'mammonism' that currently seemed to define them. Men on all sides agreed a change was required, a radical one. But such drastic legal or even moral reorganization of a nation would not come about on its own. When the American Civil War broke out, conservatives saw the failure of democracy - but liberals saw a new dawn.
