Great Britain and the American Civil War - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE KEY-NOTE OF BRITISH ATt.i.tUDE
On May 8, 1865, the news was received in London of Johnston's surrender to Sherman. On that same day there occurred in the Commons the first serious debate in thirty-three years on a proposed expansion of the electoral franchise. It was a dramatic coincidence and no mere fortuitous one in the minds of thoughtful Englishmen who had seen in the Civil War a struggle as fateful in British domestic policy as in that of America herself. Throughout all British political agitation from the time of the American revolution in 1776, there had run the thread of the American "example" as argument to some for imitation, to others for warning. Nearly every British traveller in America, publis.h.i.+ng his impressions, felt compelled to report on American governmental and political inst.i.tutions, and did so from his preconceived notions of what was desirable in his own country[1323]. In the ten years immediately preceding the Civil War most travellers were laudatory of American democracy, and one, the best in acute a.n.a.lysis up to the time of Lord Bryce's great work, had much influence on that cla.s.s in England which was discontented with existing political inst.i.tutions at home. This was Mackay's _Western World_ which, first published in 1849, had gone through four editions in 1850 and in succeeding years was frequently reprinted[1324]. Republicanism, Mackay a.s.serted, was no longer an experiment; its success and permanence were evident in the mighty power of the United States; Canada would soon follow the American example; the "injustice" of British aristocrats to the United States was intentional, seeking to discredit democracy:
"... Englishmen are too p.r.o.ne to mingle severity with their judgments whenever the Republic is concerned. It is the interest of aristocracy to exhibit republicanism, where-ever it is found, in the worst possible light, and the ma.s.s of the people have too long, by pandering to their prejudice, aided them in their object. They recognize America as the stronghold of republicanism. If they can bring it into disrepute here, they know that they inflict upon it the deadliest blow in Europe[1325]."
On the opposing side were other writers. Tremenheere argued the inapplicability of American inst.i.tutions to Great Britain[1326]. The theoretical bases of those inst.i.tutions were in some respects admirable but in actual practice they had resulted in the rule of the mob and had debased the nation in the estimation of the world; bribery in elections, the low order of men in politics and in Congress, were proofs of the evils of democracy; those in England who clamoured for a "numerical"
rather than a cla.s.s representation should take warning from the American experiment. Occasionally, though rarely, there appeared the impressions of some British traveller who had no political axe to grind[1327], but from 1850 to 1860, as in every previous decade, British writing on America was coloured by the author's att.i.tude on political inst.i.tutions at home. The "example" of America was constantly on the horizon in British politics.
In 1860, the Liberal movement in England was at its lowest ebb since the high tide of 1832. Palmerston was generally believed to have made a private agreement with Derby that both Whig and Tory parties would oppose any movement toward an expansion of the franchise[1328]. Lord John Russell, in his youth an eager supporter of the Reform Bill of 1832, had now gained the name of "Finality John" by his a.s.sertion that that Reform was final in British inst.i.tutions. Political reaction was in full swing much to the discontent of Radicals like Bright and Cobden and their supporters. When the storm broke in America the personal characteristics of the two leaders North and South, Lincoln and Davis, took on, to many British eyes, an altogether extreme importance as if representative of the political philosophies of the two sections.
Lincoln's "crudity" was democratic; Davis' "culture" was aristocratic--nor is it to be denied that Davis had "aristocratic" views on government[1329]. But that this issue had any vital bearing on the quarrel between the American sections was never generally voiced in England. Rather, British comment was directed to the lesson, taught to the world by the American crisis, of the failure of democratic inst.i.tutions in _national power._ Bright had long preached to the unenfranchised of England the prosperity and might of America and these had long been denied by the aristocratic faction to be a result of democratic inst.i.tutions. At first the denial was now repeated, the _Sat.u.r.day Review_, February 23, 1861, protesting that there was no essential connection between the "s.h.i.+pwreck" of American inst.i.tutions and the movement in England for an expanded franchise. Even, the article continued, if an attempt were made to show such a connection it would convince n.o.body since "Mr. Bright has succeeded in persuading a great number of influential persons that the admission of working-men into the const.i.tuencies is chiefly, if not solely, desirable on the ground that it has succeeded admirably in America and has proved a sovereign panacea against the war, taxation and confusion which are the curses of old Governments in Europe." Yet that the denial was not sincere is shown by the further a.s.sertion that "the shallow demagogues of Birmingham and other kindred platforms must bear the blame of the inference, drawn nearly universally at the present moment, that, if the United States become involved in hopeless difficulties, it would be madness to lower the qualification for the suffrage in England."
This pretended disclaimer of any essential relation between the American struggle and British inst.i.tutions was not long persisted in. A month later the _Sat.u.r.day Review_ was strong in contemptuous criticism of the "promiscuous democracy" of the North[1330]. Less political journals followed suit. The _Economist_ thought the people of England would now be convinced of the folly of aping America and that those who had advocated universal suffrage would be filled with "mingled alarm, grat.i.tude and shame[1331]." Soon W.H. Russell could write, while still at Was.h.i.+ngton "... the world will only see in it all, the failure of republican inst.i.tutions in time of pressure as demonstrated by all history--that history which America vainly thought she was going to set right and re-establish on new grounds and principles[1332]." "The English wors.h.i.+ppers of American inst.i.tutions," said the _Sat.u.r.day Review_, "are in danger of losing their last pretext for preferring the Republic to the obsolete and tyrannical Monarchy of England.... It now appears that the peaceable completion of the secession has become impossible, and it will be necessary to discover some new ground of superiority by which Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Lincoln may be advantageously contrasted with Queen Victoria[1333]."
These expressions antedated the news of the actual opening of the war and may be regarded as jeers at Bright and his followers rather than as attempts to read a lesson to the public. No such expressions are to be found in the letters of leading officials though minor ones occasionally indulged in them[1334]. As late as June, 1861, Adams declared that while some in England welcomed American disunion as a warning to their countrymen it was evident that but a small number as yet saw the cause of the North as identical with the world progress of free inst.i.tutions[1335]. Evidently he was disappointed that the followers of Bright were not exhibiting more courage and demanding public support of the North as fighting their battle at home. They were indeed strangely silent, depressed no doubt by American events, and discouraged. It required time also to arouse intensity of feeling on the American question and to see clearly the issues involved. Aristocratic Britain was first to declare a definite lesson to be learned, thereby bringing out the fighting qualities of British democracy. Throughout 1861, the comment was relatively mild. In July, _Blackwood's_ declared:
"It is precisely because we do not share the admiration of America for her own inst.i.tutions and political tendencies that we do not now see in the impending change an event altogether to be deplored. In those inst.i.tutions and tendencies we saw what our own might be if the most dangerous elements of our Const.i.tution should become dominant. We saw democracy rampant, with no restriction upon its caprices. We saw a policy which received its impulses always from below ... nor need we affect particularly to lament the exhibition of the weak point of a Const.i.tution ... the disruption of which leaves entirely untouched the laws and usages which America owes to England, and which have contributed so powerfully to her prosperity...."
"With a rival Government on the frontier ... with great principles to be not vapoured about but put to the proof we should probably see the natural aristocracy rise from the dead level of the Republic, raising the national character with its own elevation[1336]."
In the same month the _Quarterly_, always more calm, logical and convincing than _Blackwood's_, published "Democracy on its Trial[1337]."
"The example of America kept alive, as it had created, the party of progress"; now "it has sunk from the decrepitude of premature old age."
If England, after such an example, permits herself to be led into democracy she "will have perished by that wilful infatuation which no warning can dispel."
Adams had complained that few British friends of progress identified the cause of the North with their own, but this was true of Americans also.
The _Atlantic Monthly_ for July 1861, discussed British att.i.tude wholly in terms of cotton supply. But soon there appeared in the British press so many preachments on the "lesson" of America that the aristocratic effort to gain an advantage at home became apparent to all[1338]. The _Economist_ moralized on the "untried" character of American inst.i.tutions and statesmen, the latter usually as ignorant as the "ma.s.ses" whom they represented and if more intellectual still more worthy of contempt because of their "voluntary moral degradation" to the level of their const.i.tuents[1339]. "The upper and ruling cla.s.s" wrote Bright to Sumner, were observing with satisfaction, "that democracy may get into trouble, and war, and debt, and taxes, as aristocracy has done for this country[1340]." Thus Bright could not deny the blow to democracy; nor could the _Spectator_, upbraiding its countrymen for lack of sympathy with the North: "New England will be justified in saying that Old England's anti-slavery sympathies are mere hollow sentimental pretences, since she can rest satisfied to stuff her ears with cotton against the cries of the slaves, and to compensate her gentle regret over the new impulse given to slavery by her lively gratification over the paralyzing shock suffered by Democracy[1341]." This was no taking up of cudgels for the North and "Progress" such as Adams had hoped for.
Vigour rested with the opposing side and increased when hopes of a short war vanished. The _Sat.u.r.day Review_ a.s.serted:
"In that reconstruction of political philosophy which the American calamities are likely to inaugurate, the value of the popular element will be reduced to its due proportions.... The true guarantee of freedom will be looked for more in the equilibrium of cla.s.ses than in the equality of individuals.... We may hope, at last, that the delusive confusion between freedom and democracy is finally banished from the minds of Englishmen[1342]."
"The real secret," wrote Motley, "of the exultation which manifests itself in the _Times_ and other organs over our troubles and disasters, is their hatred, not to America, so much as to democracy in England[1343]." It was scarcely a secret in the columns of the journals already quoted. But no similar interpretation had as yet appeared in the _Times_ and Motley's implication was justified for it and other leading daily newspapers. The Reviews and Weeklies were for the moment leading the attack--possibly one reason for the slowness in reply of Bright and his followers. Not all Reviews joined in the usual a.n.a.lysis. The _Edinburgh_ at first saw in slavery the sole cause of the American dispute[1344], then attributed it to the inevitable failure in power of a federal system of government, not mentioning democracy as in question[1345]. _Blackwood's_ repeatedly pushed home its argument:
"Independent of motives of humanity, we are glad that the end of the Union seems more likely to be ridiculous than terrible.... But for our own benefit and the instruction of the world we wish to see the faults, so specious and so fatal, of their political system exposed, in the most effective way.... And the venerable Lincoln, the respectable Seward, the raving editors, the gibbering mob, and the swift-footed warriors of Bull's Run, are no malicious tricks of fortune played off on an unwary nation, but are all of them the legitimate offspring of the great Republic ...
dandled and nursed--one might say coddled--by Fortune, the spoiled child Democracy, after playing strange pranks before high heaven, and figuring in odd and unexpected disguises, dies as sheerly from lack of vitality as the oldest of worn-out despotisms.... In the hope that this contest may end in the extinction of mob rule, we become reconciled to the much slighter amount of suffering that war inflicts on America[1346]."
Equally outspoken were a few public men who early espoused the cause of the South. Beresford Hope, before a "distinguished audience" used language insulting to the North, fawning upon the South and picturing the latter as wholly admirable for its aristocratic tendencies. For this he was sharply taken to task by the _Spectator_[1347]. More sedately the Earl of Shrewsbury proclaimed, "I see in America the trial of Democracy and its failure. I believe that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable, and that men now before me will live to see an aristocracy established in America[1348]." In all countries and at all times there are men over-eager in early prophecy on current events, but in such utterances as these there is manifest not merely the customary desire to stand in the limelight of a.s.sured knowledge and wisdom, but also the happy conviction that events in America were working to the undoing of the Radicals of Great Britain. If they would not be supine the Radicals must strike back. On December 4, at Rochdale where, as the _Times_ a.s.serted, he was sure of an audience sympathetic on purely personal grounds, Bright renewed his profession of faith in the American Republic and sang his accustomed praises of its great accomplishments[1349]. The battle, for England, on American democracy, was joined; the challenge issued by aristocratic England, accepted.
But apart from extreme factions at either end of the scale there stood a group holding a middle ground opinion, not yet sure of the historical significance of the American collapse. To this group belonged Gladstone, as yet uncertain of his political philosophy, and regretful, though vainly, it would appear, of the blow to democracy. He wrote his thought to Brougham, no doubt hoping to influence the view-point of the _Edinburgh_.
"This has without doubt been a deplorable year for poor 'Democracy' and never has the old woman been at a heavier discount since 1793. I see no discredit to the founders of the American const.i.tution in the main fact of the rupture.
On the contrary it was a great achievement to strike off by the will and wit of man a const.i.tution for two millions of men scattered along a seaboard, which has lasted until they have become more than thirty millions and have covered a whole continent. But the freaks, pranks, and follies, not to say worse, with which the rupture has been met in the Northern States, down to Mr. Chase's financial (not exposition but) exposure have really given as I have said the old lady in question such a heavy blow and great discouragement that I hope you will in the first vigour of your action be a little merciful and human lest you murder her outright[1350]."
On this middle group of Englishmen and their moral conceptions the American Minister, Adams, at first pinned his faith, not believing in 1861 that the issues of democracy or of trade advantage would lead Great Britain from just rules of conduct. Even in the crisis of the _Trent_ affair he was firm in this opinion:
"Much as the commercial and manufacturing interests may be disposed to view the tariff as the source of all our evils, and much as the aristocratic cla.s.ses may endeavour to make democracy responsible for them, the inexorable logic of events is contradicting each and every a.s.sertion based on these notions, and proving that the American struggle is, after all, the ever-recurring one in human affairs between right and wrong, between labour and capital, between liberty and absolutism. When such an issue comes to be presented to the people of Great Britain, stripped of all the disguises which have been thrown over it, it is not difficult to predict at least which side it will _not_ consent to take[1351].
April, 1861, saw the beginning of the aristocratic challenge on American democracy and December its acceptance by Bright. Throughout 1862 he practically deserted his seat in Parliament and devoted himself to stirring up labour and radical sentiment in favour of the North. In January, 1862, a ma.s.s meeting at New Hall, Edgware Road, denounced the daily press and was thought of sufficient moment to be reported by Adams. A motion was carried:
"That in the opinion of this meeting, considering the ill-disguised efforts of the _Times_ and other misleading journals to misrepresent public opinion here on all American questions ... to decry democratic inst.i.tutions under the trials to which the Republic is exposed, it is the duty of the working-men especially as unrepresented in the National Senate to express their sympathy with the United States in their gigantic struggle for the preservation of the Union[1352]...."
The daily press was, in fact, now joining more openly in the controversy. The _Morning Post_, stating with conviction its belief that there could be no re-union in America, added:
"... if the Government of the United States should succeed in reannexing them [the Southern States] to its still extensive dominions, Democracy will have achieved its grandest triumph since the world began. It will have demonstrated to the ample satisfaction of its present and future proselytes that it is even more puissant in war than in peace; that it can navigate not only the smooth seas of unendangered prosperity, but can ride safely through the fiercest tempests that would engulf every other craft laden with human destinies; that it can descend to the darkest depths of adversity, and rise from them all the stronger for the descent.... And who can doubt that Democracy will be more arrogant, more aggressive, more levelling and vulgarizing, if that be possible, than it ever had been before[1353]."
By midsummer, 1862, Adams was more convinced than in 1861 that the political controversy in England had an important bearing on the att.i.tude toward America. Even the alleged neutrality of _Fraser's Magazine_ seemed turning to one-sided presentation of the "lesson" of America. Mill's defence of the North, appearing in the February number, was soon followed in July by the first of a series of articles, "Universal Suffrage in the United States and Its Consequences,"
depicting the war as the result of mob rule and predicting a military despotism as its inevitable consequence. The Liberals were losing strength, wrote Adams:
"That the American difficulties have materially contributed to this result cannot be doubted. The fact that many of the leading Liberals are the declared friends of the United States is a decided disadvantage in the contest now going on.
The predominating pa.s.sion here is the desire for the ultimate subdivision of America into many separate States which will neutralize each other. This is most visible among the conservative cla.s.s of the Aristocracy who dread the growth of liberal opinions and who habitually regard America as the nursery of them[1354]."
From all this controversy Government leaders kept carefully aloof at least in public expression of opinion. Privately, Russell commented to Palmerston, "I have been reading a book on Jefferson by De Witt, which is both interesting and instructive. It shows how the Great Republic of Was.h.i.+ngton degenerated into the Democracy of Jefferson. They are now reaping the fruit[1355]." Was it mere coincidence or was there significance in an editorial in Palmerston's alleged "organ," the _Morning Post_:
"That any Englishman has looked forward with pleasure to the calamities of America is notoriously and demonstrably false.
But we have no hesitation in admitting that many thoughtful Englishmen who have watched, in the policy of the United States during the last twenty years, the foreshadowing of a democratic tyranny compared with which the most corrupt despotisms of the Old World appear realms of idyllic happiness and peace, have gratefully recognized the finger of Providence in the strife by which they have been so frightfully rent asunder[1356]...."
In October the heavy artillery of the Conservatives was again brought into action and this time with more explicit diagnosis than heretofore.
"For a great number of years," said the _Quarterly_, "a certain party among us, great admirers of America ... have chosen to fight their English battles upon American soil." Now the American Government "has disgracefully and ignominiously failed" at all points. It is evident that "political equality is not merely a folly, it is a chimera[1357]."
At last, in November, the _Times_ openly took the position which its accusers declared to have been the basis of its editorial utterances almost from the beginning of the Civil War.
"These are the consequences of a cheap and simple form of government, having a rural attorney for Sovereign and a city attorney for Prime Minister. We have already said that if such a terrible exposure of incapacity had happened in England we should at the earliest moment possible have sent the incapables about their business, and put ourselves in the hands of better men...."
"This Republic has been so often proposed to us as a model for imitation that we should be unpardonable not to mark how it works now, when for the first time it has some work to do.
We believe that if the English system of Parliamentary action had existed in America, the war could not have occurred, but we are quite sure that such Ministers would have long since been changed[1358]."
In addition to a Conservative ringing the changes upon the failure of democracy, the open friends of the South dilated also upon the "gentlemanly" characteristics of Southern leaders and society. This was the frequent burden of articles in _The Index_ in the early weeks of its publication. To this was soon added a picture of Northern democracy as composed of and controlled by the "immigrant element" which was the source of "the enormous increase of population in the last thirty years"
from revolutionary areas in Europe. "Germans, Hungarians, Irish carried with them more than their strong arms, they imported also their theories of equality.... The revolutionary party which represents them is at this moment master in the States of the North, where it is indulging in all its customary licence[1359]." This fact, complained _The Index_, was not sufficiently brought out in the English press. Very different was the picture painted by Anthony Trollope after a tour of the Western states:
"... this man has his romance, his high poetic feeling, and above all his manly dignity. Visit him, and you will find him without coat or waistcoat, unshorn, in ragged blue trousers and old flannel s.h.i.+rt, too often bearing on his lantern jaws the signs of ague and sickness; but he will stand upright before you and speak to you with all the ease of a lettered gentleman in his own library. All the odious incivility of the republican servant has been banished. He is his own master, standing on his own threshold, and finds no need to a.s.sert his equality by rudeness. He is delighted to see you, and bids you sit down on his battered bench, without dreaming of any such apology as an English cotter offers to a Lady Bountiful when she calls. He has worked out his independence, and shows it in every easy movement of his body. He tells you of it unconsciously in every tone of his voice. You will always find in his cabin some newspaper, some book, some token of advance in education. When he questions you about the old country he astonishes you by the extent of his knowledge. I defy you not to feel that he is superior to the race from whence he has sprung in England or in Ireland."
"It is always the same story. With us there is no level of society. Men stand on a long staircase, but the crowd congregates near the bottom, and the lower steps are very broad. In America men stand upon a common platform, but the platform is raised above the ground, though it does not approach in height the top of our staircase. If we take the average alt.i.tude in the two countries, we shall find that the American heads are the more elevated of the two[1360]."
A comparison of dates shows that the unanimity of conservative and aristocratic expression on the failure of American democracy and its lesson to England was most marked and most open at the moment when the Government was seriously considering an offer of mediation in the war.
Meanwhile the emanc.i.p.ation proclamation of September, 1862, had appeared. It did not immediately affect governmental att.i.tude, save adversely to the North, and it gave a handle for pro-Southern outcry on the score of a "servile war." Indeed, the radicals were at first depressed by it; but when months pa.s.sed with no appearance of a servile war and when the second emanc.i.p.ation proclamation of January, 1863, further certified the moral purpose of the North, a great element of strength was added to the English advocates of democracy. The numerous "addresses" to Lincoln exhibited both a revived moral enthusiasm for the cause of anti-slavery and were frequently combined with a laudation of American political inst.i.tutions. The great ma.s.s-meeting at Exeter Hall, January 29, 1863, was described by the correspondent of an American paper as largely deriving its strength from the universal dissatisfaction of the lower orders of the English people with their existing conditions under the Crown:
"The descendants of the Roundhead commoners, chafing under the limitations of the franchise, burdensome taxation, the contempt with which they are regarded by the lords of the soil, the grievous effects of the laws of entail and primogeniture, whereby they are kept poor and rendered liable to starvation and pauperism--these have looked to America as the model democracy which proves the poor man's capacity for self-government." The meeting was called for seven o'clock but at half after five the hall was filled, and at six crowded. A second hall was filled and outdoor meetings of two thousand people organized in Exeter Street. "All working-cla.s.s England was up in arms, not so much against slavery as against British oligarchy[1361]."
The correspondent further reported rumours that this meeting had caused anxious consideration to the managers of the _Times_, and the decision to step more warily. No doubt this was exaggeration of the political character and effect of the meeting, but certain it is that the political element was present joining hands with anti-slavery enthusiasm. Also it is noteworthy that the last confident and vigorous expression of the "failure" of democracy, from sources professedly neutral, appeared immediately after the St. James' Hall meeting, but was necessarily written before that meeting took place. _Blackwood's_, in its issue of February, 1863, declared, as before: "Every sensible man in this country now acknowledges ... that we have already gone as far toward democracy as is safe to go.... This is the great moral benefit which we have derived from the events in America." John Blackwood was an intimate friend of Delane, editor of the _Times_, holding similar views on political questions; but the _Times_ was suddenly grown cautious in reading English political lessons from America. In truth, attack now rested with the Radicals and Bright's oratory was in great demand[1362].
He now advanced from the defensive position of laudation of the North to the offensive one of attacking the Southern aristocracy, not merely because it wished to perpetuate African slavery, but because it desired to make all the working-cla.s.ses as subservient to it as was the negro[1363]. It was now Radical purpose to keep the battle raging and they were succeeding. Bigelow believed that the United States might well recognize its opportunity in this controversy and give aid to its friends:
"After all, this struggle of ours both at home and abroad is but a struggle between the principle of popular government and government by a privileged cla.s.s. The people therefore all the world over are in a species of solidarity which it is our duty and interest to cultivate to the utmost[1364]."
But Adams gave contrary advice. Wholly sympathetic with the democratic movement in England as now, somewhat to his surprise, developed, he yet feared that the extremes to which Bright and others were going in support of the North might create unfortunate reactions in the Government. Especially he was anxious that the United States should not offer opportunity for accusation of interference in a British political quarrel. It is noteworthy that while many addresses to Lincoln were forwarded by him and many were printed in the annual publication of diplomatic correspondence, those that thus appeared dealt almost exclusively with emanc.i.p.ation. Yet Adams was also forwarding addresses and speeches harping on American democracy. A meeting at Edinburgh, February 19, found place, in its emanc.i.p.ation aspect in the United States doc.u.ments[1365], but the burden of that meeting, democracy, did not. It was there proclaimed that the British press misrepresented conditions in America, "because the future of free political inst.i.tutions, as sketched in the American Declaration of Independence and in the State Const.i.tutions of the Northern States, would be a standing argument against the expansion of the franchise and the enjoyment of just political rights among us, as well as a convenient argument in favour of the continued domination of our aristocratic parties[1366]." The tide of democratic feeling was rising rapidly in England. On March 26, Adams wrote to Seward of a recent debate in Parliament that that body was much more judicious in expressions on America than it had been before 1862. "It will not escape your observation that the question is now felt to be taking a shape which was scarcely antic.i.p.ated by the managers [of the _Times_] when they first undertook to guide the British mind to the overthrow of free inst.i.tutions in America[1367]."
On the evening of the day on which this was written there occurred the greatest, most outspoken, and most denunciatory to the aristocracy, of the meetings held to support the cause of the North. This was the spectacular gathering of the Trades Unions of London at St. James' Hall, on March 26, usually regarded as the culminating effort in Bright's tour of England for the cause of democracy, but whose origin is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Socialist tradition claims that Karl Marx conceived the idea of the meeting and was responsible for its organization[1368].