Great Britain and The American Civil War

Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Tittle Date of submission The American civil war significantly impacted on her history. It not only resulted into intense domestic strain but also caused severe International issues that demanded a viable solution. The Southerners attempt to secede was met by the Northerner's aggression to defend their union, claiming the Union was a federal and fostering thoughts of separation would be viewed as rebellion. However, the Southern states realized an opportunity to curtail the expansive rule of the central government, saying it could not exercise control over the whole geographical area of the North and South. Most importantly, the civil war was caused by the Northerners fierce fight for the abolition of slave trade. In this entire affair, the British government assumed a neutral position (Jordan and Adams 438). In my paper, I seek to make inquiries as to why Britain determined not to intervene in the America’s fight to prevent a possible war. It is imperative to mention that both the Northerners and Southerners expressed their outrage at Britain’s decision to keep off the issues that plunged them into civil war. The Northerners argued that it was only logical for the British government to support the course that pushed for the abolition of slave trade, which had formalized into action in that century. On the other hand, the Southerners contended that theirs was a fight for political freedom and that slavery was a matter inscribed on paper. It would offer much favor to influence a political progress that would ensure the independence of the Southern Union (Jordan and Adams 438). Britain’s non-involvement was also determined by the fact that even though there already existed International laws in the mid-19th Century, there were no rules prompting control of the events in United States. It seemed as though Britain’s stand was justified by the natural state of the happenings. The reason for United Kingdom’s expression of disinterest on America’s political position was to forestall any chance of war that could have arisen. Also, she observed that siding with either party would frustrate the furtherance of her commercial interests in the United States (LAWSON 142-152). Even though the Britons claimed neutrality on the American issues, some of its government officials seemed to make sentiments that inclined in support of the South. Lord John Russel painfully decried America's propensity to test its pestilent economic effect on Britain’s refusal to involve herself in their matters but pointed that Southern independence was a just price to pay for repose. The charge against the English by the North even amplified their already compromised position. The North claimed that Britain constructed ships that were to be used as cruisers by the Southerners. The British government, however, disowned the charge. Later after the war had collapsed for the North, many averments were proposed for damages about plundering formed by the cruisers (Jordan and Adams 438). Again, there is evidence to affirm that the British government had no clear comprehension of the American events, confirming that had they intervened, they would never have induced a workable solution. They just had to let the Americans settle their differences on their own. The English preponderantly found solace in staying neutral. They had determined that it would save a lot whole of factors, politically, socially, and economically (Jordan and Adams 438). It is also important to note that the Southerners put Britain in a very unstable and vulnerable position, given that they threatened to disrupt cotton trade if the British government never supported their federation, which in turn would cause her into an economic collapse and trigger revolution. However, Britain stayed high on its course as I should significantly stipulate from the evidence that she found new sources of cotton in Egypt and India; therefore, she considered that the loss of the Southern Cotton had no significant impact compared to losing the Northern wartime market. The bad blood between America and Great Britain intensified, and an ignition into war lurked from behind the events that transpired. At one point, the American confederation almost went to war with England when she sent her troops to Canada and put the British army on the footing, and also, dispatching a note to the North American country to give up the prisoners they had captured (Marx 111-158). The Civil War came by surprise to England, as before they had considered the North and Southern differences on slave trade as just a constant quarrel, which posed no immediate risk to the Union. The violent outbreaks that often occurred between the two sides always aroused sympathy from Britain on North. England had already abolished slavery, and it was likely that they would exercise disposition towards the side that supported abolition of slave trade. It is observed that British did not join the war as a nation but had individuals stationed in both armies, especially in the Confederate army. They were many in the armies, but it is explained that they were recognized for their military knowledge and were instituted as leaders of the troops. Many who fought for the Confederacy may not have been documented, but it is noted that they were senior leaders in the Army (LAWSON 142-152). The Northerners found allies in Russia; however, they did not involve in the civil war. Their participation would pitch them at risk of going to war with Britain and France, so they never took part in that war. Notably, they spent a whole winter at the coast, employing their navy against the planned invasion by Britain. Russia’s friendship with the North saved the nation the cost of going to war with Britain. It was apparent that the civil war was solely the America’s problem. Also, Britain as earlier mentioned had individual army officers positioned in the civil war. Some of these officers sent letters back to their families at home. They explained how the war was terrible and how many war compatriots had lost their lives. In this reasoning, British could not indulge in the civil war because it would agree to her members to fight each other. This was due to their armies being both in the Northern and Southern areas. If England had dispatched their troops to America, the outcome of the civil war would have changed (Marx 111-158). The civil war exposed that Northern diplomacy was a strong one, and her Southern counterpart had failed in statesmanship. Sometimes, the Northerners disliked the unbecoming attitude of Britain but somewhat took consolation that they also never expressed support for the Southerners. Both parties never wanted Britain to remain strictly neutral. The Union presented to Britain to renounce their consideration in awarding the South a belligerent status (Marx 111-158). The media is significantly mentioned to have had an influencing voice on the civil war. English leaders expressed their opinions, which were carried by the media and disseminated to various destinations especially to United States of America that needed to hear from the Great Britain. It is stated that English journals showed alignments on the right of the South to secede and gain independence as an autonomous federation with the power to control its political affairs. On the other hand, the Spectator newspaper submitted that the North had a chance at emerging victors in the war with the South and that they only had to be hopeful. Also, The Daily News remained uncritical of the Northern government and expressed sympathies for the struggles of the North towards instituting a stable union (LAWSON 142-152). Conclusively, the relationship between Great Britain and America was marred with hypocrisy. Though the British out rightly indicated a neutral stand, they employed their resources and sometimes personnel in the civil war. One would determine that Britain in conduct sided with either of the regions, selfishly, to advance their commercial interests. They did not want to play a significant role in the settlement of the American differences, yet they also could not risk losing the benefits that emerged from her ties with both the North and South (LAWSON 142-152). It is worth informing that it was necessary for Britain to stay neutral because had they exhibited inclination towards one side, the influence would have driven her and America to war given the fact that there already was tension between them. Work Cited Jordan, Henry D. and Ephraim Douglass Adams. "Great Britain And The American Civil War". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 12.3 (1925): 438. Web. LAWSON, PHILIP. "Anatomy Of A Civil War: New Perspectives On England In The Age Of The American Revolution 1767-82". Parliamentary History 8.1 (2008): 142-152. Web. Marx, Karl. "The North American Civil War." Die Presse 293 (1861): 111-158. 7 7 Surname