Great Britain and the American Civil War Part 60

The press generally reported it as a "Bright Meeting." Adams wrote to Seward of the pressure put on him by Professor Beesly, of the University of London, to send a representative from the American Ministry, Beesly expanding upon the importance and high standing of the Trades Unions. To this Adams demurred but finally sent his son to sit in the audience and report the proceedings.

Whatever its origin there can be no doubt that this was the most important of all pro-Northern meetings held in England during the Civil War, nor that its keynote was "America fighting the battle of democracy." Save for some distinguished speakers those in attendance consisted almost wholly of three thousand picked representatives of the Trades Unions of London. Adams transmitted to Seward his son's report of the meeting, its character, composition, names of speakers and their emphatic expressions of friends.h.i.+p for the North[1369], but it is again noteworthy that Henry Adams' clear a.n.a.lysis of the real significance of the meeting was not printed in the published diplomatic correspondence.

Giving due praise to the speeches of Bright and Beesly, and commenting on press a.s.sertions that "the extraordinary numbers there were only brought together by their curiosity to hear Mr. Bright," Henry Adams continued: "That this was not the case must have been evident to every person present. In fact, it was only after he closed that the real business of the evening began." Then followed speeches and the introduction of resolutions by "Mr. Howell, a bricklayer ... Mr. Odgers, a shoemaker ... Mr. Mantz, a compositor ... Mr. Cremer, a joiner, who was bitter against Lord Palmerston ... Mr. Conolly, a mason...." and other labouring men, all a.s.serting "that the success of free inst.i.tutions in America was a political question of deep consequence in England and that they would not tolerate any interference unfavourable to the North." No one, the report emphasized, "could doubt what was intended."

"The meeting was a demonstration of democratic strength and no concealment of this fact was made. If it did not have a direct political bearing on internal politics in England it needed little of doing so. There was not even a profession of faith in the government of England as at present const.i.tuted.

Every hostile allusion to the Aristocracy, the Church, the opinions of the 'privileged cla.s.ses,' was received with warm cheers. Every allusion to the republican inst.i.tutions of America, the right of suffrage, the right of self-taxation, the 'sunlight' of republican influence, was caught up by the audience with vehement applause. It may therefore be considered as fairly and authoritatively announced that the cla.s.s of skilled workmen in London--that is the leaders of the pure popular movement in England--have announced by an act almost without precedent in their history, the principle that they make common cause with the Americans who are struggling for the restoration of the Union and that all their power and influence shall be used on behalf of the North[1370]."

Bright's words of most scarifying indictment of "Privilege," and his appeal to workers to join hands with their fellows in America have been given in a previous chapter[1371]. Evidently that appeal, though enthusiastically received for its oratorical brilliance, was unneeded.

His was but an eloquent expression of that which was in the minds of his audience. Upon the American Minister the effect was to cause him to renew warnings against showing too keen an appreciation of the support of political radicalism in England. The meeting, he wrote, had at once stirred anxiety in Parliament and verged:

"... much too closely upon the minatory in the domestic politics of this Kingdom to make it easy to recognize or sympathize with by Foreign Governments.... Hence it seems to me of the greatest consequence that the treatment of all present questions between the two nations should be regulated by a provident forecast of what may follow it [the political struggle in England] hereafter. I am not sure that some parties here would not now be willing even to take the risk of a war in order the more effectually to turn the scale against us, and thus, as they think, to crush the rising spirit of their own population. That this is only a feeling at present and has not yet risen to the dignity of a policy may be true enough; but that does not the less impose upon the Government at home a duty so to shape its actions as, if possible, to defeat all such calculations and dissipate such hopes.... We owe this duty not less to the great body of those who in this kingdom are friends to us and our inst.i.tutions, than to ourselves[1372]."

[Ill.u.s.tration: JOHN BRIGHT (_From a photograph taken of him in the att.i.tude in which he usually spoke_) (_From Trevelyan's "Life of John Bright_")]

Thus Adams advised his Government to tread lightly in respect to democratic agitation in England. Over a month later he received a deputation headed by Bright, come to present to him the resolutions pa.s.sed at the Trades Unions' meeting. The deputation expressed fears that a rupture was imminent in the relations of Great Britain and America, and that this would have a disastrous influence on the aspirations of working-cla.s.s Europe. Adams replied in general terms of appreciation for the sympathies expressed by the meeting but carefully avoided specific comment on its democratic purpose. "He was too prudent," said the _Times_ in reporting the deputation, "to appraise the importance of the particular demonstration to which his notice was invited ..." and his reply was given favourable comment[1373]. This reply, wrote Adams, "appears to have had a sedative effect[1374]."

Meanwhile, Bright continued his preachment to the English people though modifying his tone of fierce accusation against "privilege," and confining himself to declaring the interest of the unenfranchised in the American conflict. In a speech before the Union and Emanc.i.p.ation Society of London, on June 16, he a.s.serted for the "twenty millions of people in this country" as yet without representation in Parliament, "I say that these have an interest, almost as great and direct as though they were living in Ma.s.sachusetts or New York, in the tremendous struggle for freedom which is now shaking the whole North American Continent[1375]."

Like utterances were repeated at further public meetings and so insistent were they as to require reply by the conservative faction, even if, as was supposed, the effect of the Trades' Union att.i.tude had been to give a halt to the vehemence of those who had been sounding the "lesson" of American failure in democracy. Bright became the centre of attack. The _Times_ led.

"His is a political fanaticism. He used to idolize the Const.i.tution of the United States as the one great dominant Democracy of the world. He believes in it still, and, if it must go, he is ready to idolize its memory. For this he gives up all his most cherished notions and all his less absorbing principles...."

"Yet Mr. Bright is consistent. He has one master pa.s.sion and his breast, capacious as it is, can hold no more. That master pa.s.sion is the love of that great dominant Democracy. He wors.h.i.+pped it while rising to its culminating point, and he is obliged to turn right round to wors.h.i.+p it while setting.

He did not himself know, until tested by this great trial, how entirely his opinions as to war and peace, and slavery and freedom, and l.u.s.t of conquest and hatred of oppression, were all the mere accidents which hung loosely upon him, and were capable of being detached at once in the interest of the ruling pa.s.sion of his soul for that great dominant Democracy.

Nor need we wonder; for if that great Democracy has been a failure, then men will say that the life of Mr. John Bright up to this time has been but a foolish dream[1376]."

Evidently Bright's speeches were causing anxiety and bitterness; but an "if" had crept into the estimate of the future of American democracy, caused less by the progress of the war than by the rising excitement of democratic England. The _Times_ editorial just quoted appeared when the faith was generally professed that Lee was about to end the war through the invasion of Pennsylvania. In the reaction created by the arrival of the news of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Adams still again warned his Government against either a belligerent or interfering att.i.tude toward Great Britain, but stated plainly that Northern victory was of supreme importance in Europe itself. "We have a mission to fulfill. It is to show, by our example to the people of England in particular, and to all nations in general, the value of republican inst.i.tutions." There was still a general belief in the incompetency of those inst.i.tutions. "The greatest triumph of all would be to prove these calculations vain. In comparison with this, what would be the gain to be derived from any collision with the powers of Europe[1377]?"

It is strange that with so clearly-expressed a division of English opinion on American democracy few in America itself appreciated the significance of the British controversy. J. M. Forbes, who had been on a special mission to England, wrote to Lincoln, on his return[1378]:

"Our friends abroad see it! John Bright and his glorious band of English Republicans see that we are fighting for Democracy or (to get rid of the technical name) for liberal inst.i.tutions; the Democrats and the liberals of the old world are as much and as heartily with us as any supporters we have on this side.

Our enemies too see it in the same light; the Aristocrats and the Despots of the old world see that our quarrel is that of the People against an Aristocracy[1379]."

But there are few similar expressions and these few nearly always came from men who had been abroad and had thus come into direct contact with British political movements. Meanwhile, Lee's retreat from Pennsylvania had produced a like retreat in the opinions on the failure of democracy earlier confidently held by the professedly neutral press. In September, having arrived at the point by the usual process of gradually facing about, the _Times_ was bold enough to deny that England had any personal feeling or concern about democracy in America or that this had anything to do with English att.i.tude on the war[1380]. Thenceforth neither the _Times_ nor any of the leading papers saw fit to revive with vigour the cry of "democracy's failure," no matter how persistent in proclaiming ultimate victory for the South. Aristocratic exultation had given place to alarm and it seemed wiser, if possible, to quiet the issue[1381]. Not so the Radicals, who made every effort to keep the issue alive in the minds of the British public, and whose leaders with less violence but increased firmness debated the question in every public meeting favourable to the North[1382]. Many Conservatives, Adams reported, were now anxiously sitting on the fence yet finding the posture a difficult one because of their irritation at Bright's taunts[1383]. Bright's star was rising. "The very moment the war comes to an end," wrote Adams, "and a restoration of the Union follows, it will be the signal for a reaction that will make Mr. Bright perhaps the most formidable public man in England[1384]."

The continuation of the controversy was not, however, wholly one-sided.

In the silence of the daily press it seemed inc.u.mbent upon the more eager and professed friends of the South to take up the cudgels. Hence, in part, came the organization of the Southern Independence a.s.sociation and the attempt to hold public meetings favourable to the South, in the early months of 1864. Much talk had been spent on the "British issue"

involved in the war; there was now to be vigorous work to secure it[1385]. _The Index _plunged into vigorous denunciation of "The Manchester School, which, for convenience and truth, we had better for the future call the American School." Even the Government was attacked for its complacence under the "American danger" and for retaining as a member Milner-Gibson, who, in a recent speech, had shown that he shared Bright's views on democracy:

"That gentleman [Bright] could not be asked to enter the Cabinet in person. The country abhorred him; Parliament despised him; his inveterate habits of slander and vituperation, his vulgarity, and his incurable want of veracity, had made him so hateful to the educated cla.s.ses that it would have required no common courage to give him office; his insolent sneers at royalty would have made his appointment little less than a personal insult to the Queen; and his bad temper would have made him an intolerable colleague in the Council. But Mr. Bright had another self; a faithful shadow, which had no ideas, no soul, no other existence but what it borrowed from him, while its previous life and education had accustomed it to the society of statesmen and of gentlemen[1386]."

Such expressions gained nothing for the Conservative cause; they were too evidently the result of alarm at the progress of Radical and pro-Northern sentiment. Goldwin Smith in a "Letter" to the Southern Independence a.s.sociation, a.n.a.lysed with clarity the situation. Answering criticisms of the pa.s.sionate mob spirit of Northern press and people, he accused the _Times_ of having

"... pandered to the hatred of America among the upper cla.s.ses of this country during the present war. Some of us at least had been taught by what we have lately seen not to shrink from an extension of the suffrage, if the only bad consequence of that measure of justice would be a change in government from the pa.s.sions of the privileged cla.s.s to the pa.s.sions of the people.... History will not mistake the meaning of the loud cry of triumph which burst from the hearts of all who openly or secretly hated liberty and progress, at the fall, as they fondly supposed, of the Great Republic." British working men "are for the most part as well aware that the cause of those who are fighting for the right of labour is theirs, as any n.o.bleman in your a.s.sociation can be that the other cause in his[1387]."

The question of democracy as a political philosophy and as an inst.i.tution for Great Britain was, by 1864, rapidly coming to the front in politics. This was very largely a result of the American Civil War.

Roebuck, after the failure of his effort for mediation in 1863, was obsessed with a fear of the tendency in England. "I have great faith in my countrymen," he wrote, "but the experience of America frightens me. I am not ashamed to use the word _frightened_. During my whole life I have looked to that country as about to solve the great problem of self-government, and now, in my old age, the hopes of my youth and manhood are destroyed, and I am left to reconstruct my political philosophy, and doubt and hesitation beset me on every point[1388]."

More philosophically Matthew Arnold, in 1864, characterized the rule of aristocracy as inevitably pa.s.sing, but bent his thought to the discovery of some middle ground or method--some "influence [which] may help us to prevent the English people from becoming, with the growth of democracy, _Americanized_[1389]." "There is no longer any sort of disguise maintained," wrote Adams, "as to the wishes of the privileged cla.s.ses.

Very little genuine sympathy is entertained for the rebels. The true motive is apparent enough. It is the fear of the spread of democratic feeling at home in the event of our success[1390]."

The year 1864 had witnessed a rapid retreat by wiser Conservative elements in proclaming the "lesson" of American democracy--a retreat caused by alarm at the vigour with which Radicals had taken up the challenge. Conservative hopes were still fixed upon Southern success and Conservative confidence loudly voiced. Even the pride of the _Times_ in the accuracy of its news and in its military forecasts was subordinated to the purpose of keeping up the courage of the faction it represented[1391]. Small wonder, then, that Delane, on receiving the news of Sherman's arrival before Savannah, should be made physically ill and write to Dasent: "The American news is a heavy blow to us as well as to the South." The next day he added: "I am still sore vexed about Sherman, but Chenery did his best to attenuate the mischief[1392]."

"Attenuation" of Northern progress in arms was, indeed, attempted, but the facts of the military situation were too strong for continued concealment. From January, 1865, only the most stubborn of Southern friends could remain blind to the approaching Northern victory. Lord Acton, a hero-wors.h.i.+pper of the great Confederate military leader, "broke his heart over the surrender of Lee," but was moved also by keen insight as to the political meaning of that surrender[1393].

So a.s.sured were all parties in England that the great Civil War in America was closing in Northern victory that the final event was discounted in advance and the lines were rapidly being formed for an English political struggle on the great issue heralded as involved in the American conflict. Again, on the introduction of a motion in Parliament for expansion of the franchise the ultra-Conservatives attempted to read a "lesson" from America. The _Quarterly_ for April, 1865, a.s.serted that even yet "the ma.s.s of educated men in England retain the sympathy for the South which they have nourished ever since the conflict a.s.sumed a decided shape." America was plainly headed in the direction of a military despotism. Her example should warn England from a move in the same direction. "The cla.s.ses which govern this country are in a minority," and should beware of majority rule. But events discredited the prophecy of a military despotism. The a.s.sa.s.sination of Lincoln gave opportunity not merely for a general outpouring of expressions of sympathy but also to the Radicals a chance to exalt Lincoln's leaders.h.i.+p in democracy[1394].

In July Great Britain was holding elections for a new Parliament. Not a single member who had supported the cause of the North failed of re-election, several additional Northern "friends" were chosen, and some outspoken members for the South were defeated. Adams thought this a matter deserving special notice in America, and prophesied a new era approaching in England:

"As it is, I cannot resist the belief that this period marks an era in the political movement of Great Britain. Pure old-fas.h.i.+oned conservatism has so far lost its hold on the confidence of the country that it will not appear in that guise any more. Unless some new and foreign element should interpose, I look for decided progress in enlarging the popular features of the const.i.tution, and diminis.h.i.+ng the influence of the aristocracy.... It is impossible not to perceive traces of the influence of our inst.i.tutions upon all these changes.... The progress of the liberal cause, not in England alone, but all over the world, is, in a measure, in our hands[1395]."

The "Liberal progress" was more rapid, even, than Adams antic.i.p.ated.

Palmerston, ill for some months past, died on October 18, 1865. Russell succeeded him as head of the Ministry, and almost immediately declared himself in favour of Parliamentary reform even though a majority in both Houses was still opposed to such a measure. Russell's desertion of his earlier att.i.tude of "finality" on franchise expansion correctly represented the acceptance, though unwillingly, by both political parties of the necessity of reform. The battle, long waged, but reaching its decisive moment during the American Civil War, had finally gone against Conservatism when Lee surrendered at Appomatox. Russell's Reform Bill of 1866 was defeated by Tory opposition in combination with a small Whig faction which refused to desert the "principle" of aristocratic government--the "government by the wise," but the Tories who came into power under Derby were forced by the popular demand voiced even to the point of rioting, themselves to present a Reform Bill.

Disraeli's measure, introduced with a number of "fancy franchises,"

which, in effect, sought to counteract the giving of the vote to British working-men, was quickly subjected to such caustic criticism that all the planned advantages to Conservatism were soon thrown overboard, and a Bill presented so Radical as to permit a transfer of political power to the working cla.s.ses[1396]. The Reform Bill of 1867 changed Great Britain from a government by aristocracy to one by democracy. A new nation came into being. The friends of the North had triumphed.

Thus in addition to the play of diplomatic incidents, the incidental frictions, the effect on trade relations, the applications of British neutrality, and the general policy of the Government, there existed for Great Britain a great issue in the outcome of the Civil War--the issue of the adoption of democratic inst.i.tutions. It affected at every turn British public att.i.tude, creating an intensity and bitterness of tone, on both sides, unexampled in the expressions of a neutral people. In America this was little understood, and American writers both during the war and long afterwards, gave little attention to it[1397]. Immediately upon the conclusion of the war, Goldwin Smith, whose words during the conflict were bitter toward the aristocracy, declared that "the territorial aristocracy of this country and the clergy of the Established Church" would have been excusable "if they could only have said frankly that they desired the downfall of inst.i.tutions opposed to their own, instead of talking about their sympathy for the weak, and their respect for national independence, and their anxiety for the triumph of Free Trade[1398]." This was stated before the democratic hope in England had been realized. Three years later the same staunch friend of the North, now removed to America and occupying a chair of history at Cornell University, wrote of the British aristocracy in excuse of their att.i.tude: "I fought these men hard; I believed, and believe now, that their defeat was essential to the progress of civilization. But I daresay we should have done pretty much as they did, if we had been born members of a privileged order, instead of being brought up under the blessed influence of equality and justice[1399]."

Such judgment and such excuses will appear to the historian as well-founded. But to Americans who conceived the Civil War as one fought first of all for the preservation of the nation, the issue of democracy in England seemed of little moment and little to excuse either the "cold neutrality" of the Government or the tone of the press. To Americans Great Britain appeared friendly to the dissolution of the Union and the destruction of a rival power. Nationality was the issue for the North; that democracy was an issue in America was denied, nor could it, in the intensity of the conflict, be conceived as the vital question determining British att.i.tude. The Reform Bill of 1867 brought a new British nation into existence, the nation decrying American inst.i.tutions was dead and a "sister democracy" holding out hands to the United States had replaced it, but to this the men who had won the war for the North long remained blind. Not during the generation when Americans, immersed in a life and death struggle for national existence, felt that "he who is not for me is against me," could the generally correct neutrality of the British Government and the whole-hearted support of Radical England be accepted at their true value to the North. For nearly half a century after the American Civil War the natural sentiments of friends.h.i.+p, based upon ties of blood and a common heritage of literature and history and law, were distorted by bitter and exaggerated memories.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1323: See my article, "The Point of View of the British Traveller in America," _Pol. Sci. Quarterly_, June, 1914.]

[Footnote 1324: Alexander Mackay, _The Western World; or Travels in the United States in_ 1846-47.]

[Footnote 1325: _Ibid._, Fourth Edition, London, 1850, Vol. III, p. 24.]

[Footnote 1326: Hugh Seymour Tremenheere, _The Const.i.tution of the United States compared with Our Own_, London, 1854.]

[Footnote 1327: e.g., William Kelly, _Across the Rocky Mountains from New York to California_, London, 1852. He made one acute observation on American democracy. "The division of parties is just the reverse in America to what it is in England. In England the stronghold of democracy is in the large towns, and aristocracy has its strongest supporters in the country. In America the ultra-democrat and leveller is the western farmer, and the aristocratic tendency is most visible amongst the manufacturers and merchants of the eastern cities." (p. 181.)]

[Footnote 1328: Monypenny, _Disraeli_, IV, pp. 293-4, states a Tory offer to support Palmerston on these lines.]

[Footnote 1329: Dodd, _Jefferson Davis_, p. 217.]

[Footnote 1330: March, 30, 1861.]

[Footnote 1331: March 16, 1861.]

[Footnote 1332: To John Bigelow, April 14, 1861. (Bigelow, _Retrospections_, I, p. 347.)]

[Footnote 1333: April 27, 1861.]

[Footnote 1334: Bunch wrote to Russell, May 15, 1861, that the war in America was the "natural result of the much vaunted system of government of the United States"; it had "crumbled to pieces," and this result had long been evident to the public mind of Europe. (F.O., Am., Vol.

780, No. 58.)]

[Footnote 1335: State Department, Eng., Vol. 77, No. 9. Adams to Seward, June 21, 1861.]

[Footnote 1336: I have made an effort to identify writers in _Blackwood's_, but am informed by the editors that it is impossible to do this for the period before 1870, old correspondence having been destroyed.]