MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
British History : Modern America follows "Mother" lead.
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCurliestJimbert  (Original Message)Sent: 3/31/2006 10:57 PM
It is a pleasure to see that Britains favourite son/daughter, is today following her example in todays world.
Compare the ideals of 19th century Britain with America's present foreign policy, substituting Russia, the Middle East etc were necessary.
Jimbert

Principles of British Foreign Policy 1815-1865

It is possible to identify a number of consistent aims and objectives in British Foreign Policy in the period between the end of the French Wars and the death of Lord Palmerston: 1815 to 1865. These principles are as follows:

Maintenance of the peace in Europe

This was not altruism on the part of Britain but the result of important considerations. There was a great 'war-weariness' throughout Britain and also in Europe. The French Wars had lasted for twenty-two years and throughout that time, only Britain consistently opposed the French. Other European nations had been defeated by the French armies and/or had signed peace treaties with them. The people of Britain remembered the effort that had been made by the country during the French Wars; also the wars had cost Britain £600 million. Other - and perhaps more important - considerations related to Britain's economic situation. Britain depended on trade for survival. Her colonies provided raw materials and a ready market for Britain's manufactures, invisible earnings - banking and insurance - provided vast amounts of incoming cash. These things invariably suffered in wartime so Britain wanted to see that diplomacy was the first weapon used. After 1830 Britain was the 'Workshop of the World', needing raw materials to maintain her growing industries and markets for the finished goods. She also needed safe shipping routes. Palmerston said he wanted peace and prestige; he used 'gun-boat diplomacy' as a last resort to clarify Britain's position and to avert a more serious situation.

Status

In 1815, Britain was seen in Europe as the principle agent in defeating France in three ways:

  • militarily, through the successful activities of the Royal Navy and then Wellington's army in the Peninsular campaign and later in Europe
  • economically through providing gold to her allies and also providing supplies to the allied armies
  • diplomatically through the establishment and maintenance of four coalitions

Britain was anxious to enhance her European status after Waterloo: she saw herself as a major force and wanted to 'count for something' on the international scene. Of all the European nations, Britain's political system was the only one that had remained intact throughout the French Wars. Other crowned heads had been removed from their thrones; countries had had their systems of government overturned and replaced, sometimes several times in the period. In Britain, it was felt that only Britain was stable enough to pull Europe together again. Also, Britain had no ambitions in Europe so could act as the 'honest broker'. At the same time, Britain could not afford to distance herself from Europe because of the proximity of potentially huge markets and the fact that continental instability invariably impacted on domestic affairs.

Maintenance of the balance of power in Europe

Britain adopted this principle in an attempt to prevent the domination of Europe by any one Power. In the past and at various times different nations had dominated Europe: Spain, France, and Austria-Hungary in particular. The Treaty of Paris in 1815 and the settlement agreed at the Congress of Vienna ensured that there were no obvious winners or losers from the French Wars. Britain wanted to maintain the status quo of 1815. Britain also wanted to balance constitutional regimes against autocracies. In 1815 more territory in Europe was controlled by autocratic rulers than by constitutionalists, therefore wherever possible, Britain encouraged the spread of constitutionalism, especially in littoral countries: Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. [A 'littoral' country is one that has a coastline]

Cautious containment of France

Britain wanted to contain France through co-operation with the other Powers. This was a priority in 1815 and was a policy that was shared by all other European nations. Later it became a British prejudice under Palmerston, who failed to see the rise of Prussia. Britain was almost paranoid about possible French expansionism, whether it was diplomatic, territorial or through influence. Britain tried to keep France pinned down within her borders because France was seen as the most dangerous nation in Europe. This policy towards France was rather limited and was maintained for far too long: by about 1850 the Foreign Office was virtually blind to the rise of Prussia, which was a greater threat to the peace and stability of Europe than France. Bismarck and Prussia were able diplomatically to hoodwink Britain

A policy of cautious colonial expansion

This was an example of the Foreign Office being 'in tune' with the Department of Trade. There was no suggestion of 'British imperialism' as yet - imperialism has strong overtones of ideology and politics as motives for the acquisition of territory, such as the 'Scramble for Africa'. The early Nineteenth Century saw the growth of British overseas possessions for bases and markets, or as an extension of influence, for example in South Africa or the Far East, through the extension of trade. Britain needed to expand the markets for British goods and also to develop more sources of raw materials.

This was carried out by the

  • physical acquisition of territory - usually islands as bases - as at the Congress of Vienna when Britain acquired or kept Heligoland, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Ceylon
  • extension of diplomatic influence with the motive of expanding markets. For example, Canning's recognition of the South American republics may be seen as part of this policy. There was little physical presence by Britain. This method became more important as free trade developed.

A market-conscious foreign policy developed as the Industrial Revolution speeded up because of the increased need for cheap raw materials and overseas markets, but not as imperialism, because imperialism costs money and therefore becomes a liability.

A consciously naval policy

The navy was Britain's trump card, and foreign policy was dominated by the Royal Navy. British power and prestige was strongest in areas that the navy could reach. Often, British success in diplomacy can be gauged by the use of the navy. Sea power was very important and the Royal Navy was the right hand of the Foreign Office, although secondary to diplomacy: the use of the navy was not necessarily aggressive.

A conscious promotion of constitutional states in Europe

Britain wanted to help other nations to have constitutions similar to that of Britain, but wanted it especially in the littoral states such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece. Britain helped with advice and even militarily on occasion. Britain's aim in doing this was to help to develop her own trade. It was thought that constitutional governments would have similar outlooks and ideas, and would be easier with which to negotiate. Britain also

  • felt that it would encourage peace
  • thought that it would provide allies
  • thought that it would balance autocracy, which was the dominant system of government in Europe in 1815

By 1865 Britain had played a major part in setting up constitutional monarchies in almost every European littoral state from Belgium to Greece. These countries provided a barrier to central and eastern European autocracies. Also, the Foreign Office considered trade and income for Britain by using the physical support and presence of the fleet and army or by utilising her diplomatic influence to encourage constitutional governments. Britain, as the most democratic state in Europe, was generally tolerant towards Liberal Nationalism and had sympathy for the aims of the Liberal Nationalists. After 1832, Britain was even more democratic, following the passing of the Reform Act; by the 1850s, as the idea of a second Reform Act began to develop, Britain had even more empathy towards Liberal Nationalism.

Britain had an increasing sensitivity towards Russia and the 'Eastern Question'

Turkey - the 'sick man of Europe' - got weaker and the 'Russian bear' became more of a threat in the Straits and the Mediterranean. British sensitivity was enhanced because of economic reasons: trade in the Mediterranean and the overland route to India was threatened by Russia's interest in Turkey. This eventually led to the Crimean War.

Maintaining the integrity of the Turkish Empire

This was 'part and parcel' of Britain's increasing sensitivity towards Russia and often involved restraining Russian attempts at expansion into the Ottoman Empire. However, supporting the Sultan did run the risk of producing a weak, reliant Turkey. Britain's sensitivity over the Eastern Question increased in the Nineteenth Century because India became more important, especially for cotton goods. Britain's trade routes had to be protected: the Suez Canal was not opened until 1869. As conflicting aims between Britain and Russia grew, so did the likelihood of hostility. The alliance of 1815 degenerated into the enmity of 1853.

Britain's most important aims in foreign policy were

  1. a determination to keep the peace in Europe
  2. to pursue policies helping trade


First  Previous  2-13 of 13  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname--sundaySent: 4/2/2006 2:20 AM
I see why Britain and America tag team all the time.
 
sunday
 
 

Reply
 Message 3 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameAZALIA7Sent: 4/2/2006 9:15 PM
are you joking???keep the peace in the world .LOL .....every where is war
british is there ?????????????? to spread the colony.....

Reply
 Message 4 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 4/2/2006 11:01 PM
Tell that to the people of Sierra Leone whom the British helped out of a civil war a few years ago.

Reply
 Message 5 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMOREREPETESSent: 4/4/2006 9:52 PM
 
are you joking???keep the peace in the world .LOL .....every where is war
british is there
Don't you mean every hot spot in the world has Muslins there, or are you watching a different tv set that the rest of us.

Reply
 Message 6 of 13 in Discussion 
From: race2threeSent: 2/19/2007 11:11 AM
Interesting points...well stated...it's rather ironic that for half of the history of the united states....it was britain that was at the core of much of the US foreign policy....the government of the US kept a wary eye out for the Union Jack...and Britain was considered to be the most likely source of touble...kind of like a quarterback looking to see where that "dick butkus" type linebacker is lined up before the ball is snapped ready to audible it it looked like trouble...lol....even after the two wars were a distant memory, which no living person had actually seen, England was the big bulldog on the block...as far as the points you made concerning keeping the peace, maintaining balance of power...etc....of course all of that is true...yet I hear Azaliaz's voice in that short sentence he wrote in reply....an imperial power, rome, britain, america, assyria, any you can name is also a crushing burden on the majority of the "non -i mperial" nations and cultures...it has also, in and of itself, while it is "keeping the peace" and allowing the nations and peoples of the world to have closer relations....cruelty, greed, and ulterior motive, are all part of it's intrinisic makeup...(Cicero (I believe it was) in a converstation with some senators as they sat in the curia...having recently returned from his governorhsip of his province related that he felt 'those who had never left rome to live for a while abroad had no idea just how much the world hates us'... as a race, and I speak of the human race...it will be a sunny day when we have outgrown, or found  a better way to relate to one another. 

Reply
 Message 7 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknametommytalldogSent: 2/19/2007 1:13 PM
For centuries Britain kept their wars "over there."   See Iraq today. 
 
T-Dog

Reply
 Message 8 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 2/19/2007 7:24 PM
If the War of 1812 had a positive outcome it was that it taught both the Americans and the British not to tangle with each other again. That's not to say we they weren't wary of each other as stated in # 6, but I don't think there was ever a serious threat from either side after that. The occasional trouble with Canada was more of a freelance effort by mad Fenians than anything serious.

Reply
 Message 9 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 2/19/2007 7:39 PM
Mark, have to say I agree with ya.  Also I think the war helped march the States closer to a rift of south and north.  It gave rise to Jackson, who latter became president and brought about the 1st attempt at secession by South Carolina, and set more hard feellin's tween the north and south on states sovereignity.

Reply
 Message 10 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 2/19/2007 8:41 PM
Mark
You sure got that wrong.
It taught the US to build a fireproof White House, easily collapsible.
Peter

Reply
 Message 11 of 13 in Discussion 
From: race2threeSent: 2/20/2007 7:02 AM
agreed...I said the americans were wary...i didn't say they WEREN'T paranoid....lol....

Reply
 Message 12 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameolgramsSent: 2/21/2007 2:39 AM
Yah, but, I just wish the Brits, ya know, would learn to speak English, ya know.  Like, totally!

Reply
 Message 13 of 13 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 2/21/2007 1:09 PM
Olgrams
Last November my daughter, who is 3/4 human, that being Scots-German and 1/4 Irish drove around Texas to meet my sister and brother in law  who crossed the Rio Grande in 1978 (they'll do anything to save money).
She was most impressed by peoples' courtesy and genuine curiosity and despite what Snow and Co say, clarity of speech compared with our mumbling baseball cap wearing rap-talking rugrats.
Of course, in Tony Blairs' Britain you may not speak well. Too elitist. The asylum speakers might not understand. But they'll teach you Gujerati and Bengali at the drop of a hat!!
Pigs.

First  Previous  2-13 of 13  Next  Last 
Return to British History