|
|
 |
Reply
| |
As the Civil War progressed & the Yankees invaded deeper & deeper many of the slave masters tried to move their human chattel to the safety of Texas. If the South held out long enough they believed that Lincoln may agree to let Texas alone leave the union & become a "republic" like it was before, slavery intact. Perhaps the "purple dream" could be revived & once becoming a republic the Texans could invade & conquer Mexico & beyond thereby creating a massive slave empire. That "purple dream" died , but not before countless slaves were refugeed there and these former slaves made Texas their home after the war ended. T-Dog |
|
Reply
| |
Amazing how those things work out isn't it? |
|
Reply
| |
T.C., first a possession, then a republic, then a state in the U.S, then a state in the CSA, then a state in the Union again???? Hmmm can't make up your minds eh? The consistant T-Dog |
|
Reply
| |
Proper order Tommy is Spain, France, Mexico, Independent, US, then CSA then US but not by choice. |
|
Reply
| |
Reading my "Time Life History of the old West" it appears the Spanish gave you very good land concessions and altogether preferential teatment. As did the Mexicans. As happened in California. In return you gave some protection against the Comanche and converted to Catholicism in exchange for citizenship. Wasn't Austin a bit unhappy about the rebellion? |
|
Reply
| |
Yeah the Spanish were very generous and the Mexicans were to start, but they changed there minds when the white settlers wouldn't move out onto the Llano where there was little water and 10 times more commanche than whites. Many whites settled in eastern and southern Texas do to the fact there were fewer indians. Austin opposed the revolution until he was imprisoned for not stopping it. Then he seeing Santa Anna's perfidity supported it. |
|
Reply
| |
Hobbs, so like a good politician he "flip-flopped?" T-Dog |
|
Reply
| |
Well If I saw the enemy Generals had girly names I might have problems too. We Scots had our Anne de Montmorency but we packed him off toFrance as a Mercenary PDQ. A descendant became Constable of France but we don't talk about him. Inlike the great Welsh mercenary Thomas T. D 'Oig |
|
Reply
| |
It appears no one is aware of the attempts by Britain to persuade Texas to ream in an independant republic, rather than join the other States. Much of this was to prevent the spread of slavery, practised by the states, since Texas was also a cotton producing state, also supplying Britain. I downloaded a book from:- called:- The Project Gutenberg EBook of Great Britain and the American Civil War
by Ephraim Douglass Adams. which elaborates on the subject. It is rather a long book, but anyone iterested in the subject should at least check it out. PREFACE This work was begun many years ago. In 1908 I read in the British Museum
many newspapers and journals for the years 1860-1865, and then planned a
survey of English public opinion on the American Civil War. In the
succeeding years as a teacher at Stanford University, California, the
published diplomatic correspondence of Great Britain and of the United
States were studied in connection with instruction given in the field of
British-American relations. Several of my students prepared excellent
theses on special topics and these have been acknowledged where used in
this work. Many distractions and other writing prevented the completion
of my original plan; and fortunately, for when in 1913 I had at last
begun this work and had prepared three chapters, a letter was received
from the late Charles Francis Adams inviting me to collaborate with him
in preparing a "Life" of his father, the Charles Francis Adams who was
American Minister to Great Britain during the Civil War. BACKGROUNDS In 1862, less than a year after he had assumed his post in London, the American Minister, Charles Francis Adams, at a time of depression and bitterness wrote to Secretary of State Seward: "That Great Britain did, in the most terrible moment of our domestic trial in struggling with a monstrous social evil she had earnestly professed to abhor, coldly and at once assume our inability to master it, and then become the only foreign nation steadily contributing in every indirect way possible to
verify its judgment, will probably be the verdict made against her by posterity, on calm comparison of the evidence[1]." Very different were the views of Englishmen. The historian, George Grote, could write: "The perfect neutrality [of Great Britain] in this destructive war appears to me almost a phenomenon in political history. No such forbearance has been shown during the political history of the last two centuries. It is the single case in which the English Government and public--generally so meddlesome--have displayed most prudent and commendable forbearance in spite of great temptations to the contrary[2]." And Sir William Harcourt, in September, 1863, declared: "Among all Lord Russell's many titles to fame and to public gratitude, the manner in which he has
steered the vessel of State through the Scylla and Charybdis of the American War will, I think, always stand conspicuous[3]." Minister Adams, in the later years of the Civil War, saw reason somewhat to modify his earlier judgment, but his indictment of Great Britain was long prevalent in America, as, indeed, it was also among the historians and writers of Continental Europe--notably those of France and Russia.
To what extent was this dictum justified? Did Great Britain in spite of her long years of championship of personal freedom and of leadership in the cause of anti-slavery seize upon the opportunity offered in the disruption of the American Union, and forgetting humanitarian idealisms, react only to selfish motives of commercial advantage and national power? In brief, how is the American Civil War to be depicted by historians of Great Britain, recording her attitude and action in both
foreign and domestic policy, and revealing the principles of her statesmen, or the inspirations of her people? |
|
Reply
| |
No Tommy he saw the truth of the situation. |
|
Reply
| |
I have taken the trouble to copy more of the book I suggested, in line with the aims of the site, History. Jimbert But when in the decade 1840 to 1850, the United States, to the view of British statesmen, suddenly startled the world by entering upon a policy of further territorial expansion, forsaking her peaceful progress and turning toward war, there was a quick determination on a line of British policy as regards the American advance. The first intimation of the new American policy came in relation to the State of Texas which had revolted from Mexico in 1836, and whose independence had been generally recognized by 1842. To this new state Britain sent diplomatic and
consular agents and these reported two factions among the people--one
seeking admission to the American Union, one desiring the maintenance
of independence. In 1841 Aberdeen had sent Lord Ashburton to America with instructions to secure, if possible, a settlement of all matters in dispute. Here was a genuine British effort to escape from national irritations. But before the Treaty of 1842 was signed, even while it was in the earlier stages of negotiation, the British Government saw, with alarm, quite new questions arising, preventing, to its view, that harmonious relation
with the United States the desire for which had led to the Ashburton mission. This new development was the appearance of an American fever for territorial expansion, turning first toward Texas, but soon voiced as a "manifest destiny" which should carry American power and institutions to the Pacific and even into Central America. Among these institutions was that of slavery, detested by the public of Great Britain, yet a delicate matter for governmental consideration since the great cotton manufacturing interests drew the bulk of their supplies of raw cotton from the slave-holding states of America. If Texas, herself a cotton state, should join the United States, dependence upon slave-grown cotton would be intensified. Also, Texas, once acquired, what was there to prevent further American exploitation, followed by slave expansion, into Mexico, where for long British influence had been dominant? On the fate of Texas, therefore, centred for a time the whole British policy toward America. Pakenham, the British minister to Mexico, urged a British pressure on Mexico to forgo her plans of reconquering Texas, and strong British efforts to encourage Texas in maintaining her independence. His theory foreshadowed a powerful buffer Anglo-Saxon state, prohibiting American advance to the south-west, releasing Britain from dependence on American cotton, and ultimately, he hoped, leading Texas to abolish slavery, not yet so rooted as to be ineradicable. This
policy was approved by the British Government, Pakenham was sent to Washington to watch events, a _chargé_, Elliot, was despatched to Texas, and from London lines were cast to draw France into the plan and to force the acquiescence of Mexico. In this brief account of main lines of governmental contacts, it is nnecessary to recite the details of the diplomatic conflict, for such it became, with sharp antagonisms manifested on both sides. The basic fact was that America was bent upon territorial expansion, and that Great Britain set herself to thwart this ambition. But not to the point of war. Aberdeen was so incautious at one moment as to propose to France
and Mexico a triple guarantee of the independence of Texas, if that state would acquiesce, but when Pakenham notified him that in this case, Britain must clearly understand that war with America was not merely possible, but probable, Aberdeen hastened to withdraw the plan of guarantee, fortunately not yet approved by Mexico[9]. The solution of this diplomatic contest thus rested with Texas. Did she wish annexation to the United States, or did she prefer independence?
Elliot, in Texas, hoped to the last moment that Texas would choose independence and British favour. But the people of the new state were largely emigrants from the United States, and a majority of them wished to re-enter the Union, a step finally accomplished in 1846, after ten years of separate existence as a Republic. The part played by the British Government in this whole episode was not a fortunate one. It is the duty of Governments to watch over the interests of their subjects, and to guard the prestige and power of the state. Great Britain had a perfect _right_ to take whatever steps she chose to take in regard to Texas, but the steps taken appeared to Americans to be based upon a policy antagonistic to the American expansion policy of the moment. The Government of Great Britain appeared, indeed, to have adopted a policy of preventing the development of the power of the United States. Then,
fronted with war, she had meekly withdrawn. The basic British public feeling, fixing the limits of governmental policy, of never again being drawn into war with America, not because of fear, but because of important trade relations and also because of essential liking and admiration, in spite of surface antagonisms, was not appreciated in America. Lord Aberdeen indeed, and others in governmental circles, pleaded that the support of Texan independence was in reality perfectly in harmony with the best interests of the United States, since it would have tended toward the limitation of American slavery. And in the matter of national power, they consoled themselves with prophecies that the American Union, now so swollen in size, must inevitably split into two, perhaps three, rival empires, a slave-holding one in the South, free
nations in North and West. The fate of Texas sealed, Britain soon definitely abandoned all opposition to American expansion unless it were to be attempted northwards, though prophesying evil for the American madness. Mexico, relying on past favours, and because of a sharp controversy between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon territory, expected British aid in her war of 1846 against America. But she was sharply warned that such aid would not be given, and the Oregon dispute was
settled in the Anglo-Saxon fashion of vigorous legal argument, followed by a fair compromise. The Mexican war resulted in the acquisition of California by the United States. British agents in this province of Mexico, and British admirals on the Pacific were cautioned to take no active steps in opposition. Thus British policy, after Texan annexation, offered no barrier to American expansion, and much to British relief the fear of the extension of the American plans to Mexico and Central America was not realized.
The United States was soon plunged, as British statesmen had prophesied, into internal conflict over the question whether the newly-acquired territories should be slave or free. The acquisition of California brought up a new problem of quick transit between Atlantic and Pacific, and a canal was planned across Central America. Here Britain and America acted together, at first in amity, though the convention signed in 1850 later developed discord as to the British claim of a protectorate over the Atlantic end of the proposed canal at San Juan del Nicaragua. But Britain was again at war in Europe in the middle 'fifties, and America was deep in quarrel over slavery at home. On both sides in spite of much diplomatic intrigue and of manifestations of national pride there was governmental desire to avoid
difficulties. At the end of the ten-year period Britain ceded to Nicaragua her protectorate in the canal zone, and all causes of friction, so reported President Buchanan to Congress in 1860, were happily removed. Britain definitely altered her policy of opposition to the growth of American power. |
|
Reply
| |
Jimbert, an interesting reprise. Was there a chance we could soon become self-sufficient in cotton, with Indian and Egyptian and West Indian (still the best in the world). Suez Canal, and the reliability of steamships contributing? |
|
Reply
| |
I think the quantity, and probably the price of cotton available from the states gave them preference as suppliers. After all, the mill owners in the North of England had to keep the great unwashed up there in employment, as well as feathering their own nests. Jimbert |
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to The Civil War
