Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T03:19:44.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Anti-Slavery Sentiment in English Reactions to the American Civil War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Douglas A. Lorimer
Douglas A. Lorimer
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From 1861 to 1865, English politicians and journalists watched with passionate interest as the United States seemed to tear itself apart over the question of slavery. During these years, English public men, politicians and writers of all qualities and degrees, gave extensive airing to their views both of slavery and of American democracy. This extensive commentary on the American conflict, and the subsequent revival of interest in parliamentary reform, have made the divisions in English opinion on the war a useful testing ground of mid-Victorian social and political attitudes. Early studies, written from the perspective of the northern victory, the abolition of slavery, and the martyrdom of Lincoln, found it difficult to comprehend the extent of pro-confederate sympathy in England. On the slavery question, the mid-Victorians seemed to have lost the abolitionist enthusiasm of their evangelical forebears in the Clapham Sect. In order to fathom this failure of English judgement, historians attempted to show that the more articulate minority, the upper echelons of mid-Victorian society, sided with an aristocratic, slave-owning south, while the less articulate majority, middle-class radicals and the working class, sided with a democratic, abolitionist north.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 405 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See particularly: Adams, E. D., Great Britain and the American Civil War (London, 1925)Google Scholar, 2 vols.; Villiers, B. and Chesson, W. H., Anglo-American Relations, 1861–1865 (London, 1919)Google Scholar; Jordan, D. and Pratt, E. J., Europe and the Civil War (Boston, 1931)Google Scholar; Park, Joseph H., ‘English Workingmen and the American Civil War’, Political Science Quarterly, xxxix (1924), pp. 432–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For recent historiographical discussion see: Hernon, Joseph M., ‘British Sympathies in the American Civil War: A Reconsideration’, Journal of Southern History, xxxiii (1967), pp. 336–67Google Scholar; Peter d' Jones, A., ‘The History of a Myth: British Workers and the American Civil War’, in Ellison, Mary, Support for Secession: Lancashire and the American Civil War (Chicago, 1972), pp. 199–219Google Scholar. See also Ellison, , op. cit. and: Jones, W. D., ‘British Conservatives and the American Civil War’, American Historical Review LVIII (1953), pp. 527–43Google Scholar; Whitridge, Arnold, ‘British Liberals and the American Civil War’, History Today, XII (1962), pp. 688–95Google Scholar; Harrison, Royden, ‘British Labour and the Confederacy’, International Review of Social History, II (1957), pp. 78–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘British Labour and American Slavery’, Science and Society, xxv (1961), pp. 291–319Google Scholar; Wright, D. G., ‘Bradford and the American Civil War’, Journal of British Studies, viii (1969), pp. 69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Crook, D. P., ‘Portents of War: English Opinion on Secession’, Journal of American Studies, iv (1970), pp. 163–79.Google Scholar

3 Ellison, op. cit., passim.

4 Lyons, Lord to Russell, , no. 317, 18 Dec. 1860Google Scholar, F.O. 5/740; Lyons, to Russell, , 4 Feb. 1861, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/35; Richard Cobden to John Slagg, Manchester merchant, 4 Feb. 1861, B.M. Add. MS 43,676, fo. 71; The Saturday Review, 12 Jan. 1861, pp. 27–8; The Spectator, 27 Apr. 1861, p. 440; The Economist, 27 Apr. 1861, pp. 450–1; The Times, 27 Jan., 13 Feb. 1861.Google Scholar

5 Russell, to Lyons, , 10 Jan. 1861Google Scholar, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/96, and Lyons, to Russell, , 6 May 1861Google Scholar, ibid. P.R.O. 30/22/35; Lyons, to Russell, , no. 416, 12 May 1861, and minute signed by Russell and E. Hammond, 2 Sept. 1861, F.O. 5/769; The Times, 19 July, 9 Sept., 14 Dec. 1861; Reynolds's Newspaper, 4 Aug. 1861.Google Scholar

6 Lyons, to Russell, , 11 Nov. 1861Google Scholar, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/35; Russell to Lyons, no. 104, 7 Mar. 1862, F.O. 5/818; ibid. no. 197, 1 May 1862, F.O. 5/819; Report of H. Percy Anderson on the West and Southwestern States, encl. in Stuart to Russell, no. 275, 7 Oct. 1862, F.O. 5/837, and circulated to the cabinet. See also: Cobden to Rev. Henry Richard, secretary of the Peace Society, 20 Sept. 1863, B.M. Add. MS 46,659, fo. 236; Aris's Birmingham Gazette, 11 Feb. 1862; The Economist, 15 Feb. 1862, pp. 170–2.

7 Lyons, to Russell, , no. 495, 16 Sept. 1861Google Scholar, F.O. 5/771; Lyons, to Russell, , no. 243, 11 Apr. 1862Google Scholar, F.O. 5/827; Stuart, to Russell, , no. 164, 18 Aug. 1862Google Scholar, F.O. 5/835; Lyons, to Russell, , 2 Dec. 1862Google Scholar, and Stuart, to Russell, , 26 Sept. 1862Google Scholar, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/36. Russell's Memorandum to the Cabinet on the American Civil War, 13 Oct. 1862, F.O. 5/865. Lord Lyons finally accepted emancipation was a certain war aim of the north as late as July 1864: Lyons to Russell, no. 537, 26 July 1864, F.O. 5/956. See also: Cobden to William Hargreaves, 24 Aug. 1864, B.M. Add. MSS 43,655, fos. 355–7; The Spectator, 5 Jan. 1861, p. 11,5 Oct. 1861, pp. 1084–5,21 Dec. 1861, pp. 1388–9; The Daily News, 6 Jan. 1862; The Saturday Review, 21 Dec. 1861, p. 629.

8 Russell's Memorandum to the Cabinet on the American Civil War, 13 Oct. 1862, F.O. 5/865. Russell's view that separation would be better for the blacks was substantiated by the Report of H. Percy Anderson on the West and Southwestern States, encl. in Stuart to Russell, no. 275, 7 Oct. 1862, F.O. 5/837, and circulated to the cabinet. In his correspondence Russell expressed the fear that a restored Union would sacrifice emancipation, and in 1865, he expressed satisfaction with the end of American slavery: Russell to Lyons, 26 Oct., 2 Nov. 1861, 15 Mar. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/96; Russell to Sir Frederick Bruce, 15 Apr. 1865, ibid. P.R.O. 30/22/97; Russell, to Burnley, , no. 67, 23 Feb. 1865, F.O. 5/1009. Russell found himself in agreement with Lord Brougham, the elder statesman of the British abolitionist movement: Russell to Brougham, 24 Oct. 1862, Brougham Papers, University College, London. See also Russell's speech in the Lords: Hansard, 3rd ser., CLXXIV (29 Apr. 1864), 1901–2.Google Scholar

9 MS of Newcastle Speech, 7 Oct. 1862, B.M. Add. MSS 44,657, fos. 90–2; Memorandum on the War in America, 25 Oct. 1862, ibid. 44,595, fo. 89; Gladstone to Argyll, 26 Aug. 1861, ibid. 44,532, fos. 6–8. As late as Oct. 1865, Gladstone reiterated his view that secession would have been in the best interest of the slaves: Gladstone to Ellis Jarnall, 17 Oct. 1865, B.M. Add. MS 44,535, fo. 135.

10 'Recorded Errors’, 1896, B.M. Add. MS 44,791, fo. 40; C. P. Villiers, to Bright, , 25 Jan. 1862, B.M. Add. MS 43,386, fo. 354.Google Scholar

11 Palmerston, to Russell, , 14 Sept., 22 Sept., 23 Sept. 1862Google Scholar, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/14D; also Palmerston, to Gladstone, , 24 Sept. 1862Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MSS 44,272, fos. 184–5. Palmerston's reaction to Antietam: Palmerston to Russell, 2 Oct., 3 Oct. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/14D; and Brauer, Kinley J., ‘British Mediation and the American Civil War: A Reconsideration’, Journal of Southern History, xxxviii (1972), pp. 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Palmerston, to Russell, , 20 Oct., 21 Oct., 17 Dec. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/14d.Google Scholar

13 'Memorandum of Sir G. C. Lewis on the American Question, 17 Oct. 1862’, and ‘Sir G. C. Lewis's Memorandum on the Recognition of the Independence of the Southern States of the North American Union’, 7 Nov. 1862, B.M. Add. MSS 44,595, fos. 71–81, 94–107; SirLewis, G. C. to Russell, 27 Oct. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/25.Google Scholar

14 Granville, to Russell, 29 Sept. 1862Google Scholar, and SirGrey, G. to Russell, 27 Oct. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/25.Google Scholar

15 Clarendon, to Hammond, , 28 Apr., 19 Oct., 29 Oct. 1862Google Scholar, Hammond Papers, F.O.391/4; Hammond, to Layard, , 28 Aug. 1862Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 38,951 fo.138; Clarendon, to Brougham, , 8 Feb., 17 Oct., 20 Oct. 1862, Brougham Papers. Clarendon (1800–70) served as foreign secretary 1853–5, 1855–8. He refused office in 1859 after Russell had taken the Foreign Office, but served again as foreign secretary under Russell, 1865–6, and under Gladstone, 1868–70.Google Scholar

16 Argyll, to Russell, , 11 Sept., 15 Oct. 1862Google Scholar, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/25; Argyll, to Gladstone, , 2, 23 Sept. 1862, B.M. Add. MSS 44,099, fos. 152–9, 169–70.Google Scholar

17 Russell, to Lyons, , no. 30, 17 Jan. 1863, F.O. 5/868.Google Scholar

18 Spence, James, The American Union (London, 1861)Google Scholar, passim, butesp. ch. 4, pp. 119–65. In his preface, Spence claimed his own feelings inclined to favour the north, but that he came round to see the justice of the southern cause. Ellison, Mary, op. cit. p. 87, states Spence had commercial interests in the north, but L. A. Chamerovzow, the secretary of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, claimed he had family ties with the south (Chamerovzow to Brougham, 9 Dec. 1863, Brougham Papers).Google Scholar

19 The Saturday Review, 16 Nov. 1861, pp. 514–15.

20 The Index, 19 Feb. 1863, pp. 268–9.

21 (Lord Robert Cecil), ‘Democracy on Trial’, Quarterly Review, cx (07–10. 1861), 271Google Scholar, 277, and 'The Confederate Struggle and Recognition’, ibid, cxii (July-Oct. 1862), 536–7, 568–70.

22 Ellison, M., op. cit. pp. 56–94Google Scholar; Adams, E. D., op. cit. 11, 187–97Google Scholar. The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., xi (1863), 197–9Google Scholar, 250–1, 270–4, and xiii (1865), 17–19, printed material from Southern Independence clubs which argued their cause was consistent with abolitionist principles. Chamerovzow remained sceptical of the abolitionist claims of these confederate advocates (The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., xi (1863), 205–7). He claimed organizers of these groups held mortgages on southern property (Chamerovzow to Brougham, 9 Dec. 1863, Brougham Papers). John Bigelow, a member of the U.S. delegation in Paris, claimed the London branch of the Southern Independence Association forbade any discussion of slavery (Bigelow to Bright, 3 Aug. 1865, B.M. Add. MSS 43,390, fos. 32–9).Google Scholar

23 The Index, 29 May 1862, p. 73; 2 Oct. 1862, pp. 360–2; 6 Nov. 186a, p. 25; 20 Nov. 1862, pp. 58–9; 27 Nov. 1862, pp. 72–3.

24 Hansard, 3rd ser.: W. H. Gregory, CLXVIII, 560–6; Sir Lawrence Palk, CLXIX, 582–3; Lord Campbell, CLXVIII, 1178, and CLXIX, 1730–1; C. C. Clifford, CLXXI, 1798–1800; Lord Robert Cecil, CLXXI, 1818–19. The Standard, 10 Aug., 4 Nov., 30 Dec. 1861, 17 June 1862, 6 Jan. 1863; The Saturday Review, 16 Feb. 1861, pp. 160–1; The Daily Telegraph, 7 Oct., 10 Oct. 1862; Aris's Birmingham Gazette, 1 Feb. 1862; The Times, 26 Apr. 1862.

25 Ellison, M., op. cit. p. 94Google Scholar; Owsley, F. L., King Cotton Diplomacy (2nd rev. edn., Chicago, 1959), pp. 383–4Google Scholar; Cullop, Charles P., Confederate Propaganda in Europe, 1861–1865 (Coral Gables, Fla., 1969), pp. 45–7.Google Scholar

26 The Saturday Review, 16 Feb. 1861, pp. 160–1, 4 May 1861, pp. 454–5, rejected the southern defence of slavery, but by 20 June 1863, pp. 773–4, favoured a form of modified slavery; The Standard, 22 May 1862; The Morning Herald, 9 Jan. 1863, favoured gradual emancipation for the sake of the masters' conscience, for blacks were content as slaves; The Times, 26 Mar. 1862. Carlyle defended southern slavery, but claimed it would be a just system for whites and blacks (Conway, Moncure D., Autobiography (London, 1904), 1, p. 357).Google Scholar

27 The Times, 6 Jan. 1863; Smith, Goldwin, Does the Bible Sanction American Slavery? (London, 1863)Google Scholar; A Brief Reply to an Important Question: Being a Letter to Professor Goldwin Smith from an Implicit Believer in Holy Scripture (London, 1863)Google Scholar. The Standard, 10 Nov. 1863, went so far as to claim the bible neither defended nor denied the morality of slavery. An Address of the Confederate Clergy (London, 1863)Google Scholar; The Index, 11 June 1863, p. 104; 13 July 1863, pp. 249–50; 5 Nov. 1863, pp. 439, 441–2. Evangelical Christendom, n.s., iv (1863), pp. 1–8, 411–15Google Scholar; Church Missionary Intelligencer, xiv (1863), pp. 188–93Google Scholar; The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., XI (1863), pp. 237–8Google Scholar. Hotze paid editors to print the confederate clergy's address (Jameson, J. F., ‘London Expenditure of the Confederate Secret Service’, American Historical Review, xxxv (1930), pp. 816–17).Google Scholar

28 Vincent, John, The Formation of the Liberal Party, 1857–1868 (London, 1966), pp. 62–5.Google Scholar race relations for English journals, was both prejudiced against blacks and convinced a race war would erupt in the United States: Mackay, Charles, Through the Long Day, a Memorial of a Literary Life during Half a Century (London, 1887), II, pp. 215–16Google Scholar, 219–20, 251–2. The History of The Times. II: The Tradition Established, 1841–1884 (London, 1939), pp. 63–4Google Scholar, 366, 377, 384, 387, suggests Mowbray Morris, the paper's manager, 1847–73, was both anti-democratic and not committed to abolition because of his West Indian background, but chiefly blames Mackay for the paper's rabid support of the south even after the north championed abolition and gained the upperhand on the battlefront. Contemporaries criticized The Times for not remaining loyal to English anti-slavery traditions: Argyll toGladstone, 1 Jan. 1862, B.M. Add. MS 44, 099, fo. 102; Leslie Stephen, The ‘Times’ and the American Civil War (London, 1865). Gladstone found the violent tone of the paper distressing: Gladstone to Brougham, ro Jan. 1862, Brougham Papers.Google Scholar

29 Thompson, to Garrison, , 25 Dec. 1862Google Scholar, in Garrison, W. P. and Garrison, F. J., William Lloyd Garrison (London, 1899), iv, p. 67.Google Scholar

30 Ellison, , op. cit. pp. 56–94.Google Scholar

31 The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., IX (1861), p. 87.Google Scholar

32 Minute 173, 5 Apr. 1861, Minute 176, 15 Apr. 1861, and minutes of the Broad Street committee, 22 Nov. 1861, 7 Feb., 11 Feb. 1862, Minute Book IV, E2/9, Anti-Slavery Papers, Rhodes House. The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., ix (1861), pp. 41Google Scholar, 108–9, 254–5; The Times, 17 Apr. 1862; Howard Temperley, British Antislavery, 1833–1870 (London, 1972), pp. 256–7.Google Scholar

33 Reynolds's Newspaper, 2 June 1862.

34 Memorial of the Society of Friends to Palmerston and Russell, 9 Dec. 1861, F.O. 5/807.

35 The Anti-Slavery Advocate, 11 (1 08. 1861), pp. 445–6; (2 Sept. 1861), p. 454; (1 Jan.Google Scholar 1862), pp. 485–6; (1 Mar. 1862), p. 502; (1 May 1862), p. 517; (1 July 1862), pp. 533–4; the issue of in (2 Feb. 1863), pp. 9–11, welcomed Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. See also Temperley, op. cit. pp. 252–4.

36 Buxton: report of speech at Maidstone, The Times, 6 Nov. 1862; Buxton to the editor, The Times, 26 Dec. 1862; and leaders in The Times, 31 Jan., 19 Feb. 1863. Brougham: Brougham to Granville, 20 Sept. 1862, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/25; Brougham to Gladstone, 2 Feb. 1863, B.M. Add. MSS 44,114, fos. 315–16; Brougham to Clarendon, 4 Feb. 1863, Brougham Papers, and Brougham to Joseph Parkes, 30 Mar. 1863, ibid.; Chamerovzow to Brougham, 23 Oct. 1863, ibid. See also Brougham's opening addresses, Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (1863), p. 6, (1864), p. 22, and speech in the Lords, Hansard, 3rd ser., CLXVII, 1202.

37 S. Wilberforce to Brougham, 19 Feb. 1863, B.M. Add. MSS 44,114, fos. 319–20; Charles Grant, Lord Glenelg, to Brougham, 3 Apr. 1863, Brougham Papers.

38 The Daily News, 7 Oct. 1862.

39 Minute 424, 7 Nov. 1862, Minute Book IV, E2/9 Anti-Slavery Papers; The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., x (1862), pp. 258–61, 272–3.Google Scholar

40 The African Times, 11 (23 12. 1862), p. 69Google Scholar; (23 Jan. 1863), p. 79; (23 June 1863), pp. 141, 145–6; III (23 Nov. 1863), p. 55. Evangelical Christendom, n.s., 11 (1861), pp. 629–33Google Scholar; 111 (1862), pp. 153, 562–4; iv (1863), p. 248: including a refutation of the address of the confederate clergy, IV (Sept. 1863), pp. 411–15. Church Missionary Intelligencer, xiii (1862), pp. 43–8, 55–60Google Scholar; xiv (1863), pp. 188–93. An Evangelical newspaper, The Record, 19 June 1861, 19 Mar., 24 Mar., 10 Sept., 1 Oct., 8 Oct., 17 Oct. 1862, 14 Jan., 25 Mar. 1863, 20 Jan. 1865. The Methodist Recorder, 16 Oct. 1862, p. 355, 22 Jan. 1863, p. 25. The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 5th ser., LXXXIV (1861), pp. 361–5Google Scholar. The Baptist Magazine, LII (1861), pp. 465–70, LV (1863), pp. 205–11.Google Scholar

41 Brougham, to Gladstone, , 10 Dec. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 44, 114 fo. 275; The African Times, 11 (23 12. 1862), p. 69, (23 June 1863), p. 146.Google Scholar

42 Lloyds' Weekly Newspaper, 17 Mar., 5 May 1862; 27 Apr., 1 June, 21 Sept., 12 Oct. 1862. Between 1860 and 1865, Lloyds' circulation rose from 15,000 to 500,000 (Ellegard, A., The Readership of the Periodical Press in Mid-Victorian Britain (Göteborg, 1957), p. 19).Google Scholar

43 Hoping for a peaceful separation, Reynolds's Newspaper, defended the southern right to self-determination, and protested that the outbreak of civil war did not demonstrate a failure of democratic government: 5 May, 12 May, 26 May, 9 June, 14 July, 1861. After Bull Run, Reynolds's became impatient with northern efforts, and demanded an anti-slavery war, or supplies of cotton: 4 Aug., 18 Aug. 1861. By Sept. 1861, Reynolds's demanded government action to break the blockade, citing Garrison to show that secession was consistent with anti-slavery: 29 Sept. 1861. Reynolds's emphasized that the south was not aristocratic but was as republican as the north (21 June 1863), and on the fall of the Richmond government, claimed it was only slavery which prevented the south from gaining universal support: 23 Apr. 1865. Reynolds's circulation, 1860–5, grew from 60,000 to 150,000, and it was known as the most vigorous organ of radical, democratic opinion (Ellgard, , op. cit. pp. 19–20).Google Scholar

44 The Bee-Hive, 8 Nov. 1862, 28 Feb., 11 Apr. 1863; Harrison, Royden, ‘British Labour and American Slavery’, Science and Society, xxv (1961), pp. 299–304.Google Scholar

45 Ellison, M., op. cit. pp. 24–8, 56–8.Google Scholar

46 Parkes, Joseph to Bright, , 14 Nov. 1861, B.M. Add. MSS 43,388, fos. 251–4.Google Scholar

47 Cairnes, J. E., The Slave Power: Its Character, Career and Probable Designs (London, New York, 1862); see espec. conclusion, pp. 161–71, and 134–42, 149–54, 157–60.Google Scholar

48 (Mill, John Stuart), ‘The Slave Power’, Westminster Review, LXXVIII (07–10. 1862), pp. 489–510Google Scholar. See also Weinberg, Adelaide, John Elliot Cairnes and the American Civil War (London, 1970), p. 23Google Scholar. In an earlier article Mill suggested that an independent confederacy would be forced to reopen the African slave trade to perpetuate slavery: ‘The Contest in America’, Fraser's Magazine, LXIV (1862), pp. 266–7.Google Scholar

49 Weinberg, , op. cit. p. 56.Google Scholar

50 Russell quoted a statement of Judge Warner of Georgia as extracted by Mill in his Westminster Review article: Memorandum of Lord Russell, 13 Oct. 1862, Appendix 4, p. 10, F.O. 5/865. Gladstone, to Schenck, Robert C., 28 Nov. 1872Google Scholar, reprinted in Reid, R. L., William Gladstone's Insincere Neutrality during the Civil War’, Civil War History, xv (1969), pp. 303–4, Gladstone cites Cairnes to justify his pro-secession opinion. The Economist, 15 Feb. 1862, pp. 170–2. The Spectator, 1 Feb. 1862, pp. 126–7, in spite of its pro-northern leanings, thought Mill gave too much credit to federal abolitionist intentions.Google Scholar

51 Sumner, Charles to Bright, , 15 Oct. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MSS 43,390, fos. 124–5; 30 Dec. 1861, ibid. fo. 131; 28 Oct. 1862, ibid. fo. 137. Sumner, to Gladstone, , 21 Apr. 1863Google Scholar B.M. Add. MSS 44,400, fo. 205; Gladstone, to Argyll, , 29 Aug. 1862Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 44,533, fo. 14; Gladstone, to Sumner, , 5 Nov. 1863Google Scholar, ibid. fo. 187.

52 Argyll, to Gladstone, , 29 Aug. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MSS 44,099, fos. 69–72; Gladstone, to Argyll, , 26 Aug. 1861Google Scholar, ibid. 44,532, fos. 6–8. As well as corresponding to Argyll and through him to Gladstone, H. B. Stowe published an open letter to the earl of Shaftesbury reprimanding British abolitionists for not supporting the north: The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., ix (1861), pp. 253–4Google Scholar, 257–61; and less surprisingly The Saturday Review, 14 Sept. 1861, pp. 262–3, and The Times 29 Sept. 1861, published sharp rebuttals. In 1863, in a parody of The Stafford House Address of 1852, Mrs Stowe addressed A Reply to ‘The Affectionate Address of the Women of Great Britain and Ireland’ (London, 1863)Google Scholar, urging abolitionist support of the north. Rejoinders soon appeared: letter of Archbishop Whately to Stowe, H. B., The Times, 16 Jan. 1863Google Scholar; The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., xi (1863). p. 108Google Scholar; A Rejoinder to Mrs Stowe's Reply to the Address of the Women of England (London, 1863)Google Scholar; Anglicus, Civis, A Voice from the Motherland, answering Mrs H. Beecher Stowe's Appeal (London, 1863); The Saturday Review, 10 Jan. 1863, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

53 Bright's critics frequently referred to his cotton interests and past inconsistencies on the slave question: The Saturday Review, 30 June 1863, pp. 773–4; A Neutral, Uncle John's Cabin (next door to Uncle Tom's Cabin) (London, 1865)Google Scholar. In 1859, The Anti-Slavery Advocate, 11 (Jan. 1859), PP. 193–4 attacked the whole Manchester School for its lack of abolitionist enthusiasm. In the past, the free traders and the anti-slavers had divided most sharply on the repeal of sugar duties, 1846, and the Hutt motion on the African Slave Trade Squadron, 1850; Temperley, op. cit. pp. 156–62, 176–83.Google Scholar

54 Bright was almost unique among English politicians for having some sympathy with the vision of a great undivided republic spanning a continent: Bright to Cobden, 6 Feb. 1861, B.M. Add. MSS 43,384, fos. 244–5. He saw slavery as the cause of the disruption and urged Sumner to press for a more vigorous anti-slavery policy to gain English support for the north: Bright, to Cobden, , 3 Oct. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MSS 43,384, fo. 266; 24 Oct. 1861, ibid. fos. 273–4; 10 Jan. 1862, ibid. fos. 289–90; 13 Jan. 1862, ibid. fos. 291–2. Bright felt assured that as the war progressed the slavery issue would come to the fore: Bright to his wife, 27 July 1862, Bright Letters, Ogden MS 65, University College.

55 At first Cobden hoped the two sides would separate peacefully: Cobden to Bright, 10 Jan. 1861, B.M. Add. MSS 43,651, fo. 211, and 25 Mar. 1861, ibid. fo. 236. Cobden opposed the northern blockade, but also feared a cessation of hostilities would bring a drop in cotton prices: Cobden, to Slagg, John, 18 Oct. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MSS 43,676, fos. 87–8. Cobden claimed he wanted no part in the creation of a slave confederacy, and thought the north should adopt an abolitionist policy. By the end of 1862 he supported the government's non-intervention policy, and expressed support for the north, and by August 1864, he asserted that abolition alone justified the cost of the war: , Cobden to Bright, , 9 Jan. 1862Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 43,652, fo. 10, 29 Dec. 1862, ibid. fos. 65–7; Cobden, to Sumner, , 18 Aug. 1864Google Scholar, ibid. 43,676, fo. 249.

56 W. E. Forster, among prominent Liberals, was the most outspoken supporter of the north, a stand he took largely because of his Quaker and abolitionist background (He was the nephew of Thomas Fowell Buxton). See: Bright to Cobden, 6 Sept. 1861, B.M. Add. MS43,384, fo. 264; and Forster'sspeeches: Hansard, 3rdser., CLXVIII,537, and CLXXI, 1815–18. Russell took a low view of Forster's support of the north: Russell to Sir G. C. Lewis, 24 Mar. 1863, Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/31. Bright claimed to be driven to speak out by misstatements on the war: Bright, to Cobden, , 4 Nov. 1861, B.M. Add. MS 43,384, fo. 277.Google Scholar

57 Bright to his wife, 26 Jan. 1864, Bright Letters, Ogden MS 65, University College; Margaret W. Corke, ‘Birmingham and the American Civil War’, M.A. Thesis, University of Liverpool, 1963, pp. 39-–41, 65–88.

58 Cobden, to Bright, , 20 Oct. 1864Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 43,652, fo. 197. Similar comments: Cobden, to Alexander, Edward, 15 Apr. 1863Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 43,676, fo. 282; Cobden, to Sumner, , 2 Mar. 1865Google Scholar, ibid. fos. 258–9; Bright, to Cobden, , 6 Sept. 1861Google Scholar, B.M. Add. MS 43,384, fo. 264, 30 Aug. 1862, ibid. fos. 300–1.

59 Bright to his wife, 10 Apr. 1864, Bright Letters, Ogden MS 65.

60 Glasgow New Association for the Abolition of Slavery to Russell, 24 Apr. 1861, F.O. 5/796; Memorial of Edinburgh Ladies Emancipation Society to Russell, 27 Apr. 1861, F.O. 5/796.

61 Thompson, G. to Chamerovzow, L. A., 25 July 1859Google Scholar, Anti-Slavery Papers, Rhodes House, C37/7; G. Thompson and F. W. Chesson to the committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 20 July 1860, ibid. C37/7C; Temperley, op. cit. pp. 234–5.

62 Prospectus of the London Emancipation Society (London, 1862)Google Scholar; Minute 424, 7 Nov. 1862, Minute Book IV, Anti-Slavery Papers, E2/9; Thompson, to Chamerovzow, , 9 Nov. 1862Google Scholar, ibid. C37/9; ‘The Crisis in the United States’, 19 Nov. 1862, ibid. C37/9; The Anti-Slavery Reporter, 3rd ser., xi (1863), pp. 25–7Google Scholar 49–52, 114–18, 169. See also Villiers, and Chesson, , op. cit. pp. 100–12, 176–214Google Scholar; Garrison, and Garrison, , op. cit. iv, pp. 65–8; Temperley, op. cit. pp. 254–5.Google Scholar

63 Chapman, Maria to Estlin, Mary, 7 Feb. 1863Google Scholar, Estlin Papers, Dr Williams's Library, 24.122.10. Cobden observed the confusion in English opinion: Cobden, to Sumner, , 5 Dec. 1861, B.M. Add. MS 43,676, fos. 195–6.Google Scholar See also Abel, A. H. and Klingberg, F. J., A Side-Light on Anglo-American Relations (London, 1927), pp. 34–8.Google Scholar