The Union, Confederacy, and the Atlantic Rim. By Robert May, editor. (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1995. Pp. 169).
Most popular and academic historians have a tendency to study the American Civil War from a primarily domestic perspective. Epic battles, emancipation of slaves, domestic politics, and reconstruction dominate the war’s narrative with very little reference to international events. In their articles and books, scholars mention the Confederacy’s attempt to gain official diplomatic recognition and their efforts to supply themselves from foreign governments via blockade but they fail to place rate the war’s impact on the international scene. Although the precise results remain debatable, many historians agree that the conflict occupied a very important place in international affairs that transcend blockade running and diplomatic recognition. Robert May had edited a series of essays by Howard Jones, R. J. M. Blackett, Thomas Schoonover, and James McPherson that explore different themes of the Civil War from an international perspective. Overall, the American Civil War had an important impact on world history in addition to its place in American History.
The essays in this book do a great job of placing the Civil War within an international context. May opens the essays with an Introduction describing the diplomacy of the North and South and the international reaction to it. In addition to procuring arms, ships, and supplies, the Confederacy tried unsuccessfully to gain official diplomatic recognition. The European nations adopted neutrality in the conflict and refused to grant the desired recognition. According to May, the Union possessed the most effective ambassadors. Union diplomats had extensive experience in travel and foreign relations while the Confederacy mostly sent men who had little experience in this area. In addition, the Southern reliance on “King Cotton” diplomacy as a way of coercing European intervention on their side failed miserably because a surplus had been stored in European textile mills and other sources of supply existed. Despite claims of fighting for their liberty, the negative impression of slavery hurt the Confederacy’s attempts to gather support. Overall, the European nations never found it beneficial to recognize or intervene on the South’s behalf.
Blackett’s essay examines the debate among British workers concerning the Civil War and the role of popular opinion in guiding the government’s policy of neutrality and non-recognition. Debate between supporters of the Union and the Confederacy was vigorous but opinion eventually tilted toward the Union. The pressure of public opinion helped contribute to the fact that Britain did not recognize the Confederacy. McPherson also recognizes the impact of public opinion although he does not credit it with having a large impact on British diplomacy and conservative leaders. Instead, he wrote about how the Union’s efforts to preserve the republic and abolish slavery boosted their public image and served as an example to liberals across Europe who favored greater democracy and abolition of slavery worldwide.
In Jones’ essay, he discusses the details of British Civil War diplomacy and the decision not to intervene by mediation. According to the popular view, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Battle of Antietam played a large role in the British decision not to recognize the Confederacy by convincing them that the South could not win and by appealing to their anti-slavery beliefs. After extensive research in British archives, Jones argues that the Emancipation Proclamation and battle actually served to push the British closer to intervention. They abhorred the scale of death and feared the war would destabilize the international scene. As for abolition, the British government viewed it as a cynical attempt by Lincoln to incite rebellion and feared it would cause race wars across the globe. The British considered intervening by offering to mediate an end to the dispute even if such an action precipitated war with the Union. They viewed the war as being in a stalemate and believed mediation would end the conflict to British advantage. In opposition, certain elements within the government argued for continued neutrality and no attempt to mediate. These men believed that any possibility of war with the Union would endanger Canada and hurt British interests. Finally, they swayed the government’s course and Britain maintained its neutrality.
Schoonover’s essay examined the Civil War through the lens of world systems theory as developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Focusing on the Gulf-Caribbean area, he illustrates how the Civil War meshed into the larger picture of international competition for markets and resources in peripheral areas. In general, Confederate diplomacy was doomed because they remained a peripheral territory themselves and could not adequately forge an influential place for themselves among the core powers. The industrialized North was only a semi-peripheral area compared to Europe but they had the potential to rival the European powers within the world system. Thus, they enjoyed a tremendous overall advantage in terms of international diplomacy.
Johnny Spence Texas Christian University