Most Helpful Customer Reviews
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A different view of diplomacy, January 22, 2010
This review is from: Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (Littlefield History of the Civil War Era) (Hardcover)
American diplomacy during the Civil War centers on preventing England from recognizing the Confederacy. The short story is that England did/did not wish to recognize the Confederacy, depending on the person you are talking with. America's threat of war caused them to hold off until the Emancipation Proclamation at which time recognition was impossible. This story, with few variations, always told from the American point of view dominates this story of diplomacy during the war.
Howard Jones refuses to follow the accepted story. In doing so, he wrote what might be the best book available and one that is required reading for anyone interested in the subject. The most important change is to look at the Civil War from Europe's perspective. Switching viewpoints produces a very different history, nuanced, complex with opportunities and dangers. Emancipation and slavery are important as moral questions but in diplomacy, advantage outweighs morality every time.
In 1860, England had fought two wars with the United States in less than 90 years. They are facing a republic that is on the verge of becoming an Atlantic power and a potential challenge to their supremacy. Having the United States split into two nations, one of them a semi-client state is an advantage. War with the United States, a possible invasion of Canada, is dangerous. The danger is even greater as the United States Navy is going to ironclad ships and England is lagging behind. England fought France allied with Russia, Austria and Prussia at the turn of the century. However, the last war found England allied with France fighting Russia. Napoleon III is untrustworthy, unskilled in diplomacy and given to adventurous pronouncements. The alliance with France is an advantage as Prussia building the German states into a nation but it is full of perils. The cotton famine hurts but they can manage the pain for now.
Napoleon III waits for England's lead. He needs to maintain their friendship while adventuring in Italy and Mexico. Austria dragged into France's adventures is less happy as time passes. France would like to restore their possessions in the "New World" and sees the Confederacy as a possible path to this goal. Even allied to England, France tries to gain the upper hand at England's expense. France hurt by the cotton famine is not managing as well as England.
Russia is the United States' firm friend and objects to any European meddling in the war. However, Russia is still smarting from the Crimean War and would like to derail the English French alliance.
The United States of America suffers a rebellion that becomes a shooting war creating a host of questions, opportunities and dangers for Europe's powers.
England has mixed emotions about the combatants. Most of the upper class favors the CSA. Initially, since the war is not about slavery, the working class wants cotton so they can work There is an underlying pro USA feeling but it isn't going to stop the government from doing what is best for the country. What is best for England, suffers a series of twist and turns that tax all participants and bring them close to war more than once. The Trent Affair and the Laird Rams are the best-known examples. English neutrality is a major question during the war that the book fully explores. The reasons why selected, how the English sees neutrality, their obligations and expectations are the foundation of their policies. The America reaction mystified them, as neither understands the other's objections.
An area seldom explored is the humanitarian reasons for intervention. International Law provided for neutrals to intervene when a war could not be won and was hurting them. The author gives us an excellent look into this area and why England and France could consider this course of action.
Why did intervention not occur? How close did England come? Would France elect to go it alone and intervene? The author's answers to these questions challenge the accepted story but he supports these answers.
The book is fully illustrated and footnoted. This well written very readable book is a "must read" for any student of the war looking beyond "Battles & Leaders". It will be a valuable addition to your library. This is a book that you will read more than once and should be an award winner.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A look at Union and Confederate Foreign Relations fom both sides of the Atlantic, July 31, 2010
This review is from: Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (Littlefield History of the Civil War Era) (Hardcover)
The American point of view when it comes to foreign intervention from England and France during the Civil War is that it almost did happen until the Union "victory" at the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg, Maryland (September 17, 1862) and the declaration of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln (September 22, 1862) changed the European powers minds and made it morally impossible for them to intervene in the internal affairs of the United States.
This excellent book by author Howard Jones proves that both England and France saw the battle of Antietam for what it actually was, a bloody tactical draw that only ended Confederate General Robert E. Lee's raid into Maryland. And the English (Prime Minister/Parliment), instead of seeing the Emancipation Proclamation as a great humanitarian act, were outraged by it and believed it was a call for servile insurrection and race war in the American South by a Union government desperate for victory. While the French (Emperor Napolean III/interventionist in the French government) felt the Emancipation Proclamation showed that the slavery issue in America was on its way to resolution, and allowed them to act for economic (ailing textile industry needing cotton) and imperial (Napolean's desire to revive the French colonial empire in North America) reasons.
But the battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation are just part of the story of diplomatic intrigues and crisis that helped define the Civil War and almost propelled the Union into open conflict with one or more European nations a few times before the close of hostilities.
This volume gives a complete history of Union and Confederate foreign relations with the European powers during the Civil War chronologically from the beginning of hostilities until the defeat of the Confederacy. The story is told from both sides point of view at the time the events took place instead of just looking at it from the Union/Confederate perspective. The result is a great read that questions preconcieved notions on this topic through the use of factual evidence found in the personal writings of the participants (heads of state, government officials, diplomats) and government records (Union, Confederate, English, French, etc.) from both sides of the Atlantic.
In this reviewers humble opinion, "Blue & Gray Diplomacy" should be considered "THE" book on this subject, and will lead to a paradigm shift in the way these events are remembered in American history.
Well written, illustrated, researched, and footnoted, this book will be a valuable addition to anyones Civil War book collection or a good read for anyone that just likes American history. I cant recommend it enough.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Advanced students only! Also, something of a yankee apologist, December 7, 2011
This review is from: Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (Littlefield History of the Civil War Era) (Hardcover)
I'm glad I read this book, but I have two criticisms of it (which you can probably guess by reading my title). First, the book assumes you already know a great deal about nineteenth century international law. I'm a passing student of civil war, and I work professionally in international politics. Nevertheless, I frequently found myself confused by international law and background, and Jones' explanations were either absent or insufficient. Second, this book takes the viewpoint that the United States was (nearly) always right, and any diplomatic assessment that disagreed was incorrect. The British are constantly "failing to understand" or "not fully realizing" what was so plainly obvious to the north. The French are similarly naive or ignorant, except that they also always seem to be plotting something (which, admittedly, may be an accurate assessment of the period). Finally, he goes into a conclusion decrying foreign intervention (as a practice) that seems more rooted in Iraq (and in defending U.S. policy at the time) than in Srebrenica (and in foreigners' often legitimate hope to end the bloodshed in one of the most awful wars the world has ever known). I'll recuse myself from talking about the south, especially given my publicly disclosed location, but I suspect you can guess my feelings on the subject. In short, this is a good book, but it isn't perfect. If you've already read books on civil war diplomacy, this is probably an interesting new view. If you are, like I was, looking for an unbiased primer on the subject, it's probably better to look elsewhere.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
