FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226  
227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   >>   >|  
ed the North could conquer the South. But it did indicate a renewed vigour for the policy of neutrality and a determination not to get into war with America. Adams wrote to Seward, "I am inclined to believe that the happening of the affair of the _Trent_ just when it did, with just the issue that it had, was rather opportune than otherwise[499]." Hotze, the confidential agent of the Confederacy in London, stated, "the _Trent_ affair has done us incalculable injury," Russell is now "an avowed enemy of our nationality[500]." Hotze was over-gloomy, but Russell himself declared to Lyons: "At all events I am heart and soul a neutral ... what a fuss we have had about these two men[501]." FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 399: The _Trent_ was the cause of the outpouring of more contemporary articles and pamphlets and has been the subject of more historical writing later, than any other incident of diplomatic relations between the United States and Great Britain during the Civil War--possibly more than all other incidents combined. The account given in this chapter, therefore, is mainly limited to a brief statement of the facts together with such new sidelights as are brought out by hitherto unknown letters of British statesman; to a summary of British public attitude as shown in the press; and to an estimate of the _after effect_ of the _Trent_ on British policy. It would be of no service to list all of the writings. The incident is thoroughly discussed in all histories, whether British or American and in works devoted to international law. The contemporary American view is well stated, though from a strongly anti-British point of view, in Harris, T.L., _The Trent Affair_, but this monograph is lacking in exact reference for its many citations and can not be accepted as authoritative. The latest review is that of C.F. Adams in the _Proceedings_ of the Massachusetts Historical Society for November, 1911, which called out a reply from R.H. Dana, and a rejoinder by Mr. Adams in the _Proceedings_ for March, 1912.] [Footnote 400: C.F. Adams, _The Trent Affair_. (_Proceedings_, Mass. Hist. Soc., XLV, pp. 41-2.)] [Footnote 401: _Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Correspondence respecting the _Trent_." No. 1. Inclosure. Williams to Patey, Nov. 9, 1861.] [Footnote 402: Harris, _The Trent Affair_, pp. 103-109, describes the exact _force_ used.] [Footnote 403: Dana, _The Trent Affair_. (_Proceedings_, Mass. Hist. Soc., XL
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226  
227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

British

 

Footnote

 

Proceedings

 

Affair

 

American

 
Russell
 

incident

 

stated

 

policy

 
contemporary

affair

 

Harris

 
lacking
 

strongly

 

monograph

 

histories

 

estimate

 

effect

 

statesman

 
summary

public

 

attitude

 

devoted

 

international

 

discussed

 

service

 

writings

 
called
 

respecting

 

Correspondence


Inclosure

 

Parliamentary

 

Papers

 

Williams

 
describes
 

review

 

latest

 

Massachusetts

 
Historical
 
Society

authoritative

 

accepted

 

citations

 

November

 

rejoinder

 

reference

 

account

 
injury
 

incalculable

 

avowed