Did Lincoln Administration Prevent European Intervention

The question of this investigation is: “To what extent did the Lincoln Administration prevent European intervention during the Civil War?” The American Civil War is known as one of the most devastating wars in American history; however, it is also the time that held one of the most breathtaking feats that could have altered the course of the war: Abraham Lincoln and his policy makers avoiding European intervention in the Civil War, which would have led to a Southern victory. Trade has always been established between the U.S. and European nations with their dependence on cotton; however, this investigation will further enhance how Lincoln and his team were able to influence European nations to not give recognition to the Confederacy throughout
the war. Sources of relevance to this investigation were “Lincoln in the World: The Making of a Statesman and the Dawn of American Power,” by Kevin Peraino and Jay Monaghan’s “Abraham Lincoln Deals with Foreign Affairs: A Diplomat in Carpet Slippers.” Also of equal importance towards this investigation was Lamont Colucci’s “National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency.” The origin of this source is by Kevin Peraino, an American author and news journalist who graduate from Northwestern University and was a veteran foreign correspondent, senior writer, and bureau chief in the Middle East.
The purpose of the source was to focus on five distinct events that help to define Lincoln’s approach to foreign affairs, as well as how his administration were able to successfully prevent European intervention. Lincoln is not primarily viewed as a great foreign policy maker, due to him not having any personal relations in Europe. Furthermore, it is important to this investigation because it emphasizes the strategies used during the growing information age and gives clear documented accounts to European responses to these events. Peraino is well educated in foreign policy, which values his ability to understand and enhance Lincoln’s tactics and the effects it had on the European working-class. However, a possible limitation of the source is that he is a news journalist, which credits him to possibly manipulate specific instances to make one side seem more upholding than another. Another limitation is that there is no academic information regarding his background besides him graduating college and being a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. This limits his personal education towards being a credited historian, by using other sources and historians in his
work. Another source of importance is Jay Monaghan’s “Abraham Lincoln Deals with Foreign Affairs: A Diplomat in Carpet Slippers,” where he, in detail, expresses the efforts taken by Lincoln’s cabinet and politicians towards Britain’s response to the separation of the Union and Confederacy and how propaganda enabled Lincoln to successfully prevent European intervention in the war. The purpose of this source is to give detailed accounts of Lincoln’s foreign policy making, however, in Monaghan’s book, he specifically writes about specific battles and international events. A particular relevant value of this source is that Monaghan is an author that gives great insight and wisdom that is applicable today as it was in 1861 with the use of multiple historical facts and events. Another value is that the title focuses specifically on Lincoln’s part in foreign affairs. However, a limitation may be that the information could be outdated, thus leaving a possibility of false information. With Monaghan being an author, he could be limited on the amount of information that he is able to have access to in order to obtain multiple accurate accounts of Lincoln’s policies as some sources could have been destroyed after the war.
Section B – Investigation The American Civil War has been accounted as one of the most devastating wars in American history; however, it took part in one of the most daring feats held by American foreign policy: the Lincoln Administration’s ability to prevent European intervention in the war. Prior to the war, trade agreements were established with Britain in regards to cotton production in the south, which was England’s primary source. However, Lincoln had no experience in the form of foreign diplomacy. European relations were already at a significant decrease, where the New York Times wrote, “There is hardly a court in Europe… had some specimen of… American character in its worst form,” as Lincoln first took office. Yet, somehow, with the aid of Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, and the administration, they were able to persuade European nations to not intervene with the aid of propaganda, the response towards the Trent Affair, and emancipation of slavery. Lincoln’s goal for the start of the war was the ability to look competent in stopping Southern rebellions.
However, the Union suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Bull Run, causing Lincoln to feel a sense of “humility” and “embarrassment” towards European nations (Peraino, 2013). Secretary of State, Henry Seward, knew that something needed to be done to enforce international trade, resulting in the establishment of the Anaconda Plan. Lincoln justified this action by saying it was a ‘”life and limb’” that must be protected. Furthermore, Lincoln signed a bill that “actively pushed for innovations in the navy… develop a fleet on ironclads” (Peraino, 2013). The blockade left three quarters of the British and French workers unemployed and textile mills were in crisis (Jones, 2010). Correspondingly, the infamous Trent Crisis sparked outrage in Britain by claiming violation of international law and demanding the release of the commissioners and ordered troops to Canada to prepare for a potential Anglo-American conflict. In order to avoid conflict, Lincoln told Seward to send an apology to the British officials for the incident and the diplomats were release, bringing the Trent Affair to a close (Burlingame, 2017). However, this sparked interest to the French leader, Napoleon, towards Mexico. Lincoln, realizing the danger, placed his forces at the Rio Grande as a warning to Napoleon. Luckily, he got a break, when Russian ships came to the coast of the Atlantic. This was
perfect for Lincoln, so he invitingly brought in the ships and held a ball for the Russians. As time went on, the sailors’ presence, and the North’s victory on the battlefield, began to influence French diplomats. French Minister, Henri Mercier, began to show more respect towards Seward, and Napoleon became weary of the power of the North. He evacuated most of his forces claiming that he might “suddenly find himself at war with the Americans… which would spell disaster” (Jones, 2010). Moreover, one thing that Lincoln knew about in regards to foreign policy was the ability to persuade through the art of the new age of media. The only way he would be able to successfully propose his ideas of abolition to European nations was in the newspaper. Lincoln and his team claimed any slave-holding nation to be recognized not of “the family of Christian and civilized nations” and sent it to Britain in hopes of convincing Britons that intervening would be an “unpopular policy” (Peraino, 2013). He continued his efforts by writing letters to appeal to the sympathies of the workers and by holding meetings in Britain to continue expressing the will of the Union cause of abolition of slavery. In a letter to laborers in Manchester, he said that “the actions by the United States… having been beneficent toward mankind… If justice and good faith should be practiced by the United States… would encounter no hostile influence on part of Great Britain” (Peraino, 2013). Britain’s reasoning for waiting to intervene was due to the determination of whether or not the Union would act in hostility, or whether or not they would be deemed a chance in trying to achieve something for humanity. These meetings and letters, in time, created “an energetic and respiring assurance of the inherent power… of justice, humanity, and freedom,” and cause European nations to have no reason to interfere with the war, as it would be “diplomatically hypocritical” (Peraino, 2013). This emphasizes the argument that Lincoln and Seward’s involvement in diplomatic conventions granted them access to the working-class and produced the outcome of non-European intervention. Prior to the war, Lincoln had a keen goal of issuing the freeing of the slavery. He knew that war was the main reason for it, as his primary goal was to “raise the flag back up” (Monaghan, 1945). However, Lincoln did not feel comfortable with issuing the proclamation at the start of the war because it “was not the right time as European nations still look upon the U.S. for governmental power” (Peraino, 2013). However, after the victory of Antietam, Lincoln finally believed that he had “found an excuse to issue his proclamation,” and “for the country and the world to pass judgement” on the proclamation.” Lincoln made it clear that “it was the duty of the president to execute laws and maintain the existing government” (Colucci, 2012). The looming Emancipation Proclamation will “bridge the Atlantic and speak directly to British workers. As long as Americans finish the job at home, this will resonate across the globe” (Peraino, 2013). Lord Palmerston, who had, since the start of the war, been for intervention, began acting in a realistic interventionist position; however, the “popular enthusiasm unleashed by the Emancipation… further cemented… the minister’s resolve to refrain from intervention” (Jones, 2010). This was met by the formation of mass meetings held by religious dissenters and middle-class agitators in Britain. Historian David Donald writes, “The effectiveness of the President’s… propaganda… could not be measured, for it was not so much public statements or popular rallies… that determined… neutrality for the two major European powers…” The Morning Star in London declared the Proclamation a “gigantic stride in the paths of Christian and civilized progress…” which, to the workers in London, gave them the understanding of the “principles of human freedom…” and thus, emphasizing the working-class’s involvement in politics. However, there is a chance that it was not just the actions of Lincoln and his team that prevented European intervention. Karl Marx, a German philosopher living in exile in London, was a regular writing dispatch for the New York Tribune; however, he had never met Lincoln. Marx had major influence in his writings all over the world, covering countless European affairs, which interested Lincoln’s critical involvement in the paper. When gatherings were held by religious advocates, Marx made sure that he reported on it in order “to bolster that popular enthusiasm was building” for British workers and upper-class (Peraino, 2013). He spent days at mass meetings, late nights at committee meetings, and hours signing new membership cards in London pubs to successfully influence Europeans towards Northern ideals. It must also be known that Britain was opposed to slavery, as they abolished the slave trade years prior. With or without the Emancipation, U.S.-British relations contributed to more adherent treaties to stop slavery. In conclusion, Lincoln and his team managed to prevent European intervention in the Civil will the aid of propaganda, emancipation of slavery, and response to military affairs. His efforts towards the goals for the unification of the U.S. created substantial effects in Europe with relieving tensions after the Trent Affair and being able to formulate mass meetings in Britain to help propose his emancipation. Henry Seward helped guide Lincoln through foreign policy and to eradicate the rebellion in the South. French conflict brought Lincoln to use the Russians to further emphasize the power of the Union and deterred France from intervening. Therefore, Lincoln’s role in foreign policy, while undermined by many historians, is considered as one of America’s most fundamental foreign-policy presidents, which should be looked upon by students of global affairs.