William H. Seward |
As an amateur historian of the American Civil
War, I believe myself to be well schooled in the military aspects of that war.
Recently, a good friend gave me the book: Statesmen of the Lost Cause:
Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet which he purchased at an estate sale for $0.50.
Published in 1939, the book offers biographic sketches of these political
leaders and draws out their characters through examples of their statesmanship.
It sat in my To Be Read pile for several months because it appeared to be an
academic tome written to conform to the publish-or-perish mandate of university
professors between the World Wars. Frankly, I did not have a great deal of
interest in the civilian side of the Confederate government. It was much more
fun to do the final edits of Harper’s Rescue and get that in to Sundown Press.
Eventually, I did crack the front cover of the
book and discovered a wonderful world of political farce nearly equivalent to
the American political campaign of 2016 but for far more lethal stakes.
The book was written by
Burton J. Hendrick, a Pulitzer-Prize winning biographer of politicians and
other great men. It is written in the literary style of its time and reflects
the prejudices of that time as well. Hendrick also published a companion
title: Lincoln’s War Cabinet in 1946.
Moving past the venerable nature of the prose, I was actually able to get into the stories of these men and I continue to learn of the political half of the War Between the States. For example, Jefferson Davis was not the first choice for most of the delegates to the Confederate Convention in Montgomery, Alabama. That honor goes to Robert A. Toombs, a former U.S. senator from Georgia. Davis himself felt he was better suited to the role of Secretary for War or Army Commander-in-Chief because of his military background and by virtue of be the Secretary of War during the Franklin Pierce administration.
Robert A. Toombs |
In the event, however,
Toombs’ candidacy was destroyed by late-night rumor that, instead of Toombs,
the Georgia delegation would nominate Howell Cobb for the Presidency, a man
under much suspicion for having sided with Unionists during a brief attempt to
secede in 1850. The rumor was not true, however, the delegates from the other
seceding states had voted for Davis before the error became known. As a
consolation, Davis selected Toombs for the prestigious position of Secretary of
State. It is this position that Toombs came against the Federal Secretary of
State William H. Seward, best known for "Seward's Folly", the
purchase of Alaska in 1867.
The greatest conflict between Seward and Toombs was the attempt by the Confederate government to achieve recognition of their independence from Great Britain, France, and Mexico. This was the most delicate task facing the new Confederate government. Success might mean immediate triumph for the Secession, since it would have involved the Federal government in war with Great Britain and France which would lift the blockade and open European markets to cotton, the Confederacy’s “white gold”. Continuation of sales of cotton to the European powers would give the Confederate government a financial strength which could have secured the Southern cause.
The greatest conflict between Seward and Toombs was the attempt by the Confederate government to achieve recognition of their independence from Great Britain, France, and Mexico. This was the most delicate task facing the new Confederate government. Success might mean immediate triumph for the Secession, since it would have involved the Federal government in war with Great Britain and France which would lift the blockade and open European markets to cotton, the Confederacy’s “white gold”. Continuation of sales of cotton to the European powers would give the Confederate government a financial strength which could have secured the Southern cause.
I’ve always know that recognition never happened and after reading this book, I now know why. For a political junkie, this is a fascinating story.
Wiiliam L.Yancey |
From the outset,
Confederate orthodoxy held that the loss of cotton imports from the Gulf states
posed such an economic threat to France and, especially, Great Britain that
these countries would become natural allies despite their avowed hatred of
slavery. Toombs selected a legation of three representatives for the mission.
Of the trio, William Lownes Yancey of Alabama, a former U.S. congressman and
long-time pro-slavery man was the only man who possessed the essential
reputation and distinction.
Pierre A. Rost |
Pierre A. Rost of
Louisiana, was a lawyer and judge, not known on the national stage. His chief
recommendations were his French origin and a supposed familiarity with the
Gallic tongue. Both of these supposed assets actually worked to his detriment.
His broken creole-French became the object of ridicule in Paris and led to a second
criticism that the Confederacy had sent him to patronize the French rather than
send an authentic American.
A. Dudley Mann |
Nor did A. Dudley Mann
prove any acceptable to British diplomats. Here we see the hand of Seward who
injected into the reports being sent from the British minister to the U.S.
the notion that Mann was of low family origins and a man of bad character.
These allegations were untrue, however, Mann’s actions in England showed that
he lacked judgement and good sense and was too unobservant to understand events
occurring around him.
Napoleon III |
In addition to the
threat of loss of cotton to mills in Normandy, the Confederate approach to
France included pandering to the ambitions of Napoleon III for an empire in the
Americas. At that time, Mexico was in a state political disorder as a result of
revolution. However, by attempting to conspire in a French invasion of Mexico,
the duplicitous nature of the envoy revealed itself when the French learned of
the Confederacy's parallel mission to ally with Juarez’ government. The final,
fatal flaw in the Confederate strategy to France was Yancey’s out-spoken
advocacy and defense of slavery in the parlors of Paris, which most Frenchmen
found abhorrent seventy years after the French Revolution.
In Britain, Seward had fouled
the water well before the Confederate envoys arrived. In a truly astonishing
chapter in American diplomacy considering the state of the United Sates in
Spring 1861, Seward was able to convince the British Foreign Secretary that
recognition of the Confederacy would mean a war with the United States. As a
senator in the later 1850s, Seward had proposed that the United States could
reunify a people fatally divided over the issue of slavery by finding a pretext
to go to war with some European power. As Lincoln’s Secretary of State, Seward
drafted an extremely bellicose statement of position in an open letter to be
read by the American ambassador to the Foreign Secretary and posted in British
papers. This letter announced under the Monroe Doctrine the intent of the U.S.
to declare war on any foreign power which attempted to interfere with the
suppression of the domestic enemies of the United States (the secession).
Although Lincoln later moderated the tone and directed the U.S. ambassador to
deliver it in a more respectful manner, Seward laid the groundwork for this
presentation by inviting the British ambassador to a dinner where he read the
full text of his original letter. Having been prepared by his ambassador, the foreign
Secretary received the American ambassador’s presentation with deference. He
had decided to pacify the high-tempered Yankees. Britain cut off all further
formal correspondence with the Confederate delegates.
Given the fact that a war with Britain and France concurrent with an internal
rebellion might eventually spell total disaster for the Federal government,
Seward’s actions were a huge gamble but Seward knew his man. Fortunately, the
Liberal government of Lord Palmerston was not prepared to engage in a
trans-Atlantic war just five years after the end of the Crimean War, with the
Wars of Italian Unification continuing, and nationalist revolts simmering in
the Russian and Austrian empires and becoming a force in Germany. Especially,
if such a war required an alliance with a rebellious population dedicated to
the preservation of slavery.
Having failed in this most important diplomatic ploy, Toombs resigned as the Secretary of State and accepted a commission as a Confederate brigadier general. He led a four regiments of Georgians through the Peninsular and Antietam campaigns until he was wounded at Antietam. At the end of the war, he fled to Cuba and thence to Paris. In 1867, he returned to Georgia but never took the Loyalty Oath, thus ending his public life. He died in 1885 at 75 years.
William H. Seward continued as United States Secretary of State until 1869. He died three years later at 71 years.
Although I love to read about the military history of the American Civil War, I cannot help but be intrigued by these behind-the-scene high-stakes machinations and the subtle and overt factors which affect the outcome. It adds another, huge dimension to the story and begs for a new respect to these little-know personalities.
Now it's time to speculate about the impact on Jamie Harper and the men of the First Iowa if things had gone differently and to figure out how to shoe-horn some of this information in future Harper's War Stories.
So thanks, John, for a great read.
Sean Gabhann
Lord Palmerston |
Having failed in this most important diplomatic ploy, Toombs resigned as the Secretary of State and accepted a commission as a Confederate brigadier general. He led a four regiments of Georgians through the Peninsular and Antietam campaigns until he was wounded at Antietam. At the end of the war, he fled to Cuba and thence to Paris. In 1867, he returned to Georgia but never took the Loyalty Oath, thus ending his public life. He died in 1885 at 75 years.
William H. Seward continued as United States Secretary of State until 1869. He died three years later at 71 years.
Although I love to read about the military history of the American Civil War, I cannot help but be intrigued by these behind-the-scene high-stakes machinations and the subtle and overt factors which affect the outcome. It adds another, huge dimension to the story and begs for a new respect to these little-know personalities.
Now it's time to speculate about the impact on Jamie Harper and the men of the First Iowa if things had gone differently and to figure out how to shoe-horn some of this information in future Harper's War Stories.
So thanks, John, for a great read.
Sean Gabhann
AVAILABLE MARCH 2017 |
Sean Kevin Gabhann is a Vietnam-era combat veteran of the US Navy. He first became interested in American Civil War history during the centennial celebration and he owns an extensive library of primary and secondary material related to that war. He especially likes to write about campaigns in the West because of a fascination with the careers of U.S Grant and W.T. Sherman. Gabhann lives in San Diego, California.
I enjoyed your post, Sean. Great book review and recap of history. Like you, I enjoy reading about the Civil War, but have not read much about the political aspect of the Confederacy setting up a new government or how they went about trying to create alliances with other nations in order to gain recognition.
ReplyDeleteMost of all, I am looking forward to your second book in the Shiloh series. Great cover, as can be expected.
Thank you, Robyn. I am not a reliable blogger yet but I'm learning. I found this topic truly interesting, although it does not seem to have much of an impact on subscribers, yet. Maybe too long? Appreciate the comments about Harper's Rescue. It was actually a fun book to write. A bit different from H. Donelson and what H. Shiloh will be. I got delayed six months because I pulled it back from the publisher to make changes in the character arcs. The result is a much more exciting story. Thank goodness I have an understanding publisher!
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm certainly not a Civil War historian or even an arm-chair researcher, it is a period of history of which I'm interested. The stories-behind-the story are fascinating. Granted, it is historical fiction, but I've read and re-read Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels for the human aspect of what happened at Gettysburg. I wasn't familiar with your Shiloh Trilogy, but now that I am, I will take the time to read them.
ReplyDeleteKaye, MIchael Shaara's son Jeff Shaara has picked up the torch for his dad in writing that style of historical fiction. My work is a little bit different because it focuses on the regular people, rather than the Great Men of the age. Thank you for undertaking to read the Shiloh Trilogy. I'm quite proud of the stories so far. Book 1:Harper's Donelson is available now and has a 4.4 star rating on Amazon. Book 2:Harper's Rescue is scheduled for publication next month (March 2017) and I am currently drafting Book 3: Harper's Shiloh. If you enjoy the books, could you please take a moment to leave a comment at Amazon and/or Goodreads. Contact me here or at skgabhann@gmail.com if you'd like to discuss any of the material.
Delete