text:
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A worker at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant packs two cans of newly manufactured 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition into a wirebound crate. (ca. 1998)
Headstamp of a .50 caliber cartridge casing made at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in 1943 and recovered from the Sahuarita Bombing and Gunnery Range in 2012.
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) is a 3,935-acre (15.92 km2) U.S. government-owned, contractor-operated facility in northeastern Independence, Missouri, that was established by Remington Arms in 1941 to manufacture and test small caliber ammunition for the U.S. Army. The facility has remained in continuous operation except for one 5-year period following World War II.[1][2] As of July 2007, the plant produced nearly 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition per year.[3] In addition, Lake City performs small caliber ammunition stockpile reliability testing and has ammunition and weapon testing responsibilities as the NATO National and Regional Test Center.
Remington Arms operated the plant from its inception until 1985, when operations were taken over by Olin Corporation.[2] Since April 2001, it has been operated by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) (renamed Orbital ATK after a merger in 2015). LCAAP is the single largest producer of small arms ammunition for the United States Armed Forces.[3][4]
Finished outer boxes of the commercial pack, each containing 1,800 rounds, are palletized before the entire pallet is shrink-wrapped for shipment.
Contents
[hide]
1 Capabilities
2 History
3 Facilities
4 Hazardous waste contamination
5 References
6 External links
Capabilities[edit]
Capabilities of the plant include: Small arms cartridges; components such as percussion and electric primer; pyrotechnics; small caliber ammunition (5.56 mm; 7.62 mm; .50 caliber and 20 mm); performs reliability testing of small caliber ammunition (5.56 mm; 7.62 mm; 9 mm, .22 caliber; .45 caliber and .50 caliber); demilitarization and disposal of small caliber ammunition and explosives.[5]
History[edit]
LCAAP was established in December 1940 as the Lake City Arsenal, with production beginning in 1941. It was the first of 12 small arms plants run by the Army.[5]
An accidental explosion in a primer manufacturing facility at the plant in April 2017 killed one worker and injured four others.[6]
Facilities[edit]
LCAAP is housed on 3,935 acres (15.92 km2) with 458 buildings, 40 igloos and storage capacity of 707,000 square feet (65,700 m2).[5]
Hazardous waste contamination[edit]
Historically, LCAAP waste treatment and disposal occurred on-site and relied on unlined lagoons, landfills, and burn pits. The plant generated large quantities of potentially hazardous wastes and hazardous substances, including solvents, oils, greases, explosives, radionuclides, perchlorates, and heavy metals. As a result of the extensive contamination, the site has been named to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List.[1]
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b "Lake City Army Ammunition Plant Lagoon Archived 2011-02-06 at the Wayback Machine.". National Priorities List. Environmental Protection Agency. 30 January 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b "Lake City Army Ammunition Plant". GlobalSecurity.org.
^ Jump up to: a b Lardner, Richard. "Ammo makers prepare for drop in demand". USA Today. 23 July 2007.
Jump up ^ "ATK Receives $52.2 Million to Modernize the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant". Press Release. AmmoLand. 30 January 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b c Information Provided by the Joint Munitions Command
Jump up ^ Rizzo, Tony. "ATF concludes no crime involved in fatal explosion at Lake City ammunition plant." Kansas City Star. April 14, 2017.
Information compiled from http://www.jmc.army.mil/FactSheets/FactSheets%202008/Lake%20City%20Army%20Ammunition%20Plant.pdf[dead link]
External links[edit]
Media related to Lake City Army Ammunition Plant at Wikimedia Commons
Siekman, Mark W.; Anderson, David A.; Boyce, Allan S. (September–October 2010), "Small-Arms Ammunition Production and Acquisition: Too Many Eggs in One Basket?", Professional Bulletin of United States Army Sustainment, U.S. Army, 42 (5), PB 700-10-05 . Details LCAAP production.
Joint Munitions Command website
This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Government document "Joint Munitions Command".
[show]
v
t
e
Alliant Techsystems
Products
AARGM
M242 Bushmaster
PGK
ATK Aerospace Group
General Applied Science Laboratory
Swales Aerospace
Thiokol
General Applied Science Laboratory
Antonio Ferri
GASL projectile
NASA Hypersonic Pulse Facility
Theodore von Kármán
[show]
v
t
e
United States Army
Leadership
Secretary of the Army
Under Secretary of the Army
Chief of Staff
Vice Chief of Staff
4-star generals
Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer
Sergeant Major of the Army
House Armed Services Committee (House Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces)
Senate Committee on Armed Services (Senate Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces)
Components
and
commands
Regular Army
Army Reserve
Army National Guard
Active Units
Reorganization plan of United States Army
Army commands
Forces
Training and Doctrine
Materiel
Service components
Africa
Central
Europe
Pacific
North
South
Special Operations
Surface Deployment and Distribution
Space and Missile Defense
Cyber Command
Direct reporting
units
Second Army
Medical
Intelligence and Security
Criminal Investigation
Corps of Engineers
Military District of Washington
Test and Evaluation
Military Academy
Reserve
Acquisition Support Center
Installation Management
War College
Field armies
First
Second
Third
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Ninth
Branches
Acquisition Corps
Adjutant General's Corps
Air Defense Artillery Branch
Armor Branch
Aviation Branch
Army Band
Chaplain Corps
Chemical Corps
Civil Affairs Corps
Corps of Engineers
Dental Corps
Field Artillery Branch
Finance Corps
Infantry Branch
Inspector General's Corps
Judge Advocate General's Corps
Logistics Branch
Medical Corps
Medical Service Corps
Medical Specialist Corps
Military Intelligence Corps
Military Police Corps
Nurse Corps
Ordnance Corps
Psychological Operations
Quartermaster Corps
Signal Corps
Special Forces
Transportation Corps
Veterinary Corps
Installations
United States and Overseas
Germany
Kosovo
Kuwait
South Korea
Training
Basic Training
BOLC
ROTC (ECP)
OCS
WOBC
WOCS
West Point
MOS
Uniforms and
insignia
Awards and decorations
Badges
Branch
Officer
Warrant
Enlisted
World War I
World War II
Uniforms
Equipment
Individual weapons
Crew-served weapons
Vehicles
Premier
ensembles
Army Field Band
Army Band
Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps
West Point Band
History and
traditions
History
Continental Army
Union Army
National Army
Army of the United States
Center of Military History
Institute of Heraldry
America's Army
Army Art Program
Flag
National Museum
West Point Museum
Rangers
U.S. Army Regimental System
Soldier's Creed
"The Army Goes Rolling Along"
Division nicknames
Draft
Service numbers
Category
Portal
Coordinates: 39°06′4″N 94°15′47″W / 39.10111°N 94.26306°W / 39.10111; -94.26306
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant&oldid=798583424"
Categories:
Ammunition manufacturers
Buildings and structures in Independence, Missouri
Companies based in Independence, Missouri
Military facilities in Missouri
Military Superfund sites
Olin Corporation
United States Army arsenals
United States Army arsenals during World War II
Superfund sites in Missouri
Alliant Techsystems
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from March 2012
Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government
Coordinates on Wikidata
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 2 September 2017, at 19:06.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

value: sup

values: Edit section: Hazardous waste contamination

values:
/wiki/Waste_disposal
mw-redirect
Waste disposal

values:
/wiki/Heavy_metal_(chemistry)
mw-redirect
Heavy metal (chemistry)

values: United States Environmental Protection Agency

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: commons:Category:Lake City Army Ammunition Plant

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.jmc.army.mil

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

values:
/wiki/United_States_Government
mw-redirect
United States Government

values:
/wiki/XM1156_Precision_Guidance_Kit
mw-redirect
XM1156 Precision Guidance Kit

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: United States Under Secretary of the Army

values: Chief of Staff of the United States Army

values: Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army

values: List of United States Army four-star generals

values: United States House Committee on Armed Services

values: United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

values: United States Senate Committee on Armed Services

values: United States Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland

values: Reorganization plan of United States Army

values: United States Army Training and Doctrine Command

values: United States Army Special Operations Command

values: Surface Deployment and Distribution Command

values: United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command

values: United States Army Intelligence and Security Command

values: United States Army Criminal Investigation Command

values: United States Army Military District of Washington

values: United States Army Test and Evaluation Command

values: United States Army Installation Management Command

values: United States Army Adjutant General's Corps

values: Air Defense Artillery Branch (United States)

values: United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command

values: Office of Inspector General (United States)

values: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army

values:
/wiki/Medical_Specialist_Corps
mw-redirect
Medical Specialist Corps

values: Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army)

values: Psychological Operations (United States)

values: Quartermaster Corps (United States Army)

values: List of United States Army installations

values: List of United States Army installations in Germany

values: List of United States Army installations in Kosovo

values: List of United States Army installations in Kuwait

values: List of United States Army installations in South Korea

values: Officer Candidate School (United States Army)

values: Warrant Officer Candidate School (United States Army)

values: Awards and decorations of the United States Army

values: United States Army officer rank insignia

values: United States Army enlisted rank insignia

values: United States Army enlisted rank insignia of World War II

values: List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces

values: List of crew-served weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces

values: List of land vehicles of the U.S. Armed Forces

values:
/wiki/Premier_ensemble
mw-redirect
Premier ensemble

values: United States Army Center of Military History

values: United States Army Institute of Heraldry

values: National Museum of the United States Army

values:
/wiki/West_Point_Museum
mw-redirect
West Point Museum

values: Nicknames of United States Army divisions

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Maps, aerial photos, and other data for this location

values: Category:Buildings and structures in Independence, Missouri

values: Category:Companies based in Independence, Missouri

values: Category:Military facilities in Missouri

values: Category:United States Army arsenals during World War II

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from March 2012

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant rootpage-Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
United Kingdom and the American Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The United Kingdom (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) remained officially neutral throughout the American Civil War (1861–1865). It legally recognised the belligerent status of the Confederate States of America (CSA) but never recognised it as a nation and neither signed a treaty with it nor exchanged ambassadors. Over 90 percent of Confederate trade with Britain ended, causing a severe shortage of cotton by 1862. Britain financed blockade runners that sent munitions and luxuries to Confederate ports in return for cotton and tobacco. Top British officials debated offering to mediate in the first 18 months, which the CSA wanted but the U.S. strongly rejected.
The British elite tended to support the Confederacy, but ordinary people tended to support the United States. Large-scale trade continued between Britain and the U.S.: The U.S. shipped grain to Britain and Britain sent manufactured items and munitions. Immigration continued into the US, with many Britons volunteering for its army. British trade with the Confederacy fell over 90% from the prewar period, with a small amount of cotton going to Britain and some munitions and luxury goods slipped in by numerous small blockade runners. They were operated and funded by British private interests. They were legal under international law, and caused no dispute between the US and the UK.[1]
The Confederate strategy for securing independence was based largely on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France. That never happened because it probably would have caused war with the US, and would have cut off much of Britain's food supply. A serious diplomatic dispute erupted over the "Trent Affair" in late 1861 but was resolved peacefully after five weeks. British intervention was likely only in co-operation with France, which had an imperialistic venture underway in Mexico. By early 1863, intervention was no longer seriously considered, as Britain turned its attention elsewhere, especially toward Russia and Greece.[2]
A long-term issue was sales of warships to the CSA. A British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) built two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama,[3] over vehement protests from the US. Known as the Alabama Claims, the controversy was resolved peacefully after the Civil War when the US was awarded $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by the warships.
The fact that British private interests operated blockade runners was not a cause of serious tension. In the end, British involvement did not significantly affect the outcome of the war.[4] The U.S. diplomatic mission headed by Minister Charles Francis Adams, Sr., proved much more successful than the Confederate missions, which were never officially recognized by Britain.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 Confederate policies
2 Union policies
3 British policies
4 Slavery
5 Trent Affair
6 Possibility of recognizing Confederacy
7 Emancipation Proclamation
8 Confederate diplomacy
9 Postwar adjustments and Alabama claims
10 Long-term impact
11 See also
12 References
13 Bibliography
Confederate policies[edit]
Main article: Diplomacy of the American Civil War
The Confederacy, such as President Jefferson Davis, believed from the beginning in "King Cotton": British dependence on cotton for its large textile industry would lead to diplomatic recognition and mediation or military intervention. The Confederates had not sent out agents ahead of time to ascertain if the King Cotton policy would be effective. Instead, by popular demand, not government action, shipments of cotton to Europe were ended in spring 1861. When the Confederate diplomats arrived, they tried to convince British leaders that the US naval blockade was an illegal paper blockade.[6] Historian Charles Hubbard writes:
"Davis left foreign policy to others in government and, rather than developing an aggressive diplomatic effort, tended to expect events to accomplish diplomatic objectives. The new president was committed to the notion that cotton would secure recognition and legitimacy from the powers of Europe. The men Davis selected as secretary of state and emissaries to Europe were chosen for political and personal reasons – not for their diplomatic potential. This was due, in part, to the belief that cotton could accomplish the Confederate objectives with little help from Confederate diplomats."[7]
Hubbard added that Davis's policy was stubborn and coercive. The King Cotton strategy was resisted by the Europeans. Secretary of War Judah Benjamin and Secretary of the Treasury Christopher Memminger warned that cotton should be immediately exported to build up foreign credits.[8]
Union policies[edit]
U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward (c. 1850)
Main article: Diplomacy of the American Civil War
British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston
The Union’s main goal in foreign affairs was to maintain friendly relations and large-scale trade with the world and to prevent any official recognition of the Confederacy by any country, especially Britain. Other concerns included preventing the Confederacy from buying foreign-made warships; gaining European support for policies against slavery; and attracting immigrant laborers, farmers and soldiers. There had been continuous improvement in Anglo-American relations throughout the 1850s. The issues of Oregon, Texas, and the Canada–US border had all been resolved, and trade was brisk. Secretary of State William H. Seward, the primary architect of American foreign policy during the war, intended to maintain the policy principles that had served the country well since the American Revolution: "non-intervention by the United States in the affairs of other countries and resistance to foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States and other countries in this hemisphere."[9]
British policies[edit]
British public opinion was divided on the American Civil War. The Confederacy tended to have support from the elites--from the aristocracy and gentry, which identified with the landed plantation owners, and from Anglican clergy and some professionals who admired tradition, hierarchy and paternalism. The Union was favored by the middle classes, the Nonconformists in religion, intellectuals, reformers and most factory workers, who saw slavery and forced labor as a threat to the status of the workingman. The cabinet made the decisions. Chancellor of the Exchequer William E Gladstone, whose family fortune was based on slavery in the West Indies before 1833, supported the Confederacy. Foreign Minister Lord Russell wanted neutrality. Prime Minister Lord Palmerston wavered between support for national independence, his opposition to slavery, and the strong economic advantages of Britain remaining neutral.[10]
Even before the war started, Lord Palmerston pursued a policy of neutrality. His international concerns were centred in Europe, where he had to watch both Napoleon III’s ambitions in Europe and Otto von Bismarck's rise in Prussia. There were also serious problems involving Italy, Poland, Russia, Denmark and China. British reactions to American events were shaped by past British policies and their own national interests, both strategically and economically. In the Western Hemisphere, as relations with the United States improved, Britain had become cautious about confronting it over issues in Central America. As a naval power, Britain had a long record of insisting that neutral nations abide by its blockades, a perspective that led from the earliest days of the war to de facto support for the Union blockade and frustration in the South.[11]
Diplomatic observers were suspicious of British motives. The Russian Minister in Washington, Eduard de Stoeckl, noted, "The Cabinet of London is watching attentively the internal dissensions of the Union and awaits the result with an impatience which it has difficulty in disguising.”" De Stoeckl advised his government that Britain would recognize the Confederacy at its earliest opportunity. Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, "I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both."[12]
Lincoln appointed Charles Francis Adams, Sr., as minister to Britain. An important part of his mission was to make clear to the British that the war was strictly an internal insurrection and afforded the Confederacy no rights under international law. Any movement by Britain to recognizing the Confederacy officially would be considered an unfriendly act toward the US. Seward's instructions to Adams included the suggestion that it should be made clear to Britain that a nation with widely scattered possessions, as well as a homeland that included Scotland and Ireland, should be very wary of "set[ting] a dangerous precedent."[13]
Lord Lyons was appointed as the British minister to the United States in April 1859. An Oxford graduate, he had two decades of diplomatic experience before being given the American post. Lyons, like many British leaders, had reservations about Seward and shared them freely in his correspondence, which was widely circulated within the British government.[14][15] As early as January 7, 1861, well before the Lincoln administration had even assumed office, Lyons wrote to British Foreign Secretary Lord Russell about Seward:
I cannot help fearing that he will be a dangerous foreign minister. His view of the relations between the United States and Britain had always been that they are a good material to make political capital of.... I do not think Mr. Seward would contemplate actually going to war with us, but he would be well disposed to play the old game of seeking popularity here by displaying violence toward us.[16]
Despite his distrust of Seward, throughout 1861, Lyons maintained a "calm and measured" diplomacy that contributed to a peaceful resolution to the Trent crisis.[15]
Slavery[edit]
The Confederate States came into existence after seven of the fifteen slave states seceded because of the election of Republican President Lincoln, whose party committed to the containment of slavery geographically and the weakening of slaveowners' political power. Slavery was the cornerstone of the South's plantation economy, although it was repugnant to the moral sensibilities of most people in Britain, which had abolished slavery in its Empire in 1833. Until the Fall of 1862, the immediate end of slavery was not an issue in the war; in fact, some Union states (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and what became West Virginia) allowed slavery. In 1861, Missouri had sought to extradite an escaped slave from Canada to face trial for a murder committed in his flight for which some in Britain falsely believed the punishment was to be burned alive.[17][18][19]
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, announced in preliminary form in September 1862, made ending slavery an objective of the war and caused European intervention on the side of the South to be unpopular. However, some British leaders expected it would cause a large scale race war that might need foreign intervention. Pro-Southern leaders in Britain then spoke of mediation, which they understood to mean the independence of the Confederacy and the continuation of slavery.[20]
Trent Affair[edit]
Main article: Trent Affair
Outright war was a possibility in late 1861, when the U.S. Navy took control of a British mail ship and seized two Confederate diplomats. Confederate President Jefferson Davis had named James M. Mason and John Slidell as commissioners to represent Confederate interests in England and France. They went to Havana, in Spanish Cuba, where they took passage for England on the British mail steamer Trent.[21] The American warship USS San Jacinto under Captain Charles Wilkes was looking for them. It was generally then agreed that a nation at war had the right to stop and search a neutral merchant ship if it suspected that ship of carrying the enemy's dispatches. Mason and Slidell, Wilkes reasoned, were in effect Confederate dispatches and so he had the right to remove them. On November 8, 1861, he fired twice across the bow of the Trent, sent a boat's crew aboard, seized the Confederate commissioners, and bore them off in triumph to the US, where they were held prisoner in Boston. Wilkes was hailed as a national hero.
The violation of British neutral rights triggered an uproar in Britain. Britain sent 11,000 troops to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, with plans to capture New York City if war broke out, and a sharp note was dispatched to Washington to demand return of the prisoners and an apology. Lincoln, concerned about Britain entering the war, ignored anti-British sentiment and issued what the British interpreted as an apology, without apologizing, and ordered the prisoners to be released.[21]
Britain's shortage of cotton was partially made up by imports from India and Egypt; Punch cartoon 16 November 1861
War was unlikely in any event, as the United States was providing Britain with over 40% of its wheat ("corn") imports during the war years, and suspension would have caused severe disruption to its food supply. Britain imported about 25-30% of its grain, and poor crops in 1861 and 1862 in France made Britain even more dependent on shiploads from New York City. Furthermore, British banks and financial institutions in the City of London had financed many projects such as railways in the US. There were fears that war would result in enormous financial losses as investments were lost and loans defaulted on.[22]
Britain's shortage of cotton was partially made up by imports from India and Egypt by 1863.[23] The Trent Affair led to the Lyons-Seward Treaty of 1862, an agreement to clamp down hard on the Atlantic slave trade by using the US Navy and the Royal Navy.
Possibility of recognizing Confederacy[edit]
The possibility of recognizing the Confederacy came to the fore late in the summer of 1862. At that time, as far as any European could see, the war seemed to be a stalemate. The US attempt to capture the Confederate capital had failed, and in the east and west alike, the Confederates were on the offensive. Charles Francis Adams, Sr., warned Washington that the British government might very soon offer to mediate the difficulty between North and South, which would be a polite but effective way of intimating that in the opinion of Britain, the fight had gone on long enough and should be ended by giving the South what it wanted. Recognition, as Adams warned, risked all-out war with the United States. War would involve an invasion of Canada, a full-scale American attack on British shipping interests worldwide, an end to American grain shipments that were providing a large part of the British food supply, and an end to British sales of machinery and supplies to the US.[24] The British leadership, however, thought that if the Union armies were decisively defeated, the US might soften its position and accept mediation.[25]
Earl Russell, British Foreign Secretary, had given Mason no encouragement, but after news of the Second Battle of Bull Run reached London in early September, Palmerston agreed that in late September, there could be a cabinet meeting at which Palmerston and Russell would ask approval of the mediation proposal. Then, Russell and Palmerston decided not to bring the plan before the cabinet until they got further word about Lee's invasion of the North. If the Northerners were beaten, the proposal would go through; if Lee failed, it might be well to wait a little longer before taking any action.[26]
The British working-class population, most notably the British cotton workers who suffered the Lancashire Cotton Famine, remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy. A resolution of support was passed by the inhabitants of Manchester and sent to Lincoln. His letter of reply has become famous:
I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was likely to obtain the favor of Europe.
Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.
I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual.
—Abraham Lincoln, 19 January 1863
There is now a statue of Lincoln in Manchester, with an extract from his letter carved on the plinth.
Lincoln became a hero amongst the British working class with progressive views. His portrait, often alongside that of Garibaldi, adorned many parlour walls. One can still be seen in the boyhood home of David Lloyd George, now part of the Lloyd George Museum.
The decisive factor, in the fall of 1862 and increasingly thereafter was the Battle of Antietam and what grew out of it. Lee's invasion was a failure at Antietam, and he barely escaped back to Virginia. It was now obvious that no final, conclusive Confederate triumph could be anticipated. The swift recession of the high Confederate tide was as visible in Britain as in America, and in the end, Palmerston and Russell dropped any notion of bringing a mediation-recognition program before the cabinet.
Emancipation Proclamation[edit]
During the late spring and early summer of 1862, Lincoln had come to see that he must broaden the base of the war. The Union itself was not enough; the undying vitality and drive of Northern anti-slavery men must be brought into full, vigorous support of the war effort and so the United States chose to declare itself officially against slavery. The Lincoln administration believed that slavery was the basis of the Confederate economy and leadership class and that victory required its destruction. Lincoln had drafted a plan and waited for a battlefield victory to announce it. The Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln victory, and on September 22, he gave the Confederacy 100 days notice to return to the Union or else on January 1, 1863, all slaves held in areas in rebellion would be free.[20] William Ewart Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior Liberal leader was accepting toward slavery in his youth; his family had grown wealthy through the ownership of slaves in the West Indies, however, the idea of slavery was abhorrent to him with his idea of civilising all nations.[27] He strongly spoke out for Confederate independence. When the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, he tried to make the counterargument that an independent Confederacy would do a better job of freeing the slaves than an invading northern army would. He warned that a race war was imminent and would justify British intervention.[28] Emancipation also alarmed the British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell, who expected a bloody slave uprising. The question then would be British intervention on humanitarian grounds. However, there was no slave uprising and no race war. The advice of the war minister against going to war with United States, and the tide of British public opinion, convinced the cabinet to take no action.[29]
Confederate diplomacy[edit]
Further information: Cotton diplomacy
Once the war with the US began, the best hope for the survival of the Confederacy was military intervention by Britain and France. The US realized that as well and made it clear that recognition of the Confederacy meant war and the end of food shipments into Britain. The Confederates who had believed in "King Cotton" (Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton for its industries) were proven wrong. Britain, in fact, had ample stores of cotton in 1861 and depended much more on grain from the US.[30]
During its existence, the Confederate government sent repeated delegations to Europe; historians do not give them high marks for diplomatic skills. James M. Mason was sent to London as Confederate minister to Queen Victoria, and John Slidell was sent to Paris as minister to Napoleon III. Both were able to obtain private meetings with high British and French officials, but they failed to secure official recognition for the Confederacy. Britain and the US were at sword's point during the Trent Affair in late 1861. Mason and Slidell had been illegally seized from a British ship by an American warship. Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, helped calm the situation, and Lincoln released Mason and Slidell and so the episode was no help to the Confederacy.[31]
Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord Russell, Napoleon III, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, explored the risks and advantages of recognition of the Confederacy or at least offering a mediation. Recognition meant certain war with the US, loss of American grain, loss of exports, loss of investments in American securities, potential invasion of Canada and other North American colonies, higher taxes, and a threat to the British merchant marine with little to gain in return. Many party leaders and the general public wanted no war with such high costs and meager benefits. Recognition was considered following the Second Battle of Manassas, when the British government was preparing to mediate in the conflict, but the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, combined with internal opposition, caused the government to back away.[32]
In 1863, the Confederacy expelled all foreign consuls (all of them British or French diplomats) for advising their subjects to refuse to serve in combat against the US.[33]
Throughout the war, all European powers adopted a policy of neutrality, meeting informally with Confederate diplomats but withholding diplomatic recognition. None ever sent an ambassador or official delegation to Richmond. However, they applied principles of international law and recognized both sides as belligerents. Canada allowed both Confederate and Union agents to work openly within its borders.[34]
Postwar adjustments and Alabama claims[edit]
Northerners were outraged at British tolerance of non-neutral acts, especially the building of warships. The United States demanded vast reparations for the damages caused by British-built commerce raiders, especially CSS Alabama, which Palmerston bluntly refused to pay.
The dispute continued for years after the war. After Palmerston's death, Prime Minister Gladstone agreed to include the US war claims in treaty discussions on other pending issues, such as fishing rights and border disputes. In 1872, pursuant to the resultant Treaty of Washington, an international arbitration board awarded $15,500,000 to the US, and the British apologized for the destruction caused by the British-built Confederate ships but admitted no guilt.[35]
Long-term impact[edit]
The Union victory emboldened the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public input into the political system. The resulting Reform Act 1867 enfranchised the urban male working class in England and Wales and weakened the upper-class landed gentry, who identified more with the Southern planters. Influential commentators included Walter Bagehot, Thomas Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, and Anthony Trollope.[36] Additionally, many Irishmen saw service in both the Union and Confederate State Army.
See also[edit]
American Civil War portal
France in the American Civil War
Canada in the American Civil War
Bahamas in the American Civil War
Blockade runners of the American Civil War
Timeline of British diplomatic history
International relations (1814–1919)
Foreign enlistment in the American Civil War
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Boleslaw Adam Boczek (2005). International Law: A Dictionary. Scarecrow Press. p. 421.
Jump up ^ Niels Eichhorn, "The Intervention Crisis of 1862: A British Diplomatic Dilemma?" American Nineteenth Century History (2014) 14#2, pp. 287-310.
Jump up ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on September 28, 2006. Retrieved September 22, 2007.
Jump up ^ Stephen R. Wise, Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War (1991).
Jump up ^ Martin B. Duberman, Charles Francis Adams, 1807-1886 (1961), p. 333.
Jump up ^ Charles M. Hubbard, "James Mason, the ‘Confederate Lobby,’ and the blockade debate of March 1862," Civil War History (1999) 45#3 pp 223-37
Jump up ^ Hubbard, Burden Of Confederate Diplomacy (2000), p. 7
Jump up ^ Hubbard, Burden Of Confederate Diplomacy, pp. 21-25.
Jump up ^ Jones (1992), pp. 2-3. Hubbard, p. 17. Mahin, p. 12.
Jump up ^ A.G. Hopkins American Empire: a Global history (Princeton UP, 2018) pp 231-33.
Jump up ^ Berwanger, p. 874. Hubbard, p. 18. Baxter, The British Government and Neutral Rights, p. 9. Baxter wrote that "the British government, while defending the rights of British merchants and shipowners, kept one eye on the precedents and the other on the future interests of the mistress of the sea."
Jump up ^ Graebner, p. 60-61.
Jump up ^ Mahin, p. 47. Taylor, p. 177.
Jump up ^ Warren, pg. 82.
^ Jump up to: a b Hubert F. Dubrulle, "Lord Lyons" in David Heidler, ed. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War pp. 1234-5.
Jump up ^ Mahin pg. 7. Mahin notes that in the 1850s, Seward had talked of annexing Canada (pg. 6) and in February 1861, he had spoken frequently of reuniting the North and South by a foreign war (pg. 7).
Jump up ^ Duncan Andrew Campbell, English Public Opinion and the American Civil War, (2003), pp. 26-7.
Jump up ^ R.J.M Blackett, Divided Hearts: Britain and the American Civil War, (2001), pp. 54-5.
Jump up ^ Richard Huzzey, Freedom Burning: Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain, (2012), p. 56.
^ Jump up to: a b Howard Jones, Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: the Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War, (1999)
^ Jump up to: a b Norman B. Ferris, The Trent Affair: A Diplomatic Crisis (1977)
Jump up ^ The Lancashire Cotton Famine. In Our Time. 14 May 2015. 45 minutes in. British Broadcasting Corporation.
Jump up ^ Ginzberg, (1936)
Jump up ^ Martin B. Duberman, Charles Francis Adams, 1807-1886 (1961); Van Deusen (1967)
Jump up ^ Ephraim Douglass Adams, Great Britain and the American Civil War (1925)
Jump up ^ Jones (1992) ch 8-10
Jump up ^ S. G. Checkland (1971). The Gladstones: a Family Biography, 1764-1851. p. 191.
Jump up ^ Don H. Doyle (2014). The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War. pp. 234–35.
Jump up ^ Will Kaufman; Heidi Slettedahl Macpherson (2005). Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. ABC-CLIO. p. 789.
Jump up ^ Ginzberg (1936)
Jump up ^ Ferris (1977)
Jump up ^ Jones (1999)
Jump up ^ Berwanger (1994)
Jump up ^ Graebner (1960)
Jump up ^ Merli (2004)
Jump up ^ Brent E. Kinser, The American Civil War in the Shaping of British Democracy (Ashgate, 2011)

Bibliography[edit]
Adams, Ephraim Douglass. Great Britain and the American Civil War (2 vol. 1925) online edition of 1958 reprint
Baxter, James P. 3rd. "Papers Relating to Belligerent and Neutral Rights, 1861-1865". American Historical Review Vol 34 No 1 (Oct 1928) in JSTOR
Baxter, James P. 3rd. "The British Government and Neutral Rights, 1861-1865." American Historical Review Vol 34 No 1 (Oct 1928) in JSTOR
Berwanger, Eugene H. The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War. (1994), the diplomats and consuls
Blackett, R. J. M. Divided Hearts: Britain and the American Civil War (2001) 273pp
Bourne Kenneth. Britain and the Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908. (1967)
Bourne, Kenneth. "British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862," The English Historical Review Vol 76 No 301 (Oct 1961) pp 600–632 in JSTOR
Brauer, Kinley J. "The Slavery Problem in the Diplomacy of the American Civil War," Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Aug., 1977), pp. 439–469 in JSTOR
Brauer, Kinley J. "British Mediation and the American Civil War: A Reconsideration," Journal of Southern History, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1972), pp. 49–64 in JSTOR
Campbell, Duncan Andrew, English Public Opinion and the American Civil War (2003)
Cook Adrian. The Alabama Claims: American Politics and Anglo-American Relations, 1861-1872. (1975)
Crook, David Paul. The North, the South, and the Powers, 1861-1865 (1974.)
Crook, D. P. Diplomacy During the American Civil War. (1975).
Doyle, Don. The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War (2014)
Duberman Martin B. Charles Francis Adams, 1807-1886 (1961)
Eichhorn, Niels. "The Intervention Crisis of 1862: A British Diplomatic Dilemma?" American Nineteenth Century History (2014) 15#3 pp 287–310. DOI: 10.1080/14664658.2014.959819.
Ferris, Norman B. Desperate Diplomacy: William H. Seward's Foreign Policy, 1861. (1976) 265pp, scholarly study of 1861.
Ferris, Norman B. The Trent Affair: A Diplomatic Crisis (1977) standard history
Foreman, Amanda. A World on Fire: Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, 2011), 958 pp.
Fuller, Howard J., Clad in Iron: The American Civil War and the Challenge of British Naval Power (Praeger, 2007), 448 pp.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft, "How the British Nearly Supported the Confederacy," New York Times Sunday Book Review June 30, 2011 online
Gentry, Judith Fenner. "A Confederate Success in Europe: The Erlanger Loan," Journal of Southern History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (May, 1970), pp. 157–188 in JSTOR
Ginzberg, Eli. "The Economics of British Neutrality during the American Civil War," Agricultural History, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Oct., 1936), pp. 147–156 in JSTOR
Graebner, Norman A., Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality in Why the North Won the Civil War edited by David Herbert Donald. (1960) ISBN 0-684-82506-6 (1996 Revision)
Hubbard, Charles M. The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy (1998) 271pp
Hyman, Harold Melvin. Heard Round the World; the Impact Abroad of the Civil War. (1969).
Jenkins, Brian. Britain & the War for the Union. (2 vol 1974), by Canadian scholar
Jones, Howard. Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (1992)
Jones, Howard. Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: the Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War, (1999)
Jones, Howard. ed. Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (U. of North Carolina Press, 2010)online
Jones, Wilbur Devereux. "The British Conservatives and the American Civil War," American Historical Review, (1953) 58#3 pp. 527–543 in JSTOR
Lester, Richard I. Confederate Finance and Purchasing in Great Britain. (1975).
Lorimer, Douglas A. "The Role of Anti-Slavery Sentiment in English Reactions to the American Civil War," Historical Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 405–420 in JSTOR
Macdonald, Helen Grace. Canadian Public Opinion and the American Civil War (1926)
Mahin, Dean B. One war at a time: The international dimensions of the American Civil War (Brassey's, 1999)
Merli, Frank J. The Alabama, British Neutrality, and the American Civil War. (2004). 225 pp.
Merli, Frank J. Great Britain and the Confederate Navy, 1861-1865 (1971) 360pp
Morton, W. L. The Critical Years: The Union of British North America, 1857-1873 (1964), on Canada
Nevins, Allan. "Britain, France and the War Issues." In Allan Nevins, The War for the Union: War Becomes Revolution, 1862-1863, (1960) pp. 242–274, excellent summary
Owsley, Frank Lawrence. King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign Relations of the Confederate States of America (1931)
Milne, A. Taylor. "The Lyons-Seward Treaty of 1862," American Historical Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Apr., 1933), pp. 511–525 in JSTOR
Peraino, Kevin. "Lincoln vs. Palmerston" in his Lincoln in the World: The Making of a Statesman and the Dawn of American Power (2013) pp 120-69.
Poast, Paul. "Lincoln's Gamble: Fear of Intervention and the Onset of the American Civil War." Security Studies 24.3 (2015): 502-527. online
Smith, Adam I.P. "The 'Cult' of Abraham Lincoln and the Strange Survival of Liberal England in the Era of the World Wars," Twentieth Century British History (2010) 21#4 pp 486–509, how Lincoln became a hero to the British
Stahr, Walter. Seward: Lincoln's Indispensable Man (2012)
Taylor, John M. William Henry Seward: Lincoln's Right Hand (1991), 340pp; popular biography that praises Seward
Van Deusen, Glyndon G. William Henry Seward (1967), standard biography.
Warren, Gordon H. Fountain of Discontent: The Trent Affair and Freedom of the Seas (1981), 317pp, based on extensive archival work
Winks Robin W. Canada and the United States: The Civil War Years. (1971).
[show]
v
t
e
Foreign countries in the American Civil War
Australia
Bahamas
Canada
France
Hawaii
Mexico
Morocco
Prussia
Russia
San Marino
Thailand
United Kingdom
Foreign soldiers
Native Americans
Cherokee
Choctaw
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War&oldid=837931374"
Categories:
Foreign relations during the American Civil War
American Civil War by location
United Kingdom–United States relations
1860s in the United Kingdom
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Français
Edit links
This page was last edited on 23 April 2018, at 22:10.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: p

value: i

values:
/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico
mw-redirect
French intervention in Mexico

values:
/wiki/Charles_Francis_Adams,_Sr.
mw-redirect
Charles Francis Adams, Sr.

values:
/wiki/Judah_Benjamin
mw-redirect
Judah Benjamin

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

values:
/wiki/William_E_Gladstone
mw-redirect
William E Gladstone

values:
/wiki/Cassius_Clay_(1810%E2%80%931903)
mw-redirect
Cassius Clay (1810–1903)

values:
/wiki/James_M._Mason
mw-redirect
James M. Mason

values:
/wiki/Lyons-Seward_Treaty_of_1862
mw-redirect
Lyons-Seward Treaty of 1862

values: Edit section: Possibility of recognizing Confederacy

values: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

values:
/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Manassas
mw-redirect
Second Battle of Manassas

values: Edit section: Postwar adjustments and Alabama claims

values:
/wiki/Commerce_raider
mw-redirect
Commerce raider

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
/wiki/France_in_the_American_Civil_War
mw-redirect
France in the American Civil War

values:
/wiki/Bahamas_in_the_American_Civil_War
mw-redirect
Bahamas in the American Civil War

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.questia.com/read/62913658

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1836481

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1836476

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/558199

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3637505

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2206653

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2205869

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3739625

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1843946

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638570

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1837496

values:
/wiki/Canada_and_the_American_Civil_War
mw-redirect
Canada and the American Civil War

values: Native Americans in the American Civil War

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Foreign relations during the American Civil War

values: Category:United Kingdom–United States relations

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Royaume-Uni pendant la guerre de Sécession – French

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War rootpage-United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War skin-vector action-view