Diplomacy during the great northern war

There had been continuous improvement in Anglo-American relations throughout the s. Secretary of State William H.

Diplomacy during the great northern war

The two chief powers, Britain and France, had assumed that the sectional conflict centered on slavery and not some vague concept of union; yet both President Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy and Union President Abraham Lincoln had denied that slavery was the issue, leading Europeans to believe that morality played no role in their differences and made their quarrel open to compromise.

Why not let the erring southern sisters go? Southern independence was a fait accompli, concluded many outside observers; certainly the North could not subdue a people numbering in the millions and inhabiting eleven states.

Instead, northerners and southerners had engaged in a vicious struggle that threatened to inflict a lethal blow onto both the United States and the Atlantic economy.

Thus did the destruction of the American war attract as well as repel foreign intervention and make Union and Confederate diplomacy a vital part of the outcome. All other international disputes paled in comparison with the threat that either British or French or both involvement in the American war posed to the republic, whether divided or united in the war and afterward.

So serious did the Lincoln administration regard the threat of intervention that the fiery secretary of state, William H. Seward, warned both Britain and France that recognition of the Confederacy as a nation meant war with the Union. The Anglo-French reaction to the American war rested on realistic considerations rather than moral sentiment over slavery, yet the growing level of atrocity repelled them, fostering intervention as a means for ending the bloodshed and stemming the growing collateral damage that threatened neutrals and the entire Atlantic economy.

Humanitarians in both countries felt a moral obligation to stop a horrific war that had led to unparalleled bloodshed. Realists took a hard-line view. The Lord Palmerston ministry in London was concerned about empire, fearing that an imperialist Union government might quash southern aspirations for self determination and then turn its sights on Canada along with the vast markets of Latin America.

Emperor Napoleon III in France had his own imperial designs, hoping to use Mexico as a wedge for reestablishing French influence in the New World and thereby redressing the international balance of power in his favor.

All these factors and more combined to put pressure on the British government followed by the French to mediate an end to the fighting. At two points midway in the war, Britain in the fall of and France the following year, came close to extending recognition to the Confederacy and thereby, not fully realized at the time, threatened North and South.

Shortly after the outbreak of war in Aprilthe British considered a mediation pointing to recognition of the Confederacy; and from the close of to the end of the war in Aprilthe French called for an armistice that tied recognition to Confederate approval of their imperial objectives in Mexico.

The first eighteen months of the Civil War were critical to its outcome, not only because of what happened on the battlefields in America but also on what transpired in the policymaking rooms in Europe. The war hung in the balance as Lincoln searched for a general and tried to keep the four Border States slave states that had not seceded of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri in the Union, while Davis commanded an army that succeeded in the East but stumbled in the West, and relied on King Cotton Diplomacy to force European nations to grant recognition.

Unfortunately for the South, its bumper crops in the two years previous to the war had allowed the two chief benefactors of that trade, Britain and France, to stock huge surpluses that freed them from economic pressure throughout this pivotal period. This action classified North and South as belligerents and dictated equal treatment by the European powers, but it also embroiled those powers in the issues underlying the war.

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

The British dutifully implemented their Foreign Enlistment Act ofwhich barred subjects from enlisting in the armed forces of either belligerent or engaging in any activity capable of drawing the crown into the American war. But the Lincoln administration feared that the British move elevated the stature of the Confederacy and offered hope of recognition.

As a belligerent, the South could float foreign loans; buy arms and other supplies for an army and a navy now legitimized as instruments of belligerents and not bandits; and contract for the construction of vessels in British shipyards, as long as the builders followed the strictures of the Foreign Enlistment Act by not equipping or fitting them for war while in England.

Furthermore, the Confederate navy once built could search Union vessels and seize contraband, enter foreign ports with prizes, license privateers, and implement blockades. Most important to the outcome of the war, although not seen at its outset, the doctrine of neutrality permitted other nations to intervene in the American conflict when threatened with collateral damage.

The Union, he insisted, could not be "cobbled together again" and should accept secession: The alternative was a lengthy war that guaranteed damages to all nations touched by the fighting.

The United States had imploded into anarchy, threatening to leave the republican experiment in ruins and confirming the skepticism of Old World conservatives who had long opposed political and social reform whether in America or at home.

Diplomacy of the American Civil War - Wikipedia

Civilized and non-belligerent nations had the right—even the duty—to convince those people at war to seek a compromise.

England, Russell believed, was the leading civilized country in the world and bore a moral responsibility to find a peaceful resolution of the war.Diplomacy during the War of The American declaration of war in June of shocked many British officials.

Great Britain conceded everything the United States wanted except for impressment. Diplomacy during the Great Northern War from Kevin L. Boyd Norwich University Abstract After studying the Peace Treaty of Westphalia and its impact upon how states conduct relations with each other I was interested in finding out how it impacted conflicts subsequent to the treaty.

Let's review the key terms regarding World War I diplomacy. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the summer of sparked a month-long diplomatic crisis among the major European powers, called the July Crisis. The importance of diplomacy during the American Civil War has long been underestimated.

Encyclopedia of the

Both Northerners, who were committed to the preservation of the Union, and Southerners, determined to create a new nation, understood that without support from Europe, the secession movement in the United States was doomed.

The Diplomatic history of World War I covers the non-military interactions among the major players during World War I. For the domestic histories see Home front during World War I.

Diplomacy during the great northern war

For a longer-term perspective see International relations of the Great Powers (–) and Causes of World War I. In effect, the Great Northern War was over. The royal heirs to Charles (sister Ulrika and her husband, Frederick I of Hesse-Cassell) were forced to grant Stettin and western Pomerania to Prussia and Sweden’s eastern Baltic territories to Czar Peter’s Russia.

The Great Northern War - History Learning Site