Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 03-31-2003, 09:59 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Great South Bay
Posts: 703
When did the U.S. and England first become allies instead of enemies?

In 1812, the U.S. and England were bitter enemies. In 1917, they were allies against Germany. So did the turning point occur before World War 1, and if so, what caused the turnaround and when?
#2
Old 03-31-2003, 10:09 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,523
Well, the first Adams administration (1797-1801) wanted to make friends with Britain and turn against France. This alignment caused one heck of a lot of bad blood between Adams's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. At one point in the Adams administration there were even hostilities between the American navy and the French navy. But there was no declaration of war against France at that point and IIRC no formal alliance with Britain.

Jefferson, of course, wanted to stay friends with France and was not so keen on staying aligned with Britain. The Jeffersonian president Madison went so far as to get into war with Britain. His successor Monroe was also a Jeffersonian but by that time things had cooled down both domestically and abroad.

The Monroe Doctrine (1823) was implicitly backed by British power, as a political cartoon at the time showed Monroe with his Doctrine in a little rowboat being towed by a British man-o'-war. So sometime between 1814 and 1823 the Americans and British had come to some understanding.
#3
Old 03-31-2003, 10:19 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Great South Bay
Posts: 703
When did the U.S. and England first become allies instead of enemies?

In 1812, the U.S. and England were bitter enemies. In 1917, they were allies against Germany. So did the turning point occur before World War 1, and if so, what caused the turnaround and when?
#4
Old 03-31-2003, 10:31 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 199
I believe it was around the time of World War I. IIRC, the choice of whether to ally with the Germans or with the French and British was not so clear cut as it would seem (especially now, haha :x) and that many Americans, coming of German heritage, still had loyalties toward Germany.

I'm sure someone will come along with a more detailed and accurate answer.
#5
Old 03-31-2003, 10:38 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 40,702
Officially, it was WWI. The countries often had trade in common, and relations were usually cordial once the War of 1812 was over, but there was no formal alliance before 1917.

One issue, even up to WWII, was that people in the US didn't like the UK. Americans of Irish descent certainly did not, and there was a carryover feeling of mistrust in some circles that did date back to the revolution.
__________________
"East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
#6
Old 03-31-2003, 10:39 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,523
Hey, how did this thread get duplicated? I answered this one first, I say the other one should get locked.
#7
Old 03-31-2003, 10:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 1,836
There was nearly a war in the 1840's over what is now Oregon, Washington, and British Colombia (54'40 or fight!). In the Buchanan administration, the milestone of the Prince of Wales visiting Washington (and spending a night at the WHite House) was achieved. But then the Civil War, especially the 'Trent Affair' and compensation for the C.S.S. Alabama (a Southern ship outfitted in the U.K. which sank some Union vessels) caused further friction, and saber rattling.

I do believe as late as the Venezuela crisis of the late 1890's (In which there were conflicting claims on the border with British Guyana and Venezuela around 1896 or so), there were open tensions. The United States took the Venezuelan side. Also the Boer War of 1899-1902 was widely opposed. Also, I think there were at least some British sympathies to the Spanish side in the Spanish-American War of 1898.

So I would say the whole period from 1845 until 1917 was one of very slow rapprochment. Another interesting thing is that during much of this period, American-British relations were heavily influenced by American-Canadian relations. Britain was actually a "bordering" nation in a sense.
#8
Old 03-31-2003, 10:45 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 110
I believe there was always an interest in keeping relations open due to trading.
#9
Old 03-31-2003, 10:58 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally posted by syncrolecyne
So I would say the whole period from 1845 until 1917 was one of very slow rapprochment. Another interesting thing is that during much of this period, American-British relations were heavily influenced by American-Canadian relations. Britain was actually a "bordering" nation in a sense.
One episode in that decades-long rapprochement was the H.M.S. Resolute, abandoned in Melville Sound (northern Canada) by a British crew in 1854. More than a year later, an American whaler rescued the deserted ship and sold it to the United States, which refitted the ship and presented the refurbished vessel to the United Kingdom "on behalf of the people of the United States as a token of the friendly feelings by which our country is actuated." The Resolute was taken out of service in 1879, when "a desk was made from her timbers which was presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford S. Hayes. Apart from short spells, the desk has been in daily use in the Oval Office of the White House by every President of the United States since then." President Bush still uses the Resolute desk in the Oval Office today.
#10
Old 03-31-2003, 11:55 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: R'lyeh
Posts: 2,007
Don't forget the time the US and the UK almost went to war over a pig :http://wwwshs1.bham.wednet.edu/zodiac/Lessons/thpigwar(2002).htm
#11
Old 04-01-2003, 01:27 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maine
Posts: 10,196
The last really serious tension was the Venezuela border dispute, mentioned above. There were several developments in the period 1898-1903 that reduced tensions considerably:

Unlike many other countries, Britain did not make too much noise about American actions in the Spanish-American War (1898). The U.S. returned the favor by not making too much noise about British actions in the Boer War (1899-1902). The Hay-Pauncefote Treaties (1900 and 1901) permitted the U.S. to build the Panama Canal without fear of British interference. And Britain essentially sided with the U.S. against Canada in settling the Alaska boundary dispute (1903).

That's not to say there were no tensions after that. For example, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902) was unpopular in the U.S. and continued to be a source of friction even after WWI, until the agreement was allowed to lapse in the 1920s.
#12
Old 04-01-2003, 01:52 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maine
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
Hey, how did this thread get duplicated? I answered this one first, I say the other one should get locked.
Yeah, but I answered the other one. Tell you what, I'll merge them into one.

bibliophage
moderator GQ
#13
Old 04-01-2003, 08:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,781
Before direct US involvement in WWI, German Americans were a large, if not the largest immigrant group in America.

At some point, several German Americans chided their fellow citizens in the press for not taking the British side. These articles unleashed latent anti-German sentiment in the US. Being German or taking Germany's side quickly became viewed as "un-American". So favoring the British was patriotic, favoring their oppopents were not.
#14
Old 04-01-2003, 10:47 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Inland Finland
Posts: 240
More on German Americans here.

In 1914 Americans were already in favour of England and France (Triple Entente) rather than Germany and its allies. Feelings in Europe were quite similar. In addition, Western European democracies were important trade partners to U.S, so allies losing war would have threatened that beneficial trade. And German monarchy was commonly seen as a dictatorship, against which Wilson administration actively campaigned. Add to this all the ship lane violations and U-boat attacks during German unrestricted submarine warfare, and it's easy to see why Americans ultimately allied with Britain.

Not that it would have stopped war plans against friendly nations "just in case", as seen in this Staff Report.
#15
Old 04-01-2003, 10:55 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY, NY
Posts: 377
Perhaps moot, but certainly during the Civil War period we weren't allies. England (with some degree of glee) supported the Confederacy pretty openly, running blockades, buying cotton, and otherwise doing all they could short of armed conflict to thwart the Union.
#16
Old 04-01-2003, 12:16 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally posted by DrLizardo
Perhaps moot, but certainly during the Civil War period we weren't allies. England (with some degree of glee) supported the Confederacy pretty openly, running blockades, buying cotton, and otherwise doing all they could short of armed conflict to thwart the Union.
True. But the United Kingdom never recognized the Confederate government, did it? (I'm not certain.) While Britain was certainly playing footsies with the Confederacy for the sake of its cotton imports and mercantile exports, the British government stopped short not only of entering into "armed conflict" against the Union, but of opening formal diplomatic relations with the Confederacy.
#17
Old 04-01-2003, 12:24 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: My Own Little World
Posts: 160
Not having any resources other than google handy, I can't give you a cite, but England definitely had observers with troops on both sides of the US Civil War. If I recall the history correctly, England was waiting for a good reason to recognize the confederacy, and the critical battle never came.

Lots of "what if" scenarios are out there on battles such as Shiloh and Gettysburg and whether altering the outcome of either one would have induced the British to recognize the Confederate States.
#18
Old 04-01-2003, 01:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally posted by NameAlreadyTaken
If I recall the history correctly, England was waiting for a good reason to recognize the confederacy, and the critical battle never came.
You'll have to search long and hard to find a reputable history supporting the idea that there was a snowflake's chance in Hell that Britain would recognize the Confederacy unless it appeared that the Confederacy was going to secure independance without UK intervention. What motive would the UK have for such a recognition, which would cost the government support at home (slavery was unpopular) and abroad (if nothing else, the US would not exactly be friendly)? The UK could do a little blocakde running and still trade with the confederacy, thereby being fine if the Union wins since the union wasn't significantly angered by blockade running, and fine if the Confederacy wins since the Confederacy still needed to trade.

The UK in the 19th century did not get involved in major wars on a lark, and while lots of Confederates wanted the UK to intervene in the war on their behalf, there wasn't any reason for the UK to do so. They weren't sitting around waiting for an excuse, they'd need something significant to motivate them to get involved in a large-scale war.
#19
Old 04-01-2003, 01:59 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: My Own Little World
Posts: 160
Ok, not a real cite, but a short conversation with my dad, a member of the Blue and Grey Education Society http://blue-and-gray-education.org/, led to the following followup points.

Basically, a section of the English parliment wanted to recognize the Confederacy because of the cotton trade (among other reasons). However, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation after Antietem, he made the war officially about slavery. By making a formal political announcement that to support the south was to support slavery, he tied up the British Parliment. They couldn't recognize the south as long as slavery was officially part of the deal, because England had declared slavery illegeal. So in one sense, the Emancipation Proclamation forced the English to deal with the slavery question rather than the economic question. Up until that point, there had been numerous conversations between Jefferson Davis and members of the English Parliment about formal recognition. Afterwords, the whole issue became impossible short of capture of Washington or another major and critical defeat for the Union.

I don't think anyone would dispute the amount of material aid supplied by the British to the Confederacy. I also don't think that you can say that the British government was ever entirely for or against recognizing the South. The same can almost certianly be said for the British people.

In any case, with respect to Riboflavin's snowflake's chance in hell of recognition, I'd have to say that the US Civil war is one of the most controversial and controversially researched wars, and that "reputable histroy" rapidly becomes an emotional matter of opinion on any Civil War topic.

Purely in my opinion, the truth is likely that with the right battle at the right time, the South could have won recognition. Capturing Washington isn't all that unimagineable with or without overt British aid. So until the war changed tenor, official recognition was at the least a viable political ploy for the British and a valid hope for the Confederacy. It would have taken a major blow to the North however.

As this rapidly becomes a Great Debate topic rather than a General Question, I'll just return to the OP and say that US-British relationships definitely weren't that solid during or just after the US Civil War (1870's). For example: .The Alabama Claims

Once again, sorry for the lack of a real cite. Most of the civil war material I have read is in boxes in someone else's house
#20
Old 04-01-2003, 04:06 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally posted by NameAlreadyTaken
Basically, a section of the English parliment... Up until that point, there had been numerous conversations between Jefferson Davis and members of the English Parliment about formal recognition. Afterwords, the whole issue became impossible short of capture of Washington or another major and critical defeat for the Union.
Any evidence at all that the British government as a whole, and not just a small section of parliament, was ever seriously contemplating recognition of the Confederacy? All you've offered is evidence that there were some people involved in running the UK that talked to some Confederates, you haven't offered anything that shows there was any chance whatsoever of the UK actually recognizing the Confederacy short of the Confederacy clearly winning the war.

Note carefully that the claim I was responding to was that "England was waiting for a good reason to recognize the confederacy, and the critical battle never came," which clearly is saying that the government of the United Kingdom wanted to recognize the Confederacy but was waiting for a good opportunity, not that a small faction wanted to recognize the Confederacy and hoped that other MPs would eventually come around to their view. While attempting to argue with your whole somewhat rambling post would be GD material, it's perfectly appropriate in GQ to look at a particular claim and examine whether it is factual or not. And the fact is, the UK government as a whole was not just looking for an excuse to recognize the confederacy.
#21
Old 04-01-2003, 05:30 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: My Own Little World
Posts: 160
I'll be happy to move this elsewhere if so requested.

Was a vote on recognition of the Confederacy ever proposed in Parliament? Not that I can find. Did the foreign office explictly say no to Jefferson Davis's request for recognition? Not until Lord Russell's note in 1862 (after the Emancipation Proclamation).

Prior to that point, Lord Russel and PM Palmerston were both verbally advocates of recognizing the South, as was much of the House of Lords. I would suggest that if the PM is for it, there's a decent chance the government would have gone along in a vote (e.g. Blair in modern times).

One of the reasons for British involvement neither of us has touched on was Captian Wilkes' attack on the British merchantman Trent to remove the Confederate's representatives to the government of England (James Mason and John Slidell). This was almost enough to cause war by itself as it bordered on violating the neutrality of ambassadors. http://wmhs.k12.vt.us/WMHS/Faculty/M..._swift_2.4.htm. I'm not positive, but I think this link is a chapter from Bruce Catton's book on the war, which contains all the footnotes and references not mentioned in the web link.

[/b]Some other links:[b]

One of the House of Lords advocates:Beresford Hope

The timing of the formal rejection around the battle of Antietem - Lord Russel and the PM had scheduled a meeting to discuss formal recognition based on the news from Second Bull Run in Septeber 1862. The meeting changed tone as soon as news of Antietem and the Emancipation Proclamation arrived. http://carman.net/antietam.htm

A book that goes into all sides of the story in pretty good detail, covering both the official and unofficial actions (with original sources cited): Rebel Raiders: The astonishing history of the Confederacy's Secret Navy

In any case, the issue was dead by 1862, regardless of whatever notes may have been passed or diplomatic games may have been played prior to that point. Antietem and the Emancipation Proclamation made the political cost too high, and the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg (July 1863) pretty much convinced the rest of the House of Lords that the South wasn't going to survive.

We both agree that recognition wouldn't have come without major military gains on the part of the south... such as capturing Washington. However, after the Second Battle of Bull Run/Second Manassas, that prospect seemed rather likely. Especially with the incident of the Trent as a legitimate Cassus Belli for the English.

One closely fought battle (usually considered a tie) and one executive order from the US President may have been all that stopped English recognition (or at least serious consideration and a full parliamentary debate). That's why I think this goes into Great Debate territory.
#22
Old 04-01-2003, 06:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,144
Re the OP, the first time I am aware of where British and US forces fought side by side as allies was in 1900, while fighting against the Boxer movement in China.
#23
Old 04-01-2003, 06:59 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Buford, Georgia
Posts: 8,011
The US was allied with Great Britain in the War of the Barbary Pirates, but never coordinated their actions.

In June 1859, acting on his own initiative, American Commodore Josiah Tattnail, assited the British attack on the Peiho forts during the second Opium War (1856-9). He used his ship, the Toeywan, to tow the British boat's from the shore with the survivors of the land attack, justifying his actions by saying "Blood is thicker than water"

American animosity towards the German Empire had its own grounding, separate from any friendship with Great Britain, in the 19th century in the Pacific. The Americans and Germans fought what amounted to a proxy war in a civil war in Samoa. If the US hadn't annexed Hawaii, there's a good probability that the Germans would have. Also, right after the Battle of Manila Bay, the German Navy pulled in and started conducting amphibious excersizes, until Admiral Dewey threatened to fire on them.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: kakuro tips dum dum rounds geometric growth equation trimps prison les schwab payment words to farajaka 1975 quarters fingernails not growing dasiy chain clorox and ammonia bushmans hole fresh water taffy canadian tire usa remember when songs conceptual drawings purposely purposefully sour powder candy soda pressure cap dog eating squirrel panther fart roman census method scorpion crustacean fresh water clams chicago and damen civ 3 tips men fuck sheep asian nipples pumpkin riddles zzzquil active ingredient good stuff maynard stone wine guinness 06 13 poligrip commercial 2015 why does ice crack in water one eyed black cat phillips colon health commercial actress how much claritin d can you buy in a month how long does it take to charge a car battery with a 10 amp charger what are hells angels nomads sentence containing every letter of the alphabet ivan drago vs clubber lang wild west saloon doors the more water i drink the thirstier i am how to get melted plastic off glass stove everybody loves raymond house address buy sudafed 12 hour online tweety bird a boy or girl did the native american smoke weed word for black hair i fucking hate itunes cookie clicker best dragon aura difference between incalls and outcalls largest open world game map solo molten core at 70 united vs air canada how do employers verify college education escaping handcuffs by breaking a thumb how strong is super glue has there ever been a perfect march madness bracket chocolate chip cookies without chocolate chips what happened to duffey strode how much is black walnut tree worth when not to use drano what does running numbers mean the war against the chtorr lump in testicle that moves piano falling on head bug bite oozing clear fluid