FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422  
423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   >>   >|  
be so tempting to the Lairds as to make refusal unlikely. Two men, Forbes and Aspinwall, were sent to England with funds and much embarrassed Adams to whom they discreetly refrained from stating details, but yet permitted him to guess their object. The plan of buying ran wholly counter to Adams' diplomatic protests on England's duty in international law and the agents themselves soon saw the folly of it. Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, wrote to Dupont, March 26, 1863: "The Confederate ironclads in England, I think, will be taken care of." (Correspondence, I, 196.) Thurlow Weed wrote to Bigelow, April 16, of the purpose of the visit of Forbes and Aspinwall. (Bigelow, _Retrospections_, I, 632.) Forbes reported as early as April 18 virtually against going on with the plan. "We must keep cool here, and prepare the way; we have put new fire into Mr. Dudley by furnishing _fuel_, and he is hard at it getting evidence.... My opinion _to-day_ is that we can and shall stop by legal process and by the British Government the sailing of ironclads and other war-ships." (Forbes MS. To Fox.) That this was wholly a Navy Department plan and was disliked by State Department representatives is shown by Dudley's complaints (Forbes MS.). The whole incident has been adequately discussed by C.F. Adams, though without reference to the preceding citations, in his _Studies Military and Diplomatic_, Ch. IX. "An Historical Residuum," in effect a refutation of an article by Chittenden written in 1890, in which bad memory and misunderstanding played sad havoc with historical truth.] [Footnote 994: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 157. To Seward, March 24, 1863.] [Footnote 995: _Ibid._, p. 160. To Seward, March 27, 1863.] [Footnote 996: State Department, Eng., Vol. 82, No. 356. Adams to Seward, March 27, 1863.] [Footnote 997: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, March 27, 1863.] [Footnote 998: Rhodes, IV, p. 369, _notes_, April 4, 1863. Bright was made very anxious as to Government intentions by this debate.] [Footnote 999: This topic will be treated at length in Chapter XVIII. It is here cited merely in relation to its effect on the Government at the moment.] [Footnote 1000: Trevelyan, _John Bright_, 307-8.] [Footnote 1001: Hansard, 3rd Series, CLXX, 33-71, for entire debate.] [Footnote 1002: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 164. Adams to Seward, March 28, 1863.] [Footnote 1003: Rhodes, I
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422  
423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Footnote
 

Forbes

 

Seward

 

Diplomatic

 

Government

 

Correspondence

 

England

 
Department
 

debate

 
ironclads

Bright

 

Palmerston

 

Aspinwall

 

Rhodes

 

Bigelow

 
Dudley
 

wholly

 
effect
 

memory

 

historical


played

 
misunderstanding
 

reference

 

preceding

 

citations

 

adequately

 

discussed

 
Studies
 

Military

 

Chittenden


article
 

written

 
refutation
 

Residuum

 

Historical

 

Trevelyan

 

moment

 

relation

 

Hansard

 

entire


Series

 

Chapter

 

length

 
Russell
 
intentions
 

treated

 
anxious
 

protests

 

international

 

agents