Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:39:51.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Filibustering and the British Navy: A Caribbean Analogue of Mediterranean “Piracy”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Richard W. Van Alstyne
Richard W. Van Alstyne*
Affiliation:
State College, Chico, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1938 , pp. 138 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Scroggs, W. O. , Filibusters and Financiers (New York, 1916), is the standard account.Google Scholar

2 Navy Department, Confidential Letters, 1857–1861: Toucey to Mcintosh, Nov. 17, 1858. I am indebted to the late Professor E. D. Adams for this note.

3 There is some evidence, which I have been unable to confirm, that the Pierce Administration for awhile connived at filibustering. No proclamation was made against it until December, 1855, although the expeditions had actually left the United States the preceding spring. Furthermore, there appears to have been a mysterious connection between the Accessory Transit Company and certain members of Pierce’s cabinet, if not the President himself.

4 Van Alstyne, R. W., “The Central American Policy of Lord Palmerston, 1846–1848,” Hispanic American Historical Review, XVI (Aug., 1936), 339–359. The Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of April 19,1850, with the United States did not alter the legal status of the protectorate. Law Officers’ Reports: America, 1846–1853. F.O. 83/2208 (British Public Record Office).Google Scholar

5 Alstyne Van, R. W., “Anglo–American Relations, 1853–1857. British Statesmen on the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty and American Expansion,” American Historical Review, XLII (April, 1937), 491–500.Google Scholar

6 Law Officers’ Reports: America, 1854–1855. F.O. 83/2209.

7 British Legation Archives, America (F.O. 115/153). Public Record Office.

8 Ibid., F.O. 115/165.

9 Napier to Clarendon, No. 284, Dec. 22, 1857. F.O. 5/675.

10 Palmerston to Clarendon, Jan. 6, 1858. Clarendon Papers.

11 Malmesbury to Napier, No. 182, Nov. 26, 1858. F.O. 5/689.

12 Ibid., No. 133, Confidential, Oct. 13, 1858; No. 160, Nov. 3, 1858; No. 171, Nov. 13, 1868, Legation Archives, America, F.O. 115/191, 192; Napier to Malmesbury, No. 272, Nov. 20, 1858, F.O. 5/694.