Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:45:26.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing British Attitudes towards the United States in the 1880s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. A. Tulloch
H. A. Tulloch
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On returning to England in 1900 after an absence of some thirty-two years, James Ford Rhodes was much surprised by a number of changes he observed, and more particularly by the novel attitude of a number of newspapers and journals which had previously reflected more traditional assumptions and beliefs. Radicals, from Paine and Cobbett, Bentham and the Mills to Cobden, Bright and the Manchester School had traditionally identified America as the precursor of the new millennium. In contrast to this radical tradition was a conservative counter-theme that insisted that within its revolutionary and republican origins lay the seeds of American self-destruction. All such convictions seemed confirmed by the civil war, and The Times under Delane – the apogee of this conservative tradition – continued to prophesy the imminent collapse of the Union throughout most of the war. Yet in 1901 Rhodes noticed a far more sympathetic approach to American matters by the conservative Times and Spectator, and their formerly denigrating tone now echoed ironically in the pages of the radical Speaker. The purpose of this article is to try to explain some of the intellectual origins of this fundamental realignment, with reference to changing English interpretations of the American race, of the American revolution and of the American constitution, particularly as reflected in James Bryce's American Commonwealth, the classic exposition of this reinterpretation. This realignment was effected by a small body of academics, jurists and intellectuals whose writings in learned journals, legal textbooks and works of comparative politics lacked extensive appeal.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 825 - 840
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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 Cf. C. P. Crook's excellent American democracy in English politics 1815–1850 (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar. Andrew Harvie's ‘Ideology and home rule: James Bryce, A. V. Dicey and Ireland, 1880–1887’ (English Historical Review, April 1976, pp. 298–314)Google Scholar, touches on some similar ground.

2 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Nov. 1900, pp. 316–17.

3 Goldwin Smith (1832–1910) and Edward Augustus Freeman (1823–92) both went up to Oxford in 1841, served as Bryce's mentors when he arrived at Trinity College from Glasgow University in 1857, and were Regius professors of modern history from 1858–66 and 1884–92 respectively. Sir Henry Sumner Maine (1822–88) was Corpus professor of jurisprudence at Oxford 1869–78, then master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. John Emerich Dalberg-Acton (1834–1902) was a close friend and liberal colleague of Bryce's, and Regius professor of modern history at Cambridge after 1895. James Bryce (1838–1922) entered parliament as member for Tower Hamlets in 1880 and served as Regius professor of Civil Law at Oxford (1870–93), visiting the United States for the first time in 1870 in the company of his closest friend Albert Venn Dicey (1835–1922), Vinerian professor of English law and fellow of All Souls College, Oxford (1882–1909).

4 Lectures to American audiences (Philadelphia, 1882)Google Scholar; Some impressions of the United States (London, 1883).Google Scholar

5 Comparative politics (London, 1873), pp. 14–16Google Scholar; Freeman, , Some impressions, p. 50.Google Scholar

6 Stephens, W. R. W., The life and letters of Edward A. Freeman (2 vols., London, 1895), II, 354.Google Scholar

7 Freeman, , Some impressions, pp. 33, 16–17.Google Scholar

8 Freeman, , Some impressions, p. 138Google Scholar; Stephens, , Life and letters, I, 242.Google Scholar

9 The American Commonwealth (2nd edn, 2 vols., London, 1889), I, Part. 2, and 1, 565, n. 2. Hereafter cited as AC.Google Scholar

10 AC I, 567, n. I, 467–8, 591.

11 E.g. Hofstadter, Richard, The progressive historians (New York, 1965), p. 58Google Scholar; Kraus, M., The writing of American history (Oklahoma, 1953), p. 278Google Scholar; Lamar, Howard R., ‘Frederick Jackson Turner’, in Cunliffe, Marcus and Winks, Robin (eds.), Postmasters (New York, 1969), p. 84.Google Scholar

12 AC II, 301–2, 697.

13 AC II, 729, 301. Godkin (1831–1902) spoke of the west's ‘great mass of powerful energetic rusticity…It has, with its rude, wild energy, its excess of animal life, completely overwhelmed the thinkers of the older States, and driven most of them into private life, and taken upon itself to represent American democracy to the world’. ‘Aristocratic Opinions of Democracy’, North American Review, Jan. 1865, reprinted in Problems of modern democracy (New York, 1901), pp. 49–50Google Scholar, and Mill's reply in Later letters of J. S. Mill, 1849–1873 (Toronto, 1972), ed. by Mineka, Francis E. and Lindley, Dwight N., XVI, 1055–6.Google Scholar

14 AC II, 727; Samuel Eliot to Bryce, 3 Jan. 1888, MS Bryce USA. 24; AC II, 388.

15 The table talk and omniana of S. T. Coleridge, (Oxford, 1917), p. 226.Google Scholar

16 Freeman, , Comparative politics pp. 1, 32–33.Google Scholar

17 Democracy in America, ed. by Bradley, Phillips (New York, 1945, 2 vols.), I, 15.Google Scholar

18 Acton to Bryce, 25 March 1889, MS Bryce I. AC II, 629.

19 English Historical Review, April 1889, p. 389Google Scholar. ‘The predictions of Hamilton and Tocqueville’, in Studies in History and Jurisprudence, (2 vols. Oxford, 1901), I, 385, 388, 389Google Scholar; AC II, 487–93. 627–36, 115, 65–71, 73–80, 66–68.

20 Fortnightly Review, Oct. 1882, pp. 634–55.Google Scholar

21 Cf. Godkin's, Problems of modern democracy, p. 66Google Scholar, and Mill's conclusion that such evil ‘unpropitious’ factors were declining in America for God kin had ‘fully made out that the peculiar character of society in the Western States - the mental type formed by die position and habits of the Pioneer - is at least in part accountable for many American phenomena which have been ascribed to democracy. This is'a most consoling belief, as it refers the unfavourable side of American social existence… to causes naturally declining, rather than to one which always tends to increase.’ Mineka and Lindley, Later letters of Mill, XVI, 1055–56.Google Scholar

22 New York Nation, 15 April 1880, p. 283. Lord Acton held that ‘The great revelation of America was that of a revolution effected by conservative politicians.’ Fasnacht, G. E., Acton's political philosophy (London, 1952), p. 243.Google Scholar

23 Dicey, , New York Nation, 3 June 1880, p. 414Google Scholar.’ No exorcism’, he continued, ‘is so potent to lay the spirit of unreasoning fear (of the spirit of 1791) as a study of the United States as they actually exist.’ New York Nation, 25 March 1880, p. 283; Himmelfarb, G., Lord Acton: a study in conscience and politics (Chicago, 1962), p. 70.Google Scholar

24 The schism in the Anglo-Saxon race (New York, 1887), p. 13 ffGoogle Scholar. and Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1864, pp. 749–67.Google Scholar

25 Freeman, , Lectures to American audiences, p. 60.Google Scholar

26 AC II, 259. Gladstone also wrote that ‘Their revolution, as we call it, was like ours in the main, a vindication of liberties inherited and possessed. It was a conservative revolution.’ North American Review, Sept/Oct. 1878, p. 185, reprinted in Gleanings of past years (London, 1898), I, 203–48.Google Scholar

27 MS Acton Add. 4896. Acton's review appeared in the English Historical Review, April 1889, pp. 388–96, and is reprinted in The history of freedom and other essays, ed. by Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V. (London, 1907)Google Scholar. Acton wrote to Mandell Creighton that ‘Bryce insists almost exclusively on the conservative, the traditional, the historic side of things in the American Revolution’, and referred in the review to ‘a bewildered Whig emerging from the third volume with a reverent appreciation of ancestral wisdom… and a growing belief in the function of ghosts to make laws for the quick’. Acton to Creighton, 20 March 1889, Acton papers, and EHR, April 1889, p. 392.

28 Acton to Bryce, 25 March 1889, MS Bryce 1, where Acton insists that the American example ‘affirms the legitimacy of revolution’; EHR, April 1889, p. 395, where Acton again insists that the example of the founding fathers ‘presents a thorn, not a cushion, and threatens all existing political forms’. The great Chief Justice referred to is John Marshall, third Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835.

29 Bryce, , Studies in history and jurisprudence, I, 145–254Google Scholar; Dicey, , Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (6th edn., London, 1902), pp. 361–416.Google Scholar

30 Maine, , Popular government (5th edn., London, 1909), pp. 211–16Google Scholar; AC 1, 480; Dicey in Contemporary Review, April 1890, p. 505; and Rait, R. S., Memorials of A. V. Dicey (London, 1925), p. 149.Google Scholar

31 New York Nation, 16 Dec. 1886, p. 494.Google Scholar

32 Bryce, , Studies in history and jurisprudence, I, 178–79, 186Google Scholar; Bryce in New York Nation, 13 July 1882, pp. 28–9Google Scholar, 13 April 1882, p. 310; Bryce to Goldwin Smith, 29 June 1884, MS Bryce 17; Goldwin Smith to Bryce, 24 Jan. 1881, 27 Dec. 1885, MS Bryce 16.

33 New York Nation, 20 Jan. 1898, p. 46Google Scholar; Hansard, third series, vol. 304, c. 1048.Google Scholar

34 New York Nation, 21 Jan. 1886, pp. 52–3Google Scholar; Morley quoted in ‘The Liberal image of America in France and England 1789–1890’, by Michael Weinberg (Harvard Ph.D.), p. 256.

35 John Morley dubbed Popular government a ‘rattling Tory pamphlet’ and Lord Acton referred to it as a ‘Manual of unacknowledged Conservatism’, but in reply to Sidgwick's insistence that he must deal with ‘The question of whether America should be our model in efforts to guard against the dangers of democracy ‘raised by Maine, Bryce could reply - and be echoed by Acton - that ‘there is a better case to be made against democracy than (Maine) has made’. The only real distinction appears to be that the tory wished for American checks to halt democracy, and the liberal to contain it once established. Feaver, George, From Status to Contract: a biography of Sir Henry Sumner Maine 1822–1888 (London, 1969), pp. 253, 254Google Scholar; Letters of Lord Acton to Mary, daughter of the Right Hon. Gladstone, W. E., ed. by Paul, Herbert. (London, 1913), p. 169Google Scholar; Sidgwick to Bryce, 22 Jan. 1885, and Bryce to Sidgwick, 12 Sept. 1887, MS Bryce 15.

38 New York Nation, 21 Jan. 1886, p. 53Google Scholar, and Bryce: ‘The establishment in Britain of a species of Rigid Constitution has begun to be advocated by the persons least inclined to trust democracy’, Studies in history and jurisprudence, I, 241Google Scholar; and AC I, 249–50.

37 Bryce to Schurz, 27 Sept. 1884, Schurz papers, and Schurz to Bryce, 9 Nov. 1884, MS Bryce USA 18; Bryce to Godkin, 27 Sept. and 17 Oct. 1884, Godkin papers; Contemporary Review, Nov. 1884, pp. 718–38; and AC 1, no.Google Scholar

38 Paul, , Acton to Mary Gladstone, p. 80Google Scholar. Bryce voiced his fears to Godkin among others; ‘the democratisation of England proceeds with alarming speed… Unluckily we construct no safeguards’, Bryce to Godkin, 1 March 1889, Godkin papers.

39 Dicey, , Law of the constitution, 8th edn, p. xcviiiGoogle Scholar; Dicey to A. L. Lowell, 19 June 1910, Lowell papers.

40 Maine, , Popular government, pp. 39–40Google Scholar; Dicey in New York Nation, 8 Oct. 1885, pp. 297–8Google Scholar; AC 1, 455. The Californian state constitution of 1879 had 33 such provisions enumerated under Art. 4, Sec. 25 (AC 1, 691–2).

41 Dicey, , Law of the constitution, p. 137Google Scholar and, for a more general discussion of federalism, pp. 134–76; Law Quarterly Review, Jan. 1885, pp. 80–99Google Scholar; AC 1, 304.

42 AC 1, 257, 250–1; Dicey, , Law of the constitution, p. 175Google Scholar; also pp. 154, 161; Law Quarterly Review, Jan. 1885, p. 98.Google Scholar

43 AC 1, 257. Bryce spoke of judges and lawyers as ‘political hierophants…stewards of sacred mysteries’. Macmillan's Magazine, Jan. 1872, p. 213.Google Scholar

44 AC I, 266. Acton observed that ‘The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people’: MS Acton Add. 4895. Also Fasnacht, , Acton's political philosophy, p. 78.Google Scholar

45 Dicey, , Law of the constitution, pp. 160–1, 135, 414 n. 1, 135.Google Scholar

45 Dicey, , Law of the constitution, pp. 192–8, 322–49.Google Scholar

47 Quoted in Dicey, Law of the constitution, p. 182Google Scholar, and 8th edn p. xxxvii. Woodrow Wilson, in his review of AC, remarked that Bryce's ‘conspicuous merit consists…in seeing that our politics are no explanation of our character, but that our character, rather, is the explanation of our polities’. Quoted in Robert Brooks, C. (ed.), Bryce's American Common-wealth: fiftieth anniversary (New York, 1939), pp. 182–3.Google Scholar

48 Maine, , Popular government, p. 248Google Scholar; Dicey, , Law of the constitution, p. 170.Google Scholar

49 New York Nation, 21 Jan. 1886, p. 53Google Scholar, and 20 Jan. 1898, p. 46; Dicey, , Law of the constitution, p. 169.Google Scholar

50 Stephens, , Life and Utters, II, 234Google Scholar; Letters of Matthew Arnold, 1848–88, ed. by Russell, George W. E. (2 vols., London, 1901), II, 258Google Scholar; Dicey to Bryce, 13 Dec. 1884, MS Bryce 2.

51 Cf. e.g. Max Beloff's contribution to A century of conflict, 1848–88, ed. by Gilbert, Martin (London, 1966), pp. 151–71Google Scholar, and Watt, D. C., Personalities and policies (London, 1965), pp. 19–52Google Scholar, who, in exploding the myth of the ‘special relationship’ recognize its potency. Both pay less attention to the more fundamental recognition of interests and values which have absorbed Anglo-American relations into the more conspicuous and lasting’ free world’ identity.