No, the typhoid was caused by the ancient drains at Windsor Castle: his resistance was very low due to the intense effort he had been putting in persuading the two governments to avoid war.
A successful effort, but not one I would give my life for. Still, he was always a hard worker. And at least death relieved him ( and Lincoln later ) from having to chat with Seward any more.
Almost worth it.
His wife blamed their son’s wildness ( Albert, later Edward VII ) for Albert’s death; but that’s mothers for you.
They might have wanted the US to split up. Would they necessarily have been in favor of a group that wanted to split it up to protect the institution of slavery? The UK had abolished slavery by then. They were intercepting slave ships off the coast of Africa, and said that they considered slave trading to be similar to piracy. They may have had something to do with deposing African leaders who refused to enter into anti-slavery agreements with them. Slavery was clearly on its way out, internationally. In the 1860s, David Livingstone was reporting atrocities by slave traders in East Africa, and catching the interest of the British public. I’m not sure how well support for the slaveholding Confederacy would have gone over at home or internationally.
Lincoln’s declaration of emancipation, however inadequate as far as reach, has been historically regarded as the final blocking-stone towards any faint impulses to recognising the Confederacy in Britain. There is no way the British would fight for slavery, which is now what the war had openly become.
Had Davis et al immediately anticipated their own later impulse to promise an end to slavery, something might have been retrieved, but the Confederate leaders were not noted for quick wits. Flowery speeches that lasted half an hour, yes, they were your men; speedy ruthless action — the ditching of baggage, not so much.
Oddly, whilst slavery was an immutable barrier to the British, it was not necessarily to the French — who were the big dogs in Europe then — and Louis-Napoleon, although he had slid out of making commitments as only he could do so well, was well-disposed to the Confederacy: but not being a complete fool he could support neither whilst both North and South were disposed to peace talks in 1865 that were on the basis of: ‘We join together and attack the French’, time-honoured in Europe as that principle was.
Even before that, it’s not like it was some big secret that the Confederacy was more pro-slavery than the Union. There were clauses in the Confederate Constitution protecting slavery. Some states explicitly mentioned slavery in their declarations of secession.
Obviously. But there’s a difference in being friendly to a slave-using separatist movement that harms one’s rival, when that rival itself is instituted upon and profits from slavery; and supporting that slave-using separatist movement when the rival has declared to destroy slavery.
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
Article One, Section II: …which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
Article One, Section IX: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=US Constitution]
Article Four, Section II: No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.
[/QUOTE]
Not only had the Supreme Court declared slavery to be Constitutional. but they affirmed Congress had no power to prohibit slavery, Dred Scott v Sandford. It was Lincoln’s excellent use of his War Powers as effective dictator that made it legal to eliminate slave-holding.
Dred Scott was a terrible decision. And I’m not just talking in a moral sense. Taney’s argument had no basis in law.
Taney, for example, said that Scott could not file a lawsuit because he was not a citizen. Taney based this on the argument Scott was black and that no state had ever recognized a black person as a citizen. This was factually not true - there was ample evidence that some states had recognized black people as citizens.
The Constitution also explicitly said that Congress had the power to enact laws in the territories. Taney simply declared that this wasn’t true and Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory. Taney was inventing a right to own slaves which did not exist in the Constitution.
Taney ruled that any law that Congress had enacted that prohibited slavery was unconstitutional and was therefore repealed. This may not seem to be too big a deal now but the Supreme Court had never overturned a law prior to Dred Scott. Marbury v Madison had declared the court had the power to repeal laws but it had never actually used it before.
Taney also ignored legal precedent. The decision in Marie Louise v. Marot (1836) had already settled the legal question by ruling that a slave who was brought into free territory became free and did not revert back to slavery if he re-entered slave territory. Taney referred to a number of other past decisions in his ruling but never mentioned Marie Louise.
Justices who dissented with Taney noted that he had ruled that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction in the case - and then gone on to issue a ruling on the case. This was an obvious legal contradiction.
Let me suggest that beyond the whole question of aligning itself with a slave state, the over-extension of British power, and distractions in Europe, Britain was not about to do any thing overt to support the Southern Confederacy until the South demonstrated its viability as an independent nation by inflicting a decisive military defeat on the Union, of the likes of Saratoga in the American Revolution. That hadn’t happened. While the South had won some remarkable victories, especially in the East, it hadn’t managed to destroy a substantial Northern force or rendered one of its theater armies inoperative. That did not stop Britain from doing all sorts of covert stuff, like turning a blind eye on the building, arming and crewing of the Alabama and shipping small arms and large arms, ammunition, clothing and other war supplies, albeit for hard money, through Bermuda.
The Thomas Armstrong book deals with this by having the hero’s ( a poorish young cotton clerk, devoted to abolition over in the USA ) having a religious nut as cousin and enemy who buys up goods to export to the CSA. More from avarice than doctrine.
Also he’s a rapist.
Why was Britain over-extended, though? I guess the aftermath of the Sepoy Rebellion was tying down troops, but Britain was never going to send an army anyway. Europe was at peace and Britain was arguably at or near the zenith of its power. I don’t think it was lack of ability that kept them from taking sides more actively.
Congress has the power to legislate with respect to the territories but it was still subject to the Bill of Rights, which protected every citizen from being deprived of their property without due process of law.
[QUOTE=Fifth Amendment]
… nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[/QUOTE]
Since slaves were property, the slave-owner’s right to that property was protected by the Constitution. Congress could not deprive them of their property. It could say that slavery was not permitted under the laws of the territories, but it could not deprive US citizens who came to the territories of their property.
Morally, it’s reprehensible, but I wouldn’t say it’s lacking any foundation in law.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court found that s. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it purported to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, giving litigants the power to apply directly to the Supreme Court for orders of mandamus. Chief Justice Marshall found that that statutory grant of original jurisdiction was contrary to the exhaustive definition of the Court’s original jurisdiction, defined by Article III, s. 2, cl. 2 of the Constitution. Having found that the statutory grant of jurisdiction was unconstitutional, he dismissed Marbury’s application for mandamus to compel Secretary of State Madison to deliver his judicial patent, as the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.
Marie Louise v Marot was a decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Since it was a state court decision, it was not binding on the Supreme Court of the United States and Taney was under no obligation to refer to it.
Again, not saying that it was a good decision, and it was morally reprehensible, but I don’t think the criticisms are as cut and dried as you suggest.
Some Americans, in the government and private citizens, argured after the Civil War that Britain should cede Canada or other parts of British North America to the US as compensation for the Alabama claims. Obviously, this did not happen, but it was in the air.
As well, one of the reasons for Canadian Confederation in 1867was a concern that the Union Army, the strongest army in the world at the end of the Civil War, might be marched north to annex Canada. Union of the Canadas with the Maritimes was seen as a defensive measure to aid in rebuffing any such attempt, under the umbrella of the British imperial forces.
Getting back to the Marie Louise case, the issue there was not whether a slave became free on being transported to another American territory. It was whether a slave became free on being transported to France, where all slavery was prohibited. The Louisiana court ruled that under French law, she became free upon setting foot in France.
That is quite different from saying that Congress can deprive an individual of their property when the individual moves into a federal territory.