Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Carson Daily Appeal
Editorial June 13, 1869

The Carson Daily Appeal

Carson City, Ormsby County, Carson City County, Nevada

What is this article about?

Editorial dismisses Sir Francis Head's London Times articles attempting to counter US Alabama claims by citing US involvement in the 1837 Canadian rebellion as irrelevant 'pettifoggery.' It argues Britain admitted aiding the Confederacy's Alabama cruiser, violating neutrality, unlike the resolved Caroline affair.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

JOHN BULL'S OFFSET.

Says an Eastern exchange:

Sir Francis Head, late Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, publishes in the London Times a large batch of historical documents relative to the Canadian rebellion of 1837, by which he endeavors to prove that the United States was as culpable in aiding the revolters as England in her treatment of this country during the late rebellion. Mr. Sumner's Alabama claims will form the subject of a third concluding letter from Sir Francis to the Times.

This is simply pettifoggery. It is like a man's pleading the value of court ship presents as an offset for damages for breach of promise. The Canada Rebellion is outlawed. It has no more legitimate place in the present controversy than the Madawaska war. England has admitted her case away, already. She has made no denial of the fact that the Confederate cruiser, the Alabama, was built in an English ship yard, equipped with English guns and manned by English sailors. Uncle Sam denied at the time of the Caroline affair that he was in any way responsible for it; and Great Britain abandoned the attempt to make our Government amenable for the assistance which reached the Canadian patriots from our borders. None of our claims against England are based upon a sense of injury coming from the fact that there were numbers of English subjects engaged as officers and men in the rebel ranks. Our cause of complaint is that England furnished the Confederates with a navy to prey upon and destroy our commerce.

The fact has been admitted; for it is simply useless to deny it. Then comes Mr. Laird who built the Alabama and says boldly that not only did he build her but that he violated no law in so doing. He claims that he did his work openly and that nothing was done by the British Government to prevent his operations. We all know England's animus well enough. Mr. Roebuck confessed that. Our power was becoming alarmingly great; and it was England's policy to encourage the division between the different parts of a divided Union.

Were the United States a less powerful nation John Bull would, if he replied at all to our protests, respond: "Of course I helped the Confederates to ships and arms and sailors; what are you sir, pray, going to do about it?" That was John's tone when he used to stop Yankee ships and press their sailors. That was his gait toward China. But we have got him this time in chancery and he tries to save himself by shifts and word quibbles—hence the appearance of Sir Francis Head upon the stage.

What sub-type of article is it?

Foreign Affairs War Or Peace

What keywords are associated?

Alabama Claims Canadian Rebellion British Neutrality Confederate Cruiser Sir Francis Head

What entities or persons were involved?

Sir Francis Head Mr. Sumner Mr. Laird Mr. Roebuck England United States John Bull Uncle Sam

Editorial Details

Primary Topic

British Attempt To Offset Alabama Claims With Canadian Rebellion History

Stance / Tone

Strongly Pro Us, Dismissive Of British Arguments As Pettifoggery

Key Figures

Sir Francis Head Mr. Sumner Mr. Laird Mr. Roebuck England United States John Bull Uncle Sam

Key Arguments

Canadian Rebellion Of 1837 Is Irrelevant And 'Outlawed' In Current Controversy England Admitted Building And Equipping The Alabama For Confederates Britain Violated Neutrality By Aiding Confederate Navy To Destroy Us Commerce Unlike Resolved Caroline Affair, Alabama Claims Are Valid And Admitted England's Policy Was To Weaken Growing Us Power By Supporting Union Division

Are you sure?