MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2094869125 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0202

English Public Opinion and the American Civil War (review)

2004· article· en· W2094869125 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Herman Hattaway

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Military History · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpanish Civil WarIronySurprisePublic opinionSecessionHistoryClassicsLawPolitical scienceSociologyLiteraturePoliticsArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: English Public Opinion and the American Civil War Herman Hattaway English Public Opinion and the American Civil War. By Duncan Andrew Campbell. Woodbridge, U.K., and Rochester, N.Y.: Boydell Press for The Royal Historical Society, 2003. ISBN 0-86193-263-3. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. vii, 266. $70.00. There is no military history here; nor, given the title, should one have expected any. The book is based on the author's "considerably revised" 1997 doctoral thesis at Cambridge University. England played quite a significant role, even if not as a participant, in the Civil War, because both sides—and especially the South—managed to purchase many materials (and particularly munitions) from various English companies. Although there were some outspoken advocates for aiding either side, the ultimate truth is that the mass of the English populace disliked both North and South. The irony there is that by the end of the war both North and South mutually despised England. Campbell is certainly a revisionist. He takes a much more complex walk through the evidence than any previous historian. Indeed, the crux of the work is that previous historians have missed the ultimate truths because they misread many of their sources. Campbell wants to probe "public discourse"—"in other words, what the British thought about the war, what they said about it and how they reacted to it" (p. 13). Southern secession surprised most Englishmen, but that surprise soon subsided. The British had some tendency at the outset to root for the Confederacy, because they disliked American institutions in principle; however, the vast mass of opinion in Britain never became truly pro-South. The British Proclamation of Neutrality, Campbell asserts, if anything favored the [End Page 1260] Union. The most important thing in this context is that "despite what historians have claimed, there was no concept of the Southern planters resembling English country gentlemen" (p. 49). Indeed, "Contrary to what has been so often asserted, beyond the confines of a small minority, Union or Confederate sympathy was rarely based on political or social grounds. . . . Nor did the aristocracy favor the Confederacy while the working class favored the Union. Both sides drew support from a cross-section of social and political groups. . . . English opinion was extremely varied and complex" (pp. 96-97). To be sure, the Trent Affair did grow into a major crisis, and it resulted in Britain sending troops into Canada, possibly for an invasion of the North. But the most widespread public opinion clung to that latter idea as "unnecessary" (p. 73). Assuredly "1862 was the year anti-Northern sentiment reached its peak in England (although it continued into 1863)" but animosities abated and "after the Trent affair, English observers tended to view the war as an event in which they would not become involved. There were, of course, exceptions" (pp. 94-95). The later chapters probe carefully the ongoing debates and just who favored which side. Campbell suggests that despite his having touched on them, two areas still require much more investigation, and these are regionalism and trade. The South's concept of King Cotton assuredly alienated many Englishmen; but it was not just that which alienated the English: most British citizens had become antislavery. Too, in their thinking, they pondered the concept of the United States having become two nations. Certainly it was not fear of Union might that induced Britain not to intervene. Lastly, then, we also "still need to know a great deal more" than we now do "about anti-slavery societies and each side's propaganda efforts" (p. 243). And finally, "there remains the question of reform and the American Civil War's impact upon it. Judging by English opinions on the war, its impact upon political reform in Britain was probably negligible" (p. 244). Herman Hattaway Emeritus, University of Missouri–Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri Copyright © 2004 Society for Military History

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,379
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,005
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Military HistoryMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207