MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094869125 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0202

English Public Opinion and the American Civil War (review)

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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarIronySurprisePublic opinionSecessionHistoryClassicsLawPolitical scienceSociologyLiteraturePoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from 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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Military HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207