Peace Without Victory, 1861-1865, Author James M.

¶ … Peace without Victory, 1861-1865," author James M. McPherson discusses the American Civil War and the desire on both sides to achieve peace. Wars are far more easily begun than ended. The North was fighting in order to keep the Union together and to thwart further states from seceding. The South was fighting for what they believed to be their moral right: to govern according to their own ethics, including the right to own slaves. For the Civil War, the stakes were so high that neither side was willing to negotiate a peaceful conclusion until there was absolutely no recourse but to do so.

There were three stages of negotiation attempts during the Civil War. The first was foreign mediation, then unofficial contacts, and finally quasi-official conversations. From a foreign perspective, it was believed that the North had very little chance of restoring the United States of America into a single nation. Part of the reason that other countries, Great Britain in particular, chose to side with the South was because of economic interest. McPherson points to the fact that 75% of cotton in England was imported to Great Britain from the American South. France also believed that the "North could never reestablish control over 750,000 square miles of territory defended by a determined and courageous people" (4). Support then for the South from outside sources was the result of economic self-interest rather than the sincere desire to aid a political ally.

Great Britain, in the form of Prime Minister Palmerston and his foreign secretary Lord John Russell, allied itself with the Confederacy both economically and in terms of forces. They were also willing to conduct mediation between the North and South. These plans were biased in favor of the Confederacy and the North refused to allow for any consideration of peace that would not end the conflict with a reunited country. Secretary of State Seward made it known that there would be no way the North would agree to any kind of mediation which would allow for the Confederacy to remain intact. Additionally, the United States would break ties with any nation that recognized the South as an independent country. This was also a political maneuver because it forced nations interested in supporting the South to question what the ramifications would be should the South actually lose the war.

The interference from foreign nations in the Civil War made the battles more difficult for Union troops during the initial portion of the war. The Union made it evident that they did not appreciate the involvement of foreign nationals and could not be coerced by other countries into a compromise with the South which would allow them to remain autonomous. Seward's political ally and editor of the New York Times, Henry Raymond, wrote that "The war must go on until the Rebellion is conquered. There is no alternative…Our people will…never sell or betray their national birthright, and above all they will never consent, under any circumstances, that any foreign Power shall dictate the destiny or decide the fate of the Republic" (14). Seward was quoted as saying that the only way he would consider negotiations where the United States would lose territory was if France would agree to also give up land to an undeserving government.

As the war progressed and the Union made it evident that they had no intention of giving up their Southern territories, the use of propaganda became more prevalent. The Confederates tried to plant stories in newspapers that would insinuate to the American people that leader Abraham Lincoln was only interested in perpetual war and continued bloodshed. They tried to convince Northerners that their position was reasonable and the totalitarian president was trying to rob them of their right to sovereignty. This endeavor was not successful and those in the North reelected Lincoln and continued to have faith in his ability to bring an end to the bloodshed.

By 1864, Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation and made it clear that now the resolution of the war would not only end with a united Union, but also with the total abolishing of slavery in the United States. Writers like Horace Greeley who had once criticized Abraham Lincoln for not doing enough about the issue of slavery now criticized the man for making the abandonment of the practice one of the requirements for a peaceful conclusion to the Civil War. In rebuttal, Lincoln stated that more than 100,000 African-American men were fighting on behalf of the Union in this bloody war and deserved the rights of all men who risk life and limb for their country. Lincoln said: