KARL MARX
A PRO-AMERICAN MEETING
London,  January 1, 1862
The anti-war movement  is
gaining from day to day in energy and range amidst the
English people. Public meetings all over the country  are insisting on  a settlement of the dispute between England and
America by  arbitration. Memoranda to this effect are show ering on  the Head of the Cabinet, and the independent provincial press is almost unanimous  in its opposition  to the war
cry of the London  press.
A  detailed report of a meeting held last Monday  in
Brighton is given below. It was started by  the working  class
and the chief speakers, Mr. Conningham and Mr. White, are
influential Members  of Parliament, who  both  sit on  the government side of the House.
Mr. Wood (a worker) proposed  the first motion  in the following  manner:
“that the dissension between England and America had arisen out  of a
misinterpretation of the right of the people and not  from an intentional
insult against the British flag; that this meeting was thus of the opinion
that the whole controversial question  should be referred to a neutral
power  for an arbitrational verdict; that in the present situation a war
with America could not  be justified and, what is more,  would  earn the
condemnation of the English people.”
In support  of his proposal Mr. Wood  noted among  other
things:
“It has been said that this latest insult is merely the last link in
a chain of insults which America has offered England. Assuming  that
this were true, what justification would  it offer for the war cry at the

present moment?  It would  merely prove  that as long  as America were
united and strong,  we  would  calmly take its insults. But  now  in its hour
of danger we  would  make use of this propitious  situation to avenge the
insult. Would  such behaviour not  brand us  as cowards in the eyes of the
civilised world? ”
Mr. Conningham now  spoke:
. .At this moment  a pronounced policy of emancipation is developing
in the heart of the Union  itself (applause) and I pronounce  the most
earnest hope that no  intervention on  the part of the English Govern ment  will be permitted. (Applause.)... You,  Englishmen who  were born
free, do you  wish  to allow yourselves to be involved in an anti-republican war? For  this is the intention of the Times and the party which
stands behind it.... I appeal to the workers  of England, who  have the
greatest interest in the preservation of peace, to raise their voices and,
if necessary, their hands to prevent such a serious crime. (Loud applause.)... The Times has used every means available to incite the bellicose spirit of the country  and by  means of bitter derision and invective
to breed a hostile frame of mind among  the Americans.... I do not
belong  to the so-called Peace Party. The Times favours Russia’s policy
and (in 1853) summoned  up  all her powers  to mislead our  country  into
calmly looking on  at the military encroachments of Russian barbarism in
the East. I was one of those who  raised their voices against this incorrect policy. At  the time of the bringing  in of the Conspiracy Bill, which
was to make the extradition of political refugees easier, the Times, it
appeared, would  go  to any lengths to push  this Bill through  the House.
I belonged to the ninety-nine members  of the House  who  withstood this
encroachment upon  the freedom of the English nation and overthrew
the minister. (Applause.) This minister is now  at the head of the Cabinet.
I prophesy  for him that should he seek to involve our  land in a war
with America without  good  and sufficient reasons, his plan will suffer
ignominious  failure. I promise  him a new  humiliating defeat, a greater
defeat than the one that fell to his lot on  the occasion of the Conspiracy
Bill. (Loud applause.)... I do not  know  the contents of the official com munication which has been sent to Washington; but  the opinion  prevails that the lawyers for the Crown  have recommended that the Govern ment  take up  the very narrow legal position that the envoys  from the
South  may not  be arrested without  the ship which is carrying them. This
would  mean that the extradition of Slidell and Mason  should be
demanded as a conditio sine qua non.
“Let us  suppose  that the nation on  the other side of the Atlantic
Ocean does not  allow its Government  this extradition. Do  you  want to
be drawn into a war for the sake of the bodies of these two  messengers
of the slave-dealers?... In this country  there exists a party in favour
of war against the republic. Call to mind the last Russian war. Through
the publication in St. Petersburg of secret dispatches it became clear
beyond  the slightest possibility of doubt  that the articles published by  the
Times in 1853 were written by  a person  who  had access to the secret
papers and documents of the Russian state. At that time Mr. Layard
21*

read out  the striking parts in the House  of Commons,  and the Times in
its consternation immediately altered its tone and the next morning  was
blowing  the trumpet  of war.... The Times has repeatedly attacked the
Emperor  Napoleon  and supported our  Government  in its demand for
unlimited credits for land fortification and floating batteries. After the
Times has done this and raised the alarm against France, does it want
us  to expose our  coasts to the French Emperor  by  involving  our  country
in a transatlantic war. ... It is to be feared that the present massive
war preparations not  only  have nothing  to do with the Trent incident
but  are being mounted  for the eventuality of the Government ’s recognising the slave states. If England does this, she will cover herself with an
eternal shame.”
Mr. White-.
‘‘The observation must  be made that the working  class is responsible
for the holding of this meeting and that all the costs of organisation
will be borne  by  its committee. . . . The present government  never had
the discretion to deal with the people honestly and truthfully.... I have
never for a moment  believed in the remotest possibility that a war could
develop from the Trent incident. I have told more  than one member  of
the government  to his face that not  a single member  of the government
believes in the possibility of a war on  account of the Trent incident.
Then why  these mighty  preparations? I believe that England and France
have come to an agreement to recognise the independence of the Southern
States next spring. By  that time Great Britain will have an overwhelm ing fleet in American waters. Canada will be completely armed for
defence. Then should the states of the North  feel inclined to make a
casus belli out  of the recognition of the states of the South,  Great Britain
will be prepared. . ..”
The speaker then proceeded to expand on  the dangers of
a war with the United States. He  called to mind the sym pathy which America had shown  on  the death of General
Havelock and the help which American sailors had given to
English ships during the unfortunate fighting in Peiho,171 etc.
He  concluded with the remark that the Civil War would  end
with the abolition of slavery, and that England should therefore unquestioningly  stand on  the side of the North.
After the original motion  had been passed unanimously,
a memorandum  from the meeting to Palmerston was submit ted, debated and accepted.
on  January 1, 1862
Published in Die Presse No.  5, Translated from the German
January 5, 1862