KARL MARX
THE MOOD AGAINST INTERVENTION
London,  January 31, 1862
Liverpool derives its commer cial greatness from the slave trade. The only  contributions
with which Liverpool has enriched England’s poetry are
odes in praise of the slave trade. Fifty years ago Wilberforce
could only  set foot in Liverpool at the risk of his life. Like
the slave trade in the past century, so  in this century trade
in cotton, produced by  slaves, has formed the material basis
of Liverpool ’s greatness. No  wonder, therefore, that Liverpool  is the centre of the British secession supporters. It is
indeed the only city in the United Kingdom  where it was
possible during the last crisis to create a quasi-public meeting in favour of a war against the United States. And  what
does Liverpool say now?  Let us  look at one of its big daily
papers— the Daily Post.™
An  editorial entitled “The Cute  Yankee” says among  other
things:
“The Yankees have, with their usual adroitness, turned an apparent
loss into a real gain and have used England to their advantage....
Great Britain has really displayed her might, but  to what purpose?  Since
the foundation of the United States the Yankees have always claimed
the privilege for a neutral flag that passengers sailing under it are
protected against all interference and attack from belligerents. We  resolutely contested that privilege during the anti-jacobin war, the Anglo-
American war of 1812-14 and but  recently in 1842, during the negotiations between Lord Ashburton  and Secretary of State, Daniel Webster.
Now  our  opposition  must  cease. The Yankee principle is virtually
recognised. Mr. Seward records this fact, saying that we  yield on  princip
le and that by  means of the Trent affair the United States is obtaining
a concession from us  for the attainment of which they had up  to now
exhausted all diplomatic and military means in vain.”
More  important still is the admission of the Daily Post
about the change of public opinion  in Liverpool  itself.
“The Confederates,” it says, “have certainly done nothing  to diminish
the good  opinion  entertained of them— quite the contrary. They have
fought manfully and made dreadful sacrifices; even if they do not  obtain
independence it is competent for anyone to think that they deserve it.
Public opinion,  however,  has now  ran counter to their claims. They are
no  longer the fine fellows they were four weeks ago. They are now  pro nounced a very sorry  set. ... Reaction has indeed commenced. The antislavery people, who  shrank into their shoes in the presence of popular
excitement, now  come forth to thunder big words  against man-selling
and rebellious slave-owners!. . . Are not  even the walls of our  town  posted
with big placards full of denunciations and angry invectives against
Messrs. Mason  and Slidell, the authors of the accursed Fugitive Slave
Law?... The Confederates have lost by  the Trent affair. It was to be
their gain, it has been their ruin. The sympathy  of this country  has been
withdrawn from them, and they will have to realise as soon  as possible
their peculiar situation. They have been very ill used, but  there will be
no  redress.”
This admission of the pro-secessionist Liverpool daily
clearly explains the new  language some  of Palmerston’s
influential organs have suddenly begun  to use before the
opening  of Parliament. Thus, the Economist printed on
Saturday last an article under the heading “Shall the Blockade be Respected?”
It proceeds initially from the axiom that the blockade is
only  a paper blockade and that its violation is therefore permissible under international law. France is said to be
demanding it be lifted by  force. The decision therefore practically rests with England, which has important and urgent
motives for undertaking such a step. Namely, she needs
American cotton. Let it be noted in passing that it is not
quite clear how  “only  a paper blockade” can impede the
shipment  of cotton.
“Yet,” the Economist appeals, “England must respect the
blockade.” After listing a number  of reasons that would
motivate this view  it finally comes to the heart of the matter.
“In that case,” it says, “the Government  would  have to have the
whole country  behind it. But  the great body  of the English people are

not  yet prepared for any interposition which would  even have the
semblance of aiding the establishment of a Slave Republic. The social
system  of the Confederate States is based on  slavery: the Federalists
have done what they could to persuade us  that slavery lay at the root  of
secession movement,  that they were hostile to slavery— and slavery is
our  especial horror  and detestation. . .. The real error of popular sentiment  is here. The dissolution, not  the restoration of the Union,  independence, not  the defeat of the South,  is the only  sure way to achieve the
emancipation of the slaves. We  hope  to make this clear to our  readers on
some  future occasion. But  it is not clear yet. The majority of Englishmen
still think otherwise. As  long  as they persist in this prejudice, any intervention on  the part of our  Government,  which should place us  in a
condition of actual opposition  to the North,  and inferential alliance with
the South,  would  scarcely be supported by  the hearty co-operation of
the British nation.”
In other words: an attempt at such intervention would
bring  down  the government,  and this explains also why  the
Times speaks out  so  firmly against all intervention and for
England’s neutrality.
on  January 31, 1862
Published in Die Presse Translated from the German
No.  34, February 4, 1862