The Alexandra Affair

The Michigan Partisan

The Alexandra Affair:
How the South Defeated the North in England and Still Lost

By Page W. H. Brousseau IV

During the American Civil War, the South tried mercilessly to entice England and France to enter on her behalf. The Queen quickly declared her country's independence, even though she did not recognize the South, she stated that her country would view both North and South the same. While the North was blessed with money to increase production in its iron and ship works, the South was in the unenviable position of having to defend an immense sea coast against a great navy. The South's only hope remained in purchasing vessels in foreign counties to harass United States ships. The South dispatched Captain Bullock to England to acquire ships for the Southern Navy. While being extremely open, Captain Bullock and his associates contracted with shipbuilders to create ships for the South. It was a violation of the English Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 to build of ships for a nation at peace with England. The United States protested but Southern sympathizers within the English government sat on their hands while building was completed.

Two ships, the CSS Florida and CSS Alabama, managed to escape into the seas before the government acted. One ship was yet to be completed, the Alexandra, that according to the July 10, 1863 New York Times was to be renamed the CSS Alexandria. The Alexandra was seized, and five men were put on trial in June 1863 for violating the Foreign Enlistment Act.

One would think that with the past British indifference to the Foreign Enlistment Act, the Crown would present a weak effort, but according to the July 10 1863 New York Times, the Attorney General made a "forcible reply" for the Crown. The Lord Chief Baron asked if the Crown thought it was legal for a ship builder to build a ship that could be turned into a ship of war, for another power with which England was at peace. The Attorney General responded that the only thing it alleged, "is that the ship was built with the intention that it should enter the service of another Power at war with a Power with which" England was at peace.

The New York Times reported, "The learned counsel then adverted to the great national importance of observing strict neutrality between two belligerent States, with both of which this country was at peace, and it was one of the objects of the Foreign Enlistment Act to provide against the mischievous intermeddling of a subject with either of those belligerent States." According to the Crown, the purpose of the Foreign Enlistment Act was to deny warships to warring powers; in this case, both countries were at peace with England. Even though the Crown had yet to officially recognize the Confederate States of America, the Foreign Enlistment Act could apply to de facto governments.

The Attorney General then entered into evidence that Captain Bullock, "a Confederate agent," was, "often in the yard, giving directions as to the construction and equipment of the vessel." He then brought a witness that acted as a purchaser on the Alabama who admitted an agency existed between Captain Bullock and others in the Navy Confederate States of America. The Attorney General said this trial was not about the Alabama, but the Alabama left without armaments and was followed by the Bahama, which took Captains Semmes and Bullock to meet the Alabama at Nassau, where Captain Semmes assumed command. The Times said that the Attorney General "believed that, after the jury had been informed of all the circumstances, they would come to the reasonable conclusion that the Alexandra was intended to be used for a hostile purpose, and that the Crown was justified in seizing her."

Captain Englefield of the HMS Domestic was brought to the stand for the prosecution. He stated he had been inspecting the Alexandra since her seizure and also that she was a strong ship but, "certainly not one likely to be used for mercantile purposes." He added she was "quite capable of being converted into a man-of-war," but at the time he saw her, "she had no appearance as of fittings for guns." According to the captain, such fittings would be, "bolts in the side, and plates on which the pivot guns would run."

A Mr. Da Costa was called to the stand on June 23, 1863 and gave witness to the claim that the Alexandra was to follow the Alabama and the Florida. He said during his conversations with the ship builders he was told the Alexandra "was in unison with the Alabama and the Florida."

Defense attorney Sir H. Cairns addressed the jury on behalf of the defendants on June 24, 1863. He gave a dire warning to the jury that if a verdict for the Crown was returned it would, "paralyze the commerce of the country...hamper and drive ship-builders and their trade to another country, and...encourage spies." He further implied that the Crown was acting on behalf of the English Foreign Minister or United States diplomats. Undoubtedly that was true, the United States had been putting pressure on England since the start of the war to restrict Confederate access to English goods.

The Attorney General replied by saying, "The interest of a few persons in Liverpool were not to be consulted in preference to the good feeling which it was desirable should be maintained between this country and the United States." Then he denied, as The New York Times put it, that "[t]he Government had been in the slightest degree influenced or coerced," by US representatives.

The Lord Chief said all previous decisions indicated that a shipbuilder has as much right to build a ship and sell it to either of the belligerent parties as the maker of gunpowder or of muskets or any other warlike implements has to sell any of those articles to the same parties. The Attorney General responded by saying he did not deny the point but denied he was raising it.

The Lord Chief said in closing that the question was whether or not it was a liable seizure, since the Attorney General had conceded the point the Alexandra was not armed at the time of her seizure. During his closing comments to the jury, the Lord Chief expressed anguish at the Foreign Enlistment Act. He protested "against the doctrine that no man is to be convicted of any crime if there is any possible solution of the circumstances by an imagination of his innocence." After that, he went through a history of the Foreign Enlistment Act; he said since its passage in 1819, it has never been put to test in a court of law. However, in the United States it had come before a court, and then the Lord Chief read various comments from American legal followers on neutrality laws.

He continued by saying that under the Foreign Enlistment Act, ships are no different than munitions arms and gunpowder, all of which are not covered under the Foreign Enlistment Act. It was of his belief that the Foreign Enlistment Act was originated to prevent "His Majesty's subjects to serve in foreign armies, and to prevent the fitting out and equipping, in His Majesty's dominions, vessels for warlike purpose, without His Majesty's license." He ended with, "I shall put to you is whether you think that vessel was merely in course of building to be delivered in pursuance of a contract that was perfectly lawful, or whether there was any intention, in the port of Liverpool, or any other English port, that the vessel should be fitted out equipped, furnished and armed for purposes of aggression."

The Lord Chief compared the Alexandra to the Alabama. The Alabama was built for the Confederate States of America, and like the Alexandra, she was just a ship when she sailed out of English waters. The fact that she was outfitted and armed in Teccira in the Azores is of little consequence since it lies out of English waters, therefore, out of purview of the Foreign Enlistment Act. He ended with saying to the jury if they thought the ship was to be armed at Liverpool that was one thing, but if they thought, "the object really was to build a ship in obedience to an order in compliance with a contract, leaving those who bought it to make what use they thought fit of it, then it appears to me that the Foreign Enlistment Act has not been broken." It was already established the there was no intent to arm the Alexandra at the port of Liverpool, a fact the Crown agreed to, therefore it was not surprising that the jury immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.

The most surprising thing about this case may be the way the English papers handled it. Most applauded the verdict but wished for a more powerful Foreign Enlistment Act that would specifically prohibit ships like the Alexandra from being built in English ports.

Many excerpts from London papers were reprinted in the July, 10, 1863 New York Times. The June 25, London Star worried that unless the "astonishing decision be corrected," the Atlantic would be quickly "covered with Confederate privateers." The Star said it believed in the verdict of not guilty, but saw it only a matter of time before someone saw the Foreign Enlistment Act as irrelevant and openly violated it. The London Star wished that a higher court weigh in on this and that English harbors are not about "to become the licensed birthplace of war-ships preying upon the peaceful commerce of a friendly nation."

The reader can almost feel the sigh of relief from the writer of the June 25, London Times. If The Foreign Enlistment Act, The London Times wrote, had barred rifles and gunpowder instead of ships, the Confederates would have tried to purchase these items as well. If that were to happen the Crown would have to employ men to, "watch these questionable proceedings." They added, "Work of this kind is distasteful to very scrupulous men, and it follows that it will generally be carried on by persons of easy conscience and unenviable character." The men involved in the Alexandra affair acted in the open because the men did not rely "on their ignorance, but on the character of the transaction" while they conducted business. The London Times went on to say the Court was not disposed to "favor illegal privateering, but that a law against equipping privateers in this country must be a dead letter so long as they can be built here and equipped at sea or elsewhere." The reading of the law leaves the moral question of arming either side where it was before the case, and the importation into, "jurisprudence a new principle, which the Americans, of all nations, have the most reason to deprecate."

The June 25 London News asked its readers to imagine that England was at war with the North and peace with the South and Northern ports were blockaded by English ships. Then The London News asked, "With what temper would the merchants of Liverpool receive the intelligence that... (commerce)...was paralyzed by these Alabamas issuing from neutral ports? Would it be any satisfaction to be told that these Alabamas had no guns on board when they left the neutral harbor?" The London News wrote that the Foreign Enlistment Act was "nothing but a dead letter," and ended the article with this warning: "the duties of neutrality are reciprocal. One nation is not bound to it more than any other nation. And it may safely be predicted that on future occasions the Americans will not be loth (sic) to take advantage of so convenient a doctrine."

There was indeed outrage, though not surprise, in the United States over the verdict. The November 19, 1863 New York Times interpreted the verdict as meaning that an individual would be not guilty of violating the Foreign Enlistment Act unless he personally intended to use it.

During November 1863 the case was appealed and the verdict was upheld. The December 8, 1863 New York Times wrote that the entire case was decided by semantics. Sir H. Cairns attacked the "equipping, fitting out and arming," of vessels in the Foreign Enlistment Act. He claimed the Foreign Enlistment Act's only purpose was to stop England from being the point of departure of ships "equipped for aggression" against neutral countries. After consulting a dictionary, the Lord Chief said "equipping" meant "furnishing with arms" while "furnishing" meant "equipping." The New York Times was understandably enraged and wrote that it was now possible for the South to build an entire fleet in England then sail three miles out to arm her ships.

The final aspect about the trial the New York Times commented on was the lawyer for the defendants. He openly admitted they were evading the law, and since they were not violating the law, only the spirit of the law, his clients must be found not guilty. The Times reasonably concluded the Lord Chief should have acted on the comments by Sir Cairns. Leaving the issue open to whether someone can violate the spirit of the law and avoid punishment is a risky proposition.

When the Alexandra Affair was finally settled, the United States had compiled impressive battlefield victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. The result of the American Civil War was no longer in doubt; the only mystery was how long the South could hold out. The prospect of United States victory undoubtedly tempered English will to assist the South. The English government had to think of dealing with a post Civil War America and repairing diplomatic relations with the United States. The Alexandra Affair was a battle between the United States and the Confederate States, and like so many of the battles between the North and the South, the South won this one, and yet still lost the war.