MAGGI PICAYUNE

My first book from the Pflugerville Public Library! Visiting the place has been one of the good discoveries during my Summer journey. I’ve lived at my house for almost 14 years and never checked out the joint. During the initial trip I saw this book in their new arrivals section and it prompted me to get a library card to borrow this. I did alright, I managed to complete reading this in over two weeks; only had to renew once (I’m a very slow reader).

Quick background on the author: Dickey is a writer for the Daily Beast, a site from what I can see on the surface is trying to compete with Salon, Slate, Gawker and every other opinion portal. No idea which way it leans nor do I care, I was curious about Dickey’s take on how a British consul could be a secret agent.

Our Man covers events beginning in the early 1850s with the protagonist Charles Bunch being assigned consul to Charleston, SC. Before the rules (maybe laws/treaties) for ambassadors, consuls and other diplomatic staff were more formalized in the Twentieth Century, matters were incredibly ambiguous which is how I think Dickey gets his spy angle. What Bunch “gathered” was rather innocuous by today’s standards, aka overt intelligence: newspaper clippings, gossip, anecdotes and personal opinions, hardly espionage. In the 1800s, his activities would be viewed from rude to espionage since it’s outside of a standard consul’s loosely defined duties…take care of commercial matters your sponsoring government wants handled.

Upon arrival Bunch did have a huge job cut out for him.

1. The previous consul (an aristocrat) was hated and asked not to return.
2. The UK wants SC’s Negro Seaman Act amended to exclude Black UK citizens, namely their merchant sailors. Black crewmen from foreign vessels were imprisoned for the duration of the ship’s stay and upon release, the ship’s captain had to reimburse the state for “housing” the sailors.
3. He isn’t from an aristocratic family, thus there’s some institutional snobbery within the Foreign Office against him.
4. Bunch believes slavery immoral but he has to protect the UK’s commercial interests first; 80 percent of the cotton UK manufacturers use comes from the South. He is thoroughly English, he considers the Irish to be sub-human.
5. Charleston is nearly inhospitable during the late Spring to early Fall. Outbreaks of yellow fever kill hundreds every year.
6. Lastly, it’s the Nineteenth Century. People settle disputes more violently.

Dickey pieces together Bunch’s activities through letters, newspaper accounts and what is on record from all the involved governments. The focus isn’t exclusively on the consul, he brings up details of other events shaping the time, e.g. the US Navy’s interception of the British liner Trent, the 1860 election, the crown prince’s tour of America, slaves being brought to the Western hemisphere in violation of earlier treaties, etc.

The last event on the list is what Bunch deserves the most praise for gathering information about. Contrary to what History books say (or lie about in Texas), Africans being sold into slavery and transported to the Americas never truly ceased until the Civil War’s conclusion. Officially, the US agreed to no more new African-born slaves after 1807 with a 20-year “grace” period. By the 1850s, the majority of slaves in the US were supposed to be born and raised in the Americas. Any who originated from Africa were deceased or elderly. The UK had at least a squadron of warships off the West coast of Africa to enforce this. The US assisted but under pre-Lincoln administrations, our navy did a half-assed job. More often the American Navy protected any ship from being boarded and inspected if it was flying the stars and stripes; a common tactic used by slavers/smugglers. Why was the American government slacking to a treaty it signed? The six million enslaved Blacks in the US weren’t enough and/or they were too expensive to accommodate the country’s Westward expansion. This was a policy secretly promoted by the Southerners holding Federal posts.

Dickey’s conclusion is that Bunch’s work and evidence regarding Southern attitudes helped prevent the Confederacy from gaining any substantive aid from the UK and France. The average European citizen was against slavery. Most members of the UK and French parliaments were against slavery. There were outliers but more often they were slavery apologists for more mercenary reasons (Napoleon III, The Economist). So why was the UK government initially sympathetic to the Confederacy and its “peculiar institution”? Confederate-bias in some UK newspapers, people like to cheer for the underdog, fear of the US annexing Canada, the US blockade of the South was rather thin and Federal forces failing to secure an easy victory during the initial campaign of Bull Run/Manassas were on the Prime Minister’s mind. The author seems to lay significant blame at Secretary of State William Seward’s feet too; Seward is portrayed as volatile and inconsistent. Despite all these factors giving the Confederacy an opportunity to receive some legitimate recognition from the UK government collapsed. Whenever Confederate officials were confronted by the English about reopening the African slave trade, the South’s boilerplate response of “The (Confederacy’s) Constitution outlaws the importation of Africans” failed to appease the Brits. I think the UK saw through the Confederate wiggle room; the Confederacy won’t do this yet there’s no guarantee with the individual 11 states or citizens.

I recommend Charleston to Civil War buffs and history fans. To the casual reader, it can be a chore to read.