Military Review

Russian-American relations during the Crimean War

22
4 / 16 October 1853. Turkey declared war on Russia. This war, which on the side of the Ottoman Empire later entered the United Kingdom, France and the Sardinian kingdom, was named the Crimean and became one of the most important events. stories XIX century.


Russian-American relations during the Crimean War


16 November 1933 The USSR and the United States established diplomatic relations, interrupting the 16-year period of mutual non-recognition, not at all characteristic of the Russian-American relations that were established 200 years ago.

What is common between these two memorable dates? Perhaps the fact that during the Crimean War, when Russia turned out to be, in fact, one-on-one with all of Europe, only the young overseas republic consistently pursued a foreign policy benevolent line for St. Petersburg.

From the moment of the war of the North American colonies for independence and up to the middle of the nineteenth century, Russia and the United States could be proud of extremely good and mutually beneficial relations. Of course, trade disputes and quarrels sometimes arose in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, but in general they did not spoil the overall picture. Of course, both Russians and Americans knew little about each other at that time, and the more remarkable was the position of the United States during the Crimean War.

25 January 1854 in Washington, died Russian envoy and Dean of the diplomatic corps A. A. Bodisko. Both houses of the US Congress, in deference to the memory of the deceased, interrupted their work for one day, which was an unprecedented act. The mourning ceremony was attended by the President of the United States [1]. In the conditions when the press of almost all of Europe scourged the “expansionism” of Russia, this was an impressive display of solidarity.

For St. Petersburg, US neutrality in the escalating war was preferable, as it promised the possibility of circumventing the Anglo-French naval blockade with the help of American trade fleet. The United States hastened to assure that it intended to pursue such a course. Moreover, accepting credentials from the new Russian envoy to Washington in March 1854, US President F. Pearce stated that “if events expand the field of struggle and the United States is forced to take part in it, then we can say with confidence that they will not speak on the side of the enemies of Russia ”[2].

Thus, from the very beginning of the Crimean War, American neutrality was markedly benevolent towards Russia. This trend was further strengthened after the entry of England and France in the end of March 1854 into the war. In addition to the traditional sympathies for Russia in the formation of the US foreign policy, equally traditional Anglo-American contradictions played a central role. The United States actively competed with London for influence in Latin America and in the struggle for leadership in maritime trade. Therefore, the strengthening of England was absolutely unprofitable for Washington. On the contrary, while Russia hampered the military potential of the “mistress of the seas," the Americans could seriously strengthen their positions in the Western Hemisphere. Back in March 1854, the American envoy in London, J. Buchanan, warned British Foreign Secretary Lord Clarendon that it might be necessary for the United States to become an ally of Russia.

From the very beginning of the “European phase” of the Crimean War, Russia and the United States took coordinated actions to ensure freedom of navigation. This step was beneficial to both parties: the United States was given the opportunity to press the war-occupied Great Britain in world trade, and Russia, under the conditions of a total Anglo-French naval blockade, could import the cargo it needed on American ships. 2 / 14 On April 1854, US Secretary of State W. Mercy suggested that Russia conclude an agreement providing, inter alia, the inviolability of the property of a belligerent under the protection of a neutral flag. Nicholas I immediately agreed with the US initiative, and already 10 / 22 in July 1854 in Washington on the basis of the Russian draft signed the relevant convention. 25 July was ratified by the Senate. Unusual for American lawmakers swiftness was rightly regarded by St. Petersburg as evidence of the “best locations” of the American administration. Later, both sides adopted special measures to encourage mutual trade. The close trade ties of the Russian possessions in North America with the United States kept the British from occupying virtually defenseless at the time of Alaska.

After the Anglo-French-Turkish expeditionary corps landed in the Crimea, Russophilism became fashionable not only in the White House and the Capitol, but it became generally accepted in the American press and public opinion in general. Many Americans, poorly versed in the ups and downs of European politics, nevertheless did not understand how England and France gathered to defend "weak" Turkey on Russian territory. The Washington Union, which was considered an official of the newspaper, was issued on May 24 on 1854 with a distinctive headline: “The war between Russia and Turkey. Our interests require that success comes first. The sympathies regarding the second are unjustified. ” Although the American newspapers did not have their own correspondents in Crimea and were forced to use mainly British sources, they, as a rule, were critical of the triumphant reports of the opponents of Russia and, on the contrary, described the heroism of the defenders of Sevastopol in enthusiastic and sympathetic tones. The opinion of the US media was fully shared by the American administration. The US envoy in St. Petersburg, Seymour, reported to the State Department in November 1854: “An impartial neutral nation is now barely able to find anything in the policies of the Western powers other than plans for political expansion” [3].

The defeats of the Russian army were perceived by American public opinion painfully. When representatives of the anti-Russian coalition tried to organize celebrations in San Francisco in honor of taking the southern part of Sevastopol, several thousand Americans staged a demonstration in front of the house of the Russian vice-consul. Californians gathered under the Russian and American flags declared: “Long live the Russians! Down with the Allies! ”

In the USA, they sincerely rejoiced at the success of the Russian weapons. When in August 1854, a small garrison of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky reflected the landing of the Anglo-French landing force, the captains of the ships in the same San Francisco decided to publicly demonstrate their solidarity with the defenders of Petropavlovsk. Together with representatives of the Russian-American Company (RAK), which ruled Alaska, they built a symbolic earthen fortress, on the walls of which, in honor of the Russian victory, the guns specially brought from Alaska were saluted. In the conditions of the Anglo-French blockade, the American ships supplied Petropavlovsk with gunpowder and foodstuffs.

Press reports about the plight of besieged Sevastopol caused a wave of solidarity in the United States. Russian diplomatic missions received many letters of sympathy, and money transfers were received. Americans proposed various inventions (for example, devices for lifting sunken ships from the bottom of the sea). Letters began to come in with a request for admission to the Russian military service. The Russian envoy had a clear instruction to politely reject such petitions so as not to jeopardize the neutrality of the United States in the Crimean War. Thus, one of the residents of Kentucky was denied, who offered to form and send to Sevastopol a whole detachment of 200 — 300 shooters [4].

On the other hand, British diplomats tried to recruit volunteers into the US army without hesitation. The American authorities have demonstrated unprecedented rigidity. It came to arrest and bringing to court the most active diplomats recruiters. In May, the British envoy Krampton had to go home to 1856. The exequatures of the British consuls in Philadelphia, Cincinnati and New York were recalled.

The Russian government, in turn, until the last days of the war, demonstrated an emphasized restraint, not trying to put together light military-political capital in the unconditionally favorable US public opinion. For example, Russia abandoned plans to use the American ships for the letter of marque against the English fleet in the Pacific, although this could cause major damage to British trade and communications. With its restraint, as Glass noted, the Russian government “provided evidence that we have respect for the laws of the Union, which was an obvious contrast ... with the policies of the British, who violate the laws of neutrality” [5].

During the Crimean War, the theater of military operations was visited by the authoritative military delegation of the USA, which, in particular, included the future commander of the army of northerners during the years of the Civil War 1861 — 1865 J. Maclellan. In Russia, the Americans were shown defenses, hospitals, military schools. In its report, the mission noted that “the example of Russia is a lesson worthy of our study and imitation”. The experience of the Crimean War allowed future warlords of the US Civil War to avoid many mistakes and save tens of thousands of human lives.

Perhaps the most touching symbol of the attitude of Americans towards Russia in those difficult years for our people was the participation of more than 40 young American doctors in the Crimean War on the side of Russia, and the motives of these people were completely disinterested. Overcoming huge distances and bureaucratic obstacles, American doctors treated the sick and wounded defenders of Sevastopol under a hail of enemy bullets and shells, often without sleep or rest. About a quarter of US doctors died from diseases. The Russian government highly appreciated the valor and dedication of citizens of a distant country. American participants in the defense of Sevastopol received the “Sevastopol Medal” on the St. George Order Ribbon and also the memorable Medal “On the three-year campaign” on the St. Andrew Order Ribbon. Several people were awarded the Order of St. Stanislav. Dr. Whitehead wrote that the “Sevastopol Medal” will serve as a proud memory that he “had the honor of assisting officers and soldiers who covered Russian weapons with glory and conquered the name of the immortal to Sevastopol” [6]. Dr. L. U. Reed from Pennsylvania, who served in the hospital in Simferopol, was especially proud of the high assessment of his work on the part of the famous Russian surgeon with a worldwide reputation NI Pirogov.

The American consul in the Principality of Moldavia (Galati) Negroponti, on his own initiative, volunteered to render the Russian army all possible assistance and supplied valuable information about the movements of the Turkish and Austrian troops. At the request of the commander of the Russian southern army, Prince M. D. Gorchakov, Negroponti was awarded the Order of St. Anne of the third degree.

The US government provided Russia during the Crimean War and other valuable services. For example, the commander of the American squadron, Commodore Salter, did not allow the British to seize the ship America, built in the United States by order of the Russian government, in the Rio de Janeiro area. At the same time, the US administration allowed Russia to sell several Russian ships, which the war found in the ports of the United States, which prevented them from being seized by the British fleet.

It should be emphasized that the Russian-American relations that had been consolidated during the years of the Crimean War already brought substantial diplomatic dividends not only to St. Petersburg, but also to Washington. Russian diplomacy helped American partners conclude a very profitable trade agreement with Persia for the United States. When a conflict situation between Denmark and the United States arose in 1855 (the Americans refused to pay the Danish government a fee for using the Sunda Strait), thanks to the skillful Russian mediation, the dispute was settled on favorable terms for the United States.

Assessing the state and prospects of Russian-American relations during the Crimean War, A. M. Gorchakov, who became Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire in 1856, wrote: “The sympathies of the American nation did not weaken for us throughout the war, and America rendered us directly or indirectly, more services than might be expected from a power with strict neutrality. Freed from obstacles arising from the necessity of mutual actions during a war, relations between the two countries cannot fail to become even stronger due to the absence of any envy or rivalry and due to common points of view and interests ”[7].

Gorchakov's thoughts turned out to be prophetic. Less than five years after the end of the Crimean War, the bloodiest conflict in the history of this state broke out in the United States: the Civil War between the North and the South. And here Russia has a hundred times repaid for the good attitude of the United States during the Crimean War. The benevolent neutrality of the Russian government, the visit of the squadron of the Russian fleet to the northerners kept England and France from interfering in the internecine struggle on the side of the South. Thus, the independence and territorial integrity of the United States was preserved.

Many historians still wonder: what is the reason for such good relations between such unlike countries as Russia and the United States? After all, these are the only great powers that have never fought each other. Apparently, the fact is that the Russians and Americans have always had a genuine interest in each other, trying to adopt the best aspects of the life of both peoples. No matter how different the political regimes of Russia and the United States were throughout their history, both countries have always tried to take into account each other’s legitimate interests. It seems that it is precisely in the awareness of this truth that the lesson for our peoples consists, which can be learned from the understanding of the jubilees mentioned at the beginning of this essay.


1 WUA RI, f. Office, 1854, d. 167, ll. 8 — 9, 12.
2 ibid., Ll. 90 — 91.
3 The National Archives, Record Group 59, Dispatches from United States Ministers to Russia, vol. 16. Seymour-Mercy, November 20 1854
4 WUA RI, f. Office, 1855, d. 227, l. 285.
5 ibid.
6 Cit. by: USA: economics, politics, ideology. - 1980. - No. 6. - S. 69.
7 WUA RI, f. Reports MFA, 1856 G., l. 179 — 179 rev.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/dip_vest.nsf/99b2ddc4f717c733c32567370042ee43/fdd4731b51f0405bc3256e06003bb3ac!OpenDocument
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sirocco
    Sirocco 20 August 2013 08: 21 New
    +9
    I am tormented by the question, when did a cat run between our countries? Everything is clear with the EU, just deja vu at the beginning of the article,
    This war, which Britain, France and the Sardinian Kingdom later joined on the side of the Ottoman Empire,
    more than 150 years have passed, and England, with the EU, still set fires in the south of Russia, only a former "friend" in the person of the United States added to them. And this friend is not such a friend, as they try to present to us in the article.
    1. Genera
      Genera 20 August 2013 09: 18 New
      +4
      Squirted however.
      1. unclevad
        unclevad 20 August 2013 13: 05 New
        +3
        That's what the amers remember a good attitude ... What would happen to the northerners if England and France got involved in the civil war? Now the American fleet is not striving for the coast of Crimea with the support of Russia.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 20 August 2013 21: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Sirocco
      England, with the EU still set fires in the south of Russia


      Even under Ivan IV the Terrible, these islanders considered the option of colonizing (de facto capturing) parts of Russia. And during the years of the Crimean War, the British in all seriousness wanted to achieve the collapse of the Russian Empire into several states. It was in London that congresses of revolutionaries were held, financing was provided and shelters for terrorist bandits were provided. During the Russo-Japanese War, the British did everything to prevent us from winning. In the most difficult period, revolutionaries and other treacherous trash sharply intensified. Similarly, history repeated itself at the end of World War I, when Russia saved the allies and it was time to pay - the unrest intensified sharply.
  2. Ruslandeth
    Ruslandeth 20 August 2013 09: 05 New
    +7
    I am tormented by the question, when did a cat run between our countries? Everything is clear with the EU, just deja vu, at the beginning of the article,


    The cat ran with the death of F.D. Roosevelt, with the filing of the enemy of our country - Churchill. It is no accident that the beginning of the war is associated precisely with his speech at Fulton.

    By the way, the FDR respected Stalin and the interests of the USSR in the post-war arrangement of Europe to ensure its security. I think, stretch the FDR a year before 1950, world history would go on a completely different path.
    1. Greyfox
      Greyfox 20 August 2013 09: 42 New
      +5
      Let me remind you of an earlier episode. During the Russo-Japanese War, the United States sided with Japan. In fact, Japan waged war on American loans (Roosevelt was also the president, only another)
      1. Ruslandeth
        Ruslandeth 20 August 2013 10: 44 New
        +7
        The USA did business in Japan and only

        when Japan defeated the squadrons near Tsushima and Stessel handed over Port Arthur, in order to prevent Japan’s strengthening in the Pacific Ocean excessively, they pushed them to peace talks.

        In general, in that war, time worked against the Japanese. If Nikolashka had a stronger egg, and then the “swamp” did not make a revolution, Japan would have exploded in a protracted war.
        1. Marat
          Marat 21 August 2013 11: 41 New
          0
          Most likely it would be a “draw”. Russia, even having won a victory on land, could not have opposed the Japanese at sea. Too much was lost at the beginning of the war. By the way, Japan had already approached Russia with proposals for peace two times before Tsushima.
  3. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 20 August 2013 09: 08 New
    +7
    The cat ran when the USA came to a simple thought about world domination, and Russia was always a bone in the throat of such initiatives. Openly, the United States began supporting our enemies from the beginning of the PJ, but even before that, bankers from the United States struggled to put stones into the wheels of the Russian government, so even Alex.3 tried to somehow agree with them through "third parties", and Alex3 in general it was hard to scare.
  4. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 20 August 2013 09: 14 New
    +5
    In addition to traditional sympathies for Russia, the formation of the US foreign policy line was dominated by the equally traditional Anglo-American contradictions. The US actively vied with London for influence in Latin America and in the struggle for leadership in maritime trade.

    Just a business and nothing personal. Today we need to establish a protectorate over Lat. America, the main competitor is England. The enemy of England is Russia, which means we are friends with Russia. The longer the war in Crimea lasts, the more forces and resources England invests there, and the less resources it has for Lat. America)))

    But honestly, a little even sad. Two great powers, no territorial claims, vast territories, hardworking peoples ... We would live and be friends ... Ehhhhh ....
    1. Ruslandeth
      Ruslandeth 20 August 2013 09: 18 New
      +3
      and I prefer Germany. sorry Nikolashka cousin threw his
  5. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 20 August 2013 10: 10 New
    +3
    I don’t understand why, after the loss of Crimea, they asked for peace? Well, the allies captured Crimea, what’s next, on other "fronts" it’s not even a fiasco, but a "mountain gave birth to a mouse", well, they would have retreated to Ukraine, what the allies could have done, it’s unlikely to go further, the Turks were defeated wherever possible, and the fleet lay at the bottom of the Sinope Bay, France didn’t need to defeat Russia, and there wasn’t any strength, besides Napoleon 3 amused his FAC and he needed nothing more, only the British could and we would like to continue, but the whole ground army in Crimea rotted and died of the plague, and the British themselves never fight, well, and the impoverished Sardinian kingdom, by mistake, finding themselves in the Crimea did not present any danger at all, well, Nikolai died of grief, so Alexander It was necessary to remove the troops from the Crimea and wait for the Allies to beg for mercy. But as for the Americans, as a whole in the 19th century they had quite normal relations with Russia until the Russo-Japanese war, mediocre fused by Nikolai-Rag, although here the Americans themselves to myself they provided a disservice if they didn’t see the danger in then Japan, and then it went off.
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 20 August 2013 15: 38 New
      +4
      in fact, the allies did not even capture Crimea, but only part of Sevastopol, its southern side, the Russian army remained on the northern side
      and in all other places: in the Baltic Sea, the White Sea, the Far East, the British got their teeth for children
    2. Su-9
      Su-9 20 August 2013 22: 35 New
      +1
      With all my desire for War to the End, the peace was concluded for completely prosaic economic reasons. The elite of the Russian Empire did not want to suffer losses associated with the war anymore, and the socio-economic component of the state demanded changes and the rejection of serfdom. Not my favorite quote, but see "Lenin on the Crimean War."
      But there were successes in the war, on the other oceans all attacks were repulsed, and in the Caucasus, the Turks lost Kars.
  6. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 20 August 2013 10: 44 New
    +6
    I am tormented by the question, when did a cat run between our countries?
    When the USA became a world power with colonial ambitions. hi
  7. Diviz
    Diviz 20 August 2013 10: 54 New
    +5
    our country is big .. everyone wants to wait a good moment to pick up his piece of cake.
  8. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 20 August 2013 10: 59 New
    +8
    Yes, they were never normal, the people who began their history with the genocide of the indigenous population and the conversion into slavery of other peoples cannot be normal.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 20 August 2013 11: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: tilovaykrisa
      the people who began their history with the genocide of the indigenous population and the enslavement of other peoples cannot be normal.
      The American nation was originally laid as a nation of liberators.

      Immediately after the discovery of America, they began to liberate Europe from the scum of society - criminals, murderers, scammers, fugitive convicts and other scum.

      Based on a new location, they found that the numerous bison grazing on the prairies pose a mortal threat to the local population - the Indians, and therefore quickly liberated the continent from these completely worthless animals.

      After this came the turn of the Indians themselves - they were released in special concentration camps - reservations.

      Looking around, the Americans saw that Africa was moaning from the yoke of blacks, and made a lot of efforts to free the Black Continent from them. Then there were all sorts of minor exemptions, such as Mexico from its two northern states and the like pranks.

      The biggest liberation happened in the middle of the 20th century. While the USSR fought bloody battles in Europe with fascism, the Americans struggled to free the uninhabited islands of the Pacific Ocean, and until then freed themselves to save the world from fascism. At the end of the war, they applied a new method of liberation in two peaceful Japanese cities, for which the Japanese are grateful to them to this day.

      After World War II, there were no longer outstanding liberation, except for attempts to liberate Korea, Vientama, and other small states.

      An attempt to liberate Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, the liberation of Grenada and Panama must also be added to the list of exemptions. In general, since 1945, the United States managed to bomb in 22 independent states.

      The most recent liberation attempts were made by Libya, probably with the aim of freeing its people from oil production ...
  9. Albert1988
    Albert1988 20 August 2013 11: 21 New
    +4
    The article is a big plus, but after reading it I became even more convinced that American politicians are completely unaware of the history of their country or do not want to learn from it — it’s clear that if you are on friendly terms with Russia, you can get much more than if you butted with her on all issues - it’s clear that if you put pressure on us, we will not yield. One can only hope that as the generation of shell-shocked hawks of the Cold War disappears, the policy will change for the better and relations will improve).
  10. pinecone
    pinecone 20 August 2013 16: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: Gomunkul
    I am tormented by the question, when did a cat run between our countries?
    When the USA became a world power with colonial ambitions. hi


    Relations began to deteriorate with the onset of mass emigration of Jews from the Russian Empire to the United States after the assassination of Emperor Alexander II by terrorists.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 20 August 2013 17: 51 New
      +1
      Hmm, an interesting hypothesis - I thought that relations began to deteriorate because Russia seriously took up the colonization of Manchuria and Korea during this period and began to be actively interested in the Pacific region ...
  11. goats denis
    goats denis 20 August 2013 20: 24 New
    -3
    We need to be friends with the United States, and then there will be abundance and democracy in the country. Everyone who is friends with America lives perfectly, and if we have an alliance, then we are doomed to become masters of the planet.
  12. Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 20 August 2013 21: 07 New
    +2
    Such a relationship with the North American United States would always be!

    It seems to me that the article needs to be continued. Why was friendship first, and then enmity ...

    Remember the openly anti-Russian position of the Yankees during the Russo-Japanese War.

    Maybe the "typewriter" is to blame for everything? I use the term introduced by Starikov in relation to the Federal Reserve System.

    Maybe all the troubles are from money and “money” bags, like Morgan, Rockefellers, etc. gangsters?