Reviewed by: Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations Duncan Andrew Campbell (bio) Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations. By Howard Jones. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010. Pp. 416. Cloth, $30.00.) In many respects this volume is at once a compressed, expanded, and updated version of Howard Jones's two earlier studies, Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (1992) and Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War (1999). Jones is indisputably a major scholar of the international dimensions of the American Civil War, and this work, a combination of synthesis and scholarly monograph, is an important addition to the subject. Concentrating particularly on 1861–63, Jones considers the interaction of personalities and politics as the North attempted to prevent foreign intervention in the Civil War even as the South sought it. Looking most closely at the interplay among the Union, the Confederacy, Britain, France, and Russia, this primarily diplomatic history seeks to explain why the North was essentially left alone to use its overwhelming material and manpower advantage to crush the South. Arguing that foreign intervention was always a distinct possibility, Jones for the most part credits the Union's diplomatic efforts to keep the Civil War precisely that—a civil war. Given the justified superlatives this work has received elsewhere and that Jones's reputation is far above the poor power of this reviewer to add to or detract from it, the criticisms are a reminder of the difficulties inherent in comprehensively accounting for the motives and interactions of multiple nations in international events. In terms of potential British involvement in the Civil War, despite many ingenious arguments, Jones fails to provide much persuasive evidence that Lord Palmerston's ministry ever came close to intervening [End Page 277] militarily—the Trent affair notwithstanding. At most, the British government came close to offering mediation. This, however, would not likely have led to a conflict that both the Union and Britain were determined to avoid. Nor would intervention have been in tune with the general tenor of British foreign policy. The American conflict was one of numerous wars of independence, secession, and unification from 1845 to 1870, and the British avoided becoming embroiled in all of them. This includes the Polish rebellion, in which involvement offered more benefits (and would have been more popular) than intervention in the Civil War. Finally, this reviewer continues to believe that Jones underestimates Palmerston's role in thwarting Lord John Russell's and William Ewart Gladstone's desire for intervention. What would have happened had Gladstone or Russell been the prime minister instead? Gladstone eventually became prime minister, while Russell had already held the position and would soon do so again. In some respects, the Union was as lucky to have Palmerston as prime minister as it was to have Lincoln as president. Similarly, the discussion of relations among the other powers is not of the same high quality as the account of the goals and ambitions of the Union and the Confederacy. For example, Anglo-Russian relations were almost exclusively determined by their imperial rivalry in Asia—the so-called Great Game—something not properly discussed here. Likewise, no mention is made of British fears of a potential French invasion, which resulted in the volunteer movement in 1859. There was no entente cordiale in the 1860s, but rather more of a cold war between Britain and France. Nor is any mention made of how Louis Napoleon's options in North America were limited by his military involvement in the Indochina peninsula in 1862–67 (in some ways, the Vietnam War was Napoleon III's posthumous revenge on the United States). Oddest of all, there is little discussion of either the Polish rebellion of 1863–65 or the Prussian-Danish War in 1864, both of which attracted significant attention away from events in America. Despite Jones's commendable amount of research, there are a significant number of gaps in the bibliography. Dated works such as Herbert Bell's 1936 work on Palmerston...