historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

interestedamateur RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:05:51 PM

Putting the question of capabilty to one side, I'm glad the UK didn't interfere in the ACW. Slavery is a terrible thing, and it would have been totally ignoble to have done anything to support it.

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:36:56 PM

The British working class was strongly opposed to slavery, and even though for some of them it was against their economic interest they opposed recognition of the Confederacy. Also, the Richard Cobden "Little Englander" faction in Britain was opposed to foreign adventures. There were some close calls, The Trent Affair in 1862, but I don't think either side wanted a conflict.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:57:38 PM

I seem to remember that another close call was the Alabama incident, for which we paid you some compensation in the first ever case of international arbitration. I know a lot of the fighting was brutal, but a lot of good came out of the ACW. Do most Americans view it as a moral war? p.s I take your point about your Ironclads and the blockade by the way.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 4:09:22 PM

Trust me, Ferguson is an idiot. Period. One lovely argument I picked up from our late Gixxerking was: "They are the people who believe that the Soviets would have succeeded if they had tried harder" The same logic holds true for Mr Ferguson and his kind: "They are the kind of people who believe the Brits could have succeeded in an eternal empire if they had tried harder".

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 4:26:37 PM

The vast majority of the American people believe the Civil War to be just. Now, that changes a little bit when you get South of the Mason Dixon Line. Feelings can be a little sore about the whole thing, even after one hundred and forty years. However, the Civil War was one of the formative events in the history of the U.S., and the touchstone of modern America. It was a conflict that was destined from the moment all thirteen States ratified the Constitution. It was horrible in ways that your people only discovered during the Great War, and its effects were possibly even farther reaching. Fundamentally, it was a war for the soul of America. I believe that one of the ramifications of the Civil War, is that we Americans tend to view politics, and therefore, war through the lense morality, which both exasperates and infuriates other peoples. Unfortunately, despite all this, I'm sad to say most Americans don't consider the Civil War much at all, anymore. My generation (b. 1975) and those younger are a product of a deeply flawed educational system that values issues like "gender equality" more than history. Sorry for the rant. My $.002 turned into $1.50. Cato

Quote Reply

Cato RE:Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 4:36:25 PM

Well, Brother Perigrine, you and I are just gonna have to disagree. Cool, its America. If you've got a few minutes to spare, check this out. Ferguson addresses the very issue you proffer. link Good stuff, good stuff... Cato

Quote Reply

dummnutzer Trent 6/9/2005 4:53:48 PM

The Brits might have been pulled in accidentally, e.g. the Trent affair seems to have been a close call. At this time, injured national pride could have led to armed intervention. Once the shooting starts ... The wooden-hulled RN easily scatters the wooden-hulled USN. So the RN rules the seas in 1861/62. The Anaconda-strategy is dead, the North is being blockaded. Monitor was build later in the war against serious internal resitance. If the US fights long enough to build ironclads, they will have to face HMS Warrior and its sister ships of an accelerated British war production. The South, given generous credit, goes on a shopping tour in Europe. Look at the battles of 1861/1862. Now equip the South with Krupp cannons and Chassepot rifles, using a massive supply of ammunition, shoes and foodstuff. A lot of military set-backs for the Union. Bloody set-backs. The Northern military leadership at this time was less than impressive and tended to absurdly overestimate the South fighting alone IRL, but now it sees Anglo-French invasion armies anywhere. Panic. Retreat. Chaos. The public opinion in the Northern states was quite divided IRL, remember there was a serious movement to secede in NY. There are two possible psychological reactions to an Anglo-French intervention, a surge of nationalism, or a movement for compromise. Looking at the strength of the anti-Lincoln movement in the North, esp. at times of military failure, I do not see the will to force a well-equipped and well-led South back into the union while suffering British raids and a naval blockade. So the US should be very grateful to Prince Albert for restraining Vicky, he might have saved the US. As Bismarck said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America."

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 5:33:02 PM

I checked the link, and it gives an event announcement to a Ferguson vs. Kagan debate in 2003. {I sure hope Kagan showed him the error of his ways... but he seems to be a kind man, letting Bush get away with it at Yale} I have also read Colosus, in which Ferguson makes the argument he would have debated in the said link. Apart from dozens of trivial inaccuracies which plague the book and damage his reputations as a serious historian, it still contains the logic flaw I pointed to. Being an Indian its very easy to get pissed off at anyone who white-washes British involvement there... but I usually forgive old British academics like Mason, Gilbert or Lawrence: for them India WAS slightly better off under the Brits than it was independentally in their period of writing. However when a young historian like Ferguson makes the same argument sitting in the United States, and supposedly watching the rise of Asia's two new super-powers China and India... its plain disgusting!!! Thats just the past; I am willing to let the bygones be bygones, but not necessarily forget them. The greater disservice he does to the United States, where he is an instructor at NYU, is that he promotes a supposed "Liberal Empire"!!! Many friends told me the $40,000 a year was a waste at NYU, but scarcely did I realize how dangeous that wate was.... .... Cato, you of all people should know that there is no such thing as a "Liberal Empire"... Both as as sure killers of Republic as corruption. Liberalism kill the mind, Empires kills the body and corruption destroys the soul of every Republic in the history.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 6:14:12 PM

Senor Pike, Believe me, no whitewashing intended. I think Amritsar shows the price of empire clearly. Simply because I admire Republican Rome, does not mean I believe Cartago Delenda Est was correct. However, things are rarely black and white. Without Clive and Plessy, there would there be "India". What is the alternative? I did not care for Colossus, myself, but Empire made a cogent point:there are places in the world that are broken and need to be fixed. If you disagree that Iraq fits that characterization, O.K. How about Afghanistan? Without the U.S. (and friends) to nurture the nation back to health, it just wouldn't happen. We have assumed an imperial role there, we are responsible for national defense (OEF) and public order (ISAF). Ferguson's thesis is there should be no stated date of withdrawl, that we stay until the job is done. When we are asked to leave, after devolving power to a responsible government...we leave. It has been years since I read Empire, but that is the gist of the debate. It is two years old, but still relevant. Nial Ferguson teaches at Harvard this year BTW:-) Cato

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 6:14:49 PM

Approximately 5% of Southern whites in 1860 owned slaves. And the South's greatest general Robert E. Lee was morally opposed to slavery. There was strong pro-union sentiment in all of the Southern States, and in fact, West Virginia seceded from Virginia and stayed with the Union. In some quarters in the South the Civil War is called The War of Northern Agression, and Sherman in particular was brutal most notably with respect to property. The Prison camps on both sides were a disgrace. But there was a strong moral foundation to the war, and as Cato said young Americans are taught very little about it.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT