Did Britain back a side in the US Civil War as in Libya?
Discussion
We've decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war, a country where we have little responsibility. We are backing rebels against a government.
When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
Apparently, different parts of England backed different sides. Liverpool backed the South (as the slave trade was important to Liverpool) but Manchester backed the North. The Irish like to claim they backed the north - and indeed there were a number of Irish regiments in the northern US Cavalry. But there were also Irish fighting for the Confederacy.
As above, we backed the South, sometimes without meaning to....
Can't remember the name of the ship, but a tea clipper was purchased from a British dockyard, for delivery to IIRC, St Helena.
Once the delivery crew arrived there with the agent who had brokered the sale, the agent appeared in full Confederate uniform, and informed the delivery crew that the ship had been purchased as the South's only battleship. They were offered huge (for the time) wages to crew it for the newly created Confederate Navy.
AIUI, most, if not all, accepted, the ship was loaded with cannon, ammo and supplies, and over a period of time, the immense speed of the converted clipper (effectively the first racing ships) plus the quality and skill of the British crew, led to a large number of Yankee Navy ships were sunk.
The Yankees laid a trap (comparable I suppose to the British efforts to sink the Bismarck), and the Confederate ship was sunk.
That didn't end the matter - once the Yankees had won, they claimed compensation for the damage caused by the British built ship, and we paid a simply staggering sum of money over a very large time, despite the events having nothing to do with the British Government, or indeed even the company who built the ship (they were told, and believed, they were building a fast clipper for the same purposes they had been designed for - carrying high value, small volume goods as quickly as possible).
Its a long time since I read about the above, and there may be inaccuracies contained, someone with more knowledge/better memory will be along to correct it. The gist of the post is accurate though, I'm sure.
Can't remember the name of the ship, but a tea clipper was purchased from a British dockyard, for delivery to IIRC, St Helena.
Once the delivery crew arrived there with the agent who had brokered the sale, the agent appeared in full Confederate uniform, and informed the delivery crew that the ship had been purchased as the South's only battleship. They were offered huge (for the time) wages to crew it for the newly created Confederate Navy.
AIUI, most, if not all, accepted, the ship was loaded with cannon, ammo and supplies, and over a period of time, the immense speed of the converted clipper (effectively the first racing ships) plus the quality and skill of the British crew, led to a large number of Yankee Navy ships were sunk.
The Yankees laid a trap (comparable I suppose to the British efforts to sink the Bismarck), and the Confederate ship was sunk.
That didn't end the matter - once the Yankees had won, they claimed compensation for the damage caused by the British built ship, and we paid a simply staggering sum of money over a very large time, despite the events having nothing to do with the British Government, or indeed even the company who built the ship (they were told, and believed, they were building a fast clipper for the same purposes they had been designed for - carrying high value, small volume goods as quickly as possible).
Its a long time since I read about the above, and there may be inaccuracies contained, someone with more knowledge/better memory will be along to correct it. The gist of the post is accurate though, I'm sure.
simonrockman said:
We've decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war, a country where we have little responsibility. We are backing rebels against a government.
When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
I read an American history book on their civil war and it attacked Britain, or England as they called it, for supplying both sides with weapons and other support. It was suggested that this was profiteering. It stuck in my mind because of the USA supplying both this country and Germany in the early part of the war. Britain certainly continued to deal with the south despite the blockade. We were then a world super power so to an extent could do what we wanted.When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
Despite what revisionists say, the civil war was not about slavery.
Derek Smith said:
simonrockman said:
We've decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war, a country where we have little responsibility. We are backing rebels against a government.
When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
I read an American history book on their civil war and it attacked Britain, or England as they called it, for supplying both sides with weapons and other support. It was suggested that this was profiteering. It stuck in my mind because of the USA supplying both this country and Germany in the early part of the war. Britain certainly continued to deal with the south despite the blockade. We were then a world super power so to an extent could do what we wanted.When the American South fought the North in the US did we take sides? Should we have supported the rebels in the South, or given that we'd abolished slavery before the civil war, would we have supported the North? We were still a significant military power. Why didn't we get involved?
Simon
Despite what revisionists say, the civil war was not about slavery.
The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
maser_spyder said:
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle 'grimy arse'!
The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
Agreed. Slavery may not have been the main factor at the start of the war (overtly anyway), but it came to represent the key factor during/towards the end of the war and is probably seen as the wars overriding achievement.The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
As an aside (as we have already drifted away from topic!) if anyone is interest in the US Civil War and hasn't seen Ken Burns series on it, buy it. It's superb.
JB! said:
Like the story on the clipper!
You're more than welcome. I flexed my Google Fu muscles, and found the Wiki entry, it does read differently to my account, and I can't be sure which account is more accurate in certain details.
I definately remember reading that the ship builders were not complicit - this couldwell be conferred by the use of the Confederate sympathetic cotton trader to make introductions. Surely this wouldn't be needed if the shipbuilders weren't judgemental of the intended use of the ship?
Here's the addy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama
Sam
maser_spyder said:
The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
My interpretation is that it was indeed nothing more than a catalyst. It was used post war, and even towards the end, to legitimise the north's actions.Derek Smith said:
My interpretation is that it was indeed nothing more than a catalyst. It was used post war, and even towards the end, to legitimise the north's actions.
Yup, it was essentially an agricultural economy versus an industrial one. Technically a one sided dispute as the agricultural side lacked the manpower and industrial capicity to wage any meaning ful war, but was offset by the fact that the industrial side had no meaningful leadership and didn't even appreciate that a war had broken out initially.Different parts of the UK supported different sides based on what the trade was. We supported the south as we required the cotton that was imported and we supported the north because we were selling them industrial tooling and knowhow.
Do you have an ipod Derek? I meant to give you the heads up to listening to the Binge Thinking History podcasts. I suspect you will find them very interesting. It carries a reasonable overview of this subject, plus and excellent one on the RAF and also the RN.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup, it was essentially an agricultural economy versus an industrial one.
^^^^^ This.At that time African slaves were in the South working on the plantations. Liverpool and Bristol had a thriving trade, especially Liverpool into Savannah. Hence the "revisionist" idea that the Civil war was about slavery - mainly it wasn't.
Later, with recession and famine in the South, immigrants moved up the Mississippi to find work in the industrial North. Hence the large immigrant population which worked in the motor industry around Detroit and its subsequent social issues.
DonkeyApple said:
Different parts of the UK supported different sides based on what the trade was. We supported the south as we required the cotton that was imported and we supported the north because we were selling them industrial tooling and knowhow.
The blockades of the Southern ports caused mass unemployment on a scale previously unseen in the Cotton King towns around Manchester. There were numerous riots as 60-70% of people were made unemployed. The mill owners though learned a very important lesson and diversified their suppliers. A knock on effect of the Civil was the long term decline of the US cotton trade. It wasn't just the loss of slave labour, it was a self imposed loss of market. maser_spyder said:
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle 'grimy arse'!
The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
The key here for its involvement in the dispute was that the slaves were an enormous and key resource for the south. The civil war was about a lot of things, and slavery was one of them, you can't say it wasn't a major catalyst for what happened.
Not just to produce their exports to create revenue to buy armaments but most crucially as the cheapest and most vast resource of military cannon fodder to throw at the North.
By the North announcing that slaves would be free under their Union they effectively nuetralised this crucial resource, denying the South.
Other than the liberals on the East coast of which there were just as many in the South this whole affair had nothing to do with the emancipation of a group that neither side had any compassion for. A compassion that has been fabricated after the event by the victors.
Lincoln was the first US President to recognize the value of political correctness. He 'repurposed' the Civil War away from State/Federal rights to the slavery issue precisely to keep foreign powers out of it on the South's side.
Southern General James Longstreet said it best "We should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Fort Sumpter"
Had that happened, the South would have received much more overt aid and could possibly have fought the North to a standstill (which was the plan)
Arthur Fremantle, a Coldstream Guards Officer, was with the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee's main force) as a British Observer and witnessed the battle of Gettysburg.
Southern General James Longstreet said it best "We should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Fort Sumpter"
Had that happened, the South would have received much more overt aid and could possibly have fought the North to a standstill (which was the plan)
Arthur Fremantle, a Coldstream Guards Officer, was with the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee's main force) as a British Observer and witnessed the battle of Gettysburg.
DonkeyApple said:
Yup, it was essentially an agricultural economy versus an industrial one. Technically a one sided dispute as the agricultural side lacked the manpower and industrial capicity to wage any meaning ful war, but was offset by the fact that the industrial side had no meaningful leadership and didn't even appreciate that a war had broken out initially.
Different parts of the UK supported different sides based on what the trade was. We supported the south as we required the cotton that was imported and we supported the north because we were selling them industrial tooling and knowhow.
Do you have an ipod Derek? I meant to give you the heads up to listening to the Binge Thinking History podcasts. I suspect you will find them very interesting. It carries a reasonable overview of this subject, plus and excellent one on the RAF and also the RN.
Bold = Nice one. Made me laugh.Different parts of the UK supported different sides based on what the trade was. We supported the south as we required the cotton that was imported and we supported the north because we were selling them industrial tooling and knowhow.
Do you have an ipod Derek? I meant to give you the heads up to listening to the Binge Thinking History podcasts. I suspect you will find them very interesting. It carries a reasonable overview of this subject, plus and excellent one on the RAF and also the RN.
I did have an iPod, one that was remarkably similar to the one that my youngest lad uses all the time now. To be fair, I didn't use it much. Is there any other way of picking it up?
ErnestM said:
Southern General James Longstreet said it best "We should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Fort Sumpter"
Lovely quote.I used to be very interested in the British Civil Wars and when I worked in London I went to a few lectures given by various people, mostly universtiy profs trying to score points off one-another.
The main cause of the wars was always in contention. There was one chap who even suggested it was Marxist. Generally though it ended up as a battle between those who reckoned it was religious, political or class. There was overwhelming evidence against all of them. By the third or fourth lecture I'd got the measure of it and quoted what a previous lecturer had said. This professor from a London university actually swore in reply. He was even more upset by the derisive cheers he got.
It's all spin though, isn't it. I read a few books on the American Civil War, one British very paternalistic, and two American, one favouring north politics and the other the south - this chap naturalised from Europe. It was almost as if there were three civil wars.
What got me was that each book convinced me its point of view was right.
Fascinating though. Indeed, as are both civil wars. I was fed the French one when at school and that was quite boring in comparison with either. I now know the truth about the storming of the Bastille. The French had a cracking catch-phrase though.
Derek Smith said:
DonkeyApple said:
Do you have an ipod Derek? I meant to give you the heads up to listening to the Binge Thinking History podcasts. I suspect you will find them very interesting. It carries a reasonable overview of this subject, plus and excellent one on the RAF and also the RN.
Bold = Nice one. Made me laugh.I did have an iPod, one that was remarkably similar to the one that my youngest lad uses all the time now. To be fair, I didn't use it much. Is there any other way of picking it up?
.
I assume that podcasts can be played via conventional PC media players.
Derek Smith said:
I read an American history book on their civil war and it attacked Britain, or England as they called it, for supplying both sides with weapons and other support. It was suggested that this was profiteering. It stuck in my mind because of the USA supplying both this country and Germany in the early part of the war. Britain certainly continued to deal with the south despite the blockade. We were then a world super power so to an extent could do what we wanted.
Despite what revisionists say, the civil war was not about slavery.
Can you tell me a little more please, sounds interestingDespite what revisionists say, the civil war was not about slavery.
ringram said:
History mag had a recent article. Basically Parliment was to send a strongly worded statement to the north which would amount according to the monarchy at the time (Queen Vic) "to a declaration of war". Hence she had it binned.
The antebellum South was much more closely tied to Great Britain prior to the war. Certainly "king cotton" was a large reason. There were also patterns of civility and decorum observed by both societies that were closely alligned. The UK just couldn't justify going to war in support of a society that relied so much on an institution that a lot of other countries (including Britain herself) abhored.That didn't stop them from supplying several hundred thousand pattern 1853 enfields to the South, however. They did also supply arms to the North as well. In fact Joshua Chamberlain's 20th Maine were armed with 1853 enfields when they made their famous bayonet charge at Gettysburg. Chamberlain didn't think too highly of the enfield, however.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff