51–60 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I thought that happened way after WWI. The UK economy back then had a gazillion of colonies to sustain it.
No OP's correct, the US surpassed the UK both in population and in GDP sometime around the middle of the 19th century.
Not mentioned: Towards the end of the Civil War, British officers became very concerned that the large and now experienced army might turn its attention North, as they had some 50 years prior. The Civil War was thus a direct catalyst for Canadian confederation.
After the war I'm sure they took note. The US Army of the North was then the largest army in the world. That had to be concerning. Second place? The US Army of the South.
without facts, I would expect some central Asian horse army to have 200,000 humans, far earlier than that.. Persian and Egyptian armies were large at different times too.. sounds uninformed..
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
If you feel inclined | knowledgeable could you expand on any English economic turmoil as a result of the American Civil War. All that American Cotton not feeding the British industry must have hurt a lot.
Early on the Union blockade was essentially a paper blockade, and therefore of dubious international legality. There were laws regarding blockades, but those laws were fuzzy when it came to civil wars & a nation blockading their own ports. The Union would have been in violation of international law if the Confederacy were a recognized country, which would have given Britain and France a pretext to end the blockade by force. Early in the war, almost any European sea power (Britain especially) could have broken the Union Navy in a matter of hours.
The Confederate government imposed a cotton boycott to trigger economic turmoil in Britain especially (Britain was always their primary diplomatic target), which they felt would create enough political pressure in Parliament to spur recognition and a complete lifting of the blockade by the Royal Navy.
The economic problems in Britain were very real (triggering waves of emigration & from Lancashire & other towns that were cotton dependent) but the British largely worked around them. They retooled their factories to work with cotton from Egypt, India, and the East Indies. Workers found other jobs. Government relief. A lot of people suffered though.
The Confederates seriously underestimated the degree to which Britain and British politicians loathed slavery. Slavery stacked the deck against them diplomatically from the beginning. There were other geopolitical reasons (like Britain not wanting to risk Canada by sparking a conflict with the Union) but the British basically chose to suck it up and endure the cotton famine & economic depression because they wanted slavery gone, and America was one of the last major holdouts at that point.
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
> By the late 1850s, cotton grown in the United States accounted for 77 percent of the 800 million pounds of cotton consumed in Britain. It also accounted for 90 percent of the 192 million pounds used in France, 60 percent of the 115 million pounds spun in the Zollverein, and 92 percent of the 102 million pounds manufactured in Russia.
One reason that there was support for the confederacy was the fear that the outcome of the war would lead to the end of access to abundant and cheap cotton (due to export duties, end of slavery, etc.).
One of the outcomes of the US Civil War was that the British Empire realized a need to "diversify" their sources, resulting in increasingly imperialistic behavior in India and Egypt, among others.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-... the whole book is a fantastic peek behind the curtains of the history of global capital markets
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
Don’t forget Russia sending ships to America in support of the union. The letters between tsar Alex and Lincoln are some of the loveliest pieces of writing and highest praises for America. http://beam-inc.org/abraham-lincoln-and-tsar-alexander-ii-pa...
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
These were very different sorts of ironclads. The British and French ironclads mostly resembled traditional ships, at least at first glance. They had steam engines but also retained their masts, and had broadside guns rather than turrets (except for the ill-fated HMS Captain..)
The American ironclads were more bizarre, superficially resembling submarines, and weren't particularly seaworthy (unlike the European ironclads.) The USS Monitor in particular was a novel design; mastless and steam powered with an armored turret, a shallow draft and low freeboard (similar to earlier ironclad floating batteries, but a lot lower). European navies subsequently started building their own 'monitors'.
The monitor class of ships were eventually pushed to the side by pre-dreadnought battleships that derived more from the traditional and seaworthy European ironclads than from monitors, with some lessons learned from monitors. See the HMS Devastation particularly; mastless and steam powered with armored turrets, but with a hull that was actually seaworthy unlike monitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t forget Russia sending ships to America in support of the union. The letters between tsar Alex and Lincoln are some of the loveliest pieces of writing and highest praises for America. http://beam-inc.org/abraham-lincoln-and-tsar-alexander-ii-pa...
American russophobia is a sad state of affair considering history, they also gave Alaska for a negligible price. > When the Civil War broke out, both England and France considered hostile intervention on behalf of the South and they tried to convince the Tsar to join them. Alexander II’s refusal was critically important because the British and French then decided to abort their plans. It's crazy to think Russia deter…
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
The Civil War in America absolutely dominated the British national conversation, especially in the early years of the war. Politicians followed the conflict closely, and there were even several debates in Parliament over British policy toward the conflict. Frequently discussed was a line that a lot of Americans would recognize today, of "when should Britain get involved??" because of the destructiveness of the confli…
It should be understood that the british empire was at the peak of economic dependence on the raw material coming from the "new world" at the onset of the civil war; in particular, cotton exports for consumption by british textile mills [1]. > By the late 1850s, cotton grown in the United States accounted for 77 percent of the 800 million pounds of cotton consumed in Britain. It also accounted for 90 percent of the 1…