Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 278 posts

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#61

Post by Hayvok »

corrral wrote: post #50
Hayvok wrote: post #37

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…

> 5. Britain nearly declared war on the Union (Trent affair), to the point that Royal Navy was just waiting for the go-signal to commence hostilities & Britain sent thousands of additional troops to Canada. I wonder how much the Union's need to hedge against British intervention—so, to divert resources away from the war against the South, affecting troop placement, artillery availability, fortification building/maint…

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer.

However, whatever that need was (to hedge against the British) should have been completely necessary, and really goes to show you just how valuable a strong diplomatic corps can be to a country.

The British wanted to be pro-Union. They wanted slavery gone. They didn't want to have to station huge numbers of troops in Canada, or large numbers of ships in the Atlantic.

Silly, unforced errors by Seward & Charles Francis Adams (the American ambassador) antagonized Britain throughout the war & made them unsure of their North American holdings. Ridiculous. Union diplomats should have been talking peace & partnership with Britain from day 1 of the conflict.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#62

Post by pessimizer »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #58
SemanticStrengh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You mean the country committing war crimes daily and threatening the world with nukes?

Yes, the russophobia of that country is a tragedy.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#63

Post by gen220 »

Hayvok wrote: post #54
tmp_anon_22 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could argue that the Confederacy actually started the Cotton Famine, on purpose. 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 recogniz…

Not doubting to be clear, but do you have recommended sources on the desire for the American abolition of slavery being a principal motivation for Britain's non-involvement in the American Civil War? Would be curious to read it.

I've generally had a pretty cynical view towards British abolitionism, which is that the elites only disliked slavery to the extent that they found capitalistic imperialism (i.e. systems that controlled the lower classes through persistent indebtedness and restrictions on ownership of real estate) to be more profitable and politically stable than the systems constructed on the institution of slavery.

And, coincidentally, that their empire, whose 19th century wealth was bootstrapped on the profits of slave-trading and the manufacture of raw materials extracted via slave labor, was uniquely-well-positioned to come out on top in a world order deprived of slave labor.

In other words, they opposed slavery on the basis of limiting economic volatility, and maintaining their geopolitical status, more so than any moral basis.

I'd love to read more sources that balance out my cynicism. :)

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#64

Post by edgyquant »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #56
caublestone wrote: post #49

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…

America and Russia had a great relationship until the end of WWI. The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war when the entente (specifically Britain) opened dialogue towards a trade deal. Lenin used them as the great other, despite knowing they wanted normalized relations, and then the USSR taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal. Self determination was US policy at that time (and kind of ever since.)

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#65

Post by edgyquant »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #59
Hayvok wrote: post #37

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's interesting how difficult it is nowadays to field a million man army

Because Vietnam showed that conscripting armies of that size was not an efficient way to fight a modern war. You want people, volunteers, who want to be in the army. Also technology. We’re close to that point in, like in Roman history, where the income of entire villages was only enough to field one Calvary soldier (knight.)

Not that we’re going towards feudalism but history has a cycle of armies going from a small force with a huge technology edge to a giant force with mundane tech. Even during the Roman Republic only the richest men could afford to fight.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#66

Post by bee_rider »

Animats wrote: post #15

Not enough, actually. The American Civil War was the first big war where railroads and telegraph lines allowed coordinated operations over a large area, and machine guns and repeating rifles allowed killing large numbers of advancing troops. Grant got this; he wrote "War is Progressive", meaning that there was progress through technology. This was a radical idea in military thinking at the time. Most European militar…

It also featured a little bit of trench warfare. I imagine the European observers who saw that were like "Huh, definitely not important, let's not come up with strategies to counter this sort of thing" and then forgot about it for the next 50 years or so.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#67

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Hayvok wrote: post #37

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…

> 6. There were tons of ironclads already in European fleets, there had just never been a fight between ironclads! Europeans watched the Monitor v. Merrimack battle & adapted their fleets & battle doctrines accordingly.

And the fight they got was comically irrelevant to the ironclads they had.

I'm sure they had lots of great arguments trying to pull anything applicable out of it and apply the lessons to their own fleets.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#68

Post by dylan604 »

I'd be interested in how the world would/might react to an American civil war today?

Would we see America's "enemies" sending arms to the side of their choice to fight a proxy war on American soil? Would a side accept that aide?

Would America's "allies" sit out or pick sides? Would those sides align with the sides "enemies" would choose?

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#69

Post by throwaway0a5e »

dylan604 wrote: post #68

I'd be interested in how the world would/might react to an American civil war today ? Would we see America's "enemies" sending arms to the side of their choice to fight a proxy war on American soil? Would a side accept that aide? Would America's "allies" sit out or pick sides? Would those sides align with the sides "enemies" would choose?

>Would we see America's "enemies" sending arms to the side of their choice to fight a proxy war on American soil? Would a side accept that aide?

If history is any indication, yes and yes.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#70

Post by notahacker »

Hayvok wrote: post #61
corrral wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5. Britain nearly declared war on the Union (Trent affair), to the point that Royal Navy was just waiting for the go-signal to commence hostilities & Britain sent thousands of additional troops to Canada. I wonder how much the Union's need to hedge against British intervention—so, to divert resources away from the war against the South, affecting troop placement, artillery availability, fortification building/maint…

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. However, whatever that need was (to hedge against the British) should have been completely necessary, and really goes to show you just how valuable a strong diplomatic corps can be to a country. The British wanted to be pro-Union. They wanted slavery gone. They didn't want to have to station huge numbers of troops in Canada, or large numbers of ships in the Atlanti…

> The British wanted to be pro-Union. They wanted slavery gone.

tbf, we had moral reasons for wanting slavery gone but practical reasons for thinking we were better off with a divided America and an independent Confederacy as a useful source of cheap cotton. Some would say our political positions haven't got more realistic since. :)

Post reply on HN