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

121–130 of 278 posts

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

#121

Post by idontwantthis »

qiskit wrote: post #100
gen220 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Read any state’s declaration of secession. Slavery was the direct cause of the war.

Not by the North to end it, by the South to preserve it.

> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

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

#122

Post by qiskit »

dayofthedaleks wrote: post #109
qiskit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. [0] They sure do talk about slavery quite explicitly though. [0] - https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

> There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession.

Because tariffs are a congressional matter, not a state matter. They were trying to justify secession via the states' rights angle. Also, politicians don't like using money as a justification for their actions. It comes off tacky. They want to appear noble and virtuous. Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy. Just like the american independence was about "liberty and freedom" not tariffs and the right to steal native land west of the appalachian mountains. "Liberty and freedom" by slave owners. Using your logic, the iraq war was about democracy and the american independence was about freedom. Do you believe russia is invading ukraine to free ukraine from nazis too?

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

#123

Post by triceratops »

qiskit wrote: post #100
gen220 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded.

No, it was slavery.

> Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war.

No Southern secession, and the Northern response to prevent it, was the proximate reason for the Civil War. The South seceded due to slavery.

Yes the North didn't go into the war to free slaves. They did it to keep the country together. But as the war progressed its position on abolition hardened until it became a war aim.

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

#124

Post by dragonwriter »

qiskit wrote: post #122
dayofthedaleks wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. [0] They sure do talk about slavery quite explicitly though. [0] - https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

> There’s really not a lot of of discussion of foreign trade in the documents the states ratified to enact secession. Because tariffs are a congressional matter, not a state matter. They were trying to justify secession via the states' rights angle. Also, politicians don't like using money as a justification for their actions. It comes off tacky. They want to appear noble and virtuous. Sorta like how nobody invaded i…

> Sorta like how nobody invaded iraq for oil. You invade iraq for democracy freedom.

Fictitious WMD, even more fictitious ties to al-Qaeda (and because, as distinct from North Korea, as described by then -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Iraq “floats on a sea of oil“, notionally foreclosing leverage for non-military pressure against those fictions.) “Democracy” and “freedom” weren't cited as the reasons for going in, but as things we needed to assure in the aftermath of destroying the existing regime for other reasons. (And then later as “wins” that retroactively justified the invasion even if there never were WMD to protect against.)

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

#125

Post by [deleted] »

qiskit wrote: post #100
gen220 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#126

Post by triceratops »

qiskit wrote: post #119
skibble wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the…

> The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. Should I believe you or lincoln? '...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...' https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greele... If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it imm…

You said it yourself:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union"

The North wanted to keep the country together when they went into the war. Tax considerations weren't part of the equation.

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

#127

Post by triceratops »

ModernMech wrote: post #120
nl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slavery was at best an afterthought. Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. Put it like this: the reason the South wanted low tarrifs was because they were a low cost producer. And they were a low cost producer because of slave labor.

> This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this. I and everyone I knew was taught this is school by people who wanted to push the narrative, and it took a long time to figure out it was false.

> it took a long time to figure out it was false

Yeah I mean you have to first ignore what those Southerners themselves said were their actual reasons for secession (slavery), and what they wrote down on paper (we're leaving 'cuz we want to keep our slaves). It obviously takes a long time to learn how to ignore actual facts.

> push the narrative

Those dastardly schools, pushing Confederate states' constitutions at young impressionable minds to convince them that the Confederacy was evil. We have to stop them! /s

EDIT: I misunderstood the parent poster. Apologies.

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

#128

Post by donthellbanme »

skibble wrote: post #108
qiskit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the…

No post body was provided.

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

#129

Post by dragonwriter »

qiskit wrote: post #100
gen220 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded.

No, they weren't.

> Lincoln didn't say "end slavery and we shall have the greatest nation on earth".

The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories, which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union.

Now, they misjudged the prospects of rebellion and so hastened the abolition of slavery by rebelling.

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

#130

Post by dragonwriter »

qiskit wrote: post #119
skibble wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the…

> The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. Should I believe you or lincoln? '...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...' https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greele... If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it imm…

> Should I believe you or lincoln?

Both.

The rebellion was about slavery for the rebels and preserving the Union for the Union.

GP addressed the former, Lincoln spoke for the latter.

Post reply on HN