Live data from Hacker News

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

historytoday.com

131–140 of 278 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).

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

#132
post #114
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

No post body was provided.

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

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).

> we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources

So you're saying you looked up the primary source documents for Southern secession and you still believe slavery wasn't a cause?

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

#134
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

> 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

There was no such desire on the South's part, although the claim that there was was common in abolitionist propaganda of the time. The South already knew that none of the territories being added to the Union at that time were suitable for the kind of economy based on slavery that they had in the established Southern states.

> which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union

No, what they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union was...the continuing vociferous demands on the part of abolitionists over decades for the abolition of slavery, which continued to gain more political traction over time. Lincoln's election as a Republican just pushed them over the edge (although another strong signal was sent a couple of years before when all of the abolitionists who kept talking about how we should let the legal process work and abide by its decisions, suddenly switched gears and started talking about ignoring the legal process after the Dred Scott decision). There is no need to attribute fictitious motives of "expansion of slavery" to the South to account for secession. The documented historical facts of the abolitionist movement are more than enough.

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

#135
post #114
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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.

A very long propaganda campaign (oddly, by the very same people who argue that slavery was actually a good thing that was done for those subject to it who should be thankful for it) has established it as an article of faith for a large population in this country, despite the fact that the rebels were quite explicit that the rebellion was about slavery.

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

#136
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No post body was provided.

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

#137
post #119

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…

Don't ask Lincoln, he's not the one who seceded.

Ask the states who left. South Carolina, for instance, directly blames the North's increasing hostility towards slavery - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp :

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

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. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "

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

#138
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

No, they seceded after the north stopped respecting slavery, when "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. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

They call out Lincoln's inauguration and his perceived attitude on slavery, not tarrifs:

"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

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

#139
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…

Karl Marx, who was residing in Britain at the time, also wrote much on the topic. He had nothing but withering criticism of mainstream/elite British attitudes for the war, namely the downplaying the importance of slavery in the formation of the Confederacy. He, unlike his more socially acceptable contemporaries, also deeply admired Lincoln. Many pieces published in prominent periodicals, like The Economist, painted h…

> the compromises he was desperately trying to make with Southern states to prevent the outbreak of war

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. AFAIK between his inauguration and the outbreak of war Lincoln had basically no interaction with any of the Southern states.

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

#140
post #122

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…

You're claiming they decided to pretend it was about slavery to "appear noble and virtuous." Really??? That's their way of getting GOOD PR? They knew slavery was unpopular with everyone else but them, but they're doubling down on pretending that's their reason instead of tarrifs because they want to look "noble"? OK.

How goddamn stupid is anyone to believe that shit?

Post reply on HN