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

141–150 of 278 posts

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

#141

Post by dayofthedaleks »

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…

In addition to conveying information well, this comment motivated me to find Foreman’s cited work. My library even has the audiobook!

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

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

qiskit wrote: post #136
dragonwriter wrote: post #130

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.

> But the rebels seceded after the north raised tariffs

Wrong. The tariff bill only passed because the Democrats lost the votes in the Senate that had stopped it earlier in the same session of Congress because the states that had seceded weren't represented anymore. Literally all the South had to do to avoid the tariff bill was not secede.

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

#143

Post by joshuamorton »

qiskit wrote: post #132
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.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Slave labor had nothing to do with it. If the south banned slavery in 1800 and cotton was picked by well paid whites, they would still want low tariffs.

No, the southern economy, as it was, would collapse, which is why they were so averse to anything that upset "King Cotton". Yes, tariffs were one aspect of that, but the pre-war southern economy couldn't work with well paid whites. So they had an even stronger objection to slavery ending, as it would be far more ruinous than tariffs.

> Ask yourself, did the south decide to secede after the north decided to free the slaves or after the north raised the tariffs. A tariff battle the north and south have been fighting for decades before the civil war. The answer is pretty simple and obvious.

Let's ask the southern states themselves, shall we:

Texas objected to northern states ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act:

> The States… by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the Fugitive Slave Clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact

And South Carolina (and many others) noted that they were leaving due to Lincoln's election, which spelled doom for slavery:

> 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.

The wikipedia articles on SC's[0] debunks this, and none of the state's reasons for secession [1] list taxes or tariffs as a reason. This is ahistorical nonsense and confederate apologia.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_...

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150213033216/http://civilwarca...

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

#144

Post by majormajor »

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…

How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory?

It was about slavery, racism was DEEPLY involved in US slavery, and racism and racists didn't just go away after the civil war.

Sometimes it's as simple as people say it is, over and over and over in their defense of slavery and their post-Civil-War racist laws and propaganda.

You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were.

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

#145

Post by qiskit »

triceratops wrote: post #123
qiskit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement.

> The South seceded due to slavery.

No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ).

The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of the 1800s wasn't over slavery. The major fight between the north and south was tariffs/trade. It was industrialization vs agricultralism. It was never about slavery because some northern states also had slavery before and during the civil war.

If the civil war was about slavery, why didn't delaware and maryland also secede with slave owning states?

Why did west virginia secede from virginia? Could it be because west virginia major industries sold minerals, coal, etc to the industrial north? While the rest of virginia was agriculturally based?

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

#146

Post by joshuamorton »

piethesailorman wrote: post #115
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…

It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"

The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such.

That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.

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

#147

Post by XorNot »

triceratops wrote: post #133
ModernMech wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think you're picking a fight here that's not there: its relatively uncontroversial that there's been an aggressive campaign since the civil war to minimise slavery as a factor, particularly in the South - you will easily find "war of northern aggression" types because that is what they are taught.

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

#148

Post by joshuamorton »

qiskit wrote: post #145
triceratops wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement. > The South seceded due to slavery. No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ). The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of…

> No. They left after the north raised the tariff

No, they didn't.

Lincoln was elected in Nov 6, 1860. [0]

South Carolina seceded around a month later, on December 20, 1860 [1]. Georgia began drafting a new constitution in January 1861[2], after voting to secede a few days earlier.

The Morill Tariff passed in the senate on Feb 20, 1861, two months after SC seceded, and one month after GA.[3]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidentia...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_...

[2]: https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-poli...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Renewed_Senate_...

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

#149

Post by myko »

qiskit wrote: post #136
dragonwriter wrote: post #130

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.

Read what the states who left the union had to say about it:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

It was slavery.

An excerpt from one state:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "

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

#150

Post by qiskit »

majormajor wrote: post #144
qiskit wrote: 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…

How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? It was about slavery, racism was DEEPLY involved in US slavery, and racism and racists didn't just go away after the civil war. Sometimes it's as simple as people say it is, over and over and over in their defense of slavery and their post-Civil-War racist laws and propaganda. You don't need to…

> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory?

"Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you?

> You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were.

Saving their reputation by calling them racist white southerners?

You do realize that some northern states had slaves too during the civil war. And the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south.

If you want to learn what the civil war was really about go look into why west virginia seceded from virgina. Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?

Post reply on HN