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

171–180 of 278 posts

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

#171

Post by robonerd »

majormajor wrote: post #140
qiskit wrote: 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. 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?

Appear noble... to their constituents who were slave owners and racist white southerns?

I think that's what he means.

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

#172

Post by mr_toad »

pdonis wrote: post #165
myko wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly one of the reasons the south began their war over the right to own people was indeed because they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act ( https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-... ) Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were…

> they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south ac…

> But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law

Yeah, but by that logic the whole US was wrong for rebelling against England.

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

#173

Post by billfruit »

tmp_anon_22 wrote: post #45
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…

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.

How dependent was British industry on American Cotton? Didn't British possessions include many cotton growing regions?

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

#174

Post by piethesailorman »

majormajor wrote: post #163
piethesailorman wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

"aggressive racism wasn't really seen in the south before the Civil War" is absurd and only supportable if you don't consider the treatment of the slaves . There was a ton of brutality, and you're sitting here saying there wasn't any aggression. It's not dissimilar to the US wars in the middle east: The North toppled an evil government, freed some people, but didn't finish the job. So assholes ended back up in charge…

No post body was provided.

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

#175

Post by lettergram »

billjings wrote: post #153
qiskit wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It took me about five minutes to find South Carolina's declaration of secession. And the first thing that document mentions is slavery: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its…

While it discusses slavery, the first thing mentioned is constitutional obligations.

The reality, is the south didn’t feel it was being represented. It felt it would be better on its own (regardless of the slave issue, there’s a whole mess there).

The north, decided it wasn’t going to let the south go its own way. That’s why the south calls it “the war of northern aggression”. (I say this from their perspective) First the north didn’t respect property rights, then it actively attempted to destroy the south’s economy (through tariffs, etc), then it invaded, murdered and seized its wealth and land.

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

#176

Post by robonerd »

Spooky23 wrote: post #167
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…

You’re missing the point. It’s one and the same. Slaves were valuable economic assets whose value was diminishing as industrialization intensified. The slavers wanted to conquer the west with slaves to stay relevant. Slavery was about wealth and control, in losing control of poor white people. The northern industrialists wanted cotton. Abolitionists saw the moral disgrace of slavery as an evil. Lincoln was more moder…

> The slavers wanted to conquer the west with slaves to stay relevant.

Yes, I believe that's why they rejected the Corwin Amendment compromise, which would have allowed them to keep slavery in states that already had it. That deal didn't allow them to use slaves in the west, so they didn't like it.

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

#177

Post by pdonis »

mr_toad wrote: post #172
pdonis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south ac…

> But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law Yeah, but by that logic the whole US was wrong for rebelling against England.

> by that logic the whole US was wrong for rebelling against England.

If we include in the north's logic the claim that secession was wrong for the southern states, then yes, one could argue that by the same logic it was wrong for the colonies to secede from Britain. Although there was a difference: the colonies had no effective representation in the British Parliament, they were just colonies, whereas the southern states were not colonies of the US, they were states and had the same representation in the US Congress as other states.

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

#178

Post by piethesailorman »

joshuamorton wrote: post #166
piethesailorman wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well establis…

> Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Interesting claim, but it doesn't…

Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified.

Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?

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

#179

Post by pdonis »

myko wrote: post #169
pdonis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south ac…

With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. In fact there are many rights that explicitly disallow that! The south crying about their inability to force free states to enslave people is an example of the hypocrisy of the modern argument that the south primarily fo…

> There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals.

If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling doing so "kidnapping" without any supporting argument, when the Constitution has an explicit provision that requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, is nonsense. You can't just ignore parts of the Constitution you don't like.

> only the south was wrong here

I don't think you have fully thought through your position.

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

#180

Post by pdonis »

myko wrote: post #169
pdonis wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south ac…

With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. In fact there are many rights that explicitly disallow that! The south crying about their inability to force free states to enslave people is an example of the hypocrisy of the modern argument that the south primarily fo…

> Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south, they didn't think that way generally.

You must be joking. Pushing for states' rights by southern states goes back at least all the way to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in the late 1790s, and arguably was an important topic for them at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Relying on Wikipedia as your source on a topic like this is not a good idea.

Post reply on HN