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

Even in the worst environments, some small elite will always benefit by enslaving the rest of the populace. Take for example, the Danes taking English slaves. It was not an economy bursting with productivity and wealth, yet slavery still existed because “elite” warriors didn’t want to wash their own clothes or grow their own crops or make their own entertainment.

This is why I called slavery an economic perversion. There is no job that can’t be done by someone enslaved. Slaves may start as field workers, but they eventually become supervisors. From bed warmers to dancers, singers, and composers. From household servants, they become palace chefs. From nannies they become tutors. From handmaids they become house stewards and accountants. If the practice isn’t stamped out (or restricted via laws such as a caste system since mere social pressure won’t stop the elite from maximizing profit from more educated slaves), it just grows more varied.

I would bet if institutional slavery existed legally today, even computer programmers would face stiff competition from that source rather than having to worry about jobs being outsourced.

See the wikipedia page:

> Governor Pickens, therefore, ordered that all remaining Federal positions except Fort Sumter were to be seized. State troops quickly occupied Fort Moultrie (capturing 56 guns), Fort Johnson on James Island, and the battery on Morris Island. On December 27, an assault force of 150 men seized the Union-occupied Castle Pinckney fortification, in the harbor close to downtown Charleston, capturing 24 guns and mortars without bloodshed. On December 30, the Federal arsenal in Charleston was captured, resulting in the acquisition of more than 22,000 weapons by the militia. The Confederates promptly made repairs at Fort Moultrie and dozens of new batteries and defense positions were constructed throughout the Charleston harbor area, including an unusual floating battery, and armed with weapons captured from the arsenal.

They were gathering weapons and armaments, and had 6000 men ready to siege Sumter (and it's 90 Union soldier), to start a war! Months later, at first Manassas, the CSA forces (which were mostly the Virginia Militia) at that battle numbered 40,000.

> Does the third ammendment not strike a resemblance here?

Are you saying that South Carolina was still a part of the US, in which case firing on US soldiers was treason?

> How could sc stand idle when a now foreign army is sneaking

They were already there! The Soldiers who eventually moved into Sumter were previously stationed like a half mile away, and had already been besieged and cut off by SC troops. They moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter because it was a more defensible position as there were only 90 union troops who were being harassed by more than a thousand SC militia men. That eventually grew to more than 5000!

The Union wasn't building up troops on the border. There were 90 guys in a fort. That's it. There were multiple failed attempts to send them food, because the fort was being blockaded and the soldiers were starving, Lincoln was clear that these weren't attempts to reinforce, but simply to provide supplies. None of that is even remotely controversial.

And of course, multiple high ranking confederates knew this was the start of the war. Quoting the wiki page again:

> James had offered the first shot [at fort Sumter] to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war."

and

> Edmund Ruffin, another noted Virginia secessionist, had traveled to Charleston to be present at the beginning of the war, and fired one of the first shots at Sumter after the signal round

They were very intentionally trying to start a war!

That is no contradiction. Authoritarians can have public support while at the same time severely oppressing opposition or anyone who dares to voice something else.

Also, opposition to Putin does not imply opposition to annexation of Ukrainian lands or turning Ukrainians into Russians by force. Opposition to Putin does not imply pro-democracy reform either.

> It is rational to hate Russians in general

Hate is a feeling. But accusations of Russophobia are all about support for sanctions or Ukraine in war. And are deployed whenever someone points out Russia as is now is threat to not just Ukraine, but to all countries in former eastern block.

All those are rational. So, if that matter average Russians look really down on Ukrainians too, are happy to use slurs against them and act offended it other formerly occupied countries are not "thankful".

----------

If anything, Russia was enabled rather then opposed for years. It was treated as something special, more worthy then other countries around it.