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

241–250 of 278 posts

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

#241

Post by watwut »

berdario wrote: post #83
edgyquant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America and Russia had a great relationship until the end of WWI. The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war when the entente (specifically Britain) opened dialogue towards a trade deal. Lenin used them as the great other, despite knowing they wanted normalized relations, and then the USSR taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal. Self determination was US policy at that time (and kind of ever si…

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us…

It would be incredibly stupid to admit Russia of 1954 into NATO. The people taking power after Stalin were somewhat better, but still only slightly less murderous.

This is right after Russia organized processes and executions of class enemies. It demanded such processes of vasal states too. The monster processes were pretty large crime.

And this is btw, only like 14 years before Russia invaded other countries and started to occupie them in 1968.

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

#242

Post by watwut »

berdario wrote: post #83
edgyquant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America and Russia had a great relationship until the end of WWI. The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war when the entente (specifically Britain) opened dialogue towards a trade deal. Lenin used them as the great other, despite knowing they wanted normalized relations, and then the USSR taking Eastern Europe sealed the deal. Self determination was US policy at that time (and kind of ever si…

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us…

> Talking about WW2, Europe wasn't friendly to the USSR leading up to war: The initial anti-comintern treaty in 1935 was extended to the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and China (ruled by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek).

Such a shocking action, after only little thing like The Great Purge and active hostile rhetorics from Russia ... and Holodomor.

This is ridiculous point of view that casts Russia as victim when other countries react to its aggression - whether aggression outside or inside. Russia 1935 and Germany 1936 were not that dissimilar, you know. Except Russia more bloody at that point.

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

#243

Post by watwut »

SemanticStrengh wrote: post #104
KerrAvon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't forget about revisionist history. We view it with an appropriately skeptical eye. The Telegraph article has a quote from a historian: > "There was no mention of this in any of the three contemporaneous diaries, two British and one French - including that of Drax," he said. "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia: > NATO is a system…

> "I don't myself believe the Russians were serious." Oh so it was a prank? - - What a weak thesis... > You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia You seem unfamiliar with the fact the USSR asked to join NATO it seems

And NATO rightfully said no, because of what kind of country Russia was.

Also, politicians, including and especially Russian politicians at the time having unserious claims is not weak thesis. That was their frequent negotiating/pressuring/rhetorical tactic.

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

#244

Post by dragonwriter »

pdonis wrote: post #179
myko wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

The fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution were, by definition, consistent with the Constitution, however morally repugnant they were. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, OTOH, provided for the summary detention of accused escaped slaves by affidavit without warrant or probable cause or even any establishment of a reasonable basis, denied accused escaped slave the right to be heard in their own defense, denied them jury trial on the accusation, denied them trial before a judicial officer on the accusation, allowing the accusation to be heard by special commissioners who were paid a premium for ruling that the accused was, in fact, a fugitive without even a pretense of evenhanded justice, and commandeered state officers to assist with enforcement. On any reasonable reading—notwithstanding that its purpose was Constitutionally valid—it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th Amendments, and the suspension clause.

(The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 has a subset of the same problems.)

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

#245

Post by myko »

pdonis wrote: post #179
myko wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you can try to make that argument.

Are you claiming that slavery is constitutional?

How does that square with the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure? The fugitive slave laws allowed anyone to seize anyone they thought might be a slave. Clearly unconstitutional. Also clearly kidnapping! I'd like to hear how you would not consider this kidnapping.

How does it square with the 5th amendment? No one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Kidnapping someone clearly violates this amendment.

The 6th and 7th amendments guarantee the right to an impartial jury and a jury trial - however the laws the south wanted to force on the north (a hypocritical violation of states' rights) allowed people to be kidnapped without going through these processes.

You can argue that the constitution is contradictory, but you cannot reasonably argue that the fugitive slave acts do not violate the bill of rights.

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

You are ignoring the facts. The south's stated reason for leaving the union was to continue the institution of slavery. The modern "states' rights" argument _regarding the war_ is an attempt to ignore that the state right explicitly called for by those states was the right to own other people.

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

#246

Post by klibertp »

katbyte wrote: post #111
ipaddr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They built the biggest pile of them, have them pointed at certain countries. That can be threatening

While it may be threatening Americans have so many nukes, they are very much not making desperate threats with them, like Russia currently is.

What about "fire and fury"? Wasn't that a threat?

Also, please note that in my original comment I'm talking about the future - after the collapse of Russia, in a few decades. Can you guarantee that the world will not need to deal with another Trump in a situation where the MAD doctrine stopped working?

And as for currently, don't you think the US is not making "desperate threats" simply because it has absolute no need to? In a parallel universe where Russo-Sino alliance conventional military was much more advanced than the US, what would the US do if the alliance absorbed Mexico or Canada, deploying (for protection, of course) tens of thousands of people along with huge piles of weapons on their territory? Can you trust the US not to make "desperate threats" then?

I can't.

Especially because there's only one country that developed and used nuclear weapons against civilians. In that context, even a statement from a clown of a president about "fire and fury" is something really dangerous. And since we already had to deal with a clown, it's really not that much of a stretch to fear that an actual madman gets elected sometime down the road.

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

#247

Post by SemanticStrengh »

watwut wrote: post #240
avgcorrection wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Russophobia is a widespread phenomenon then it started way before 2022.

When Russia bombed Syrian hospitals ... invaded Chehenia and other countries ... had assasins murder people living EU, likely caused explosion in Czechs (2014), likely shut down plane, supported dictators around the world ... Common, Ukrainian invasion did not happened out of blue. And I don't even mention Russia actively trying to influence politics of ther countries to the worst.

how do you deal with the insane double standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... I'm not advocating against russophobia per se, but americanophobia seems similarly legitimate

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

#248

Post by lettergram »

billjings wrote: post #193
lettergram wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) Firs…

Lettergram, the "constitutional obligations" the first paragraph takes issue with are stipulated in the second paragraph: The obligation to return escaped slaves to their owners. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your conduct in this discussion. And god help you if you walk away from here making the same claims as you have in this thread: they will lead you down into the dark.

Lmao what? How many books have you read on this subject? How many lectures attended? Im not making a moral, emotional, spiritual, statement, I’m making a factual one. To be clear, I support maximum liberty, I’m personally a libertarian. But that doesn’t mean I can’t assess a situation.

The south had decades of arguing the north was attempting to suppress them. The slavery issue was one of many related issues. This really started installing the constitution and usurping the articles of confederation; without appropriate approvals.

It’s like today in the United States, most of the middle (red) states believe life begins at conception. The states on the coasts, plus IL and CO (blue) states have laws implying they won’t protect life until after it leaves the womb. Morally, this triggers the states in the center of the country. The states on the coast argue it’s the “mother’s right to stop the birth”.

I’m not making a moral argument, but describing a fact.

Now, one could argue states rights are the real issue here. Because all the latest political craziness around this topic is simply reverting the idea states set the rights. Each state can run itself how it sees fit. The blue states want to impose their will on the red states (making abortion legal nation wide). I’m sure the opposite would be true if the red states and overwhelming control.

But there’s a ton more the red and blue states are arguing over, this is just one issue. Arguably, it’s the same discussion as slavery - who is a person and when.

The conflict that is continuing to escalate in the U.S. is about so much more. But I think in the end may come down to issues like “states rights”. In reality, the conflict is mostly an urban-rural divide that has gone back to the countries founding.

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

#249

Post by katbyte »

klibertp wrote: post #246
katbyte wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it may be threatening Americans have so many nukes, they are very much not making desperate threats with them, like Russia currently is.

What about "fire and fury"? Wasn't that a threat? Also, please note that in my original comment I'm talking about the future - after the collapse of Russia, in a few decades. Can you guarantee that the world will not need to deal with another Trump in a situation where the MAD doctrine stopped working? And as for currently, don't you think the US is not making "desperate threats" simply because it has absolute no nee…

Threatening with conventional arms is not the same as threatening to use nuclear arms. Many countries threaten to use their military - yet Russia is going as far to threaten the offensive use of nukes. I’m discussing the reality of now not some theoretical future/parallel universe as what’s the point? Russia is doing what Russia is now and that’s the problem.

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

#250

Post by klibertp »

katbyte wrote: post #249
klibertp wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about "fire and fury"? Wasn't that a threat? Also, please note that in my original comment I'm talking about the future - after the collapse of Russia, in a few decades. Can you guarantee that the world will not need to deal with another Trump in a situation where the MAD doctrine stopped working? And as for currently, don't you think the US is not making "desperate threats" simply because it has absolute no nee…

Threatening with conventional arms is not the same as threatening to use nuclear arms. Many countries threaten to use their military - yet Russia is going as far to threaten the offensive use of nukes. I’m discussing the reality of now not some theoretical future/parallel universe as what’s the point? Russia is doing what Russia is now and that’s the problem.

> as what’s the point?

Are you old enough to be sure you will be dead in 20 years? If not, then making sure we won't be all dying in a "fire and fury" would be the point. Otherwise, I guess, you have the luxury of not thinking about "future/parallel universe" that might just one day become the reality.

Post reply on HN