111–120 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US does a lot of shit, but it doesn't actively threaten countries with nuclear weapons
They built the biggest pile of them, have them pointed at certain countries. That can be threatening
I think the real answer and probably why the article is a bit light on actual anecdotes, is that Britain or its military at the time probably didn't think much of it all, especially from a military point of view. Plus they were super busy with imperial concerns, especially in the British Raj post-1857 rebellion. The U.S., although gaining steam economically (pun intended), was still a backwater, rural, nation isolate…
A "backwater"? That forced the 49th parallel on the british in the 1810s? That took oregon territories from the british in the 1840s? The "backwater" that "took" louisiana territories from france and alaska from the russians? The "backwater" that took texas,california,et al from mexico? The "backwater" that took control over the yangtze river from china in 1854?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol
The "backwater" that forced japan to open in the 1850s? Which no european power, including britain, was able to do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition
It wasn't the british navy that dominated the seas mid 1800s. It was american whalers.
By the civil war, we had been shitting on the british and the rest of the great powers for decades. Not bad for a "backwater".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be understood that the british empire was at the peak of economic dependence on the raw material coming from the "new world" at the onset of the civil war; in particular, cotton exports for consumption by british textile mills [1]. > By the late 1850s, cotton grown in the United States accounted for 77 percent of the 800 million pounds of cotton consumed in Britain. It also accounted for 90 percent of the 1…
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> In 1939, Stalin offered to Britain and France to deploy a million troops against Nazi Germany, but he had been rebuffed: WOW thank you I never heard of this
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.
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…
You also seem unfamiliar with the purpose of NATO. Wikipedia: > NATO is a system of collective security: its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties. It was established during the Cold War in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. That is the stated purpose of NATO. The details of its real life military actions do not square with what you quoted at all - unless…
You can blame it on France misusing the NATO moniker rather than it just being a coalition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
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…
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 immediately?
> It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war.
Who cares as long as it is true? I'm not a southerner. Not a fan of the confederacy.
Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people? Does that make any sense to you? Have you looked into lincoln's opinions of black people?
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality..."
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.
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.