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

181–190 of 278 posts

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

#181

Post by caublestone »

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…

Russia and the US became very friendly during WW2 as well. Stalin and Roosevelt had a solid relationship while Stalin and Churchill did not. Churchill did not like Stalin for various reasons. But Roosevelt was the glue. Unfortunately, US elections at the time stipulated that the Vice President was chosen by the Democrat electorate and there was a coup to replace Roosevelts first pick (a guy friendly to the ussr) with a nobody from Missouri named Truman. Stalin never respected Truman and US relationships with the USSR deteriorated quickly after FDRS passing. Churchill and England became the dominant western voice in post ww2 trade and the iron curtain was eventually dropped.

Truman had so many financial struggles that the pension for presidents was created for him to live a dignified life after leaving office.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/fdrpoland.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_Democratic_Party_vice_pre...

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

#182

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #84
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? In 1865? Which one of those was in existence and larger?

The Qing dynasty (i.e., China), which had just put down a massive rebellion, probably had many times that number of men under arms.

As far as I know Qing military organization was weird for the time. There was no single central Chinese Army as such. There were some forces which officially reported to the Imperial government (the Green Standard and the Eight Banners), but these were of limited use. The armies that put down the Taiping Rebellion were raised by local governors, and were loyal to them not to the Emperor.

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

#183

Post by js2 »

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…

> One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_second_inaug...

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

#184

Post by henrikschroder »

gen220 wrote: post #164
qiskit wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think the reason you’re getting so much vitriol is that you’re framing this issue without any room for nuance. It’s accepted that a disagreement over the future economic regime of the Union was core to the American Civil War. Part of that economic future was tariffs, as you highlight. But an even more foundational part was slavery, and it’s role in the economic future of the country. The elites of the North and Sou…

> It is not correct to frame the moral issue of slavery as the only reason for the war, because it had enormous economic and political implications beyond its morality.

I saw an article that said that by the mid-1800's, the southern states that seceded accounted for half the GDP of the entire US, and slave labour accounted for a majority of that. Abolishing slavery would cripple and impoverish those states, so of course they had to secede. From an economical-political perspective it was the only possible choice.

Imagine that the federal US wanted to prohibit people in California from working with software or media. No more Silicon Valley, no more Hollywood. California would secede in a heartbeat, and every single HN reader living there would strongly support it. Threaten people's way of life, and they'll get kinda angry, regardless of morality.

It's also important to realize that since the southern states were so dependent on slavery, and since people actually have a natural aversion to it, that there existed a system of constant brutal racist propaganda to protect itself. That propaganda was everywhere, it was scientific: Clearly, black people are better suited at working in the sun, cotton requires work in the sun, therefore it is the natural order of things that black people should work the cottonfields. Religious: God rewards the people he loves with prosperity, white plantation owners are the most prosperous, therefore God clearly loves this order of things and wills it so. Political: White nations originating in Europe have subjugated black nations in Africa, and since might makes right, black people from Africa are clearly better off as slaves in America, it's a more civilized life, and therefore the best order of things.

Racism and slavery was simply woven into the fabric of society in a way that's very difficult to imagine today, which is why the reductionism is so misguided. Not being racist or not profiting off of slavery was simply not an option for people living there.

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

#185

Post by triceratops »

lettergram wrote: post #175
billjings wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) Firs…

> The reality, is the south didn’t feel it was being represented.

They received additional representation for their slaves, even though slaves couldn't vote. Just more lies on top of lies.

> First the north didn’t respect property rights

The "property" in question being "human beings"

> then it invaded, murdered and seized its wealth and land.

Sounds like justice to me. And most of that land was given back, instead of being distributed to freed slaves as reparation. Which would have been the right thing to do.

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

#186

Post by Talanes »

lettergram wrote: post #175
billjings wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) Firs…

Constitutional obligations to assist in slavery. There's no cause for the Civil War that you can point to that isn't predicated on slavery.

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

#187

Post by sarchertech »

lettergram wrote: post #175
billjings wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) Firs…

The Vice President of the Confederacy:

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

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

#188

Post by arminiusreturns »

wilkestelephone wrote: post #89
arminiusreturns wrote: post #74

If we and the French could just help the Confederates a bit more America might be ripe for reconquest! The French are already in Mexico and we have ships in Canada! The mad king was a fool for letting those backwards colonists break away in the first place. Those darn Russian fleets showing up in 1863 in NY and SF with sealed orders to attack anyone who attacked the US! How dare they, those Russians will pay! Get tho…

What am I reading here?

A response to the title. What were British officers thinking during the American civil war. Lots of hidden history I just hinted at.

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

#189

Post by tptacek »

piethesailorman wrote: post #174
majormajor wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Nehemiah Adams? Really? Gross.
Post reply on HN