Started by BILLY Defiant, February 11, 2012, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 02:56:33 AMmdgiles, As for, what would Britain gain?1.) a natural ally in the South.2.) defeat of a rising power (same reason they went to war in 1914).3.) revenge for Yorktown and New Orleans.Britain's Navy was key. She could put 250,000 troops in Canada veryquickly and blockade all the eastern seaports simultaneously. The vital ingredient for the North was generalship not numbers, and as the early days of the war demonstrated, hardly a strong point for the North. As for slavery, it was a political issue in Britain and hardly an issue of passionfor working class labor.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 01, 2013, 11:18:02 AMmdgiles; continuing our mutually enlightening discussion.As for your last #2 point , " The USA had been a semi ally of Britain."Hopes and wishes. As Von Bismarck observed. "Great nations have interests, not allies."
QuoteYour assertion that Britain did not have at least 250,000 regulars in 1860 is arrant nonsense. In fact, she had some 400,000 dispersed
QuoteHer critical advantage was the Royal Navy.
QuoteCase in point. In 1914, within 6 weeks of declaring war, Britain landed 325,000 regulars in France.
QuoteThe notion that a force of some 600,000 Northerners, led by assorted Union buffoonery; while confronted by British Canada and the South; would be victorious, is the triumph of fantasy over reality.
QuoteLincoln, to his great credit and wisdom, understood this grave threat to the Union. As such, his Emancipation Proclamation was a masterstroke of political genius.
Quote from: Walter Josh on July 03, 2013, 04:01:02 AMmdgiles, fair points.The essence of what I'm asserting is real simple:The USA was a 72 year old in 1860 and hardly a threat to Great Britain either economically or militarily. To believe otherwise, is beyond fantasy.The South provided the critical raw material that made Britain prosperous and powerful. As such, the South was her natural ally.
Quote(It is true that the plantations of East Bengal would supplant Southern cotton but not until 1870).In contrast, the North, being industrialized rather than agrarian, produced largely finished goods which made her a competitor of Britain rather than a supplier of the vital commodity that kept her mills humming.
QuoteLeaving aside your numbers game, Britain has access to whatever troop levels she needed, stone cold reality, as the Great War demonstrated.
QuoteYou cannot seem to grasp the power that the Royal Navy gave Britain, which is why Mahan insisted the military priority for an emergent USA in 1900 must always be the Navy before the Army.
QuoteNo, I'm not British (no such critter) nor English; I'm German born and no fan of any of the Generals of the Civil War on either side.
QuoteMy comment about the Emancipation Proclamation is related to an earlier post about Rowan Helper's "Impending Crises". He correctly asserted that cotton retarded economic growth in the South as it was land, manpower and water intensive, drawing down costly resources to the detriment of industry.
QuoteHe also agreed w/Adam Smith that labor freely contracted in the marketplace was always more efficient than labor coerced through slavery. Hence he supported the abolition of slavery, for economic not moral reasons, as a means of breaking the stranglehold the Plantation Class held in the South.
QuoteLincoln's Proclamation was a political master stroke, as it gave the North the moral high ground, preventing Great Britain, who had abolished slavery in 1833, from aligning itself with the South. W/o Britain. the South could not win.
QuoteGreat discussion. Well done.