Jump to content

THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR PLUS MORE


beatbo

Recommended Posts

here's the idea:

this is a revisionist idea, as anyone who has read "fatherland" or any number of books will get the drift, so play along.

to all of those who are beating their brains out on political threads, this war ended 150 years ago, so don't blame clinton or bush. i hope to discover by way of discussion underlying perceptions and beliefs that will be revealed by expressions of revisionism. anything that is possible either diplomatically, economically or as a possible battle or war situation. other countries can be included if you can draw the line cleanly.

please feel free to play along!

here's a brief timeline, just to help everyone brush up:

1861

April 17 - Virginia secedes from the Union, followed within 5 weeks by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, thus forming an eleven state Confederacy.

April 19 - President Lincoln issues a Proclamation of Blockade against Southern ports. For the duration of the war the blockade limits the ability of the rural South to stay well supplied in its war against the industrialized North.

July 4 - Lincoln, in a speech to Congress, states the war is..."a People's contest... a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men..." The Congress authorizes a call for 500,000 men.

July 21 - The Union Army under Gen. Irvin McDowell suffers a defeat at Bull Run 25 miles southwest of Washington. Confederate Gen. Thomas J. Jackson earns the nickname "Stonewall," as his brigade resists Union attacks. Union troops fall back to Washington. President Lincoln realizes the war will be long. "It's damned bad," he comments.

July 27 - President Lincoln appoints George B. McClellan as Commander of the Department of the Potomac, replacing McDowell.

September 11 - President Lincoln revokes Gen. John C. Frémont's unauthorized military proclamation of emancipation in Missouri. Later, the president relieves Gen. Frémont of his command and replaces him with Gen. David Hunter.

November 1 - President Lincoln appoints McClellan as general-in-chief of all Union forces after the resignation of the aged Winfield Scott. Lincoln tells McClellan, "...the supreme command of the Army will entail a vast labor upon you." McClellan responds, "I can do it all."

November 8 - The beginning of an international diplomatic crisis for President Lincoln as two Confederate officials sailing toward England are seized by the U.S. Navy. England, the leading world power, demands their release, threatening war.

all the events listed above are true.

my first deviation:

lincolns remarks are ignored. as the prisoners are turned over to the british on a "neutral" ship by flag officer david farragut, the confederate ironclad "merrimac" and two british ships sink farragut's flag ship and four others in chesapeake bay. britain and the conferate states declare war on the united states.

now what happens?

ConfederateStatesOfEngland.jpg

???

edit to add: for those who don't know, david farragut was known for "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" his death here removes him from taking new orleans in april of 1862. see how this works?

Edited by beatbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's the idea:

this is a revisionist idea, as anyone who has read "fatherland" or any number of books will get the drift, so play along.

to all of those who are beating their brains out on political threads, this war ended 150 years ago, so don't blame clinton or bush. i hope to discover by way of discussion underlying perceptions and beliefs that will be revealed by expressions of revisionism. anything that is possible either diplomatically, economically or as a possible battle or war situation. other countries can be included if you can draw the line cleanly.

please feel free to play along!

here's a brief timeline, just to help everyone brush up:

1861

April 17 - Virginia secedes from the Union, followed within 5 weeks by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, thus forming an eleven state Confederacy.

April 19 - President Lincoln issues a Proclamation of Blockade against Southern ports. For the duration of the war the blockade limits the ability of the rural South to stay well supplied in its war against the industrialized North.

July 4 - Lincoln, in a speech to Congress, states the war is..."a People's contest... a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men..." The Congress authorizes a call for 500,000 men.

July 21 - The Union Army under Gen. Irvin McDowell suffers a defeat at Bull Run 25 miles southwest of Washington. Confederate Gen. Thomas J. Jackson earns the nickname "Stonewall," as his brigade resists Union attacks. Union troops fall back to Washington. President Lincoln realizes the war will be long. "It's damned bad," he comments.

July 27 - President Lincoln appoints George B. McClellan as Commander of the Department of the Potomac, replacing McDowell.

September 11 - President Lincoln revokes Gen. John C. Frémont's unauthorized military proclamation of emancipation in Missouri. Later, the president relieves Gen. Frémont of his command and replaces him with Gen. David Hunter.

November 1 - President Lincoln appoints McClellan as general-in-chief of all Union forces after the resignation of the aged Winfield Scott. Lincoln tells McClellan, "...the supreme command of the Army will entail a vast labor upon you." McClellan responds, "I can do it all."

November 8 - The beginning of an international diplomatic crisis for President Lincoln as two Confederate officials sailing toward England are seized by the U.S. Navy. England, the leading world power, demands their release, threatening war.

all the events listed above are true.

my first deviation:

lincolns remarks are ignored. as the prisoners are turned over to the british on a "neutral" ship by flag officer david farragut, the confederate ironclad "merrimac" and two british ships sink farragut's flag ship and four others in chesapeake bay. britain and the conferate states declare war on the united states.

now what happens?

ConfederateStatesOfEngland.jpg

???

Fucking awesome flag, where did you get that one mate?

Like this one?

RebelSymbols.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this another flag waving contest or are you just glad to see me?

Just glad to see ya.

England would use its navy to blockade the North as the North did to the Confederacy, and would attack through Canada.

A double thrust, Confederate troops from the South and British Troops from the North, Washington and New York would be taken in weeks, and maybe an Irish uprising in New York and Boston, could the North cope with this, i dont think so.

Then theres the prospect of mobilising the Red Indians to fight for the Confederacy with the outlook to them getting self determination, a better prospect than what awaited them.

France would have to join in with Britain or risk another humiliating defeat if war started in Europe as it would most certainly do.

And what about Mexico, would they join in with the Confederacy in return for better diplomatic ties with a country that might give it some of its stolen land back?

Brilliant thread Beatbo, and love the flag. Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just glad to see ya.

England would use its navy to blockade the North as the North did to the Confederacy, and would attack through Canada.

A double thrust, Confederate troops from the South and British Troops from the North, Washington and New York would be taken in weeks, and maybe an Irish uprising in New York and Boston, could the North cope with this, i dont think so.

Then theres the prospect of mobilising the Red Indians to fight for the Confederacy with the outlook to them getting self determination, a better prospect than what awaited them.

France would have to join in with Britain or risk another humiliating defeat if war started in Europe as it would most certainly do.

And what about Mexico, would they join in with the Confederacy in return for better diplomatic ties with a country that might give it some of its stolen land back?

Brilliant thread Beatbo, and love the flag. Regards, Danny

very interesting prospects. i think ironclads would play a bigger role, since there would be two blockades (for a short while, anyways) instead of one.

and what of spain? i think that mexico might throw in with the north for a deal that may include texas and california.

what's the size of militia in canada during the 1860's, anyone know? alot of french? canada may not be an open and shut deal if the north can persuade france.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain was ashamed of its role in the slave trade, and it deserved to be.

ohhhhhkay....

i guess you're speaking of the hundreds of thousands of slaves traded and transported via liverpool.

and why do you bring that up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stonewall Jackson has not been killed at Chansorsville, he would have been in command of his corp on the second day at Gettysburg. He would have driven his troops to the summit of Little Round Top changing history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile.....

Back in New Orleans we enjoy some beignets and a cupa tea :coffee:

beignets.jpg

we are at ship island off the coast of gulfport. fort massachusetts.

we've just ousted the union soldiers and are busy fortifying the fort for the defense of new orleans.

have a beignet on us, doc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is the American Civil War.

quite right. so, the embarrassed british throw in with the south to protect it's economic investment in the slave trade. any other reasons the british have come in on the side of the confederacy besides the two already posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quite right. so, the embarrassed british throw in with the south to protect it's economic investment in the slave trade. any other reasons the british have come in on the side of the confederacy besides the two already posted?

As I said the British were ashamed of their role in the slave trade. They were trying to repair what remained of their integrity.

Robert Plant himself has been outspoken in regard to civil rights for black people, at least in the past.

Edited by eternal light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain was ashamed of its role in the slave trade, and it deserved to be.

And so should the USA as well, since it was the Royal Navy that stopped the Slave Trade in the North Atlantic and not the USA who carried on with slavery untill the Civil War ended.

Were Americans not ashamed of what they did then? And to say nothing of the genocide that you were to comit a little later on.

Britain

In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett)[310] of the English Court of King's Bench ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire). A similar case, that of Joseph Knight, took place in Scotland five years later and ruled slavery to be contrary to the law of Scotland.

Following the work of campaigners in the United Kingdom, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was passed by Parliament on March 25, 1807, coming into effect the following year. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to outlaw entirely the Atlantic slave trade within the whole British Empire.

The Slavery Abolition Act, passed on August 23, 1833, outlawed slavery itself in the British colonies. On August 1, 1834 all slaves in the British West Indies, were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was finally abolished in 1838.[311]

Britain abolished slavery in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.[312]

Domestic slavery practised by the educated African coastal elites (as well as interior traditional rulers) in Sierra Leone was abolished in 1928. A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.

Source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Pray tell me why the USA still had slaves after Big Bad Britain had stopped it, and why there are still countries like Mauritania who still practice slavery?

Regards, Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, in our new little world, does britian sitdown with the confederacy and make an alliance that includes the abolition of slavery on their terms, rather than the union's? i think history might suggest that if this happened, it may be a deal breaker if not included in the pact. would britian force the south to tow the line in order to receive a helping hand? and if so, what would britian's after war role include as far as it's relationship with the south? an addition to the empire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said the British were ashamed of their role in the slave trade. They were trying to repair what remained of their integrity.

Robert Plant himself has been outspoken in regard to civil rights for black people, at least in the past.

They repaired their integrity long before Americia did, by the time of the Civil War slavery was gone from Britain, but you still had it.

Robert Plant can be as outspoken in regard for the civil rights of black people as he likes, didnt stop him from "Borrowing/Stealing" them lyrics and not paying the royalties did it, now thats not CIVIL, RIGHT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They repaired their integrity long before Americia did, by the time of the Civil War slavery was gone from Britain, but you still had it.

You're right, the United States persisted in its reliance on slave labor even after Britain had quit.

Robert Plant can be as outspoken in regard for the civil rights of black people as he likes, didnt stop him from "Borrowing/Stealing" them lyrics and not paying the royalties did it, now thats not CIVIL, RIGHT.

I suppose he did not really think of it as stealing. He gets so passionate that he loses track. They finally settled their case with Willie Dixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, in our new little world, does britian sitdown with the confederacy and make an alliance that includes the abolition of slavery on their terms, rather than the union's? i think history might suggest that if this happened, it may be a deal breaker if not included in the pact. would britian force the south to tow the line in order to receive a helping hand? and if so, what would britian's after war role include as far as it's relationship with the south? an addition to the empire?

At some point Britain's conscience made it think twice about how it had established its empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so should the USA as well, since it was the Royal Navy that stopped the Slave Trade in the North Atlantic and not the USA who carried on with slavery untill the Civil War ended.

Were Americans not ashamed of what they did then? And to say nothing of the genocide that you were to comit a little later on.

Britain

In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett)[310] of the English Court of King's Bench ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire). A similar case, that of Joseph Knight, took place in Scotland five years later and ruled slavery to be contrary to the law of Scotland.

Following the work of campaigners in the United Kingdom, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was passed by Parliament on March 25, 1807, coming into effect the following year. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to outlaw entirely the Atlantic slave trade within the whole British Empire.

The Slavery Abolition Act, passed on August 23, 1833, outlawed slavery itself in the British colonies. On August 1, 1834 all slaves in the British West Indies, were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was finally abolished in 1838.[311]

Britain abolished slavery in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.[312]

Domestic slavery practised by the educated African coastal elites (as well as interior traditional rulers) in Sierra Leone was abolished in 1928. A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.

Source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Pray tell me why the USA still had slaves after Big Bad Britain had stopped it, and why there are still countries like Mauritania who still practice slavery?

Regards, Danny

Good point, you are correct about the history of the United States and ask some very good questions. Thank you.

The USA still had slaves because the southern states stubbornly insisted on keeping the system of slavery in place.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/

Edited by eternal light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

very interesting prospects. i think ironclads would play a bigger role, since there would be two blockades (for a short while, anyways) instead of one.

and what of spain? i think that mexico might throw in with the north for a deal that may include texas and california.

what's the size of militia in canada during the 1860's, anyone know? alot of french? canada may not be an open and shut deal if the north can persuade france.

Mexico would get a better deal off of the Confederacy in my opinion as they were not as hungry for more land like the North was. And as for Spain, they had not got over the Napoleonic Wars, they had lost their South American Empire by 1844 and were no military threat at these times, their fleet had been dealt a heavy blow at Trafalgar and had not recovered.

The British would have strengthened their presence in Canada untill they could have made a decisive strike, remember the North was very weak in the first year of the war and the Confederacy nearly won after First Bull Run. France would not have wanted a European conflict with Britain and Britain could have easily blockaded French ports as well as Union ones, a large shipbuilding programme would surely have taken place in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, you are correct about the history of the United States and ask some very good questions. Thank you.

The USA still had slaves because the southern states stubbornly insisted on keeping the system of slavery in place.

So did many Northern States, President Lincoln didnt stop slavery in any Northern State, he only outlawed it in the South so he wouldnt upset any Northern Gentlemen.

Edited by BIGDAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so should the USA as well, since it was the Royal Navy that stopped the Slave Trade in the North Atlantic and not the USA who carried on with slavery untill the Civil War ended.

Were Americans not ashamed of what they did then? And to say nothing of the genocide that you were to comit a little later on.

Britain

In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett)[310] of the English Court of King's Bench ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire). A similar case, that of Joseph Knight, took place in Scotland five years later and ruled slavery to be contrary to the law of Scotland.

Following the work of campaigners in the United Kingdom, the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was passed by Parliament on March 25, 1807, coming into effect the following year. The act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship. The intention was to outlaw entirely the Atlantic slave trade within the whole British Empire.

The Slavery Abolition Act, passed on August 23, 1833, outlawed slavery itself in the British colonies. On August 1, 1834 all slaves in the British West Indies, were emancipated, but still indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was finally abolished in 1838.[311]

Britain abolished slavery in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.[312]

Domestic slavery practised by the educated African coastal elites (as well as interior traditional rulers) in Sierra Leone was abolished in 1928. A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.

Source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Pray tell me why the USA still had slaves after Big Bad Britain had stopped it, and why there are still countries like Mauritania who still practice slavery?

Regards, Danny

Slightly OT to your great post, but as a means of highlighting the issue, slavery is very much alive and well today throughout the world, in so-called developed, developing and third world nations. That is happens to be illegal in some of those nations and legal in others simply means it gets manifested in different ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...