THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR PLUS MORE

[eternal light]

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

Another good point, and then came the carpetbaggers into the South to plunder. It was a great hypocrisy.

http://www.slavenorth.com/

[BIGDAN]

Sorry they didn't have these around back then, somebody had to pick the cotton

You dont have to be sorry to me friend, and we didnt have cotton, but we did have other labour markets. Instead of slaves Britain used the Irish in droves, this is probably why i'm living in England now. After the Irish we got the Jews from Eastern Europe to work for nothing, then the Black Caribbeans, Indians, Pakistanis, Cosovans, Albanians, and now the Poles and Romanians are our slave labour, nothing changes ah.

Regards, Danny

[BIGDAN]

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.

Very good point, the Confederacy had the best of the bunch when it came to Generals, although they had some bad ones, Bragg for one, and probably had the better and more courageious soldiers, but the Union were always going to win in a war of attrition. In my opinion the army you had at the end of the war could have beaten any other army man for man.

[BIGDAN]

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?

I dont think Britain would impose anything on the Confederacy at this point, Britain usually would side with the underdog so as to keep a balance of power that she could control as she always did in Europe.

Sanctions after the war was over would be more her style, you either tow the line or go bankrupt as Britain would blockade you and confiscate all your ships much as the North did in reality.

But i dont think the South could economically survive without slavery at this time as the changes it would have to make would put any Government out of power straight away.

[BIGDAN]

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.

You are so right, i just looked through Wiki and i could not believe how it still goes on in this day and age and to what degree, and we condem those that did it in the 1800s and on whos economys could not survive without slaves. Or does the same criteria still survive to this day?

[Tejanablonde]

I dont think Britain would impose anything on the Confederacy at this point, Britain usually would side with the underdog so as to keep a balance of power that she could control as she always did in Europe.

Sanctions after the war was over would be more her style, you either tow the line or go bankrupt as Britain would blockade you and confiscate all your ships much as the North did in reality.

But i dont think the South could economically survive without slavery at this time as the changes it would have to make would put any Government out of power straight away.

I think you're right Dan. If Britain had strategized correctly, we would drink tea hot instead of iced. What a concept.

In reflection of our current political climate.....

[eternal light]

I dont think Britain would impose anything on the Confederacy at this point, Britain usually would side with the underdog so as to keep a balance of power that she could control as she always did in Europe.

Sanctions after the war was over would be more her style, you either tow the line or go bankrupt as Britain would blockade you and confiscate all your ships much as the North did in reality.

But i dont think the South could economically survive without slavery at this time as the changes it would have to make would put any Government out of power straight away.

I think the South could have survived perfectly well without unjust enrichment.

[BIGDAN]

I think you're right Dan. If Britain had strategized correctly, we would drink tea hot instead of iced. What a concept.

In reflection of our current political climate.....

What another "Tea Party" whatever next, maybe this?

What do you think then?

[Patrycja]

You are so right, i just looked through Wiki and i could not believe how it still goes on in this day and age and to what degree, and we condem those that did it in the 1800s and on whos economys could not survive without slaves. Or does the same criteria still survive to this day?

Well how we define slavery or slaves, or perhaps how most people understand those terms, is different today than back then. But the mechanisms are largely the same.

Part of it is economic, and under the umbrella of 'exploitation' many companies go in to poor countries for cheap labour and we buy the products. Now I don't want to get into a debate with people about how these companies at least provide jobs for people. It can only be deemed an improvement within a very narrow definition of 'improvement', one that ironically ignores qulaity of life. Anyway, this aspect of the issue is something most already know about.

Another economic aspect is of people who l essentially enslave themselves for life by taking a loan at exorbitant interest, and because they have no assets , agree to work for next to nothing in abominable conditions for very long hours for the rest of their life.

Human trafficking is also another aspect, where people are literally bought and sold: sometimes it's parents selling their children for prostitution (sometimes they don't know that's what it's for, sometimes they do); sometimes it's adults duped into 'better jobs in Europe or North America' and they go thinking they're going to be nannies, hotel staff, janitors and end up being sex slaves who cook; sometimes women just get kidnapped and sold into prostitution rings in prosperous nations (touched upon in the movie 'Eastern Promises').

Those are just some general ways off the top of my head slavery still exists today. It's like a great shape shifter that keeps itself employed based on catering to the flavours of each particular time and place.

[eternal light]

Well how we define slavery or slaves, or perhaps how most people understand those terms, is different today than back then. But the mechanisms are largely the same.

Part of it is economic, and under the umbrella of 'exploitation' many companies go in to poor countries for cheap labour and we buy the products. Now I don't want to get into a debate with people about how these companies at least provide jobs for people. It can only be deemed an improvement within a very narrow definition of 'improvement', one that ironically ignores qulaity of life. Anyway, this aspect of the issue is something most already know about.

Another economic aspect is of people who l essentially enslave themselves for life by taking a loan at exorbitant interest, and because they have no assets , agree to work for next to nothing in abominable conditions for very long hours for the rest of their life.

Human trafficking is also another aspect, where people are literally bought and sold: sometimes it's parents selling their children for prostitution (sometimes they don't know that's what it's for, sometimes they do); sometimes it's adults duped into 'better jobs in Europe or North America' and they go thinking they're going to be nannies, hotel staff, janitors and end up being sex slaves who cook; sometimes women just get kidnapped and sold into prostitution rings in prosperous nations (touched upon in the movie 'Eastern Promises').

Those are just some general ways off the top of my head slavery still exists today. It's like a great shape shifter that keeps itself employed based on catering to the flavours of each particular time and place.

That's why the FBI is in Texas.

[BIGDAN]

Anyway back on topic boys.

If a British army had been sent to help the Confederacy could it cope with the new tactics that the Civil War had employed.

The British army was still used to European style battles, we had just finnished a war with Russia, and if you remember we had learned nothing new. Infantry in line, cavalry on the flanks, artillery there for covering an attack.

The battles of Inkerman, The Alma and Balaclava had shown the world that Britain could still fight a conventional war and still had a great deal of courage in its troops, but the theatre of war in the US was very different, more varied terrain, and the ability to fight unconventionaly would mean that European armies might have been up against it for a good while.

[Dzldoc]

Had it not been for Robert E Lee the war would have turned into Gurella warfare and the Civil War would have dragged on for who knows how long.

There are a lot of caves and hills and swamps to hide in.

That is one of the reasons he was touted as one of the greatest generals of all time.

[BIGDAN]

Meanwhile.....

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

Is this the famous, "Ben Yay" of New Orleans? It would go down well with Tea, but would run amock with my blood sugars, type 2 you know, still WTF ide eat a plate full of them, and stuff them with boiled up apples and pour a generous amount of custard over them, would that be OK with you Rebels?

Regards, Danny

[eternal light]

This is the perfect topic for Halloween.

[BIGDAN]

Had it not been for Robert E Lee the war would have turned into Gurella warfare and the Civil War would have dragged on for who knows how long.

There are a lot of caves and hills and swamps to hide in.

That is one of the reasons he was touted as one of the greatest generals of all time.

One of my all time favourite and heroic Generals from any era, he also had good subordinates like Jackson, who was irreplaceable to him and loseing him was very costly.

[BIGDAN]

This is the perfect topic for Halloween.

What do you mean by that?

Get your KKK outfits out and frighten the neighborhood like Jonesy did in No Quater TSRTS?

[eternal light]

What do you mean by that?

Get your KKK outfits out and frighten the neighborhood like Jonesy did in No Quater TSRTS?

No, not that.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8697/pgkenn.html

The Battle at Kennesaw Mountain (north of Atlanta) was fought beginning June 27, 1864. More than 3,000 soldiers were killed during the next few days, most of them Federal. Speaking of the skirmish at Kennesaw's Dead Angle (pictured below), Corporal Benjamin F. McGee, 72nd Indiana Infantry, described the scene as such:

"Every mountain and hill, in front and far away to the right, fairly bristled with artillery and swarmed with Rebels. Never before had we seen so many Rebels at one time."

"Next day, General Johnson sent a flag of truce to Sherman in order to give him time to carry off the wounded and bury the dead, who were festering in front of their line." (on the slopes of the Dead Angle)

-Capt. David P. Conyngham, Volunteer Aide-de-Camp, Federal Staff, 1864.

"...A solid line of fire right from the muzzles of the Yankee guns, the hot blood of our dead and wounded spurting on us, the blinding smoke and stifling atmosphere filling our eyes and mouths...afterward, I heard a soldier saying that he thought 'Hell had broke loose in Georgia, sure enough'."

-Private Sam R. Watkins, 1st Tennessee Infantry, Maney's Brigade, at Kennesaw's Dead Angle, June 1864

"The Rebel musketry fire was terrific; to stand still was death."

-Private S. M. Canterbury, 86th Illinois Infantry, Daniel McCook's Brigade, speaking of his personal experience during the battle at the Dead Angle.

[greenman]

I doubt there would have been the will to put British troops into action agenst the north unless they made a move into canadian territory first, the most I think you'd have seen is a naval blockade and financial support for the south.

[BIGDAN]

I doubt there would have been the will to put British troops into action agenst the north unless they made a move into canadian territory first, the most I think you'd have seen is a naval blockade and financial support for the south.

Hi Greenman

Well obviously there was not the will for Britain to comit to the war as this didnt happen, i think Beatbo started this thread as a "What if Britain did come in on the Souths side" and too see if we had any thoughts on what might have happened if they did. Your thoughts on that would be much appriciated.

Regards, Danny

[Bong-Man]

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.

Vic....Thought of you when I took this. I went back in May.

Downtown Gettysburg....

One of the interesting points of Gettysburg was that Confederate soldiers actually rode into town at the end of June and tried to shop using confederate money. The local citizens were scared to death, but the Rebs were polite as hell. They even took time to compliment the locals on how pretty the area was.

Night-time Ghost tours are all the rage now in town.

I'm with Greenman....a blockade or sea support would have been the only British option.

[L 7]

Vic....Thought of you when I took this. I went back in May.

Downtown Gettysburg....

One of the interesting points of Gettysburg was that Confederate soldiers actually rode into town at the end of June and tried to shop using confederate money. The local citizens were scared to death, but the Rebs were polite as hell. They even took time to compliment the locals on how pretty the area was.

Night-time Ghost tours are all the rage now in town.

I'm with Greenman....a blockade or sea support would have been the only British option.

Nice pictures. I didn`t make it there this year. Still planning the trip to Antietam and Fredricksburg.

I have been 7 times and have yet to take it all in. I could spend all day there.

Devils Den, Little Round Top, The Wheatfield and the sight of Pickett`s Change where your picture at the clump of trees was taken.

Vic

edited for spelling

[BIGDAN]

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!

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?

???

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?

Right beatbo i think i have the jist of it now.

Britain had 50,000 troops involved in the Crimean war a decade earlier so this is the maximum i think she would use.

Britain sends this army of 50,000 with its fleet of about 220 ships over to Canada, they then procedes to travel south down the East coast of the USA and blocade each port and to destroy or capture every Union ship they come across.

France sends its nave to help but does not commit troops yet.

The army of 50,000 will be used to garrison all the forts and cities of the South allowing the South to put as many as 100,000 in their front line armies.

This results in each of the main theatres of war (Virginia,Tennesse,Mississippi) being allocated and extra 25,000 men each with a further corps of 25,000 as a stratigic reserve to be commited to any theatre as and when needed to exact a crushing victory for the South.

[beatbo]

Right beatbo i think i have the jist of it now.

Britain had 50,000 troops involved in the Crimean war a decade earlier so this is the maximum i think she would use.

Britain sends this army of 50,000 with its fleet of about 220 ships over to Canada, they then procedes to travel south down the East coast of the USA and blocade each port and to destroy or capture every Union ship they come across.

France sends its nave to help but does not commit troops yet.

The army of 50,000 will be used to garrison all the forts and cities of the South allowing the South to put as many as 100,000 in their front line armies.

This results in each of the main theatres of war (Virginia,Tennesse,Mississippi) being allocated and extra 25,000 men each with a further corps of 25,000 as a stratigic reserve to be commited to any theatre as and when needed to exact a crushing victory for the South.

very good. the north has no other option but to try and buttress or hold it's main cities and ports. canada has to be broached-as well as supply lines westward past kansas and down to texas and over to san francisco. railroads become even more important than ever, and lines are needed quickly. mexico has been politically manipulated into war with france by napoleon 3 and archduke maximilian of austria. this war would cost mexico 300,000 lives and leave it weak but they would turn back the second mightiest nation on earth. can a coalition turn this whole powder keg into world war 1 50 years early?

[BIGDAN]

very good. the north has no other option but to try and buttress or hold it's main cities and ports. canada has to be broached-as well as supply lines westward past kansas and down to texas and over to san francisco. railroads become even more important than ever, and lines are needed quickly. mexico has been politically manipulated into war with france by napoleon 3 and archduke maximilian of austria. this war would cost mexico 300,000 lives and leave it weak but they would turn back the second mightiest nation on earth. can a coalition turn this whole powder keg into world war 1 50 years early?

And could Russia play a part here? the US had not purchased Alaska yet, and Russia could menace the west coast. I dont think they were in a position to invade as their fleet was based in the Baltic and Black seas but they could be a bit of a nuisance as far as the North were concerned.

And Beatbo, who do you think is the First Mightiest Nation on Earth? assuming you think the USA as being the second.

[Dzldoc]

In the beginnig of the war extensive resources were exhausted by the federals in a futile attempt to capture Charleston. Could this have never happened if the Brits blockaded the harbour?

"In December 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union, and the Federal garrison abandoned Fort Moultrie for the stronger Sumter. Three and a half months later, Confederate troops shelled Sumter into submission, plunging the nation into civil war. In April 1863, Federal iron-clads and shore batteries began a 20-month bombardment of Sumter and Moultrie, yet Charleston’s defenses held. When the Confederate army evacuated the city in February 1865, Fort Sumter was little more than a pile of rubble and Fort Moultrie lay hidden under the band of sand that protected its walls from Federal shells. The new rifled cannon used during the Civil War had demolished the brick-walled fortifications."

Source: http://www.nps.gov/fosu/historyculture/fort_moultrie.htm