There's a difference between fighting a "war for slavery" and fighting a war that indirectly helps a slaveholding nation. The Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, the Second Anglo-Maratha War, the two Kandyan Wars and the War of 1812 all indirectly helped Napoleon by drawing British resources away from Europe, but it would be false to describe any of the belligerents in them as "Fighting for French domination in Europe".
American Civil War: Trent Affair
- Thread starter Carl Clausewitz
- Start date
There's a difference between fighting a "war for slavery" and fighting a war that indirectly helps a slaveholding nation. The Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, the Second Anglo-Maratha War, the two Kandyan Wars and the War of 1812 all indirectly helped Napoleon by drawing British resources away from Europe, but it would be false to describe any of the belligerents in them as "Fighting for French domination in Europe".
TFSmith121
Banned
And had Mysore, the Marathas, the Kandyans, and the US
And had Mysore, the Marathas, the Kandyans, and the US built their international and domestic politics in the previous two and half decades before 1798 or 1812 or whenever around opposing whatever twisted equivalence of French imperial power politics and chattel slavery you are trying to construct to paper over the reality that the UK going to war against the US in 1861-65 means the UK is fighting a war in support of slavery?
Really?
Much less the slight difference that that Mysorites, Marathas, the Kandyans, and the Americans were - in their eyes - responding to British invasions, support for proxies, and/or enslavement of the own people at the time?
Come on...
Nice attempt at a moral equivalence, but even the most starry-eyed of the pro-slavery cheering section can't believe that - after all, "old times there are not forgotten..."
Or perhaps they do believe such, but just don't wish to admit to such in polite company.
Once more, with feeling:
Here's what the beggars in red would be fighting for, and what John Bull will be spending money for:
http://docsteach.org/documents/533232/detail
Worth noting is the reason WHY this famour photo was taken in 1863 is that the man pictured had escaped enslavement and was volunteering for service in the United States Army; here he is after joining up:
If the UK goes to a war against the US between December 24, 1860, 1861 and May 13, 1865 - possibly even Nov. 6, 1865 - it is a war in support of slavery.
As per Charles Dew's work, Apostles of Disunion:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/2....rv125315.html
Here's the lead from the review:
This incisive history should dispel the pernicious notion that the Confederacy fought the Civil War to advance the constitutional principle of states' rights and only coincidentally to preserve slavery. In late 1860 and early 1861, five states of the Deep South sent out commissioners -- domestic ambassadors -- to preach secession in wavering states like Virginia and Kentucky. Charles B. Dew, who teaches history at Williams College, reveals the secessionists' message in their own blunt words. The commissioners argued that slavery was ''ordained by God and sanctioned by humanity.'' They warned fellow slaveowners that Abraham Lincoln and the ''Black Republican'' government sought ''to light up the fires of a servile insurrection, and to give your dwellings to the torch of the incendiary, and your wives and children to the knives of assassins.'' The Confederacy, by contrast, had ''solemnly discarded the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians, that all men, of all races, were equal, and . . . had made African inequality and subordination, and the equality of white men, the chief cornerstone of the Southern Republic.'' After the war had been lost, Dew observes, these inflammatory words were conveniently forgotten, replaced by claims (as Jefferson Davis put it) that the South had fought for ''constitutional government'' and ''the natural rights of man.'' ''We Southerners,'' writes Dew, himself a descendant of Confederate veterans, ''thus did not have to come to grips with our own history at a time when honesty might have carried the day.'' He confesses ''a profound sadness'' whenever he reads over ''the material on which this study is based.''
I realize that moonlight and magnolias and Rhett and Scarlett and the Lost Cause obscured that reality from time to time over the past century and half, but - seriously?
Anyone really believe a majority of the British Parliament is, when the moment comes, and the ghosts of Wilberforce et al are haunting the hall, going to say "what ho, old fellow, huzzah, let's go support the slavers' rebellion..." and toddle off to a trans-Atlantic war with a Western nation of 20 million people? That already had mobilized half a million men? And in the middle of winter?
Come on - there's really that little faith in the rationality, morality, and intelligence of the British elite of 1861-62?
Best,
And had Mysore, the Marathas, the Kandyans, and the US built their international and domestic politics in the previous two and half decades before 1798 or 1812 or whenever around opposing whatever twisted equivalence of French imperial power politics and chattel slavery you are trying to construct to paper over the reality that the UK going to war against the US in 1861-65 means the UK is fighting a war in support of slavery?
Really?
Much less the slight difference that that Mysorites, Marathas, the Kandyans, and the Americans were - in their eyes - responding to British invasions, support for proxies, and/or enslavement of the own people at the time?
Come on...
Nice attempt at a moral equivalence, but even the most starry-eyed of the pro-slavery cheering section can't believe that - after all, "old times there are not forgotten..."
Or perhaps they do believe such, but just don't wish to admit to such in polite company.
Once more, with feeling:
Here's what the beggars in red would be fighting for, and what John Bull will be spending money for:
http://docsteach.org/documents/533232/detail
Worth noting is the reason WHY this famour photo was taken in 1863 is that the man pictured had escaped enslavement and was volunteering for service in the United States Army; here he is after joining up:
If the UK goes to a war against the US between December 24, 1860, 1861 and May 13, 1865 - possibly even Nov. 6, 1865 - it is a war in support of slavery.
As per Charles Dew's work, Apostles of Disunion:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/2....rv125315.html
Here's the lead from the review:
This incisive history should dispel the pernicious notion that the Confederacy fought the Civil War to advance the constitutional principle of states' rights and only coincidentally to preserve slavery. In late 1860 and early 1861, five states of the Deep South sent out commissioners -- domestic ambassadors -- to preach secession in wavering states like Virginia and Kentucky. Charles B. Dew, who teaches history at Williams College, reveals the secessionists' message in their own blunt words. The commissioners argued that slavery was ''ordained by God and sanctioned by humanity.'' They warned fellow slaveowners that Abraham Lincoln and the ''Black Republican'' government sought ''to light up the fires of a servile insurrection, and to give your dwellings to the torch of the incendiary, and your wives and children to the knives of assassins.'' The Confederacy, by contrast, had ''solemnly discarded the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians, that all men, of all races, were equal, and . . . had made African inequality and subordination, and the equality of white men, the chief cornerstone of the Southern Republic.'' After the war had been lost, Dew observes, these inflammatory words were conveniently forgotten, replaced by claims (as Jefferson Davis put it) that the South had fought for ''constitutional government'' and ''the natural rights of man.'' ''We Southerners,'' writes Dew, himself a descendant of Confederate veterans, ''thus did not have to come to grips with our own history at a time when honesty might have carried the day.'' He confesses ''a profound sadness'' whenever he reads over ''the material on which this study is based.''
I realize that moonlight and magnolias and Rhett and Scarlett and the Lost Cause obscured that reality from time to time over the past century and half, but - seriously?
Anyone really believe a majority of the British Parliament is, when the moment comes, and the ghosts of Wilberforce et al are haunting the hall, going to say "what ho, old fellow, huzzah, let's go support the slavers' rebellion..." and toddle off to a trans-Atlantic war with a Western nation of 20 million people? That already had mobilized half a million men? And in the middle of winter?
Come on - there's really that little faith in the rationality, morality, and intelligence of the British elite of 1861-62?
Best,
frlmerrin
Banned
Took you long enough to figure it out Fabius. He is a fun troll though. Who would have thought he could craft a troll fell as amusingly absurd as Balls of Burnished Brass and keep it up for months on end? Who would have thought it possible to balance so many horse apples on top of each other to create his fan boi phantasy without the whole edifice falling apart? Please don't report him to the Mods or Ian I enjoy his wee shenanigans far far too much.
Well the clip was correct, I'll give you that. There is a troll about.
Kicked for insult/trolling via link in response to a remarkably well reasoned calm response to your increasingly shrill arguments.
See ya' in Seven.
Don't be a jerk. If someone is going over the top, report it. Don't take it as license to insult people.
So IF things had gone badly in that final chat without coffee, would the RN really have started things off in the east before the west coast had been alerted? A dish served cold, surely?
Would they seek to annex California and all points north? The age of annexation is far from over (Hawaii).
Would they seek to annex California and all points north? The age of annexation is far from over (Hawaii).
TFSmith121
Banned
You know, your input is more than wlecome in BROS
You know, your input is more than welcome in BROS, and always has been.
Best,
You know, your input is more than welcome in BROS, and always has been.
Best,
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Thanks for the kind words re the response.
Thanks for the kind words re the response.
Best,
Thanks for the kind words re the response.
Best,
frlmerrin
Banned
Your warning, now I have found it, is accepted. However I would like to point out that for myself the term 'Troll' is no insult it is a great complement. Having been a lurker on this board for many many years I can only think of a handful of trolling threads that have amused me half as much as Burnished Balls of Brass and not one of those was half so long. Knowing your personal great aversion to trolling I just want to make sure you don't lock it or anything silly like that.
Incidentally whilst the term 'troll' is not always insulting as I have discussed above. 'Jerk' is always insulting.