a0e0roberts (September 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm)

"the British ruling classes were almost wholly for the Confederacy" Except, perhaps, Prince Albert. Harry Flashman fought on both sides of course, lol. But so did Henry Morton Stanley (of Dr. Livingston fame).

grassroots59 (August 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm)

Sorry to interupt but in the long run a Southern victory would have been a disaster for world democracy in the long run. Just imagine Churchill trying to persuade 2 American countries to fight the Nazis etc. Two America's would not equal the 1 great one we have today.

seboyle (August 15, 2008 at 11:21 am)

the reverse appears to be true of the working classes, even those in cloth production who were most likely to suffer from an embargo. (This is a bit simplistic but I think it stands). What I find intriguing is how you could wish for Confederate victory. I think this would probably have been a disaster for the South in the long run. For blacks it is obvious why, but also for whites I think, as the South would have become a pariah in the world. I have more to say on this but... your turn. ;-)

seboyle (August 15, 2008 at 10:55 am)

Yeh, I'd noticed that which is why I said what I said. You're right in a way, the British ruling classes were almost wholly for the Confederacy. Being conservative (both in culture and political belief/party membership) they feared democracy and feared the idea of the 'great experiment' working. There are some quite shocking anti-US editorials from the Times and also gloating comments from various peers when it looked like the South might win. However, I'm pleased to say that ... (cont)

shiroisan87 (August 14, 2008 at 5:58 pm)

Great. Most Brits on youtube are very anti america. It's nice to meet someone " in peace with serious points to make ". I consider myself a friend of the UK. From what I understand, The english were allies with the confederates to a degree. so what was it I said that you found intriguing? speak freely. i'm the the offensive type.

seboyle (August 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm)

Hi. :-) From the UK. BTW I would consider myself a 'friend of the US'. I have a master's degree in US Studies, have taught some US politics and history over here and my students think I'm virulently pro-American. LOL Just letting you know that because I've seen these things descend into people being accused of being anti-US, etc. I don't think we share the same politics but that's another matter. I do come in peace with serious points to make, it's not knee jerk stuff. ;-) Regards.

shiroisan87 (August 14, 2008 at 5:26 pm)

stuart was so lucky that longstreet hired harrison. if it wasn't for harrison, the entire confederate would've been destroyed in detail. remember how they were spread out so thin?

shiroisan87 (August 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm)

and what country do you hail from, mister foreigner?

seboyle (August 13, 2008 at 11:16 pm)

Then there's your third point. This may be some historical anomaly (e.g. not officially on the statute books?) that I don't know of but, as far as I am aware there were a (very few) slaves still in New Jersey (200+) and Wisconsin (4?) and, maybe, Maine by 1850 but none in other Northern states. This however, doesn't change my argument. As I said above I agree that the Union may well have fought over preservation of that Union but to say that the South fought for States's Rights is disingenuous.

seboyle (August 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm)

On your second point - I'd be VERY surprised if this were true. Try not making such bold statements like 'all' the money. Really? ALL OF IT? Come on now. For a start the states as a whole raise and spend almost as much as the federal govt does and it all gets spent in the states that raise it. The majority of the federal taxation goes on defence. Please explain which tax goes from the South to the North and what it's spent on. Otherwise you're just making assertions without evidence... (cont)