Did foreign powers supported any side in the American Civil War, oficially or unofficially?
I'm especially interested to know towards what side the sympathy of UK, France, Spain and Mexico was.
>>719705
I heard Mexico was pissed because they wanted American aid against France or something during the time we were fighting each other. It was somewhat confusing why we'd want to kill each other instead of helping them remove baguette from new world.
The UK and France's governments were leaning toward the Confederacy but their population was pro Union.
The big supporter of the Union in Europe was Russia.
>>719750
Was there a real reason for that? I know Russia was storing ships in New York during the war, but how friendly were their relations with the Union and why?
The British would've preferred sweeping in to divide the north and get the cotton flowing again, but in part due to Lincoln's eventual declaration that a portion of the wars focus would have abolitionist goals (in addition to southern loses), any chance of support for the CSA disappeared.
>>719753
They were rivals with the British. The Crimean war was only a few years before and Russia was looking for allies.
They also wanted to discourage rebellion in their own provinces.
>>719705
>Did foreign powers supported any side in the American Civil War, oficially or unofficially?
The CSA constructed commerce raiders in the UK. I dunno what if any aid the french govt actually gave them.
>>719705
why didn't the rebel side win if they were the better soldiers and won more battles?
explain this, amerilards.
>>719759
derp durr wrong conclusion hurr
>>719705
>At the outbreak of the American Civil War, the Union was concerned about possible European aid to the Confederacy as well as official diplomatic recognition of the breakaway republic. In response to possible intervention from Spain, President Lincoln sent Carl Schurz, whom he felt was able and energetic, as minister to Spain; Schurz's chief duty would be to block Spanish recognition of, and aid to, the Confederacy. Part of the Union strategy in Spain was to remind the Spanish court that it had been Southerners, now Confederates, who had pressed for annexation of Cuba.[18] Schurz was successful in his efforts; Spain officially declared neutrality on June 17, 1861.[18] However, since neither the Union nor the Confederacy would sign a formal treaty guaranteeing that Cuba would never be threatened, Madrid remained convinced that American imperialism would resume as soon as the Civil War had ended.[19]
>>719883
Lincoln was a clever dog.
>>719866
Less money, smaller recruitment pool, worse equipment, smaller industry, smaller resources and ports blockaded.
>>719890
Napoleon suffered from virtually all those handicaps in his 1796-97 campaigns in Italy and he still won.
did the rebels just have poor leadership at the top? I hear "Lee" being thrown around a lot, but was he their own good leader? I mean he must have been since they lost, I guess.
>>719870
That was a good thread.
>>719905
Different degrees of issues between those two. South had very, very little industry compared to the north. It's pretty hard to fight when you can't supply your troops.
There was also the issue of a very decentralized command in terms of recruitment. Soldiers would volunteer and fight with the rest of the army, then desert as harvest time got close to tend to their fields because, surprise, the majority of them didn't have slaves to do it for them. It was a fairly large problem that was only being corrected later in the war. The confederates might've had some great fighters, but they were more warriors than professional soldiers.
>>719905
Thats not a valid point.
>>719922
Napoleon's campaign in Italy was no less difficult. The Directory gave him virtually nothing, he was ordered to imposed ransoms on the major cities he came across, and to pay his troops he had to appeal to a loan from the Republic of Genoa. His only line of communication and resupply was along the coastal road and subject to Royal Navy harassment at any time.
But good point on the desertions. Napoleon had less of an issue with his conscripts since they were so far from home.
>>719923
What is? Not the questions, I hope.
>>719915
>fighting for the north
>heroes
>>719933
Yeah. Responding to a gutless attack on federal property.
>>719928
>Why did John no win the race?
He had no legs.
>But that South African guy who murdered his wife did so!
>>719933
there were heroes on both sides, anon. evil is everywhere.
>>719939
>no win
what?
>>719938
South Carolina may have sold that land to the Federal government but it reverted to South Carolina upon their secession.
Read a history book, yankee scum.
>>719949
I don't the the secession was recognized by the north. Someone mind clarifying?
>>719915
George A Custer is on the bottom of the photo with the dog
>>720009
filename updated
>>719998
Secession doesn't have to be recognized, it's a right of the states.
>>720009
Custer laid with a lot of bitches.
>>720016
The US sent troops to put down an illegal rebellion. Unilateral secession was illegal in 1860-61. Anyone who thinks differently is wrong. The opinion that it was legal deserves no respect today.
No credible constitutional scholar today makes the claim that unilateral secession was ever legal under the US Constitution. The legal argument is over and done with.
>>720016
Recognition is the only thing that makes rights even matter in the real world. Niggers weren't magically liberated by some transcendental principle against slavery, and likewise, rednecks only whine about muh right to secession because they lost.
We all know that the Confederate chimp-out was illegal, but has the issue of a democratic secession (something like the Scotland referendum) ever been brought up?
>>720031
>Don't forget, you're here forever.
I don't think secession is exactly something that can be classified as legal/illegal since it essentially tears down the entire thing giving meaning to those terms. There's only success and failure in rebellion.
Where the hangup comes from is the imposition of a foreign will upon a group of people. The north claims to be a right and just force of good when really it's just forcing it's idea of right on those it sees as under their thumb, which is absolutely hypocritical with their perceived view of themselves. They've freed black slaves and created a whole new class of slaves upon those they see as inferior.
It's a giant paradox that to fight for freedom, you have to force your way of thinking on another group. You can't simultaneously decry that a group is being deprived of their right of universal self-determination by destroying another group's right to self-determination and still claim that you're fighting for a moral reason.
>>720061
>but has the issue of a democratic secession (something like the Scotland referendum) ever been brought up?
I don't understand. If it was a democratic secession vetted by the court, then it would've been fine I'm guessing. But that didn't happen.
>>720064
>elect a president (who confedacucks claim wasn't really anti-slavery)
>even though he was """totally not against slavery""", this makes the south butthurt
>they chimp out, declare that they aren't part of the country anymore and start attacking federal forts in their states
>>720070
>lose democratic election
>chimp out
>>720061
>chimp-out
rude
>democratic secession
Sadly this would probably fall back on to the issues with the Southern aristocracy.
Who would be allowed to vote for secession? Just state-registered voters (rich landowners), or everyone?
Remember that in the South not all white men were allowed to vote. So should the Federal government recognize secession when only a certain percent of only certain white men in a state can vote?
Likely that argument would spark the civil war too. Reminder that it was about the aristocracy their rights, not States' Rights.
>In the past, white men have hated white men quite as much as some of them hate the Negro, and have vented their hatred with as much savagery as they ever have against the Negro. The best educated people have the least race prejudice. In the United States the poor white were encouraged to hate the Negroes because they could then be used to help hold the Negroes in slavery. The Negroes were taught to show contempt for the poor white because this would increase the hatred between them and each side could be used by the master to control the other. The real interest of the poor whites and the Negroes were the same, that of resisting the oppression of the master class. But ignorance stood in the way. This race hatred was at first used to perpetuate white supremacy in politics in the South. The poor whites are almost injured by it as are the Negroes.
- John T. Campbell
Didn't Garibaldi offer to send and command an italian army in support of the north since they were major financial backers of Italian unifacation?
>>720126
I need juuuust that part right there.
Gommunism aside, is there anything wrong with looking at history from a rich vs poor/have vs have nots POV?
>>720134
Yeah. But a handful of Garibaldi's followers actually joined the Confederate Army. I think they were in a regiment called Wheat's Tigers.
>>720070
>>720111
The funny thing is we're headed right back to the same place again, this time with a rural/urban divide instead of a north/south one. As politics get more and more polarized, our "winner take all" system that's decided by whoever gets the majority of votes is going to leave half the population completely unrepresented and slowly finding laws they don't agree with being forced on them without any recourse. The man in New York will decide the fate of the man in Albany, the man in San Francisco will decide the fate of the man in Santa Barbra.
What part of this is right or just, that one group can enforce its will on another so far away and so different from them? Is there a universal "right" in the world that all should follow? Does the majority have the "right" to rule over the minority? Is power the only thing that determines who is "right?"
>>720144
thank god, with the italians as our allies we may have lost the war
>>720146
it's simple
remove the winner take all system
>half of commifornians vote repub and half dem
half the electoral votes go to democrats and half to republicans
I don't understand why we haven't done this yet
>>719905
Napoleon amongst many things was just simply a damn fine general. He had the full respect and support of the entire country, his army and his generals. You have to remember that in the Napoleonic wars France really was the first country to embrace the total war doctrine, The idea of an entire country geared towards fighting a war was completely unheard of in military circles in the early 19th century. This was the key reason as to why France was able to keep its armies supplied and topped up with manpower in the field for such long periods of time.
To get to the point, the Rebel generals did not have the advantage of technology and thinking in the US civil war. Compounded by the fact that industrial technology and thinking had surpassed its military counterpart. You have to remember that Military thinking did not really advance in any meaningful way until the first world war. Most of the tactics in the mid/late 19th century were just adaptations of Napoleonic warfare to suit the situation, be it colonial warfare or the odd European war here or there. This again was why the early stages of World War I was such a colossal disaster for all nations, technology ultimately outran military doctrine and thinking.
>>720156
We're still left with the issue that we need a single leader to lead the country, who's going to be red or blue. Take them out of the equation, and you have a congress that bickers and wars over what binary actions to take. When the questions asked can only be answered in Yes or No, it doesn't matter how well represented the two sides are, one is going to lose and the other win.
There's only two ways we can really correct this problem, and neither are going to be perfect. We can place all dissent under our collective boot heel to stand out differing ways of thought. This has the advantage that we keep our empire together, and is the current direction we're taking by using outside influences such as manufactured wars, negative foreign opinion, and massive debt to keep everyone in line. It's hard to dissent internally when your external enemies are far greater.
The other option is a rolling back and weakening of the power of the central government. Greater autonomy to individual regions (Not just state divides, but also urban centers becoming their own semi-sovereign areas free to enact their own laws without forcing them on the outside) would go a long way to protecting the freedoms and right of self-determination of citizens but weakens the nation as a whole. Whereas the first path seeks strength at the cost of liberty, this one seeks liberty at the cost of strength.
>>720210
thank you, my breakfast
>>720216
>breakfast
I still haven't eaten. What should I cook? I've got eggs, bacon, potatoes, murican cheese, bread and other staples.
>>720228
Get a skillet and scramble all that shit together
>>720264
gotcha senpai
Both France and Britain stayed out because it was in there interest. Both would've been pleased by a confederate victory but they didn't care enough to support them. France didn't want to draw American attention to their intervention in Mexico and Britain didn't want to give the Union to invade their Canadian territories.
Also, while southern cotton was very lucrative most foreign powers could find other sources. Britain built cotton industries in Egypt and India while Russia invaded central Asia. They also didn't want to lose trade with the Union. Basically, supporting the Confederacy was a huge gamble while staying out was their best option.
>>720031
>Unilateral secession was illegal in 1860-61
No, it was only ruled unconstitutional in 1869. Prior to that it was up for debate. Various american leaders had differing opinions on it, often changing them depending on their loyalties. For instance, John Quincy Adams defended the right of secession when New England was threatening it on and off during Jefferson's and Madison's presidencies, yet later decided it was illegal during South Carolina's secession threats in the 1830's. It's hard to rely on founding father's opinions because they would often change based on the context of the time (see Jefferson's opposition then later complete support of expanding slavery in the west).
>>720126
>So should the Federal government recognize secession when only a certain percent of only certain white men in a state can vote?
Well considering half the nation's population still couldn't vote (women), I find accusing the south of being undemocratic a little silly. Also blacks couldn't vote in the north either so your posturing only makes sense to 21st century ears. Remember the slave owning south saw their "democracy" the same way the slave owning Romans and Greeks saw theirs, which again, would be extremely undemocratic by today's definition.
>>720126
>that quote
>believing war time propaganda
Slavery was good for working class whites. It produced free labor in the worst conditions while saving the better jobs (artisans/overseers) for whites. That's the reason many southern states passed such harsh laws restricting black movement or banning slaves from industrial jobs. This meme along with "slavery was inefficient" needs to end. Slavery is/was bad because it was brutal degradation of human rights, but it was also the economic backbone that built the early US.
What if the UK and France would have supported the CSA on a huge scale? How much of a chance would they have in this scenario to stay independent?
>>720935
>Slavery was good for working class whites
This is the dumbest claim I've seen here.
>>720804
>I find accusing the south of being undemocratic a little silly
Because you don't like it being pointed out that "muh white man's country" didn't even let all white men vote.
I don't understand people being apologetic for an aristocracy that created a racial caste system to stay in power.
>>720935
Slavery WAS inefficient, you mongoloid. Even Southern leaders were beginning to recognize this. Sharecropping was substantially more lucrative because it dropped the burden of upkeep on the workers back on to the workers.
Holy fuck there needs to be a poll tax or IQ test that keeps dumb shits like you from posting your uneducated opinions here.
>>722053
Some people literally like to be dominated by others. They'll rationalize tyranny any way they can. (ex. white southerners fighting for their rich landowners that write the laws to keep poor whites from voting or being able to get land at all)
>>722050
sorry, does it go against your marxist class struggle reinterpretation of history? How did slavery hurt the southern white working class, shut them out of glorious jobs like picking cotton 16 hours a day? Freeing slaves would have increased competition in the industries that whites worked. The first riots after the civil war happened when free blacks were hired over white workers, it's why many black codes were passed.
>>722062
slaves are capital, how is losing capital good? Sharecropping was not more lucrative, it was just a replacement for slavery. Don't feel bad, I used to buy the "slavery was inefficient" meme too. Then I read Beckert and Baptist and realized slavery was super successful for America. But people don't want to believe it, they don't want to believe that the American economy was built on such an evil institution, so they come up with bullshit mental gymnastics.
>>719786
LeMat revolvers
>>722079
>marxist
Are you trolling or really that dumb?
In a land where the entire economy was geared towards a handful of rich owning 90% of the land, and all the best farming land, how much room do you think there was for poor whites?
Not to mention that the large-scale production of cotton drove the price to a level where the few small farmers couldn't compete and were reduced to poverty and subsistence farming.
Eliminating free labor, combined with the fact the aristocracy controlled education through the state governments, kept most whites uneducated and in poverty. There was virtually NO middle class in the South because of this.
>marxist
Literally suck a bag of dicks you faggot.
>>722093
>But people don't want to believe it
Personally, I'm okay with believing it. I just want the truth.
The "southern" point of view just seems to be wrong more often than the "northern".
I'll be interested in the end of the conversation, and I'll search out of pdf of the book you mentioned.
>>722093
>how is losing capital good
You transform it, dumbass.
Slavery was grossly inefficient and most owners were goddamned in debt because of the system. Slaves worked less efficiently that paid workers because they have no motivation. And the burden of maintaining them is substantially higher than simply paying employees.
Slavery also stifled economic growth and prevented the creation of a middle class.
![ManhoodSuffrage[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/gi4X3kW.jpg "ManhoodSuffrage[1].png")
>>722053
>Because you don't like it being pointed out that "muh white man's country" didn't even let all white men vote.
This wasn't a "southern" thing
>>722105
The costs of owning a slave—such as food and shelter—were pretty constant. And so if plantations specialised in a certain crop, they left themselves open to sudden drops in income and consequently big losses. But by pursuing a range of economic activities, they had a steadier revenue flow to match their fixed costs.
Diversification posed problems. Messrs Anderson and Gallman argue that it inhibited trade within the South—and, consequently, the development of towns and villages. Slaveowners found it easier to produce something themselves, rather than buy it. And the South found it difficult to develop a manufacturing industry—instead, it depended on imports from the North. As a result, economic growth was stifled.
Slavery hindered the development of Southern capitalism in other ways. Eugene Genovese, writing in 1961, reckoned that the antebellum South was not profit-seeking. In fact, slavery was not even meant to be profitable. Slaveowners were keener on flaunting their vast plantations and huge reserves of slaves than they were about profits and investment. Rational economic decisions were sacrificed for pomp and circumstance.
Economies which used slavery may, in the long run, have been at a disadvantage.
Genovese, E. D. "Roll, Jordan, Roll: The world the slaves made"
Govan, T. P. "Was Plantation Slavery Profitable?" The Journal of Southern History, 8(4), 513-535.
>>722121
The non-southern states weren't seceding and had stable middle classes.
>>722126
>Economies which used slavery may, in the long run, have been at a disadvantage.
So, Rome again. Slavery is only good for fun, pleasure, and concentrating wealth at the top of the Pyramid, yes?
>>722117
>Slavery also stifled economic growth
Raw cotton was the engine that drove textiles which was the largest sector of the industrial revolution. This may be the dumbest thing said in this thread.
>You transform it
Yes, by selling them
>>722103
yes, marxist. DeBois and Marx both applied their class struggle analysis to American slavery and left wing academics followed their methods for decades. Stop being such a dupe.
>land where the entire economy was geared towards a handful of rich owning 90% of the land
>handful of rich owning 90% of the land
lol
>Not to mention that the large-scale production of cotton drove the price to a level where the few small farmers couldn't compete
so economies of scale are a-ok when northern industrialists do it but economically harmful when planters do it? Like I said, massive cotton cultivation was required for the American economy.
>>722105
>"southern" view
trust me, Baptist and Beckert are no friends of the south
>>722126
Beckert blows Genovese's marxist interpretation out of the water. Also Genovese hated capitalism and loved the old south so he tried to portray is as anti-capitalist.
>>722142
Yes.
>massive slave revolts
>Caesar grew up in a period of unrest and civil war in Rome. The increased size of the empire had led to cheap slave labour flooding into the country which in turned made many Roman workers unemployed.
>The Social Wars created turmoil all over Italy.
>Caesar's civil war stemmed in part from a desire to curtail the amount of labor done by the now-bloated slave population in Italy so free men could have employment
yfw it's like pottery, slavery played a role in Caesar's civil war
>>722146
>This may be the dumbest thing said in this thread.
Your post in general, yes. Notice how when Southern cotton was taken off the market the textile sectors didn't collapse? Southern cotton was overvalued.
And yes, slavery stifles economic growth. Tell me about the Southern middle class and its industry. I'll wait.
>yes, marxist
Suck a dick. Was Lincoln a marxist? Was Lee? Was Patrick Cleburne? Stupid fuck.
>lol
Yeah the truth is funny.
>so economies of scale are a-ok when northern industrialists do it
Their method created a booming middle class and depended on free and motivated labor.
Are you really this economically ignorant?
>>722151
>Beckert blows Genovese's marxist interpretation out of the water.
That's nice. Post a cited segment that does this.
>Also Genovese hated capitalism and loved the old south so he tried to portray is as anti-capitalist.
In being feudal it was. Plantation culture wasn't about profit and growth, it was about caste and status quo.
Just so you know, calling everything you don't like "marxist" isn't an argument.
>>722161
post some fucking citations or go read these and shut up.
Empire of Cotton: A Global History
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
>>722172
Genovese was literally a marxist, idk how you can argue otherwise
>>719753
France and UK didn't even recognize the Confederacy as a government. Basically they were just dicking the Confederacy around. They weren't close to the Union, so they sort of made gestures like they might one day recognize the Confederacy, but it was mostly to piss the Union off and make them worry. The Southern cotton trade was a huge financial threat to their Egyptian cotton trade, and they certainly didn't care for the slavery. They never had any reason to support the Confederacy except just to fuck with Washington.
>>722175
Already have.
>Empire of Cotton
lol
Sven Beckert inadvertently revives Confederacy's ridiculous "Cotton is King" argument.
Beckert's thesis is that the cotton industry was the centerpiece of the emergence of global capitalism in the 19th century, which by extension links capitalism to slavery. Although he weaves an engaging narrative, his argument is flawed on three levels:
(1) He never really defines what he means by the term "capitalism." His use fluctuates between extreme laissez-faire on one end, and state-supported subsidy of private manufacturers and banking on the other end - a system that serious historians of economic thought (of which Beckert is not) refer to as mercantilism. If "capitalism" means everything from pure free markets with no government intervention to managed markets in which the government is a collusive partner with the cotton industry and its financiers, then the term "capitalism" becomes a meaningless substitute for everything about economics that Beckert doesn't like.
(2) Beckert seems painfully oblivious to the avowed anti-capitalist ideology subscribed to by most slaveholders in the late antebellum. He only evinces superficial awareness of George Fitzhugh, the radical pro-slavery theorist and self-described socialist + hater of all markets. He also does not sufficiently engage with the fact that most of the British free traders were anti-slavery, including those who traded in cotton goods.
>>722178
crying "marxist" isn't an argument, especially since he's right.
>>722216
(3) There's a fundamental problem with Beckert's claim about the centrality of cotton to the rise of modern industrialization. If his thesis is true, then he has just inadvertently revived and endorsed the old "Cotton is King" argument that was advanced by the slaveowners before the Civil War. These slave proponents believed their crop was so central to the world economy that it would collapse if they were cut off from the global cotton market, and that Europe would come intervening to their rescue during the Civil War as a result of the northern blockade. Yet as we plainly know from the Civil War, none of this happened. The North's blockade cut off the cotton trade and the rest of the world went on without them, finding other sources of cotton and substitute fibers.
To summarize, Beckert actually just unwittingly made the argument why the Confederacy should have "won" the Civil War, or at least had the backing of the majority of the world's economic interests, and to top it all off he seems blissfully unaware that this absurdity is a direct implication of his conclusions.
The whole book gives off a vibe as if Beckert started from the conclusion that cotton explains the rise of "global capitalism" and worked backward from there to fill in the evidence. In some small instances this works, but as a grand unifying narrative of economic growth it seems entirely contrived. If you have strong ideological priors that lead you to distrust industrialization and "capitalism," you will probably find them confirmed in this book. Otherwise the case is unconvincing, and it's readily apparent that the author is not particularly competent in the very same economic doctrines he sets out to critique.
>wheat production in 1859 was 175 million bushels
>and in 1878, 449 million
>7,000 miles of railroad were built in the South between 1865 and 1879
with free labor
Cotton production actually grew under sharecropping.
Where's the efficiency of slavery in evidence?
>>722246
>says the guy spouting "marxist marxist marxist" like the first amazon review for the book
It's my review, I've read the book already and dismissed its childishly made arguments.
Come back when you have a real argument to make.
>>719705
King Louis-Philippe's grandsons served in the Union.
>>722270
ooh. pictures?
>>722255
>it's my review I swear
I'm honestly embarrassed for you
>Eugene Dominic Genovese (May 19, 1930 – September 26, 2012)[1] was an American historian of the American South and American slavery. He was noted for bringing a Marxist perspective to the study of power, class and relations between planters and slaves in the South. His book Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made won the Bancroft Prize.
Genovese is a self proclaimed marxist and his work has a marxist bent, I have no idea why stating facts trigger you.
>>722298
>i can't argue points so I'll try to move the goalposts
I'm honestly embarrassed for you, my uneducated friend.
>marxist marxist marxist
That's nice, dear. Now try to refute the facts being discussed instead of falling back on /pol/-tier buzzword arguments.
But really though, you don't have to try. I've already seen that when you're confronted with citations and figures and facts, literally all you can do is try to switch tactics and namecall.
I'm guessing you're done trying?
>>719705
Cotton argument aside, there's no way anyone could have intervened for the Confederacy. It would have provoked a world war. And why go to all that trouble for some Southerners?
Russia had declared for the Union. And both Prussia and Austria were pro-Union. Prussia's stance is fairly obvious. While not quite as early as Morocco, Prussia and America had enjoyed good relations for a long time. Prussia and the US signed a Treaty of Friendship in 1795, and Prussia was one of the only states to acknowledge the Monroe Doctrine. Prussia was convinced that the United States would win from the start of the war and refused to humor any attempts at Great Power mediation or recognize the Confederacy.
Austria is less obvious. The Americans had never really liked Austria, considering a backwards reactionary shithole. In 1848, America had cheered on the revolutionaries. In response, Austria briefly broke off diplomatic relations. Why would Austria support America? In 1859, the American diplomat in Austria received an unexpected invitation to dinner. The Austrians had not forgotten American rabble-rousing, and the Americans remained revoltingly liberal. But America had become a major industrial power. And this is what they were courting. The Civil War was bad news for Austria, because it crippled the luxuries manufacturers exporting to the Union. Austria correctly assessed that the Union's industrial advantages would bring it to an inevitable victory, so the task had to be bringing the war to the speediest conclusion possible. As a further gain to Austria, the Americans had promised to stop supporting rebels in Austria.
The big player in this story is Russia. You see, the Russians sent a fleet to America. The cause of this is not rooted in the Civil War, but in Polish troubles. By stationing their fleet in America, they gave it security from British and French hostiles. And they guaranteed that intervention in Poland meant a Civil War intervention and world war.
>>722451
The Russian Fleet and the Civil War
F. A. Golder
Preussen und die USA1850-1867: Transatlantische Wechselwirkungen
Michael Liebig
Austro-American Relations during the Era of the American Civil War
Burton Ira Kaufman
>>722451
>The big player in this story is Russia. You see, the Russians sent a fleet to America. The cause of this is not rooted in the Civil War, but in Polish troubles. By stationing their fleet in America, they gave it security from British and French hostiles. And they guaranteed that intervention in Poland meant a Civil War intervention and world war.
Wow. All the details that might be glossed over. Little preventative and potentially destructive bits of plain old global political jockeying.
>>719866
why didn't tendies Hannibal win if he was the better tactician and won more battles
explain this, romaboos.
>>722474
He didn't attack Rome
>>720126
>mfw Joseph's words still ring true today
>>722463
I ran out of characters m8.
It was convenient for both Russia and America. America would be a safe base for Russian ships to raid enemy commerce, since the Russian fleet couldn't hope to win a straight up fight. At the same time, it beefed up America. The Russian documents mostly talk about commerce raiding in general, though some allege secret orders to launch an invasion of Australia. Russia had supported the Union from early on as well, refusing to acknowledge or support the Confederacy. That these two interests would momentarily align so perfectly was a coincidence, but a welcome one.
There was a lot of preventative diplomacy. The British upper class was well aware of the war, but their pro-Southern sentiment is overstated. House of Lords debates show that pro-Southern support was limited and the bulk of opinions favored neutrality. British diplomats worked hard to keep relations with the Union tolerable, even as propagandists tried to agitate against them.
Would there be war? I think it was possible. Tensions were running high. The Russians had a fleet in America. The Prussians had troops mobilized. The British and French were on edge. The start of WWI shows that little events can have big consequences if everyone is already tense. Bismarck vacillated, telling the British that he wanted to invade Poland(!), hatching a plan to make a Prussia-Poland dual monarchy while also negotiating with the Russians. The Austrians did not want war, but they might get swept into events. One spark, whether it be from the American or the Polish crisis could have been enough. What if Prussians had started marching on Poland? What if the Confederate ships Alabama and Sumter attacked San Francisco? Popov had given the Russian fleet orders to assist the Americans if that happened. What if the French and British kicked off an armed intervention in Poland? Small incidents can easily escalate.
>>722291
His grandsons Philippe, Comte de Paris and Robert, Duc de Chartres served in the Army of the Potomac until July 1862.
>>720134
Not just command, he wanted to fight with the Union but would only do it under two conditions: first that he be made commander-in-chief of the entire Union Army and second that the Union declared the abolition of slavery. The US balked at the first and would only offer him a Major General position and at the second Lincoln wasn't at the point where he was willing to engage in emancipation. Garibaldi did write him a letter in praise after the Emancipation Proclamation though.
>>719949
Federal>State everytime. How hard is that to figure out?
Just for the hell of it, i'll toss this in..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_enlistment_in_the_American_Civil_War
>>722062
>Slavery WAS inefficient,
Not when making use of the Cotton gin. Then it was massively profitable. Later waves of slave trade intensified the trade because cotton barons needed that many more hands working the gin.
>>722474
He was a moron who dragged elephants over the alps instead of something more strategically useful like siege equipment.
He was good at gaining victory, but horrible at using it
>>722721 (You)
>>722619
Are you ever going to try a real debate where you refute facts instead of crying "w-wrong conclusion!"
I'll wait.
