Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
The same standards still existed in Europe in 1860. Things like Culloden were very real to Americans in that day, even if not to Americans today. Events like that had inspired Ben Franklin to say "We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately" as the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. They occurred routinely thereafter in Europe, say every generation, from then to the time of the Civil War.
I would point out that Southerners in 1860 saw their issues as social as well, whether we might agree or not, and in any case the point is the reaction of the powers that be to violent social unrest, which is what the South was fomenting in 1860.
If you want to talk about the Cromwells, about 1/3rd of the population seems to have vanished (the outright killed, the slaves sent to the Carribean, those who starved, etc.) while whole counties were suddenly owned lock, stock, and barrel by Protestants as the Catholics were displaced by law. A friend of Cromwell invented the science of demographics to record the changes. A clear example of what happens to those the rulers want to repress.
Ireland from that point had a long and unruly history. The Rebellion of 1798 really got going around 1793, peaked in 1798 with French intervention and the battle at Ballinamuck, and was followed by several years of guerrilla warfare and by the Emmet Rebellion in 1803. About 15-30,000 seem to have died in the 3 months of the 1798 Rebellion; about 2500 on the British side. Attrocities abounded.
Things slowly improved. By 1829 most of the Penal Laws had been repealed, but the Tithe Laws were not (mandatory payments to the Anglican Church by Catholics). From 1829-1831, there was a passive-resistance effort that encouraged people to not pay (default) on their tithes. In 1831 the Constabulatory (the militia) was given a list of about 30,000 Defaulters and sent to collect, leading to the what are called Tithe Wars (1831-1836). These included 242 homicides, 1,179 robberies, 401 burglaries, 568 burnings, 280 cases of cattle-maiming, 161 assaults, 203 riots and 723 attacks on property according to historians. At Buncloddy in 1831, the Constabulary fired into a crowd, killing 12; at Carrickshock in 1831, 19 of 40 policeman were killed attempting to collect a tithe. In 1835 at the Rathcormock Massacre, police killed 17 and wounded some 30 collecting a tithe of 40 shillings from a widow. Tithing continued until 1869.
To a people with strong connections to the British Isles, as Southerners surely had, these and stories like them were recent history and current events. This, for example, was the Ireland that Pat Cleburne, Confederate general, came from.
That depends on what we mean by progress. The US immigration waves of the 1830-1860 period were fueled by people fleeing failed rebellions and repression in Europe. By the 1850s, European professional troops had become expert in street-fighting techniques because of the frequent use of them to break up riots/rebellions/revolutions in the cities. Many of the "german" immigrants had military experience on one side or the other of those wars of rebellion. Again, this was recent history and current events to the people of America in 1860.
Would you rather I talk of the Austrian general who had a convent of nuns stripped and whipped by his troops during one of the rebellions around 1848 because he thought they were concealing information? Or why the French were maintaining a place like Devil's Island? Or what happened to people who rebelled against the Tsar of All the Russias ...
These types of events were normal in the world of the 1850s. They happened consistently in nation after nation where people rebelled against authority. By the existing standards of the day, what happened in America was on the mild side.
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim,
England in 1860 was very different to 1745. Are you saying that people in the US/CSA thought nothing had moved on from the Scottish rebellion?
Mainland Europe was a very different place. The French revolution was a class against class thing. The WBS saw rich and poor in the South share a cause.
Cromwell was a 'Child of his time' he was no worse than any other of his peers. The Irish have painted him black but it is mostly proaganda.
As for the issue of Ireland. Very bad things happened, no question, but check out The Tolpuddle Martyrs or The Peterloo Massacre. The ruling classes nailed any dissent. The Irish had no monoploy on that! It happened on the mainland as well!
Russia? Stalin did exactly the same. It's a Russian thing.
I believe it's because the US/CSA was so close to England that the aftermath was as it was.
The pity is far too many people in The US have this image of all the nasty English doing bad things to the poor Irish. Poor English people got the same treatment. Why does no one in the US pick up on that.
The Irish 'spin doctors' were good. Very good. That's why for too many years Yankee dollars from Boston, New York etc paid for bullets and bombs to kill people over here.
Give us break, we're not so bad!
__________________ Long Live The Special Relationship!
England in 1860 was very different to 1745. Are you saying that people in the US/CSA thought nothing had moved on from the Scottish rebellion?
Mainland Europe was a very different place. The French revolution was a class against class thing. The WBS saw rich and poor in the South share a cause.
Cromwell was a 'Child of his time' he was no worse than any other of his peers. The Irish have painted him black but it is mostly proaganda.
As for the issue of Ireland. Very bad things happened, no question, but check out The Tolpuddle Martyrs or The Peterloo Massacre. The ruling classes nailed any dissent. The Irish had no monoploy on that! It happened on the mainland as well!
Russia? Stalin did exactly the same. It's a Russian thing.
I believe it's because the US/CSA was so close to England that the aftermath was as it was.
The pity is far too many people in The US have this image of all the nasty English doing bad things to the poor Irish. Poor English people got the same treatment. Why does no one in the US pick up on that.
The Irish 'spin doctors' were good. Very good. That's why for too many years Yankee dollars from Boston, New York etc paid for bullets and bombs to kill people over here.
Give us break, we're not so bad!
I'm not sure what your issue is here. I mentioned the British among others; you complain I singled out the British. I give examples from all over Europe; you complain I singled out the British. I talk about many different types and examples of repression by ruling parties, and you try to either say they do not apply, or say that I am singling out the British.
The British were not particularly unique, which has been the entire point of my statements on this. However harsh Southerners think Sherman's March and Reconstruction were (and I certainly would have resented them if I were on the receiving end), they were definitely mild compared to normal practice in punishing rebellions in any part of the world at that time.
I'm not sure what your issue is here. I mentioned the British among others; you complain I singled out the British. I give examples from all over Europe; you complain I singled out the British. I talk about many different types and examples of repression by ruling parties, and you try to either say they do not apply, or say that I am singling out the British.
The British were not particularly unique, which has been the entire point of my statements on this. However harsh Southerners think Sherman's March and Reconstruction were (and I certainly would have resented them if I were on the receiving end), they were definitely mild compared to normal practice in punishing rebellions in any part of the world at that time.
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
You put the Brits alongside everyone else. It wasn't like that. What went on on the mainland of Europe was very different to the UK. Things happened in Ireland and in England very differently to Russia etc.
I mean that would be like me saying The whole American continent was the same North and South, from Argentina to Alberta.
The things in Ireland were done by the ruling class. By saying 'British' it implies 'The Whole Nation'.
I just get peeved with posts moaning about what went on in Ireland some 160 years ago as though it was a crusade by the whole English people.
__________________ Long Live The Special Relationship!
You put the Brits alongside everyone else. It wasn't like that. What went on on the mainland of Europe was very different to the UK. Things happened in Ireland and in England very differently to Russia etc.
I mean that would be like me saying The whole American continent was the same North and South, from Argentina to Alberta.
The things in Ireland were done by the ruling class. By saying 'British' it implies 'The Whole Nation'.
I just get peeved with posts moaning about what went on in Ireland some 160 years ago as though it was a crusade by the whole English people.
I think you are seeing things that are not there in what I post.
When rebellions happened in that day and age -- no matter whether we are talking about Britain, France, Russia (say the troubles in Poland 1863-65), Austria, Prussia & the German states, Italy, Brasil, etc. -- they were put down with a harshness that makes the US Civil War and the Reconstruction that followed it look mild by comparison. In general, Britain might have been somewhat better than average in Europe, but that does not get them to the free pass you seem to want to apply.
I truly don't see what your problem with that is. If you think Britain was no longer repressing people who rebelled against them (and want to declare any reference to the Irish out of bounds), please explain British actions in the wake of the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857-58. In India they refer to the British retaliaton as "The Devil's Wind". Here's a few quotes from the British side:
Letter of British General Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!"
Captain Hodson in his book, Twelve Years in India: "With all my love for the army, I must confess, the conduct of professed Christians, on this occasion, was one of the most humiliating facts connected with the siege."
Letter published in the Bombay Telegrapgh after the fall of Delhi: ".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed".
Edward Vibart, British officer: "It was literally murder... I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..."
Now, mind you, I can find American incidents against the Apache, the Sioux, the Cheyenne, and others that are just as bad, although probably not on quite the same scale. But for the point I was discussing, the fate of Southerners after the Civil War, Reconstruction was not all that bad by world standards of the time.
[quote=trice]I think you are seeing things that are not there in what I post.
When rebellions happened in that day and age -- no matter whether we are talking about Britain, France, Russia (say the troubles in Poland 1863-65), Austria, Prussia & the German states, Italy, Brasil, etc. -- they were put down with a harshness that makes the US Civil War and the Reconstruction that followed it look mild by comparison. In general, Britain might have been somewhat better than average in Europe, but that does not get them to the free pass you seem to want to apply.
Tim,
I'm not looking for a 'free Pass' for what the Brits did, rather an acceptance that what happened was done by the British ruling class, not the whole British people, just as the vast majority of Yanks had nothing to do with the indian massacres.
'Somewhat better'.....? Boy, there's a statement. Nuff said.
India? Mate, when England 'Gave India back', how many died? How many? And not a Brit in sight. Try millions. Sadly from your point of view, not put down by a brutal Imperialist regime, but by their neighbours. Why? They were just the wrong religion at the wrong place at the wrong time.
'Not on a scale'? Anybody done the percentages?
Tim, there's a view in Europe, France, Germany, The Netherlands, UK, that a lot of people in the US don't have the depth of knowledge of history that we in Europe do.
I'm saying nothing.......................
__________________ Long Live The Special Relationship!
I'm not looking for a 'free Pass' for what the Brits did, rather an acceptance that what happened was done by the British ruling class, not the whole British people, just as the vast majority of Yanks had nothing to do with the indian massacres.
Oh? Do you think the British ruling class made up the 20,000 troops sent to crush the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland? Or the troops who were bayonetting the residents of Delhi in 1858?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritofPickett
'Somewhat better'.....? Boy, there's a statement. Nuff said.
Yes, somewhat better. That is why they were more successful in building a worldwide empire and ruling it, because they were somewhat better than the French, the Germans, the Belgians, etc. Of course, that somewhat better included crushing those who rebelled against their rule, or had something they wanted, when the British thought they should. Just like the Romans who were also very good at building an empire -- and who were very, very good at crushing those who rebelled against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritofPickett
India? Mate, when England 'Gave India back', how many died? How many? And not a Brit in sight. Try millions. Sadly from your point of view, not put down by a brutal Imperialist regime, but by their neighbours. Why? They were just the wrong religion at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Which would be meaningless to the people we are talking about, because it happened almost a century later and the people alive at the time of the Civil War knew nothing about it. When they compared their own experience in Civil War and Reconstruction to something, it was what was going on in their world, what had happened to their ancestors, and what they knew of the actions of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritofPickett
'Not on a scale'? Anybody done the percentages?
For the Amerindians? Numbers are available if you want to go look. Hunter/gatherer societies don't tend to have high density populations on the scale of the cities of India. The biggest single massacre I can recall of Amerindians was probably in the range of 100-200. How many Indians do you think perished in the 12-day sack of Lucknow in 1758, or at Delhi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiritofPickett
Tim, there's a view in Europe, France, Germany, The Netherlands, UK, that a lot of people in the US don't have the depth of knowledge of history that we in Europe do.
I'm saying nothing.......................
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I don't think you have demonstrated any particular superiority in historical knowledge yet, so I'll be waiting for enlightenment.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
