I didn't know much of that, Lefty hunter, many thanksYou raise some good points. On the other hand far more Union casualties were inflicted by Enfield rifles vs the Confederate Navy.
The UK's role in the ACW is complex. The UK supplied weapons to both side's. The UK traded with both side's. The UK allowed the Union Army to recruit men on it's soil. The UK briefly threatened the Union with war. The UK allowed naval ships on both side's to use it's ports to replenish food and fuel.
The UK only diplomatically recognized one side.
The UK allowed American shipowners to reregister their ships as British to protect them against Confederate raider's.
The UK built Confederate raider's and blockade runner's.
I know you know the above but some of our newer members may not.
Just pointing out the complexity of the British role in the ACW.
Some of it's inaccurate or at least oversimplified; the biggest single one is probably the bit about reregistry. Those ships weren't re-registered, they were sold - they now had British owners and a British crew, and the original owners could not get them back again.I didn't know much of that, Lefty hunter, many thanks
Not quite. Slaves were considered with a weight of 3/5ths of a freeman (white or black) for one purpose only - the proportioning of Representatives and taxes.As a minor correction, a black man was considered 3/5 of a person.
Though this could equally be framed as the Southern states wanting to amplify the effect of their own votes. 100,000 voters in a state with 100,000 slaves would (under their plan) have the same impact as 200,000 voters in a Northern state with zero slaves; that is, a Southern vote would have the same impact as two Northern.The compromise was reached as the northern states argued slaves were not people and were entitled to no representation, and the southern states argued that slaves were people, and entitled to full representation (even if they could not vote for it).
Which was exactly the intent.Though this could equally be framed as the Southern states wanting to amplify the effect of their own votes. 100,000 voters in a state with 100,000 slaves would (under their plan) have the same impact as 200,000 voters in a Northern state with zero slaves; that is, a Southern vote would have the same impact as two Northern.
Quite right and thank you. This is what happens when one posts in haste...Not quite. Slaves were considered with a weight of 3/5ths of a freeman (white or black) for one purpose only - the proportioning of Representatives and taxes.
The compromise was reached as the northern states argued slaves were not people and were entitled to no representation, and the southern states argued that slaves were people, and entitled to full representation (even if they could not vote for it).
Both sides of the debate agreed Native Americans didn't count as people for this purpose.
I know this is a while ago, but I thought it would be interesting - did the USN wield more frigates in 1862 than in 1812, let alone "a lot more"?In the War of 1812 six American Frigates gave the Royal Navy all they could handle because the RN was involved with France and their empire. In the 1860's the U.S. Navy was fast becoming a first-rate navy with a lot more than six frigates. It is not conjecture to say that the U.S. Navy of the mid-1860's would have given the Brits fits.
@wbull1 ,My tour guide in Halifax, Canada insisted that the British stationed soldiers in Halifax after the Civil War because England feared the United States would invade in retaliation for the British support of the Confederacy. I said I thought England might fear that, but that essentially the British did NOT support the Confederacy. Was I right or was he?
Belligerent status was the best policy. And it was the actual policy enforced by the US, at sea, on land and at the end of the war.The official position of the US Government was that the Confederacy was not a nation; this is their prerogative.
The official position of the US government was also that the Confederacy was not a belligerent; this was not supportable, because the US had declared a blockade. A blockade is an act of war; this does not require it being made against a nation, but it does require that the other side is a belligerent.
What the British did was to not embargo either side. The Union was purchasing enormous amounts of weapons and materiel from British merchants, and to suggest that the British should have embargoed the Confederacy (i.e. actively prevented the sale of war materiel by making it illegal for private British citizens to do business with Confederate merchants) is to suggest the British should have actively taken a side in a very strong way.
To explain why this would be so strong, it is necessary to point out that a key component in the British political and national psyche in the mid-19th century (leading into the 20th) was the idea that free trade - trade unrestricted by governmental action except in the direst of emergencies - was a positive good which was worth economic disadvantage to support. It was an ideological commitment, born out of a political battle in the 1840s decisively won in favour of free trade by 1852 - which is why the British selectively embargoing one combatant would be so shocking.
If the British embargoed both combatants, meanwhile, the US economy essentially collapses. Trade with Britain and her colonies was 58% of US imports in 1862-3, and customs revenue made up roughly 2/3 of all US government income in the same year; a shutdown in trade cuts US government income by more than a third.
There was permanent barracks space for two regiments at Halifax; one at the Citadel and the other at Wellington Barracks. Normally there would be three regiments assigned to Maritimes Command. Two would be at these two locations in Halifax, and the third would be posted to the Stone Barracks at Fredericton, NB.(Troops in the Maritimes aren't automatically in Halifax, but it's the place that it makes the most sense to place troops.)
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|"A Long Deep-seated Animosity with Reference to England"||Immigrants During the Civil War||6|
|See New England foliage from the Rails.||Railroads & Steam Locomotives||4|
|Daguerreotype view of the launch of the HMS Marlborough in Portsmouth, England, 1855||The Naval War||15|
|New England Events||The Event Wire: Reenactments, Walks, Shows, & More||3|