GDG- Re: CS supply

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Margaret writes:

>>>>I didn't say that the moral outrage was THAT strong;  simply that strong 
anti-slavery feeling in segments of British society (the  abolition of the 
slave trade by Parliament, in particular, made no economic  sense, only moral. 
British industry was making a fortune from the slave trade,  even when Britons 
weren't doing the trading, from supplying the trade) was one  negative factor 
for the Confederacy  in a complex mix of pros and  cons.>>>>
No you did not imply that - Jack however, was.  In my study of things  
British, I have learned that pragmatism ranks very high with them historically  
(although not always), and thus this falls into the "we Brits are being  
pragmatic" in terms of how they viewed their part of our Civil War.
 
The sort of "carrot & stock" policy they had adopted towards  recognizing the 
Confederacy is a case in point - it was "win one more battle and  then we 
will...", and the South would win one more battle in the  East -  but they also 
paid attention to the West (their bonds markets sky-rocketed with  the news of 
the capture of Ft. Donelson), and since the Confederates could never  seem to 
hold their borders out West, they were never considered a nation for a  nation 
without secure borders is not a nation.  When Ft. Henry fell on Feb.  6, 
1862, Ledyard Phelps of the US Navy took the three timber-clad gunboats all  the 
way to Florence, AL with out seeing anything like an organized body of  
Confederate troops.  Had Halleck not been so Jominian in nature and given  Phelps 
some transports loaded with Union troops, there would have been placed a  large 
Union army astride the most important railroad of the entire Confederacy  (the 
Memphis & Charleston) and little the Confederates could have done about  it 
for some time.  But Halleck viewed Ft. Henry as a new base for further  
operations and not a coup de main that it actually was.
 
With this taking place out West, it is no wonder Britain was not going to  
jump off the fence into the Confederacy's camp - alongside the fact that they  
were making too much money selling to both sides.
 

>>>>  Her Majesty's government wasn't above fomenting  a bit of mischief and 
taking advantage of the situation, particularly if it  meant the opportunity 
of showing advocates of parliamentary reform that the  great American 
experiment was an abysmal failure. OTOH, secessionists fatally  misjudged how much H.M. 
government was willing to put at risk on their  behalf. >>>>
Indeed!  And the Mason-Slidell case did not help for a time  either.\
 
As to mis-judgement, if the Confederates were arrogant, as Jack believes,  
about anything, it was the power of their cotton and its effect on  Britain.  
Their incredibly stupid embargo was designed to bring Britain to  its knees and 
to force recognition of the Confederacy - but it failed for  reasons I have 
already listed here.  This was pure, raw arrogance on their  part.
 
 
>>> Among other things that, focused on their own situation,  they seem to 
have completely overlooked was that this was an extremely turbulent  period in 
UK/European history, beginning with the Crimean War, c
ontinuing  through the rise of Prussia and Bismarck, and culminating with the 
 Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, and the abdication of Napoleon III, formal 
 German unification, and the birth of the Third Republic in  France.>>>
 
And the war with France and Austria, Prussia and Denmark, etc. - even  Japan 
was at war with someone at this time.  A very busy  world back then.
 
Greg Biggs  






************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.