| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 |
|
|||||||||||||
| "Lost Cause" | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 05:09 am |
|
101st Post |
|
BobInFla Member 
|
excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton: "During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war, prompting the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France to turn to Egyptian cotton. British and French traders invested heavily in cotton plantations and the Egyptian government of Viceroy Isma'il took out substantial loans from European bankers and stock exchanges. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, British and French traders abandoned Egyptian cotton and returned to cheap American exports, sending Egypt into a deficit spiral that led to the country declaring bankruptcy in 1876, a key factor behind Egypt's annexation by the British Empire in 1882. During this time, cotton cultivation in the British Empire, especially India, greatly increased to replace the lost production of the American South. "
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 06:35 am |
|
102nd Post |
|
Hellcat Person 
|
BobInFla wrote: The Souther anglophiles were under the delusion (of which they had many If that's the case, then why the concern over the Trent Affair?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 09:20 am |
|
103rd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
BobInFla- For the most part, your recent postings support what I said in post #99. Our main disagreement seems to be over whether or not British troops coming from Canada could have made a great nuisance of themselves by forcing the federals to fight a two front war in effect. I don't see how having its forces divided (Especially early in the war) would not have had a greatly deleterious effect on the northern war effort. We apparently agree that even more significant damage would have been done by the British Royal Navy cooperating with the Confederates. In that case, the blockade would have been impossible to enforce. (And American commerce on the high seas would have been devastated). As for the previous wars with the British, the Americans could never have won a military victory over the British Empire. All that they could do was to accomplish a draw by continuing to fight until the British calculated that the price to continue was higher than they were willing to pay. That is precisely how things turned out. The southerners were in the same position in their fight against the federals. It was never their objective to: "Conquer the north" or to permanently occupy it. It was their plan to continue to fight until the northerners decided that it wasn't worth the price to continue their effort to: "Subjugate" (Your word, and an appropriate one) the southerners. Even without overt British assistance, the southerners were still: "In the game" until the re-election of Mr. Lincoln gave the signal that the northern people were willing to pay whatever the price was to achieve a military victory. Last edited on Tue Nov 1st, 2011 11:37 am by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Nov 2nd, 2011 02:49 pm |
|
104th Post |
|
Cogswell Pepperbox Did I Fire 6 Shots or Only 5 ? 
|
If elected to the Federal Presidency in 1864, McClellan would have stopped the war immediately.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:00 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > "Lost Cause" | Top |
) that the North was afraid of "The British Lion". Bullcrap! Sec of State Seward made it quite clear to the English throughout the war that the US would not hesitate to go to war with Britain if they did not respect certain issues.