 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I can't give you any resources for your research, but, as usual, I have lots of undocumentable opinions. Here goes.
Napoleon III may have toyed with the idea of recognizing the CSA, but he never did. Why? Because the other two great European powers, Britain and Russia, would not have joined him. He didn't want to take them on at the same time.
Remember, the Tsar freed the serfs in - when? 1861?. He couldn't then do a 180 and support the side which still had slaves.
Both Britain and Russia had enormous empires which they struggled to hold together. It would have gone against their interests to recognize the seceded states. Imagine the effect in Egypt and Ukraine if the Queen and the Tsar had said, in effect, we think secession is OK.
Patty aka Widow
Yes, the Tsar did free the serfs, in the same way that Lincoln freed the slaves "in the Southern states." The difference with the Russian serfs was that according to tradition, serfs had to be bought in order to free them. The state held that as it had freed the serfs, it had effectively bought them from the nobility, and thus demanded repayment. The serfs never earned enough to do so. LArge numbers of them continued to live in desperate povery. Without their own land, they still had to work the land of others in order to survive.
So, yes, they were "free" yet they were most likely in the exact same circumstance.