General Discussion

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)

22. I had not heard that, but incidentally, here is info from Wiki I found interesting...

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 03:39 PM

Sep 2013

"Great Britain was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favour the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favour the United States."

Sounds a bit familiar especially since it was the non-elite youngsters who would be sailing over the Pond with American Revolution memories of the Redcoats still pretty intact. It read like there were British trading relationships with the South they felt might be disrupted. I couldn't find anything about "ready to intervene". But who knows?

"The Confederacy, and its president Jefferson Davis, believed from the beginning in "King Cotton" -- the notion that British dependence on cotton for its large textile industry would lead to diplomatic recognition and mediation or military intervention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Syria's insurgency beyond Good Guys and Bad Guys [View all] ProSense Sep 2013 OP

As Lister acknowledges, 68-80 percent reject democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept leveymg Sep 2013 #1

"We're on the wrong side in this. Both sides - practically all sides, are wrong." ProSense Sep 2013 #2

You're talking about replacing a secular despot with an Islamic caliphate. The cost - only 100K leveymg Sep 2013 #3

So your preference is for Assad's brutality because he's a "secular despot"? ProSense Sep 2013 #4

My preference is that we not be involved in the Syrian civil war. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #5

Well, ProSense Sep 2013 #6

And the rebels are the Mary Poppins Brigade, strewing flowers and singing folk songs? Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #13

Who said that? ProSense Sep 2013 #15

Can I check "None of the Above"? Or, is someone forcing us to take sides? leveymg Sep 2013 #9

No one ProSense Sep 2013 #10

You should knock off that accusatory "you may not care" bullshit. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #14

Bullshit. ProSense Sep 2013 #16

You directed that remark right at me, so don't dance around the bush. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #23

Right, because your comment implied the U.S. shouldn't get involved ProSense Sep 2013 #25

That is correct. In addition this one can feel the tug of his leash from Moscow. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #27

A Couple of Small Points, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2013 #19

In all Civil Wars, both sides "kill their own people" As did the North and the South in US History libdem4life Sep 2013 #7

Which American leader/President are you comparing to Assad? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #8

The Syrian Civil War is small change compared to the US Civil War - >700,000 killed. Want to leveymg Sep 2013 #11

War as "small change"? ProSense Sep 2013 #12

How many more people need to die to meet your standards of moral righteousness and regime change? leveymg Sep 2013 #18

You're the one categorizing war as "small change," and why? ProSense Sep 2013 #20

I'm not comparing anyone...speaking to civil war mentality and history...ours and others. libdem4life Sep 2013 #21

The British were ready to intervene on behalf of the South, but backed off geek tragedy Sep 2013 #17

I had not heard that, but incidentally, here is info from Wiki I found interesting... libdem4life Sep 2013 #22

They were considering recognizing the South as an independent nation. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #24

Yes, that would make sense. Thanks for the info. libdem4life Sep 2013 #26

K & R Scurrilous Sep 2013 #28