The History Page

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

Anybody who knows about the British in the 1800 knows that if they had come to the aide of the Confederates, the South would have had to pay a price. What concession would the South have had to make in order to convince the British to break through Lincoln's blocade? I say the Southerners would have become a defacto colony for their new English masters. More evidence that the war was a spontaneous reaction to Lincoln's election and not a well planned long term desire for a separate nation, as some Southern mythologist would have us believe.

I said, Anybody who knows about the British in the 1800 knows that if they had come to the aide of the Confederates, the South would have had to pay a price. What concession would the South have had to make in order to convince the British to break through Lincoln's blocade? I say the Southerners would have become a defacto colony for their new English masters. More evidence that the war was a spontaneous reaction to Lincoln's election and not a well planned long term desire for a separate nation, as some Southern mythologist would have us believe.

Tiger said: In reply to your insolent question, not only have I "bothered" to read about British involvement in the world in the 19th Century I have written about that involvement as well

as about the activities of James Mason and John Slidell, CSA representatives to Great Britain and France. But that is neither here nor there. Your initial hypothesis reproduced above makes no sense whatsoever. The secessionists may reasonably have foreseen the North would impose a blockade, but for them to have calculated Great Britain's terms

for military assistance at the beginning of 1861 stretches speculation into fantasy. It is only "more evidence" of your readiness to concoct facts to mystify your audience and

lend credence to your weird theories. Best erase this one as well.

TIGER593

There is nothing insolent about the question. Tiger's statement "to have calculated Great Britain's terms for military assistance at the beginning of 1861 stretches speculation into fantasy" is only his pathetic opinion. For years the secessionist had participated in the federal government, and they were well aware of British colonial history. It is not unreasonable, or illogical, to think that such a question would have come to mind when planning the secession.

My point is, the secession was not a well planned effort but rather a quickly thrown together plan made in reaction to the election of Abrahma Lincoln. What has Tiger written that can dispute my claim?

What help the south did get from the brits was all we were gonna get. They would never have put troops here done that twice and paid heavily for it. So yes your question had as much bearing on history as what would have happened had the Alien race of Zarkon 5 (flash's people) showed up with laser ray guns, and given them to the CSA.

what would have happened had the Alien race of Zarkon 5 (flash's people

That's a very strange appelation for Clan Robertson. I think we'd better pay you a visit.

What help the south did get from the brits was all we were gonna get.

Hobbs, I realize that the Brits did not offer any military help. That is why I asked it as a "what if " question. I was talking about possibilities.

The reason for the use of "pathetic" was in response to Tiger calling me "insolent". Sorry I missed the discussion that took place here "several months ago".

You got the 1853 patt Enfield rifle, Hobbs. Sealed pattern built by other contractors. We also built the LeMat revolver for you since the frogs' own quality was terrible.

And the Whitworth Sniper rifle

(These cost $950) Had hexagonal bore,

My point is, the secession was not a well planned effort but rather a quickly thrown together plan made in reaction to the election of Abrahma Lincoln. >>>

Damn right it wasn't well planned and was a knee jerk reaction to a Republican getting elected. I don't think Lincoln would have been elected if the opposition hadn't split its vote.

I'm not sure who I'm disageeing with, but that's how I see that part of history.

I don't think Lincoln would have been elected if the opposition hadn't split its vote.

You're wrong on that. Lincoln won 180 electoral votes, or 59.4%. In all but two of the states he carried, Lincoln won more than 50% of the vote, a clear majority. The only two exceptions, California and Oregon, had 7 electoral votes. Had the Democrats taken both of them then Lincoln would still have been president with 173 electoral votes.

You are right. I looked it up and even with the opposition being split 3 ways, Lincoln got 59% of the electoral vote. He was slightly under 50% of the popular vote, but that doesn't count.

there were 2 books write about this very subject. both fiction, "Stars and Stripe in peirle" and "Stars and Stripes Forever"

in the First book although the UK was to aide the South with military troops, the UK quickly turned on the south.

Curious Usual, do ya think this would have been the case if the south had not worked to throw the election and get Lincoln, in there so they could ceede from the yankee nation? Or do ya think the outcome would have more or less been the same?

If it was so sudden then how do ya explain the comment made by Rhett, after the secession.....Where he said this thing that we begun over 30 years ago has now came to past..........Pardon me as I am rather lazy right now to look up his exact quote, but I do believe I have hit the high points and gave the gist. Or do comments as such not count unless of course they are about the inferiority of the colored man?

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page	[email protected]