History Hub

HiTaz.

Britain Siding with the confederacy.

The only time during the war that there was a united front against the union was during the Trent incident.

For those that dont know. This was the USN stopping a British Ship to remove two Confederate envoys on their way to Europe.

Before that there was a split between working and middle class and the upper classes in the UK with the lower orders being in favour of the Union. and the Upper classes being against.

The incident was seen as a slap in the face to the whole nation and rallied just about everyone to a short term anti Union stance. Once the incident is peacefully resolved opinions go back to pre incident forms.

Of course they should... but if the war WAS about slavery as stated by those States such as Georgia that included causes in their declarations of secession as well as Confederacy Vice President Alexander Stephens, the South should simply not have withdrawn.

To make slavery illegal would have taken a constitutional amendment and that needs a two thirds majority in both the House and Senate and two thirds of states ratifying it.

Eleven states seceded. Two slave states (Kentucky and Maryland) did not and only half of Misourri tried to secede (I'm not counting West Virginia which would not exist if the South had not attempted to secede). In addition Arizona Territory split from New Mexico Territory in order to secede, and four of the five tribal governments in Oklahoma also supported the confederacy. Added to that, the treaty by which Texas joined the union, gives Texas the right to split into five states whenever it wants to.

By my reckoning, this means that by today if all those territories etc. became states and all continued to want slavery, there would be 20 of the 49 states (no West Virginia) or 19 of 48 (no Oklahoma either) supporting slavery. In order for the US to make slavery illegal, there would have to be 32 or 33 states supporting an end to slavery.

This could, in fact have become even more difficult for the union after the Spanish American War, with Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, and Cuba possibly seeking to join the Union as slave states.

Imagine though what the United States might have been like without secession, with slavery as a running sore on the body politic.

Hi Tas

sorry to take so long to reply but I am rarely on the BBc pages these days.

One of the advantages of being interested in Anglo-saxon history is that it is easier to get access to the several of the most important source documents than is the case with many other periods. for example the anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Bede, Asser's life of King Alfred, Gildas and Nennius can all be obtained without too much dificulty.

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms is the name for the wars that engulfed Britain during the 1640s and 1650s and included conflict in Ireland including Scottish intervention as well as the English New Model Army commanded for part of the time by Cromwell. Conflict in Scotland between Lowland 'Covenater' forces and a Royalist army consisting of Irish catholics and Highlanders and an English invasion and conquest of Scotland, again led by Cromwell. Conflict in England with two civil wars; in the first there was Scottish intervention in support of Parliamant and in the second in support of King Charles I and a Scottish invasion in support of Charles II.

regards

Tim

Hi Erik,

It is always a pleasure for me to discuss any subject with you, you are so well informed generally.

I think I learnt in a conversation with my ex-wife who knew English medieval history pretty well, that it was in the reign of Richard II, when English became the language of the court.

So Henry V's speech to the English army:

"Cry, God for Harry, England and St. George!" may well have been delivered in just those words.

Tas

Hi Tim,

I can't ask you to take time off from your new duties, however, I would like to understand, at your leisure, why the War of the Three Kingdoms is so interesting. I suspect the Battle of the Boyne occurred much later, so probably not a part of that war.

I know a bit about the English Civil War, but the war of three kingdoms should be quite interesting. I do not know much about it. Can you please elucidate at your leisure. Regards,

Tas

"It's strange, is it not, that in our schools British history seems always to begin immediately prior to the Roman invasions (ca 55 BCE) and continue from that point as though there was nothing much happening in the islands before that time. Yet British history was alive and kicking very hard for millenia prior to Rome's ascendance. I do wish schools -- even universities -- would spend more time teaching their students what is known of British history from the earliest times. When, and from where, for instance, came the ''small, dark peoples'' whom the Celtic tribes brushed aside when they occupied most of the land? I've barely heard of them, yet my study of British history was as extensive as my schools offered. It's a shame."

Presumably, one of the consequences of the Celts having no formally recorded knowledge! The druids, as I understand it, didn't like recorded knowledge. As it removed their powerbase - the oral tradition - which only they had access to and, the time to learn!

I don't know Erik. I'm certainly not aware of any contemporaeneous records of them. Only archaeological/biological evidence. Having a father myself with a swarthy skin, who's antecedents hailed from mid-Wales, I possibly have a personal interest in the subject.