Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am sure Britain had invasion plans for the North. Heck they might still have some weird invasion plan from Canada now. Thats military contingency planning. But I don't think anyone at the time (outside of the Confederacy) seriously thought they would. Plus with envoys seeing the level of bloodbath going on I'd proffer that would have made them pretty gunshy.

Good thing too, for Britain.

The Green Git wrote:My Dad always told me "Son, don't wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig just enjoys it."

I will say that I find the author's attempt to equate hopeful slave owners to people that support the Bush tax cuts a bit telling, and where I suspect we will find his true mind set. It's all about class warfare.

I think the point he was making is that Americans, by and large, are believers in social mobility. We've historically supported policies that that favor the rich over the poor (compared to alternatives, not in absolute terms) over our entire history.

It's a well known and documented phenomenon, such that is referenced in Broadway musicals.

@Manstein: I'm not sure why you would appeal to an authority instead of simply arguing the point, because its not a good argumentative tactic.

dogma wrote:@Manstein: I'm not sure why you would appeal to an authority instead of simply arguing the point, because its not a good argumentative tactic.

Listening to what a faceless poster on Dakka has to say is one thing, listening to a credited Historian on the subject is another.

I think we'd still rather see what he has to say, not a four paragraph biography.

Maybe there was content in that quote box, but it read like "see how smart this guy is? He's got my back."

Manstein wrote:
Listening to what a faceless poster on Dakka has to say is one thing, listening to a credited Historian on the subject is another.

I disagree, being a credited historian does not make one's argument better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think we'd still rather see what he has to say, not a four paragraph biography.

Maybe there was content in that quote box, but it read like "see how smart this guy is? He's got my back."

Exactly.

dogma wrote:

Manstein wrote:
Listening to what a faceless poster on Dakka has to say is one thing, listening to a credited Historian on the subject is another.

I disagree, being a credited historian does not make one's argument better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think we'd still rather see what he has to say, not a four paragraph biography.

Maybe there was content in that quote box, but it read like "see how smart this guy is? He's got my back."

Exactly.

The point was not to say how smart he is, but to preempt any claims of him being some sort of southern "revisionist." If you want to here what he has to say, look at his lectures that I linked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, a credited historian is a reference and citing references can most certainly make one's argument better.

Ok, well, no offense, but I'm not going to watch a series of lectures.

Feel free to sum it up for us though. I honestly have no clue what you're actually referring. So yeah, you can use what he says, but I need to, you know, know what that is.

Polonius wrote:Ok, well, no offense, but I'm not going to watch a series of lectures.

Feel free to sum it up for us though. I honestly have no clue what you're actually referring. So yeah, you can use what he says, but I need to, you know, know what that is.

I won't even do that unless I get an offer for sweet tea or mint julips.

Manstein wrote:
The point was not to say how smart he is, but to preempt any claims of him being some sort of southern "revisionist." If you want to here what he has to say, look at his lectures that I linked.

Whether or not he's a revisionist is irrelevant. If the argument he makes is good, then its a good argument.

Manstein wrote:
Also, a credited historian is a reference and citing references can most certainly make one's argument better.

Citation attributes credit to points made by others, and makes the reader aware that the author has versed himself in the literature relevant to the topic. Additionally, citation is often used to show that a given piece of work is cumulative, that it builds on what has been already done.

What citation never does is make a particular statement more credible, and using it that way is fallacious by way of appeal to authority, and potentially ad populum.

dogma wrote:Citation attributes credit to points made by others, and makes the reader aware that the author has versed himself in the literature relevant to the topic. Additionally, citation is often used to show that a given piece of work is cumulative, that it builds on what has been already done.

What citation never does is make a particular statement more credible, and using it that way is fallacious by way of appeal to authority, and potentially ad populum.

No offense, but while this might be true in your field, it's not necessarily true in others. If I were to submit a brief that is logically indisputable but contained no citations, it would be laughed out of court. Citations are useful for providing support for claims. They're also a nice way of disproving ad hominem attacks (which this thread is replete with).

A factual argument is based on facts. Legal arguments are based on precedent.

this is a question of history, so the authority is less important than the argument and the facts that support it.

biccat wrote:
No offense, but while this might be true in your field, it's not necessarily true in others. If I were to submit a brief that is logically indisputable but contained no citations, it would be laughed out of court. Citations are useful for providing support for claims. They're also a nice way of disproving ad hominem attacks (which this thread is replete with).

Right, if I wrote something which contained no citations, it would never be published. But the reason wouldn't be that the absence of citations made the argument less credible, the reason would be that it violated the conventions of publication, cumulative knowledge being the big one.

Put differently, there is no difference between an argument made by 30 people, and an argument made by 1 person.

As Polonius said, this is different in law, where the facts in question are presented via precedent. Authority is important there because it is systemically critical to the justice system.

I agree, except the reference wasn't posted for purposes of presenting an argument, it was posted for the purpose of demonstrating a factual allegation (the UK stationing troops in Canada in 1963 to invade the Union).

When someone calls your factual assertions "BS", there's nothing wrong with appealing to an authority to substantiate that claim.

edit: and the "citations" I was referring to were citations to evidence, I should have made this clearer. I can say "the arresting officer took the defendant and slammed him into the ground," but it carries a bit more weight when I say "the arresting officer took the defendant and slammed him into the ground (disposition of Officer Jones, page 3)."

edit2: Yes, I'm aware that should probably have been 1863, but it's a typo in the original and it makes me chuckle.

Dogma: in legal arguments, you distinguish betwen facts (the things that happened) and the law (the precendent and statutes that govern what should affect the decision).

That said, you are more than allowed in trial to emphasize the credentials of an expert witness.

Polonius wrote:Ok, well, no offense, but I'm not going to watch a series of lectures.

Feel free to sum it up for us though. I honestly have no clue what you're actually referring. So yeah, you can use what he says, but I need to, you know, know what that is.

Not a problem, and I don't expect you to. I linked the series for those who were interested. I will also clear up my intentions for providing the information.

Originally I made this statement:

Many historians would argue that the British were on the verge of throwing total support to the Confederacy. By 1963 G.B. had already sent an army to Canada just in case and were simply waiting for a decisive Confederate victory before throwing their hats into the ring.

Someone commented that this was BS. In return, I cited a well respected, non "Southern Revisionist" historian as my source on this fact. I then proceeded to link some of his lectures for those who might still be unsure if he was legit or not.

As to his lectures, the whole thing is a semester's worth of knowledge so summing it up isn't much of an option. However, in reference to this discussion we are having... The Professor sums up the British viewpoint as once of extreme caution but also once one of interest interest. The British, although reluctant to send troops, nevertheless positioned themselves in such a way as to be able to take advantage of the situation should a major southern victory take place.

biccat wrote:I agree, except the reference wasn't posted for purposes of presenting an argument, it was posted for the purpose of demonstrating a factual allegation (the UK stationing troops in Canada in 1963 to invade the Union).

When someone calls your factual assertions "BS", there's nothing wrong with appealing to an authority to substantiate that claim.

No, but only if the authority himself cites original source documents.

Saying "Professor Smith argues that England is full of cows" isn't horribly helpful. Saying "Professor Jones, after reviewinig the census documents, argues that England is full of cows" is more helpful. Even then, you'd be better saying "the census records show that england is full of cows, as Professer Smith argues in his essay."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:

Many historians would argue that the British were on the verge of throwing total support to the Confederacy. By 1963 G.B. had already sent an army to Canada just in case and were simply waiting for a decisive Confederate victory before throwing their hats into the ring.

Someone commented that this was BS. In return, I cited a well respected, non "Southern Revisionist" historian as my source on this fact. I then proceeded to link some of his lectures for those who might still be unsure if he was legit or not.

As to his lectures, the whole thing is a semester's worth of knowledge so summing it up isn't much of an option. However, in reference to this discussion we are having... The Professor sums up the British viewpoint as once of extreme caution but also once one of interest interest. The British, although reluctant to send troops, nevertheless positioned themselves in such a way as to be able to take advantage of the situation should a major southern victory take place.

Well, I wasn't even sure if the historian you cited was supporting your claim about the British support, which was my confusion.

Though if you can't sum up a semesters worth of knowledge in a paragraph, i'd avoid law school.

I still think you ovesrtated things in your first post. I'd agree based on my limited knowledge that the UK would recognize the CSA if the won a big enough victory to make independence likely, and would have little problem pressuing the US to at least stop the war.

I'm not sure if they'd actually supprot their effort to actually win that fight or gain their victory.

Polonius wrote:
No, but only if the authority himself cites original source documents.

Saying "Professor Smith argues that England is full of cows" isn't horribly helpful. Saying "Professor Jones, after reviewinig the census documents, argues that England is full of cows" is more helpful. Even then, you'd be better saying "the census records show that england is full of cows, as Professer Smith argues in his essay."

Exactly.

Polonius wrote:
I still think you ovesrtated things in your first post. I'd agree based on my limited knowledge that the UK would recognize the CSA if the won a big enough victory to make independence likely, and would have little problem pressuing the US to at least stop the war.

I'm not sure if they'd actually supprot their effort to actually win that fight or gain their victory.

Yes, grain supplies being the major issue, as you pointed out. The Crown leveraged against either victory because they had interests at play on both sides, but they weren't committed to helping one defeat the other.

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:I agree, except the reference wasn't posted for purposes of presenting an argument, it was posted for the purpose of demonstrating a factual allegation (the UK stationing troops in Canada in 1963 to invade the Union).

When someone calls your factual assertions "BS", there's nothing wrong with appealing to an authority to substantiate that claim.

No, but only if the authority himself cites original source documents.

Saying "Professor Smith argues that England is full of cows" isn't horribly helpful. Saying "Professor Jones, after reviewinig the census documents, argues that England is full of cows" is more helpful. Even then, you'd be better saying "the census records show that england is full of cows, as Professer Smith argues in his essay."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:

Many historians would argue that the British were on the verge of throwing total support to the Confederacy. By 1963 G.B. had already sent an army to Canada just in case and were simply waiting for a decisive Confederate victory before throwing their hats into the ring.

Someone commented that this was BS. In return, I cited a well respected, non "Southern Revisionist" historian as my source on this fact. I then proceeded to link some of his lectures for those who might still be unsure if he was legit or not.

As to his lectures, the whole thing is a semester's worth of knowledge so summing it up isn't much of an option. However, in reference to this discussion we are having... The Professor sums up the British viewpoint as once of extreme caution but also once one of interest interest. The British, although reluctant to send troops, nevertheless positioned themselves in such a way as to be able to take advantage of the situation should a major southern victory take place.

Well, I wasn't even sure if the historian you cited was supporting your claim about the British support, which was my confusion.

Though if you can't sum up a semesters worth of knowledge in a paragraph, i'd avoid law school.

I still think you ovesrtated things in your first post. I'd agree based on my limited knowledge that the UK would recognize the CSA if the won a big enough victory to make independence likely, and would have little problem pressuing the US to at least stop the war.

I'm not sure if they'd actually supprot their effort to actually win that fight or gain their victory.

Ehh, the reason I didn't feel confident in summing up his series is that it hits on many social topics that are not really relevant to this discussion: i.e. white supremacy culture, lost cause, social temperments, ect. I will try to comb through the lectures and see if I can find the point where he presents the facts as I stated earlier, its 25+ hours of material, so I doubt I will be able to find it soon.

I will admit, the original post can put off the air that England was on the line of declaring a full scale involved war and duking it out with the Union. If the Brits did join in the war, it would be after after a major CSA victory that could prove fatal to the Union. The British Navy could easily have moved in to secure its interests, and the very threat of land force to the Union in the north, all would (hopefully) be enough to force a peace on the Union.

The Brits were not interested in fighting a land war again by any means, but hoped to use its threat combined with other factors to force the peace, as you have stated.

It's worth pointing out that Russians (who hated the british) activley supported the Union, and sent a small fleet to New York during parts of the war.

Once the Egyptian Cotton crops came in, any real gain the UK would have had in intervening evaporated.

True, but I am not sure that the those crops started coming in until close to the every end of the war. Not too sure about that though.

Frazzled wrote:I am sure Britain had invasion plans for the North. Heck they might still have some weird invasion plan from Canada now. Thats military contingency planning. But I don't think anyone at the time (outside of the Confederacy) seriously thought they would. Plus with envoys seeing the level of bloodbath going on I'd proffer that would have made them pretty gunshy.

Good thing too, for Britain.

Lol. You have far too much faith in British military planning. The history of Victoria's war shows miserable planning by the army until the late 1880s and it wasn't rock solid after that.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure Britain had invasion plans for the North. Heck they might still have some weird invasion plan from Canada now. Thats military contingency planning. But I don't think anyone at the time (outside of the Confederacy) seriously thought they would. Plus with envoys seeing the level of bloodbath going on I'd proffer that would have made them pretty gunshy.

Good thing too, for Britain.

Lol. You have far too much faith in British military planning. The history of Victoria's war shows miserable planning by the army until the late 1880s and it wasn't rock solid after that.

Just saw a show detailing the Japanese victory at Malaya. The Brits lost one decisive battle because the Japanese attacked "from the other way" which was previously thought impossible .

Anyways, they must have done something right taking over half the worlds land mass and whatnot.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure Britain had invasion plans for the North. Heck they might still have some weird invasion plan from Canada now. Thats military contingency planning. But I don't think anyone at the time (outside of the Confederacy) seriously thought they would. Plus with envoys seeing the level of bloodbath going on I'd proffer that would have made them pretty gunshy.

Good thing too, for Britain.

Lol. You have far too much faith in British military planning. The history of Victoria's war shows miserable planning by the army until the late 1880s and it wasn't rock solid after that.

Just saw a show detailing the Japanese victory at Malaya. The Brits lost one decisive battle because the Japanese attacked "from the other way" which was previously thought impossible .

Anyways, they must have done something right taking over half the worlds land mass and whatnot.

Yeah, it was called the Maxim gun, that and having a flag

Anyways, they must have done something right taking over half the worlds land mass and whatnot.

I'm not sure subjugating half the world means that one is doing something right, but that is a different thread.

Manstein wrote:Someone commented that this was BS. In return, I cited a well respected, non "Southern Revisionist" historian as my source on this fact. I then proceeded to link some of his lectures for those who might still be unsure if he was legit or not.

As to his lectures, the whole thing is a semester's worth of knowledge so summing it up isn't much of an option. However, in reference to this discussion we are having... The Professor sums up the British viewpoint as once of extreme caution but also once one of interest interest. The British, although reluctant to send troops, nevertheless positioned themselves in such a way as to be able to take advantage of the situation should a major southern victory take place.

I guess what we're looking for is a summation of any evidence he has for that position. Does he have documents from British parliament, or from within any ministry, that mentions the possibility of an invasion from Canada to support the South?

From my understanding the British learned the hard way twice already that it costs a lot of money to fight a war on the other side of the Atlantic, and were extremely wary of getting embroiled in that again. To argue that they'd not only get stuck in again, they'd do so on the side of the slave owners?

It seems very unlikely to me, given their focus on India and their own colonies (full of those much easier to govern brown people... slavery is one thing but racism was everywhere) that they'd look to waste English troops and treasure over there for a third time.

If the professor provided evidence I'd love to see it, but until then I think we're all going to be very sceptical.

sebster wrote:
If the professor provided evidence I'd love to see it, but until then I think we're all going to be very sceptical.

I went and looked him up. His work is mostly about cultural history, particularly the effect slavery had on masculinity in the black community (I mean, he does teach at Yale). To the extent that he has an opinion about the British involvement in the war, he is probably working from another's work.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Just saw a show detailing the Japanese victory at Malaya. The Brits lost one decisive battle because the Japanese attacked "from the other way" which was previously thought impossible .

Anyways, they must have done something right taking over half the worlds land mass and whatnot.

The British defence of Singapore was basically entirely incompetent. Both in terms of conception (huge investment in sheer manpower, minimal air cover and naval defence based on the myth of the indestructible nature of battleships) and execution (Percival has gone down in history as one of the British Empire's poorest generals).

The Japanese did one thing right early in the war - they got lucky in facing disorganised and inadequately prepared opposition (the destruction of more than 100 aircraft on the ground in the Phillipines was a disgrace, and makes me wonder why so many people like to pretend MacArthur was competent, let alone a skilled general).

Once the US got their act together the Japanese never scored another victory of any note. Note how easily the Russians defeated them, as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I went and looked him up. His work is mostly about cultural history, particularly the effect slavery had on masculinity in the black community (I mean, he does teach at Yale). To the extent that he has an opinion about the British involvement in the war, he is probably working from another's work.

Fair enough, but even if he was referencing someone else, apparently someone has grounds to claim the UK was considering taking an active role. Which would be pretty important, if true.

I think the British may have welcomed the secession. They weren't stupid: they saw that the US would expand across the continent and do so through immigration and exapnsion, not the subjugation of the local populations.

It doesn't take a lot of brain power to realize that a modern, industrializing country with far more space and resources will outgrow England.

What about all that subjugation of the local populace?