[EyeBrock]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Trying to portray the Crimean War as some kind of religious war is silly. The word 'Crusade' was in common usage until the PC crowd made it taboo lest we offend Muslims.

The Russians were fighting a religiously motivated war. Russia under the Tsars was a theocracy. Russia's interest with the Ottomans was the mistreatment of Slavs and Christians within the Empire. It was Russia which freed the Slavic (Balkan countries) from the Ottomans.

For Britain and France it was mostly to check Russian expansion.

For Russia it was far more than that.

Unless the Brits and French were fighting the Russians for Anglicanism and French Catholicism, it wasn't religious, even if the Russians did it in the name of their god.

Religious wars are one religion vs another, this wasn’t the case with the Brits or the French, unless you count capitalist colonialism as a religion?

[CommanderSock]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Trying to portray the Crimean War as some kind of religious war is silly. The word 'Crusade' was in common usage until the PC crowd made it taboo lest we offend Muslims.

The Russians were fighting a religiously motivated war. Russia under the Tsars was a theocracy. Russia's interest with the Ottomans was the mistreatment of Slavs and Christians within the Empire. It was Russia which freed the Slavic (Balkan countries) from the Ottomans.

For Britain and France it was mostly to check Russian expansion.

For Russia it was far more than that.

Unless the Brits and French were fighting the Russians for Anglicanism and French Catholicism, it wasn't religious, even if the Russians did it in the name of their god.

Religious wars are one religion vs another, this wasn’t the case with the Brits or the French, unless you count capitalist colonialism as a religion?

I already agreed that Britain and France weren't in it for god. But the primary instigator of this war was Russia.

It was not a religious war, but the motives of certain belligerents were religious.

[EyeBrock]

Ok Sock, I'll have that.

[Mustang1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Britain's construction of the cruiser CSS Alabama and subsequent construction of the so-called Laird Rams were an extreme provocation. The Trent Affair had much to do with the Laird Rams and while Lincoln did apologize, Lord Palmerston was also doing a bit of blinking of his own when he got the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy cancelled.

What? Britian was officially neutral. And you initially wrote that Britain along with France, sided with the Confederacy and that's historically wrong (neither nation ever officially recognized the South diplomatically.)

Secondly, you claimed Britain "feared the US Navy" and evidently there's not much history to back that up - if they did, their immediate move to a war-footing after Northern illegality (even France agreed with the British) doesn't suggest that notion.
In fact, a quick look history will tell you that Britain saw her Navy as her key in potential hostilities with the North and this alleged "fear" of the US Navy didn't exist nor did cause the British to side (which they didn't diplomatically) with the South.

The only one that "blinked" was the U.S. as they backed down on the incident and contemporaries in Britain saw it as a diplomatic victory for the Empire.

$1:

The UK (and France) essentially stuck its nose into the US civil war when it recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent and recognized the diplomatic credentials of the Confederate emissaries. That Trent Affair you cited was not just about a Mail packet being boarded, but about recognized diplomats being taken into US custody. The UK and France giving diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy and then receiving them, even while not granting formal recognition of the CSA, was still a provocation.

Great Britain and France were besieged by Southern "diplomats" for support and mediation. British concerns were centred on classic balance of power issues in Europe, like Napoleon III and Bismarck's Prussian realpolitik.

The Trent Affair was about illegal actions against a neutral nation in neutral waters. The North recognized this, eventually, and backed down by releasing the envoys from jail.


The diplomatic reality was that NO European nation recognized the sovereignty of the Confederacy nor extended diplomatic recognition.

$1:

The Royal Navy didn't exactly fear the US Navy,

Which was my point.

[BartSimpson]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

What? Britian was officially neutral. And you initially wrote that Britain along with France, sided with the Confederacy and that's historically wrong (neither nation ever officially recognized the South diplomatically.)

Britain was neutral only on paper. Providing arms and ships to the Confederates and having British flagged merchants run the US blockade of the South were not neutral acts.

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

$1:

Ships that tried to evade the blockade, known as blockade runners, were mostly newly built, high-speed ships with small cargo capacity. They were operated by the British (using Royal Navy officers on leave) and ran between Confederate-controlled ports and the neutral ports of Havana, Cuba; Nassau, Bahamas, and Bermuda, where British suppliers had set up supply bases.

And the US knew that these Royal Navy officers were on leave in name only as they were retaining and accruing seniority in the fleet. That was a circumstance that the Royal Navy had adopted in years past as precedent when sending the assets of the Royal Navy against other nations while retaing culpable deniability. Regardless, the American public still saw this as direct British intervention and that opinion held sway decades later in the US staying our of WW1 for as long as it did.

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Secondly, you claimed Britain "feared the US Navy" and evidently there's not much history to back that up - if they did, their immediate move to a war-footing after Northern illegality (even France agreed with the British) doesn't suggest that notion.
In fact, a quick look history will tell you that Britain saw her Navy as her key in potential hostilities with the North and this alleged "fear" of the US Navy didn't exist nor did cause the British to side (which they didn't diplomatically) with the South.

At the time of the Trent Affair the 12th Duke of Somerset, as First Sea Lord, informed Lord Palmerston that he was loathe to send the Royal Navy against the wooden ships of the US Navy until the Royal Navy was fitted out with more ironclads. That was due to the Dahlgren guns. Later on, after the Trent Affair was settled, Somerset remarked in his memoirs that he was glad that he had not sent British ships up against the later US Navy rifles that swept the Confederacy from the seas.

Mustang1 Mustang1:

The only one that "blinked" was the U.S. as they backed down on the incident and contemporaries in Britain saw it as a diplomatic victory for the Empire.

Yet the sale of the Laird Rams was, indeed, cancelled.

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Great Britain and France were besieged by Southern "diplomats" for support and mediation. British concerns were centred on classic balance of power issues in Europe, like Napoleon III and Bismarck's Prussian realpolitik.

The Trent Affair was about illegal actions against a neutral nation in neutral waters. The North recognized this, eventually, and backed down by releasing the envoys from jail.


The diplomatic reality was that NO European nation recognized the sovereignty of the Confederacy nor extended diplomatic recognition.

$1:

The Royal Navy didn't exactly fear the US Navy,

Which was my point.

Be all of that as it may, the fact remains that the Brits sold arms and ships to the CSA and that British flagged ships ran the blockade to directly deliver arms to the CSA. None of those acts were forgotten for the rest of the 19th Century.

[Mustang1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Britain was neutral only on paper. Providing arms and ships to the Confederates and having British flagged merchants run the US blockade of the South were not neutral acts.

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

Britain was neutral, by the scope of the day. And, at any rate, the "blockade" under contemporary standards meant according to your source, "Britain's proclamation of neutrality was consistent with the position of the Lincoln Administration under international law—the Confederates were belligerents—giving them the right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral powers, and giving the British the formal right to discuss openly which side, if any, to support"

$1:

And the US knew that these Royal Navy officers were on leave in name only as they were retaining and accruing seniority in the fleet. That was a circumstance that the Royal Navy had adopted in years past as precedent when sending the assets of the Royal Navy against other nations while retaing culpable deniability. Regardless, the American public still saw this as direct British intervention and that opinion held sway decades later in the US staying our of WW1 for as long as it did.

Relevance? The British never sided with the Confederacy, as you erronously stated, nor did it recognize the South diplomatically.


[quote
At the time of the Trent Affair the 12th Duke of Somerset, as First Sea Lord, informed Lord Palmerston that he was loathe to send the Royal Navy against the wooden ships of the US Navy until the Royal Navy was fitted out with more ironclads. That was due to the Dahlgren guns. Later on, after the Trent Affair was settled, Somerset remarked in his memoirs that he was glad that he had not sent British ships up against the later US Navy rifles that swept the Confederacy from the seas. [/quote]

Really? That's interesting because at the time of Trent Affair, Somerset felt that the current British Navy of primarily steam ships could dispatch with the Union's primarily sail ships. In fact, i've got several sources (from JSTOR - Bourne +Layne) that fail to suggest there was any significant naval worries (on sea-based port attacks, yes, but there's no widespread "fear" of the Union navy) on the part of the British (as opposed to land-based operations out of Canada, which would prove to be problematic and challenging).

$1:

Yet the sale of the Laird Rams was, indeed, cancelled.

Please provide the direct cause/effect link between Laird Rams and Trent . As i previously stated, events had transpired since Trent that altered Britain's diplomatic conduct anyway.

$1:

Be all of that as it may...

Which means that my history is correct.

[Mustang1]

Thought i'd add a specific quote regarding contemporary British Admiralty assessment of naval capabilities during Trent -

"the British thought it [their navy] far superior [to the Union's]. According to one British estimate Milne's total of 1,273 guns was more than the entire Union navy could muster. This was probably a considerable underestimate of American strength but it was true that most of the American ships were improvised merchantmen. They had last lost several of their finest Pre-Civil War ships and the majority of the remainder were sailing vessels. Milne's force, on the other hand, was composed entirely of steamships and great care had been taken to give him the strongest frigates available." - Bourne "Britain and the balance of power in North America 1815-1908"

It should be noted that the British had thought that their Armstrong guns (later proven to be faulty) would also give them a firepower advantage. As Bourne put it, the British, despite other theater difficulties, would put their faith in their Navy to push a military victory.