This is too funny. Had me chuckling when I watched it.



I think he needs to go and read a history book

Well you did support the Confederacy until it became clear that they wouldn't win.

There's a Confederate museum in St. Georges in Bermuda documenting the British building blockade runners for the Rebs, and suppling munitions.

I've been there.

I didn't support anyone Tony. I wasn't born then. It was a century and a half ago.

You also need to go and read your history. Britain was politically neutral to both sides during the American civil war. Though British arms manufacturers supplied munitions to the Unionists, and the Confederacy bought two warships from another British manufacturer. That was just business.

The rest of the stuff in this video is historical hokum. It's funny to watch though. Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and Napoleon 'beat' Britain.....? Which piece of historical revisionism did that come from....

I didn't say YOU.

Britain was politically neutral to both sides during the American civil war.

Bullshit

tonyrockyhorror wrote:I didn't say YOU.

Britain was politically neutral to both sides during the American civil war.

Bullshit

I'm not a historian and dont know much about this, but I agree with Tony. As far as I knew the British sided with the Confederacy. I dont know that they contributed much but were at least "friends" of the Confederacy.

This came up when discussing that film set in an alternate reality where the South won, and the modern USA (or rather CSA) was a very racist society - still practicing slavery. It was pointed out that the Confederacy would likely have abolished slavery sooner or later, and would have been influenced by its ally (the British) who had abolished slavery throughout the empire.

tonyrockyhorror wrote:I didn't say YOU.

Yes 'YOU' did my son. Re read 'YOUR' post

Britain was politically neutral to both sides during the American civil war.

Bullshit

Not bullshit my friend. Historical Fact. You're very welcome to try and 'prove' me wrong though

wakeyboy wrote:I'm not a historian and dont know much about this, but I agree with Tony. As far as I knew the British sided with the Confederacy. I dont know that they contributed much but were at least "friends" of the Confederacy.

This came up when discussing that film set in an alternate reality where the South won, and the modern USA (or rather CSA) was a very racist society - still practicing slavery. It was pointed out that the Confederacy would likely have abolished slavery sooner or later, and would have been influenced by its ally (the British) who had abolished slavery throughout the empire.

Wakey. Britain, like most of Europe, was politically neutral to both sides in regard to the outcome. The British Government didn't 'side' with either side. What they did was say they would accept relations with either side if they won. It's not the same thing.

mr dragon wrote:

tonyrockyhorror wrote:I didn't say YOU.

Yes 'YOU' did my son. Re read 'YOUR' post

Britain was politically neutral to both sides during the American civil war.

Bullshit

Not bullshit my friend. Historical Fact. You're very welcome to try and 'prove' me wrong though

wakeyboy wrote:I'm not a historian and dont know much about this, but I agree with Tony. As far as I knew the British sided with the Confederacy. I dont know that they contributed much but were at least "friends" of the Confederacy.

This came up when discussing that film set in an alternate reality where the South won, and the modern USA (or rather CSA) was a very racist society - still practicing slavery. It was pointed out that the Confederacy would likely have abolished slavery sooner or later, and would have been influenced by its ally (the British) who had abolished slavery throughout the empire.

Wakey. Britain, like most of Europe, was politically neutral to both sides in regard to the outcome. The British Government didn't 'side' with either side. What they did was say they would accept relations with either side if they won. It's not the same thing.

Lincoln enacted a blockade of the Southern ports which prevented regular international shipments to the Confederacy. The British built "blockade runners" and traded arms and luxuries with the Confederacy in exchange for tobacco and the cotton which was extremely important to the economy of Great Britain. Most of the mills in the industrialised North of England processed cotton from the southern states of America.

Now such actions may not have been acts of war, or taking sides at that time but in this day and age we'd take a rather dim view of it.

(ok, you know I looked all of that up, but thats the historical consensus on the matter)

All true Wakey. However Britain didn't stop trade with either side during the war- that also includes large amounts of grain from the Union states as well. Britain kept it's trade going with BOTH sides. The 'blockade runners' were also made to keep trade flowing from both sides despite the war- and were completely legal.

As I said. Britain was politically neutral towards the American civil war. That is a fact, and was the government position of the time. The issue that British companies did business with both sides, as it was going on, does not mean Britain supported the Confederate states politically.

The 'blockade runners' were also made to keep trade flowing from both sides despite the war- and were completely legal.

There was no blockade on the Union States. Whether it was legal or not, who was to say.
The Union knew what was going on but couldn't afford another war with Britain at the same time. Britain did threaten war over the capture of two British diplomates on a Confederate vessel by sending soldiers to the Canadian border, Lincoln returned the diplomates without any further incident.

Britain was officially neutral, yes, but that didn't mean they weren't playing both sides. They did.

I think a divided America would've been more appealing to Britain from every standpoint. Especially militarily. Especially on the seas.

You bastards

You bastards

We just think, more fool you. You (America) could have been British but you chose not to because you didnt think it was fair to pay for your own wars.

Do they not teach history anymore?

Ok. *Sigh*

The 'blockade' was put up to stop the Unionist states preventing Confederate states ALSO trading with Britain- as all those states had also been doing beforehand. Britain traded with BOTH sides during the American civil war EQUALLY. That was the status quo before the civil 'war' in north America in regard to the British Empire of that period. If trade on either side stopped it would ALSO effect British interests of the time. A 'confederate person' could equally argue that Britain 'sided' with the Unionists 'because' Britain kept it's large trade in regard to grain with them which helped support them economically, and also sold the Unionists their munitions to use against the Confederates as well...Tony- the blockade WAS completely legal under trade laws of the time. It was legal because Britain had free trade agreements with both 'sides' before 'your' civil war. It's not Britain's fault North America had a civil war between two sides of the 'country' as it was at the time. If BOTH sides wanted to keep the trade ongoing between Britain- as they did, British businesses had a legal right to trade with both sides equally as they had been doing before. As I said in the beginning- Britain was completely neutral politically towards the American civil war. That is a fact- hence why this silly video is wrong. By being neutral means that you can allow businesses in your country to do business with both sides on an even footing. Which is exactly what happened.

Britain did 'threaten war' over the capture of one or two confederates- though it was over the capture of a British postal ship. I believe that's the Trent incident you are referring to. However Britain didn't 'threaten war' because of a 'confederate vessel'. It threatened war because the Unionists captured a British postal ship which two confederates had also decided to take passage on. That was an 'act of war' by the Unionists towards British commercial trading interests by taking that ship. Britain sent troops to Canada because of this- and the US then backed down. Britain then also backed down over that incident. The reason Britain backed down was because it was politicaly neutral towqrds the US civil war. Britain at that time had no political interest, at that time, in regard to who won. All it had was business interests in relation to the North American continent, alongside it's own sovereignty issues in regard to it's own business interests. Which basically meant neither side of the civil war could capture British trading vessels, regardless.

Lastly, you're final comments actually make a little more sense. Britain did play both sides commercially- that's no secret at all. I also agree with the 'British' position of the time taking that stance- it was right to do so given the context of history and British interests at that time. The US, if it had existed at that time, would have done exactly the same thing if roles were reversed (we just managed to do our own civil war a few hundred years before ). However Britain was still completely neutral to BOTH sides of the American civil war politically- that's just a fact. You can't just 'suddenly' decide that isn't 'true' anymore- just like a person can't suddenly decide the Holocaust didn't happen. It's silly historical revisionism to say otherwise. Britain didn't give a shit which side won at that time- as long as the trade was ongoing and whatever the outcome the political relations were still good with the whole of North America going forward. THAT'S the point. Hence why this video is just inane historical revisionism played out in silly sound bites which completely distort history, partly from the sublime to the completely ridiculous- and even also factually the opposite of what is true. For example Napoleon, and the French, were completely defeated by the British at Waterloo. It was the end of continental European colonialism as a dominant player in the world, and more specifically the end French colonialism as fundamental major player on the world stage. Bonaparte spent the final days of his life under British imprisonment in the Azores. Britain became the world hyper power in the preceding years after the defeat of Napoleon, throughout the Victorian era and just after that- right until about 1914. It then started to collapse after that.

As for the British 'wanting' a 'divided' America back then (actually 'America' as we now know it didn't really exist at that time). Maybe the British leaders of that time may have 'secretly' wanted it- I don't know, neither do you. It's pure speculation. However, either way, whatever happened in regard to 'your' civil war made no difference in terms of military globally for the British of the time, and most specifically on the 'seas'. Throughout most of the 1800's, and right up until about half way through the second world war in the twentieth century, the British of that period became the most dominant military power on the seas- globally. It actually made no difference to the British in terms of global power at the time - either way - whatever happened with the American civil war. In fact, my historical view has always been that initially giving up those thirteen colonies prior to the American civil war- in what is now part of the USA, was probably the smartest thing the British Empire ever did when it came to it's own interests during that period.

And yes, 'we' were bastards

But, hey. 'We' gave you a nice cup of tea, our language, our law system, industrialisation, town planning, universities, modern science, freedom of speech, post 'the enlightenment' arts, and quite a few 'other' very important things. That's not all bad. 'We' could have given you chavs, teenage mothers, 'bad' teeth, Eastender's accents, and knife crime

...And also even the 'evil' NHS, and the 'evil' Hamas Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) later on as well! Ok, we did give you a bit of that on cable on demand- if you want to pay for it....

My wife teaches a class on British history at a local university...I'm sure she could weigh in.

Sadly, she is not here to comment.

D'Oh!

Get over it evil doers.

the 'evil' NHS

Ha! If i were in the NHS I'd still be on a waiting list for a hip replacement till sometime in 2011.

That's a fact Jack

She could probably do a much better job than me Eddie. I remember some of that stuff from history lessons, but it was years ago. I had to go and check some facts again before I wrote that post. I got interested though, and read a bit more at lunchtime today. There's a couple of details I didn't get fully right from what I read. Britain didn't actually have a full free trade agreement with both sides- or before. The Unionists weren't too much into free trade at the time- particularly with Britain. From how I understand it they were still pissed at the British for burning down Government buildings and the White House in Washington DC, who'd done this in retaliation for the Americans burning the Canadian Parliament building and the looting of York in Canada. Therefore Unionist States were more than happy to put tariffs on British imports. The secessionist states weren't but upped their prices for British imports in America to get an advantage from the higher prices of British goods being taxed in the US from the Union side- your wife Eddie may be able to explain that better if I have that correct. Either way, there were trade issues. That could partly explain why the British weren't so bothered about keeping their trade going with the Confederate States, and would have accepted a Confederate break away if that was also the outcome. The other reason is one that Wakey will know very well. Cotton imports from the south of the US were fundamental to the north of England's textile manufacturing industry at the time- which was part of the engine of the British Empires economy in the UK. To have that shut down would have had a very major effect on the British economy of the time- hence the blockade ships. Britain wasn't going to accept that trade was going to be stopped from the southern states because of the potential effect on it's own economy. That just has to do with national interests. However, on the flip side, major grain imports from the Union states were also fundamentally important to the UK at that time, so Britain couldn't afford to loose them either and kept that trade going also. Again, that's why Britain stayed politically neutral. If Britain had actually 'sided' with the secessionists, as this video claims, it would have meant a stop in those grain imports and Britain would have also had to have gone to war again with the Union States. None of that was in it's interests nationally, so Britain stayed out of taking sides politically- but also claimed the right to trade with both sides as a neutral country. Palmerston, the British Prime Minister at that time, was very cautious to stay neutral in regard to the outcome.

I read a few other interesting things. Again, your wife might know more about this Eddie. British manufacturers sold arms and supplies to both sides, though they sold more to the secessionists. I'm not sure if that had to do with tariffs, or the fact that there was more resentment towards the British (or vice versa) with the Unionists because of the still recent war of 1812. I also read something else that was interesting. A small number of British military servicemen served on both sides. I thought that was fascinating. The other thing that was interesting was that no British Government could even contemplate 'siding' with the Confederates because of the slavery issue- which most Brits had become vastly and utterly opposed to- yet at that time the division between both sides in the US was seen more as having to do with business interests. Ie the effect on businesses in the Southern States if slavery were suddenly abolished. Note some Unionist States also had slavery at that time as well.

Either way. If Britain (and France) had deliberately sided with the secessionists and been against the Unionists, there would have been all out war yet again with Europe included. It may even be that the US wouldn't even look like it does today- because of that if it had happened. Hence why this video is very silly. I do wish people would read more history instead of playing games with silly sound bites- particularly with ones that aren't even factually correct, or even true. The 'Britain would be speaking German today if it weren't for the US' is one of the ones I still keep hearing/reading nowadays, and probably despise the most. There are other ones that come out of Europe as well- some Europeans today have no concept of the Marshall Plan, or what it meant.

tonyrockyhorror wrote:Get over it evil doers.

the 'evil' NHS

Ha! If i were in the NHS I'd still be on a waiting list for a hip replacement till sometime in 2011.

That's a fact Jack

Really? My friend's Mum has just had hers done. She had to wait just over nine weeks in total to get it. She also didn't have to suddenly fork out 55,000 dollars either....

Now. That's a FACT Jack

I didn't pay the 55k, my insurance did. My whole out of pocket expense for everything was $300.

I got my appt. in three weeks, just how little over nine weeks was that?

Jack

tonyrockyhorror wrote:I didn't pay the 55k, my insurance did. My whole out of pocket expense for everything was $300.

I got my appt. in three weeks, just how little over nine weeks was that?

Jack

You're so funny. I think it was about three days over the nine weeks, from appointment to operation. I just wrote that to be fair and not claim it was nine weeks EXACTLY to the day.

My friend. You're whole 'out of pocket expense' was a LOT more than $300.00. You've also been paying your own insurance company their own operating costs for as long as you've been paying 'heath insurance'. Hence why it's probably cost you about double every month from your salary than it has for your salary counter part in the UK just paying NI. You've also been paying for just Medicaid/Medicaid in taxes all that time- which has also probably cost you more on that alone than if you'd just paid for the NHS in NI every month without private insurance. If you'd been on the NHS- yes you probably would have had to wait for longer than going private. The NHS isn't that great, all the time. But cost wise to the tax payer and earner- it's VERY cheap by comparison. Having said that, if your fairly well off, you could have also gone private here- and Private Health Insurance in the UK is also a lot cheaper than it is in the US- and you would have gotten seen a lot quicker than on the NHS.

Touche

Klaus was paid twice monthly. From each check he paid the sum of 22.76 health insurance for both of us

Thats $45.52 a month.

Last year his illness cost the insurance company somewhere between 300 and 400 hundred thousand. I think I stopped counting at $250,000. Our out of pocket expense for that was $3,00.00, the standard deductable for the year.

I don't doubt you Jenn- I'm sure payments vary between health companies and clearly your own health care payments are being massively propped up Klaus's old employer. But then how is that the US spends double the amount of it's GDP on health care, per capita, than the UK does? And why is it that nearly every single American I speak to seems to be spending more than double what I pay in NI every month on health Insurance- and that doesn't even include what they are also paying for Medicaid/Medicare in their own taxes. I don't actually give a shit about the subject- this is an American issue. I'm just sick and fucking tired of certain Americans talking a bunch of shit about our system- particularly when it's got fuck all to do with them and has nothing to do with their OWN issues and problems with their own health care. How fucking sad is it that 'you' can't even resolve an issue within your own country without dragging you're allies into it and then slagging them off for no reason using twisted distortions- when none of that even relates to your own country or even what is being proposed for it.

It's pathetic.