Britain was "junior partner" to US in fighting the Nazis

[grinder]

The blockade of the southern porrts was in a good cause. To cripple the economy of the Confederacy whose economy was built on slavery.

 

The working class people in England even those in the northern mill towns were generally supportive of the war to abolish slavery while the upper mill owning classes didnt care less how the cotton was picked just so long as it kept arriving on ships into Liverpool.

 

Now I always understood that your civil war was about the southern states wanting to secede from the union.

I suppose you could say a pretty similar Idea to the war of independence...

[buck]

The blockade of the southern porrts was in a good cause. To cripple the economy of the Confederacy whose economy was built on slavery.

 

The working class people in England even those in the northern mill towns were generally supportive of the war to abolish slavery while the upper mill owning classes didnt care less how the cotton was picked just so long as it kept arriving on ships into Liverpool.

 

Now I always understood that your civil war was about the southern states wanting to secede from the union.

I suppose you could say a pretty similar Idea to the war of independence...The war certainly was about secession, but slavery was a major concern. It was cheaper to buy slaves of low education, than pay people to gather cotton. The United States, still in its near infancy, would not have survived secession. It was, as you say, similar to the war of independence, except that it was American against American. There is still resentment in the South to this day, but you will see many more Stars and Stripes down there than Stars and Bars.

[buck]

North Korea is in the news much of the time in fact. Only yesterday their Dear Leader Kim IL Jong threatened to attack South Korea with nuclear weapons if the US and South Korean armies went ahead to hold joint exercises.

 

The man is obviously as nutty as a fruitcake but he does hold all the power and there are no signs of internal dissension or opposition to his regime in that country which is something to ponder over

There was an interesting column in my paper this morning in regard to what will happen if Iran gets the bomb. Here are two countries with madmen for leaders. North Korea as a Pacific nation is very much in America's sphere of influence, but Iran is a direct threat to European and Arabic security, as well as American and Israeli. Some of the Arabian countries are seriously worried about it, and, viewing the change in the Anglo American relationship, believe the protection of the past will not be there when needed. So they are leaning toward Iran to show they are friends with them. If Iran is approaching the bomb, will Europe assist in preventing that from happening? Or will it wait till its women are subject to stoning for adultery, or its girls from being hanged for making come on eyes to the boys. It can't happen, can it, or can it? Does Britain have another Neville Chamberlain waiting in the wings, or another Churchill?

[grinder]

Britain is no longer the world power it was 100 yrs ago and there's noway we should think of our selves as world policeman any more...

The only way for us to effectively play a part in that role IMO. is if Britain became economically and militarily a part of Europe, but of course that will not happen in the foreseeable future...

[Harleyman]

There was an interesting column in my paper this morning in regard to what will happen if Iran gets the bomb. Here are two countries with madmen for leaders. North Korea as a Pacific nation is very much in America's sphere of influence, but Iran is a direct threat to European and Arabic security, as well as American and Israeli. Some of the Arabian countries are seriously worried about it, and, viewing the change in the Anglo American relationship, believe the protection of the past will not be there when needed. So they are leaning toward Iran to show they are friends with them. If Iran is approaching the bomb, will Europe assist in preventing that from happening? Or will it wait till its women are subject to stoning for adultery, or its girls from being hanged for making come on eyes to the boys. It can't happen, can it, or can it? Does Britain have another Neville Chamberlain waiting in the wings, or another Churchill?

 

 

I think North Korea is more scary than Iran because Kim Il Jong holds absolute power and is mentally unstable as was demonstrated by the sinking of the S. Korean warship a few months back.

 

The Iranians are different in the sense that the younger generation are pretty well educated and have demonstrated that they are not at all happy with the status quo and have made it very clear.

 

Their leaders may throw them in prison and attempt to stifle free speech but eventually the old Mullahs and their puppets like Dinnerjacket for example will lose power and disappear. Similar events happened in China beginning in the 1980s

 

To take any military action against Iran now would probably cause the worst case scenario. That of driving the dissidents in support of their ranting leaders.

 

Time and patience is probably the best way in the case of Iran

[Harleyman]

Britain is no longer the world power it was 100 yrs ago and there's noway we should think of our selves as world policeman any more...

The only way for us to effectively play a part in that role IMO. is if Britain became economically and militarily a part of Europe, but of course that will not happen in the foreseeable future...

 

There should have been integration of European military forces a long time ago and they would have been better equipped to deal with the occasional mini war in Kosovo and Bosnia for example instead of having to involve the US military.

 

Britain is economically part of the EU but the reluctance of its politicians to agree to any further integration is not helping matters, only causing further delays and setbacks and that leaves Germany and France calling all the shots instead of Britain also having a major say in EU affairs and policies

[NoddyHolder]

Britain is no longer the world power it was 100 yrs ago and there's noway we should think of our selves as world policeman any more...

The only way for us to effectively play a part in that role IMO. is if Britain became economically and militarily a part of Europe, but of course that will not happen in the foreseeable future...

No we'll leave that to the Yanks they have a vast experience in police work...after all weren't the Keystone Kops from there

[Harleyman]

No we'll leave that to the Yanks they have a vast experience in police work...after all weren't the Keystone Kops from there

 

Read my post 198 first and then mouth off

[Rupert_Baehr]

Now I always understood that your civil war was about the southern states wanting to secede from the union.

I suppose you could say a pretty similar Idea to the war of independence...The war certainly was about secession, but slavery was a major concern. It was cheaper to buy slaves of low education, than pay people to gather cotton. The United States, still in its near infancy, would not have survived secession. It was, as you say, similar to the war of independence, except that it was American against American. There is still resentment in the South to this day, but you will see many more Stars and Stripes down there than Stars and Bars.

 

Are you talking about the war of Northern aggression, Buck?

 

A surprisingly large number of Northern generals and Northern politicians owned plantations/had family who owned plantations which were worked by slaves in the South. (When Grant besieged and captured Vicksburg, he did so attacking over murderously rough territory to the North West of the town - It would've cost far fewer troops had he attacked from the South East ... but that would've meant damaging a relative's plantation. )

 

The South couldn't survive without slavery (or without poorly-paid agricultural workers - which was what replaced slavery) but as you said, the North couldn't have survived without the South.

 

I'm amused when people try to pretend that the war was about slavery. It might've been 'about slavery' nowadays (with the benefit of hindsight, human rights and political correctness) but at the time neither side wanted to get rid of the pool of very cheap labour and after the war, although the North had abolished slavery, they didn't suddenly start paying freed slaves proper wages and in some cases, the 'free men' were treated rather more shabbily than they had been as slaves.

 

I've no doubt that history varies with where it's taught. The Southern outlook I heard from people in MS and in LA probably varies considerably from that taught on the other side of the Mason-Dixon 'line'.

 

Most of the (real) resentment (as opposed to the 'pretend' resentment put on to amuse the tourists ) seems to relate to post-war reparations and the (no doubt not uncommon) settling of old scores.

 

When Grant captured Vicksburg, he refused to accept Pemberton's surrender until the 4th of July. He might've been a very competent General, but as a diplomat he was an abject failure! Thanks to Grant, the town of Vicksburg declined to celebrate the 4th of July until 1945. (So much for getting over the Civil War.)

 

There is a National Cemetery at Vicksburg ... but the dead Confederate soldiers are not buried there (they had attempted to secede from the US so they were not entitled to be buried in a national cemetery.) Silly, but it didn't help.

 

Nowadays, they still don't like Yankees [i'm perfectly acceptable, because I'm a foreigner - and my Wife is a DRT ] but most of that is for the benefit of the tourists.

 

When I lived in New Mexico I was amused by the fact that the people there celebrated the 4th of July. I had a friend (who I referred to as 'Dago' or {if I wanted to be formal} as 'Cow's head' - because that was his name. He called me 'Gringo'. Almost certainly politically incorrect ... but it worked.)

 

I asked him why he (and the rest of the locals) celebrated 'Cinco de Mayo' and he said: "Because that's the day that Mexico whupped the French at Puebla!"

 

"Fine" said I. "So why do you celebrate the 4th of July?"

 

"Because that's the day we gained independence from the Gringos!"

 

"But you were never occupied by the Gringos!"

 

„So? - Que paso, chollo? - Let's have a beer!"

 

„I'll sing you one, oh

 

Gringo the rushes oh"

 

Logical people, the New Mexicans.

 

Are you aware that New Mexico is the ONLY state in the US to have the letters 'USA' after the state name on the licence tag? - It doesn't say 'Philadelphia, USA' does it?

 

But it does say New Mexico USA.

 

Furthermore according to the 'Fodor's guide to America' I owned some years ago: "The banks in Albuquerque are open for currency exchange between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm"

 

That's so that you can convert your American Dollars into New Mexican Dollars.

 

And if you weren't aware that there is no difference, go into a local store and tell the person at the cash register: "I'm terribly sorry, I've only got New Mexican money."

 

(A WalMart cashier in Omaha refused to accept Hawaiian money from me when I tried that. - I threatened to call the manager:hihi:)

[buck]

Read my post 198 first and then mouth off

The mods are asking us to cool it, and I'm in agreement. So why don't we just ignore this oaf, and not get blamed for it as usual.