Re: Do something about North Dakota today...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:31:36 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:25:17 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Louann Miller <louann_m@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
news:1j6e33j.160m82c4z340dN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Nope, although the US Civil War was almost entirely an
internal conflict.

Yes, the Americans were very lucky
in not having foreign powers meddle to much
in their affairs,

There you certainly speak the truth. Through some mixture of self-interest
and lingering family feeling, the British chose to enforce the Monroe
Doctrine for us with their Navy until we were grown up enough to stand on
our own. (Apart from that one unpleasantness with Canada.) And nobody else
was both powerful enough and near enough to make a dent.

I admit that being only in invading-army distance of Mexico and Canada
doesn't make us morally better than countries that are, say, in marching
distance of Germany and Russia. Only luckier. But it's a whole lot more
pleasant.

Americans have been very lucky.
Britain needed the cotton from the South very much.
With only minor differences in personalities
they might have decided to support the South.
(if only to break the blockade)

Perhaps. But there was a real and widespread detestation in
Britain for the institution of slavery, so I think it would
have required more than a "minor differences in
personalities" to bring in Great Britain on the Confederate
side.

Power politics has it ways,
and divide its advantages

A negotiation with the North regarding British
merchantmen and cotton (with checks to prevent the delivery
of weapons), perhaps.

I doubt that the Union would have started the shooting
by firing on escorting Britisch warships.

Perhaps; perhaps not. But if one considers logistics the
Union Navy was in a far superior position, and the British
were aware of it. You'll note that neither side was anxious
to start a naval conflict, and neither side did.

A full alliance? I doubt it very
strongly. And you might want to consider that breaking the
blockade by force, particularly later in the war when
ironclads and shell guns were in general use by the North,
might not have been quite as simple as some armchair
strategists seem to think.

HMS Warrior could have blown them all out of the water.

The Germans had the same idea regarding the Bismarck. They
were also wrong; no single ship, no matter how well designed
and built, can take on a fleet only slightly inferior in
design, armor and armament and survive.

That could easily have resulted in a much longer war,
and in two United States.

Could be, but we'll never know.

In a worst case scenario the war could have dragged on
untill machine guns came into their own.

No, in a worst-case scenario it could have dragged on until
the advent of bombing aircraft and nuclear weapons. But I
somehow doubt it would have.

No use in inventing alternative history,

Why not? It's fun to play with ideas, and there are several
authors who do it quite well.

I know, and don't agree,

Your problem.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages