Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Civil War Changed the World
New York Times Disunion ^ | May 19, 2015 | Don Doyle

Posted on 05/19/2015 10:33:26 PM PDT by iowamark

Even while the Civil War raged, slaves in Cuba could be heard singing, “Avanza, Lincoln, avanza! Tu eres nuestra esperanza!” (Onward, Lincoln, Onward! You are our hope!) – as if they knew, even before the soldiers fighting the war far to the North and long before most politicians understood, that the war in America would change their lives, and the world.

The secession crisis of 1860-1861 threatened to be a major setback to the world antislavery movement, and it imperiled the whole experiment in democracy. If slavery was allowed to exist, and if the world’s leading democracy could fall apart over the issue, what hope did freedom have? European powers wasted no time in taking advantage of the debacle. France and Britain immediately each sent fleets of warships with the official purpose of observing the imminent war in America. In Paris, A New York Times correspondent who went by the byline “Malakoff” thought that the French and British observers “may be intended as a sort of escort of honor for the funeral of the Great Republic.”

...the French forced Benito Juárez, the republican leader, to flee the capital and eventually installed the Austrian archduke Maximilian as emperor of Mexico.

European conservatives welcomed the dismemberment of the “once United States” and the bursting of the “republican bubble” that, beginning with the French Revolution, had inspired revolution and unrest in Europe. Republicanism had been in retreat in Europe since the failed revolutions of 1848, and some predicted that all the wayward American republics would eventually find their way back to some form of monarchy, or seek protection under European imperial rule. When Lincoln, in the darkest days of the war, referred to America as the “last best hope of earth,” he was hardly boasting...

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 1848; 1860; 1861; 186103; 186110; 186506; 1866; 186705; 1868; avanzalincolnavanza; benitojuarez; brazil; canada; civilwar; cuba; demokkkrats; dominicanrepublic; dompedro; dompedroii; electricchain; europe; france; freewomblaw; garibaldi; germany; gloriousrevolution; godsgravesglyphs; greatestpresident; havana; humanrights; lastbesthope; maximilian; maximillion; mexico; napoleon3; napoleoniii; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; onwardlincolnonward; ottovonbismarck; popepiusix; queretero; republicanism; risorgimento; russia; slavery; suffrage; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-259 next last
To: Bubba Ho-Tep

That is the beauty, the state secedes and boom you are in a new country.


121 posted on 05/20/2015 11:29:36 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: central_va
That is the beauty, the state secedes and boom you are in a new country.

First off, as I've said many times here, just saying you're not a different country doesn't make it so. And second, why only a state? What gives a state a right to declare itself a different country that individuals or other groupings of individuals are denied?

122 posted on 05/20/2015 12:08:22 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels." --Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

The War of 1812 was significant because the Brits accepted US independence and the Louisiana Purchase, both of which would have been in jeopardy had they won the Battle of New Orleans.

Yes, the British considered their victory over Napoleon to be decisive. They put the old Royals back in power in Europe. However, that did not last very long.


123 posted on 05/20/2015 12:26:02 PM PDT by iowamark (I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Well, you’re right about the boom part.


124 posted on 05/20/2015 12:31:42 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

125 posted on 05/20/2015 12:39:20 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark
The War of 1812 was significant because the Brits accepted US independence and the Louisiana Purchase, both of which would have been in jeopardy had they won the Battle of New Orleans.

First off, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed and changed nothing about the terms. As for U.S. independence, that had been accepted by the British in 1783, so there was no change from before the war, and I can't recall ever seeing the British contest the Louisiana Purchase. Certainly the Treaty of Ghent makes no mention of it.

126 posted on 05/20/2015 1:01:57 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels." --Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

If the Brits had won New Orleans, the unratified treaty would have been out the window.


127 posted on 05/20/2015 1:08:39 PM PDT by iowamark (I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
If the Brits had won New Orleans, the unratified treaty would have been out the window.

Unlikely. The entire goal of the New Orleans campaign was to add a bargaining chip to the negotiations. The last thing they wanted was an extended war across the Atlantic like they'd lost 30 years before.

128 posted on 05/20/2015 1:38:58 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels." --Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
The shot at the Concord Bridge truly was “the shot heard round the world.”

True. The "wind from America" was a major influence on the French Revolution and on Latin American independence movements.

The US victory in the War of 1812 over the British Empire was similarly decisive.

Maybe not so true. Did we actually win that war?

Even if the British won, they could hamper US plans, but weren't going to put us under the rule of King and Parliament again. That ship had sailed long before.

Whoever won the War of 1812, it was very important for Canadian history, but I'd say the British victory over Napoleon that happened in the same period was more significant in World history.

129 posted on 05/20/2015 1:52:34 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: central_va; rockrr
The CSA Army could have destroyed any European Army at the time.

Sure. One reb could whup fifty Prooshians. What the Southerners thought about their army was a lot like what the French thought of theirs at about the same time.

Your comment's silly. If the Prussian Army somehow showed up in Virginia, they'd lose. Ditto if the Confederate Army landed in Niedersachsen.

130 posted on 05/20/2015 1:57:40 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x

Ok so the Prussian Army could whip the Army of the Potomac too.


131 posted on 05/20/2015 2:15:17 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Lincoln was a slime ball no question he tailored his speech message to the crowd. He had no moral compass at all.

Nice that you've set yourself up as an expert slime ball.

Lincoln was a politician. That means knowing what appeals to a given audience. It doesn't necessarily mean one is without principle. One has to get elected. That means winning over people with different views, rather than antagonizing them.

I wonder if a lot of the animosity towards Lincoln as a politician (or statesman, which is what we call successful politicians who've passed on) doesn't reflect the long one party heritage of the South. South Carolina was a one party state before the Civil War, and didn't even count the popular vote for president. Mississippi wasn't far behind as a monoparty state.

132 posted on 05/20/2015 2:17:49 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: x
In 1856 during peacetime Prussian Army consisted of 86436 infantrymen, 152 cavalry squadrons and 9 artillery regiments.[64]

Pfff. Big deal.

133 posted on 05/20/2015 2:22:37 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In 1856 during peacetime Prussian Army consisted of 86436 infantrymen, 152 cavalry squadrons and 9 artillery regiments

How big was the Confederate Army in 1856?

134 posted on 05/20/2015 2:25:46 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: x

How big was the US Army in 1856?


135 posted on 05/20/2015 2:26:17 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Ditto; Bubba Ho-Tep
What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say the US Army could have beaten any other army in the world in 1856 or in 1865 or whenever, because it's a silly claim to make.

When one country was fully mobilized with a large army it could defeat a variety of enemies that are still on a peacetime footing, but so what? A year later, you've demobilized your army, the other guys have assembled theirs and you'd get a different result.

It's not really a useful comparison -- all the more so since by the time one army had fully crossed the Atlantic, the other probably would be mobilized and ready to fight.

136 posted on 05/20/2015 2:36:18 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: x
Lincoln was a politician. That means knowing what appeals to a given audience. I

Was Reagan like that? Bush 43? No. What you saw in one speech you got the same the next day.

Lincoln was a slime ball.

137 posted on 05/20/2015 2:44:57 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

More research on your part would reveal that the official statements of the secession conventions were those approved by the people. The “causes” publications were editorials.

Northern newspapers and politicians tried to misrepresent the facts....some things never change.


138 posted on 05/20/2015 2:53:02 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: x; central_va

cva thinks in relativistic terms so it’s easy to confuse him by lines of reasoning such as yours. Go easy on him ;’)


139 posted on 05/20/2015 3:04:37 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; SunkenCiv
Thanks for the post, interesting read.

Kinda figured from the title the thread would get highjacked, though.

140 posted on 05/20/2015 3:13:00 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-259 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson