Russian role in the US Civil War - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13681237
This essay, exploring some international aspects of the US civil war, caught my eye. It seems to attribute the Franco-British failure to intervene in the US civil war to a large extent on their fear of the Russian reaction (among other causes of course), also mentioning such things as the arrival of the Russian fleets to US ports during the war and their agreement to defend these ports from a Confederate attack should it become necessary, something I was not aware of previously.

http://tarpley.net/2011/04/11/wrap-the-world-in-flames-the-us-russian-alliance-that-saved-the-union/
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13681658
Facinating thanks for sharing!

I wonder if Britain and France would intervene, could they change the outcome of the war? It seems like the Norths use of railroad was light years ahead of European military tactics if I am not mistaken the Prussians actually took lessons from the civil war in its war with Austria later on. In any case it would have been an interesting situation if Russia and America fougth France and England, that would make epic video games.
User avatar
By pikachu
#13681880
It's interesting also that some ideological convergence seems to have occurred between the US and Russian regimes during this time period.

-Russia had an unusually liberal Tsar, who, despite remaining an autocrat, acted willfully "somewhat like a constitutional sovereign of the continental type"
-The US had an atypically autocratic administration, with Lincoln bypassing the Congress, exercising extra-judiciary powers, suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc.
-Alexander emancipated the Russian serfs in 1861
-Lincoln emancipated the American slaves in 1862
-Lincoln fought to suppress the Southern secession starting 1861
-Alexander fought to suppress the Western (Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian) secession starting 1863
-Both were successful, but eventually assassinated.
By Smilin' Dave
#13683248
Slightly off topic, I remember reading a speech/pamphlet from the period prior to the Civil War in which an abolitionist (?maybe Lincoln?) drew on Russia for rhetorical purposes: the basic argument was that only the US and Russia were still maintaining slavery and that being in a same category as Russia was a bit off. There may have also been some suggestion that Russia was more 'honest' in its slavery... don't remember the basis for that however.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13683430
Tsarist Russia and early US had some other eerie similarities. For example they both were expanding rapidly in an almost religious manner into vast territories hold by societies far inferior in organisation and technology.
By Thompson_NCL
#13683534
If France and Britain participated in the Civil War, it would have been a disaster for the Union as the naval blockades would have been reversed overnight. Furthermore, a second front opening in the North would have offset much of the Unions military superiority over the Confederates.

Russia would not have been able to help in North American as their fleet was no match for the Royal Navy, so their only value would have been threatening British India by invading Afghanistan or Persia. I don't think the threat would have been very serious though as their were plenty of regional 'allies' to keep the Russkies tied up so Anglo-French troops wouldn't be needed that heavily.

So yeah, it's just as well things went the way they did.

It seems like the Norths use of railroad was light years ahead of European military tactics if I am not mistaken


I'm not sure if Britain had much experience using railways in war during the 1860's, I'd need to dig around. But to be honest I am not sure it would have been useful anyway, as the Empire would undoubtedly have been fighting from the sea or the Canadian frontier. Given that the Union would outnumber the Empire, I think railway would have been a disadvantage to Britain... if the Yanks won a battle they'd just hop on the train to Toronto :D
User avatar
By pikachu
#13684105
Slightly off topic, I remember reading a speech/pamphlet from the period prior to the Civil War in which an abolitionist (?maybe Lincoln?) drew on Russia for rhetorical purposes: the basic argument was that only the US and Russia were still maintaining slavery and that being in a same category as Russia was a bit off. There may have also been some suggestion that Russia was more 'honest' in its slavery... don't remember the basis for that however.
Yeah I recall something like that as well... And I also don't remember where I've seen it lol.

If France and Britain participated in the Civil War, it would have been a disaster for the Union as the naval blockades would have been reversed overnight. Furthermore, a second front opening in the North would have offset much of the Unions military superiority over the Confederates.
Offset, probably yes. Won? Who knows.

This part of the essay is relevant: "Bourne depicts the British predicament as their “defenceless” position in Canada, even with the help of the 10,000 additional regular infantry which Palmerston deployed in response to the crisis. (Bourne 211) A recurrent British fear was that their soldiers would desert to the American side, urged on by “crimps.” (Bourne 217). Their Canadian vulnerability, the British thought, encouraged Seward and others to twist the tail of the British lion. The US had the only serious warships on the Great Lakes, British fortifications were weak, Canadian volunteers were scarce, and there were few decent muskets for them. The greatest problem was that the Saint Lawrence River was blocked by ice in winter, preventing re-enforcements from reaching Quebec City by water; the only roads inland went dangerously parallel to the Maine border. Some of the British staff officers had to land in Boston and take the Grand Trunk Railway to Montreal.5 One is left with the impression that winter ice might have cooled Palmerston’s aggressivity even before Seward’s release of the captured Confederate envoys Mason and Slidell did."

So it appears that the British staff itself was not very impressed with Britain's military capabilities vis-a-vis United States at that particular moment.

I don't think the threat would have been very serious though as their were plenty of regional 'allies' to keep the Russkies tied up so Anglo-French troops wouldn't be needed that heavily.
Who would that be? The only ones I can think of are the Ottomans who might find it a good time for some more Russia-beating, but given that the Ottomans themselves were facing a million and a half problems during that time period, my bet is that they'd be happy enough that Russia doesn't touch them. I can't think of a single other power potentially willing to do the British bidding against Russia or the US at that time.
By Smilin' Dave
#13684913
This is the closest thing I could find:
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative ... /speed.htm
...I thought it was a longer tract but maybe it's just my memory playing tricks on me.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]