Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom and the American Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Would it be useful to have a mention of the Lancashire cotton famine, the support of the Union by the Lancashire mill workers, the confederate leanings of the government and the building of ships in Birkenhead for the Confederate Navy e.g. CSS Alabama? Dan Longdon 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to point out that most of the article is plagiarised from this: http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.92.110 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Slavery not an issue"? - difficult to believe

[edit]

"As far as Europe was concerned, no moral issue was involved; the game of power politics could be played with a clear conscience." This seems like just a glib statement not based on any research. Since Britain had an anti-slavery policy at about this time, attacking American slave ships for example, I find this statement difficult to believe. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about an example of Britain attacking an American slave ship. The British were too busy convoying their own slave ships an attacking those of France and Portugal. Besides, there weren't any American slave ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.7.248 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery was abolished in most of the British Empire in 1833, completely in 1843: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

Name of article

[edit]

Britain or Great Britain are the names of choice for historical topics. "United Kingdom" was almost never used in the 19th century except in very formal documents. Historiasns rarely use the UK term for 19th century history so it is best to go back to the original title here. Rjensen (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes in titles have to be fdiscussed here first. All historians (see bibliography) use "Britain" or "Great Britain" as the proper abbreviation for the United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No one uses United Kingdom --it's highly anachronistic.Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

[edit]

The third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph implied that the British government was responsible for building the warships and for operating blockade runners. This was not the case (e.g. Donald, et al.)

I changed "and Britain built warships for the Confederacy" to "and a British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) built two warships for the Confederacy"

and "The British also built and operated" to "British also built and operated".

It would also be a good idea if someone were to go through the article to change the words America and American to either USA or CSA, as appropriate.

--Kjb (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

[edit]

Several lines in the Emancipation Proclamation section were plagiarized from an essay at [1].

I am removing them for now. Rephrasing & quoting the appropriate source would fix the problem, but I will leave it to someone else. Anonymous

After looking a bit harder, I see now that the entire section has been lifted piecemeal from the above essay.

Note from OTRS

[edit]

Someone emailed about this one:

"In your article on "Britain in the American Civil War" @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War, in footnote #9, there's a reference to "Mahin" with nothing in the bibliography by him. Though you'd like to know."

I've thanked the writer and suggested he can edit articles and note things on the talk page :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton famine

[edit]

Under Confederate diplomacy, the article contains the following statement: "Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton for its industries— were proven wrong. Britain, in fact, had ample stores of cotton in 1861 and depended much more on grain from the U.S.".
Looking at Cotton famine, we see that it "was a depression in the textile industry of North West England, brought about by the interruption of baled cotton imports caused by the American Civil War."
I can understand that Britain might have chosen the lesser of two evils - cotton famine rather than food famine - but this doesn't look like there were "ample stores of cotton". Can somebody resolve this contradiction? Hinschelwood (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should clarify. One statement is about 1861. The other is about later. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. bd2412 T 02:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Britain in the American Civil War → United Kingdom and the American Civil War – I see two issues with the present name. Firstly, the country's proper name was not then Britain, and nor is it that now; at the time of the war it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (or the United Kingdom for short), so I think the more formal "United Kingdom" should be used in the title rather than "Britain". My other issue is regarding the title saying "in the American Civil War". The first sentence says the UK was neutral and so was therefore not in the war, so it seems odd to me that we should title the article thus. I would change to "and the American Civil War". So, yes, that is my reasoning for this suggested move. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Above VPN 78.46.149.86 correcting for VPN 118.68.75.228 and signing diff logged at SPI In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support - The only time you would use it is if it were to describe a nationality (e.g. British). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Well said. bd2412 T 16:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support United Kingdom is the name of the sovereign state, Britain is the name of the largest geographical island in the UK. As this article is about politics not geography, the name UK is more appropriate. Also good inclusion of the word "and" in the title per nom. IJA (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "United Kingdom" was not the name of the country. It was "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and the great majority of people at the time and historians ever since shorten it to "Great Britain" or "Britain." Wikipedia rules say follow the reliable secondary sources and they vote by more than 10-1 against UK versions according to titles of books and scholarly articles. 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is shortened to the United Kingdom the same way the "United States of America" is shortened to the United States. Please show us where this so-called Wikipedia rule is. IJA (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The common name among Reliable Sources, historians and reference books is "Great Britain." "UK" versions rarely appear in the popular or scholarly literature on the topic; "UK" in historical work is reserved for topics after 1945. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Britain and the American Civil War (alternatively, "Great Britain and..."). Agree that "in" is somewhat misleading in the title and should be replaced by "and." However, checking the Bibliography section of this article, I see Britain Britain Great Britain Britain Britain, and no "United Kingdom." For sure, both are correct so "UK and the ACW" is fine, but Britain clearly seems the preferred title used at the time *and* in later historiography. SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hundreds of Millions of Pounds

[edit]

The intro claimed that Britain spent "hundreds of millions of pounds" on blockade runners - £100m in 1863 is equivalent to £8.5bn at 2015 prices (and the GBP was worth a lot more in USD terms in those days as well, although the changes in relative prices probably largely account for that) which seems a preposterously high number, especially as weaponry was a lot less sophisticated in those days. Total British government expenditure was no more than £70m in that era, so "hundreds of millions of pounds" would probably have been a multiple of the British defence budget! I think we need some more accurate information with a citation.Paulturtle (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of numbers get thrown around--For example. Nick Wynne & Joe Crankshaw (2011). Florida Civil War Blockades: Battling for the Coast. pp. 54–56. says "British investors poured as much as $250 million into building new [blockade runners] "---That's about 50 million pounds in construction costs. Then we must add in the very high wages, & bonuses and the cost of the supplies shipped into the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Nelson's HMS Victory - a top-of-the-range sailing battleship - cost £63,000 in the 1760s, equivalent to £90,000 at 1863 prices. Brunel's SS Great Eastern and SS Great Britain - state-of-the art ocean-going paddle steamers of the era - cost around £150,000 each. The article on Confederate blockade runners lists 42 ships (£6.3m if they all been as big as Brunel's ships, which obviously they weren't) and says that there were actually "hundreds" of them (£30m or £40m tops, and subject to the same caveat). Then in the introduction it says that there were "thousands" of them, which in principle gets us up to hundreds of millions, except that many of them would have been tiny, not built at that time and/or not built in the UK. So we'd need to be including a lot of supplies (labour costs may well be included in the construction costs) to reach "hundreds of millions" of pounds, and its misleading to suggest that this was just the cost of the ships.Paulturtle (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"intervention would have meant war with the United States, although Britain operated intervening actions in the United States"

[edit]

Does that added comma separated "although" clause in the lead not strike other folks as confusingly contradicting the previous clause? Juan Riley (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or SYNTH or OR or just a very poor styled edit? Juan Riley (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Riley Didn't you read that there were confederate ships built in Britain or should I point this and other sections out for you? (N0n3up (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
the British gov't did not build the ships and tried (not very hard) to stop their sale. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rjensen. To N0n3up: 'Tis a nuanced point to be discussed in the body of the article not put into a cryptic phrase in the lead. Moreover did Britain admit to intervening thereby? No. Thus it should be treated with NPOV secondary source references in the article body. (PS Do not again revert edits on my talk page and keep your issues with my edits on article talk pages.) Juan Riley (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Riley Rjensen That was to an extent, you still need the sources to show this. (N0n3up (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
N0n3up You made the addition. You need to show why it is notable. Or even how it is not confusing. Juan Riley (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The UK didn't intervene militarily, if that's what you thought. Yes the UK had interests in the US during the war but it didn't send its military which would have meant war. (N0n3up (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep digging yourself a hole. Juan Riley (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Rjensen thats the same as saying they did intervene. (N0n3up (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
That's the same as saying that it belongs within the body of the article with RS sources since it is arguable either way. Juan Riley (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Riley But that doesnt show the actuality of the topic. Like you said, it contradicts, since the top paragraph says one thing while the body tells another story. (N0n3up (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Not a forum. The issue of what constitutes intervention in this case is quite interesting and best addressed in wikipedia by objective article body expositions of what historians say. Juan Riley (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I refuse to go to 3RR over this confusing addition...I will hope that Rjensen or some other editor notes this discussion and reverts your poor addition. Will check tomorrow. Juan Riley (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Riley It would be hard to with your incompetent arguments. Since I'm just gathering details of the article and reiterating them at the end of the sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The text lists zero cases of British intervention ("intervening episodes"?) inside the United States. -- what could they possibly be??? Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom and the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our man in Murfreesboro

[edit]

Ref Robert Bunch. -Inowen (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War&oldid=1248731984"