Dishonest -no.
Repulsive - yes.
Rubbish - no.
The problem is that most modern people can't get beyond the moral objection to look at how slavery worked in practice. The only good exqminqtion is Fogel: http://www.amazon.com/Without-Consent-Contract-American-Slavery/dp/0393312194
They're broke, in the middle of social chaos, at war (with Poland) and facing a possible war with Britain, France, Austria and the Ottomans. Intervening in the US will have serious consequences....
No, they are different.
Under slavery the African-American was a valuable resource and ideas of mistreating them, murdering them etc. were taboo. They were slaves and they were treated as property, but were not brutalised and typically had a higher standard of living than the white lower...
They ultimately derive from the northern black codes that spread south after reconstruction. http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm
Things got a lot worse for the African-American population when northern ideas of race spread south. The BBC documentary Racism - A History covered this in...
Or knows how these terms are derived in the first place. In this case the wellsrping is http://www.jstor.org/openurl?volume=25&date=1961&spage=57&issn=00263931&issue=2
Mahonists will stick to Attack and Die of course, but that's like sticking to a flat Earth theory.
PS: Look at Hattaway, Jones et al. for an actual direct challenge and dismantling of the above's argument: http://www.amazon.com/Why-South-Lost-Civil-War/dp/0820313963
The only way to move in line is with the "touch of elbows", or formation and coherence simply disappears and any fool with a bayonet or sabre will cut through you like a knife through hot butter. Two deep with elbows touching is actually quite a loose formation, when the French and Prussians...
Where is the slightest suggestion of that? :confused:
Oh, ca. 180,000 African-Americans were enlisted, not 300,000. Many of these were sold into the army by their masters (or some-one claiming to be as such) for the bounty or were simply kidnapped as something resembling military slaves. Not...
That's a very rose tinted view of the end of "slavery" in the Empire (excluding India etc., where it was still allowed). Abolishion was a failure as conceived. Believing Adam Smith's notions it was assumed that freed of shackles the plantation workers would work harder for more pay. However man...
The idea of a strong abolishionist movement in Britain isn't really true. There was a "lunatic fringe" with Cobden and Bright leading, but it was just that - a fringe.
Mainstream opinion in Britain (and even more so in Ireland) was heavily in favour of the Confederacy, who were seen as a...
No-one suggested anything about Britain, and no-one is discussing the morality of slavery. My point still stands; just because the CSA has black slaves will not make that nation an international pariah any more than those same slaves made the USA a pariah. Your argument fails at the slightest...
This simply isn't true. No-one objected to trading with the *USA* before 1861 and no-one would object to trading with the CSA after independence for the same reasons.
You sometimes forget the USA was a slave state, and that OTL it remained a slave state de jure until 1866, and de facto (with...