Chris Green writes: >Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you >may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially >about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton)
That you may recall this doesn't make it true. Britain was neutral throughout the Civil War, and certainly didn't "side with the South" during any part of it. There were (it goes without saying) members of the upper classes, especially those with commercial interests at stake, who were sympathetic towards the South, but this was not the case with the British Government. Of course commercial interests (cotton) played a role in government policy, but to suppose that this determined the policies of Britain towards the American Civil War is simplistic. Certainly self-interest for Britain as deemed by the government determined policy, but commercial interests are by no means the only consideration, and are not necessarily the most significant. A skim through pp.62ff in *Great Britain and the American Civil War*, by Ephraim Douglass Adams gives an idea of the policies of the British Government at that time: http://tinyurl.com/36kugjv One incident I've seen cited as evidence for British support of the South is the two ships that were built in British shipyards for the Confederacy. That such evidence does not amount to official support for the South is shown by this account of the affair: The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 forbade the construction of warships for belligerents, but Confederate agents found that the regulations could be evaded by not actually arming the vessels until they had left British waters. This loophole enabled the Confederacy to build or purchase in England a number of fast commerce raiders like the famous Alabama, which slipped out of the Mersey in July 1862 and, together with her consorts, harried Northern commerce to such effect that, because of prohibitive insurance costs, the Stars and Stripes all but disappeared from the high seas. The efforts of Charles Francis Adams, the American Minister in London, to prevent the departure of the Alabama came to naught, but his angry protests at the building of the 'Laird Rams' were more effective. These were not mere commerce raiders but powerful ironclad steam warships, whose underwater rams could have crippled the wooden ships of the Union blockading squadron. In September 1863 Adams solemnly warned Lord John Russell, the British Foreign Secretary, that if the rams were permitted to sail 'it would be superfluous in me to point out to Your Lordship that this is war'. The ultimatum was unnecessary for the government had already ordered their seizure. (*The Limits of Liberty: American History 1607-1992*, Maldwyn, A. Jones, Oxford University Press, Second Edition 1995, pp. 232-233.) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --------------- Re: [tips] Canada's early intolerance Christopher D. Green Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:15:35 -0800 michael sylvester wrote: > > OK,I agree to Canada's positive spin on immigration.However in the > late fifties and early sixties,a group of Caribbean students staged a > demonstration at Sir George Williams University in Montreal protesting > attitudes and discrimination against the established academic > community.All of those who protested were deported back to the islands > by Canadian authorities. No one's perfect. Canada certainly isn't. Immigrants from the Caribbean have a "tradition" of not bothering to acquire Canadian citizenship (we're all in the "Commonwealth," you know), and the Canadian gov't periodically takes advantage of this to ship those they regard as "undesirable" back to the countries of their birth. It still happens from time to time, though not so much with simple protesters as with gang leaders and drug dealers. This might seem reasonable to many of you ("If they aren't Canadian, why should Canada put up with their bad behavior?), but the "rub" is that many of these deportees have lived in Canada since they were very small children, and simply dumping them on the mean streets of Jamaica, where they know no one, is often effectively a death sentence. Until the 1960s or so, Canada's immigration history more or less tracked that of the US. A huge wave of Irish and Germans in the late 1840 and early 1850s (actually, on a proportional basis, the Irish immigration to Canada's cities was much greater than it was to New York and Boston). Then Chinese, primarily on the west coast. in the 1860s and 1870s. Then and even "huger" immigration of Italians, Greeks, and East Europeans (many Jewish) starting in the 1880s and continuing on until the 1920s (when the first real immigration laws started to close the borders). In the 1960s, the first sizable immigration from the Caribbean came to Canada -- largely (though not entirely) Hatians to Montreal, Jamaicans to Toronto. As with previous large immigrations, things were not entirely smooth. There were culture clashes, misunderstandings, and simple racism. Canada was never immune to these things. (On the other hand, Montrealers are still proud of the fact that, when Branch Rickey decided to bring Jackie Robinson into the major leagues, he picked the Montreal Royals as a club where he could get ready with minimal harrassment from the general public.) Canada still has its share of these racial/ethnic kerfuffles. There are a few differences in the way these matters play out in Canada though. First, race does not hold quite the unique "electrical" status in Canada that it does in the US. It is *an* issue, but not *the* issue. No doubt this is because Canada does not have the same history of slavery as the US. There were slaves in early Canada, but not nearly as many and not nearly as late. Slavery was abolished in Upper Canada (present-day southern Ontario) in the 1790s; in Quebec somewhat later; and I'm not sure about the Maritimes (where the destruction of Halifax's historic "Africville" in the 1960s is still an issue of some sensitivity). In any case, slavery was abolished (at least officially) across the entire British Empire in the 1830s. The US held on for another generation-and-a-half. (Indeed, if you recall your American history class, you may remember that as long as the Civil War was officially about "union," the British sided with the South (for the cotton). It was only when the British threatened to run Union blockades of Confederate ports that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Declaration, converting the war into one officially about slavery. The British would not take the side of slavers in a war over slavery. Second, Canada does not have a massive, impoverished country of potential immigrants on its southern border. Third, although Canada by no means has a perfect record on social equity issues, on balance it is much easier to live in Canada than it is in the US. Taxes are higher (though not as high as in Europe), but social services are much better. It is much less likely that you or your kids are going to starve and/or die of a preventable disease if you lose your job in Canada than in the US. (Which is why Canada has lower infant mortality, better education outcomes, and higher life expectancy than the US.) Less desperate times also call for less desperate measures. And so the violent crime rate in Canada is much lower than in the US as well. But, Canada is not the land of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" It is the land of "Peace, Order, and Good Government" (or, more recently, "Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person"). :-) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6541 or send a blank email to leave-6541-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
