Sharpsburg Political Hype Only-----

Discussion in 'Politics and Politicians of the Civil War Era' started by 5fish, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    708
    Sharpsburg Historian Hype Only----

    I think there is an issue here that is why I moved this form a post to thread,,,I think we have been given hype over England entering into the war if Lee had won Sharpsburg by Historians. It was a long shot but this treaty of Lyons-Seward would have seal the deal between England and U.S. government on which side the English was siding with.


    Could one say that this treaty was the nail in the Confederate's hope of a England entering the war on their side?

    We speak of the Battle of Shapsburg as the deciding whether England or another European power entering the war on the Confederacy side. The Battle of Sharpesburg was Sept. 1862 but the Lyons-Seward of 1862 was ratified in April 1862...Months before Sharpsburg...

    Are historians playing up the Battle of Sharpsburg to make a good story?

    By Sept 1862 England had already dealt with the "Trent Affair" which did not sit well with them and by April 1862 the Lyons-Seward treaty was law giving them the right to siege and broad American ships. Stopping the Slave trade was a priority of the English government in the 1860's.

    I can not see England joining the Confederacy 1862 even if Lee had won the Battle of Sharpsburg. They had more to lose between the Lyons-Seward Treaty and Northern Grain shipments to ever enter our conflict on the Confederacy side.

    I think Historians are playing fast the Geo-political world of 1862 and the battle of Shapsburg. I think England by signing the Lyons-Seward treaty had already pick sides in our Civil war....

    I wonder now if the hype around the Battle of Sharpsburg is nothing more the "Lost Cause Myth" at work again..........
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  2. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    708
    I do not know complete mood of the English government in 1862 by intervening in our civil war but I am starting to feel the the people running the government had no interest about intervening in it on the Confederacy side...

    It is plain to see the English government has a bad taste in its mouth over the "Trent Affair". It was a big win for the English government with the Lyons-Seward Treaty, add in the Northern grain shipments and new sources of cotton from India and Egypt and the English government has no self-interest in if the Confederacy survives or dies by April of 1862..

    So why do Historians play up Sharpsburg as the water mark of where England would have intervene if Lee had pulled off an victory there in Sept. 1862.

    I believe there was sympathy for the confederate cause in the English parliament but if it would have put to a vote in the House of Commons to intervene in our Civil war on the Confederacy's side it would have failed...The Confederacy would have gotten some votes but not enough to overturn the obvious direction the English Government was on as of April 1862..

    It is either historians miss read English sympathy as true political support or they wanted to give us a good hyped up story over the aftermath of the Sharpsburg Battle. I think again the "Lost Cause Myth" has raised its ugly head again by saying Sharpsburg was this defining battle of Confederacy survival...

    If you look at the time line and England's political self-interest, the Battle of Sharpsburg does not add up to this defining moment of English or European intervention if Lee had won...It all seems to be pure hype only nothing else...
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  3. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    708
    It seems to all of us that England was going to set out our little family feud. So, why do historian's give Sharpsburg this elevated importance and a connection to a possibility of England intervening in our family feud.

    Like this puzzle me...why historians would go along with the notion of England intervening in our Civil war? They have access to the same information maybe even more so why does their conclusion differ form yours...I do not see why unless they want to sell books...

    I need to go look for those British records related to our civil war period. there should be some post on the net somewhere...

    A Puzzled person I am ....
     
    jgoodguy likes this.
  4. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Webmaster Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    951
    Interesting. Hype and History are bedmates, without hype, history does not sell and historians starve. They are malnourished as it is, but someone has to pay for their time.
     
  5. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Webmaster Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    951
    IMHO, the probability of British intervention was never zero, the question is how much above zero it was.
     
    5fish likes this.
  6. 5fish

    5fish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    708
    I would say not much above zero...
     
  7. Jim Klag

    Jim Klag Ike the moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    171
    I don't think the chance that the UK would intervene was ever very high - maybe 2 or 3 out of 10. There were individual ministers in the government who were pro-intervention, but they were all still politicians and the great majority of the British people were pro-Union and/or anti-south - too big a majority to mess with politically.
     
    5fish likes this.
  8. Wehrkraftzersetzer

    Wehrkraftzersetzer Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    136
    0.0005 maybe
     
  9. jgoodguy

    jgoodguy Webmaster Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    951
    Enough to keep Lincoln up at night.
     

Share This Page