|
|
Post by American hist on Mar 30, 2023 2:14:56 GMT
miletus12, Do you think these characters could possibly have changed their allegiance in favor of this New York City secessionist movement? It is possible for this secessionist movement, whose leaders are a bunch of oligarchs to be able to bribe the Irishman to resign their commissions as police officers and switch over to the session movement. Or better yet these police officers could be the eyes and ears for the secessionist movement and help woods forces take Brooklyn naval yard.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Mar 30, 2023 2:45:15 GMT
miletus12 , Do you think these characters could possibly have changed their allegiance in favor of this New York City secessionist movement? It is possible for this secessionist movement, whose leaders are a bunch of oligarchs to be able to bribe the Irishman to resign their commissions as police officers and switch over to the session movement. Or better yet these police officers could be the eyes and ears for the secessionist movement and help woods forces take Brooklyn naval yard. Nope. They tried. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Apr 4, 2023 16:40:10 GMT
miletus12 , Do you think these characters could possibly have changed their allegiance in favor of this New York City secessionist movement? It is possible for this secessionist movement, whose leaders are a bunch of oligarchs to be able to bribe the Irishman to resign their commissions as police officers and switch over to the session movement. Or better yet these police officers could be the eyes and ears for the secessionist movement and help woods forces take Brooklyn naval yard. Nope. They tried. Oh, can you please name some instances? The superintendent would be the hardest if not unlikely but the man who served in the unenthusiastic regiment sounds plausible. They could ask enough officers to resign and for the organization to be infiltrated but it's hard to do |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Apr 8, 2023 21:37:51 GMT
Mayor Woods recommended separation It would be interesting however I don't see the session lasting very long because while I could imagine Lincoln patiently waiting for the south to strike first Lincoln would perhaps realize his predicament that a move against New York City could cause further session and fighting. However, if he lets the city go the union would fall into bankruptcy. I could imagine a 2-week campaign or battle and New York City is under Union hands with relative ease. However, I think if the South chose not to attack federal forts then fighting would occur 2 weeks later in Baltimore if the Baltimore riots could not be sustained in actual history. It is possible the city would separate from the state before even contemplating the separation of the union
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Apr 8, 2023 21:48:56 GMT
It seems pretty crazy, but apparently it was not exactly a fringe idea. What had Woods been thinking? Did he expect that Linoln would say "OK" and let the biggest American city go her own way?
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Apr 8, 2023 22:04:40 GMT
It seems pretty crazy, but apparently it was not exactly a fringe idea. What had Woods been thinking? Did he expect that Linoln would say "OK" and let the biggest American city go her own way? It's crazy but not impossible there have been even crazier things happening in history It's interesting to think about it! If someone made a reasonable alternative history 📜 about this session it movement then it would be cool if Townline New York joined them based on the legend. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Apr 13, 2023 22:45:51 GMT
I think New York City coup for the session would be aided by Confederate agents. However, I believe Lincoln would for a period leave the South allowed if the South didn't attack Fort Sumter there would be a period of peace where Lincoln is trying to get the South to enter into the union peacefully because she overestimated Southern Unionist support, and perhaps in July the first bloodshed, begins through incidence and in august or September the north retake New York City by sea as they follow the wishes of New York not to go by land.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 17, 2023 14:49:18 GMT
In second thought I think Lincoln would be smart enough to try not to rock the boat with the new york state government and choose to take the city by boat instead of evasively using new yorks land and rivers. Also, there would be some wild cards thrown in this scenario especially the amount the Irish. Irish 🍀 in the American civil war Meagher is at least one general who we know for sure would have pledged allegiance to an independent New York City government that would have aided the south. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 17, 2023 18:49:31 GMT
In second thought I think Lincoln would be smart enough to try not to rock the boat with the new york state government and choose to take the city by boat instead of evasively using new yorks land and rivers. Also, there would be some wild cards thrown in this scenario especially the amount the Irish. Irish 🍀 in the American civil war Meagher is at least one general who we know for sure would have pledged allegiance to an independent New York City government that would have aided the south.
Interesting, although I would like to correct one point. Its a myth that in any way Britain forced exportation of food from Ireland during the famine. More the problem was because of the growing influence of laissez faire ideas they refused to ban Irish farmers and merchants from exporting food from the more prosperous parts of the Ireland.
The situation of the Irish Catholics - and to a lesser point the significant numbers of Irish Protestants - in the US at this time was complex. They faced hostility on both religious [for the Catholics] and economic grounds and this had been bad enough during the war against Mexico that a number of Irish troops in the US army had actually defected to Mexico and fought against their former colleagues as the St Patrick's Battalion in that war. However in the USCW hostility towards Catholics had lessened somewhat - although still significant enough that they were a significant factor in the later anti-draft riots in New York City and many Catholics did play a military role in the conflict. Which also seems to have reduced the level of hostility towards them somewhat in the wider American population. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jun 25, 2023 18:37:57 GMT
New England Protestant nativists were the ones who opposed this catholic immigrant which the republican part consisted of along with abolitionists who the Irish again despised. The Jacksonian democratic party favored these Irish immigrants and there were still many immigrants who came to the Southern united states just not as many as the northern cities received. If the cotton states could refrain from attacking the Union forts I think that csa and her allies could point out that while the CSA strives for independence we can compromise if Southern rights are honored concerning her sovereignty. (AKA Southern interest ) I believe the CSA could take advantage of the fact many northern people favored a peaceful solution to solve the sectional crises and we're opposed to civil war. Historian Kenneth Stamp may point out that attitudes did change during different episodes following the separation of the cotton states however political compromise takes patience however these feelings did everapate altogether until the forts were attacked as historians and contemporary chiefly point out. Jefferson Davis stated “All we asked is to be left alone” Also, it is interesting that miletus12 pointed out that New York city indeed was the slave trading capital in the 1850s whose clients were friendly to a fellow slaveholders republic. It There are people who believe the U.S.A or perhaps just the southern United States was too soft on the United States was Abraham Lincoln Who sent his agents to bring these human traffickers to justice. While it was the island of Great Britain and her colonial possession of New England that remain the most six sass for profitable, slave, trade in empires save perhaps Portugal who traffic more people. The British public and the New England Yankee soon learned to abhor the transatlantic slave trade end to grow hostile to slavery.This abolition tendency could Could only go so far after all, the British government was planning on intervention or recognition on the behalf of the confederates, if they could prove themselves on the battlefieldNew York City along with her slave trading clients seem to have left their old habits die hard as this colonial dutch habit seems to have affected New York City’s course of history journals.openedition.org/histoiremesure/870Well, the discussion is about New York City's independence it remains beneficial to the South for New York City to be allowed to be independent after all the deep South doesn't have a lasting maritime tradition as most of the ships during colonial times, that docked in South Carolina, we’re not from the south this remains true during the antebellum days. It would make sense that CSA would set up a maritime allow in hopes for their participation of the slave trade. After all New York City, as a prosperous, seaport, the main actors in transporting slaves legally from different American slave owners. There have been at least some people who have believe the United States, was too soft on the illegal transatlantic slave trade. So yes there is hope that slave trade could be revived perhaps it is false hope From a military perspective it is better to fight a defensive battle on northern soil then left them in evade keys cities bye sea witch of the south couldn’t afford to lose. If New York City managed to capture seize ships this could allow enough confederate soldiers to evacuate NYC. Well, the central confederacy is an interesting idea the entire state of Pennsylvania north, New Jersey, would separate over the circumstances however, it seems logical there would be escape routes for CSA soldiers/copperheads. It seems possible therapy, some religious pacifists groups who in exchange for their help, would encourage them to not return to war if possible. There will be other copperheads/these Democrats, who favored helping them, because they still see them as their brothers who they hope a truce will be established before more blood shed happens |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jun 25, 2023 19:05:39 GMT
Max Sinister, lordroel, stevep, American hist, mspence, diamondstorm, miletus12, However for me to clarify, I am not stating the CSA will be able to revive the slave trade, as that is not the same topic. There does seem reasons that this could occur which involves New York City. Here are some news papers over the crisis www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter central confederacy Troy Daily Times, December 19, 1860 Among the numerous plans proposed for changing the character of our institutions by a dissolution of the Union, is one for the organization of a central confederacy, to be composed of the border slave, and the border free States, united upon the basis of mutual benefit. If the present Government should ever be dissolved, such an one would eventually grow out of the necessities of the communities named. The danger of servile insurrection and emancipation by force, would be one of the greatest hazards of a Southern Republic. It would be but a step across the border from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio or Pennsylvania, for abolition emissaries who might provoke conspiracies or invite escapes, and returning back into the State whence they emanated, they would be under a foreign government, and beyond reach of punishment. When Slavery dissolves the Union, free States will be unlikely to make laws for the protection of slave property. On the other hand commercial considerations would disincline the border free States to severance from their Southern neighbors.—Pennsylvania is particularly and vitally interested in the Virginia trade;—Ohio, and Indiana, by their great water and railroad routes, have built up important. traffic with Kentucky and Tennessee. By means of the Missouri and Mississippi the vast seaboard interests of the Gulf are to be reached, and these would all be involved. The Southern Republic would undoubtedly be free trade. The interests of the Northwest are in the same direction. They would naturally, therefore, prefer affiliation with the States from which they would obtain their goods at least duty.—These and various other considerations of interest, might bring about an organization on the plan proposed. The strong points of repulsion presented by the differences on the question of Slavery, would become matters of arbitration, diminishing in strength as other features of interest attracted attention. As between the border States, free and slave, these questions are less controlling than in reference to those more remote. If the day ever comes when our Union is dissolved, and Governments of rival and conflicting characters and interests established in its stead, we may look forward to an organization of numerous petty confederacies, based upon mercenary considerations, and coalesced by sordid impulses—re-producing in their careers the history of the Mexican and South American Republics. Therefore it is the duty of every patriot, by all considerations of love to his country, to stand firmly and irrevocably opposed to such a radical change of its institutions. San Francisco Daily Alta California, March 3, 1861(typo error with the dates) The Pony brings us some indications of an encouraging nature from the South. It is reported that "Georgia and Alabama have accepted the mediation of Virginia, in their differences with the Federal Government." It will be recollected that Virginia at the time of the appointment of Commissioners to the Peace Congress, also sent Commissioners to the seceding States. If Georgia and Alabama have now agreed to accept her mediation, it is proof that these two, at least, of the Cotton States, are not for unconditional secession. The fear has been, and is, that the extreme Southern States have determined to try the experiment of independence; and that nothing therefore can be done which would win them back to their allegiance. If the statement to which reference has been made be correct, it goes far to disprove that assumption. If a reasonable compromise—put to both sections—will satisfy them, the storm will beyond doubt blow over: for no matter bow politicians may demean themselves, the people generally are determined to leave no stone unturned to restore peace and harmony. In addition to the above we have also the report that the Union candidates in Tennessee have been elected by an aggregate majority of fifty thousand. These, added to the events which have recently transpired in Virginia, the noble attitude of Kentucky, and the conservative course of North Carolina and Maryland, make up a grand aggregation of facts which augur well for Union and permanency. The only drawback to the news is the speech which it is reported Mr. Lincoln has recently been delivering. It would probably be unjust to judge him upon a brief telegraphic synopsis, of what he did say, but as it comes to us it looks like opposition to any and all compromise. There is no use in attempting to deceive our ourselves. The Government cannot be perpetuated without mutual concession. The different, and in some respects antagonistic, forms of civilization of which the Republic is composed, cannot exist together without forbearance on both sides. Neither section can have all it wishes. If the Republican party should take a position in opposition to all compromise we have but little hope for the future. Under such circumstances the dissolution of the Union, even at this time, becomes a fixed fact.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 25, 2023 19:21:20 GMT
Max Sinister, lordroel, stevep, American hist, mspence, diamondstorm, miletus12, However for me to clarify, I am not stating the CSA will be able to revive the slave trade, as that is not the same topic. There does seem reasons that this could occur which involves New York City. Here are some news papers over the crisis www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources-for-historians/sixteen-months-to-sumter central confederacy Troy Daily Times, December 19, 1860 Among the numerous plans proposed for changing the character of our institutions by a dissolution of the Union, is one for the organization of a central confederacy, to be composed of the border slave, and the border free States, united upon the basis of mutual benefit. If the present Government should ever be dissolved, such an one would eventually grow out of the necessities of the communities named. The danger of servile insurrection and emancipation by force, would be one of the greatest hazards of a Southern Republic. It would be but a step across the border from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio or Pennsylvania, for abolition emissaries who might provoke conspiracies or invite escapes, and returning back into the State whence they emanated, they would be under a foreign government, and beyond reach of punishment. When Slavery dissolves the Union, free States will be unlikely to make laws for the protection of slave property. On the other hand commercial considerations would disincline the border free States to severance from their Southern neighbors.—Pennsylvania is particularly and vitally interested in the Virginia trade;—Ohio, and Indiana, by their great water and railroad routes, have built up important. traffic with Kentucky and Tennessee. By means of the Missouri and Mississippi the vast seaboard interests of the Gulf are to be reached, and these would all be involved. The Southern Republic would undoubtedly be free trade. The interests of the Northwest are in the same direction. They would naturally, therefore, prefer affiliation with the States from which they would obtain their goods at least duty.—These and various other considerations of interest, might bring about an organization on the plan proposed. The strong points of repulsion presented by the differences on the question of Slavery, would become matters of arbitration, diminishing in strength as other features of interest attracted attention. As between the border States, free and slave, these questions are less controlling than in reference to those more remote. If the day ever comes when our Union is dissolved, and Governments of rival and conflicting characters and interests established in its stead, we may look forward to an organization of numerous petty confederacies, based upon mercenary considerations, and coalesced by sordid impulses—re-producing in their careers the history of the Mexican and South American Republics. Therefore it is the duty of every patriot, by all considerations of love to his country, to stand firmly and irrevocably opposed to such a radical change of its institutions. San Francisco Daily Alta California, March 3, 1861(typo error with the dates) The Pony brings us some indications of an encouraging nature from the South. It is reported that "Georgia and Alabama have accepted the mediation of Virginia, in their differences with the Federal Government." It will be recollected that Virginia at the time of the appointment of Commissioners to the Peace Congress, also sent Commissioners to the seceding States. If Georgia and Alabama have now agreed to accept her mediation, it is proof that these two, at least, of the Cotton States, are not for unconditional secession. The fear has been, and is, that the extreme Southern States have determined to try the experiment of independence; and that nothing therefore can be done which would win them back to their allegiance. If the statement to which reference has been made be correct, it goes far to disprove that assumption. If a reasonable compromise—put to both sections—will satisfy them, the storm will beyond doubt blow over: for no matter bow politicians may demean themselves, the people generally are determined to leave no stone unturned to restore peace and harmony. In addition to the above we have also the report that the Union candidates in Tennessee have been elected by an aggregate majority of fifty thousand. These, added to the events which have recently transpired in Virginia, the noble attitude of Kentucky, and the conservative course of North Carolina and Maryland, make up a grand aggregation of facts which augur well for Union and permanency. The only drawback to the news is the speech which it is reported Mr. Lincoln has recently been delivering. It would probably be unjust to judge him upon a brief telegraphic synopsis, of what he did say, but as it comes to us it looks like opposition to any and all compromise. There is no use in attempting to deceive our ourselves. The Government cannot be perpetuated without mutual concession. The different, and in some respects antagonistic, forms of civilization of which the Republic is composed, cannot exist together without forbearance on both sides. Neither section can have all it wishes. If the Republican party should take a position in opposition to all compromise we have but little hope for the future. Under such circumstances the dissolution of the Union, even at this time, becomes a fixed fact. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jul 7, 2023 19:01:35 GMT
lordroel understood. Jefferson Davises camels did indeed help The transatlantic slave trade New York City is worthwhile to keep under the confederate hands as many of its blockade runners will stop in New York City if they intend to go to Canada. However, if the confederates refuse to fire upon for Sumter, yet decided to blockade the four with cannonballs hitting the water, it would hurt the northern secessionist movement and that city specific possibility
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Aug 15, 2023 1:08:22 GMT
I don’t know specifically how this separatist movement could succeed,but it could happen though it would be challenging if not difficult
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 16, 2023 22:16:18 GMT
Burn down the city? Even if they could: Why?
|
|
