Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›685 »

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Fangz posted:

My understanding is that popular opinion in the UK was strongly on the Union side.

It varied quite a bit; it's worth remembering that being anti-slavery didn't necessarily make them pro-Union. As Cassius Clay (the US ambassador to Russia) said, "I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both."

As it is, numerous British arms manufacturers were more than happy to supply weapons and warships to the Confederacy throughout the war. Also, in December 1861 the US/Union navy seized a British ship in order to capture Confederate envoys aboard; this did NOT go over well with the UK (the Trent affair).

# ? Apr 25, 2024 15:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 14:28

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Fitting that we open this Cursed Page with a discussion of history's greatest hater: the British Empire

# ? Apr 25, 2024 15:42

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

MikeC posted:

"King Cotton" was a merely one of many economic factors at play. To start, Britain had a significant surplus of spare cotton at the beginning the war. It wasn't until mid 1862 that the blockade had a serious effect on the British textile industry and that winter was known as the "Cotton Famine". Alternative supplies of cotton rapidly emerged from Egypt and India, and while most costly to import, essentially reversed the dependence of the the British to Southern cotton by the end of 1863. By wars end, the industry was essentially back to normal.

British also had economic interests with the Federals as well as the US was a major exporter of wheat and the crop failures in Europe in 1861 and 62 meant that continued US grain exports were just as important as cotton and the Federals were purchasing Iron, munitions and wool for uniforms which helped make up the difference. There was never a serious economic argument for King Cotton to bring recognition or intervention from the British.

If anything, the Trent affair was a far more dangerous spark.

It's been a while since I really dug into the finance side of things, but IIRC there was a really complex relationship between southern planters and both Northern and British financiers.

This is all from memory so anyone who knows better please correct me, but basically slavery was obscenely profitable so you had a relative handful of extremely wealthy plantation owners who were extremely cash rich. They needed something to do with that money and the lack of any good way to expand their business (can't import more slaves, can't expand to land out west) meant that they couldn't re-invest it. So they go looking for someplace to invest it, and tl;dr end up at London and Wall Street. This hits an acute point after the 1840s, but it was a thing for practically a century before that. Slavery profits being the financial underpinnings for the investment capital that fueled both the British and American industrial revolutions

I don't know how this played into domestic British politics at all, but there were a LOT of people profiting off southern slavery.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 15:46

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Cyrano4747 posted:

I don't know how this played into domestic British politics at all, but there were a LOT of people profiting off southern slavery.

I know nothing about the history of British financiers but the closest recognition came was just prior to Antietam when the British Foreign Secretary proposed both to cabinet and the French and Russians about the possibility of mediation on the basis of recognition. Adams, the US representative to the UK made it clear that this was unacceptable and repeatedly made noises about packing up and leaving as the decision worked its way through cabinet in October. By then Antietam had occurred along and the grim reality that recognition would almost certainly lead to military conflict with the Federals made meant that it was never considered again.

From the Lincoln and Federal perspective, there was zero desire for any inference of any kind. This was a rebellion and having someone come in to clean up your house only increased the odds of someone else joining the affair and help secure recognition for the South.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 16:07

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Cessna posted:

It varied quite a bit; it's worth remembering that being anti-slavery didn't necessarily make them pro-Union. As Cassius Clay (the US ambassador to Russia) said, "I saw at a glance where the feeling of England was. They hoped for our ruin! They are jealous of our power. They care neither for the South nor the North. They hate both."

As it is, numerous British arms manufacturers were more than happy to supply weapons and warships to the Confederacy throughout the war. Also, in December 1861 the US/Union navy seized a British ship in order to capture Confederate envoys aboard; this did NOT go over well with the UK (the Trent affair).

Right but the general public opinion tended to be more on the Union side than on the South's side.

("Strongly" was too strong though)

quote:

Southern secession took Britain by surprise. Having witnessed the various
state wranglings of the previous decade, the actual occurrence of secession
came as something of a shock.1 The shock subsided, however, and, as his-
torians from E. D. Adams onward have established, English public opinion
was against the Confederacy from the outset.2 The belief that the South had
no better justification for secession than defeat in a fair election, combined
with contempt for its ‘domestic institution’, ensured that South Carolina and
her fellow secessionists of the lower South were universally condemned.3
It was from this point, according to the traditional interpretation, that
British opinion turned against the Union, when the Lincoln administration
failed to make emancipation an immediate war aim; and the traditional inter-
pretation dates the souring of trans-Atlantic relations from the Queen’s Proc-
lamation of Neutrality, issued on 13 May 1861, in response to the fall of Fort
Sumter on 14 April and Lincoln’s subsequent declaration of the blockade of
southern ports. Hence, the Proclamation of Neutrality, according to the
traditional interpretation, was the beginning of Britain’s rejection of the
Union, and angered Northerners, who criticised it as ‘a hasty, if not hostile
act’.4 Britain, always opposed to American institutions in principle, used the
Union’s vacillation over emancipation as an excuse to begin favouring the
previously despised Confederacy.

Although the northern reaction to the Proclamation of Neutrality did
indeed adversely affect English opinion, discontent had set in earlier because
of, as Crook correctly argues, ‘the disenchanting march of events’, rather
than simple disappointment in the Lincoln administration for not embarking
upon a war of emancipation.5 Crook, however, underestimates how much
hesitation regarding emancipation cost the Union in the court of English
popular opinion. While it is true that there was little enthusiasm for forced
emancipation that would cause war (initially, the English hoped that
secession would be resolved peacefully), this opinion existed only while there
was hope for peace. Once the South initiated hostilities by firing on Fort
Sumter, it was widely believed that the North should embark upon war
against slavery. Suspicion regarding emancipation was only one factor that
told heavily against the North. Another, much more damaging, factor was
perceived Union belligerence, especially on the part of the secretary of state,
William H. Seward, but also on the part of the American minister to Russia,
Cassius Clay, which was expressed in his letter to The Times. This perception
of a menacing North was compounded by the opinions of the Union press, es-
pecially, but not solely, over Britain’s declaration of neutrality. Added to this
was the protectionist Morrill tariff, the impact of which, Crawford points out,
‘was certainly greater than most modern historians have been willing to
admit’.6

Although English exasperation with the North existed, opinion never,
despite the claims of Union supporters (and some historians), became
pro-South – not simply because of slavery, but also because of the ‘King
Cotton’ policy, which offended most commentators. This dislike of the
Confederacy was made apparent not only by the hostility of the London
press, but also by the reception accorded to specific pro-southern activities,
the most important of which, in 1861, being Sir William Gregory’s motion in
the House of Commons for the recognition of the Confederacy. This chapter
examines English suspicions regarding American emancipation; their
response to the North’s diplomacy; the Union press and the Morill tariff;
their views of the Confederacy and the South’s King Cotton tactics; as well as
the opinions of MPs in the first year of the war.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...A4535F7A34C83CE

The full article points out that Clay personally had a tendency to start fights with the British media.

Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 25, 2024

# ? Apr 25, 2024 16:29

Defenestrategy: Oct 24, 2010

At what point do the British go from disliking America as an up jumped colony to respecting them at least nominally as a power in that half of the globe?

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:11

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

2008, maybe?

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:14

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Defenestrategy posted:

At what point do the British go from disliking America as an up jumped colony to respecting them at least nominally as a power in that half of the globe?

Has this happened?

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:19

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Defenestrategy posted:

At what point do the British go from disliking America as an up jumped colony to respecting them at least nominally as a power in that half of the globe?

War of 1812 is probably the moment they realized they had to actually pay attention and not just assume they could deal with the US with whatever ships weren't busy blockading their European rival du jour at the moment.

If that war had gone badly for the US you can pretty easily see a future where the Brits are a bit more robust in trying to deal separately with random states and dick around on the fringes and generally get more muscular in pursuing North American interests.

The Monroe Doctrine is 1823, so within a decade you have the US pretty pointedly telling Europe to stay the gently caress out. 1812 was also a pretty important turning point for US foreign policy (in that we actually tried to have one) and the existence and power of the standing Army and Navy. Navy especially. Basically Jefferson lost a lot of arguments that year.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:19

Jamwad Hilder: Apr 18, 2007; surfin usa

Churchill seemed to be pretty pro-America but I don't know that he's indicative of everyone else's opinions

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:20

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Cyrano4747 posted:

The Monroe Doctrine is 1823, so within a decade you have the US pretty pointedly telling Europe to stay the gently caress out.

Yes, but that was a joke. If a European power - especially the UK - had seriously decided to confront the USA and start setting up colonies in Central or South America in the early 19th century the US Navy would have lasted about half an hour against them. The Monroe Doctrine was posturing on behalf of the US, no more. The ONLY reason it survived was because it was in line with the UK's own interests of Pax Britannica.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:24

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Churchill's mother was an American. The war of 1812 is when the English fully give up on any hope of reconquest and begin to treat the US like any other European power.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:25

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Relations between the US and UK were extremely cordial for at least half a century before WW1, probably longer if you really want to dig around and try to pin stuff down. The last major flare up was the 54-40 dispute in the mid 1840s, and even that got resolved peacefully at least in part because the British public didn't want a war with the US. poo poo got a bit chilly during the ACW, but nothing really serious.

By the time you get to 1898 Britain is the only European power diplomatically supporting the US during the Spanish-American War, everyone else was on Team Spain. That's not into the post-WW2 "special relationship" territory but it's a pretty hefty jog down that path.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:28

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Cessna posted:

Yes, but that was a joke. If a European power - especially the UK - had seriously decided to confront the USA and start setting up colonies in Central or South America in the early 19th century the US Navy would have lasted about half an hour against them. The Monroe Doctrine was posturing on behalf of the US, no more. The ONLY reason it survived was because it was in line with the UK's own interests of Pax Britannica.

The Spanish-American war is probably the marker where the Monroe Doctrine gets real. Not least because the US acquired literal imperial possessions it still has.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:28

Radia: Jul 14, 2021; And someday, together.. We'll shine.

Cessna posted:

Yes, but that was a joke. If a European power - especially the UK - had seriously decided to confront the USA and start setting up colonies in Central or South America in the early 19th century the US Navy would have lasted about half an hour against them. The Monroe Doctrine was posturing on behalf of the US, no more. The ONLY reason it survived was because it was in line with the UK's own interests of Pax Britannica.

i don't think any country would seriously consider the insane amounts of money the logistics involved would require back then, so that's a moot point imo

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:32

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Cessna posted:

Yes, but that was a joke. If a European power - especially the UK - had seriously decided to confront the USA and start setting up colonies in Central or South America in the early 19th century the US Navy would have lasted about half an hour against them. The Monroe Doctrine was posturing on behalf of the US, no more. The ONLY reason it survived was because it was in line with the UK's own interests of Pax Britannica.

Eh, I don't know that I agree with this. Colonial power projection really only works when the people you're trying to colonize are relatively defenseless, whether because of internal division (e.g. China), natural disaster (e.g. disease in the Americas) or something else that tilts the balance of power.

Could the USN have taken on the entire RN in 1850 if they decided to force the issue and drop a new colony in Colombia or whatever? No. But they wouldn't have to. The issue from the colonial perspective is that the US was enough of a local power to make a fight way more expensive than it's worth - both politically and financially - through poo poo like commerce raiding and they're simultaneously strong enough that you really don't want to try and fight a land war in their literal backyard at the end of your own supply lines. It's one of those "could the US have won Vietnam?" questions - the answer is yes, but it would involve an expenditure of resources and political capital way outside what stands to be gained.

The one time when the Doctrine got flagrantly violated is a pretty good illustration of this. During the ACW France, with Spanish and British aid, invades mexico over unpaid debts and installs a new government. They have to continue fighting the remnants of the old one and never do fully take over, but the US is too busy to do anything about this. Then the ACW ends, the US starts sending military aid to the Republican forces, and by 1867 is clearly stating that if France doesn't pull out they will end up in a war with the US. The calculus tips, and France evacuates.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 17:39

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

Cyrano4747 posted:

War of 1812 is probably the moment they realized they had to actually pay attention and not just assume they could deal with the US with whatever ships weren't busy blockading their European rival du jour at the moment.

If that war had gone badly for the US you can pretty easily see a future where the Brits are a bit more robust in trying to deal separately with random states and dick around on the fringes and generally get more muscular in pursuing North American interests.

The Monroe Doctrine is 1823, so within a decade you have the US pretty pointedly telling Europe to stay the gently caress out. 1812 was also a pretty important turning point for US foreign policy (in that we actually tried to have one) and the existence and power of the standing Army and Navy. Navy especially. Basically Jefferson lost a lot of arguments that year.

Is there a good book detailing the American political implications of the War of 1812? I have a vague understanding that Jefferson was unrealistically idealistic about a lot of things but I don�t have a good grasp on the details or how exactly they splintered on contact with reality.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 18:10

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

The Monroe Doctrine actually worked with the UK's ambition to keep other European powers from expanding, and the US wasn't really a credible threat to European expansion in the New World except from tangential connection to Britain.

Defenestrategy posted:

At what point do the British go from disliking America as an up jumped colony to respecting them at least nominally as a power in that half of the globe?

I don't think Britain ever largely disliked America. They feared their other colonies rebelling, but there were plenty of economic connections, the US continued to be a popular immigration destination. The American Revolution was also sort of an extension of internal British politics, and the faction that was trying to corral the Americans fell from grace and things continued onward. The rockiest point was the British seeing fit to stop American ships and grab randos to conscript into the navy, but the War of 1812 resolving with an actual treaty was itself an acknowledgement of American sovereignty.

Also importantly, France totally hosed up its early friendship with the US. The French Revolution as a whole led to at best unstable foreign relations, and The Terror targeting people who might've been well-liked in America didn't help (the US government did its best to save Lafayette's family from execution), but what really ruined everything was Talleyrand trying to force bribes from US diplomats in the XYZ affair, and not even the pro-France Thomas Jefferson could salvage things.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 18:11

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Cyrano4747 posted:

Eh, I don't know that I agree with this. Colonial power projection really only works when the people you're trying to colonize are relatively defenseless, whether because of internal division (e.g. China), natural disaster (e.g. disease in the Americas) or something else that tilts the balance of power.

Funny how the UK decided to pursue difficult conflicts that were politically unpopular against other non-defenseless peoples. The Zulus, for example.

quote:

Then the ACW ends, the US starts sending military aid to the Republican forces, and by 1867 is clearly stating that if France doesn't pull out they will end up in a war with the US. The calculus tips, and France evacuates.

1867 is a VERY different situation from 1823, when the doctrine was first put in place. The US Army was TINY, and would not have done much. Edit - And, that said, the US rapidly demobilized it's army post US Civil War. By 1880 they were down to ~35,000. Things may have been very different if things had happened then. You're basically looking at one time in a century when the US had an actual army.

SlothfulCobra posted:

The Monroe Doctrine actually worked with the UK's ambition to keep other European powers from expanding, and the US wasn't really a credible threat to European expansion in the New World except from tangential connection to Britain.

Exactly this. The Monroe Doctrine worked because it aligned with Britain's interests.

Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 25, 2024

# ? Apr 25, 2024 18:47

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

SlothfulCobra posted:

Also importantly, France totally hosed up its early friendship with the US. The French Revolution as a whole led to at best unstable foreign relations, and The Terror targeting people who might've been well-liked in America didn't help (the US government did its best to save Lafayette's family from execution), but what really ruined everything was Talleyrand trying to force bribes from US diplomats in the XYZ affair, and not even the pro-France Thomas Jefferson could salvage things.

Even before that the French ambassador, Citizen Genet almost managed to embroil the US into war with Spain and Britain trying to use the US as a base for mercenaries and privateers and then flat out asking Washington to go to war despite the still very rocky economics and politics of the early republic.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 18:54

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

SlothfulCobra posted:

Also importantly, France totally hosed up its early friendship with the US. The French Revolution as a whole led to at best unstable foreign relations, and The Terror targeting people who might've been well-liked in America didn't help (the US government did its best to save Lafayette's family from execution), but what really ruined everything was Talleyrand trying to force bribes from US diplomats in the XYZ affair, and not even the pro-France Thomas Jefferson could salvage things.

There was also an unofficial naval war with France c1798. The Revolutionary government were being dicks and they ended up hassling American shipping, mostly around the Caribbean. We'd retaliate or capture some privateers and things were generally unpleasant until Napoleon took over in 1800.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 18:59

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Tomn posted:

frankly did the Union even WANT the UK or anyone else to intervene on their side?

The king of Siam offered to send elephants to help, and Lincoln deserved to be shot for declining :mad:

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:06

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Tomn posted:

Reading a book about trade written by an economist that makes the following claim:

This feels kinda odd to me - my understanding was that the UK remaining neutral was great, King Cotton would only have been counted a success if the UK was actively brought in to intervene for the Confederacy. Was there ever any realistic chance of the UK actively intervening on the side of the Union, and frankly did the Union even WANT the UK or anyone else to intervene on their side?

I think having an official supportive international ally as opposed to people saying "sure, we'll sell you stuff and keep our noses out of it" would have been helpful but in an indirect way. Britain or France on the side of the Confederates would have probably ended the civil war with a Confederate victory, even if the Confederacy lost some land or something.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:31

Radia: Jul 14, 2021; And someday, together.. We'll shine.

Cessna posted:

Exactly this. The Monroe Doctrine worked because it aligned with Britain's interests.

sure but i think people are just pointing out you have to enter gay black hitler territory for monroe doctrine to have ever been tested to begin with

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:36

Cessna: Feb 20, 2013; KHABAHBLOOOM

Radia posted:

sure but i think people are just pointing out you have to enter gay black hitler territory for monroe doctrine to have ever been tested to begin with

Sure, I don't disagree.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 19:39

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Tomn posted:

Is there a good book detailing the American political implications of the War of 1812? I have a vague understanding that Jefferson was unrealistically idealistic about a lot of things but I don�t have a good grasp on the details or how exactly they splintered on contact with reality.

Ian Toll's Six Frigates touches on it, and it's a really good book that you should read in general. It's not the purpose of the book, but he really has to go for a bit of a walk to explain American politics pre-1812 and how it interacted with both foreign policy and naval policy to frame just why getting the titular six frigates was such a big fight and such a big deal, and why it was such a resounding victory for the pro-navy, pro-foreign policy wing when they turned out to be as vital and effective as they were in 1812.*

The really short version is that there was a faction that felt strongly that peacetime navies were only good for sticking your dick in foreign business you shouldn't be mucking around in, and that doing so could only draw the nation into foreign wars that it didn't need to fight. Jefferson in particular was a proponent of a naval militia where, I poo poo you not, a swarm of little one cannon boats would be laid up all along the coast to sit around until needed and then more or less zerg rush any hostile foreign fleet that showed up. I'm sure assorted fishermen etc. who have never done naval gunnery in their lives will be effective naval militiamen. As silly as that is, the point was to have a coastal defense only force that would be totally unsuitable for projecting power away from the shoreline.

edit: *not just 1812, you also have the dust up with the Barbary Pirates in 1805 (the famed "shores of Tripoli") where it was illustrated that maybe being able to protect your merchant shipping away from your coastline is a good thing, and more broadly illustrated that a nation as dependent on trade as the US was going to get caught up in foreign bullshit whether it wanted to or not because its interests extended far, far beyond the limited horizon envisioned by the likes of Jefferson.

edit 2: I keep invoking Jefferson, but keep in mind his thinking on this changed. He was vocally opposed to the construction of the frigates, but he was also the president who ordered them into action against the Barbary Pirates and the necessity of that is part of what convinced him that a standing army was actually required, resulting in him being the signature on the legislation that created West Point as a military academy.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 20:19

Gaius Marius: Oct 9, 2012

Tomn posted:

Is there a good book detailing the American political implications of the War of 1812? I have a vague understanding that Jefferson was unrealistically idealistic about a lot of things but I don’t have a good grasp on the details or how exactly they splintered on contact with reality.

The Oxford History book that covers the period, Empire of Liberty does a good job covering the period in the run up to the war and how everything shook out with it. You might want to seek out some other contrary works with it though because the book is pretty massively Pro-Jefferson. Which isn't exactly unfair given how much of modern America grows out of his particular worldview but it does venture into straight lionization and apologism at times.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 20:28

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

Jefferson did a lot of writing and big talk, but during his actual tenure as a president most of that was out the window and he was just wildly pragmatic and ignored all of his own extremely dumb rhetoric.

Radia posted:

sure but i think people are just pointing out you have to enter gay black hitler territory for monroe doctrine to have ever been tested to begin with

I think that it might've actually been tested a few times, and ultimately the US didn't actually do anything, but it did always hang around prospectively maybe about to do something in a way that slightly added to the reasons for the European incursions to just call it quits.

The Pastry War where France attacked Mexico, the Fench Empire's attempt to invade Mexico, Spain's occupation of the Dominican Republic. The Civil War apparently emboldened some European incursions, but the US didn't really intervene after the Civil War was over, it just...could've maybe possibly intervened. We certainly didn't seem to muck around very much in the New World's non-military relations with the Old World.

It kinda seems like while the possible threat of US intervention was a potential obstacle, it was also the fact that war in general is tough and the New World nations were never really an easy target in general.

# ? Apr 25, 2024 20:44

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; I'm helping!

Nenonen posted:

The king of Siam offered to send elephants to help, and Lincoln deserved to be shot for declining

This has come up in the thread before; the king of Siam offered to send elephants as livestock and beasts of burden, and Lincoln politely declined, while privately joking that the only use he had for elephants was to stomp on some rebels.

If I had the time, I'd write a book where Lincoln does end up fielding war elephants. The Tusks Of The North.

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:48

nrook: Jun 25, 2009; Just let yourself become a worthless person!

Gaius Marius posted:

Even before that the French ambassador, Citizen Genet almost managed to embroil the US into war with Spain and Britain trying to use the US as a base for mercenaries and privateers and then flat out asking Washington to go to war despite the still very rocky economics and politics of the early republic.

Citizen Genet has such a funny chapter of American history. The guy shows up on behalf of revolutionary France and immediately goes around negotiating above Washington's head directly with the American people. British sympathizers in the administration despise the guy, and Jefferson has his face stuck in his palm just hoping he will shut the gently caress up.

In the end, he's condemned by Washington's entire cabinet and ordered back to France--- but he finds out he's headed for the guillotine. So he seeks and receives asylum in the very United States where he was being such a prick! He later married George Clinton's daughter. A very odd story on the whole.

# ? Apr 26, 2024 00:52

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Nenonen posted:

The king of Siam offered to send elephants to help, and Lincoln deserved to be shot for declining

heck, just use them to haul cannon and pallets around the final boss DC hellfortress

# ? Apr 26, 2024 02:08

Gargamel Gibson: Apr 24, 2014

nrook posted:

He later married George Clinton's daughter. A very odd story on the whole.

Genet must have been the one who came up with:

One nation under a groove
Gettin' down just for the funk of it

# ? Apr 26, 2024 08:50

ilmucche: Mar 16, 2016; What did you say the strategy was?

Wasn't there a thing where hippos nearly became the USA's main livestock or something insane like that?

# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:26

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

ilmucche posted:

Wasn't there a thing where hippos nearly became the USA's main livestock or something insane like that?

They are already the top of food chain in Colombia, it's just a matter of time before they cross Rio Grande

# ? Apr 26, 2024 11:44

The Lone Badger: Sep 24, 2007

ilmucche posted:

Wasn't there a thing where hippos nearly became the USA's main livestock or something insane like that?

In capitalist USA, livestock eat you!

# ? Apr 26, 2024 11:53

bob dobbs is dead: Oct 8, 2017; I love peeps; Nap Ghost

Nenonen posted:

They are already the top of food chain in Colombia, it's just a matter of time before they cross Rio Grande

... after crossing the darien gap, the nicaraguan highlands, the chiapan highlands, the sierra madre occidental and the chihuahuan desert?

# ? Apr 26, 2024 12:42

TooMuchAbstraction: Oct 14, 2012; I spent four years making
Waves of Steel
Hell yes I'm going to turn my avatar into an ad for it.; Fun Shoe

ilmucche posted:

Wasn't there a thing where hippos nearly became the USA's main livestock or something insane like that?

Someone proposed importing them to raise as livestock, but it thankfully never happened.

# ? Apr 26, 2024 13:36

Cyrano4747: Sep 25, 2006; Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

Someone proposed importing them to raise as livestock, but it thankfully never happened.

On the other hand, we missed out on an alternate timeline where you could see a hippo fight a bison on the banks of the Platte.

# ? Apr 26, 2024 14:10

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Gargamel Gibson posted:

Genet must have been the one who came up with:

One nation under a groove
Gettin' down just for the funk of it

Imagine having a war criminal for a father in law

# ? Apr 26, 2024 14:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 14:28

SeanBeansShako: Nov 20, 2009; Now the Drums beat up again,
For all true Soldier Gentlemen.

Nobody talks about the Hippo Burger in US Alt history novels.

# ? Apr 26, 2024 14:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Milhist Thread: Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4...

«‹›685 »