Best civil war naval operations books according to redditors

Sure! There is a great book by William C. Davis all about food and its roll in the war. It even has some soldiers recipes in it.
"A Taste for War: the Culinary History of the Blue and the Grey"

https://www.amazon.com/Taste-War-Culinary-History-Blue/dp/0811700186

Another one I have heard is very good but I have not gotten around to reading yet is
"Starving the South: How the North Won the Civil War."

https://www.amazon.com/Starving-South-How-North-Civil/dp/0312601816

She was built after the revolution.

If you're interested, here's a good book about her.

This one is very good also.

I really want one of those pens now.

> The UK government provided aid and arms to the Confederacy. Who said they did? The UK Government did, in the Washington Treaty of 1871





Wrong.

Nowhere in the Washington Treaty of 1871 does the UK government say it provided aid and arms to the Confederacy. It admitted that it did not prevent war vessels being sold to the Confederates. There is a difference between providing something and not preventing the provision of something by another party.

>The UK paid $15.5 million (roughly $300 million in toady's money) in arbitrated damages

Yes, because it was a fault for not preventing the provision of supplies to the Confederates.


>I informed you that there was physical evidence that at least cartridge boxes from the Royal Arsenal were being supplied to the Confederacy.

And you assume the UK government sanctioned the sale of these ammo boxes to the Confederates.

>UK sold very large amounts of gunpowder to the Confederacy.

Uk businesses did, not the UK government. You have no evidence that the UK government sold gunpowder to the Confederates. If you did then you would have provided such evidence.

>They claimed neutrality, but admitted that their actions provided aid and assistance to the Confederacy.

Wrong. They admitted their inaction to prevent the sale of war vessels to the confederates aided the Confederacy. Again, I point out there is a difference. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend that there is.

>I understand that it distresses some people, but history is history.

You are making false statements about history. It is merely your false statements that might be annoying some people.

As for the article from the Independent that you linked. It says it's information is sourced from this book, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there is no sourced evidence in that book of "British-Government-approved pro-Confederate gun-running". Interesting to note what the synopsis of that books has this to say:

> Aside from being the principal provider of steamers and armed cruisers to both sides of the American Civil War, the Scots saw further opportunity in promoting private ventures, both on the water and off, as they sent privately owned Blockade runners into the stand-off, and also provided a location for secret agency activity from both sides.

So according to this author the Scottish shipbuilders were also providing aid to the Unionist. I guess you think they would have been doing this without the permission of the UK government, seeing as you've decided that the government was siding with the South, so why would they approve of actions that supported the North?

Again, I invite you to provide first hand evidence of the UK government:

a) Selling, or sanctioning the sale of gunpowder to the confederates.

b) Approving the gun running of the Unionist blockade.