Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great Britain's political leaders were worried about the financial implications of the war and the possible end of slavery. They were prepared to help the Confederacy run the Union blockade, but were not so sanguine about attacking the Union Navy to break the blockade, and had absolutely no interest in sending land-based forces to participate in the war.
Great Britain would have never joined the war, they were still reeling from the butt whoopings we gave them in 1770's and 1812...
No, it was the French who gave them "whoopings" (or rather some spanking) back then. The American Revolution was a proxy war between France and Britain. Much like the "revolution" in, say, Libya was a proxy war fought by the West. The colonies were armed by the French, paid by the French, and protected by the French (before coming to American shores the Royal Navy ships had to fight their way through French Navy, which was not an insignificant naval force at that time). More importantly, the Brits could not dedicate enough troops to the Colonies to have it over with once and for all - they had to fight the French all over the Atlantic, in Europe and in Canada. In the end it was this lack of resources that probably helped the Colonies the most. If there was no war with France, the American Revolution would've been crushed in it's infancy. Just imagine what a 2-3x the number of redcoats and naval ships would do.
And in 1812 they had Napoleon to deal with. The guy who conquered all of Europe except Russia and Britain, and had the biggest and best army in the world at that time. Still, the British burned down the US capital, doesn't look like it was us giving them the "whopping."
It is almost certain that if the British had entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, they would have wanted something in return. They always did, usually in the form of colonial occupation, as in the occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1833, Hong Kong and Kowloon in 1842, the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua and Honduras in 1842, the Bay Islands of Honduras in 1852, Belize (British Honduras) in 1864. A British alliance would have definitely included occupation of key ports, such as New Orleans, Galveston and Mobile Bay.
After the breakup of the Central American Republic in 1838, Britain seized the east coast of Guatemala, the Bay Islands from Honduras, and the entire eastern half of Nicaragua in the form of the Mosquito Kingdom Protectorate. One by one they declared them British colonies. Then Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston with Frederick Chatfield, UK Consul in Central America, engineered the land grabs in the different republics, sending in British troops to back up British claims.
If Palmerston, then Prime Minister in 1861, had recognized the Confederate States as they seceded beginning with South Carolina in December, 1860 and continuing with the other states through February, 1861, the U.S. would have been powerless to prevent it. As Foreign Minister, he had engineered the land grab in the Central American states. In 1860 and early 1861, the U.S. could have done nothing. With the Army in disarray and an aging navy of wooden ships, a small British force would have been decisive. However, things were changing fast because of the war, and the UK would have had to act very fast.
It was to Britain's advantage to see the Confederacy broken up into eleven separate, backward, agrarian countries. With economies almost entirely dependent on agricultural exports to England, the newly independent states would have been very much like the republics of Central America. The British could have easily purchased, traded or seized extraterrestrial rights over various coastal regions and key port facilities, such as Charleston, Savanna, Mobile Bay, New Orleans, Galveston and perhaps the entire state of Florida. Just as had happened in Central America, the various Southern states would have been powerless to prevent a British intervention in any one state. There would have been no Confederacy.
If somehow, the Confederacy had formed before British recognition and a resulting alliance, the Confederate government also would have found itself in the uncomfortable position of having to take its foreign policy, military policy and certain domestic policies from London. This would have been similar to the way the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) had its policies determined largely by Washington. The British would have insisted on the abolition of slavery in addition to demanding railroad, mining, territorial and harbor concessions as part of the price of their military support of Confederate independence.
The British, however, also would have found themselves in an uncomfortable state of perpetual land warfare with large regular forces of the United States and with guerilla forces composed of anti-British southerners who favored the Union over British occupation. Again this would have been much the same as the U.S. experience in Vietnam. And the result would have been the same. The North would have won after the British gave up, in all likelihood to fight more important brush-fire wars in Africa, India and Afghanistan.
Anything is possible in war. It is possible had a few decisions been made differently there might have been different outcomes in the battles... but not so sure the war itself. Lee, who was a brilliant General from the point of view of fighting in the expected manner... lacked ingenuity and lateral thinking that it would have taken to win the war. He was very good at marching troops into position, setting up the chessboard as would have been expected of Generals in the 19th century... but that wasn't enough for the south. They needed to exploit unconventional warfare, likely smaller units moving much faster to outflank his much bigger opponents. Alexander the Great was a mastermind in such warfare. Lee was a very good but typical general for his day, and ultimately he could have never won the war against the vast superiority in numbers and resources of the North. However, if England had entered the war on the side of the confederacy, it would have likely prolonged the war - where the North would have eventually just tired of the war and made an armistice. There is no way the British could have defeated the Yankee armies at the time - impossible - the North in 1864 had over a million men under arms and were well trained and battle hardened under General Grant. The British understood all that... and I really don't think they were ever seriously contemplating siding with the south... especially as they were against slavery themselves. I think IF the British were ever to have joined the southern cause, the only way the British parliament would have supported the effort was for the South to renounce or provide a plan to end slavery. Which in effect, would have given the North what they wanted... so I do believe it is delusional thinking to think the South could have achieved independence without making large concessions regarding its stance on slavery.
IMO the British, French, or even Spanish alliance and trade with the confederacy would have changed the dynamic significantly during the war.
The onset of the civil war had the confederacy trying to prove its legitimacy to develop into a standalone nation. The alliance with a European power even if notional would have gone a long way to at least making the appearance as such.
It's not like the entire union was 100% devout toward the plight. Southern Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland were swayable either way at the onset. An international/European ally may have changes the borders of which state landed where.
I've read that Britain was very,very close at one point in the Civil War to entering on the side of the Confederacy. I think The North would have been forced to recognize the independence of the Confederacy. What do y'all think?
The confederacy believed very strongly that both Britain and France would enter into alliance, primarily because of the cotton trade. Britain legally recognized the status of Confederate States of America but although it was under serious debate, in the end it never recognized it as a nation and neither signed a treaty with it nor exchanged ambassadors.
British intervention was likely only in co-operation with France . Likewise, France would not have entered without British collaboration. Remember that France was invading Mexico at the time.
By early 1863, intervention was no longer seriously considered, as Britain turned its attention elsewhere, especially toward Russia and Greece. It developed a cotton industry in India to replace the cotton it used to import from the American South.
At the end of the civil war, Britain believed that USA would take over Canada. They decided to urge Canada to declare independence, correctly believing that the USA would not invade an independent nation.
I've read that Britain was very,very close at one point in the Civil War to entering on the side of the Confederacy. I think The North would have been forced to recognize the independence of the Confederacy. What do y'all think?
At the end of the civil war, Britain believed that USA would take over Canada. They decided to urge Canada to declare independence, correctly believing that the USA would not invade an independent nation.
Interesting concept, that Canadian autonomy was at least partly prompted by the British Empire recognizing the vulnerability of it's North American holdings to conquest by the United States. I'd not heard that before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
