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.
If the British had "entered the war" it would not have been with troops. They would have used their navy to break the closing of Southern ports. Of course the British joining the CSA side, would have brought France in on the Union side.
GB and France were not really enemies for this era in history. Not exactly allies, but not arch enemies (they were on the same side in the late 50's Crimean War). Also, France was going about with it's adventures in Mexico at this time, a policy that clearly violated the Union's Monroe Doctrine. They would not have militarily supported the Union, nor would their support be particularly welcome by the Union. A better question would be "what if the southern states didn't rebel at that time in history, would the US at that time be at war with France?" The answer would be yes, very probably.
GB and France were not really enemies for this era in history. Not exactly allies, but not arch enemies (they were on the same side in the late 50's Crimean War). Also, France was going about with it's adventures in Mexico at this time, a policy that clearly violated the Union's Monroe Doctrine. They would not have militarily supported the Union, nor would their support be particularly welcome by the Union. A better question would be "what if the southern states didn't rebel at that time in history, would the US at that time be at war with France?" The answer would be yes, very probably.
Wasn't Britain one of the groups who pressure Mexico to pay it's debts,ending with French invasion and Maximilian Von Hapsburg crowned emperor of Mexico? Personally with the bush league leaders Mexico had then,I'd rather be ruled by France,if I were a Mexican then.
Most people do not realize how close the confederacy was to winning the war.
A noted historian takes an opposing view on the topic.
Quote:
"They (the North) fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind their back—they conducted the war and built the transcontinental railroad at the same time. The South never stood a chance." - Shelby Foote
If the Brits had itervened effectively and a Southern victory was the result, after the war we would have been left with the immensely awkward position of Great Britain, which was militantly anti-slavery at this point, allied with the last advanced nation which still held slaves.
Your post strikes on the biggest reason that the British did decide to stay out of the war. The British would have been faced with involvment in a civil war thousands of miles away from home, without the support of the British public. Most British people are said to have been supportive of the north and the abolishonist movement. In the end economic interests were just not strong enough for the British goverment to justify getting involved in what they knew would be an unpopular war at home.
The Royal Navy, much larger than the U.S. Navy, would likely have broken the blockade of Southern ports. However, the small British Army was, as usual , overextended in colonial endeavors, with many units serving in India, as the crown took over from The East India Company following the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58.
I doubt if Britain could have sent more than a small expeditionary force to serve in North America, unless they wanted to put the Empire at risk, especially " The Jewel in the Crown", India.
It's an interesting what if.
The Royal Navy, much larger than the U.S. Navy, would likely have broken the blockade of Southern ports.
That isn't necessarily true. As I had detailed in an earlier post, the British Navy was larger than the U.S. Navy in 1861 about 290 active ships versus about 80 active ships. The British also held another 250 or so ships in reserve at dock. The British ships were scattered all over the globe at various stations. Given, the U.S.'s best ships were also on far-flung patrols, but they were all recalled when war broke out.
The U.S. ship building industry kicked into overdrive when the war started and the Union was fielding over 600 ships of various sizes by 1863. The U.S. also had the world's largest merchant marine and were able to tap a pool of readily experienced crews and captains, something the British had been struggling with for some time.
Technologically the navies were on equal footing and the U.S. was better at adapting to running changes and improvements. Also, in case of war the U.S. ships would be operating close to home ports for repair and resupply meaning that not only could damaged ships be turned around faster, but the U.S. could also run from engagements where they were outclassed and take shelter in fortified ports.
Of course, the British would have had a major impact on the naval aspect of the war, but it is no certainty that they would have been able to fully break the blockade on the South, let alone enforce a blockade on the North or dominate the Union Navy.
Of course, the British would have had a major impact on the naval aspect of the war, but it is no certainty that they would have been able to fully break the blockade on the South, let alone enforce a blockade on the North or dominate the Union Navy.
I think it's pretty clear that the British Navy couldn't have dominate the Union Navy or blockaded Union ports. I have no doubt they could have opened for extended periods of time Southern ports that the Union had closed. The British of course had naval bases in Bermuda and Nova Scotia so logistical support would not have been overly burdensome.
The confederacy likely would have won. But the possibility that the cautious British government was going to support the Confederacy was nill. It was the premier anti-slavery state and public reaction would have been sharp against the government in England had this occured. In addition US grain was as important to England as cotton if not more so.
Jeff Davis was a terrible president...
Quote:
Davis left foreign policy to others in government and, rather than developing an aggressive diplomatic effort, tended to expect events to accomplish diplomatic objectives. The new president was committed to the notion that cotton would secure recognition and legitimacy from the powers of Europe. The men Davis selected as secretary of state and emissaries to Europe were chosen for political and personal reasons – not for their diplomatic potential. This was due, in part, to the belief that cotton could accomplish the Confederate objectives with little help from Confederate diplomats.[2]
Cassius Clay, the United States Minister in Russia, stated, “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.”[5]
War was unlikely in any event, for the U.S. was providing Britain with over 40% of its wheat ("corn") imports during the war years, and suspension would have caused massive famine because Britain imported about 35-45% of its grain, and poor crops in France made it even more dependent on shiploads from New York. Britain's loss of cotton was made up by imports from other countries by 1863. Furthermore, Britain was making large profits selling munitions to the Union.[14]
From a different link
Quote:
And in Europe the American Civil War had become something in which no western government dared to intervene. The government of Britain, France, or any other nation could play power politics as it chose, as long as the war meant nothing more than a government's attempt to put down a rebellion; but no government that had to pay the least attention to the sentiment of its own people could take sides against a government which was trying to destroy slavery. The British cabinet was never asked to consider the proposition which Palmerston and Russell had been talking about, and after 1862 the chance that Great Britain would decide in favor of the Confederacy became smaller and smaller and presently vanished entirely. The Emancipation Proclamation had locked the Confederates in an anachronism which could not survive in the modern world.
Along with this there went a much more prosaic material factor. Europe had had several years of short grain crops, and during the Civil War the North exported thousands of tons of grain-grain which could be produced in increasing quantities, despite the wartime manpower shortage, because the new reapers and binders were boosting farm productivity so sharply. Much as Great Britain needed American cotton, just now she needed American wheat even more. In a showdown she was not likely to do anything that would cut off that source of food.
The emancipation proclamation transformed the war from English perspective, particularly with the working class.
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.
