How would History have been changed if Great Britain entered the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy? (60's, Washington)

[David674UT]

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?

[MrMarbles]

The Civil War is not my strong suit I'll chime in. The British probably could have raised the Union blockade and resupplied the South. But given sufficient resolve, I do not see the Union not winning that war. It had a significant advantage in both manpower and industrial capacity over the South. GB could help arm the South but, if the Crimean war is any guide, the size and quality of its army was unimpressive. And it would have to send a lot of troops to North America to make a difference. So GB could have probably prolonged the war but the result would have been the same.

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

So GB could have probably prolonged the war but the result would have been the same.

If fact, in addition to pacifying the rebellious southern states, there is a good chance the US would have been able to add a couple of new states to the north, if you know what I mean

[danielj72]

Most people do not realize how close the confederacy was to winning the war without the help of Great Britain. If the British became involved, a confederate/British victory would have been the result. Not only would a New Yorker need a passport to visit Georgia, he may need one to visit the Canadian provinces of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and well on west from there. Anyone who knows the British objectives in the war of 1812 remembers that they desired control of the upper midwest. They invaded Michigan, norther Ohio and burned Fort Dearborn Illinois (Chicago). What makes anyone think they would not try this again. With all the northern troops in the south, the upper midwest would be an easy target for the British. North America would be a different place now if the Brits entered the war, as the stars and bars would be flying acrost dixie, the maple leaf would fly over everything from Detroit to Fargo and everything inbetween. Even Ohio, Indiana and Illinois could have fallen to the brits if things went really bad. The New England states would likely doninate the old United States goverment, but that would be a much weaker state. British Canada would have ended up being the powerhouse of North America. The one good thing that may have come of this is the humbling of New England and the northeast. Thier arrogance helped start the civil war, and to this day they wield way too much power over the rest of America.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Most people do not realize how close the confederacy was to winning the war without the help of Great Britain. .

They don't realize it because it never was close to winning. The closest they came was in the fall of 62 and even then they didn't do so well.

[Irishtom29]

The British army was a small professional force designed for imperial conquest and policing not for fighting The United States. Not 10 years before the Brits had shown themselves incapable of properly running a war against a half-assed modern power in their war with Russia. With foreign war spurring recruiting the Federal army probably grows larger and The United States ends up taking Canada.

The British fleet would've been a bigger probem than their army but we could still crush the rebellion on land lines and we didn't need imports. In short a British blockade would've added extra hardships but not been a war winner. And there's always the possibility that American shipbuilders outbuild the Brits, especially in ironclads, and go out and defeat the British fleet.

And you can't bring Britian in to play without figuring what the reactions of other powers such as Prussia and Russia would've been. Russia especially would've had a card to play in the Great Game; with the British army busy fighting The United States who watches the Russians in central Asia if they threaten India? An India only recently saved from mutiny and rebellion mind you.

So what do the Brits have to gain? Very little if anything. What do they have to lose? Canada, India, the West Indies and their naval supremacy. Reckon that's why they stayed out, eh? Maybe they had it figured, eh?

[MrMarbles]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Most people do not realize how close the confederacy was to winning the war without the help of Great Britain.

Care to back that up? At what point was the confederacy close to winning the war?

With all the northern troops in the south, the upper midwest would be an easy target for the British.

With what army? During the war of 1812, the campaigns you describes were won with significant help from Native Americans. (Basically confirms my conviction that the British always fight their wars with other peoples troops.) Anyway, in 1860's, Midwest was much more densely populated so the British would have needed a lot more troops to capture Detroit and Chicago, let alone hold them against the inevitable United States counter attack.

Also AFAIR Lincoln did send troops to defend the northern border as a precaution against a possible British threat, unlikely as it was.

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by MrMarbles

Care to back that up? At what point was the confederacy close to winning the war?

With what army? During the war of 1812, the campaigns you describes were won with significant help from Native Americans. (Basically confirms my conviction that the British always fight their wars with other peoples troops.) Anyway, in 1860's, Midwest was much more densely populated so the British would have needed a lot more troops to capture Detroit and Chicago, let alone hold them against the inevitable United States counter attack.

Also AFAIR Lincoln did send troops to defend the northern border as a precaution against a possible British threat, unlikely as it was.

The confederacy could have won the war. The first opportunity was at Bull Run, victorous confederates should have made a move on Washington. This could have lead to a quick confederate victory. Also Grants army could easily have been destroyed at Pittsburgs landing while it was pinned up against the river. The reinenforcements of Buells army are the only thing that saved him from sure destruction. Had the army been destroyed in the west, the sucess of the northern cause would have been in danger. Also the gettysburg campaign, had it not been botched by Lee could have resulted in a major southern victory. Obviously if the confederates had routed the northern army, they would have flanked Washington, threatening the very existance of the northern goverment. The other possiblity of confederate victory came in 1864, the election of McClellan and a negotiated peace (aka confederate victory) may have occured. I am a firm believer that confederate victory was possible, and at times seemed close to reality. If you think about it, the confederates had a much better chance at beating the north, than did the colonist of defeating king George the 3rd in 1775.
Now as far as a British invasion of the midwest, you say the brits did not have a large enough army, well Ill grant you that. However they could have built one up over a year or two, and the northern goverment would still be tied up down in the south when it was ready. The midwest was not that heavily defended. Sherman said the confederacy was hollow once it was pierced during the Atlanta campaign. Well the same was true of the midwest, as morgans raiders rode through Indiana and ohio for well over a month in 1863 before they were defeated. If Morgan could do that, what would stop thousands of British troops from crossing the Detroit River and invading the US just like in 1813? Yea, there were more people living there by then for sure, but all the young men from the midwest were in virginia and Tennessee fighting the confederate army. I know northerners write the history books, so everyone has been taught that the south never had a chance with its agrarian society facing the might of the industrial north. Just because the north won does not mean this was a forgone conclusion when the war started, as confederate victory was entirely possible. British intervention would have nearly gauranteed it.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by danielj72

The confederacy could have won the war. The first opportunity was at Bull Run, victorous confederates should have made a move on Washington. .

That's a big assumption; that the loss of Washington would cause the collapse of northern will. I ain't a buyin' it.

Originally Posted by danielj72

Also Grants army could easily have been destroyed at Pittsburgs landing while it was pinned up against the river. The reinenforcements of Buells army are the only thing that saved him from sure destruction.

But Buell's army was there and the Rebels were defeated. One might as well argue the Rebels would've won had the Kyrellian Armada left their lair in the rings of Saturn and come to their aid.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Anyone who knows the British objectives in the war of 1812 remembers that they desired control of the upper midwest. They invaded Michigan, norther Ohio and burned Fort Dearborn Illinois (Chicago). What makes anyone think they would not try this again. With all the northern troops in the south, the upper midwest would be an easy target for the British. .

I believe a whole bunch of recently arrived German farmers may have begged to differ.