Should the British Empire supported the CSA? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I get the feeling that Britain staying out was due more to Bureaucratic Inertia rather than a set policy.

It was a you problem and not a me problem so why make it a me problem?

I will have to look deeper if the average man on the street in Manchester gave two hoots about USA. He lost his job and got deep into poverty so some of the comments and ideas seem more to me as propaganda rather than true opinion.

The North was very keen to paint the whole thing as a purely internal affair. To me it feels that Britain had no dog in the fight so couldn't be bothered by it
 
The cotton imports to Great Britain via the Confederate States would have been more lucrative, since the heavy tariffs the Northern states imposed on Southern exports would have been bypassed.

France, Prussia and Britain were all keeping an eye on the American Civil war for several reasons.
One of which, of course, was tobacco and cotton imports.
But also the type of warfare being fought was groundbreaking.
Trench warfare, quasi-guirrilla warefare, railway seige tactics, repeating arms, mobile artillery, tactical cavalry, observation balloons (and subsequent blackouts or false camps), monitors versus ironclads and even a submarine attack - all being the herald of modern warfare.
 
Interestingly, there was a proposal before the war started made by a confederate gentleman who had his head screwed on (name escapes me) which was
to sell the cotton stockpile before any blockade could come into effect. This would have given the Confederacy a very large war chest from the start. The
proposal was ignored and as The Basket noted the Confederates were under the misapprehension that Britain's need for cotton was so great they would
join the fight on their side (40% of English employment was in textiles). Big mistake on both counts as the cotton stayed mostly in warehouses and the
British forces stayed away from the civil war.
 
You're also talking the internal affairs of another sovereign nation and a reasonably sized trading partner. I doubt very much if any serious thought was ever given to interfering in the ACW, words may have been bandied about but very doubtful any action was truly contemplated. Especially since the Britain imported a sizeable amount of grain from the North and had plenty of cotton stockpiled, thus nixing the CSA "threat" of a King Cotton embargo.

Also, what size army would realistically be able to be landed in North America? This is not 1812 anymore, it's 50 years later and the Army of the Potomac alone had over 120,000 troops with supporting artillery/medical/supply etc. to boot.
 
Last edited:
Over say the Trent Affair.maybe.

The North and British were not exactly friends and a bit of frost was there.

Did the Empire support the Confederacy...no. Any support came from private individuals and private groups.

Breaking the naval blockade and a naval war against the North was very possible.

William H Seward who was secretary of state certainly said stuff and said if Britain recognized the CSA then it was war. Although the USA folded faster than Superman on laundry day over the Trent Affair. So maybe it was all talk.

Found a story about a newspaper funded by the Union in London during the ACW. Called the London American. It was supposed to be giving the propaganda push against the CSA but instead was so anti British that it's subscription fell and it went bust. So go figure.
 
Could it have been Judah P. Benjamin? I think he was Secretary of Treasury (CSA).
 
The Trent affair was in actuality a non-starter, the last thing Lincoln wanted was a foreign power butting its nose into his internal affairs, so sure, any semblance of an olive branch would be snatched up. I admit, it's easy to see that through the retro-scope, and while the rhetoric of the time certainly sounded brusque and threatening, in the corridors of power it was a different story.

The North didn't want a war with Britain any more than Britain wanted war with the Northern States, there may have been animosity/rhetoric but money trumps all. The North was too lucrative a trade and finance partner and while the British government has done dumb things (what government hasn't?), killing a golden goose wasn't one of them.

As far as any war plans, sure, breaking the Northern blockade of the CSA wouldn't have been a hard stretch for any decent navy at the time. Keeping it open is probably in the realm of reality as well, but what then? How many troops was the U.K. realistically going to be able to devote (and keep supplied, remember the CSA couldn't keep its own armies fed) to an extended land war in North America?

Also, while the RN may break the blockade, what's good for the goose is good for the gander i.e. Yankee raiders preying on British trade routes. How long will that go on before the elites of business in Britain start howling for the PM's head?
 
Russian fleet? Er..ok.

I do think the Trent Affair is a bit more than bluff but the fact it was dropped quickly has its merits.

The Russian fleet was 1863 so if war was gonna happen it would happen much sooner. And I doubt the Russian Fleet was much ado.

The Union was in a much weaker position than the British Empire so the Union was under direct and real threat. The idea that the Union could build a fleet or occupy Canada or commerce raid is more wishful thinking than real life.
 
As I see it, the 19th century was a bit like the hundred years war, people had to decide which side of the Atlantic they and their wealth were on. Churchill himself was a symptom of it, old money still marrying new.
 
The Union could and did build a rather sizable fleet in order to blockade the South.
Yes it was a coastal navy rather than a blue water one but if the British wanted to interfere they would have to come to the US coastal waters.

The next monkey wrench in the gears was that Ironclads were under construction for a very short period of time before the Civil war. In fact the HMS Warrior was only commissioned about 3 1/2 months after Fort Sumter marked the start of the Civil war.

Numbers of ships with steam engines vs sail only was becoming important and the revolution in gunnery was starting to take hold.

A ship only a few years old might have very little combat effect against a newer ship but still be very effective against a large part of the enemies fleet.

Some Northern harbors had rather impressive fortifications. Wooden walls would not suffice against 8-15in smooth bore guns firing black powder filled shells.

Ships changed armament several times to try to stay current.

A large reserve of old sailing ships with max 32pdr guns may not have been of great value.
 
I have reached the limits of my knowledge. I am not able to add anything else without learning more.

So I will sign off.
 

The Union rather had its hands full, yeah, and little if any real leverage regarding outside powers.
 
The Basket said:
*SNIP*

The Union was in a much weaker position than the British Empire so the Union was under direct and real threat. The idea that the Union could build a fleet or occupy Canada or commerce raid is more wishful thinking than real life.
Click to expand...
Not to be insulting but the wishful thinking is the first half of that sentence. The Union could and did build a substantial fleet rather quickly, I suggest looking up the "90 day gunboats" used for much of the blockade. Commerce raiding would have had a much larger impact than you are giving it credit for, look at what the CSN's few raiders did to Union shipping, triple or quadruple that amount and send them after British trade and I think you get the picture.

I doubt occupying Canada was in the plans but invasion and spoiling raids, not to mention a thrust for the capital are not out of the realm of possibility.

Again, no, I'm not claiming the North was the Arsenal of Democracy of eighty years in the future, but it was no weakling pushover either. Northern industry and shipbuilding were really starting to flex their significant muscles by 1862, so to dismiss them out of hand is a fools gambit.

P.S. No, I am not implying you're a fool, far from it Basket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Aviation Pioneers. Glenn H. Curtiss And The Wright Brothers. The History Of Flight
Replies
1
Views
801
Gnomey
S
The Wright brothers’ patents (full text) and their low importance for aviation
Replies
3
Views
1K
Marcel
First powered aircraft in the U.S. inventory
Replies
1
Views
1K
vikingBerserker
Gatling Gun Operations as Shown in the movie Gunga Din
Replies
1
Views
2K
Greg Boeser
why didn't the Wright brothers think of ailerons?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
15K
pinehilljoe