No Peace Without Victory

[rivrrat]

There was also a lot of anti-slavery sentiment in England and not a lot of support for military intervention. They liked selling arms, ships and such, but even the British Navy would have ben hard put to supply an expiditinary force in the US. The US Navy was no longer the frigate navy of 1812.
The French were a pretty empty threat, despite Napoleon III pretentions. They simply didn't have the Navy to support a war on this side of the Atlantic. Look at their inability to support a pretty small force in Mexico.

[trice]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

There was also a lot of anti-slavery sentiment in England and not a lot of support for military intervention. They liked selling arms, ships and such, but even the British Navy would have ben hard put to supply an expiditinary force in the US. The US Navy was no longer the frigate navy of 1812.
The French were a pretty empty threat, despite Napoleon III pretentions. They simply didn't have the Navy to support a war on this side of the Atlantic. Look at their inability to support a pretty small force in Mexico.

In April of 1861, the USN was a weak force with few modern ships and many delapidated ones in desperate need of repair. During the course of the Civil War, the USN rapidly built up to a force of several hundred seagoing warships and ironclads. Depending upon what point in there we are considering, the opinion of the Royal Navy would be very different indeed.

But in any case, there was little strategic reasoning to support a need for war with the US. Access to Confederate cotton might have become one -- but it would always have to compete against the need for US food imports coming through New York from the Mid-West. Emotionally, a lot of the British upper class seem to have relished the idea of seeing the Yankee "cousins" get a thumping and taken down a peg or two, but that doesn't mean they saw any reason to get involved in a far-off war to make it happen.

Regards,
Tim