Losing a War - Long before Appomattox

[trice]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

We can debate theoretical wars between Britain and the North, tactics, how much damage etc. Certainly it would have increased the Confederacy's odds for survival greatly.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Tim, while the British made have grumped about defense costs in Canada, this shouldn't be interpreted as Canadian unwillingness to defend Canada, which they have successfully and enthusiastically throughout their history.

Anyone who has seen the record of the Canadian Army in 1918 on the Western Front would have no doubt of it.

But in late 1861, they just were in lousy shape, much like the US militias in 1860. In 1862 they didn't want to raise the money to prepare. If a fight had broken out, they would have looked much like the raw troops of early 1861 -- facing experienced, trained, equipped veterans. Even for brave men, that is a daunting prospect.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

But military intervention by the British was not even a possibility after the Trent Affair. And to be fair, why would they?

Looks pretty silly in hindsight. Probably was a silly idea. But some of them did think of it, and plan ways to carry it out. Calmer/wiser heads seem to have made sure it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

It's not that they feared Napoleon III, after all, they fought the US during a major war with the "real" Napoleon. What's the compelling reason for fighting the North?

French/British relations at that time were often tense. It really isn't until the Kaiser began building a battlefleet at the turn of the century that the British started warming up to the French as an ally, and there were several war scares about the in the latter half of the 1800s. The main reason the British had built Thunderer and Black Prince was the new ironclad race with the French in 1859 and after.

The biggest compelling reason for fighting the US seems to be a belief that the Americans were getting too big for their britches, on the prod, etc. Many thought Seward wanted to start a war (as he had suggested in early 1861) to end the rebellion. Before Seward even took office in 1861, Lord Lyons sent this to Lord Russell, the British Foreign Minister:
=====
I cannot help fearing that he will be a dangerous foreign minister. His view of the relations between the United States and Great Britain had always been that they are a good material to make political capital of. … I do not think Mr. Seward would contemplate actually going to war with us, but he would be well disposed to play the old game of seeking popularity here by displaying violence toward us.
=====
Seward, meanwhile, was overheard at a diplomatic reception the night news of British reaction arrived saying: "“We will wrap the whole world in flames.”

No good reason for a war existed, IMHO -- but one might have been stumbled into.

Regards,
Tim

[matthew mckeon]

This is an pedantic aside, but Canada has managed to defeat four American based attacks.

The first is the assault on Quebec led by Benedict Arnold in 1775-6.

The second was the various attempts during the War of 1812, including the destruction of one US force, in which Winfield Scott was captured, forced to surrender to a army of militia, all black units, Iroquois Indians and British redcoats. The burning of Washington by the British was in retaliation for the burning of York(later Toronto) Ontario.

The third was a filibustering expedition in the 1830s, which climaxed with the filibustering steamer was seized in a nighttime raid, set on fire and sent over Niagara Falls.

The fourth was a Fenian raid in the late 1860s, defeated by a force of militia and redcoats.

The Canadians would go on to develop "Defence Plan No. 1" in the 1920s, which called for a Canadian invasion of the United States, with Canadian forces occupying Chicago, Seattle and Northern New England, blowing up RRs and bridges and generally wreaking havoc.

Beneath the courtesy and maple syrup lurks a cunning and savage foe.

[whitworth]

"In 1862 the British were making very serious preparations for war with the United States."

Unfortunately, "fact" is often stated in one sentence increments, with no research as to why the British never went to war against the United States.

We see none of the negatives, why Britain never militarily, aided the Confederacy directly. Nor any of the good reasons, for Great Britain, not to get into the war.

During the Trent Affair, the British newpapers conducted their "war", unsupported by their prime minister and foreign secretary, who knew the consequences of war.

In the end the Trent Affair was disasterous for the Confederacy. It highlighted British weaknesses in Canada. While they thought they would be victorious in a war with the U.S., they however knew the cost in lost shipping to privateers. Britain had recent military problems in India to look after, and what became of the Confederacy, had no lasting importance to the British Empire.


Perhaps a sentence from a Confederate representative in Britain said it best about the total unlikelihood of any direct British assistance to the Confederate States

Henry Hotze, a Confederate agent in London sent a dispatch to the Confederate Secretary of State Hunter,
"the Trent affair has done us incalculable injury," Russell [British Foreign Secretary] is now "an avowed enemy of our nationality."
Pickett Papers. Hotze to Hunter, March 11, 1862

So much for serious preparations for war by Great Britain against the United States.

Unfortunately, those who advocate a Confederate position in the matter, never seem to ever study, sources that give a more accurate picture of Great Britain and their actual foreign policy, from the British standpoint.

Confederate States foreign policy, on the whole, was a disaster