Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
The South abolishes Slavery. It makes the war a 'States Rights' issue.
Without slavery in the way, the British Govt. recognises the South. The growing power of the United States is dealt a severe blow. The British Empire's position is strengthened. Guaranteed cotton for the Lancashire Mills. What was becoming a new naval rival is in turmoil.
For the South, British Soldiers in Canada pose a threat to the US as does The Royal Navy. The blockade is broken. Arms flow to the South.
Would that have 'Saved the South'? Would secession have succeeded?
Would that have 'Saved the South'? Would secession have succeeded?
Interesting "what if" Spirit. Probably not. It would certainly have made the war longer and far more costly. The percentage of eligible manpower in the north was not significantly tapped for the WBTS. Participation of a foreign power would have stirred the "stay-at-home" population. France and Russia would have welcomed the diversion of British muscle to make international inroads Britain couldn't allow.
Just a thought.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The South abolishes Slavery. It makes the war a 'States Rights' issue.
Without slavery in the way, the British Govt. recognises the South. The growing power of the United States is dealt a severe blow. The British Empire's position is strengthened. Guaranteed cotton for the Lancashire Mills. What was becoming a new naval rival is in turmoil.
For the South, British Soldiers in Canada pose a threat to the US as does The Royal Navy. The blockade is broken. Arms flow to the South.
Would that have 'Saved the South'? Would secession have succeeded?
Not a realsitic what if, (one driven by hindsight i believe) the right to abolish or not abolish either exists at state or national level, the CSA was never going to force its members to abolish it any more than AH would have won WW2 if he had been nice to jews instead, the what if requires a fundamental change of the nature of the creature under debate, one that lacks any realstic possobility, let alone economic viability or historical reason for doing so.
Interesting "what if" Spirit. Probably not. It would certainly have made the war longer and far more costly. The percentage of eligible manpower in the north was not significantly tapped for the WBTS. Participation of a foreign power would have stirred the "stay-at-home" population. France and Russia would have welcomed the diversion of British muscle to make international inroads Britain couldn't allow.
Just a thought.
Ole
While what ifs are a lot of fun, i dont acept this as one of merit, but as a mental excercise, since the Northern states had already furnished a very high mil particpation ratio, its not clear that they could further increase it, modern states dont usually achieve this level of participation, let alone enhance it. France and the UK were very close to each other and likly to combine in any what if, and be opposed by Russia.
Thanks for the link, Hanny. Good stuff to have on hand.
An additional 1 percent participation in the Union would have been more than enough to take care of any invasion from Canada. It would have been that pesky navy. But seriously, would Britain sacrifice it's market northern market in order to get Southern cotton? (Which, by the way, she was doing alright without.)
England played it just right. She had little to gain by taking sides and a lot to lose if the other side won. By staying out, she didn't alienate anyone, so there could be no hard feelings no matter which side won.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Thanks Ole & Hannay. Good points and interesting ones. I think your point Ole, about the Northeners being motivated by a foreign power interferring is the most notable.
Hannay is right about the World 'Super Powers' of the day sitting back, that is also accurate.
The beauty of this site is being able to open up a thread and get some serious, considered replies back offering alternative viewpoints. Gets the grey cells ticking over!
The South's decision to hold cotton exports I think was a grave mistake. It didn't help the war effort and lost markets when the South needed to rebuild after the war.
As an Englishman I find the 'What if' the Confederacy succeeded facsinating. What would World Politics today be like? Would we still have had 2 World wars? (Probably but perhaps the World political dynamic would have created alternate alliances?)
People can correctly argue that such a discussion is a waste of time but I do wonder about it!
Thanks for the link, Hanny. Good stuff to have on hand.
An additional 1 percent participation in the Union would have been more than enough to take care of any invasion from Canada. It would have been that pesky navy. But seriously, would Britain sacrifice it's market northern market in order to get Southern cotton? (Which, by the way, she was doing alright without.)
England played it just right. She had little to gain by taking sides and a lot to lose if the other side won. By staying out, she didn't alienate anyone, so there could be no hard feelings no matter which side won.
Ole
Your wecome to the link and i hope you found it of intrest.
As to any esculation of the conflict, if UK and France come in then the 8k initial Uk to Canada rising to a projected 25k and arms for 50k Canadians, which btw were the new UK breachloaders as the UK was in the midst of re arming its armed forces with them, cav done first in 61, would no longer be the threat level, but one much greater than a 1% increase could safely cover.
My point is that there are two (or more!!,) ways of thinking about the WBTS, one is that the Northern states put an exceptionaly high number of men into the conflict, based on a macro statistical line of inquiry, and off the top of my head, about double or tripple the UK in either WW by way of comparison. That continued immigration to the Northern states replaced and increased the national population allowing a larger base population, but would not occur if the war esculated and control of the sea or european demarkation ports were not providing them, so while historicaly the north gains from the war years increase in adult males that come into the US and serve, it would not only in all probability lose them, but have to increase its induction of existing males just to stand still, as compared to CSA states declining, and if the war escualted, have to further expand, and since those who are avoiding service are doing so by paying a bounty, those drafted and serving instead of paying, will come from those who are doing agricutural or other work who cannot afford to pay a substitute.
Another way is that on the micro level, many educational places initially sent large numbers off to war and then by wars end were sending none, as an example of how we could argue that many more bodies were available for induction, and if the continetal US was invaded then they may indeed feel that service is better than payment.
I'm not sure which direction this thread is going.
1) Would Great Britain have intervened in the CW, devoutly to be wished for by the CSA? Afterall French intervention in the Revolution had been decisive.
2) With the intervention of Great Britain as a given, how would it have played out.
I think (1) was always remote. The CS strategy of a cotton boycott compelling British intervention was a projection of Southern dependence on cotton on others.
Phrases like "dealing growing United States power a great blow," and "strengthening the British Empire," are vague future wishes, while expending ships, millions of pounds and thousands of lives, in the hopes of gaining what exactly? are present reality.
French intervention in the Revolution was part of a larger struggle against Britain that had been going on for many decades. Absent such an compelling conflict, Britain had no real dog in the fight.
The idea of the CSA issuing its own Emancipation Proclaimation before Lincoln seems so outside the realm of possibility that "iits not even wrong."
I was just thinking of the enormous number if Irishmen in New York and New England. And wouldn't they have loved to see the British Army cross the Canadian border?
Spirit: Many believe that "what ifs" are a waste of time -- that what actually happened is the only goal of history. I find them an amusing game that frequently tickles the curiousity, thereby leading to untapped interests.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
As an Englishman I find the 'What if' the Confederacy succeeded facsinating. What would World Politics today be like? Would we still have had 2 World wars? (Probably but perhaps the World political dynamic would have created alternate alliances?)
I reject the premise. The Confederacy would have come back to the Union. The attitude of the "governing class" would have kept a constant tug toward separation, but the people would have eventually overruled them -- possibly with a civil war within the CSA. In just four years (granted, there was a war going on), that class proved inept in governing. Laws proposed before the shooting started hint that the CSA was quite class conscious and anticipated creating an "aristocracy." I don't believe the yeoman farmer or middle-class would have long put up with that.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
If England had recognised the Confederate States? 
Thanks for the thoughts. 
Linear Mode
