Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
The South also overestmiated the British need for American cotton.
And the backlog in English warehouses from the previous bumper crops. The workers started getting pinched later in the war, but by that time it had become quite clear that the Confederacy was fighting, not for justice or freedom or independence, but for fearing that their slaves would be emancipated.
Good to see you active again, Doug. We've missed you.
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
England as the world's leading producer of cotton cloth, was actively engaged in trying to find ways to break the effective monopoly of southern cotton. The war sped up Britains attempts to raise cotton in imperial colonies, Egypt, India et al.
British direct military assistance to the Confederacy
Hard to kill an idea that never happened.
By the time of the Virginia and Monitor, the great British navy was obsolete. It was a virtual all wooden navy in 1862, despite a few ironclads.
To come within coastal range of North America during the Civil War, Britain needed ironclads to offset the coastal monitors. And those ironclads needed to be superior to the Union monitors because of the required crossing of the Atlantic Ocean.
Defending Canada would be astronomically expensive for the British compared to the War of 1812, as the U.S. would have supplied any invasion troops by railroad. The U.S. would only need a few monitors in the St. Lawrence River to create great havoc for the British and Canadian ports.
Besides, Britain had an empire to defend, that was far more important than a Confederate government in North America.
By the time of the Virginia and Monitor, the great British navy was obsolete. It was a virtual all wooden navy in 1862, despite a few ironclads.
To come within coastal range of North America during the Civil War, Britain needed ironclads to offset the coastal monitors. And those ironclads needed to be superior to the Union monitors because of the required crossing of the Atlantic Ocean.
Defending Canada would be astronomically expensive for the British compared to the War of 1812, as the U.S. would have supplied any invasion troops by railroad. The U.S. would only need a few monitors in the St. Lawrence River to create great havoc for the British and Canadian ports.
Besides, Britain had an empire to defend, that was far more important than a Confederate government in North America.
"...Merely a name list of the British navy's vessels in 1860 would be sufficient to make the point that their fleet was an overwhelming force. In specifics, the inventory included fifty-three steam ships of the line (60 to 131 guns and 2400 to 4200 tons), plus twenty-one on the ineffective list. (The United States had no steam liners.) There were 128 steam cruising vessels -- corvettes, sloops and frigates -- plus ten sailing ships of the line and an equal number of sailing frigates and sloops. Screw and paddle-wheel gunboats of 2 to 6 guns numbered 197.
During the years of the Civil War, twelve new ironclads were commissioned, totalling approximately 212 guns. These were oceangoing ships with broadside batteries. As will be seen, the American ironclads were almost exclusively coastal or river vessels..." http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/...eignnavies.htm
Seems to me that we are discussing two different points:
1) why would the British or French intervene in the CW?
2) forget about why, HOW would they intervene, and would it be decisive, as the French alliance had been in the Revolution?
[i]Why would they?[i]
Neither Britain or France had a compelling reason to intervene, if by intervention, raising thousands of troops, transporting and sustaining them in America, organizing and dispatching a fleet, and sustaining the losses, and millions of pounds sterling all this would cost.
In Britain, some influential elements wanted Southern victory. Many others wished for a federal victory. But actually expending lives,ships and money is another matter.
OK, its not likely, but what would it have looked like?
Britain did reinforce its garrisons in Canada. What about a British build up and invasion of New England? A huge Union force would have to be dispatched north to defend that territory, and General Lee would breath easy.
Of course, the Irish in New York might stop objecting to the draft, if they could fight the British invader!
A major British fleet action to break the Union blockade, and a counter blockade on the North. Very "doable."
A British expeditionary force that would actually fight alongside the CS army. General Lee with Longstreet, Early, Hill and Sir Nigel Whoever's division. This might be the least likely, if for no other reason than Canada is vulnerable to a Yankee invasion.
Of course Lincoln and the Federals would have responses to these actions, which would take a great deal of time to develop and execute.
Britain or France had a compelling reason to intervene, if by iNeither ntervention, raising thousands of troops, transporting and sustaining them in America, organizing and dispatching a fleet, and sustaining the losses, and millions of pounds sterling all this would cost.
That about says it all so far as official aid goes.
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 British army was, and in fact always has been quite small. In numbers, the British army was probably less than 200,000 strong. Many of these troops were based in far flung corners of the empire such as India or South Africa.
Depends on what you mean by the British Army. The Regular Army was bearly 250,000 strong in peacetime (and roughly doubled in each major war of the previous century rather quickly). Of those, East of the Cape (India, China and NZ mainly) consumed about 80,000-90,000 troops, the remainder are at Home, in the Med or America.
The Militia was a reserve to the Regular Army, who did the full training of a regular but only served in wartime. They numbered about 160,000, and had been mobilised fairly frequently, freeing the Army from its garrison duties West of the Cape.
The Volunteers were another reserve modelled on the Volunteer Militia of the US (and hence Canada). They exceeded 200,000 troops circa 1861. Finally, changes in terms and conditions had created a regular Army Reserve a decade earlier of a few tens of thousands.
The Canadian Volunteer Militia expanded massively in the 8 weeks of the Trent Affair from 5,000 odd to over 35,000 and was still expanding. The Canadian Beat Militia starting callouts, and 14,000 of the 38,000 callouts were answered (much higher than expected), with another 250,000 odd callouts unprocessed.
Perhaps 150,000 regulars, volunteers from the Militia and Volunteers and trending towards 50,000 Vol Militia and 100,000 Beat Militia were thus available to defend Canada, not that shy of the size of the entire Union Army (ca. 545,000 inc mobilised militia)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blockaderunner
The British tended to recruit locally born troops to protect the empire. The Bengal Lancers and Natal Native Contingent spring to mind.
and Canada was no different, only Canada had a system similar to the US, but with an intact Beat Militia system (until 1867).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blockaderunner
The Royal Navy on the other hand was huge. Again if my memory serves me right, the RN was bigger than any two other navies in the world combined. As to whether the navy would have been sent to the aid of the Confederacy, I am personally not convinced. The reason being that Union ships would then start operating against British merchant ships. As a nation who relied on world trade this would be a disaster.
No, the plan was to smash the blockade, impose a blockade of the north and convey expeditionary forces to take key points (an assault on Ft Monroe being one of the first)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blockaderunner
I do agree that it is interesting to think what would have happened if British troops had been sent to Canada and French troops to Mexico. My own view is that the war might have lasted longer, but the end result would have been the same. Future relations between the US and Anglo/French would have been strained to say the least.
The amount of combat power the British can bring to bear is huge. Since the Union is straining to campaign against the Confederacy, the additional burden of fighting the British, with no money or gunpowder (since the Union was reliant on Britain for both) would probably cause the Union to collapse.
In fact, simple armed neutrality would cause immense harm to the Union. The economy would collapse and they'd no longer be able to equip the army. It's worth noting that the US war debt to Britain lasts until the Great War (when British borrowing wipes it out).
What I'm not sure about it this; did the British find it not feasible in the end to intervene in the CW?
The French, especially Napoleon III, were too busy with Mexico to do anything without British support.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
The Sepoy Mutiny in India was still fresh to Imperial planners, the risk to the Jewel in the crown, would weigh more heavily than saving the slaves of the south.
Whenever British planners considered Canada, they always considered the 'problem' of Quebec. Inciting a war for National Liberation to the South always had to considered in the light of what were the Quebecois thinking?
While the Senior Service, was away in America, what would the French fleet be up too? Prussia was testing the waters of 'Real Politik' on the Continent. Even Russia, was seeing to her interests by courting Washington.
All in all not a good time to take ones eye off the ball of Imperial necessities.
Far to much risk for not that much gain. Chose either side and earn the everlasting enmity of the other, no matter the outcome. Far wiser to sit it out and offend no one. When it's over, retained access to northern grain and southern cotton -- business as usual.
Colonize one or the other? No thanks. Those cursed Americans are too much trouble. Easier to get along and more profitable to simply resume trade when they are finished squabbling.
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. 
Linear Mode
