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!
My husband posed this scenario to me today and I thought it would make a good "What If" thread.
Charlie was reflecting on some data that he'd read that indicated Jefferson Davis and other Southern leaders in 1862 were extremely interested in soliciting help from European friends primarily, England or France.
They had opinions that to show worthiness of European support it would be good stradegy for the CSA to launch aggressive campaigns into Kentucky and Maryland in 1862. Evidently the campaign was used by the Europeans as being so successful they felt the CSA did not need any assistance and they didn't want to dirty their hands or risk the expense.
But what if one of them had wanted to become a partner with the CSA? What would have happened then? And what would the world be like today?
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
The fall of New Orleans made Europe blink at the thought of recognizing the Confederacy.
However, had Europe (France and England) recognized the Confederacy, huge Union reserves would have to be kept to watch the home front. We already know that Napoleon III wanted Mexico and when he propped up his own Hapsburg Emperor, both North & South were incensed. The Canadian border would have more units, draining off vital personnel. While the U.S. Navy with its monitors and ironclads could fight off foreign ships individually, the blockade would have been extremely difficult to maintain since an individual blockading squardron would be at the mercy of a larger fleet.
A vote in the British Houses of Parliament came close to recognising the Confederacy as a nation. If memory serves me right, I think the motion lost by only one vote. This was in 1863 before Gettysburg. Any military assistance for the Confederacy would surely have been very limited. 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. The British tended to recruit locally born troops to protect the empire. The Bengal Lancers and Natal Native Contingent spring to mind. 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.
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.
A vote in the British Houses of Parliament came close to recognising the Confederacy as a nation. If memory serves me right, I think the motion lost by only one vote. This was in 1863 before Gettysburg. Any military assistance for the Confederacy would surely have been very limited. 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. The British tended to recruit locally born troops to protect the empire. The Bengal Lancers and Natal Native Contingent spring to mind. 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.
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.
Question for Blockaderunner:
Is it true that British warships assisted British commercial vessels in running the blockade of Southern ports?- Escorting them on the approach to the coast...and covering them as soon as they made the run out of port?
I agree with those who feel help from overseas would be half-hearted, at best, (possibly amounting to only accepting Confederate ambassadors).
France was only interested in furthering its aims in Mexico, feeling that a smaller, less developed, independent Confederacy, would be less likely to actively oppose French presence in Mexico, than would a hostile, united, Federal Gov't. But France was having difficulties of her own in Mexico and needed no more troubles further North.
Great Britain knew active participation in aiding the Southern war effort would lead to war. Previous experience of trying to conquer the North American Continent, had pointed to the amount of effort, manpower and treasure that would be required to further Confederate political goals.
Another consideration for the British Gov't was the fact that there was another Emperor Bonaparte on the throne just across the Channel, with obvious imperial designs outside the borders of France..
I have never come across any evidence of Royal Navy ships escorting blockade runners. In 1863 the British government impounded two ironclads being built for the Confederacy. There is evidence that British merchant ships warned commerce raiders such as the CSS Alabama of the approach of US Navy ships.
The RN keeping watch on the French is certainly true. In fact some British ironclads were so large that very few ports outside of England could handle them. Not really a problem if the French were an enemy, but not much use if they had to fight the US Navy. During the period leading up to the Civil War a number of forts were constructed on the south coast of England in preparation for a possible war with France. The view of the French as an enemy lasted up to the First World War in many peoples eyes. British novelists in the 1900's wrote about war with France.
But what if one of them had wanted to become a partner with the CSA? What would have happened then? And what would the world be like today?
I suspect that the threat of cutting off the large quanities of foodstuffs going
to Europe, coming from America would have put a huge damper into much,
if not all, of the help France or England would give the CSA. Especially during 1861-1863.
Chuck
One other point worth a mention, is that the British people were divided in their support. There were industrialists who welcomed a divided America. As the US was a rapidly growing economic power, they were of the opinion that the war would halt industrial growth. They were wrong. Industry during the war expanded rapidly. Many other people were in favour of a war to end slavery. There were strikes in English cotton towns as workers refused to handle cotton picked by slaves.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
What About English Or French Aid For Csa? 
Linear Mode
