- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Location
- Central Ohio
Oh... and, contra Harry Harrison, the chances of the Confederacy uniting with the Union against the British are zero. Fugeddaboutit.
What form would such an intervention take?
I think the assumption is mostly naval, breaking the blockade, and/or blockading northern ports. The British have one glaring weak spot: any move against the United States could trigger a Union invasion of Canada. While the British and Canadians have a good track record in defending themselves against the US, the British would always have to worry about that.
The Brits could intervene simply by not buying Northern wheat and other products. But, this would hurt the British more than the U.S.Britain also import a lot of Wheat from the US. That would have to be replaced. Then there is the economic dislocation from the loss of US markets.
Good points.The Brits could intervene simply by not buying Northern wheat and other products. But, this would hurt the British more than the U.S.
... During the American Revolution, the French intervened decisively on our side ...
Dating the Anglo-American alliance to the years of the CW is a stretch. HM government kept the U.S. Minister Charles Francis Adams at something of a distance while never really engaging the Confederate commissioners. There was already a great deal of anti-British feeling in the U.S. and the British knew it. It might be better to look at the post war resolution of the Alabama claims and the San Juan Islands boundary question as the denouement. Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish and Grant can wear the merit badge for that.After Trent, both the US and Britain realized open warfare was not in their best interests, and they both increased their diplomatic efforts. There were plenty of rough patches, but on the whole it was a workable relationship, and some authors have actually dated the early beginnings of the firm 20th-Century Anglo-American alliance to this period.
I'm of the decided opinion that active foreign intervention on the Confederacy's behalf was pretty much a mirage. There was no tangible payback, and plenty of ways it could go wrong. Unless the US severely ticked off Britain (and they came close to the edge in the Trent incident), it wasn't going to happen.
After Trent, both the US and Britain realized open warfare was not in their best interests, and they both increased their diplomatic efforts. There were plenty of rough patches, but on the whole it was a workable relationship, and some authors have actually dated the early beginnings of the firm 20th-Century Anglo-American alliance to this period.
Both Britain and France would have cheerfully welcomed an invitation to mediate; but that was up to the Lincoln administration, which wasn't going to go that route. (A hypothetical McClellan administration, though, might be a topic for discussion.)
I just cannot imagine a possible reason for either European nation to go to war. Economically makes no sense. Militarily, It'll be hard to beat the Union on their own soil. Policitally, I don't think either nation could afford to get tied down or lose a foreign war.