USS ALASKA
Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
Having read through many of the threads relating to the possibility of European intervention in the ACW, I have a question that I couldn't find an answer to.
Was the potential loss of investment ever brought up as a reason not to intervene in the ACW? A tremendous amount of what would be now known as 'euro' dollars was invested into antebellum America. British, French, Dutch and German cash flowed into the US, especially in what would become the Union, if for no other reason than to park it some place 'safe' to get it away from the constant wars that seemed to plague Europe at the time. Was anyone mentioning to their Parliamentary representatives - "Hey dude, I have a load of pounds invested in American enterprises. If I lose that because we support the South and they get 'nationalized' or defaulted on, I can no longer monetarily support you in the manner I have been."
Were ANY investors campaigning with their respective governments to NOT support the South because of possible loses?
Thanks,
USS ALASKA
Was the potential loss of investment ever brought up as a reason not to intervene in the ACW? A tremendous amount of what would be now known as 'euro' dollars was invested into antebellum America. British, French, Dutch and German cash flowed into the US, especially in what would become the Union, if for no other reason than to park it some place 'safe' to get it away from the constant wars that seemed to plague Europe at the time. Was anyone mentioning to their Parliamentary representatives - "Hey dude, I have a load of pounds invested in American enterprises. If I lose that because we support the South and they get 'nationalized' or defaulted on, I can no longer monetarily support you in the manner I have been."
Were ANY investors campaigning with their respective governments to NOT support the South because of possible loses?
Thanks,
USS ALASKA