Restricted British Intervention

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
I would imagine that aside from Britain not wanting to fight on behalf of slavery, there must have been other political and economics considerations to not intervening that had weight such as:
1) Threat to Canada
2) Impact on trade with USA
3) War weary? Continent always engaged in warfare, most recently in the Crimea. Will the people really tolerate another war?
4) Have no idea what government finances were in this era, but this must always be a consideration?
5) Isn't my big rival France, and contemporary global power is largely a balance between us and them? So do I want to waste resources and blood on something that doesn't involve that balance (I'm guessing on this one, I have no idea if its true)?

So my question is: Had the CSA abolished the institution of slavery from the outset and removed the main historical objection (as Tom Berenger said, "We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumter"), were there enough other objections that still would have kept the British out of the war? Perhaps more cynically asked, was the justification of moral high ground of slavery providing cover for other more practical (and less noble) reasons?
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top