- Aug 12, 2011
Well it seems you have everything all figured out, Britain blew it by not pick the easy fruit that was the US.Yes, but they could easily have felt they had more to gain by fighting a concurrent war - Trent being the obvious example.
It is my view that:
The British are very unlikely to intervene in the ACW without some major change. (Such as the US trying to spark a servile war, which would result in such bloodshed the British might feel compelled to intervene with other European powers to prevent the crisis).
The British might fight a concurrent war with the Union based on some other provocation - such as Trent, the easiest by far to turn into a war.
If the British did either, the effect on the Union war effort would be ruinous very quickly.
Trent is the example you seem determined to ignore. I may have missed it, but you don't seem to concede that Trent could quite easily have led to a war.
They might try, but Canada wasn't going to do anything of the sort. It's a diplomatic problem and a reason why the British might not align with the CSA, but at this time the USA is also a slave power; even as late as early 1863 the British believed that the Union was insufficiently anti-slavery to make them trust the Emancipation Proclamation, based on matters like the Greeley letter and the knowledge that the Fugutive Slave Law was still being enforced in the Union so long as the slaveowner was a loyalist.
Yes, the Americans would have just thrown down their guns and run for the tall grass, we were such cowardly low life’s.
Why even the North had slaves.