English Intervention

[Leah's Choice]

Browsing through the pages of a civil war calendar on my desk, I see the following listed on the page for September 5th:

"On September 5, 1863 British forces stopped the shipment of two ironclads from Liverpool, thus dashing Confederate hopes of British support during the war."

At one time it seemed that England might get involved in the war to help the Confederates. My impression is that for some time they were sort of waiting around to see which direction the war would take, not wanting to tangle with the U.S. if the war started going in their favor. September 6, 1863 was, of course, just two months after two major victories for the Union. To what extent did that impact the stopping of the two ships?

I've also read that another thing that stopped the English from intervening in the war was their disapproval of the practice of slavery in the South.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

I'm probably way wrong, but I don't think the support was ever very close.

I think it was sort of like this:
There was a political element in England who wanted to see the US fail (not so far removed from war of 1812), and they made some noises. However, England had been patrolling the coast of Africa to stop the slave trade, and it would have taken something monumental to get them to commit an army to support slavery.

Henry Adams' autobiography (told in 3rd person) is probably worth reading: "The Education of Henry Adams" I think it was called.

Not that something monumental couldn't have happened, but Confederate foreign policy was baffling and anything significant would have happened in spite of it rather than because of it, I think.

 

[cw1865]

Canada/Europe

The UK was much more powerful than the US on the eve of the Civil War. Obviously the British relied on the strength of its fleet and a relatively small professional army bolstered by local colonial forces. If Britain commits to the South fully, it does present a threat to Canada, but it also diverts British attention which could be exploited by France or a Russia. We see this in the American Revolution where the split between Britain and America was exploited by Britain's rivals.

I tend to think that if the Brits were going to intervene it would've been limited to simply breaking the blockade.

 

[matthew mckeon]

The strategic situation in the Revolution was that France and Spain were willing to help the Americans in order to strike at their British rivals. In 1860, Britain and France were at peace, and neither had a dog in the American fight.

Senator Hammond nonwithstanding, no nation, besides the South, was going to fight a war for king cotton.

Britain, in its long history, has proved willing to use military force to defend its interests repeatedly. But what vital British national interest would be served by intervening in the American Civil War?

The British came very close to recognizing the Confederacy in 1862, after Lee drove McClellan down the Pennisula and defeated Pope. McClellan's relative success at Antietam, and Lee's withdrawal from Maryland meant the British went back to watchful waiting. The Emancipation Proclamation made recognition of a slaveowning government vs. an anti slavery government less likely.

The royal family of the time, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, were against intervention, and most of the middle and working classes considered the north more egalitarian and democracy than the South, as well as anti slavery. Some of the more aristocratic segments of society sympathetized with the South.

But sympathy is not the same as national interest. When it came to expending lives, ships, and treasure, the British would do it, but it had to be for a solid reason

 

[Brit]

Sadly I think the influence of a valuable commodity was influencing the foreign policy of a major power in the middle of the nineteenth century (now isn't that familiar; how we fail to learn from history!) Britain desperately needed cotton to clothe the population of its burgeoning industrial cities and the blockade hit hard. The British government were under pressure to recognise the confederacy from those in the UK who made their money from cotton. As CW1865 says, there was no chance of the UK getting involved militarily. By recognising the CSA, it is likely that France would have too; followed by the rest of Europe. This would have put a lot of pressure on the Lincoln administration to sue for peace.

Following Gettysburg and Vicksburg (and I think I have the same calendar on my wall as you, Leah), those in the British government who were opposed to supporting the south, precisely because of its support for slavery, were able to nudge the Palmerston government towards a more 'northern friendly' stance

As to any animosity towards the US following the war of 1812; I think we were rather of the opinion that we came out better from that one (!!) But I think any ill feeling (such as it was) was jealousy against the tremendous (as was) latent power of the US and the challenge that would pose to British foreign interests, rather than feelings of revenge

Mark

 

[wilber6150]

If Im not mistaken wasn't there a bumper crop in cotton production in the years preceeding the Civil War. This allowed the British warehouses to be filled with cotton needed for production..Thus reducing any impact on the lack of exports of this commodity from the South..

 

[johan_steele]

Egyptian Cotton was used to replace Southern Cotton and it did so in spades. There is also Queen Victoria who I suspect may have had something to say on the matter.

By 1863 I think it was obvious that the CS was broken w/out hope of sucess. Napolean had proven that stunning battlefield victories don't win wars but steady strategic victories did and the CS never won a strategic victory. At best they stemmed the floodtide of defeat for short times.

UK military analysts were intelligent enough to see that the CS had no chance w/out foreign intervention of the kind only England could have provided. And while the US navy may not have been seen as a threat the idea of US privateers turned loose on UK shipping could not have been a cheery thought.

 

[ole]

I usually credit superior Union diplomatic efforts. Of course, the Confederate set-backs didn't hurt, but the diplomatic efforts did not begin with July 4th.

Ole

 

[whitworth]

"At one time it seemed that England"

It's repeated over and over, mostly by neo-confederates, but proof that the British government was going to go to war with the United States, is never given.

The words like it "seemed" is just a cover for a drastic mistake of the Confederates, that their shortcomings would never be met. The imbarrassment of British non-involvement is covered up, over and over.

Great Britain was a great and brightly lead nation. They recognized the dream world that the Confederacy was living under, very early in the war.
Neo-Confederates never quite understood, long after the Confederacy existed a short four years.

 

[Savez]

"On September 5, 1863 British forces stopped the shipment of two ironclads from Liverpool, thus dashing Confederate hopes of British support during the war."

I don't believe this is what dashed Confederate hopes of British support. There were several more ships built for the Confederacy that the British authorities turned a blind eye to or gave only a half-hearted effort to stop.

Stephen Fox's book "Wolf of the Deep" has a very interesting chapter on this very subject and is a very good read.

 

[ole]

Where there's money to be had by some influential people, sometimes the politicians roll over and go back to sleep. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ole

 

[13th Alabama]

From what I've read over here, The British Govt. wouldn't have been unhappy with a Southern victory as that would have split the nation. Even in 1860, it was clear to Britain that the United States posed the biggest potential threat (Economic) to British interests. A superpower in it's infancy. Elements in France and England would have pushed for recognition of the South had Lee prevailed at Gettysburg. Had that happened, unless Lincoln was disposed, the Union would fight on. Recognition is one thing, military support another.

Even using Canada as a springboard wasn't ever a serious option, despite Pickett's endevours!!

................another 'If Only'.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Trent Affair, which nearly brought the Union and the British Empire to blows in late 1861, after a Union warship illegally (in the eyes of the British) stopped a packet steamer carrying Confederate diplomats to Britain, and took the men off the ship.

The British mobilized their fleet and sent reinforcements to Canada. A letter of protest was drawn up that was so-strongly-worded that accepting it would have made the Union look weak (which, therefore, made its acceptance unlikely). Prince Albert intervened and toned down the letter, which eventually allowed for compromise. Albert died just a week or so later, and it's easy to speculate as to the consequences if the letter had been sent in its original form,

In the event of war between the Union and the British Empire. . . bye-bye blockade of the South, hello blockade of the Union.

 

[Henry]

CSS Texas and North Carolina Seized

Your calandar is in error, Leah. The date of the seizure of the C.S.S. Texas and North Carolina was October 9, 1863. One of my ancestors was waiting to crew the Texas vessel when ready at Laird's yard when Lord Palmerston ordered the seizure. Bulloch shuffled him around, sending him to France on Navy buisness (He saw the battle between the Kearsage and the Alabama from shore). You can thank the diplomatic efforts of Francis Adams, U.S. envoy in England for halting these powerful warships from sailing under Southern colors.
Warships (several small iron and steel hulled torpedo boats) were still produced and smuggled out of England after this, but the large yards were under constant scrutiny. Regards, Yankee