WI: British and french had more involved in American Civil war?

So, what would happened if Someone who was more supporter of Confederacy had a talk with The Kingdom of United Kingdom and france to help them fight off United States?
would The Confederacy have won the civil war? would Slavery be still around: Likely or Unlikely?
Discuss.

AH.com would have to find another topic to have its flame-wars about.

It's quite possible that, once independent, the Confederacy would find itself screwed internationally - without the might of the North behind them, the British would have no compungtions basically bullying the South into stopping the slave trade.

(Note that this assumes the Confederacy gets free of the US - this is by no means guaranteed, Britain basically intervened in civil wars or independence wars only very rarely... the French might be induced to intervene, though.)

Saphroneth said:

It's quite possible that, once independent, the Confederacy would find itself screwed internationally - without the might of the North behind them, the British would have no compungtions basically bullying the South into stopping the slave trade.

(Note that this assumes the Confederacy gets free of the US - this is by no means guaranteed, Britain basically intervened in civil wars or independence wars only very rarely... the French might be induced to intervene, though.)

Click to expand...

How would it work if The South abolish all slaves? Can you please list me an example of Timeline where The South abolish all slaves.

Eric Cartman said:

How would it work if The South abolish all slaves? Can you please list me an example of Timeline where The South abolish all slaves.

Click to expand...

Thing is, I'm not sure one has been done. Most TLs with the British getting involved in the ACW have them doing it to have the crap kicked out of them by a North which has no problems going to war with their primary weapons supplier... and most TLs where the South survives are Lost Cause-y to start with, so tend not to go into the difficulty which would obtain in British-South relations basically from the word go. (Or just have the South free their slaves Because They Really Wanted To, which is just as lost-cause-y.)

The British were originally very sympathetic to the North, but their hopes that Lincoln would promptly lead a crusade south were scuppered by Lincoln's reconciliationist rhetoric in 1861... and they then hoped that the South would win free by itself, because then the North (no longer shackled to the rabidly pro slavery South) would weigh in with Britain against Southern slavery.

But if you're getting the British into it, the easiest PoD is the Trent affair which is one of the few ways you can really piss off the Victorian British (it involved ignoring the rights of neutrals at sea) and so there might be a souring of relations.


...but it's almost inevitable that the British would stop the American slave trade (now CSA) once the South was free - possibly making it a price of mediation, it's hard for me to be sure - and the RN was well known to take matters into its own hands. Not even captains - Jack Tar burned down the slave baracoons at Zanzibar multiple times on his own initiative.

Basically, for British attitudes to abolitionism, take US attitudes to "Freedom" in the early 21st century...

Saphroneth said:

Thing is, I'm not sure one has been done. Most TLs with the British getting involved in the ACW have them doing it to have the crap kicked out of them by a North which has no problems going to war with their primary weapons supplier... and most TLs where the South survives are Lost Cause-y to start with, so tend not to go into the difficulty which would obtain in British-South relations basically from the word go. (Or just have the South free their slaves Because They Really Wanted To, which is just as lost-cause-y.)

The British were originally very sympathetic to the North, but their hopes that Lincoln would promptly lead a crusade south were scuppered by Lincoln's reconciliationist rhetoric in 1861... and they then hoped that the South would win free by itself, because then the North (no longer shackled to the rabidly pro slavery South) would weigh in with Britain against Southern slavery.

But if you're getting the British into it, the easiest PoD is the Trent affair which is one of the few ways you can really piss off the Victorian British (it involved ignoring the rights of neutrals at sea) and so there might be a souring of relations.


...but it's almost inevitable that the British would stop the American slave trade (now CSA) once the South was free - possibly making it a price of mediation, it's hard for me to be sure - and the RN was well known to take matters into its own hands. Not even captains - Jack Tar burned down the slave baracoons at Zanzibar multiple times on his own initiative.

Basically, for British attitudes to abolitionism, take US attitudes to "Freedom" in the early 21st century...

Click to expand...

Have you ever checked the timeline here: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_(What_If_Timeline) it's basically an Timeline that take different direction than you suggested, i mean, can you imagine Internet, Video Games, and Etc if we'd had two Americas: United States Of America and Confederate States of America.

Eric Cartman said:

Have you ever checked the timeline here: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_(What_If_Timeline) it's basically an Timeline that take different direction than you suggested, i mean, can you imagine Internet, Video Games, and Etc if we'd had two Americas: United States Of America and Confederate States of America.

Click to expand...

Frankly that TL looks a bit silly, from my glance over of it.

And Video Games? Please - the whole history of the 20th century would be radically different simply from putting the massive Texas oil bloom in a different country to the industrial might of the NorEast US. (The TL has the July Crisis just happen - on time to the day, by the looks of it - despite the fact that it's fifty years and more since the divergence.)

Eric Cartman said:

Have you ever checked the timeline here: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America_(What_If_Timeline) it's basically an Timeline that take different direction than you suggested, i mean, can you imagine Internet, Video Games, and Etc if we'd had two Americas: United States Of America and Confederate States of America.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take ANYTHING on that site as even remotely plausible except superpowers, and even that has major flaws.

The British were reliant on importing food from the United States, not cotton. Why would they attack the North if it was the one supplying the food?

Also, the United States had banned the slave trade decades before the Civil War. The Confederacy probably wasn't going to try to change that. Perhaps you mean that the British might pressure the Confederacy to end slavery? That's certainly an option, but British banks would have so many lucrative investments to make as the Confederacy industrializes, and sanctions weren't really a thing in the 1800s. I'm sure the British had dealings with Imperial Brazil.

I'm starting to think there should be a Glossary of Anglo-French intervention in the American Civil War threads in this board just like the Sealion one.

Delta Force said:

The British were reliant on importing food from the United States, not cotton. Why would they attack the North if it was the one supplying the food?

Also, the United States had banned the slave trade decades before the Civil War. The Confederacy probably wasn't going to try to change that. Perhaps you mean that the British might pressure the Confederacy to end slavery? That's certainly an option, but British banks would have so many lucrative investments to make as the Confederacy industrializes, and sanctions weren't really a thing in the 1800s. I'm sure the British had dealings with Imperial Brazil.

Click to expand...

The US may have banned the slave trade, but Southern traders were still *doing* it - they basically hid behind their flag to avoid inspection by RN cruisers, and all other slave traders also hid behind the American flag.
It's one reason why Palmerston became so happy when the Union finally conceded the right of either visitation or search, it closed the largest remaining loophole.

As for Imperial Brazil, the British basically applied the Portugese grant of Right of Search to Brazil (semi secretly) and decided "f*ck it" if the Brazilians complained. They might well do the same to the Confederacy now that the CSA isn't nearly as powerful as the united US is.

darthfanta said:

I'm starting to think there should be a Glossary of Anglo-French intervention in the American Civil War threads in this board just like the Sealion one.

Click to expand...

It's possible, I suppose, but it's not like Anglo-French intervention is outright impossible... or, rather, that intervention for the sake of it may be unlikely but things like the Trent bring it much more into focus.

darthfanta said:

I'm starting to think there should be a Glossary of Anglo-French intervention in the American Civil War threads in this board just like the Sealion one.

Click to expand...

Saphroneth said:

It's possible, I suppose, but it's not like Anglo-French intervention is outright impossible... or, rather, that intervention for the sake of it may be unlikely but things like the Trent bring it much more into focus.

Click to expand...

The problem I have with intervention threads is that because they are often written from an American focus, they rarely bother to think about WHY Britain and France would intervene beyond very broad terms such as "angry about Trent" or "need cotton".

Slavery was deeply unpopular in Britain, and the Southern cause suffered because of it.

Both countries did, indeed, take part in numerous foreign interventions, but tackling a growing industrial power across and ocean is very different to intervening against China or Mexico. Napoleon III pretty much decided that he wasn't going to intervene in the Civil War without the British Navy to back him up and really Britain had more to lose by jumping in than staying out.

I'm not saying its impossible for intervention to happen, just that people could often do with thinking a little more about WHY.

Saphroneth said:

The US may have banned the slave trade, but Southern traders were still *doing* it - they basically hid behind their flag to avoid inspection by RN cruisers, and all other slave traders also hid behind the American flag.
It's one reason why Palmerston became so happy when the Union finally conceded the right of either visitation or search, it closed the largest remaining loophole.

As for Imperial Brazil, the British basically applied the Portugese grant of Right of Search to Brazil (semi secretly) and decided "f*ck it" if the Brazilians complained. They might well do the same to the Confederacy now that the CSA isn't nearly as powerful as the united US is.




It's possible, I suppose, but it's not like Anglo-French intervention is outright impossible... or, rather, that intervention for the sake of it may be unlikely but things like the Trent bring it much more into focus.

Click to expand...

I agree it's unlikely but possible.However,what I am trying to point out is that there's seems to be an excessive amount of threads about the possibility and consequence of Anglo-French intervention during the American civil war.

the UK and France weighing in on the CSA side would put an end to any hope the US has for winning the war, if it goes all the way to military intervention. Two massive blue-water navies, two of the biggest and toughest armies in the world (although France has quite a bit tied down in Mexico)... the south could achieve it's independence, but it's unlikely that slavery would survive all the way till now... international condemnation will eventually weigh in and put an end to it...

The rebellion was over, about, for, and because of slavery, as per:

Eric Cartman said:

So, what would happened if Someone who was more supporter of Confederacy had a talk with The Kingdom of United Kingdom and france to help them fight off United States?
would The Confederacy have won the civil war? would Slavery be still around: Likely or Unlikely?
Discuss.

Click to expand...

The rebellion was over, about, for, and because of slavery, as per:


Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention [Excerpt]
April 23, 1861

. . .One good and wise feature in our new or revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles and threatened dangers, you will indulge me in a few remarks as not irrelevant to the occasion. The condition of the negro race amongst us presents a peculiar phase of republican civilization and constitutional liberty. To some, the problem seems hard to understand. The difficulty is in theory, not in practical demonstration; that works well enough—theories in government, as in all things else, must yield to facts. No truth is clearer than that the best form or system of government for any people or society is that which secures the greatest amount of happiness, not to the greatest number, but to all the constituent elements of that society, community or State. If our system does not accomplish this; if it is not the best for the negro as well as for the white man; for the inferior as well as the superior race, it is wrong in principle. But if it does, or is capable of doing this, then it is right, and can never be successfully assailed by reason or logic. That the negroes with us, under masters who care for, provide for and protect them, are better off, and enjoy more of the blessings of good government than their race does in any other part of the world, statistics abundantly prove. As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not his equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both. Why one r ace was made inferior to another, is not for us to inquire. The statesman and the Christian, as well as the philosopher, must take things as they find them, and do the best he can with them as he finds them.
The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal; that the negro is equal to the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be legitimate. But their premises being false, their conclusions are false also. Most of that fanatical spirit at the North on this subject, which in its zeal without knowledge, would upturn our society and lay waste our fair country, springs from this false reasoning. Hence so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws. We have heard much of the higher law. I believe myself in the higher law. We stand upon that higher law. I would defend and support no Constitution that is against the higher law. I mean by that the law of nature and of God. Human Constitutions and human laws that are made against the law of nature or of God, ought to be overturned; and if Seward was right the Constitution which he was sworn to support, and is now requiring others to swear to support, ought to have been overthrown long ago. It ought never to have been made. But in point of fact it is he and his associates in this crusade against us, who are warring against the higher law—we stand upon the laws of the Creator, upon the highest of all laws. It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal. My assurance of ultimate success in this controversy is strong from the conviction, that we stand upon the right. Some years ago in the Hall of the House of Representatives, a very prominent gentleman from Ohio, announced with a great deal of effect, that we at the South would be obliged to yield upon this question of slavery, because we warred against a principle; and that it was as impossible to war successfully against principle in politics as it was in mechanics. The principle, said he, would ultimately prevail. He announced this with imposing effect, and endeavored to maintain that we were contending against the great principle of equality in holding our fellow men. in the unnatural condition of bondage. In reply, I stated to him, that I admitted his proposition as he announced it, that it was impossible to war successfully against a principle in mechanics and the same was true in politics—the principle would certainly prevail—and from that stand point I had come to the conclusion that we of the South would ultimately succeed, and the North would be compelled to yield their ideas upon this subject. For it was they who were contending against a principle and not we. It was they who were trying to make the black man a white man, or his equal, which was nearly the same thing. The controlling laws of nature regulate the difference between them as absolutely as the laws of gravitation control whatever comes within their action—and until he could change the laws of gravitation, or any other law of nature, he could never make the negro a white man or his equal. No human efforts or human laws can change the leopard’s spots or the Ethiopian’s skin. These are the works of Providence—in whose hands are the fortunes of men as well as the destiny of nations and the distinctions of races. . . .

This text is taken from George H Reese, editor, Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention of 1861, February 13 - May 1; In Four Volumes, Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1865, volume 4, pp. 361-390)

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html

The rebellion would no more give up on slavery than Nazi Germany would give up on anti-semitism; both defined their respective regimes.

As far as European intervention, there's no strategic interest and tremendous costs; the only way such an intervention could even come close to occurring is a cascade of events that makes the guns of August look deliberate, which is what was used to kick off Burnished Rows of Steel.

As to how well such an intervention might fare, one could consider the fates of the European powers that historically did engage in conflict in the Nineteenth Century in the Western Hemisphere; they were, universally, negative, in any sense of imposing a settlement beyond (charitably) status quo antebellum in the case of the British in 1812-15 and complete failures in terms of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French, and as late as the 1860s.

As has been stated, France was already in one quagmire in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s; adding a second, or even transposing the location of the first one, would have led to nothing but failure; as far as the British go, if anything, they are in a more challenging strategic position than the French, because the British actually have territory in North America that is vulnerable to the US in the 1860s and so had to be actively defended, unlike the French.

Best,

Reydan said:

The problem I have with intervention threads is that because they are often written from an American focus, they rarely bother to think about WHY Britain and France would intervene beyond very broad terms such as "angry about Trent" or "need cotton".

Slavery was deeply unpopular in Britain, and the Southern cause suffered because of it.

Click to expand...

The Northern cause suffered too - the North still had slaves early on and indeed made moves to protect slavery. (Such as reversing emancipation measures attempted by some of their more abolitionist generals.)

It's also worth noting that Trent was a pretty big thing - it amounted to the US stopping and searching a neutral ship which was travelling from neutral port 1 to neutral port 2, and then removing people as contraband.
This is a precedent which absolutely no-one on the planet wants to let stand, including France, Prussia, Austria and Russia (all of whom sent messages of support to the British over the crisis).
Trent is not a minor incident. It's actually an act of war, though one which gets disavowed before it can become a war... but it was close, which is why the British sent an ultimatum.

Actually, the British government's own legal advisors said it was perfectly legal

Saphroneth said:

The Northern cause suffered too - the North still had slaves early on and indeed made moves to protect slavery. (Such as reversing emancipation measures attempted by some of their more abolitionist generals.)

It's also worth noting that Trent was a pretty big thing - it amounted to the US stopping and searching a neutral ship which was travelling from neutral port 1 to neutral port 2, and then removing people as contraband.
This is a precedent which absolutely no-one on the planet wants to let stand, including France, Prussia, Austria and Russia (all of whom sent messages of support to the British over the crisis).
Trent is not a minor incident. It's actually an act of war, though one which gets disavowed before it can become a war... but it was close, which is why the British sent an ultimatum.

Click to expand...

Actually, the British government's legal advisors said the treatment of Trent was perfectly legal, even without Wilkes forcing Trent into harbor for a court review.

See page 22-24, here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044020088118#view=1up;seq=28

To appreciate the true significance of the interview described in his diary by Mr. Adams it is necessary to bear in mind that it took place on the 12th of November, the Confederate envoy having been taken on the 8th from the Trent. On the day preceding his talk with Mr. Adams, Lord Palmerston, it now appears, had addressed the following letter to J. T. Delane, the editor of the Times:


My dear Delane:

Britain was probably more inclined to intervene on the side of the Union, something to do with the whole anti-slavery thing. Even then I think they'd limit support to supplying more munitions and pursuing Confederate raiders on the high seas.

It's worth pointing out that along with burning Chambersburg,

Salamander said:

Britain was probably more inclined to intervene on the side of the Union, something to do with the whole anti-slavery thing. Even then I think they'd limit support to supplying more munitions and pursuing Confederate raiders on the high seas.

Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that along with burning Chambersburg, the ANV was routinely enslaving civilians during the Gettysburg campaign.

Cavaliers they were not.

They were tough, ruthless men waging a war that came as close as any to total war in the period.

Best,

Answering the question more generally, without addressing any of the long running debates and a disagreements, there are a number of hard points any foreign intervention in the ACW is going to hinge around.

1. Almost no-one seriously wants the Trent incident to turn into a war. Lincoln has one war. The British are coming off of a major and serious revolt in the jewel in their crown. Both powers prefer unobstructed sea lanes and the status quo of peace. The US would prefer not to manufacture everything at home; the British like grain coming in. The British would rather keep getting rich and expanding the areas they control at peace. Wartime armies are expensive, especially when...

2. The North Atlantic is a Big, Wide Ocean. Goes without saying, but its something to consider. Compared to the Wars of the French Revolution, armies need more. More bullets, more powder, more shot and shell. Warships can't elegantly sail as long as they have food supplies, coal is bulky, heavy, and gives warships short legs. Sealift takes a lot of ships. Very little can match the railroad in that day and age. This affects the use of...

3. The British Army is Quite Good, but has a list. In 1861, the U.S. has a lot of good engineering and staff officers, but for how to use a regiment of rifles, the British have an edge, and doesn't need to unlearn as much. Regiment for Regiment, the British have an edge. They have fewer regiments though, and likely less ability to expand quickly, and again - they also have to hold down a good sized chunk of the globe. AS referenced in (1), if the choice is between India or Boston, the choice is India. Bleeds into...

4. Time is very much on the Union's Side. Every passing month is more for the USA. More indigenous production of war material, more tactical competence, more competent men in high command, fewer idiot illusions. There's a faction that views the ACW U.S. Army as just another tribal society to be swept aside by a few volleys by the redcoats; but one remains skeptical. Each month is also another month where British merchant shipping is not hauling resources to the UK and finished goods to market. Again, all for an avoidable war of choice, dealing with...

5. The American Civil War Was About Slavery. The myth making of the war not being about slavery doesn't exist until after the war. The South needs to lose, and abolition needs to be achieved, for the South to need another tale of what it was really about. Now honestly, I don't think this is as big a bar to British intervention as others do. Chattel slavery is horrible. But read up on British India to see how little of a shit the British cared when the rubber hit the road.
Still though, you can argue that the British cared a great deal about putting the veneer of progress over the reality of colonial exploitation. Supporting a band of feudal throwbacks does not do this.

You can make a tale where the Union still succeeds; you can make one where the some segment of the South obtains some measure of independence - likely as a British client, as has been mentioned above. Heck, you can make one where the British regain their colonies and the British run their Empire worldwide for all time - but it's a heavier lift.

Still though, those five need answer.