Absolutely No British Support of the CSA

well all know that the British legitimately supporting the Confederacy in the ACW is borderline ASB, but historically there was some support of the South from Britain, mainly in supplying the CSA with weapons and warships (though they also sold guns to the Union)

anyway, does anyone think that absolutely no British meddling in the ACW would affect the war in any way? with even less of a navy and fewer weapons, would the South be defeated sooner? and what repercussions would this have in general? for instance, if the war ended sooner, would Lincoln not be assassinated?
 
On the contrary, I think it would be dragged out a bit longer. Wasn't the reason for the risky "March on the Sea" the risk that Britain might recognize the CSA? Without that threat, the USA might use a more conventional strategy.
 
that definitely takes some wind out of the Lost Causers' sails :D so perhaps it lasts Lincoln's entire administration without him being assassinated? d'you think he'd shoot for a third term if the war dragged on long enough?
 
Without the blockade runners, the CSA would never have lasted as long as it did. They provided the majority of weaponry, clothing, and medicine, as well as civilian goods that kept the situation on the home front from being totally intolerable.

It would likely be over by 1864 at the very most, though 1863 is more likely.
 
hm...that raises an interesting question: if the South wasn't fighting as hard as it could for as long as it could, would Lincoln feel the need to announce the Emancipation Proclamation? could this therefore mean that slavery isn't abolished in the US until sometime after 1865 (when it was abolished IOTL). i think i'll try to preemptively look into the time of abolition in each former slave state in the US to get some ideas as to when it could be abolished in the south
 
hm...that raises an interesting question: if the South wasn't fighting as hard as it could for as long as it could, would Lincoln feel the need to announce the Emancipation Proclamation? could this therefore mean that slavery isn't abolished in the US until sometime after 1865 (when it was abolished IOTL). i think i'll try to preemptively look into the time of abolition in each former slave state in the US to get some ideas as to when it could be abolished in the south

If so I'd give it no more than 5-10 years, tops. The war will just further solidify the anti-slavery politicians in power, and the South is still going to be temporarily powerless as a result of losing the war. The Northern politicians of the time had shown very clearly that they were willing to sacrifice the slavery issue for national unity again and again, but once the war breaks out, I think they're going to go in for the kill. Most of them, including Lincoln, assigned slavery as the sole reason for the rebellion. It would make practical sense to abolish it while you had the chance and the South is defeated and unable to stop it. They were afraid of the Union-aligned slave states jumping ship in OTL, but in either timeline, once the war is over that will no longer be an issue.

Now, with no Civil War, it would be an entirely different story.
 
Last edited:
so slavery would still be abolished at the end of the war, then. ;) what do you think about Lincoln's potential survival?
 
its more to the point of Booth doing the deed. if Sherman doesn't undertake his March to the Sea, do Booth and his group still resolve to murder him? and what about some of the other Confederate generals, like Lee?
 
historically there was some support of the South from Britain, mainly in supplying the CSA with weapons and warships (though they also sold guns to the Union)

I think "also" may be understating the case somewhat. Between 1st May 1861 and 31st December 1862 Britain shipped 341,000 rifles and 49,982,000 percussion caps to the North- a figure which some suggested could be revised upwards by between a third and a half to allow for items shipped as hardware. Taking the "absolutely no meddling" literally results in smaller Northern armies and fewer early offensives, perhaps cancelling Burnside's expedition or the one to New Orleans for want of troops, and with a commensurate effect on popular support for the war.
 
On the contrary, I think it would be dragged out a bit longer. Wasn't the reason for the risky "March on the Sea" the risk that Britain might recognize the CSA? Without that threat, the USA might use a more conventional strategy.

No, that wasn't what Sherman marched to Savannah at all for. :rolleyes:
 
okay, so far we've established:

  • if there's no risk that the British may recognize the CSA, the war may drag on longer because the risky Marsh to the Sea isn't undertaken, leading the USA to taking a more conventional strategy
  • alternatively, the war may end sooner because the CSA isn't supported by British blockade runners and therefore don't have as much supplies to keep up their war effort; the war in this case would likely end by 1863 or 1864
  • regardless of when the war ends, slavery will likely be abolished in the US shortly after it does, though the Emancipation Proclamation may not be issued depending on how long the war goes or how hard the fighting is
  • in any case, without British support, the war will last no more than five to ten years. anti-slavery politicians will still be further solidified and the South will still be temporarily powerless following the war (because the South will lose; it was pretty much impossible for them to do so IOTL, and i'm not changing that ITTL)
  • Lincoln may or may not be assassinated following the war
  • no British support and meddling at all, however, also means that the North has fewer weapons and ammo to use against the Rebels, which may mean smaller Northern armies, fewer early offensives, and Burnside's expedition or the Capture of New Orleans being canceled, which could affect popular support for the war
does anyone have any other ideas? one thought which occurs to me is that maybe, due to butterflies, the North devotes more professional soldiers to the war effort rather than just volunteers and conscripts
 

frlmerrin

Banned
The biggest change would not be in the Civil War itself but in international jurisprudence. It would no longer be possible for a nation to act as a neutral in a civil war within a second nation. By default the foreign government must support the existing government in a Civil War. This is the necessary legal requirement to get the practical result the OP wants. In the 1860s if Britain took rhi stand the rest of the world would (eventually) follow. In other words it would never happen as it is not in the British interest for it to happen. An ASB just not an obvious one.
 
Fewer purpose built raiders like the Alabama might meant the US ends the war with at least a reasonably sized merchant navy. In OTL hundreds of US merchant ships fled the star spandled banner flag never to return.
 
On the contrary, I think it would be dragged out a bit longer. Wasn't the reason for the risky "March on the Sea" the risk that Britain might recognize the CSA? Without that threat, the USA might use a more conventional strategy.
Source please?
 
IIRC the Blockade runners were bought through third party agents and not directly by the CSA and it would have greatly upset Britain's standing as a world armaments producer to have introduced a new Act of Parliament to prevent such things from occurring.
 
Without the blockade runners, the CSA would never have lasted as long as it did. They provided the majority of weaponry, clothing, and medicine, as well as civilian goods that kept the situation on the home front from being totally intolerable.

It would likely be over by 1864 at the very most, though 1863 is more likely.


I'm not sure anything is as concrete as all that ... if the Rebels realized that they were going to be running out of everything in such a short time and they had zero opportuntiy for replenishing those stores (no blockade runners) then perhaps strategies would have been changed to directly invade the North sooner and with different outcomes than OTL Antietam/Gettysburg. A concentrated strategy to win a decisive outcome on Northern soil sooner might have changed things if Washington was more of a target at the outset. Just my 2 cents ...


Answering the OP, and with all that said. I also think that the war would have been shorter but I say that not with complete certainity as those early Union commanders just a likely might have found some way to stumble allow for a major Confederate opportunity.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I'm not sure anything is as concrete as all that ... if the Rebels realized that they were going to be running out of everything in such a short time and they had zero opportuntiy for replenishing those stores (no blockade runners) then perhaps strategies would have been changed to directly invade the North sooner and with different outcomes than OTL Antietam/Gettysburg. A concentrated strategy to win a decisive outcome on Northern soil sooner might have changed things if Washington was more of a target at the outset. Just my 2 cents ...


Answering the OP, and with all that said. I also think that the war would have been shorter but I say that not with complete certainity as those early Union commanders just a likely might have found some way to stumble allow for a major Confederate opportunity.

Well, unless the South assasinates him, the Union is in the war to 1864 regardless if Lincoln is president. Which means, in a European-less conflict, the South will have to survive to then. In a situation where Europe doesn't support the South but allows the North to function as the legitimate government, the South is probably over by end of 1862. In a truly neutral Europe, that boycotts both North and South, the Union probably overuns in 1863, but that probably butterflies away the rest of the 19th century and early 20th century as we know it, as the re-proachmont between the U.S. and England at least of the late 19th century is probably more difficult to secure.

Anyways, on balance, the percentage of total goods the North recieved from foreign sources was less than the precentage of total goods the South recieved from foreign sources. To believe the the south would have done better in such a scenario is to believe that too many resources relative to their enemy is what constrained the South's war-fighting abilities.
 
Top