No. It grants some legitimacy to the CSA on the world stage and opens the door to some sort of intervention, maybe not direct military intervention against the Union, but nothing it results in is good for the North.
ACW: Does diplomatic recognition of the CSA inevitably lead to military intervention?
- Thread starter dcharles
- Start date
History Learner
Banned
As others have said, the U.S. did make it clear through channels that recognition would result in war which, if they did follow through with it, would mean military intervention obviously. Likewise, in late 1862 when it appeared the Anglo-French were heading towards recognition, the Royal Navy had been made ready and it was clear London seemed to either believe that their recognition would trigger U.S. action or they found it necessary to engage in such to back up said recognition.
Overall though, as technical matter, the Anglo-French need not deploy force. Merely cutting off the supply of military goods to the Union would be sufficient to cripple and collapse the Federal Military.
Except the monroe doctrine is utterly irrelevant until the 20th century; no one cares and the US isn't a real power yet. France was intervening in Mexico literally at the same time as the civil war for example. Speaking of which, I think that is actually going to make French intervention in the Civil War unlikely even with diplomatic recognition, their hands are already full elsewhere.
Europeans many not have cared about "The Monroe Doctrine", but the Union does.
Good point on cutting off military goods to the Union. Selling more ships to the CS navy and supplying loans and weapons etc would make a big change.
OTL PeterTait inLimerck where I live in Ireland made uniforms for the state of Alabama in1864 and smuggled the for the port of Foynes in the Shannon estuary to through the union blockade..
Book Review: Imported Confederate Uniforms of Peter Tait & Co., Limerick, Ireland
Peter Tait: Limerick industrialist and Confederate Army supplier
Peter Tait: Limerick industrialist and Confederate Army supplier
When considering Irish involvement in the American Civil War, what is mostly likely to come to mind are those who supported the Union, and more specifically, the men who fought in combat. Indeed, o…
www.anfocal.ie
Last edited:
Why does that matter if you're going to be recognizing CSA anyways? That is what is going to piss off the US, not that anyone is violating the irrelevant Monroe Doctrine (which was already occurring anyways!).
As far as recognition goes, it depends on who is recognizing them in terms of relevance. France could recognize the CSA I suppose, but they're busy with Nappy's empire building in Mexico and elsewhere, so real contribution to the Confederates cause is unlikely even with recognition. Prussia and Austria both have way bigger concerns with German Unification about to be underway (and the Second Schleswig war). Spain is a sick power, so frankly who really cares. Russia is busy in Central Asia, which leaves Britain as the only country in any position to really help the CSA, but its a politically dangerous move at home to be supporting a State who's entire basis is slavery, and King Cotton was never a good strategy since Britain could (and OTL did) move to other sources in India for cotton (besides which, the British economy was robust and could deal with a short term cotton slump if it did happen), which all told makes British recognition exceedingly unlikely. Recognition from anyone else probably doesn't effect the war one way or the other and just acts to annoy the US.
History Learner
Banned
The Federals/Union were almost entirely dependent on the Anglo-French for things like gunpowder and lead.
History Learner
Banned
The above is American lead production during the Civil War era.
On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs
Lead imports from Britain by year
1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs
From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. I'll try to find gunpowder stats in just a second.
dcharles
Banned
The above is American lead production during the Civil War era.
On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs
Lead imports from Britain by year
1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs
From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. I'll try to find gunpowder stats in just a second.
I see where you're getting the graph from. Where's the other information coming from?
Also the Brtish had a large stock pile of cotton before the war.
The French and British could build a llot of ship for the CS Navy. I do not think the French could send many troops.
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
Last edited:
dcharles
Banned
Interesting, and thanks for the legwork. Do you know what accounts for the spikes in '62 and '64?
History Learner
Banned
You find the same pattern in nitrates; not sure if this is due to how they counted the years (Federals did June of 1862 to June of 1863, etc for example) or if the Federals bulk bought goods.
There are also statistics like at Gettysburg 22% of the Infantry Regiments of the Army of the Potomac being armed with Enfield Rifles, only 33% were exclusively armed with Springfields. The next most common weapon was the Austrian Lorenz.