usertron2020
Donor
the Royal Navy could cause havok for the Union in this era but the British Army (50-60K worldwide) was tiny and still recovering from their dismal performance in the Crimea.
Its amazing though how the Sun Never Sets Crowd (British Exceptionalists, for those who don't know the term) will make serious arguments that every last militiaman and constabulary official can be shipped (teleported) to America's shores to overwhelm her defenses in a single fortnight.
The British don't NEED the British Army in an Anglo-US 1861 War. The CS Army fills that role quite well, thank you very much.
They don't need to, the Royal Navy breaking the Union blockade of the South PLUS establishing one over the North is enough. Economic collapse for the North will force the US to accept all but the most draconian peace terms. Unless Britain is looking for Unconditional Surrender.I can't see Britain spending the cash to ship 150,000 soldiers (the minimum to make a difference in an american land war) across the Ocean, lose the Union as a profitable trading partner, effectively subsidize the entire Confederate army all so they can get some (but not all) cotton shipping again.
I don't see the South EVER giving up Chattel Slavery whatever the damages done to Slavery on the plantations. And those in the Deep South and Texas won't have been as badly affected.Also, even in victory, the southern way of life was due to change as slaves would escape en masse for the next few decades without any Fugitive Slave Laws left in the north. Even losing a minority of their slaves would bankrupt thousands of plantation owners and expedite the eventual emancipation.
A couple of things.
Anglo French relations are strained at the time.
Britain loves blockades, the more international rules in favour of blockades the better, continuous blockade as US law is a major win for the RN.
VERY very true.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Who was the biggest seller? The Sun?The Times does not make policy (its not even the biggest selling newspaper at the time).
I think it was that the London Times WAS considered/perceived by the Union to speak for the Powers That Be in Whitehall and the House of Lords. I think it was only after Sherman finished his March to the Sea that it was realized in America (long since already realized in Great Britain) that the London Times was the Fox News of its day. When Sherman took Savannah, the London Times declared that Sherman "...had escaped to the sea!"
If the USA acceptable a British alliance against the Confederacy, it would totally destroy their own legitimacy as a sovereign government. They might as well have burned the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and asked London to appoint a Governor-General to Washington where he would rule by decree!The UK makes far more money of the US than it ever did off the CSA. Its actually more likely that the UK allies with the US.
Not to mention that the Confederacy could then declare that THEY were the true representatives of an Independent America.
Simpler to just say "No" to the French, who would be the only power even remotely interested in intervening.or even more likely just says How? to any European power thinking of intervening.
Personally I always counted the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars as separate, but that's just me.It would be the third world war anyway (7 years and Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars).