AHC:Brittian intervenes on the side of the north in the civil war

So the AHC that I’m challenging you with today is a timeline where the Brittish empire joins on the side of the union during the american civil war
 
Essentially staying out of it is being on the Union's side, especially when the common people were pro-Union. Officially joining in the military stuff would make the war end that much faster but not look good on the Union side either, which both Union and Empire would understand.
 
Um... the Union wouldn't let them, considering as far as domestic and international legal theory was concerned it was, in fact, a Civil War and therefore the Federal army was putting down a domestic insurrection. Allowing the British government to formally involve itself would de juro involve recognizing the Confederacy as existing, to say nothing of the... prickly political situation of allowing British forces to operate in American waters/soil for an extended period.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
International legal theory could accomodate assistance to a government putting down a rebellion. The Union would be polite about offers of help and accept many forms of help offered but would want to minimize external strings attached and maximize its own credit for winning the war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A perfectly acceptable form of assistance for the Union would have been British help suppressing rebel piracy on the high seas.

Of course, OTL's situation of neutrality was actually pretty profitable for Britain and British merchant shipping.
 
Simply having the UK not allow blockade runners under the British flag, no credit to the CSA, and enforce no sales (such as ships) to the CSA would speed up the demise of the CSA. While a significant percentage of the cargoes carried by blockade runners were "private" and luxury items (more profit), imports from blockade runners provided a lot of items the CSA either could not produce or only in limited amounts and allowed them to fight on longer. If the RN does its best to stop blockade runners from Bermuda and the Bahamas it hurts the CS warmaking ability significantly. The other biggie was loans/credit, the sale of cotton bonds being permitted by the UK.

It should be noted that as far as relations with the USA/CSA the French under NIII followed the lead of the UK. If the UK did as above, the French would do the same, cutting off another source of goods and credit for the CSA.
 
The South would have to be close to winning for Britain to intervene. And it has to be after Antidiem, since before then the war was viewed as "slavers vs... less slavers plus their allies"
 
Confederate agents hid out in Canada, using it as a base for various raids (bank robbery and such) on New England and New York and to sneak around the north. While remilitarizing get the border would be an issue, getting the US and British to some agreement on making it a crime to cross national borders to commit crimes (such as how crossing state borders in the US to commit a crime ups it to a felony), and we might see some help against Fenians later on, not that it would really be needed.
 
Um... the Union wouldn't let them, considering as far as domestic and international legal theory was concerned it was, in fact, a Civil War and therefore the Federal army was putting down a domestic insurrection. Allowing the British government to formally involve itself would de juro involve recognizing the Confederacy as existing, to say nothing of the... prickly political situation of allowing British forces to operate in American waters/soil for an extended period.
They could phrase it as something like "helping a friendly nation to suppress a dangerous rebellion", maybe?
 
They could phrase it as something like "helping a friendly nation to suppress a dangerous rebellion", maybe?
No real reason to do so. Copperheads wouldn't go for it and the Draft Riots would get even worse. People would accuse Lincoln of selling them all out to the Redcoats. I can only imagine the sheer amount of cartoons they would have showing Lincoln as tall and sticklike next to a short and stout Victoria.

Anyways, unless the US ASKS the British to support them, then the Brits would be accused of invading the US if they set foot on their soil. Having Parliment pass an act banning the trade in goods ade through slave labor might help.
 
Maybe you could set up some sort of Trent War-type scenario, except that ITTL it's the Confederacy seizing the ship instead of the Union. If British public opinion gets sufficiently annoyed by this (not necessarily difficult, given that the CSA was quite unpopular already), the Brits might send a punitive force against the Confederacy, regardless of whether or not the Union wants them to.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Maybe you could set up some sort of Trent War-type scenario, except that ITTL it's the Confederacy seizing the ship instead of the Union. If British public opinion gets sufficiently annoyed by this (not necessarily difficult, given that the CSA was quite unpopular already), the Brits might send a punitive force against the Confederacy, regardless of whether or not the Union wants them to.

If that's the case, and if the Brits attack the Confederate held coast, the US can't say boo about it.

If there's a lot of fanfare and warning of an approaching British flotilla, the Union can leverage the fact that it's coming to message to the Confederate coastal fort commanders, and port city politicians "hey, want to surrender to us before you get smacked hard by the Brits". Probably won't change surrender decisions much, but might work here or there.
 
Is there a possible scenario where Napoleon III pulls some kind of stupid move that puts him in opposition to Britain (maybe involving Mexico?) in such a way that the ACW turns into a proxy war with Britain supporting the North and France the South? I know that this is highly implausible to say the least, but it’s an interesting outcome to think about.
 
Napoleon III oddly wanted to stay on good terms with Britain and Austria (funny, considering he screwed the Austrians once). He decided if the British recognized the Confederacy, he would use his navy to get on the South's good side and make them part of his sphere of influence (hey, if Britain recognizes them, they got to be a viable state right?). The Emancipation Proclamation torpedoed that idea.
 
A CSA privateer either gets greedy or has a case of mistaken identity and starts raiding British shipping. Britain is outraged, but either the loot is too much for the CSA to pass up or they feel honor-bound to dig in their heels (plus arrogant due to good Confederate showing in the opening of the war), resulting in Britain getting extremely pissy about the whole thing. Things escalate as more privateers get involved, resulting in an undeclared naval war and Britain handing an ultimatum to the CSA: Apologize and pay reparations or military action will be taken. At this point, any reparations would likely cripple the CSA war effort, and sunk cost fallacy will likely be in play, resulting in the CSA feeling forced to refuse even without honor to contemplate. Britain blockades and embargoes as well as trying to seize Richmond or another major city with marines.
 
@Roland Traveler: While a mistaken identity could cause a British ship to be attacked by a CS privateer, when they boarded it and examined the ships' papers, the British registry would be obvious. While there was a good bit of stupidity and pig-headiness in the CS leadership, pissing off the UK was not part of it. Absent all sorts of manufactured goods from guns to medicine from the UK (and France who followed the UK lead) the CSA would have been incapable of fighting the war for too long. CS manufacturing and captured Union supplies simply were not enough. If the privateer captain did not release the UK ship with an apology immediately, when it sailed to a port to be sold and cargo taken/sold, if in the CSA the government would immediately seize it and return it, if elsewhere the CS would disavow the action and declare the particular ship and crew piratical. One of the major goals of the CSA from day one was to do whatever it could to have the UK recognize the CSA as a nation.
 
@Roland Traveler: While a mistaken identity could cause a British ship to be attacked by a CS privateer, when they boarded it and examined the ships' papers, the British registry would be obvious. While there was a good bit of stupidity and pig-headiness in the CS leadership, pissing off the UK was not part of it. Absent all sorts of manufactured goods from guns to medicine from the UK (and France who followed the UK lead) the CSA would have been incapable of fighting the war for too long. CS manufacturing and captured Union supplies simply were not enough. If the privateer captain did not release the UK ship with an apology immediately, when it sailed to a port to be sold and cargo taken/sold, if in the CSA the government would immediately seize it and return it, if elsewhere the CS would disavow the action and declare the particular ship and crew piratical. One of the major goals of the CSA from day one was to do whatever it could to have the UK recognize the CSA as a nation.

I'm aware how much the CSA relied on Britain, but they were also a society full of (to put it generously) proud aristocratic douchebags, long may they reign. If a seizure was somehow spun into a thing about honor, I believe the CSA would at the very least be uncooperative. This is a country that started a war because they felt like they were losing control and proceeded to drag it on for as long as possible because they felt it would dishonor them not to.
Of course this would have to happen before the war gets bad for the Confederacy. I'd say between First Bull Run and Gettysburg the CSA could be overconfident enough that they would believe that they could defeat the Union before British repercussions would matter or that King Cotton would keep Britain from doing anything. The CSA weren't known for being the most rational people.
 
@Roland Traveler: While a mistaken identity could cause a British ship to be attacked by a CS privateer, when they boarded it and examined the ships' papers, the British registry would be obvious. While there was a good bit of stupidity and pig-headiness in the CS leadership, pissing off the UK was not part of it. Absent all sorts of manufactured goods from guns to medicine from the UK (and France who followed the UK lead) the CSA would have been incapable of fighting the war for too long. CS manufacturing and captured Union supplies simply were not enough. If the privateer captain did not release the UK ship with an apology immediately, when it sailed to a port to be sold and cargo taken/sold, if in the CSA the government would immediately seize it and return it, if elsewhere the CS would disavow the action and declare the particular ship and crew piratical. One of the major goals of the CSA from day one was to do whatever it could to have the UK recognize the CSA as a nation.

I don't know, I don't think much of the CSA's ability to think, especially their civilian administration. Now if only the British didn't speak English, this would be very easily to work, but it's a bit harder to digest when the priates examine the ship's papers. Good old stupidity saves the TL (and doom the South even more)?
 
Top