Britain declare war on Union, what happens to Emancipation Proclamation

What happens to the Emancipation Proclamation if Britain goes to war with Union


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
In otl the proclamation was seen as making it harder for outside powers to support the treasonous rebels.

Had Britain declared war would Lincoln have stilll made the proclamation.

I understand that some opposed it fearing it would look like an attempt to provoke murderous slave revolts.

I believe that it would make things a lot harder for any European power to back the confederacy
 
I think it would still happen, either at the same time or earlier.

I don't think the international community would care, they would see it as nothing but an attempt to spark a murderous slave revolt in the south, whilst not freeing one slave in the loyal border states.
 
It would happen sooner, so as to foment discord in the British (now enemy) government and populace. There was considerable support for the Union among the lower class in Britain. Abolition would clearly put the British government on the side of the slaveholders.
 
It would happen sooner, so as to foment discord in the British (now enemy) government and populace. There was considerable support for the Union among the lower class in Britain. Abolition would clearly put the British government on the side of the slaveholders.

If the values of the public affected realpolitik, then the Cold War would have gone down very, very differently.

Also note that the British lower classes couldn't vote in the 1860s.
 
They'd try to pull it off sooner, but as many have said allready, the international community wouldn't care, and see it more as a low attempt to weaken their enemies. Russia may support the Union more actively now though (given that their support in OTL was minor, and has only given the advantage of maybe keeping Britain out of the war) , as they would now also see it as an oppurtunity to beat the British in a proxy war, in which their party had a population and industry advantage.

This could have escalated the war into either a large scale European Proxy war that would get a repution similar as the War of the Triple Alliance had in South America.
There'd probably be fighting on the Northern Border of the Union as well. French and British support to the Confederacy, Russian excursions into Canada. You may even see the dire situation of the Union cause even more unfortune, as Mexico may use it as an oppurtunity to attack the Union for California, Arizona, New Mexico etc.

If the conflict were to also spark fighting in Europe, we may just have an early Great War this Timeline
 
I think the big question is when does Britain declare war. If it was close to Gettysburg and Vicksburg and those both happened there would be a good chance the emancipation proclomation happens

Edit:
Edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
If the values of the public affected realpolitik, then the Cold War would have gone down very, very differently.

Also note that the British lower classes couldn't vote in the 1860s.
well there were big voting reforms in the 60's. In 1867, just too late to matter.
 
If the values of the public affected realpolitik, then the Cold War would have gone down very, very differently.

Also note that the British lower classes couldn't vote in the 1860s.

Public opinion had a massive impact on the way wars were conducted, especially total wars.

It is possible that the British government might be able to sell a war against the United States as not being about slavery but the Confederacy is just the sort of ally that wouldn't let them do that. If Britain goes to war with the US, I expect serious civil disturbances in Britain which hamper the British war effort. This is to say nothing of the Irish situation...

teg
 
Public opinion had a massive impact on the way wars were conducted, especially total wars.

It is possible that the British government might be able to sell a war against the United States as not being about slavery but the Confederacy is just the sort of ally that wouldn't let them do that. If Britain goes to war with the US, I expect serious civil disturbances in Britain which hamper the British war effort. This is to say nothing of the Irish situation...

teg
That's kind of why the British Government couldn't support the Confederacy in order to undermine the US - too many British politicians and people would have seen it as supporting slavery
 
Nope. It's not going to happen, at all.

OTL, Lincoln waited until the Union had a major victory or two, so that the Proclamation didn't look like total desperation.

If the Brits enter the war, those aren't going to happen.

Moreover, the Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory. If the Union doesn't hold any such territory, Lincoln might as well Proclaim the Emancipation of slaves in Brazil or the Ottoman Empire.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In OTL the Proclamation resulted in fairly substantial Union desertion - at least one Illinois regiment basically went home.

But, more importantly, it would be seen as far too little and far too late- the British were doing something similar nearly a century ago - and in Britain they'd ask why the Union is only now declaring it will free the slaves of their enemies. (Even in rebel territory, properly certified loyalists got to keep their slaves.)

The British could reply by proclaiming slaves in the Union to be free, say.



Myself, I think the EP coming on top of everything else a war with Britain leads to might result in a collapse of popular war support- it would make the whole thing look like an attempt to push the Radical Republican agenda.
 
In OTL the Proclamation resulted in fairly substantial Union desertion - at least one Illinois regiment basically went home.

But, more importantly, it would be seen as far too little and far too late- the British were doing something similar nearly a century ago - and in Britain they'd ask why the Union is only now declaring it will free the slaves of their enemies. (Even in rebel territory, properly certified loyalists got to keep their slaves.)

The British could reply by proclaiming slaves in the Union to be free, say.



Myself, I think the EP coming on top of everything else a war with Britain leads to might result in a collapse of popular war support- it would make the whole thing look like an attempt to push the Radical Republican agenda.

I suspect the Union was perfectly willing to trade 130,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army for that one regiment.

Slavery was legal in the British Empire until 1833 (with the exception of the territories of the British East India Company) and 1843 in India (the last place it was legal) so hardly a century ago

I do think timing matters completely... it requires a victory and proof that it isn't an act of desperation. So it depends on how the war goes, how long it is, and then we can figure out the impact of it.
 
I think it all goes back to timing. When do the British declare and what is the situation in the world and the war.

Also looking back it was Antietam which was the victory that allowed Lincoln to issue it so we would need a British declaration that reached Lincoln before September 1862.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
I think it all goes back to timing. When do the British declare and what is the situation in the world and the war
The most obvious one is always Trent, as that's the one with the least barriers to British involvement.


The second most obvious one is basically a multilateral intervention, which would require:
1) Britain, France and Russia agreeing to it.
2) All three powers proposing mediation.
3) The Union declining and the Confederacy accepting.
In that case, definitionally Britain+France+Russia all declare war on the Union to get them to submit to mediation.


After that you're probably down to the following.

The British officially recognize the Confederacy as a nation. (Federal DoW follows.) Unlikely but possible.
The Union in some way violates British neutrality unforgivably. (Trent mk. 2, firing on a British warship and not apologizing, conscripting British subjects into the army...) Possible IMO.
The British do something which the Union declares war on them for. (e.g. Laird Rams). Also possible - though unlikely.
Union goes full vengeance on the Confederacy, with mass executions etc. Probably nearly impossible but could provoke a British intervention from sheer horror.

The latter four could all happen any time in the war. The multilateral intervention was OTL considered for about a month (the month pre-Antietam) and never got far. Trent is Trent.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The above fall into essentially two categories - in one the Union has done something pretty terrible, in the other the British have gotten themselves involved on their own initiative.

In the first case the emancipation proclamation won't help much - the focus is the outrage and the EP will look (if issued) like a desperate attempt to deflect, at home as well as abroad.
In the second case the EP alters the diplomatic landscape, and might make the British more inclined to a conciliatory peace or the like due to issues at home.
 
Slavery was legal in the British Empire until 1833 (with the exception of the territories of the British East India Company) and 1843 in India (the last place it was legal) so hardly a century ago

I can't speak for Saph, but I'm fairly sure "nearly a century ago" refers to the Somersett case of 1772, which abolished slavery in England and Wales (Scotland, with it's own legal system, took somewhat longer) freeing some tens of thousands of individuals and starting the ball rolling on abolition proper (and, depending on who you believe, motivating some previously fairly loyal types across the Atlantic into considering treason).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I can't speak for Saph, but I'm fairly sure "nearly a century ago" refers to the Somersett case of 1772, which abolished slavery in England and Wales (Scotland, with it's own legal system, took somewhat longer) freeing some tens of thousands of individuals and starting the ball rolling on abolition proper (and, depending on who you believe, motivating some previously fairly loyal types across the Atlantic into considering treason).
No, actually, I mean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore's_Proclamation
This.
And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipsburg_Proclamation
This.

The British were using emancipation as a weapon in the 1770s - the second one explicitly frees any slave who runs away from a rebel.

For what it's worth, this is what "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" means. That the British still had slavery at this point doesn't matter - the Union still had slavery when it passed the Emancipation Proclamation.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for Saph, but I'm fairly sure "nearly a century ago" refers to the Somersett case of 1772, which abolished slavery in England and Wales (Scotland, with it's own legal system, took somewhat longer) freeing some tens of thousands of individuals and starting the ball rolling on abolition proper (and, depending on who you believe, motivating some previously fairly loyal types across the Atlantic into considering treason).

Personally I give the Quakers most of the credit in what would become the 13 Colonies and then United States for the moral imperative in this country. They started the moral objections that gradually spread from there into more American churches (and resulted in schism in American churches along north / south lines). It spread to the Methodists on both sides of the Atlantic (including Wilburforce) so it was a movement that seemed to spread from the cross fertilization of American and British religious people and took root in both places basically at the same time.

Of course there weren't that many actual slaves in the British Isles, so it was a bit easier to restrict them when they were a novelty and not the basis of economies (like they were in the Sugar Islands and American South)
 
No, actually, I mean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore's_Proclamation
This.
And
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipsburg_Proclamation
This.

The British were using emancipation as a weapon in the 1770s - the second one explicitly frees any slave who runs away from a rebel.

For what it's worth, this is what "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us" means. That the British still had slavery at this point doesn't matter - the Union still had slavery when it passed the Emancipation Proclamation.

yep, completely disastrous result too as it also forced those of Tory sympathies who owned slaves (and there were a lot of them) to pick the side that wasn't directly attacking them economically..
 
Top