Britain declares war on the Union in 1862....

[Thande]

I can't really see the British and French saving the Confederacy from destruction - they COULD do it, but it wouldn't be politically possible. But the lessons learned from what troops WERE sent there might - emphasis on might - have an effect on later wars. In particular they might hammer home the important of repeating weapons and the idea that the defensive side has a great advantage in that era (much as Turtledove has Schlieffen learn in 1881). This might then have an effect on later European wars such as 1870 - as well as cooling relations between Britain and France and the United States. The former might not be so ready to cooperate with the Monroe Doctrine afterwards, potentially leading to later clashes.

 

[Thundertaker]

From what I've read, throughout most of the 19th century it was the Royal Navy that enforced the Monroe Doctrine anyway, because the British saw it was to their advantage to stop other European nations from colonising the americas. Maybe with a British/CS victory, there would have been a 'scramble for South America' in the same way their was for Africa in the 1870s and 1880s....

 

[Thande]

Britain would get Argentina, but I don't know about the rest. Maybe Germany would get some South American colonies too.

 

[Grey Wolf]

From what I've read, throughout most of the 19th century it was the Royal Navy that enforced the Monroe Doctrine anyway, because the British saw it was to their advantage to stop other European nations from colonising the americas. Maybe with a British/CS victory, there would have been a 'scramble for South America' in the same way their was for Africa in the 1870s and 1880s....

Hmmm, the thing about the Scramble for Africa was that it was largely in the face of tribal peoples that it occurred, the Berlin Conference basically saying that if European states' existing positions required them to advance against native states then fine. The Hinterland doctrine, where the definition of hinterland is continually evolving as once you've taken the hinterland of your colony, the security of THAT new colony requires you to continue to advance (eg the driving force behind the British conquest of Sokoto). Imperial rivalries add additional urgency to this.

But in South America you have established post-colonial states with European-descended or mixed-race elites. These are not native states. The only exception is the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia, the Mapuche state in the South which had a brief period of unity as a kingdom in the 1860s before Argentina and Chile pulled it apart

Grey Wolf

 

[Dave Howery]

this is kind of vague, but I always wondered about the different styles of fighting between Europe and the US during the time of the ACW. The two sides in the ACW fought pretty much the same way... lines of infantry preceded by skirmishers, with cavalry a force mainly for raiding and operating on the fringes of battles. Infantry armed with rifles, officers with sabers and repeating pistols. How did European forces operate? All I really know of them at this time is their colonial battles, which is scarcely the same thing, as their opponents tended to be low tech types.

 

[Faeelin]

The Union has to attack. It gains nothing by sitting on the defensive. And as I said any conquest of Canada will simply be undone by the peace treaty where the USA has to recongise the CSA. There are innumerable examples form history (eg Britain v Spain in the 1760s) where one side conquers loads of another's territory then gives virtually all of it back in the peace treaty

Grey Wolf

But the US may very well make it a prerequisite to peace. "Okay, you want to let the south go free? Then give us Western Canada."

 

[Grey Wolf]

this is kind of vague, but I always wondered about the different styles of fighting between Europe and the US during the time of the ACW. The two sides in the ACW fought pretty much the same way... lines of infantry preceded by skirmishers, with cavalry a force mainly for raiding and operating on the fringes of battles. Infantry armed with rifles, officers with sabers and repeating pistols. How did European forces operate? All I really know of them at this time is their colonial battles, which is scarcely the same thing, as their opponents tended to be low tech types.

I'm no student of land warfare, but I got the impression that cavalry featured a lot more in European warfare, perhaps because of its elite status and the long tradition behind it. After all, if you have a load of cavalry available, highly-trained and operating in good country, then you use it. If you have only minimal forces then you use them differently

Grey Wolf

 

[Faeelin]

After a string of victories encourages Lord Palmerston and Napoleon III of France to recognise the Independence of the CSA, the British declare war on the Union in order to break the blockade and free the southern cotton trade essential for England's booming cotton industry, what happens next?

Then the British people rise up in a Socialist revolution as the lack of grain from the US and Canada makes them starve?

Seriously, why the hell should the British decide to land thousands of troops to support the CSA? Breaking the blockade, sure, but the rest?

And in any case, all the Brits proposed was mediation; essentially, talking about independence.

 

[Dave Howery]

I'm no student of land warfare, but I got the impression that cavalry featured a lot more in European warfare, perhaps because of its elite status and the long tradition behind it. After all, if you have a load of cavalry available, highly-trained and operating in good country, then you use it. If you have only minimal forces then you use them differently

Grey Wolf

I think the reasons cavalry got relegated to second class status in the ACW is first because the combination of minie ball rifles and bayonets made it suicidal to attack infantry lines head on, and second because of the loooooong border between the two combatants. It was impossible for either side to really guard such a distance, and it was only natural for both sides to send fast moving cavalry units over the border to tear things up. The south had the advantage at first, as their 'upper class' citizens had a long tradition of horse riding, and people such as JEB Stuart, Moseby, and Quantrell were pretty notorious. Once the north got better organized, though, they turned the tables on the Rebs, and sent hordes of cavalry throughout the south to disrupt railroads and other lines of communication. From what I've read, the cavalry in the ACW were relegated to raiding, scouting, and guarding the flanks, as well as operating against enemy cavalry trying to do the same things.

 

[Dave Howery]

one question about cotton diplomacy... was it all that powerful? I thought I read somewhere that Britain planted vast fields of cotton in Egypt and India precisely to rid themselves of dependency on the south, and that these fields came into production during or right after the ACW.....

 

[Derek Jackson]

I think that there would have been A LOT of opposition in Britain to fighting for slavery, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation.

In addition I think war with Britain would have tended to unite the Union in favor of war.

I also have a query about its effect on the South. In OTL there were significant Unionist minorities in the White South. Might not the prospect of fighting along side the traditional enemy have strengthened those elements.

 

[Norman]

From what I've read, the cavalry in the ACW were relegated to raiding, scouting, and guarding the flanks, as well as operating against enemy cavalry trying to do the same things.

It is my understanding that ACW cavalry, correctly armed was a very effective weapon but not in a traditional sense. When it was armed with repeating rifles, it was able to move quickly, then fight dismounted.

If England were to use cavalry against the north, there is a chance they would have used it largely as an 'aristocratic' type force, which would not have stood up well against the increasing firepower implicit in the weapons of the ACW.

 

[67th Tigers]

It is my understanding that ACW cavalry, correctly armed was a very effective weapon but not in a traditional sense. When it was armed with repeating rifles, it was able to move quickly, then fight dismounted.

If England were to use cavalry against the north, there is a chance they would have used it largely as an 'aristocratic' type force, which would not have stood up well against the increasing firepower implicit in the weapons of the ACW.

Not at all. All the cavalry (barring the Lancer regiments) were armed with breachloading rifles (mainly the Westley-Richards, except the 8th Hussars which had Sharps), revolvers and could fight mounted or dismounted.

 

[Timmy811]

Thundertaker: I was kind of pulling your leg. Harry Harrison wrote the 'Stars and Stripes' books, regularly nominated for the 'stupidest alternate history ever' award, in which exactly the situation I described happens.

I think Aktarian's scenario is most likely. It'd be hard for Britain to enter the war and keep Canada, because of having to ship a huge army there to defend it. However France, with nothing to lose, might start a shooting war.

BTW, while Britain was abolitionist, that doesn't mean it won't support the CSA. Even without the whole was-the-ACW-about-slavery-or-not debate, there's this little thing called realpolitick. Just as in Xen's example of a Russo-USA alliance: an oppressive autocratic empire ruling over downtrodden serfs (or as near as makes no difference) allied with what sees itself as a shining beacon of freedom, democracy, and emancipatory-ness-tion.

Actually the Russians had just freed their serfs in 1861, so their entry could be spun positively in the Northern press.

Because of realpolitck the whole of Europe and North America could be plunged into war. If Britain and French intervene on the side of the CSA and Russia allies with the US and marches on Constantinople. It is highly possible that Austria could enter the war on the side of the Turks. With Austria fighting the Russians, the Prussians may decide their chance to achieve dominance in Germany has come and ally themselves with the Russians.

The result is war from French occupied Mexico to British Canada in North America and from France to Turkey in Europe.

 

[Pax Britannia]

The first world war in 1861

 

[Timmy811]

The first world war in 1861

1862 actually. Still cool though, wonder what the alliances would have been called.

 

[MrP]

References:

1

2

3

 

[Timmy811]

Also the Kingdom of Italy would likely see the above situation I outlined as an oppurtunity to liberate Venetia for the Austrians and get back at Napoleon III from abandoning them in their war in 1858.

So the American Civil War has snowballed into a world conflict with the Union, Russia, Prussia, the Republic of Mexico and the Kingdom of Italy on one side and the Confederate States of America, the British, French, Austrian and Ottoman Empires on the other.

 

[DAv]

Also the Kingdom of Italy would likely see the above situation I outlined as an oppurtunity to liberate Venetia for the Austrians and get back at Napoleon III from abandoning them in their war in 1858.

So the American Civil War has snowballed into a world conflict with the Union, Russia, Prussia, the Republic of Mexico and the Kingdom of Italy on one side and the Confederate States of America, the British, French, Austrian and Ottoman Empires on the other.

In that state, I can see Britain concentrating a lot more in the Americas than in Europe. Also, would have their been an alliance of German nations like in the Franco Prussian War? Or just Prussia on its tod?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

That could degenerate...

Wither of the hispanic peninsula countries? Would Spain and Portugal stay neutral, or sides? Against each others?

Would anything happen in Asia - India, China, and all? It may change the datas on the Meiji Revolution a bit...