Britain with an independent Confederacy

Assuming the American Civil War ends in about late 1862-mid 1863 with British mediation and recognition of the Confederacy, how is Britain affected? This scenario assumes no Emancipation Proclamation has been issued. Even without an EP, is it likely that the British people would accept Palmerston's government recognising a nation founded upon slavery? Granted, both the Union and Confederacy initially had emphasized the war was not over slavery, and many in Britain seem to have accepted this.
 
Assuming the American Civil War ends in about late 1862-mid 1863 with British mediation and recognition of the Confederacy, how is Britain affected? This scenario assumes no Emancipation Proclamation has been issued. Even without an EP, is it likely that the British people would accept Palmerston's government recognising a nation founded upon slavery? Granted, both the Union and Confederacy initially had emphasized the war was not over slavery, and many in Britain seem to have accepted this.

The Emancipation Proclamation was actually received negatively in the UK, contrary to popular belief; it was recognized as a pretty obvious attempt to tap into Anti-Slavery sentiments to stave off intervention at best, or an effort to incite servile rebellion in the South at worst, which is something the British really wanted to avoid occurring. The fact the Roebuck Motion was around into the Summer of 1863, until Gettysburg dashed it, is a good example of this.

As far as effects, it'll be decades before serious cultivation efforts at Egyptian and Indian cotton are made. They're too low quality and require additional shipping to compete with Southern Cotton. Britain will have also achieved the strategic objective of reducing the threat posed by the United States, as it's now surrounded on almost all or indeed all (depending on Mexico) of its borders by Pro-British elements. More importantly, the Mississippi River now lies essentially in British hands via the Confederacy, meaning that in a future conflict the possibility exists for London to divide the Union into two, doing grievous harm to any war efforts.
 
The Emancipation Proclamation was actually received negatively in the UK, contrary to popular belief; it was recognized as a pretty obvious attempt to tap into Anti-Slavery sentiments to stave off intervention at best, or an effort to incite servile rebellion in the South at worst, which is something the British really wanted to avoid occurring. The fact the Roebuck Motion was around into the Summer of 1863, until Gettysburg dashed it, is a good example of this.

As far as effects, it'll be decades before serious cultivation efforts at Egyptian and Indian cotton are made. They're too low quality and require additional shipping to compete with Southern Cotton. Britain will have also achieved the strategic objective of reducing the threat posed by the United States, as it's now surrounded on almost all or indeed all (depending on Mexico) of its borders by Pro-British elements. More importantly, the Mississippi River now lies essentially in British hands via the Confederacy, meaning that in a future conflict the possibility exists for London to divide the Union into two, doing grievous harm to any war efforts.
I've heard about that reaction also, but is it also likely that Britain recognising the CSA would be controversial for Palmerston?

If Pam's popularity starts to sag by 1864, he could take stronger measures over Denmark, or alternatively, have his government collapse if he fails to take those stronger measures.
 
Well, it adds a North American kettle to Britain's crowded stovetop that needs to be watched (In addition to the Middle East, North/Baltic Sea, India, the Western Pacific and maintaining a balance of power in Continental Europe), which even for the might British Empire may very well be a bridge too far. I fully expect British forgein policy in the next couple of decades to be a heavy debate over which areas can be neglected/abandoned in order to free up resources to shore up the Empire elsewhere as The Great Game flares up; likely one party going "East First" for a focus on India and the routes to it, and "West First" based on dominating the South American market to hedge their bets against the position in India and China being undermined by Russian competition and trying to get France to pick up the burden of propping up the Ottomans against Mother Russia. The fact that people with economic interests in Egypt and India would be natural competition to those with economic interests in the flow of Dixon goods is just icing on the cake...

Who would win? I'm not 100% sure, but my money would be priority going to India and China over the Western Hemisphere. The markets are just too big, and already firmly in the British sphere. Conceding Eurasia to the Russians is just too much of a risk, and when France gets her teeth knocked in and can't do yeoman service to British interests in Europe I think momentum will swing back towards those in favor of leaving the Confederacy to its fate as opposed to continue agrivating the Yankees.
 
I've heard about that reaction also, but is it also likely that Britain recognising the CSA would be controversial for Palmerston?

If Pam's popularity starts to sag by 1864, he could take stronger measures over Denmark, or alternatively, have his government collapse if he fails to take those stronger measures.

Probably among certain constituencies it will be, but there were notable Pro-Southern elements in Britain too; the idea the British body politic was fully behind the North is pretty much a fictional invention.
 
I think we have other threads to discuss the viability of British recognition of the Richmond government, and this thread assumes that Palmerson's government can survive what backlash occurs long enough to mediate a peace (And, afterwards, I doubt it will be a salient enough issue to bring them down in the future). Perhaps we should focus instead on the longer term impacts on British forgein policy?
 
I think we have other threads to discuss the viability of British recognition of the Richmond government, and this thread assumes that Palmerson's government can survive what backlash occurs long enough to mediate a peace (And, afterwards, I doubt it will be a salient enough issue to bring them down in the future). Perhaps we should focus instead on the longer term impacts on British forgein policy?
Any result in British foreign or domestic policy is acceptable, provided we get a Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain. ;)
 
Last edited:
Any result in British foreign or domestic policy, provided we get a Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain. ;)

That depends entirely on the when and why of the unprecedented Ministry. Certainly he's not getting the position in the 70's or early 80's, unless there's some Mothma level of butterfly being spawned here. Gladstone is at the head of the party until the end of the century, and his forgein policy was one of reconciliation that he might find difficult with Billy Yank for those first decades.

I suppose I would need to know more about the internal workings of the British Imperial apparatus to know how much institutional inertia towards the Conservative pro-Dixon policy ties down future action, and what part of Imperial interest elsewhere is losing the attention directed towards the Americas
 
That depends entirely on the when and why of the unprecedented Ministry. Certainly he's not getting the position in the 70's or early 80's, unless there's some Mothma level of butterfly being spawned here. Gladstone is at the head of the party until the end of the century, and his forgein policy was one of reconciliation that he might find difficult with Billy Yank for those first decades.

I suppose I would need to know more about the internal workings of the British Imperial apparatus to know how much institutional inertia towards the Conservative pro-Dixon policy ties down future action, and what part of Imperial interest elsewhere is losing the attention directed towards the Americas
Part of this will likely depend on what happens with Denmark and electoral reform. IOTL, the Union victory emboldened call for reform, while they'll still exist ITTL, perhaps they will be a bit less strident?
 
Part of this will likely depend on what happens with Denmark and electoral reform. IOTL, the Union victory emboldened call for reform, while they'll still exist ITTL, perhaps they will be a bit less strident?
The Marquess of Salisbury (then the Lord Cranborne) was opposed to the Reform Bill of 1867, along with several other Conservatives. How bad could the split among the Tories realistically get? (@pipisme)
 
The Marquess of Salisbury (then the Lord Cranborne) was opposed to the Reform Bill of 1867, along with several other Conservatives. How bad could the split among the Tories realistically get? (@pipisme)

The question is if the Tories split hard over reform, what's to stop the Whigs/Liberals from picking up the ball and running off with the support of the expanded franchise? The British industrial class isgrowing, with the Empire riding on her economic haydays in the mid-19th century (Which, with the Yankees hitting an industrial speed bump and obliged to have a higher tax rate to maintain a standing army now that there's an actual opponent of note on the North American continent, they can likely sustain somewhat longer than IOTL) and they'll demand a voice in Parliment whatever happens elsewhere
 
The Marquess of Salisbury (then the Lord Cranborne) was opposed to the Reform Bill of 1867, along with several other Conservatives. How bad could the split among the Tories realistically get? (@pipisme)

The Conservative Party did not split over the Reform Bill of 1867 in OTL and I don't think they would in this TL. They wouldn't join the Liberals or form a separate right-wing party.
 
Top