Britian for the North, France for the South?

There is aways a lot of talk about the US Civil War here, mostly about Britian and France joinning the South in a land and sea war. But WI France sides with the South and Britian the North. Is there anyway this could happen and if so how and why?
BTW, I only had this thought an hour ago, so not very well thought out so far.
 
There is aways a lot of talk about the US Civil War here, mostly about Britian and France joinning the South in a land and sea war. But WI France sides with the South and Britian the North. Is there anyway this could happen and if so how and why?
BTW, I only had this thought an hour ago, so not very well thought out so far.
Have Jefferson Davis step on the back of Prince Albert's shoe sometime in the past, sending him headfirst down some stairs. Might need a POV going back a few years.
 
I got to say that assuming worse relations between Britain and France my guess would have been Britain for the South France for the North, given the powerful establishment backing for the slaveholding traitors and their oppositon to what looked like the World's 1 significant 'democracy'
 
Three things spring to mind.

1. I doubt that France would be able to get any soldiers past the royal navy.

2. If they did manage to get to America I'd don't think they would do very well considering their performance in the Franco-Prussian war.

3. The largest effect of this would be on German unification. If Prussia take the opportunity they could unite Germany while France is tied up in America. However if France gets beaten in France they might reform their army and be able to beat Prussia in '71.
 
Three things spring to mind.

1. I doubt that France would be able to get any soldiers past the royal navy.

It is very unlikely they would try. If France actually found itself fighting Britain, they would be busy elsewhere, anyway. But even if they were supporting opposing regimes, the risk is too gret. Napoleonm just won't go there.

2. If they did manage to get to America I'd don't think they would do very well considering their performance in the Franco-Prussian war.

I'd question that. The French army of the 1860s was a frightening opponent. Even the Prussians with superior artillery doctrine and extremely professional leadership had a very hard time cracking them, and without the political situation favouring them would very likely have failed. Of course it wouldn't be happening, but if they made it to the American front in significannt numbers, they would be a holy terror. Especially early in the conflict, but I don't think even the seasoned campaigners of 1864 would find facing them something to be relished. Ask the Austrians about their experience in Italy.

3. The largest effect of this would be on German unification. If Prussia take the opportunity they could unite Germany while France is tied up in America. However if France gets beaten in France they might reform their army and be able to beat Prussia in '71.

Prussia cannot unite Germany before 1866 is fought through, and they can't fight that war before 1866 because as late as 1864, their army is not in any fit state to fight the Austrians, let alone the French.

It's an odd setup anyway, kind of like an effort to compound the weaknesses of each pair of allies. What can Britain offer the north? Superior industrial capacity and command of the seas. Thanks, they've got that. What can the French give the Confederacy? Pretty much nothing, given the blockade in place, but even if they could, the logistical ability of the French leadership is wasted for want of anything to distribute, and the troops would just be more burden on the South's inadequate infrastructure. Now, France bringing its military professionalism to bear in Washington and Britain sending its supplies to the south - that would be scary.
 
OTL the French government was convinced that an agreement with the UK would be necessary to intervene in the ACW.
Finding a plausible reason for them to act alone would be hard.
Finding a plausible reason to pick the opposite side from the UK seems impossible, since if there was on constant of Napoleon IIIs foreign policy, it was not provoking the UK too much.

To change that, you would need a whole different European concert - perhaps a France allied to Prussia and Austria from c.1855 onward, so it would feel safe enough on land to be adventurous at sea. That, of course, would also mean no unification of Germany nor Italy.

Or simply have Nap III killed in January 1858 by Felice Orsini, pick a Regent for not even two-year-old Nap IV. (or have a revolution) and have the new leader of the French do whatever you want ... ;)
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
Have Jefferson Davis step on the back of Prince Albert's shoe sometime in the past, sending him headfirst down some stairs. Might need a POV going back a few years.


I challenge anyone to make a tongue in cheek timeline out of this. It would be very amusing.
 
OTL the French government was convinced that an agreement with the UK would be necessary to intervene in the ACW.
Finding a plausible reason for them to act alone would be hard.
Finding a plausible reason to pick the opposite side from the UK seems impossible, since if there was on constant of Napoleon IIIs foreign policy, it was not provoking the UK too much.

To change that, you would need a whole different European concert - perhaps a France allied to Prussia and Austria from c.1855 onward, so it would feel safe enough on land to be adventurous at sea. That, of course, would also mean no unification of Germany nor Italy.

Or simply have Nap III killed in January 1858 by Felice Orsini, pick a Regent for not even two-year-old Nap IV. (or have a revolution) and have the new leader of the French do whatever you want ... ;)

What he said.
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
OTL the French government was convinced that an agreement with the UK would be necessary to intervene in the ACW.
Finding a plausible reason for them to act alone would be hard.
Finding a plausible reason to pick the opposite side from the UK seems impossible, since if there was on constant of Napoleon IIIs foreign policy, it was not provoking the UK too much.

To change that, you would need a whole different European concert - perhaps a France allied to Prussia and Austria from c.1855 onward, so it would feel safe enough on land to be adventurous at sea. That, of course, would also mean no unification of Germany nor Italy.

Or simply have Nap III killed in January 1858 by Felice Orsini, pick a Regent for not even two-year-old Nap IV. (or have a revolution) and have the new leader of the French do whatever you want ... ;)


So how would you get France friendlywith Prussia? Failed French Revolution, No Napoleon and No Napoleonic Wars? Bourbons stay in power?

A protestant France? We'd have to go all the way back to atleast Henri IV "Paris not worth a mass?"
 
So how would you get France friendlywith Prussia? Failed French Revolution, No Napoleon and No Napoleonic Wars? Bourbons stay in power?

A protestant France? We'd have to go all the way back to atleast Henri IV "Paris not worth a mass?"

A successful 1848? The new constitutional monarchies of Prussia, Austria and Hungary would need a protector from Russia.

Not likely, but better than nothing.
 
Well the French did invade Mexico while the US Civil war was on (1861) ignoring US warnings not to and conning the Spanish & British to help under the pretence of just recovering outstanding debts to all of them.

If the occupation had gone better giving they them time to realize that having the CSA as neighbour rather then the USA would be in their best interests and funnel support north.

I don't think the British would come out directly on the USA side will military forces but a lead lease style system could work.
 
I don't think the British would come out directly on the USA side will military forces but a lead lease style system could work.

Always worth remembering that it had been almost 50 years since Britian and France had been at war with eachother. Off the top of my head I would say this must have been the longest time of peace since the Franch nation came into being!

Seriously.
I would agree that Britain would not really need to contiribute to the North's war effort, except to support them financially (buying bonds) and countering any French activity.

However since Nappy III was so pro-British I can't really see this happening.
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
A successful 1848? The new constitutional monarchies of Prussia, Austria and Hungary would need a protector from Russia.

Not likely, but better than nothing.

How about a unified Germany under a German state historically friendly with France, i.e., Bavaria?
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
There is aways a lot of talk about the US Civil War here, mostly about Britian and France joinning the South in a land and sea war. But WI France sides with the South and Britian the North. Is there anyway this could happen and if so how and why?
BTW, I only had this thought an hour ago, so not very well thought out so far.


The problem with this scenario is that historically, with the exception of the ARW France's record of sustaining a long term war in the Americas has not been very good. NAP III must have known this. Problems of reinforcements, resupply, and logistics and of course the Royal Navy. Thinking it over, this scenario is doable with a French victory in Queen Ann's War and the French-Indian Wars. Then over the course of time, French colonization increases not necessarily surpassing British colonists in America, but bring it close enough. Canada remains French with a very large French population. We can also have the CSA have a very large population of people of French descent with close ties to France where the people look to France as the mother country rather than England. It would not be impossible to change the ethnic and cultural heritage of the Southern United States to French.
 
The problem with this scenario is that historically, with the exception of the ARW France's record of sustaining a long term war in the Americas has not been very good. NAP III must have known this. Problems of reinforcements, resupply, and logistics and of course the Royal Navy. Thinking it over, this scenario is doable with a French victory in Queen Ann's War and the French-Indian Wars. Then over the course of time, French colonization increases not necessarily surpassing British colonists in America, but bring it close enough. Canada remains French with a very large French population. We can also have the CSA have a very large population of people of French descent with close ties to France where the people look to France as the mother country rather than England. It would not be impossible to change the ethnic and cultural heritage of the Southern United States to French.

The thing is, changing the culture could very well butterfly away the War all together, different people in different places.
 

iddt3

Donor
What about a proxy War between the two? Britain forces the US to back down on the blockade and supplies the south, while France sends substantial numbers of 'advisers' to the north. A fully supplied Confederacy vs a more professional North would certainly be an interesting match-up.
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
The thing is, changing the culture could very well butterfly away the War all together, different people in different places.


Actually it only increases it. With a heavily British northern US and a heavily French influenced Southern US that old Anglo-French rivalry can be carried over in the American North vs South antagonism. Anglo-Saxon yankees vs French southerners this could get ugly. Of course all the major Confederate players in otl would be butterflied away so that the ACW would be unrecognizable ittl, although I think slavery would still be a point of contention between north and south.
 
Last edited:
Top