British intervention in the ACW - 1863

A number of books and TLs have been written on the Trent War and other early war interventions - and I think the general consensus is that the US would lose fairly miserably.

I am interested in the effects of a British (and I would think, French) intervention later in the war, though I'm not sure what the proximate cause of it would be, but although by 1863 the Union army is quite a bit larger, and more importantly the same is true of the Union navy.

However Britain still had a stronger economy than the US in the 1860s so I think they could still win.

But I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject and that's why I would like to know what other people think, assuming that the British intervened (and I am very open to suggestions on what would cause it, and what time of the year would be most likely) what would have happened?
 
The problem with an 'intervention' other than Trent is that the European powers had no particular desire to intervene. The interception and boarding of the Trent was seen as a move against British sovereignty directly. The reaction to it was to defend British sovereignty, in particular respect for its flag and commerce under international customary law. A hot Trent would not have seen the British intervene so much as intrude into the American Civil War.

To get outside powers involved in the Civil War one side or the other has to do something egregious to one or more foreign powers citizens or property. Short of the US deciding to invade Canada or Mexico while still having its hands full with finishing off the Confederacy it is really hard to see anyone else doing more than watch from the sidelines. I suppose if a US man of war attacked a British or French warship you would see tensions rise but the obvious move there would be for the US to apologise and pay compensation.

The Confederacy kept alive the hope of Anglo-French intervention because it was the one thing that could get them out of the mess they had dug themselves into. You see something similar with discussion of Anglo-American wars in the 19th century on this board, the US would need help so its boosters convince themselves it would get it. Plan Red on the other hand gets argued out as a straight match up because neither side would require outside help (it would be nice but not necessary). The biggest problem for the Confederacy was its attitude to slavery was rather toxic to the morals of just about everyone else. Only since that was what they had gone to war over, they were stuck.
 
Plus, this would be after the Emancipation Proclamation, so any intervention would be seen as direct support for slavery. Which is practically impossible.

- BNC
 
The only version I've ever seen written is Tsouras's Britannia's Fist Trilogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_B...itannia.27s_Fist:_From_Civil_War_to_World_War
The Wikipedia article does not mention the multitude of flaws in, and criticisms of the work.

He uses the same questionable performance figures for Armour and Ordnance as others, is often horrendously biased, and has the US pulling off wildly implausible coincidences and one sided advantages.
Transfering every single Maine Regiment from the Army of the Potomac back to its home state just in time to repel a British attack on Portland is pushing things a bit. Especially when the first train pulls into Portland literally just as the British are landing.
Even pre-war the British are apparently in awe of American arms and want "to purchase Dahlgrens in large numbers"?
The Casco Class Monitors are described in glowing terms as a definite advantage, as opposed to more traditional views involving words such as "Fiasco" and "White Elephant" (To be found in the Osprey Guide).
He introduces completely fictional characters from other writers work as if they were influential historical figures.
And continues the classic, wildly inaccurate, character assassination of British historical figures, such as Palmerston's "Malevolent Hostility" for the United States, this is Man who maintained a lifelong correspondence with his friend Harriet Beecher Stowe, and portraying all the British Royalty as unpleasant, arrogant, malicious, incompetents. In the Trilogy Prince Alfred, Victoria's second son, is described as an unpopular, thoroughly dislikeable, ungrateful wretch, as opposed to the actual history of a competent Naval Officer (Who retired as a well regarded Admiral of the prestigious Mediterranean Fleet), who has schools named after him, and when an attempt was made on his life personally appealed for clemency for his attacker. His description of Garnet Wolseley as a man with "a Weak Chin and a Thin Moustache" borders on farce.
His description of Naval Engagements tend to resemble a strategy game set on easy where the Union player knows all the cheat codes.
The Third Battle of Charleston has more than every Ironclad in the USN present and at most a third of the RN's available Ironclad Strength, arguably less since the Royal Navy List for 1862 lists 28 Ironclads, and has the US conducting a successful limpet mine attack on a moving target at the battle's climax.

And let us not forget that by the end of the trilogy the Union has the support of Powered Flight, which is not at all a massive ahistorical advantage.
And Tsouras is the best of the published versions.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Plus, this would be after the Emancipation Proclamation, so any intervention would be seen as direct support for slavery. Which is practically impossible.

- BNC
That didn't matter much to the people of Britain per se - they saw it as "too little" as it allowed for Union loyalists to keep their slaves.


More generally, there is a possible intervention by Britain in the Civil War that doesn't result from US insult - but it's not a British intervention. It's a British idea for a multilateral intervention, which would require Russian support (or it goes nowhere) where the British and other powers act as the guarantors of a conference in which the War can be resolved.
Note that if both Union and Confederacy agree to the intervention, or both refuse, then nothing happens (except a conference if both agree, of course). If Russia doesn't sign on, nothing happens. But if the Confederacy and Russia both agree this should happen and the Union does not (a singularly unlikely event) then you get a military intervention to bring the US to the table, with the express purpose of preventing further bloodshed.


A French intervention is rather more likely, Napoleon III was the sort of person who might do it. In that case, frankly the result is the loss of the Union navy and probably a much more effective French-trained Confederate army. (This is because the French have a good few well protected ironclads and a number of rifled armour piercing pieces along with plenty of steam battleships and other vessels, and frankly the Monitors are very poor combatants - most of the Union fleet is vulnerable to a well handled 51-gun steam frigate let alone a steam ship of the line.)
 
Top