Could the Union have defeated the rebels and the UK

Is there any way Lincoln could have won if Britain had intervened against him?

Are there allies that he might have had?

Is it possible that Napoleon III might have decided that he would take revenge on behalf of his uncle?

Is there any chance of an "International Brigade" supporting the North and being accepted?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Is there any way Lincoln could have won if Britain had intervened against him?

Are there allies that he might have had?

Is it possible that Napoleon III might have decided that he would take revenge on behalf of his uncle?

Is there any chance of an "International Brigade" supporting the North and being accepted?

1. It's been widely debated, but mainly from a early 1862 POV, and the answer is a pretty resounding no there. However, later there might be more of a chance, say if the Bill recognising the CSA passes in July 1863, prompting a breakdown of relations and war then.

2. Only Russia, who by 1863 are deeply embroiled in the Polish rebellion.

3. No, Napoleon III is a notorious anglophile and had agreed to recognise the CSA in conjunction with the UK.

4. The Union Army already employs a huge number of mercernaries/ "military immigrants". The question of how they'd get there is another one. No European power is gong to come to the US's aid.
 
I think the US would have an excellent chance. They would of course lose their naval superiority, but it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to field a large enough army in Canada to make too much of a difference in the war. The Union was pretty self-sufficient, so while the loss of trade will hurt it won't be crippling. Britain will improve the South's chances, but the north still has a very good chance of winning the war.

What is interesting is what happens afterwords. The North can defeat the south and possibly even Canada, but there's no way they can threaten Britain farther afield, while Britain can't strike the core of the Union. The war would end up a stalemate, which would hurt both powers.
 
I think the US would have an excellent chance. They would of course lose their naval superiority, but it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to field a large enough army in Canada to make too much of a difference in the war. The Union was pretty self-sufficient, so while the loss of trade will hurt it won't be crippling. Britain will improve the South's chances, but the north still has a very good chance of winning the war.

What is interesting is what happens afterwords. The North can defeat the south and possibly even Canada, but there's no way they can threaten Britain farther afield, while Britain can't strike the core of the Union. The war would end up a stalemate, which would hurt both powers.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I think the US would have an excellent chance. They would of course lose their naval superiority, but it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to field a large enough army in Canada to make too much of a difference in the war. The Union was pretty self-sufficient, so while the loss of trade will hurt it won't be crippling. Britain will improve the South's chances, but the north still has a very good chance of winning the war.

What is interesting is what happens afterwords. The North can defeat the south and possibly even Canada, but there's no way they can threaten Britain farther afield, while Britain can't strike the core of the Union. The war would end up a stalemate, which would hurt both powers.

http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/Trent1861.htm

The British can easily match the 50,000 men the US had to spare against Canada. The followup article to that is to be on the state of the US Army of the time (early 1862).

As to self-sufficient, the Union is dependent on the UK for all their gunpowder, and a lot of other stuff besides.
 
I don't think the USA would be able to survive a war with Britain and the CSA. It would of been a fiasco. However after the war, other European powers might be more wary of the British.
 
Derek

The only way I could really see it happening might be a largely sequential conflict. I.e. after virtually defeating the south the north attacks Canada. With the forces available at that time, presuming it was politically possible, it might be able to do a quick smash and grab conquest and then wait Britain out. Would really hurt the later development of the US however as your likely to have a very, very angry Britain, possibly developing its power potential a lot more and unrest in both northern and southern conquests.:mad:

For anything earlier in the war the north would be onto a hammering. The earlier it occurred the worst. As 67 Tiger's said the US was dependent on Britain for its gunpowder. A blockage would hurt it less than the south but such an action would automatically lift the blockage on the south making it a much, much more difficult conquest. Also I think the US got most of its revenues from import duties, which wouldn't be there any more. As such its fighting a much larger conflict with serious supply difficulties and going to have to find a hell of a lot of money very rapidly. [And if their fighting Britain loans from Western Europe will not be an option]. If Lincoln managed to blunder into a conflict with Britain I could see impeachment proceedings resulting within a couple of years.;)

Steve
 
I don't see it as being very likely Britain would support the CS without the US resorting to nigh-on-ASB levels of being a dick.
Any British intervention is more likely to be against the CSA.

A fair fight between Britain and either one of them though just wouldn't be funny.
 
Of course the US could. Simply transform the entire national society, maintain large permanent standing armies and foreign alliances and by the mid-1940s final US victory would be in the bag!:)



Sorry, 67th Tigers, I couldn't resist!;)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I don't see it as being very likely Britain would support the CS without the US resorting to nigh-on-ASB levels of being a dick.
Any British intervention is more likely to be against the CSA.

A fair fight between Britain and either one of them though just wouldn't be funny.

4 times the UK almost intervened on the CSAs behalf, twice for humanitarian reasons (stop the slaughter and impose a peace that invariably would recognise the CSA), once for honour and finally a French sponsored attempt to bring the British in.

In order these are:

June/July 1861 (wake of 1st Bull Run, stop the war and bring both sides to the table)
December-January 1861/2 (Trent)
September/October 1862 (wake of Antietam, fear of a slave revolt)
June/July 1863 (Private members bill backed by a known Francophile after consulting the French Emperor, withdrawn after Gettysburg)

It was never as simple as "we back the CSA", but rather the British wanted the war over and normality resumed, and for the first two years it looked like the only way of doing that was to back the apparent winning side (CSA).


Picking a PoD for the intervention, Trent is well covered, 1861 would simply be over immediately and 1863 would be Anglo-French. The post-Antietam intervention may well be your best bet.
 
Top