DBWI: The British had not intervened in the Civil war.

What if the had stayed neutral during the Civil war instead of seeing an opportunity to divide to US in two parts, I'm sorry "reduce the extent of slavery" by supporting the Non slave owing north defeat the South. (OOC: how do you strike though text.)
Could the north have succeeded by it self?
(OOC: should the British have helped enough, or should they have accidentally helped a bit TOO much.)
 
Last edited:
Well, the victory of Grant at Gettysburg was what convinced the British to intervene on the side of the Free States in the first place. Regardless, not liking the US apologist tone of this post. We Free Staters are very happy about our Special Relationship with the British Imperial Commonwealth, thank you very much; we beat you guys together twice, once against Douglas and once against Pelley.
 
Well, the victory of Grant at Gettysburg was what convinced the British to intervene on the side of the Free States in the first place. Regardless, not liking the US apologist tone of this post. We Free Staters are very happy about our Special Relationship with the British Imperial Commonwealth, thank you very much; we beat you guys together twice, once against Douglas and once against Pelley.
(so we're doing "helped enough" rather then "helped too much".)
Oh come on It's well known that the primary reason the British helped out was to split the union.
That it was primarily to stop slavery is revisionist history.
If it had been the south rebelling they'd of stayed neutral.

I mean remember how after the North were winning so badly that they were deciding to conquer the south.
And suddenly all the support just seem to slip away.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
What if the had stayed neutral during the Civil war instead of seeing an opportunity to divide to US in two parts, Im sorry "reduce the extent of slavery" by supporting the Non slave owing north defeat the South. (OOC: how do you strike though text.)
Could the north have succeeded by it self?
(OOC: should the British have helped enough, or should they have accidentally helped a bit TOO much.)
probably, but it would have taken a lot longer.
 

ASUKIRIK

Banned
If not because Brirish actually deliberately festering bad blood and actively obstruct relations between American Free States of the North and remnant USA at the South, after the whole Cotton bust and subsequent riots in the USA, AFS wanted to help but British told them in no uncertain terms that any interventions there outside limited humanitarian aid would be deemed as invasion and treated accordingly. Forcing AFS to cringe as USA descended into fifty years of anarchy.

At least British also put hold against Mexican invasion of USA. All while buying out the Western territories from impoverished USA and made British North America the largest entity in Americas.
 
(so we're doing "helped enough" rather then "helped too much".
Oh come on It's well known that the primary reason the British helped out was to split the union.
That it was primarily to stop slavery is revisionist history.
If it had been the south rebelling they'd of stayed neutral.

I mean remember how after the North were winning so badly that they were deciding to conquer the south.
And suddenly all the support just seem to slip away.
The Union was already split by the odium of the Fugitive Slave Act being forced on the people's of the North. When the South tried to force through a bill calling for Northern Police to actively help hunt down slaves it was the last straw. The British didn't have to do anything to break the Union; the Union was broken from the moment Douglas's clique of Southern planters hijacked it to protect their slavery.
 
The Union was already split by the odium of the Fugitive Slave Act being forced on the people's of the North. When the South tried to force through a bill calling for Northern Police to actively help hunt down slaves it was the last straw. The British didn't have to do anything to break the Union; the Union was broken from the moment Douglas's clique of Southern planters hijacked it to protect their slavery.
Ah yes that bill. Basically the free slave act 2.0. I don't understand how they could of sought that it would fly with the north.
Soon after that when the north considered splitting off from the south the British jumped on the chance to split the union AND hurt slavery. And they succeeded at both their goals. To the free states and the slave states and not rejoined.
 
Top