European trading partners come to the aid of the CSA during the ACW. Do they lose?

One of the reasonings behind certain leaders joining the CSA in the ACW was the belief that European trading partners would help them as Union blockades impeded their exports. To their dismay, no Europeans came through, and the CSA fought a doomed war where they were significantly outnumbered and outsupplied. Say the Europeans DID aid the South. In what ways would they most likely send aid, and would it even be enough?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The British did aid the rebellion, to the tune of

One of the reasonings behind certain leaders joining the CSA in the ACW was the belief that European trading partners would help them as Union blockades impeded their exports. To their dismay, no Europeans came through, and the CSA fought a doomed war where they were significantly outnumbered and outsupplied. Say the Europeans DID aid the South. In what ways would they most likely send aid, and would it even be enough?


The British did aid the rebellion, to the tune of millions of dollars worth of arms and supplies, and free access for blockade runners to British ports from the West Indies north...

However, the reality is the vast majority of that was cash and carry, or trade for contraband - notably cotton - in southern ports.

As it was, the British came close to provoking and/or aiding and abetting causus belli on multiple occasions - the Saint Albans raid and the SS Chesapeake incident being the obvious ones, but far from the only ones - but were careful enough to ratchet things down when necessary; the Laird Rams incident is an obvious example of that.

Frankly, none of the Europeans had anything to gain from overt assistance to the rebellion, and much to lose...

Most notably, "anything" sent to the rebels without some sort of worthwhile quid pro quo was one less "something" to be used at home, deployed/sent to the actual empire (British, French, etc.), or sold somewhere (Latin America, Japan, China, etc.) where there was real money to made...unlike the shinplasters the rebellion was rapidly reduced to in terms of cash, and without the risk of the USN capturing the runner.

There's no rational reason any European power would have overtly aided the rebels and multiple reasons - economic, strategic, diplomatic, and political - none, in fact, did...

The precedent alone is reason enough for the Europeans to shy away from overt action; none of the European powers was exactly robust in terms of their own "national" consolidation at this point, much less their various and sundry colonial and imperial territories.

And they all had neighbors - in Europe, and thus much closer to home than 3,000 or more miles away, and across the bounding main - ready to caste covetous eyes on any one of multiple territories and interests that any European power that got significantly involved in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s would have exposed...

The rebels were among the most self-deluded individuals on the face of the earth in 1861-65; there's a reason Margaret Mitchell gave Rhett Butler the line about "all we have is arrogance."

Best,
 
Last edited:

Lateknight

Banned
The french already tied up with mexico so no real help there and british probably have won the naval war but not without crippling themselves. The best the South hope for was a negotiated peace they probably would lost the upper south.
 
The British did aid the rebellion, to the tune of millions of dollars worth of arms and supplies, and free access for blockade runners to British ports from the West Indies north...

However, the reality is the vast majority of that was cash and carry, or trade for contraband - notably cotton - in southern ports.

As it was, the British came close to provoking and/or aiding and abetting causus belli on multiple occassions - the Saint Albans raid and the SS Cheasapeake incident being the obvious ones, but from the only ones - but were careful enough to ratchet things down when necessary; the Laird Rams incident is an obvious example of that.

Frankly, none of the Europeans had anything to gain from overt assistance to the rebellion, and much to lose...

Most notably, "anything" sent to the rebels without some sort of worthwhile quid pro quo was one less "something" to be used at home, deployed/sent to the actual empire (British, French, etc.), or sold somewhere (Latin America, Japan, China, etc.) where there was real money to made...unlike the shinplasters the rebellion was rapidly reduced to in terms of cash, and without the risk of the USN capturing the runner.

There's no rational reason any European power would have overtly aided the rebels and multiple reasons - economic, strategic, diplomatic, and political - none, in fact, did...

The precedent alone is reason enough for the Europeans to shy away from overt action; none of the European powers was exactly robust in terms of their own "national" consolidation at this point, much less their various and sundry colonial and imperial territories.

And they all had neighbors - in Europe, and thus much closer to home than 3,000 or more miles away, and across the bounding main - ready to caste covetous eyes on any one of multiple territories and interests that any European power that got significantly involved in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s would have exposed...

The rebels were among the most self-deluded individuals on the face of the earth in 1861-65; there's a reason Margaret Mitchell gave Rhett Butler the line about "all we have is arrogance."

Best,

I understand that nobody really provided too much aid and why that was, but what I'm asking is if the off chance that they desperately needed Southern cotton and needed to send serious aid. What would they send and would it be enough?
 
One of the reasonings behind certain leaders joining the CSA in the ACW was the belief that European trading partners would help them as Union blockades impeded their exports. To their dismay, no Europeans came through, and the CSA fought a doomed war where they were significantly outnumbered and outsupplied. Say the Europeans DID aid the South. In what ways would they most likely send aid, and would it even be enough?

Well what do you mean by this? General European intervention? Or a declaration that they don't find the blockade legal?

One of course is war.

The other of course is basically a fait-accompli since if there was, say, a joint Franco-British declaration that the blockade was illegal the Union would be pretty powerless to resist that. If the European powers were unwilling to accept the blockade from the start there would have been little the Union could do about it. The Union Navy was barely up to the task of blockade at the start of the war, much less thinking about taking on the top two navies in the world. Though that doesn't guarantee a Confederate win it makes their financial/supply situation far less terrible from what it was historically which might mean a negotiated peace is more likely.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Cotton was not enough

I understand that nobody really provided too much aid and why that was, but what I'm asking is if the off chance that they desperately needed Southern cotton and needed to send serious aid. What would they send and would it be enough?

Historically, quite a bit was stockpiled, and the U.S., Egypt, and India were all potential alternatives.

There's no profit at all in overt European intervention on the behalf of the south, and far to much to lose...

During the civil war, the U.S. was buying $5 worth of British goods for every $3 of US goods the British were buying; the idea the British - or any other European country - would give up access to the US market in favor of overt intervention on the part of the rebels makes no sense economically, politically, or strategically.

The fact the rebels saw it differently is just another example of how delusional they were...

Best,
 
Top