French Intervention in U.S. Civil War

TFSmith121

Banned
If the North is victorious, I will be happy,

You just forget French politics...France wanted to take parts of Mexico using a token emperor but it was for the country quite a minor expedition with respect to the other ones at the same time. The Emperor took power in 1852 using a coup d'état but there were a really strong opposition. Between 52 and 60 the empire was really an empire but after 60 it switched little by little to a parliamentary system. In this parliament (with limited powers), support for the NORTH was almost absolute (on political grounds and even more, obviously, after 1860). Don't forget that France abolished slavery in 1789 then again in 1848. The court was more for the south... but basically didn't care. What they wanted was a weak america with open trade. They thus allowed the south to be considered as a state for war materials, purchases and so on. Nobody ever considered entering in the war. The emperor said « Si le Nord est victorieux, j'en serai heureux, mais si c'est le Sud qui l'emporte, j'en serai enchanté. » (google it!)

If the North is victorious, I will be happy, but if it is the South that prevails, I will be delighted.

Merci, Monsieur (?)Cracou...



 
yep...

The whole idea was "let them kill each other during a LONG time. At least they're not going to disturb us".

You'll also like Mauriac (writter, close to De Gaulle): "I love Germany so much I'm glad there are two of them."
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Three, if you count Austria...

yep...

The whole idea was "let them kill each other during a LONG time. At least they're not going to disturb us".

You'll also like Mauriac (writter, close to De Gaulle): "I love Germany so much I'm glad there are two of them."

Three, if you count Austria...;)

Bonne année

Best,
 
It is not necessary for the border between the Province of Canada and the Union or indeed the other eastern British possession contiguous with the Union to be closed in order for a French blockade to be successful. In OTL the Union decided, relatively early in the war to extend the blockade of the Confederacy to neutral countries through which goods were being trans-shipped to the Confederacy. The other country in question was Mexico and the reason that impelled the Union to attempt to extend the blockade was to close down the trade from Matamoros across the Rio Grande. Mexico was in no state to be able to oppose this new extension to the doctrine of blockade but more important the British who had the naval resources to stop this extension chose not to do so. The Royal Navy was absolutely delighted with all the extensions to blockade practices the Union were developing especially this one and they squirreled it away for use in a future war. Eventually they used it against the USA in WWI to stop the trans-shipment of American goods across the Netherlands to Germany.

Thus there are three possibilities in the Franco-Union war scenario:
1) The war starts after the Union has extended the doctrine of blockade to trans-shipment through neutral countries. In which case the British recognise the right of the French to blockade ships travelling to BNA carrying contraband of war for the Union. The British merchants and possibly the Colonial Governments may not be happy with the situation but the RN and British Government would be delighted.
2) Later in the ACW the French themselves institute an extension of blockade practice. Once again the British will accede to the change for the same reasons they accepted the Union's changes OTL.
3) The French decide not to blockade goods being trans-shipped via BNA. This highly unlikely as without it defeating the Union would be much harder.

I find it amazing that however often posters on this and other boards have demonstrated that the King Grain argument is fallacious it keeps turning up. Why it should turn up here where we are discussing a Franco-Union war rather than an Anglo-Union war I don't know? In this scenario the British can get all the North American grain they want via the Province of Canada and in any case the French may not even consider it contraband of war. There might be a slight premium on it by the time it gets to Europe due to extra shipping costs. On the other hand as in OTL the Union farmers won't be able to sell grain south, there will be a glut and the price will fall. Also I think you will find if you check the statistics that there were two poor (not bad) harvests in parts of western Europe but that these did not extend to Russian and that the Baltic wheat trade was continuing to recover from the Crimean war.

What existing commitments are the French going to abandon to marshal the ships needed? The Royal Navy could have pulled it off without sacrificing TOO much; they'd be a little short in some theaters, but not enough to tempt anybody into pressing their luck. The French were barely able to keep their puppet in power in Mexico, so they're going to help militarily defeat an equal industrial base how, exactly?

For a French - Confederate alliance to successfully defeat the Union requires the French to abandon absolutely everything else, including Mexico, and even ASB aren't powerful enough to make Nappy the Third think that's a good idea.
 
Even if the French Navy could blockade the Union to the satisfaction of the Treaty of Vienna (the USN is expanding rapidly and that is a big coastline), without the aid of the UK (keeping this purely a Franco-Union war) it is important to remember that France's whole campaign is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the UK. The RN can quickly end the blockade and close the atlantic bringing the whole French campaign to a humiliating and costly failure. This seems a huge risk to put the fate of a whole war in the hands of a neutral power.

This makes me think that there really isn't a way to get France to go to war with the USN without explicit UK backing.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
The Confederacy would still be short of the wherewithal to pay for its imports. So whilst it would get more for its money, it is still a limited market.

Conclusion: whilst a France blockade would put costs between the USA and GB up and push them between the CSA and GB down, it is not going to have too great an impact.

Why would the Confederacy be short of the funds to pay for its imports in a situation where France was at war with the Union, had blockaded her and as a result of that had raised the blockade of the Confederacy destroying most if not all of the USN in the process. The Confederacy would have unfettered access to her ports allowing the export of cotton, tobacco, molassas and other products thus they would have considerable buying power. In addition Confederate Government bonds would be far more attractive to foreign investors than in OTL. Loans from European and Chinese banking organisations would be much easier to come by than in OTL.

The Confederacy can buy effectively what it wants in tens of munitions. It does not need to spend scarce resources on defending it's ports with scratch ironclads or building commerce raiders its Government can concentrate on funding the army. Neither does the Confederacy need to face off the Union enclaves with significant numbers of troops any more as all the enclaves with the possible exception of the city of New Orleans would become untenable in the event of a French blockade.

On the other hand the Union would have lost its major export crop, cotton. Its tariff income from imports would have been lost once the blockade began as would the supply of specie from California. The Union would be suffering far greater financial.problems than in OTL when the banking and financial systems collapsed as a result of the stresses due to the ACW and had to be rebuilt. As a result of this Union Government bonds would be much higher risk, harder to sell and less profitable than in OTL.

Thus it can clearly be seen from this and my previous post that your suggested conclusions are based on a great many incorrect assumptions, some questionable statements of fact and are fallacious and unfounded. Unless the Union yeilds very rapidly to French force of arms and comes to terms with them equally quickly the Confederacy would move inevitability towards independence and freedom from the USA.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
What existing commitments are the French going to abandon to marshal the ships needed? The Royal Navy could have pulled it off without sacrificing TOO much; they'd be a little short in some theaters, but not enough to tempt anybody into pressing their luck. The French were barely able to keep their puppet in power in Mexico, so they're going to help militarily defeat an equal industrial base how, exactly?

For a French - Confederate alliance to successfully defeat the Union requires the French to abandon absolutely everything else, including Mexico, and even ASB aren't powerful enough to make Nappy the Third think that's a good idea.

Alternator,

Your post is a good reminder to everyone that one should always read a thread from the beginning if you intend to post and not just focus on the one you want to respond to. Had you done so you would have discovered that I discuss your questions on French commitments and under what circumstances they might be an issue in this scenario.

I also note that you vastly over rate the naval power of the Union and underage that of the Royal Navy and France. For example at the time of the Trent Affair the Royal Navy had the ships, guns and men to address the small naval gendarmerie with a few warships that was the USN twice over without drawing down on deep reserves or in any way stinting on other commitments. Even in 1865 they can do this almost effortlessly.

You also seem to have forgotten that for most of the ACW the French were just intervening in Mexico and did not install the Emperor to oppose the Union's puppet President until quite late.
 
Alternator,

Your post is a good reminder to everyone that one should always read a thread from the beginning if you intend to post and not just focus on the one you want to respond to. Had you done so you would have discovered that I discuss your questions on French commitments and under what circumstances they might be an issue in this scenario.

I also note that you vastly over rate the naval power of the Union and underage that of the Royal Navy and France. For example at the time of the Trent Affair the Royal Navy had the ships, guns and men to address the small naval gendarmerie with a few warships that was the USN twice over without drawing down on deep reserves or in any way stinting on other commitments. Even in 1865 they can do this almost effortlessly.

You also seem to have forgotten that for most of the ACW the French were just intervening in Mexico and did not install the Emperor to oppose the Union's puppet President until quite late.

France intervened in Mexico in December 1961, one month after the Trent Affair; Maximilian wasn't placed on the throne until later, sure, but the French were already involved. Said intervention eventually took MORE ships than the French merchant marine had available, so they had to start using warships just to bring over supplies, so how exactly am I underrating the French Navy?

You also didn't actually say where the French were pulling out of, beyond "it goes without saying" they can manage it. The French Navy was better than the Union Navy, yes. It was not large enough to blockade the Union, support their Mexican adventures, and protect/supply their overseas colonies. The Royal Navy could do that, the French cannot.
 
Said intervention eventually took MORE ships than the French merchant marine had available, so they had to start using warships just to bring over supplies, so how exactly am I underrating the French Navy?

Plain nonsense. At that time the rule was to use NAVY ships to supply the army(as those ships didn't have anything else to do at that time). Using the merchant marine would have been seen as something stupid.
 
Top