So there is always talk on this board speculating about British Involvement. I'm wondering who else could have been pulled in, and what the ramifications could be. For example, I know that Russia supplied battleships to the union (what a strange idea, considering today's headlines). Would British entry possibly influence the Russians to increase supplies or send troops? Likewise, I've noticed this board usually operates with the idea that the Civil War is a one-on-one fight, US vs CS. I think things could have gone very differently, with the country fracturing into smaller and smaller pieces. So what happens if chaos essentially breaks out? Slaves rebellions, New York seceding, mutinies crushed and succeeding on both sides, California going it alone and then consumed by its own war, etc etc. Could it possibly touch off a "Scramble for America?"
How many foreign powers can get involved in ACW?
- Thread starter matashowski
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
The question is what would any of the
The question is what would any of the European powers hope to gain? The French took a shot at Mexico for strategic depth and the potential Austrian alliance and failed .. The Spanish took shots at the Dominican Republic, Chile, and Peru in the 1860s and also failed to gain anything significant. The Russians - who did not supply warships to the U.S. (other way round, actually) - were happy to sell Alaska, which was a strategic dead-end for them.
War, even in the Nineteenth Century, was not a board game, and the powers all had strategic interests much closer to home than the Western Hemsphere.
Best,
The question is what would any of the European powers hope to gain? The French took a shot at Mexico for strategic depth and the potential Austrian alliance and failed .. The Spanish took shots at the Dominican Republic, Chile, and Peru in the 1860s and also failed to gain anything significant. The Russians - who did not supply warships to the U.S. (other way round, actually) - were happy to sell Alaska, which was a strategic dead-end for them.
War, even in the Nineteenth Century, was not a board game, and the powers all had strategic interests much closer to home than the Western Hemsphere.
Best,
Last edited:
The powers of Europe all had their own schemes independent of a war across the Atlantic, none of them (save France) had a vested interest in the outcome.
The great powers of the day Austria, Prussia and Russia, had bigger fish to fry:
Austria: Tepidly exploring new diplomatic relations with France while worrying about their northern neighbor and struggling with the German question. No interest or desire for a European war.
Prussia: Being swept up in the age of Bismarck whose only concerned with the affairs of central Europe and ensuring the dominance of Prussia in the region while trying to keep France and Britain as far away from his machinations as possible. The reforms of Moltke and Roon are underway which will turn the Prussian war machine into the greatest on the continent. No interest or desire for a European war.
Russia: Has just emancipated the serfs, is undergoing army reforms, is economically on shifting sands, political turmoil inside the Empire, and the leading men are isolationist and uninterested in affairs which don't directly pertain to Russia and the potential chaos from undoing the underpinnings of Russia's feudal empire. No interest in a foreign or European War.
The only two powers which had the means or the motive to get involved, Britain and France, were a mixed bag. Britain had no desire for war, but if pushed would have intervened. France would only act in concert with Britain, and that was for self-serving ends to ensure Napoleons puppet empire in Mexico. The other European powers would have cared little about such an intervention since it effects none of them, and upsets none of their major plans.
The great powers of the day Austria, Prussia and Russia, had bigger fish to fry:
Austria: Tepidly exploring new diplomatic relations with France while worrying about their northern neighbor and struggling with the German question. No interest or desire for a European war.
Prussia: Being swept up in the age of Bismarck whose only concerned with the affairs of central Europe and ensuring the dominance of Prussia in the region while trying to keep France and Britain as far away from his machinations as possible. The reforms of Moltke and Roon are underway which will turn the Prussian war machine into the greatest on the continent. No interest or desire for a European war.
Russia: Has just emancipated the serfs, is undergoing army reforms, is economically on shifting sands, political turmoil inside the Empire, and the leading men are isolationist and uninterested in affairs which don't directly pertain to Russia and the potential chaos from undoing the underpinnings of Russia's feudal empire. No interest in a foreign or European War.
The only two powers which had the means or the motive to get involved, Britain and France, were a mixed bag. Britain had no desire for war, but if pushed would have intervened. France would only act in concert with Britain, and that was for self-serving ends to ensure Napoleons puppet empire in Mexico. The other European powers would have cared little about such an intervention since it effects none of them, and upsets none of their major plans.
france would be the most likely to intervene militarily, as Napoleon III did in mexico
I doubt Britain would intervene militarily, I cant see how the public would be able to stomach a war with an english speaking democracy. Britain would just want to force the US to the negotiating table.
I doubt Britain would intervene militarily, I cant see how the public would be able to stomach a war with an english speaking democracy. Britain would just want to force the US to the negotiating table.
France might, based on their attempt to conquer Mexico.
I think a Union/French war would harm France's efforts more than the US as the Union could better arm Mexico as an ally.
France never got much more than a toehold by force. A few hundred cannon and fifty thousand modern muskets or repeating rifles and Mexico could shove the French out overnight.
Britain and Spain would probably not act in concert with France as they were still offended at France lying to them about "just trying to force Mexico to repay their debts when, in fact, France was trying to colonize". Both countries pulled out immediately once France's intentions were known.
At this point, Spain had no reason to intervene, as they no longer shared a border. If anything, the Confederacy was more of a danger to Cuba than the Union. Most of the filibusters were southern.
Great Britain, well, was also a bit of a question mark. I think the danger was always overstated. Despite a few obvious arguments, no one in Britain liked slavery and once the Proclamation was issued, there was little threat provided there wasn't another Trent incident.
Besides, an angry Union of Britain helping the Confederacy to victory was more of a threat to Canada than a happy and victorious Union.
The Union trade with Britain has always been understated as well, in the rush to point out the Lancaster Cotton Famine (the weavers by the way were some of the most ardent anti-slavers in Britain).
I think a Union/French war would harm France's efforts more than the US as the Union could better arm Mexico as an ally.
France never got much more than a toehold by force. A few hundred cannon and fifty thousand modern muskets or repeating rifles and Mexico could shove the French out overnight.
Britain and Spain would probably not act in concert with France as they were still offended at France lying to them about "just trying to force Mexico to repay their debts when, in fact, France was trying to colonize". Both countries pulled out immediately once France's intentions were known.
At this point, Spain had no reason to intervene, as they no longer shared a border. If anything, the Confederacy was more of a danger to Cuba than the Union. Most of the filibusters were southern.
Great Britain, well, was also a bit of a question mark. I think the danger was always overstated. Despite a few obvious arguments, no one in Britain liked slavery and once the Proclamation was issued, there was little threat provided there wasn't another Trent incident.
Besides, an angry Union of Britain helping the Confederacy to victory was more of a threat to Canada than a happy and victorious Union.
The Union trade with Britain has always been understated as well, in the rush to point out the Lancaster Cotton Famine (the weavers by the way were some of the most ardent anti-slavers in Britain).
Well absent US aid the Juarista's were on the verge of military exhaustion and had been forced out of central Mexico into the Northwest having control over only Sonora, Chihuahua, Baja, and a toehold on the coast at Guererro in 1865. It was only with the ability to sell bonds in the US and purchase weapons that they were able to turn the situation around in 1866-67 with the American pressure for the French to withdraw support.
But France acting on their own would be pretty screwed. It was Great Britain which granted them freedom of action, and unless they felt like committing a substantial portion of the fleet to the Caribbean to just escort troops and supplies they would get hammered. However it would be a small boon to the Confederacy as it would weaken the blockade.
Spain is really a bit of a wild card. They were doing their own thing trying to annex Santo Domingo and had a pretty good set up with the Confederacy, blockade runners were making people rich in Cuba, and Spain felt that longterm US stability would mean an end to their influence in the region and loss of their colonies. (I mean they were right in the long run, but it was trouble at home which really brought them down).
unprincipled peter
Donor
I think the American revolution showed rather definitively that spending lots and lots of national treasure just to spite the other side is a bad idea.
As others have said, plenty of countries had minor reasons to take a side. No one had any real reason to expend national resources to taking a side. one USA or two USA really made no difference. None of the potential USA's were going to be a true ally to the European powers. The same ocean isolation that meant the US didn't have to spend oodles of money on a military and could grow relatively unfettered, also meant that European powers didn't have to choose a side in the civil war. The US chose to stay unencumbered from global alliances, and the globe chose to stay out of the civil war, and quite wisely so. It would have been the same as the revolution: spending lots of money, for no gain, a lesson that had already been learned.
As others have said, plenty of countries had minor reasons to take a side. No one had any real reason to expend national resources to taking a side. one USA or two USA really made no difference. None of the potential USA's were going to be a true ally to the European powers. The same ocean isolation that meant the US didn't have to spend oodles of money on a military and could grow relatively unfettered, also meant that European powers didn't have to choose a side in the civil war. The US chose to stay unencumbered from global alliances, and the globe chose to stay out of the civil war, and quite wisely so. It would have been the same as the revolution: spending lots of money, for no gain, a lesson that had already been learned.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Spain, at that point was merely desperately trying to hold on to the remnants of their colonial empire. They weren't trying to annex Santo Domingo, they were trying to hold on to it. it had been a Spanish colony before France forced them to cough it up.
The best thing for them is to use the American distraction to further their goals. the worst thing is to join either side in the civil war. Nothing good could come from it. it wasn't the americans that were thwarting their goals. it was their inability to keep control over their own colonies. spending money/resources in joining the civil war does absolutely nothing to help them in the carribean.
The best thing for them is to use the American distraction to further their goals. the worst thing is to join either side in the civil war. Nothing good could come from it. it wasn't the americans that were thwarting their goals. it was their inability to keep control over their own colonies. spending money/resources in joining the civil war does absolutely nothing to help them in the carribean.
How many AH's can dance on the head of a pin ... answer as many as it takes to make America win!
The latest one by Peter Tsouras http://www.amazon.com/Bayonets-Ball...&qid=1423500786&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+tsouras has Russia joining in, having realised that the Union versus the South, Britain and France is a losing proposition, this is more or less the jumping the shark moment when he loses all credibility!?
The latest one by Peter Tsouras http://www.amazon.com/Bayonets-Ball...&qid=1423500786&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+tsouras has Russia joining in, having realised that the Union versus the South, Britain and France is a losing proposition, this is more or less the jumping the shark moment when he loses all credibility!?
TFSmith121
Banned
The Dominican Republic was independent from
The DR was independent from 1844 to 1861, when the Spanish invaded; they left in 1865, in the face of significant resistance from the Dominicans who wanted a restoration of independence and the likely involvement of the US at the end of the Civil War. Not unlike in Mexico, where the French faced the same potential alliance and left in 1867.
Best,
The DR was independent from 1844 to 1861, when the Spanish invaded; they left in 1865, in the face of significant resistance from the Dominicans who wanted a restoration of independence and the likely involvement of the US at the end of the Civil War. Not unlike in Mexico, where the French faced the same potential alliance and left in 1867.
Best,
Say something happens to cotton crops that causes the British and French cotton stockpiles to evaporate, then they would both want to intervene on the side of the Confederates in order to maintain a supply of cotton from America, which the Union would have likely been against.
Just destroy the cotton crops.
Just destroy the cotton crops.
Only the UK and France had any reasons to intervene in the ACW, and frankly none of the other powers could do much one way or another. yes a Russian fleet visited the USA during the ACW as a show of "friendship", as at the moment they were on the outs with Britain and wanted to express this in a safe way.
Only France and the UK could bring any real military value/force one way or another. Other powers could offer havens for raiders, buy captured Union ships, sell the CSA "stuff" accepting cotton bonds rather than specie. Some of this was done, but in most cases either the countries that might do it did not have "stuff" to sell the CSA wanted/needed, or the financial resources to take risky currency in return for real goods.
Furthermore, what could any other powers gain? France wanted a free hand in Mexico, the UK wanted a weak and divided America (at least many elements of the upper crust did). How would intervening profit Spain? Russia? Austria-Hungary? Prussia/North German Confederation? IMHO none of these folks would gain anything by intervening (on either side), and even a successful intervention would not be cost free.
Getting directly involved in the ACW was something totally optional for any of the European powers. Accepting it was "optional", getting involved would mean a relatively cold calculation by the European powers. The calculus seems clear to me...
Only France and the UK could bring any real military value/force one way or another. Other powers could offer havens for raiders, buy captured Union ships, sell the CSA "stuff" accepting cotton bonds rather than specie. Some of this was done, but in most cases either the countries that might do it did not have "stuff" to sell the CSA wanted/needed, or the financial resources to take risky currency in return for real goods.
Furthermore, what could any other powers gain? France wanted a free hand in Mexico, the UK wanted a weak and divided America (at least many elements of the upper crust did). How would intervening profit Spain? Russia? Austria-Hungary? Prussia/North German Confederation? IMHO none of these folks would gain anything by intervening (on either side), and even a successful intervention would not be cost free.
Getting directly involved in the ACW was something totally optional for any of the European powers. Accepting it was "optional", getting involved would mean a relatively cold calculation by the European powers. The calculus seems clear to me...
frlmerrin
Banned
The following had at least some reasons for undertaking a military or naval intervention of some kind and the resources to do so (although not all at the same time).
Britain
France
Mexico
Brazil
Based on OTL behaviours the following might become involved if Britain were involved
Austria-Hungary
Belgium
The Ottoman Empire
Italy
Its support of the USA might be seen as an excuse to invade Morocco by some powers.
Britain
France
Mexico
Brazil
Based on OTL behaviours the following might become involved if Britain were involved
Austria-Hungary
Belgium
The Ottoman Empire
Italy
Its support of the USA might be seen as an excuse to invade Morocco by some powers.
The British can turn to cotton crops in Egypt and India, as they did in OTL. There is a reason 'King Cotton' didn't save the Confederacy.
Yep. Britain has no reason to get involved in an incredibly expensive war (both economically and socially) in the Americas. It'd take a really blatant provocation for it to happen, and the Union wasn't going to give it.
frlmerrin
Banned
and the Matamoros incidents
and Wilkes threats against mail ships made in his cups
and the imprisonment of British crews on blockade runners
and the constant violations of British sovereignty by Union cruizers
and maybe Craven's activities in Gib and Morocco
and maybe the attempted stopping of HMS Terror by a Union cruzier.
Basically if you don't have officers of the quality of Milne and Dunlop running the NAandWIS then any one of a dozen blockade incidents could have resulted in fighting between British and Union warships. This may not have lead to war but it would have substantially lowered the threshold for war.
TFSmith121
Banned
As opposed to Chesapeake, the Saint Alban's raid,
As opposed to SS Chesapeake (pirated by British subjects), the Saint Alban's raid (cross-border terrorism using British territory as a safe haven), and the Laird Rams...
Yes, peace was due ENTIRELY to British forbearance.
Best,
As opposed to SS Chesapeake (pirated by British subjects), the Saint Alban's raid (cross-border terrorism using British territory as a safe haven), and the Laird Rams...
Yes, peace was due ENTIRELY to British forbearance.
Best,