How many foreign powers can get involved in ACW?

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.

I mean make it a global cotton crop failure. London looks for more cotton in India and Egypt, but the crop failures mean there is nothing.

Britain needs cotton.
The Confederacy has cotton.

Marriage Bells.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
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.:rolleyes:

Best,

Not forbearance. Self-interest. The British merchants were getting rich flogging weapons to both sides, HMG was doing very well taxing the merchants and the Admiralty was faithfully recording how far the Union Navy stretched the concept of blockade for use in future wars. None the less a sufficiently offensive act would have been sufficient to bring about a belligerent response from the British. The Trent Affair in OTL was more likely to have led to war than not due to the extreme offence given by the USN and the complete failure of the Union cabinet in general and the President in particular to understand the affront given the British and the subsequent position of HMG. The otherwise preposterous and absurd Seward never served his country better than when he convinced Lincoln that any response to the British ultimatum other than complete capitulation would result in war.

The idea that the Union might declare war on Britain over the ill thought through supposed slights that some in the Union saw in the proper execution of its of neutrality laws* by Britain is risible. It is a very stupid bug indeed that goes to war with the gardener, especially when the bug is already in the shadow of the boot of the gardener.

*Like the example in the quote
 
London looks for more cotton in India and Egypt, but the crop failures mean there is nothing.
But there was barely anything in the first place: at the risk of stating the obvious, if there had been more cotton in India and Egypt there wouldn't have been a cotton famine in Lancashire. The local economies weren't set up to grow cotton or to export it in large quantities, and the varieties they produced were poor. In fact, "Surat" had a temporary vogue as slang for "substandard", so you might accuse someone of selling "surat beer". Furthermore, as most contemporaries recognised, the Confederacy wasn't going to be able to leap back into the cotton markets the moment the war ended due to social and economic dislocation.

So why would the (already extremely bad) distress getting marginally worse suddenly persuade Britain to join a civil war? Particularly since that only exacerbates the existing problem of their dependence on a single source of slave-cultivated cotton? Isn't it more likely for them to launch a programme of infrastructure improvements in India and start investing private capital in the cultivation of cotton there?
 
Not forbearance. Self-interest.
To be fair, neither of us said that there was only forbearance on one side. As the merest moment of reading the thread would have sufficed to show, we were responding to the suggestion that the Union never took a single blatantly provocative act through four years of conflict.
 
To be fair, neither of us said that there was only forbearance on one side. As the merest moment of reading the thread would have sufficed to show, we were responding to the suggestion that the Union never took a single blatantly provocative act through four years of conflict.

In further fairness almost all the events mentioned were carried out by Confederate subterfuge versus the consent of the British government.
 
Last edited:
But there was barely anything in the first place: at the risk of stating the obvious, if there had been more cotton in India and Egypt there wouldn't have been a cotton famine in Lancashire. The local economies weren't set up to grow cotton or to export it in large quantities, and the varieties they produced were poor. In fact, "Surat" had a temporary vogue as slang for "substandard", so you might accuse someone of selling "surat beer". Furthermore, as most contemporaries recognised, the Confederacy wasn't going to be able to leap back into the cotton markets the moment the war ended due to social and economic dislocation.

So why would the (already extremely bad) distress getting marginally worse suddenly persuade Britain to join a civil war? Particularly since that only exacerbates the existing problem of their dependence on a single source of slave-cultivated cotton? Isn't it more likely for them to launch a programme of infrastructure improvements in India and start investing private capital in the cultivation of cotton there?

Britain was already giving arms to the Confederacy, so if they need cotton now, I would think they would intervene on the Confederate side so as to get the cotton they need instantly, and then improve the cotton growing in India.

The Confederacy can't trade because of the Union blockade, so the British destroy the Union blockade to allow the Confederacy to trade the cotton to Britain. The Union declares the destruction of their blockade as an act of war and declares war on Britain. The British send their own navy to blockade the Union (a-la War of 1812) and send troops into the north of the Union via Canada (a-la War of 1812).
 
Britain was already giving arms to the Confederacy,
No, they weren't. Some British companies were selling arms to the Confederacy, without the sanction of the government (about a fifth as many weapons as were being sold to the Union in the same timeframe, but that's by the by).

so if they need cotton now, I would think they would intervene on the Confederate side so as to get the cotton they need instantly, and then improve the cotton growing in India.
Did you miss this?

as most contemporaries recognised, the Confederacy wasn't going to be able to leap back into the cotton markets the moment the war ended due to social and economic dislocation.
The British recognise that the war has disrupted cotton production, and that it will take several years for the situation to be restored. So, in the event that the distress gets sufficiently bad for the traditionally non-interventionist British government to do something, there are two options:

1) Incur all the expense of a war, wait several years for Confederate cotton production to return to its pre-war level, continuing thereafter to be dependent on a single source of supply, raising the spectre of another cotton famine some years down the line.
2) Invest in Indian infrastructure and advance capital to the ryots to cultivate cotton, creating greater economic stability in India, growing the overall world cotton capacity and taking advantages of perceived efficiencies in free compared to slave labour to undercut the Confederacy whose dominance in the market has finally been challenged.

To me, one of those seems likelier than the other.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Britain was already giving arms to the Confederacy, so if they need cotton now, I would think they would intervene on the Confederate side so as to get the cotton they need instantly, and then improve the cotton growing in India.

The Confederacy can't trade because of the Union blockade, so the British destroy the Union blockade to allow the Confederacy to trade the cotton to Britain. The Union declares the destruction of their blockade as an act of war and declares war on Britain. The British send their own navy to blockade the Union (a-la War of 1812) and send troops into the north of the Union via Canada (a-la War of 1812).

This is a bit weak

A) The British Govt would not have intervened simply to secure the cotton supply. The Union were after all white Christians not heathen Chinese. There are easier ways to do that like declaring the blockade ineffective with the rest of Europe.
B) Whatever the British do by way of provocation the Union will not declare war on them during the ACW as however bad the situation is war with Britain can only make it worse ... and of course the bug does not make war on the gardener.
C) In the event of a Trent war the British would have sent troops into the north of the Union but only to set up a forward defence because Canada was almost completely isolated from the home islands in winter and forward defence would have better enabled them to better last until the thaw and reinforcements arrive. In almost all other situations they would not have. The coast is a much easier target.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, subterfuge...

In further fairness almost all the events mentioned were carried out by Confederate subterfuge versus the consent of the British government.

Yes, subterfuge...that's it.:rolleyes:

large.jpg


Multiple acts of subterfuge, including, of course, having blockade runners lined up ten deep at Bermuda and the Bahamas. Nelson got around a lot, didn't he?

Best,
 
Yes, subterfuge...that's it.:rolleyes:

Multiple acts of subterfuge, including, of course, having blockade runners lined up ten deep at Bermuda and the Bahamas. Nelson got around a lot, didn't he?

Best,

So the British government was active in aiding and openly supporting this then?

That's a pretty hilarious insinuation :p
 
So the British government was active in aiding and openly supporting this then?

"the laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves implicate the Government." (Franklin Pierce, Third Annual Message, 31 December 1855)

"the sending of armed vessels or of munitions of war from a neutral country to a belligerent port for sale as articles of commerce is unlawful only as it subjects the property to confiscation on capture by the other belligerent. No neutral state is bound to prohibit the exportation of contraband articles." U.S. Supreme Court, The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. 283 (1822)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
HMS Scorpion and Wyvern?

So the British government was active in aiding and openly supporting this then? That's a pretty hilarious insinuation :p

HMS Scorpion and Wyvern?

Magically laid down and to the launching and fitting out stage for who, again?

Quite the blind eye you have there, Horatio.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
HMS Scorpion and Wyvern?

Magically laid down and to the launching and fitting out stage for who, again?

Quite the blind eye you have there, Horatio.:rolleyes:

Best,

Ah right I had forgotten the part where the British totally did nothing to try and close the legal loophole before they outright seized and bought the ships. Though I'm surprised that I also also missed the bit where Laird & Sons was owned by the British government! One would think that would negate the need to seize the ships...

Hmm something doesn't quite add up with your claim of complicity :p
 
By 1861, Britain was importing a significant amount of their grain and some manufactured goods from the US, border disputes had been solved, and India was a bigger concern. The Trent affair didn't help things, but for the most part Britain saw no reason to turn on a trade partner with cordial relations.

France was more interested in the weaker nations in Latin America, the USA was too strong to warrant an invasion.

Everyone else was unconcerned with the Civil War or unable to really influence the outcome.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
By 1861, Britain was importing a significant amount of their grain and some manufactured goods from the US, border disputes had been solved, and India was a bigger concern. <snip>

Everyone else was unconcerned with the Civil War or unable to really influence the outcome.

1 In 1861/2 the British grain merchants imported much of the glut of grain and milled flour produced in the Union and that they could no longer sell to the South (being as they were at war with the Union). Because there was a glut the British merchants got the grain at a very reasonable price. The excess grain imported from the Union compared to a normal year was not needed to feed the British people. Much of the Union grain purchased by British merchants was subsequently re-exported at a profit. Furthermore the British grain merchants were also key players in the Baltic grain markets through which Russian grain was sold, they could also purchase Canadian, other European, North African and Australian grain if they needed to. Neither was wheat grain the sole or even major carbohydrate component of the British diet. They ate a lot of potatoes, some rice and some other grains such as Rye and barley. In other words although Union grain was a large part of British grain imports they dis not rely on it and they had other sources of supply.

2 Exactly what machines do you think the Union was exporting to Britain in the ACW? Machines were not a significant Union export to Britain they are insignificant in financial terms. Britain on the other hand did export both machines and machine parts to the Union during this period.

3 Border and fishing disputes between BNA and the Union had NOT been resolved in 1861 not even the Pig War. Indeed there are still unresolved border issues between Canada and the USA today that were unresolved in 1861.

4 India, or at least Indian security was not an issue for the British. The First Indian Revolution/Mutiny was over. The revolutionaries/mutineers had been crushed and British reprisals were both savage and thorough. The mutiny was confined to one part of one of the three HEIC administrative regions of India. The army of the HEIC was being integrated with the regular army and it's numbers were being cut. There was no security issue.

5 Contrary to your assertion most of Europe was very concerned about the ACW. They were horrified by the loss of life and the prospect of slave revolts in which even larger numbers mostly civilians would die. On a less altristic note several nations were concerned about the Union blockade and its impact on their trade. They sent warships to the north American coast to observe that the blockade was being properly conducted. These nations included Britain, France, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands.
 
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.:rolleyes:

Best,

Hang on a minute the Chesapeake was seized by Confederate Agents and returned by an Admiralty Court. *

The Saint Alban's Raid was the responsibility of, wait for it, Confederate Agents (And Northern Troops violated the Canadian Border, and the raiders were arrested!).#

The Union bought massive arms shipments of arms from Britain and Europe, as much as half the weapons used, should the Private factories in question not have sold to the North.~

*you might as well blame Saudi Arabian Govt for 9/11, as opposed to the perpetrators, who were atleast Saudi nationals.

#or blame the US Govt for William Walker.

~Or should the British Govt do what was LEGAL to curtail the sale of arms, re. The Foreign Enlistment Act, or follow Internationally accepted Neutrality Laws, which were also useful to the Union Navy
 
Hang on a minute the Chesapeake was seized by Confederate Agents and returned by an Admiralty Court. *

The Saint Alban's Raid was the responsibility of, wait for it, Confederate Agents (And Northern Troops violated the Canadian Border, and the raiders were arrested!).#

The Union bought massive arms shipments of arms from Britain and Europe, as much as half the weapons used, should the Private factories in question not have sold to the North.~

*you might as well blame Saudi Arabian Govt for 9/11, as opposed to the perpetrators, who were atleast Saudi nationals.

#or blame the US Govt for William Walker.

~Or should the British Govt do what was LEGAL to curtail the sale of arms, re. The Foreign Enlistment Act, or follow Internationally accepted Neutrality Laws, which were also useful to the Union Navy

Careful you might shatter the illusion that the dastardly Brits were secretly plotting the downfall of the USA with their evil plan of declaring neutrality and making money selling weapons to everyone :p

#Though on the subject of Walker, should we not also damn the US for allowing both the Hunter's Lodges and the Fenians to raid Canada in 1838 and 1866-1870?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Confederate agents who were largely British subjects

Hang on a minute the Chesapeake was seized by Confederate Agents and returned by an Admiralty Court. *

Confederate pirates (fixed that for you) who were largely British subjects, shot a member of the crew multiple times, and threw him into the North Atlantic ... and the alleged confederates were freed, even after extradition was agreed to, by the action of British subjects.

Seriously; three leading citizens pushed the marshal down and the two pirates who were to be extraditd were rowed away by townsmen.

In Halifax. In broad daylight.

And then there's this individual named Bulloch you may have heard of...

Best,
 
Confederate pirates (fixed that for you) who were largely British subjects, shot a member of the crew multiple times, and threw him into the North Atlantic ... and the alleged confederates were freed, even after extradition was agreed to, by the action of British subjects.

Seriously; three leading citizens pushed the marshal down and the two pirates who were to be extraditd were rowed away by townsmen.

In Halifax. In broad daylight.

And then there's this individual named Bulloch you may have heard of...

Best,

Still all actions by private citizens, not Govt officials. And its not as if the Union Navy ever violated British sovereignty or international law, and Bulloch who was born in Georgia, was skirting the edge of British law!?
 
What could Britain gain by intervening in the war?

Money was being made trading munitions to both sides and any war with the Union would have put Canada at risk.

Britain's primary concern was in maintaining the balance of power in Europe.

The US was outside the European alliance system and lacked the ability to project power across the Atlantic.

Whilst the ACW was of interest it was not vitally important in the European scheme of things.

America was really still something of a backwater in the 1860s.
 
Top