L'Affair Trent

The whole relationship could best be described as an one sided crush:D. Napoleon III was comitted to an alliance with England and made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy (he wanted to avoid the mistakes of his uncle) but the British were indifferent to his advances and only gave in when it suited them.

Not so one-sided; many within the British establishment we're great fans of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, including Palmerston himself, who personally congratulated Bonaparte on the coup d'état on 2 December 1851 - which Bonaparte took to be British approval. Hell, even Victoria was personally and diplomatically enamored with the emperor. The British certainly had no quarrel with the French when they intervened in Cochinchina, Syria, Mexico, or Korea, nor did the British overly care much when France involved itself in the Campagne d'Italie. Hell the two nations worked closely together intervening in Argentina, China, and Japan. Likewise Paris didn't worry itself about the British colonial campaigns in Burma, Nicaragua, Persia, West Africa, Bhutan, or Ethiopia, and nor did the the French attempt to take advantage of British weaknesses when she faced uprisings in India, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, unlike other powers (*coughRussiacough, coughUScough*). There simply were no major issues between the British and Second French empires, it truly was the first stage of the entente cordiale. The Franco-British rivalry only was reignited under the Third Republic, which the British established viewed (correctly) as unstable.

So the idea that the British are going to suddenly buddy up to the US, considering how close they came to war IOTL, and fight against the French, in the middle of the ACW, is pretty far-fetched.
 
This is the France that declared war on China over a dead French missionary, on Vietnam over two Spanish missionaries, on Austria over two token border rectifications with Sardinia-Piedmont and finally invaded Mexico because of some unpaid debts.

Hell, we know in 1870 Napoleon III will go ahead and declare war on Prussia because a German prince that had already refused to wear the Spanish crown did not refuse loudly enough and because the king of Prussia might have insulted him in a German newspaper.

If one of France's ships is illegally seized and/or damaged in some way? Sure, why not. The casus is irrelevant. It all depends on if French interests are benefited by this war, or failling that, Napoleon III's personal interests.

And the apparent benefits are clear: Prestige, and the assumed establishment of a new, large state that will be on the French sphere of influence. Whereas the costs don't seem to be too high, after all the Confederates will carry the bulk of the fight, and it's not like the US is in a position to land an army on Normandy or anything.

Now, when does the incident happen, exactly?

- Is it after the real Trent Affair featuring a British ship has happened and there has been already a damage in Anglo-American relations? Then the British could have more of a reason to turn a blind eye on French intervention, though it's also obvious that they will try to court the USA post-war, regardless of the result.

- Is it before the intervention in Mexico escalated in early 1862? Because then it might as well be cancelled, and France devote all the energies that might have gone there IOTL to make the CSA its new friend/puppet in the Americas instead.
Your POD are interesting and plausible.
 
Not so one-sided; many within the British establishment we're great fans of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, including Palmerston himself, who personally congratulated Bonaparte on the coup d'état on 2 December 1851 - which Bonaparte took to be British approval. Hell, even Victoria was personally and diplomatically enamored with the emperor. The British certainly had no quarrel with the French when they intervened in Cochinchina, Syria, Mexico, or Korea, nor did the British overly care much when France involved itself in the Campagne d'Italie. Hell the two nations worked closely together intervening in Argentina, China, and Japan. Likewise Paris didn't worry itself about the British colonial campaigns in Burma, Nicaragua, Persia, West Africa, Bhutan, or Ethiopia, and nor did the the French attempt to take advantage of British weaknesses when she faced uprisings in India, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, unlike other powers (*coughRussiacough, coughUScough*). There simply were no major issues between the British and Second French empires, it truly was the first stage of the entente cordiale. The Franco-British rivalry only was reignited under the Third Republic, which the British established viewed (correctly) as unstable.

So the idea that the British are going to suddenly buddy up to the US, considering how close they came to war IOTL, and fight against the French, in the middle of the ACW, is pretty far-fetched.

And when you're best of friends one of you will always spend huge sums of money building an extensive system of forts to defend against possible invasion by your best friend. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Or, perhaps Britain and France had many common interests, but when France began their large post-Crimean naval build up Britain realized their long time rival could easily become a serious threat. (Sound familiar WWI fans?)

See...Royal Commission on the Defense of the United Kingdom and the Palmerston Forts.

I'm not saying that France and Britain were at each others throat, but neither could they be called allies beyond having select common interests. If there is the French equivalent of the Trent Affair without some insult to British sovereignty than there is little reason for Britain to support intervention in the ACW. More likely Britain will be come wary of French intentions and act accordingly.

Benjamin
 
The French & British were the closest any two European powers were in the 19th century. Certainly much closer than anything seen before. Were they 'allies' à la the world wars, cold war, post-cold war geopolitical scene? No, but then again nothing else was in the 19th century. You have to understand things within context.

Its up in the air whether or not the British will even disapprove of the French recognition of the CSA, let alone something so ASB as taking military action against France over the ACW.
 
The Franco-British rivalry only was reignited under the Third Republic, which the British established viewed (correctly) as unstable.

So the idea that the British are going to suddenly buddy up to the US, considering how close they came to war IOTL, and fight against the French, in the middle of the ACW, is pretty far-fetched.

So does that mean someone could make a ATL with the French helping the CSA win, have the Franco-Prussian war still happen, have Nap. III overthrone to form the Third Republic, still have the new Republic align with the CSA, then have the British drawn into an alliance with the USA, and still have the TL remain relativley plausible?
 
So does that mean someone could make a ATL with the French helping the CSA win, have the Franco-Prussian war still happen, have Nap. III overthrone to form the Third Republic, still have the new Republic align with the CSA, then have the British drawn into an alliance with the USA, and still have the TL remain relativley plausible?
No a french empire who was successful in america would look too powerfull to Bismarck. Bismarck needed a common enemy to unite the german state, one powerfull enought to pause a threat but weak enought to be defeated. And the empire is way cooler then the republic.
 
No a french empire who was successful in america would look too powerfull to Bismarck. Bismarck needed a common enemy to unite the german state, one powerfull enought to pause a threat but weak enought to be defeated. And the empire is way cooler then the republic.
Okay then. I'll get a little off topic hear so forgive me, but if the French did somehow avoid the Franco-Prussian war (perhaps due to an American success) would there still remain any high possibilities of another revolution to take place in France that would install a gov. that would drive Britain away from France, and/or closer to the US?
 
Okay then. I'll get a little off topic hear so forgive me, but if the French did somehow avoid the Franco-Prussian war (perhaps due to an American success) would there still remain any high possibilities of another revolution to take place in France that would install a gov. that would drive Britain away from France, and/or closer to the US?
Well such success would make the Empire really popullar with Napoleon III "giving back France it's lost glory". The Empire was not taken down by a revolution but a coup when Napoleon was captured. Here no such scenario the Empire could really well endure to modern day.
 
Top