No Egypt, no Union?

The South in the Civil War was trying to convince the european nations of Britain, France, and Spain to help them in the war because of the cotton (i.e. King Cotton Diplomacy). However, with pressure from the Union, the European nations began to get cotton from Egypt.

WI, a cotton shortage existed in Egypt, preventing them from getting the supplies from a nearby source? Would they eventually, try to crush the Blockade and get their supplies? Would they try to help the South actually win, or just get their cotton?
 
Probably not. England was making a ton of money selling weapons to both sides and needed American corn and wheat. Fighting another war in North America would be EXTREMELY expensive and risks losing Canada to the US. Also the British Empire was large enough that if Eygypt didn't have enough cotton then they would grow it somewhere else. You can grow cotton in a lot of places other then the south or Eygpt. OTL they grew it in India as well. Also textiles was far from the only industry in Great Britian. You can also substitute wool for cotton if need be.
 
Probably not. England was making a ton of money selling weapons to both sides and needed American corn and wheat. Fighting another war in North America would be EXTREMELY expensive and risks losing Canada to the US. Also the British Empire was large enough that if Eygypt didn't have enough cotton then they would grow it somewhere else. You can grow cotton in a lot of places other then the south or Eygpt. OTL they grew it in India as well. Also textiles was far from the only industry in Great Britian. You can also substitute wool for cotton if need be.

What about France or Spain?
 
What about France or Spain?

The is a misconception regarding King Cotton - France was more dependent upon it than Britain. The British, at least, had tons of cotton in warehouses at the outbreak of the ACW - the previous years were bumper crop harvests. The market was glutted. There were plenty of European entrepeneurs that would have gone elsewhere to other lands to plant cotton and break the influence of Southern cotton.
 
The is a misconception regarding King Cotton - France was more dependent upon it than Britain. The British, at least, had tons of cotton in warehouses at the outbreak of the ACW - the previous years were bumper crop harvests. The market was glutted. There were plenty of European entrepeneurs that would have gone elsewhere to other lands to plant cotton and break the influence of Southern cotton.

So the cotton issue was not enough for the European nations to support the South?
 
Suppose a few bad summers beforehand, and an earlier and more successful mahdist rebellion in sudan, maybe not with the same leader as OTL, that disrupts egyptian agricultural production?
 
Still won't do for Great Britain; the ACW is ill-timed for financial reasons there. The crisis of 1848-9 pretty well wiped out credit in Europe, Britain included; recovery begins in 1850, but the British had to issue a lot of bonds to cover the Crimean in 1854, then a lot more bonds to cover the suppression of the Sepoys in 1857. 1861 is simply too soon on the heels of those conflicts - intervention will badly damage the Crown's credit rating, and there is nothing to be gained in North America worth that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer well knows. On top of that, suppression of Egypt will be a higher priority if it's going on more or less simultaneously.

France might feel differently, especially if you can trump up some idiotic personal reason for Napoleon III to dislike Lincoln et al. If the preceding years had been bad harvests instead of bumper crops, King Cotton might look like a higher priority than the recovery of debts from Mexico...
 
Last edited:
Top