Chris Oakley
Banned
Using a POD after Fort Sumter but before the Trent incident, construct a scenario under which Great Britain sides with the Union in the American Civil War.
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends...": The UK sides with the Union in the ACW
- Thread starter Chris Oakley
- Start date
If Britain had a more radical government with a wider electorate...
If nappy 3 was more like his uncle and favored the South as a way of getting at Britain...
I wonder whether Lincoln or any likely Northern leadership would even have actively welcomed direct military support from the then hyper power.
If nappy 3 was more like his uncle and favored the South as a way of getting at Britain...
I wonder whether Lincoln or any likely Northern leadership would even have actively welcomed direct military support from the then hyper power.
The popular feeling outside part of the upper class was support for the North so in many ways it wouldn't be that hard to do, even Queen Vicky favoured the North and I believe large parts of the RN, proud of their role in suppressing the slave trade, were anti-south due to its slavery.
Perhaps a group of slaves grab a boat and try to flee, the Confederates send ships after them but just as they catch up a small RN sloop appears and says "bugger off", deciding that trying to capture escaped slaves = slave trading. Lets say the sloop is heavily outgunned and outnumbered and puts up a brave fight before being sunk but in doing so the slaves manage to escape. once the story hits the papers, there is universal outrage in London at the sinking-brave sailors killed by evil slaveowners. Declaring the sinking of the ship an act of war and that it is Britain's moral duty to not only see the end of the slave trade but also slavery, Britain declares war...
...a few weeks later a British-Canadian force marches through Washington to what can only be called an unexpected friendly welcome as RN ships blockade every southern held port, The Times reports that not even the smallest fishing boat can leave their harbours without being spotted and detained.
Perhaps a group of slaves grab a boat and try to flee, the Confederates send ships after them but just as they catch up a small RN sloop appears and says "bugger off", deciding that trying to capture escaped slaves = slave trading. Lets say the sloop is heavily outgunned and outnumbered and puts up a brave fight before being sunk but in doing so the slaves manage to escape. once the story hits the papers, there is universal outrage in London at the sinking-brave sailors killed by evil slaveowners. Declaring the sinking of the ship an act of war and that it is Britain's moral duty to not only see the end of the slave trade but also slavery, Britain declares war...
...a few weeks later a British-Canadian force marches through Washington to what can only be called an unexpected friendly welcome as RN ships blockade every southern held port, The Times reports that not even the smallest fishing boat can leave their harbours without being spotted and detained.
In D.P. Crook's excellent book, The North, the South, and the Powers, he details how by late 1864 some Confederate statesmen were pushing Davis to take a firmer stand against Britain (including a declaration of war) because of their confiscation of ships being built for the Confederacy in British yards. As things became more desperate the Confederacy began to look for any way possible to bring about European intervention into the ongoing Civil War.
Perhaps they saw a declaration of war against Britain as a way to get Britain to land forces in the Confederacy, thus, in a round about way, breaking the Union blockade. Once that occured it would be only a matter of time until the Union became entangled in a war against Britain. From there it goes without saying that the CSA and UK would quickly become staunch allies, and together they would invent tanks and crush perfidious America.
Or perhaps that wouldn't occur and the Confederacy would be crushed just a bit faster.
Benjamin
P.S. I think both Bizarro World Harrison and OTL Harrison are ASB.
Perhaps they saw a declaration of war against Britain as a way to get Britain to land forces in the Confederacy, thus, in a round about way, breaking the Union blockade. Once that occured it would be only a matter of time until the Union became entangled in a war against Britain. From there it goes without saying that the CSA and UK would quickly become staunch allies, and together they would invent tanks and crush perfidious America.
Or perhaps that wouldn't occur and the Confederacy would be crushed just a bit faster.
Benjamin
P.S. I think both Bizarro World Harrison and OTL Harrison are ASB.
67th Tigers
Banned
Wouldn't particularly matter, for the first 18 months neither side had much in the way of modern rifles (prewar holdings were 25,000 rifle muskets, and Springfield was producing 300 a month 12 months into the war, before new machinery brought it up to 1,000 a month). You need to fastforward to mid 1864 for rifles to be near universal.
Amazingly as late as mid-64, the Union launches a Corps Assault by Column, how very Waterloo:
http://www.operations.dns2go.com/op...Infantry Tactics Tactics and Abstractions.htm
In fact, a couple of other article by that chap are worth reading:
http://www.operations.dns2go.com/op...ng With Success in the American Civil War.htm
http://www.operations.dns2go.com/ops9/Assaulting With Success Part 2 ACW Historical Analysis.htm
What about the French supporting the Union
being all into Lafayette nostalgia or something.
Also, funny thing is that Nappy III wasn't a rival with the UK, he always fought on their side, or they fought on his, in Russia, China and Mexico. It's one thing for sure that he did better than his uncle.
being all into Lafayette nostalgia or something.
Also, funny thing is that Nappy III wasn't a rival with the UK, he always fought on their side, or they fought on his, in Russia, China and Mexico. It's one thing for sure that he did better than his uncle.
having the UK declare itself for the Union would be a morale booster, but I doubt Lincoln would want them actually helping... we didn't need their armies or their navy.... but having the UK refuse all CSA contacts would be a help...
The thing is, a formal declaration of war on CSA would be akin to formal recognition of CSA as an independent nation... so the only thing the UK can do would be to support the Union, and to declare CSA as the "rebels". Lincoln may or probably may not accept UK military help, but may be able to negotiate some contracts etc that would help the Northern military soon after the declaration of UK for the Union. Beyond that, it makes the CSA situation even that much worse...
Recognition might not matter that much to the U.K., because Lincoln's announcement of a blockade against the ports in Dixie technically gave the CSA such recognition. WHat nation blockades its own ports?
However, I agree that Lincoln would not want direct involvement by the U.K. against the CSA, but guaranteeing that the British won't march down from the North would be a big relief.
Didn't Lincoln just declare the ports closed? A government could certainly close its own ports and enforce the ruling with the Navy.
He can declare the ports closed, but I was thinking he'd gone farther. Besides, what good would closing ports you don't hold do?