U.S. Civil War with Foreign Intervention

So, as it says on the tin, I'm looking for some thoughts on if foreign countries intervened in the U.S. Civil War. Specifically, I was thinking the main foreign powers who would intervene would be France and the UK on the side of the Confederacy and Russia on the side of the Union. If anyone knows of any other powers who would be likely to intervene, feel free to mention them.
The point of divergence I had in mind was a more successful Confederate invasion of Maryland in 1862, starting with a victory for the South at Antietam. If any of you have any thoughts about this PoD, or have a better one in mind, feel free to say it.

First off, what were the prospects for the Union if foreign countries intervened in the U.S. Civil War? Could the Union still gain victory? How long would the war go?
I would really appreciate it if anyone had access to some good sources on the subject, such as the opinions of the different countries about the Civil War and their strengths and weaknesses. If anyone had a link to previous good AH.com Threads on this subject.

Thank you everyone!
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Specifically, I was thinking the main foreign powers who would intervene would be France and the UK on the side of the Confederacy and Russia on the side of the Union.

The idea of Russia intervening on the side of the Union is pretty much a non-starter. The last thing the Lincoln administration would want is to bring in a foreign power to assist it against the Confederacy. It would cost them far, far more in political and diplomatic credibility that it could possibly help them in any way. After all, they maintained the position that the Confederacy was a rebellion against their lawful authority, not an independent state. Having to bring in Russia to help them makes that contention very dubious and makes the Lincoln administration look ridiculous. Besides, what could Russia do to help? Send over a few thousand men? The Union didn't need them.

First off, what were the prospects for the Union if foreign countries intervened in the U.S. Civil War? Could the Union still gain victory?

Union prospects are quite poor in this event. The Royal Navy could sweep the seas of Union merchant vessels and easily break the blockade of the Confederacy. That, by itself, is probably enough to win the war. The British don't even need to send ground forces to help the South; any assistance they would give would be entirely from the navy.

One of the main impacts would be financial. The Union dollar would rapidly lose value, while inflation in the South would be much lower than it was IOTL. More than anything else, the South lost the war because of inflation.

I would really appreciate it if anyone had access to some good sources on the subject, such as the opinions of the different countries about the Civil War and their strengths and weaknesses.

Amanda Foreman's book A World On Fire is the single best and most comprehensive book about Britain and the American Civil War that is written for the interested non-specialist.
 
The Union would find itself having to make peace quickly due to the presence of Canada leaving the entire north of the Union vulnerable to the British while the Confederacy would have a boarder with French controlled Mexico.

The immediate effect of a Confederate victory due to intervention would have would be that Mexico remains a monarchy under French influence. Also the US would never purchase Alaska from Russia due to a. the US not having the financial capital to do so and b. Britain/France/CSA wouldn't let them take it.

The Confederacy would eventually collapse into several states and would eventually give up slavery (my guess around the 1880s at the absolute latest)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's this, among others:

There's this, among others - The one linked in my sig, that is:;)

Realistically, there was nothing to be gained and a tremendous amount to lose in the event of any European power intervening in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s, as the French learned quite painfully in Mexico and the Spanish learned in both the Dominican Republic AND against Chile and Peru. Based on the historical record (three failures in as many tries) European intervention was a non-starter. Time and distance has that effect; the Atlantic is a formidable barrier to deploying and sustaining military power, in either direction, as the history of the past three centuries of the Atlantic world makes clear.

There is also the reality that all the European powers, frankly, had more important places in, say, Europe (or the Med) to worry about in the 1860s...

And then there is the minor issue of the cause that European intervention on the side of the rebels requires...supporting slavery and rebellion is not exactly one any of the European powers were going to embrace in this era, for obvious reasons.:rolleyes:

And I'll second the recommendation of Forman's work, although the focus is more on the U.S. and the UK, than the European powers generally.

It is worth considering the reality of a major conflict in Europe in the 1860s at the same time as the U.S. Civil War; the 1860s were the bloodiest decade in European history between 1815 and 1914, and the conflicting strategic interests that led to the historical conflicts of the period were much more likely to lead to a general conflict in Europe than the possibility of one or more European powers intervening in the U.S.

Best,
 
Well going off your idea in a POD of a successful invasion of Maryland in 1862, France and Britain are going to offer some form of intervention, but unless the Union is stupid enough to follow through on Sewards bluff to declare war on anyone who recognizes the CSA that is a massive diplomatic defeat for the Union right there.

It logically follows that in the summer of 1862 there would be humungous pressure on the US to negotiate both internally and externally with these big reverses, and if the Union's military efforts go poorly in 1863 you probably see France and the UK becoming more demanding towards a ceasefire. At some point they will just ignore the blockade and the Union would more than likely be forced to hit the negotiating table.

Now if you want full out war with the foreign powers right off the bat, well I'd plug my own TL (Wrapped in Flames) on how that is likely to turn out.

Both sides have a sudden problem with any declaration of war. For the European powers (France and England) it's getting troops to North America, need to fear American commerce raiders, and in Britain's case the need to secure her North American possessions. For the Union its the very sudden and abrupt loss of two major sources of trade, her only major supplier of gunpowder, the probable sinking of a good number of warships, the imminent destruction of its merchant fleet, the need for an immediate call up of more men, the lack of the ability to go on the offensive against the South, and the need to do something to try and force the European powers out of the war.

Unfortunately the list of things they can do in order to accomplish that is very short, and nothing on it has a track record of success.

For sources I'd also recommend Amanda Foreman and World on Fire as well as Donaldson Jordan and Europe and the American Civil War, Kenneth Bourne and Britain and the Balance of Power in North America 1815-1908, and Charles P. Stacey and the British Army in Canada 1846-1871, as well as Daniel Dawson and The Mexican Adventure. All fine sources on what was going on at the time.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's the minor problem that

There's the minor problem, of course, that even McClellan could not lose at Antietam, and Lee certainly could not win there.

Getting out of the sack Lee's generalship had led the ANV into was an achievement, but not a victory...

Best,
 
Thank you all for your comments! I appreciate them; they are helpful.
I also appreciate the info about sources. :)

If any one else has anything else to say, feel free to say it.
 
Top