Were the British really smart when they avoided intervention in the American Civil War?

[Femto]

The United States, since the mid-XIX, is clearly a country destined to be THE world great power. They have a coastline in both oceans, a good deal of arable land, geographic isolation from military invasion and natural resources. The British are a world power centered in the British Isles, they were really powerful in the eighteen hundreds but its natural that they will be defied some time later when the other great powers catch up. OTL the British ended in a position of relative subservience in relation to Washington, a good partnership no-doubt but not the most desirable position for London.

I'm wondering if the good move to preserve the British Empire supremacy in the long run would be to support the CSA and balkanize the USA as much as possible, because to me it seems that it was a logical thing to do to avoid to American hegemony surpassing the Pax Britannica.

What are your thoughts in the subject?

PS: Please don't bring Germany up cuz the British politicians at the time of the American Civil War didn't knew about the imminent rise of the German Empire and Prussia alone was hardly a threat to the British Empire.

 

[DAv]

No reason for Britain to support the pro-slavery Confederacy at the small chance that it would break up the US. Especially since it would be much better for the US to be a stable trade partner and ally in the region.

 

[Femto]

No reason for Britain to support the pro-slavery Confederacy at the small chance that it would break up the US. Especially since it would be much better for the US to be a stable trade partner and ally in the region.

But if the British break the USA then they can command the trade table with the rump USA and the new CSA, and they also can do whatever they want in Latin America. The French aren't really a threat to the British hegemony, the Prussians are just a continental counterweight to France and the Russians are too much landlocked(they can't invade India).

I believe the British didn't intervene because they feared the public uproar and the costs of such a war, and not because they denied the long-term benefits of breaking the US.

 

[Lusitania]

No the British were not really smart. They almost became involved in the war due to the Trent Affair.

it was the intervention of Prince Albert in amending the tone of the British letter of protest to the Americans government allowed for President Abraham Lincoln to release the envoys. If the original letter as drafted by the British government had been received by the Americans many speculate the tone and condescending manner it was written would of prevented him from accepting the letter and war would of been a real possibility.

 

[Maeglin]

British considerations:

• The vast majority of the British public were anti-slavery, and favoured the Union on that basis.
• Britain needed grain shipments from the USA to feed itself.
• Britain had an alternative source of cotton in Egypt.
• Canada.
• The leadership of the Confederacy were arseholes.

 

[Femto]

British considerations:

• The vast majority of the British public were anti-slavery, and favoured the Union on that basis.
• Britain needed grain shipments from the USA to feed itself.
• Britain had an alternative source of cotton in Egypt.
• Canada.
• The leadership of the Confederacy were arseholes.

The British can find alternative sources of grain and Canada can be better secured if America is cut down to size.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

The British can find alternative sources of grain and Canada can be better secured if America is cut down to size.

Creating a massive and hostile southern neighbor isn't what I'd call secured. Even if the Confederate States get all the land they claimed, the United States would vastly outnumber and out produce them. All the British have done is turn a semi friendly trading partner into a hostile enemy who would view the British as an enemy who stabbed the USA in the back.

 

[Wendell]

Far too many on this board are convinced that such an undertaking would be a curb stomp for the invaders, but even if that's true, the better result for British interests is to stay out of the war.

 

[edgeworthy]

No the British were not really smart. They almost became involved in the war due to the Trent Affair.

it was the intervention of Prince Albert in amending the tone of the British letter of protest to the Americans government allowed for President Abraham Lincoln to release the envoys. If the original letter as drafted by the British government had been received by the Americans many speculate the tone and condescending manner it was written would of prevented him from accepting the letter and war would of been a real possibility.

To quote myself from another rant ...

From the British perspective during the Trent Affair the United States was acting like it was trying to provoke a war, and they were absolutely furious, the Anti-Slavery league included. (You can easily find a statement by Harriet Beecher Stowe's hostess, the Duchess of Argyll - her husband was a member of the Cabinet, asking Senator Sumner if the US had in fact gone mad and was intending to force a conflict) Remember this came just after the Eugenia Smith incident, when the Union Navy boarded a British Ship in Mexican Waters, the British were already angry, to them it appeared to be a deliberate provocation. Given Secretary Seward's past bombast about Canada they might be said to have reasonable concerns in this area.

Just because no one wants a war doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen.

 

[Alstein]

The British can find alternative sources of grain and Canada can be better secured if America is cut down to size.

even a USA without the CSA would be enough to be a serious threat to the UK. Especially if it sees the UK as an enemy enough to start a German-style shipbuilding program, and ally itself to Germany. A US-German alliance would be the biggest threat to the UK since the Spanish Armada.

 

[Femto]

even a USA without the CSA would be enough to be a serious threat to the UK. Especially if it sees the UK as an enemy enough to start a German-style shipbuilding program, and ally itself to Germany. A US-German alliance would be the biggest threat to the UK since the Spanish Armada.

Germany haven't formed at that time yet.

 

[AltoRegnant]

The time to cut the us down had passed. If britain had supported Mexico, or even taken a bigger cut of Oregon, it would have served to limit the us better. Either of those could limit the USA's pacific power, and supporting mexico especially could prevent the us from being The American power

 

[Fabius Maximus]

• Britain needed grain shipments from the USA to feed itself.

Eh, if that were the case, we'd expect people to mention it during the Trent affair, since that seems like the sort of consideration that would get brought up if you were thinking of declaring war on somebody. King Corn wasn't going to save the Union any more than King Cotton saved the Confederacy.

 

[stevej713]

The US was never an overt threat to the British Empire, so no. Making the US an enemy, even if they manage to break it apart, would not have benefited the UK at all. In fact, the US has been an enormous benefactor to British power in the 20th and 21st centuries, excluding the Suez Crisis and perhaps the Falklands War.

The British Empire had a clear expiration date. The British Government knew during the Scramble for Africa that their African colonies would become a net drain by the mid 20th century. The white colonies were expected to leave the nest and possibly form their own empires. Even India wasn't expected to stay under British control forever. Some far thinking exponents of laissez-faire in the 19th century predicted a world in which all nations could freely trade with each other and that imperium would become unprofitable and unnecessary.

In short, British thinkers and politicians were rightly pessimistic about their empire's future. The empire ended itself and would have ended itself even in the best possible scenario.

 

[Faeelin]

Yes, looking at British-American relations in the 20th century, one imagines London regretted ::checks notes:: American intervention in the World Wars.

 

[raharris1973]

Their judgements at the time were cautious and slow-moving which was wise. But mostly they were lucky.

They were lucky in that they did not need to deal with an ATL of near-term or long-term hostility with the US.

They were lucky that they could profit from the US merchant fleet being ravaged by Confederate privateering and by some selling to both sides.

They were lucky the ended up having no war to regret.

They were lucky that ultimately US power became nothing to regret, and became something they could use later on.

None of their 20th century problems would have been guaranteed to be fixed by splitting or otherwise weakening the US.

If you wanted to go on a time-traveling mission to reduce the weakening of Britain in the 20th century, there would be far more efficient ways of doing it than by focusing on splitting it in the US, these things might involve preventing the European world wars altogether or ensuring they would be early British wins. Friendship with Germany or early containment of its power. Some industrial educational fixes, or something like that.

 

[Femto]

Yes, looking at British-American relations in the 20th century, one imagines London regretted ::checks notes:: American intervention in the World Wars.

London was dumb for involving itself in the First World War in the first place even if you consider a scenario where Imperial Germany ends up ruling Europe. And they didn't knew about the rise of Germany by that time, they knew that America was rising.

 

[raharris1973]

London was dumb for involving itself in the First World War in the first place even if you consider a scenario where Imperial Germany ends up ruling Europe. And they didn't knew about the rise of Germany by that time, they knew that America was rising.

Why is fragmenting power in North America a more important interest for Britain than fragmenting power in Europe?

 

[Femto]

Why is fragmenting power in North America a more important interest for Britain than fragmenting power in Europe?

Cuz is easier for America to invade Canada than is for Germany/France/Russia to invade the British Isles.

And when America is firmly established is almost impossible to dislodge them from their hegemony in the American continent.

But I wouldn't say that Britain needed to trade Europe for North America. They could've helped to balkanize the US AND prevented the rise of the Second Reich, by being more pals with Nap the Third for example. France is really the only big friend Britain need in this scenario and if they are a really close friend there's no one to really frighten the Brits.

 

[Doesntmatter]

No, they should have intervened... on the side of the US.

On a more serious note, why would creating a revanchist British-hating Great Power remotely help the Empire?