The US has the major advantage of home geography. All the successful independence movements in the Americas did not happen because those countries had stronger armies than the Europeans, but because projecting power across an ocean is hard. I'm sure the British could defend Canada but invading the US is a lot harder. The UK has a lot of military commitments across the globe ; it is not going to send its entire army to fight the US. It will send an expeditionary force, probably not too different from the size of the French force in Mexico. But the US will use all of its own army to fight.
Were the British really smart when they avoided intervention in the American Civil War?
- Thread starter Femto
- Start date
The US has the major advantage of home geography. All the successful independence movements in the Americas did not happen because those countries had stronger armies than the Europeans, but because projecting power across an ocean is hard. I'm sure the British could defend Canada but invading the US is a lot harder. The UK has a lot of military commitments across the globe ; it is not going to send its entire army to fight the US. It will send an expeditionary force, probably not too different from the size of the French force in Mexico. But the US will use all of its own army to fight.
Skallagrim
Banned
The army that can magically be in two places, fighting both the Confederates and the British? That army?
What do you think would happen between the Confederacy and the British if the British do win?
Skallagrim
Banned
Rapid cool-down of relations. The CSA would expect to be embraced as an honoured friend, and would instead be the object of vague disgust (and distinct shame). Britain would distance itself politically, which enforcing the free trade that the CSA had offered in exchange for recognition. So the CSA would be an exporter of tariff-free cotton, leaving its government without that source of revenue (which it had intended to be its only source of revenue). The same deep South that had for decades fought against high tariffs would now, with no tariffs, be forced to implement -- gasp! -- domestic taxation in order to pay off its substantial war-debts. This would cause major political friction. Before long, the sentiment of "Britain screwed us over!" would prevail. (Particularly because Britain would be developing its own alternative sources of cotton, as in OTL, so as not to be dependent on "slave cotton". Britain would soon become a competing cotton-producer, while no doubt beginning to embargo the CSA's exports before long.)
All of this would leave Britain with the lingering shame of having helped the CSA achieve success, while at the same time having bad blood with two North American countries.
So the end result is a CSA and USA that bitterly hates each other but also hate the UK for different reasons? That sounds like an interesting timeline actually.
Skallagrim
Banned
Sure, but it would all be so senseless.
Come to think of it, if I had to write the TL, I'd call it "Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes: A Trent War TL".
It seems like as usual, this derailed into a discussion of what the British could have done in the ACW, but the OP asked if it should have, and honestly, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say it should have. Yes, the 20th Century saw Britain suffer horribly in two major wars that cost it the Empire. So the best way to avoid it would be to expend all its resources combating...a country that supported it in both wars? At least there wasn't the honestly frightening Suez revisionism, or complaining that the unsecured Liberty Loans and Lend-Lease weren't generous enough, therefore the US was actually Britain's mortal enemy.
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
We know for a fact the Union did attempt to find an alternative nitrates source and completely failed to do so, maximizing out at 150 tons per month which was completely insufficient for their combined needs and this only in the Fall of 1863; what, exactly, is the Union Army to do for two years with no nitrates? This strategic reality is what inspired the Guano Islands Act, in fact.
History Learner
Banned
As for Post-War relations and strategic realities, I'd expect things to be fairly warm between Britain and the Confederacy while relations between the aforementioned two and the United States will warm up over the course of the late 19th Century.
Suez revisionism? Are there seriously people who say that the British and French were on the right side?
A lot of them, actually. We get threads like these on a semi-regular basis.
Suez: What if Eden Ignores Ike?
Eisenhower threatened the 3 invading nations(France, UK, Isreal) with economic sanctions and persuaded the British and French to withdraw. Isreal also withdrew a bit later. I believe that the French would the have continued the operation had the British not called it quits and didn't feel...
www.alternatehistory.com
WI: US supports UK, France and Israel during Suez Crisis
What would have happened had United states not opposed, but instead supported aformentioned powers during the Suez Crisis? I don't know how plausible this is, I am just interested what would have happened if the Soviet Union had been the only great power supporting Abdel Nasser's regime.
www.alternatehistory.com
The majority of the British working class were pro-Union but textile workers are likely to keep their jobs then risk starvation for the sake of politics. Confederates had support with at least some in the British aristocracy.
Britain had other means to feed itself like Argentina (but it would raise prices and cause other divergences).
Egypt had cotton but it would take time to bring more into production - same for India. That won't be done overnight.
Canada is unlikely to be invaded without a secure wholr US or a stable peace treaty.
Confederate leadership apparently had a chance at independence in 1992 -if- they would have given up slavery. The rest is history.
Interestingly there was a story written about the CSA getting its independence but healing the wounds quickly and rebuilding trade relations such that a century later the CSA, Canada, and USA are on the brink of a merger with a capital at Cleveland I think.
I honestly might have to head over to AskHistorians in the future to try to sort out the "how would American gunpowder supplies and British food supplies be affected by intervention ". Since those points are always argued endlessly in these threads.
Alternate sources could be built, they'd just take time to come online. Look at the Powderworks in Augusta. And if you visit, the blackberries that grow wild nearby are tasty.
Nothing quite like the Haber process, more like using naturally occurring nitres to aid in the production of saltpetre. Joseph Lecomte wrote for the Confederacy on the subject and his work is very enlightening to the methods which could be used to substitute British nitre. It takes time to get up and running, but it could work.
In 1863 in response to the high cost of importing Saltpetre DuPont came up with a process to produce it using Leached Potash or mined Potassium Chloride to produce an alternative source. The major problem relating to this scenario is that Sodium Nitrate required still has to be imported.
Which means that it has to be purchased abroad and somehow transported past the Royal Navy, a situation further complicated by Chile being the major supplier.
Britain's closest ally in South America. And the Home-Port of the Royal Navy's Pacific Station at the time being Valparaiso.
First, the contact process for high-grade sulfuric acid is already 30 years old when the American Civil War breaks out while nitrocellulose is known in 1856. Second, nitric acid is known (though industrial scale synthesis would be very difficult and inefficient - Augusta could become an early hydro power site) and guano can be found in the Appalachian mountains, guncotton development in the Confederacy would not be impossible.
Britain's best interest is that the South win without Britain actually joining the war. Britain benefited greatly from trade with both regions in the antebellum period.