What would a realistic British intervention in the US Civil War look like?

Maur

Banned
And I can see the microbial lifeforms evolving in the text. Seriously, how far away from the screen are you sitting? I'm an easy 3 feet away or so and size 10 seems to be fine for me.

And even if that's too small, you could at least have the courtesy of shrinking the text size before posting.
Well, not everyone is 16 years old with 20/20 vision... some of us are decrepit old men :p ;)
 
Interesting debate

As my now comatose TL states, I believe that the best chance for a British intervention in the ACW is the Trent Affair. the reason for this is because a POD based upon the British deciding to intervene based upon logical economic or political reasons means that they are weighing the pro's and con's of going to war, in which case neither side would see enough pro's to outweigh the considerable con's of war between the US and UK. Therefore your best bet is to get a situation where logic and reason are far less important factors and emotion and nationalism cloud the judgement of the governments and peoples of both nations. Trent offers those circumstances in both countries, as such, I think Trent is the best bet for a British involvement in the ACW.

As for the view that it turns into TL-191, I'll outline where my TL was going:

after the war ended, the palmerson government collapsed due to war discontent, the Republicans were severely hurt but Mclellan's(he gets elected over lincoln) ineffectiveness at ending the war quickly combined with shitty circumstances following the war lead to a temporary whig revival and eventually gets the republicans back into power after about two decades. Meanwhile the Confederacy turns into a real shithole with poverty amongst non aristocratic whites running rampant, violent slave uprisings are still widespread, and the KKK has evolved into a communist (but still racist) anti-aristocratic movement which feels betrayed by the plantation owners and the government.

The union is far more revanchist and militarist with a far larger post war military which puts it on par with the other great powers (though it still has kinks to work out). Also the use of "dirty tricks" during the ACW with the union supporting the efforts of abolitionist geurrillas with clandestine means leads to the rise of an established American spy agency lead by none other than Thomas Edison who turns into J Edgar Hoover on steroids, he is assassinated in 1908. Race relations in the Union are considerably ahead of OTL due to anti-confederate backlash which translates into a dislike of slavery and to a lesser extent, racism. As a combination of spite against the confederacy and pragmatism, the US military is integrated in the interbellum years but blacks aren't allowed higher than NCO's at first. The US army is considerably more modernized, with widespread use of repeating rifles and gatling guns. Noteable is the introduction of primitive steam powered armored cars and electrical gatling guns as well as the introduction of helmets and green military uniforms.

Butterflies lead to Brazil fighting the analogue of the War of the Triple Alliance with one less ally (forgot which one) which combined with increased British friendship due to a different political posting results in a stronger Brazilian hegemony over south America

In europe the Palmerson government has collapsed due to war discontent, leading to an earlier and longer Disraeli government, the Congress of Berlin leads to a stronger British backing of the Turks which pushes the AH empire further into the Russian camp away from the Germans, and the Russians are quite pissed over the territorial concessions to the Ottomans too. Meanwhile the monarchists stay in power in France, however due to a different lineup in the French army leadership and in response to an attempted coup against Napy IV, French military doctrine has developed a brutal anti insurgency philosophy. Russia has started reforming into a constitutional monarchy due to Alexander surviving and establishing the Duma, it starts a burgeoning industrial economy by the end of the century.

The Napy 4 decides to regain former glory by retaking lost terrority, he starts in Haiti, forgoing the dominican republic as this is more or less a symbolic move. Then he invades Mexico, and in exchange for economic and military assistance along with an alliance, the CSA agrees to allow the French to invade Mexico from texas as well as use confederate ports. Mexico falls in something like a year thanks to an effective French army and brutal tactics. A hapsburg is placed in power(forgot which one).

Border clashes between the USA and CSA eventually result in an overly confident President Bedford Forrest getting into a war with the Union. the French follow suit. Gen Custer gets his entire army encircled due to overconfidence, which in turn opens up all of southern california to the french. San Diego is burned to the ground, the US navy suffers a major defeat at the straights of florida, and the Union army bogs down in the east. Eventually however by the next year, the Union wins a few major victories, including destroying much of the French Carribean fleet off of Veracruz. After some four years of fighting the French are ejected from the America's. French indo China, Guiana, and haiti are in American hands, and the Confederacy has gotten a massive smack down.

The CSA is not readmitted to the union, but in stead is relegated to puppet status with an impotent government and military. Mexico is eventually re granted its own independence again, however so much recent conflict leads to prolonged instability which forces the US to intervene twice by 1910 at which point it is annexed due to tensions with Brazil. Haiti, french Indo-china, and guiana are kept as territories.

France falls into internal strife as a discontented population which has grown tired of the emperor and the failed war in America start to rise up. This is aided by disillusioned soldiers returning from america with tales of a wonderous ideology they learned there called communism. The strife develops into a proper rebellion which napy is slowly losing. Eventually the germans intervene with troops and supplies in exchange for a defacto agreement by the French to follow suit with the Germans on foreign policy as well as territorial concessions in Africa.

Canada has been growing increasingly hostile to its colonial status due to the devastation brought on by involvement in the 1st ACW. this leads to a more autonomous Canada during the end of the 19th century.


The Boxer rebellion leads to an international crisis as most of the European powers attempt to put it down, however the US which has grown increasingly hostile to European colonialism backs the rebels, Russia follows suit as a result of stronger ties than OTL. China is granted additional autonomy following this, and the US and Russia eventually form a formal alliance. The more autonomous China gets into a bit of a row with Japan and tensions mount until they eventually break out into a full scale war some years later.

A strong anti British movement has developed in Canada, things come to a head when the Canadians demand full independence (which isn't much different from the current state of affairs by this point), and claim Prince Edward Island. The British are unwilling to concede the territory, however the US backs the Canadians. The ongoing controversy leads to both the USN and RN taking pot shots at each other but not outright war. this hostility leads to a long period of heightened tensions and skirmishes between both sides.


In russia, the Aristocratic upper class have grown increasingly fed up with the Tsar's reforms and the Russian Civil war breaks out. The aristocrats have more army support, however most of their officers are incompetent aristocrats, while the loyalists are led by much more qualified officers who rose through the ranks through their own merits. The war lasts about a year but leads to a win for the loyalists.

Poland attempts to break away in the aftermath due to German encouragement. The russians try to fight it, resulting in the Germans declaring war in defense of ethnic german poles. France enters on the side of the Germans, The US is brought in on the side of the Russians. The UK is fearful of a Russo American Juggernaut, and takes a harsher stance towards the US. This leads to one shooting incident too many between the US and UK and war is declared. The European powers convince Japan to declare war on the US and Russia in exchange for the rights to annex indo-china as well as European arms and supplies. Austria Hungary agrees to throw their lot in with the Russo Americans which draws the O-T empire into the fray as well.

The war features the first usage of tanks by both sides (first by France and the US, then others) as well as the largest naval battle in history off the coast of Iceland between the USN and Russian Navys and a combined French German and RN force. The war lasts for six years, leading to an eventual European defeat. the ottoman empire is disemboweled, Japan is forced to concede all territorial gains, the UK makes a white peace, but loses Hong Kong and PEI, France is forced to make some reparations and disarm somewhat, but is largely untouched. Germany is broken up to pre Franco-Prussian war borders.

There was also going to be a WWII with a Communist pact of nations including France, Spain, and most of Former Germany. A revitalized but fascistic China also emerges. The US and Russians fight in Europe, Asia, and also central America against the Brazilians.

And that's what I think.
 
Rogue Shadows said:
True enough. But I still don't see Britain intervening. It just wouldn't make sense given the few tangiable gains weighed against the possibility of a long slogging war
Rogue Shadows said:
67th Tigers said:
Oh they came close four (4) times.
67th Tigers said:
<omitted>
2. Trent Affair. Enough said.
<omitted>
Rogue Shadows said:
Again, cooler heads prevailing. You'll need a differnt POTUS than Lincoln to actually see this lead to war.

This thread is just an unbelievable melange of misunderstandings and lack of research. This is how a knowledgeable commentator on Civil War Talk explained the very real possibility of an Anglo-Union War over the Trent Affair. Half of the people posting here seem to have got their understanding of this subject from Harry Harrison and most of the rest from Tsouras. It is just so disappointing!

… there seems to be an assumption that because the British did not want a war with the Union they would not go to war over the Trent Affair and that all the preparation for the defence of British North America was simply posturing. This is not the case, the British Cabinet did not want a war with the USA but they felt they had been pushed into a position by the Union where they had no choice but war. In 1861/2 Great Britain is the dominant world power militarily, economically and technologically. That dominance is based on trade and the free passage of goods around the world. The free passage of goods is, to British eyes, guaranteed by the existence and operations of the Royal Navy and by the growing body of international law.

<omitted>

Prior to the halting of the Trent the British Government asked its law officer to consider the detention of a British ship in international waters with the Confederate Commissioners on board. They concluded that if the ship were taken to a Union Admiralty Court for adjudication it would probably be legal but that simply removing the Commissioners would not. The Earl Russell, foreign secretary, had also received, prior to the affair, what he believed to be, from the Union Minister in London, Adams, an assurance that the Commissioners would not be so taken.

Thus when the Commissioners were taken and the Trent herself was not it was seen by the British Cabinet as either a huge mistake or a deliberate attempt to weaken the standing of Great Britain. The British Cabinet felt that both international law, as Great Britain understood it, and the prestige of the Royal Navy upon which the prosperity of the Empire was based required that the Union yield, either to diplomatic pressure or to military force. They felt that they had been understanding of the Union’s internal difficulties, Victoria had after all declared their neutrality and they had not recognise the Confederacy as a nation. Yet the Union had apparently sought to undermine British authority and prestige. They had been backed into a corner where, if no satisfaction could be obtained by diplomatic means, and in early December that looked unlikely based on the Union news papers then available in Britain via the Halifax packet ships, there had to be a war.

The above interpretation is completely consistent with the behaviour of the British Government and Forces during the Affair. The swift reinforcement of the regular army in BNA along with arms for the BNA militias, the rapid build-up of naval forces in support of the NA&WI station, coal and provisions for three months of war being set to Bermuda, cruziers off San Francisco and (perhaps) the Vera Cruz build-up are all the actions of a nation preparing for war not posturing. The British Minister in Washington, the Lord Lyons was given particularly precise instructions with very little flexibility for formal negotiations, either the British got what they wanted or he packed up the mission and asked for his passports back, this was very unusual in that period where a Minister was expected to operate with little support from home. The theatre commanders were all given conditional war orders.

For the most part, Seward and one or two others excepted, the Union Cabinet had no idea how close the British were to going to war until the Cabinet meeting of Christmas Day 1861. Many of them seem to have been locked into a mindset based on border disputes with BNA which had nearly always gone in the USA’s favour (49th parallel) or were being settled by international arbitration (The Pig War). Lincoln in particular wanted to push for international arbitration. Fortunately Seward managed to convince him otherwise.
 
Telemond's_Lamb_Chop

Interesting. That suggests it was Seward, normally seen as the extremist who prevented Lincoln blundering into war.

Where was that quote from please?

Steve
 
1. Snake answered your first point... Canada is a huge place... but placing your flag in the middle of a forest that goes on for 200 miles in each direction isn't very productive is it? And the climate being what it is a defeated British army would be smarter to surrender rather than be chased off into said forest because they WILL freeze, no possible way for a 'resistance' type movement as is possible in the CSA.

2. Hmm... you have the breakaway rebel states, you have the European powers against you, one of whom was the power you fought twice for your freedom in 1776 and again in 1812 and the other looking greedily at large portions of your claimed territory... It wouldn't be at all possible for an astute politician and a yellow press to spin this as a fight for survival. ;)

The reason I think that F/B/CSA has a good chance of losing this fight big time (1863 war) is that the only ones who really have their heart in the fight are the CSA who got beat OTL and after Gettysburg are in the middle of a downward spiral that only a gargantuan amount of aid would correct. France is acting as the opportunist and you can bet they won't be invited to Canada and otherwise they have to march through hundreds of miles of wilderness to actually get anywhere important in the American SoWest.

Britain at this time has certainly grossly underestimated the will of the Union and the CSA's capabilities or they wouldn't be intervening in the first place. I dunno if there is the political will to go in whole hog against the US and fall and winter are already closing in on Canada which means while the Union might be able to put together an army to invade in the late summer/fall it's going to take months to get together the supplies and troops to defend Canada and/or attack the Union.

And it will take Britain's own Bull Run to realize what they are dealing with. By that time it might be too late to save most of Canada from occupation and the butcher's bill retaking it will be far greater and possibly not something politically feasible especially if they have significant unrest at home. If the Union takes Canada it would be a massive political blow far FAR outweighing its actual impact to Britain's warmaking ability especially considering their allies, an opportunistic imperialist France and an arrogant slave holding CSA.

Of course I'm not also forgetting that there are 1001 ways for the Union to eff things up or for the British to pull of brilliance. And as has been stated Canada is not defenseless at this time and, while imo overstated, British sealift capability is still impressive. It could easily be Union troops being polar bear popsicles in any invasion of Canada.

To really get the Union out of the war after Gettysburg you have to have starvation, which isn't going to happen as long as the Midwest remains (and lets be honest, that's not going to happen), you have to occupy major cities and areas without any real hope of retaking them (which means Canada has been held and the Union decisively defeated, any other scenario is ASB), somehow the largely internalized Union has been completely broken economically, something which would take years and years of war and by that time the CSA will be beyond basket case, France will be near revolution or invaded by Prussia and Britain's govn't will have been deposed for getting into such a clusterfuck that wasn't at all necessary for the defense of Britain, or, finally, the morale of the Union and its will to fight is broken by some event or chain of events which frankly is unlikely to happen before Britain says "Fuck this!" and puts Palmerston's head on either a figurative or literal pike.

1: Canada is still pretty big. True. Nothing on what it is today. But Ottawa is nearly 700km from Detroit, that's more than the length of England. Nova Scotia is bigger than Denmark.
Not to mention Newfoundland and other islands which would require the US winning at sea to take and hold.

2: It won't take months to get together a force to defend Canada. I don't have the numbers but Britain did have a standing army in the UK ready to be shipped out to where its needed. It was a professional, very well trained and equipped force. Tigers is the one with the numbers for that. 50,000 is the number floating in my head at the moment. Then there's the local defence forces and milita and that its easier for Britain to raise more troops than th US. The US even if it reacts straight away and manages to get half its army to storm across the border...its not going to take the whole of Canada before major British reinforcements arrive. Even if the US did take the whole of mainland Canada the Brits can easily retake it later.

Prussia isn't going to be invading France. Its occupied with Austria at the time. And even if it did the amount of forces France will send to America will be minimal, it will keep a good defence in Europe.

I just don't see the US doing more than putting up a half decent fight as it goes down.
To have a war between Britain and the US it goes something like this:
-1850: It all depends how much Britain feels like hurting the US. It can devestate the country at a whim
1850-1870: The US can put up a defence but Britain is going to win.
1870-1890: Its a hard fight but Britain will win.
1890-1914: Ouch. A very nasty war. The US will probally take Canada but it will be devestated elsewhere and Britain can possibly retake it. Its quite a toss of the coin but leaning towards the UK
1914-1940: As per above. A very even fight which could go either way but this time with the advantage leaning towards the US.
1940-1960: Its a hard fight but the US will win
1960-1980: The US will be hurt but the result isn't in doubt
1980- : Britain is better off not fighting. There's nothing it can do.

You're really really overstating the power of the US at the time. You're thinking too much of the modern US. The US of the mid 19th century however was more akin to modern Spain or Japan whilst Britain is the US and France is Russia. There's only one way a war is going to go. And a revolution will not be emerging at home over a small scale war far away.
 
Last edited:
Stevep,

Interesting. That suggests it was Seward, normally seen as the extremist who prevented Lincoln blundering into war.

In this case in was Seward that understood the situation and had bring Lincoln and the rest of the Cabinet to his point of view. I understand Lincoln initially wanted to go for international arbitration as in the Pig War.

It is my understanding that Sewards earlier suggestion of a war with Britain to unite the country was made prior to the formation of the CSA, with the intention of being executed at that time. I personally do not think it was stupid at all, it was certainly ruthless but I think it would have worked at that point in time.

This is where I took the quote from:

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/show...e-trent-affair)-the-british-empire-had-fought
 
Telemond's_Lamb_Chop

OK, many thanks. Had a brief look but not time to go through it all yet.;)

Steve

PS _ So I lied and immediately read it through. Gods! it's now 2am. Fascinating amounts of data.

Stevep,



In this case in was Seward that understood the situation and had bring Lincoln and the rest of the Cabinet to his point of view. I understand Lincoln initially wanted to go for international arbitration as in the Pig War.

It is my understanding that Sewards earlier suggestion of a war with Britain to unite the country was made prior to the formation of the CSA, with the intention of being executed at that time. I personally do not think it was stupid at all, it was certainly ruthless but I think it would have worked at that point in time.

This is where I took the quote from:

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/showthread.php?35947-what-if-(due-to-the-trent-affair)-the-british-empire-had-fought
 
Last edited:
Top