Which European Powers(If Any) Would/Could Have Intervened in the US Civil War?

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, if the neutral powers are those exporting said goods

Sort of, but when you share a long land border with neutral powers where you can import goods unimpeded, a blockade is pretty ineffective.


Well, if the neutral power are those exporting said goods to the allegedly blockaded power, seems a little extraneous to blame the manufacturer... ;)

Best,
 
Hmmm.... What if we have the C. S. S.Arkansas have a few other ships with it at the First Battle of Vicksburg, and thus inflict a lot more damage on the Union's troops and perhaps chasing them up the Mississippi? With a few other butterflies, such as Stonewall living, the Battle of Gettysburg could turn into a rout of Federal forces and the eventual siege of the capital. A dual assault up each bank of the Mississippi could result in southern Missouri and Illinois, including St. Louis, occupation and partial secession of the states, similar to Virginia.

If the Union is at Vicksburg the same time they were OTL, it becomes a bit late to do anything to change the tide in the West. You'd need a bigger POD in April-May 1862 to stop the problem.

Germany didn't actually exist at this time. I take it you are speaking of Prussia? Prussia, under Bismark, was entirely consumed with European issues. A war with Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866, and France in 1870. I can't imagine how or why they would be involved.

Austria was also entirely continental in its focus, and had no interest in America.

France? Already had a free hand in Mexico. The Confederacy had nothing to offer in that respect.

Russia? Hard to see the motivation.

Pretty spot on, but the minor quibble to France is that by 1863 Napoleon would have been quite grateful to see the blockade end, and would probably have intervened alongside the British in support of the CSA if only to add a buffer state to his Mexican puppet. It would have been a pretty win win scenario for him, especially since he wouldn't even be under obligation to do much more than what he had done historically in terms of running guns, building ships and providing loans.

Britain would have done all the hard work, and Napoleon would have been just fine with that. Britain too since if he's messing around in Mexico he can't be causing trouble for them anywhere else.
 
Well, if the neutral power are those exporting said goods to the allegedly blockaded power, seems a little extraneous to blame the manufacturer... ;)

Best,

They tended to quibble about them ending up in Crimea killing British troops, but the Americans made a similar one about British munitions killing Federal troops in the Civil War which made their way through Mexico.

I don't think its too weird when foreign offices make noise about this sort of thing. Certainly makes good headlines for political parties that's for sure.
 

Drakker

Banned
Germany didn't actually exist at this time. I take it you are speaking of Prussia? Prussia, under Bismark, was entirely consumed with European issues. A war with Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866, and France in 1870. I can't imagine how or why they would be involved.

Austria was also entirely continental in its focus, and had no interest in America.

France? Already had a free hand in Mexico. The Confederacy had nothing to offer in that respect.

Russia? Hard to see the motivation.


Yeah, I was talking about Prussia. Oops. With, Russia, I just read somewhere that the Tzars were fairly friendly with the US government at this time, and also figured that maybe they'd want payback for the Crimean War.

Thanks to everybody who has spent their time to respond to this and explain.
 
Some folks may not like my answer. Britain had a strong anti slavery faction, which had contributed to ending slavery in the Empire. Lets think for a moment that group being a bit more active in 1861 & having larger influence in the government. The Republicans and Abolitionists sense the opportunity and have built connections & influence across the Atlantic. After a year or so of debate among the citizenry and in Parlement Britain drops nuetrality and tans economic actions vs the Confederacy. The RN actively interferes with Confederate raiders, the Empires ports are closed to Confederate blockade runners, Confederate bank accounts in London are frozen & other trade embargoed. London banks are encouraged to extend favorable credit to Lincolns government.

While none of this defeats the Confederacy that year It certainly reduces its ability to resist and removes any hope of England saving the gallant southern families of note, or anyone else in the south other than the slaves themselves.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
What US - manufactured weapons were supplied to the

They tended to quibble about them ending up in Crimea killing British troops, but the Americans made a similar one about British munitions killing Federal troops in the Civil War which made their way through Mexico.

I don't think its too weird when foreign offices make noise about this sort of thing. Certainly makes good headlines for political parties that's for sure.

What US- manufactured weapons were supplied to Russia in 1854-56, and by way of what intermediaries?

And given the realities of Mexico in 1861-65, I'd be interested in what British-manufactured weapons got through the French, Mexican Conservatives, and Mexican Liberals into the hands of the Confederacy...

Best,
 
Britain had a strong anti slavery faction, which had contributed to ending slavery in the Empire. Lets think for a moment that group being a bit more active in 1861 & having larger influence in the government.
How much more active do you want the anti-slavery movement to be? The Confederate ambassador James Mason concluded after his time in Britain that "In my conversations with English gentlemen, I have found it was in vain to combat their sentiment. The so-called anti-slavery feeling seems to have become with them a sentiment akin to patriotism." Richard Huzzey recently came to a similar conclusion: "anti-slavery became an article of faith in Victorian Britain... the wrongness of slave-holding and slave trading had become an unassailable truth, unacceptable to question publicly" (Freedom Burning: Anti-Slavery and Empire in Britain, 2012, p.17). The idea that anti-slavery was in decline is a myth, largely created to explain away the fact that British found the Union's commitment to the anti-slavery cause too half-hearted to sympathise with.

The Republicans and Abolitionists sense the opportunity and have built connections & influence across the Atlantic.
How do they accomplish this without alienating the people they're trying desperately to keep on side: slave-owners in the Border states, and slave-owning Southern Unionists? As I described inthis post, key abolitionists do attempt to build British sympathy on the grounds of shared anti-slavery interest. However, these attempts are stymied by the utter lack of any tangible evidence that the Union opposes slavery. It's simply impossible to lie to a country about how anti-slavery you actually are when they can- and do- read your own newspapers.
 
Top