Why do the British always ally with the South?

I suppose the take-away from this thread is that Lincoln was an idiot for not letting the Trent Affair escalate into a full-blown war, given all the benefits an Anglo-American war would bring to the Union cause. :rolleyes:

Well what people ought to take away is that Lincoln was rather clever for being able to steer around the potential conflict and realizing it would be rather difficult to commit to more than one war at a time.

Well, TFSmith has previously claimed that America could never run out of money to fight a war, because she could always just raise taxes and print more cash. After all, it's not like these sorts of financial strategies have ever backfired...

To be fair it is possible that the Union could have stabilized any rampant inflation by a massive sale of government bonds in the early months of the conflict (using that surge of patriotism in the early period) but any further stabilization would have depended on a constant stream of Union victories to boost public confidence in the economy. Any setbacks could be rather disastrous for the economy.

If the war drags on too long military setbacks, blockade, and the inability of the internal market to soak up all the lost commerce will tell.
 
I had imagined a scenario after Confederate Victory where a war between the CSA and Spain spirals out of control and ends up starting WWI in 1901 or 1902. Basically, the CSA has its own Lusitania, they invade Cuba, then France joins said war and sends colonial militia stationed in Indochina to invade the Philippines.
In 1900, Spain surrenders its colonies; the CSA gets Cuba and Puerto Rico, while France gets the Philippines. This victory frightens the USA and Great Britain, who have spent the 1880s and 1890s working together to curb Franco-Confederate power; Germany also feels threatened.
In 1902, a war erupts between the Paris Entente (France/CSA/Russia) and the Alliance (USA/Britain/Germany/Ottoman Empire).

In OTL, the US was not influential enough to be part of the alliance system. In a Confederate independence TL, neither the USA nor the CSA would be influential enough to be part of the alliance system.
 
Absolutely. New Orleans probably got blockaded by the French later in the war, allowing the Confederates to starve the Yankees out.

New Orleans was downstream from on of the largest crop-growing areas in the world. Union forces in New Orleans could not have been starved out by a French blockade.
 
It does nevertheless demonstrate that the French clearly had the capability. And naval wars are cheap.

I fully agree France had the capability, my point was that the odds in favor of France would not be as favorable as a raw comparison of ships implies. Why would a naval war be cheap?
 
Funny, the Spanish tried exactly that - a purely naval war - against the Chileans and Peruvians in 1865-66 and lost...and a couple of years later, the head of state who presided over it was deposed

Best,

For reasons that have nothing to do with that war.

But hey, if we are going to bring anecdotes of the Chincha Islands War, how about that time the Americans off Valparaiso threatened to intervene on Chile's side if the Spaniards didn't back down, and when the Spaniards didn't back down it was the Americans that packed up and left.

The reason the CIW was a failure was that it was a case of gunboat diplomacy gone wrong when the entire SAm Pacific DoWed Spain. At war with Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile, there were no friendly port near where to dock. But the gunboats themselves did everything that was expected of them. The French in NAm would have plenty of friendly ports - Charleston to begin with, and others in Mexico and Cuba once the Union fleet was no longer an issue. But even more importantly, wether it's the British after Trent or the French after whatever, both would be supplying an army that is already fighting on the ground and not shipped over whole from afar, one the Canadian, the other the CSA. Now that can fail a million ways and end in Union victory, but using as template a war where no ground troops took part is ridiculous.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Wasn't my suggestion was it?

For reasons that have nothing to do with that war.

But hey, if we are going to bring anecdotes of the Chincha Islands War, how about that time the Americans off Valparaiso threatened to intervene on Chile's side if the Spaniards didn't back down, and when the Spaniards didn't back down it was the Americans that packed up and left.

The reason the CIW was a failure was that it was a case of gunboat diplomacy gone wrong when the entire SAm Pacific DoWed Spain. At war with Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile, there were no friendly port near where to dock. But the gunboats themselves did everything that was expected of them. The French in NAm would have plenty of friendly ports - Charleston to begin with, and others in Mexico and Cuba once the Union fleet was no longer an issue. But even more importantly, wether it's the British after Trent or the French after whatever, both would be supplying an army that is already fighting on the ground and not shipped over whole from afar, one the Canadian, the other the CSA. Now that can fail a million ways and end in Union victory, but using as template a war where no ground troops took part is ridiculous.


It wasn't my suggestion, was it?;)

One of our fellow posters was the one who suggested "a purely naval war" that would be "cheap."

The issues inherent in a trnasoceanic war are legion; the reality that the rebels were no more going to accept foreign commanders over their troops than the British or French would have are even more ridiculous.

Given the realities of the European interventions in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s, and the reality it took the entire war efforts of France, Turkey, Britain, and Sardinia to force the Russians to withdraw from Sevastopol - and 24 months of war, of course - and the utter lack of impact of European navies in the wars fought on the continent in the 1860s, it seems awfully sanguine to suggest the 1860-something equivalent of the Six Day War in the event of a European intervention in the 1861-65 conflict in the United States.

But that seems to be the default from a certain segment of the gallery. HMS Pinafore shows up and the same people who fought and won in 1861-65 historically are going to roll over and raise the white flag ... Especially given the realities that the Mexicans, Dominicans, Chileans, and Peruvians all sent various Europeans home sadder but wiser in the exact same decade.

Along with the constant repetition of Lost Cause memes that even neo-Confederates in the U.S. gave up on decades ago. Remember, it's heritage, not hate...

Best,
 
Last edited:
This is turning into another everyone v TFSmith121 thread and really what's the point? Your never going to shift him from his Brits suck at everything/Merica is invincible position so it just going to go round and round again like usual.

TFSmith121 is an American Nationalist, not an American Exceptionalist. VERY hard from the outside to make the distinction, I'm sure. You don't see from him the factless hokey jingoism you see from the Exceptionalists, nor the severe xenophobia. To be blunt, many are putting their own words and opinions into their personal interpretations of his posts, rather than analyzing what he is actually saying.

Indeed, if you want a genuine version (on the flipside) of what TFSmith121 is being accused of, you have only to look at CalBear's most recent disciplinary action on this very thread. A few years ago a notorious #'d kitty got banned for his own quite infamous and...unusual to say the least opinions on the American Civil War. Whereupon the person that drew CalBear's notice suddenly showed up on the same thread and started to bat for the banned member.

I say all this because no one on this thread (currently active and posting) is an exceptionalist of their own country or any other. But certainly Pride is one deadly sin in abundance here, and very few (myself included:eek:) are innocent of that. Maybe what this thread needs is More Honesty, Less Chest-Beating all around...?

It does nevertheless demonstrate that the French clearly had the capability. And naval wars are cheap.

The Imperial Russians of 1904-05 would like a word with you.

The builders of the Great Dreadnought Race would like a word with you.

The combatants of both Battles of the Atlantic (WWI & WWII versions) would like a word with you.

The WWII Imperial Japanese Navy would like a word with you.

I suppose the take-away from this thread is that Lincoln was an idiot for not letting the Trent Affair escalate into a full-blown war, given all the benefits an Anglo-American war would bring to the Union cause. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure where in this your satire ends and sarcasm begins...:confused:

Also that the US in WW2 was actually fighting for the spread of communism.

Um, no. But the numbers of British AH.com members who believe that the US in WW2 was actually fighting for the destruction of the British Empire seems to be...considerable:(

Well, TFSmith has previously claimed that America could never run out of money to fight a war, because she could always just raise taxes and print more cash. After all, it's not like these sorts of financial strategies have ever backfired...

Did he actually say that? In such simple words? Particularly, and directly, about "printing money"?:confused:

It wasn't my suggestion, was it?;)

One of our fellow posters was the one who suggested "a purely naval war" that would be "cheap."

The issues inherent in a trnasoceanic war are legion; the reality that the rebels were no more going to accept foreign commanders over their troops than the British or French would have are even more ridiculous.

Given the realities of the European interventions in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s, and the reality it took the entire war efforts of France, Turkey, Britain, I]and[/I] Sardinia to force the Russians to withdraw from Sevastopol - and 24 months of war, of course - and the utter lack of impact of European navies in the wars fought on the continent in the 1860s, it seems awfully sanguine to suggest the 1860-something equivalent of the Six Day War in the event of a European intervention in the 1861-65 conflict in the United States.

But that seems to be the default from a certain segment of the gallery. HMS Pinafore shows up and the same people who fought and won in 1861-65 historically are going to roll over and raise the white flag ... Especially given the realities that the Mexicans, Dominicans, Chileans, and Peruvians all sent various Europeans home sadder but wiser in the exact same decade.

Along with the constant repetition of Lost Cause memes that even neo-Confederates in the U.S. gave up on decades ago. Remember, it's heritage, not hate...

Best,

Yeah, you remember the #'d kitty who was so Sun Never Sets nationalistic and so anti-Union that he had Lee's Army of Northern Virginia cutting the Union Army of the Potomac to pieces, only to have in the action of a (mutually) hostile attack by just a few British regiments send Lee's army running from the field? I called that the 1:5:25 ratio. One Southron beats five Yankees. One Briton beats five Southrons. Therefore, one Briton beats twenty-five Yankees.:p Silly, but like I said, this guy was Out There.
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't see where TFSmith is specifically spelling out that the North can win against Foreign Intervention. Only that he argues that it will be a lot harder than the contemporaries of that time (and some of THIS time) believe(d). No one on any side of the debate is talking of a Napoleonic campaign of continental conquest, and even the OP is only talking of a plausibility scenario for French intervention the likelihood of which he freely admits is remote.

Besides, when you get right down to it, its really ASB to think the CSA can survive the Crash to come upon a Confederate victory. They mortgaged out the future of themselves, their children, and the next three generations after that in terms of fantastic levels of Confederate and State Bond issues. The interest rates alone of which would doom the country to permanent default and eventual dismemberment at the hands of a vengeful Union. Really, losing all those debts in being defeated was economically the best thing the (White) South got out of that war.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Imperial Russians of 1904-05 would like a word with you.

The builders of the Great Dreadnought Race would like a word with you.

The combatants of both Battles of the Atlantic (WWI & WWII versions) would like a word with you.

The WWII Imperial Japanese Navy would like a word with you.
It's cheaper to f*ck with the Union by launching a blockade of the Union, and hence capturing Union commerce ships and so on, with existing ships... than it is to f*ck with the Union by landing an army of hundreds of thousands.

Similarly, the Dreadnought Race involved 1.8 million pounds (at the time) for HMS Dreadnought. Out of a Defense allocation of £64.2 million.

By 1913, when the race was essentially played out...
Defence spending had jumped to £74.7 million.

An increase in the defense budget of 15% is not crippling - it's about half a % of GDP.

Now, if we step forward four more years to the time the UK is fighting a land war...


The defense budget is now about £2 billion. (Close to half the GDP).


That seems to make clear what I meant, I hope. The dreadnought race was cheap compared to fighting a large land war, and the limiting factors on ship construction are the capacities of specialized industries not the capacities of the economy as a whole.



Two more points to bring into focus.

In the 1860s Palmerston's main question was whether to abolish Income Tax or reduce tariffs. His government was running a surplus.

And, unlike the French army, the French navy was not particularly engaged in the Mexican intervention (at least not combat wise).

Conclusion: I stand by what I said.
Care to bring numbers to dispute the naval point?
 
Last edited:
Um, no. But the numbers of British AH.com members who believe that the US in WW2 was actually fighting for the destruction of the British Empire seems to be...considerable:(

If fighting a country which is fighting the CSA counts as "a war for slavery", why doesn't fighting a country which is fighting the USSR count as "a war for communism"?

Did he actually say that? In such simple words? Particularly, and directly, about "printing money"?:confused:

Yep. Apparently America during this period was an autarky, and so exempt from the laws of economics. Never mind that the mere threat of war during the Trent affair was enough to precipitate a run on the banks.

Yeah, you remember the #'d kitty who was so Sun Never Sets nationalistic and so anti-Union that he had Lee's Army of Northern Virginia cutting the Union Army of the Potomac to pieces, only to have in the action of a (mutually) hostile attack by just a few British regiments send Lee's army running from the field? I called that the 1:5:25 ratio. One Southron beats five Yankees. One Briton beats five Southrons. Therefore, one Briton beats twenty-five Yankees.:p Silly, but like I said, this guy was Out There.

So what does that have to do with this thread?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
TFSmith121 is an American Nationalist, not an American Exceptionalist. VERY hard from the outside to make the distinction, I'm sure. You don't see from him the factless hokey jingoism you see from the Exceptionalists, nor the severe xenophobia. To be blunt, many are putting their own words and opinions into their personal interpretations of his posts, rather than analyzing what he is actually saying.


The 2nd SA war shows the British required some 450,000 men in theater to actually defeat a Western force of 90,000 fighting on their home ground, roughly 5-1 odds, and this was with the difference in military, transportation, and communications technology between 1861 and 1899, and the impact of Cardwell et al upon the British Army. Obviously, the South Africans had no coastlines; the British had absolute supremacy at sea.

The US mobilized some 2.5 million men during the Civil War; unless one can assemble an Anglo-Confederate-Canadian-New Brunswick-Nova Scotia-PEI-Newfie-etc. order of battle totalling 12.5 million men and get them all to North America, I think we can safely say the liklihood of a "British victory" in North America in the mid-Nineteenth Century is remote.


TFSmith, here, claiming that the British and Rebels would need to muster between them twelve and a half million men to defeat the US.

That is, they would need to have more soldiers than the Union has males.

If that's not exceptionalism I don't know what is.





It wasn't my suggestion, was it?;)

One of our fellow posters was the one who suggested "a purely naval war" that would be "cheap."

The issues inherent in a trnasoceanic war are legion; the reality that the rebels were no more going to accept foreign commanders over their troops than the British or French would have are even more ridiculous.

Given the realities of the European interventions in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s, and the reality it took the entire war efforts of France, Turkey, Britain, I]and[/I] Sardinia to force the Russians to withdraw from Sevastopol - and 24 months of war, of course - and the utter lack of impact of European navies in the wars fought on the continent in the 1860s, it seems awfully sanguine to suggest the 1860-something equivalent of the Six Day War in the event of a European intervention in the 1861-65 conflict in the United States.

But that seems to be the default from a certain segment of the gallery. HMS Pinafore shows up and the same people who fought and won in 1861-65 historically are going to roll over and raise the white flag ... Especially given the realities that the Mexicans, Dominicans, Chileans, and Peruvians all sent various Europeans home sadder but wiser in the exact same decade.

Have people suggested a "six day war"?
Have they suggested that the Union will "roll over and raise the white flag"?

No.
They're suggesting that there would be a (probably quite long) war which the US would be at an overall disadvantage in. Or, possibly, a negotiated end to the conflict - but not one with Union surrender, just a coming-to-terms like 1812.

Have people suggested putting CSA troops under foreign officers? Not to my notice.





Along with the constant repetition of Lost Cause memes that even neo-Confederates in the U.S. gave up on decades ago. Remember, it's heritage, not hate...

Best,


Such as?
Please, show me where anyone's promulgated Lost Cause memes at all on this thread (let alone constantly on this thread) without backing it up with citations showing the truth behind them.
 
Last edited:
If fighting a country which is fighting the CSA counts as "a war for slavery", why doesn't fighting a country which is fighting the USSR count as "a war for communism"?
Additional questions:

1)If Britain issues a proclamation announcing that all slaves owned by people loyal to the Union are free, what happens? Are both the Union and Britain now fighting for slavery, despite one of them not having any slaves?
2) If fighting a country which is fighting the CSA counts as "a war for slavery," does the Philipsburg Proclamation mean the American War of Independence also counts as "a war for slavery"?

Did he actually say that? In such simple words? Particularly, and directly, about "printing money"?:confused:

Yep. Apparently America during this period was an autarky, and so exempt from the laws of economics. Never mind that the mere threat of war during the Trent affair was enough to precipitate a run on the banks.
You didn't include the quotations, and apparently if we don't get first-hand evidence we're one of those putting their own words and opinions into their personal interpretations of his posts, rather than analyzing what he is actually saying. Given that what this thread needs is More Honesty, I took him off ignore long enough to dig out the exact phrasing- one from a discussion with you, one from a discussion with me. Enjoy.

So perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly you'd propose fighting a war without any money?

How did the Americans, Argentines, Mexicans, Haitains etc. manage it against a European invader?

Sell bonds, increase taxes, and print money. Same as every nation does in wartime. Really not that unusual.

Wow, an economist of your genius is wasted on this forum. You should go offer your services to the IMF. The fate of the global economy depends on it!

No, I'm pretty much cribbing from John Steele Gordon's The Great Game: The Emergence of Wall Street as a World Power, 1653-2000.

He has most of a chapter focusing on the Civil War, which is where the "sell bonds, increase taxes, and print money" line comes from ... this is not exactly new ground when it comes to wartime economies, however?

Bonds, increased taxes and money-printing only work in the short term. If you increase taxes too much, you'll strangle economic activity; if you print too much money, you'll suffer runaway hyperinflation (you like historical determinism; try looking at interwar Germany, and see what happened there); and if it doesn't look like you'll be able to afford to pay back your bonds, people won't buy them. It's naïve in the extreme to just say, "Oh, well, America will be alright, it can always print bonds, raise taxes and borrow money," and there's a reason why countries which go down that route generally suffer bankruptcy and massive economic difficulties.

So how was the Revolution funded, again?

So how exactly do countries go bankrupt then, if they can just keep on selling bonds, raising taxes and printing money in perpetuity?

A country that is a sovereign autarky can go a long way outside the international financial markets, as witness the US through much of its history,

Like I’ve said before, I know that they did. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the Union’s military machine was teetering on the brink in January 1862 and a war with Britain might well have pushed it over the edge.
I'm not sure what you consider as "the brink" (of what? failure?) would be so considered by anyone else... As far as the financial side goes, cripes, if the US Congress could pass the Legal Tender Act in February, 1862, presumably they could do it earlier, and presumably the republic will not crumble. Back it with the federal land in the territories and all the specie that can be mined in California and Nevada and shipped east by the Conestoga-full, and I imagine the greenback would hold value. The financial side is not exactly insurmountable in 1861, any more than it was in 1775 or 1812, and I expect there are those in Europe who would be willing to buy, both for the investment and to (potentially) discomfort the British.
Will the president of the United States do?
“The people are impatient; Chase has no money, and he tells me he can raise no more; the General of the Armies has typhoid fever. The bottom is out of the tub. What shall I do?” (Abraham Lincoln, 9 January 1862)

While I had him off ignore, I thought I'd pick a couple of examples to illustrate the phenomenon described as

Your never going to shift him from his Brits suck at everything/Merica is invincible position

Firstly, demanding unrealistic levels of proof from his opponents (with bonus "not actually reading what they've said" highlighted in bold):

Anyone ever do a study on what, if anything, everyone in Parliament said about whether they'd vote for war over Trent in 1861-62?
Just dig through the extra-parliamentary speech of MPs in the period of the crisis...

Support war in the event of reparation not being made

W. R. Seymor Vesey-Fitzgerald (Conservative, Horsham)
Col. Walter Bartelott (Conservative, West Sussex)
Mr Stephen Cave (Conservative, New Shoreham)
Sir Robert Clifton (Liberal, Nottingham)
Charles Newdegate (Conservative, North Warwickshire)
Lord Fermoy (Liberal, Marylebone)
John Harvey Lewis (Liberal, Marylebone)
John Laird (Conservative, Birkinhead)
William Cox, (Liberal, Finsbury)
Sir William Miller (Liberal, Leith Burghs)
Edward Horsman (Liberal, Stroud)
William Williams (Liberal, Lambeth)
Henry Bouverie William Brand (Liberal, Lewes)
John George Blencowe (Liberal, Lewes)
Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative, Buckinghamshire)
John Morgan Cobbett (Liberal, Oldham)
Frederick Peel (Liberal, Bury)
Henry Brinsley Sheridan, (Liberal, Dudley)
Harry Foley Vernon, (Liberal, East Worcestershire)
William Coningham (Liberal, Brighton)
James White (Liberal, Brighton)

Oppose war in the event of reparation not being made

John Bright, (Liberal, Rochdale)
William Edward Forster (Liberal, Bradford)
Alexander William Kinglake (Liberal, Bridgewater)
24 out of ~650. Not exactly an exhaustive sample. Anyone ever look at all 650 MPs, if they even made statements, public or private, on the issue? How often any of them voted with or against Palmerston on foreign affairs issues? How about where Disraeli et al were on the issue? How about how - if they were in office - any of them voted in 1854? How many had economic or other ties with the US? BNA? Ruritania? Were there any mass meetings in their constituencies, one way or the other? And, of course, was there ever an actual vote in Parliament on the wisdom of a land war in the Americas - which is, as we all know, may not be the classic blunder, but which presumably comes close. Just ask Liverpool or St. Germain, or whoever was in charge when the British were defeated in Buenos Aires in 1807...

Secondly, is a musket 'modern'?

the above totals 106,598 percussion rifles and rifled muskets, and more than 500,000 modern muskets;
When you say "modern muskets", what you really mean is "Smoothbore muskets", which don't deserve the term "modern" when the prospective opponent has a mature rifled long arm as standard.
I don't want to make you feel worse, but have you seen the heading on the table that says "Altered to percussion, cal. .69"? He's actually calling 275,744 converted flintlock muskets "modern".
FWIW, a significant percentage of the Canadian provincial militia and that of New Brunswick that is of such import was going to be equipped with smoothbore percussion muskets in 1861. That is in Bourne, p. 611, see:

On the eve of the Trent incident, therefore, there were ready for the militia in Canada only 25,000 arms, 10,000 of them smoothbores, and some 13,000 rifles and 7,500 smoothbores in the Maritime Provinces.
The cargo of tens of thousands of rifles that shipped to Canada within weeks of the decision to supply military force during Trent just ignored?
I think I may just leave now.

Let me remind the audience that you don't see from him the factless hokey jingoism you see from the Exceptionalists.

Please, show me where anyone's promulgated Lost Cause memes at all on this thread (let alone constantly on this thread) without backing it up with citations showing the truth behind them.
Nobody has: this is a standard tactic to shut people up.

I realize it is fashionable among certain neo-confederate revisionists to do their level best to suggest the Civil War was NOT about slavery, and that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, especially by cherry-picking quotes drawn from three decades in public life and elective office, but please...it is really not open to interpretation.
My views on the Civil War aren't relevant to this thread, but I feel should clarify them if I'm being accused of Confederate apologism. The Confederacy left the Union to protect slavery and the North went to war to force it back in: with slavery when it looked like that would be the easiest way, without it when views changed. I'm more than confident that both the historiography and Lincoln's words bear me out in this view.
And yet apparently you felt obliged to state "some of my best friends"...

Anyway, how is the following statement read as anything else but neo-confederate apologia... As well as how neatly your professed opinion gibes with the standard neo-confederate line.

Interesting, isn't it?
So will you be writing to James McPherson and telling him he’s a neo-confederate?

“He was bound by the Constitution, which protected the institution of slavery in the states. In the first year of the war the North fought to preserve this Constitution and restore the Union as it had existed before 1861… The conflict was therefore a limited war with the limited goal of restoring the status quo ante bellum… since, in theory, the southern states were still in the Union, they continued to enjoy all their constitutional rights, including slavery”
“By the second year of war the slavery issue became bound up with the fate of the Union itself as Lincoln gradually came to the conclusion that he could not win the war without striking down slavery.”
(both from Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution)
Bear in mind that the individual who made these accusations also supports banning "Confederate apologists" from the boards.
 
Last edited:
If fighting a country which is fighting the CSA counts as "a war for slavery", why doesn't fighting a country which is fighting the USSR count as "a war for communism"?

Because two different wars, 80 years apart, begun in completely separate fashions in completely separate geopolitical climates with completely separate alliance systems can't really be compared, maybe.
 
To answer the OP, and thread title, it's mainly due to the high deposits of Narrativium. Most people who write such a TL are probably looking for a way to have the CSA win. I'm not joining the discussion of how the USA fares against its own rebels and the UK, but it's probably a damn sight more likely to end up with an independent CSA than at least 90% of other PoDs that take place after the first shots are fired. Of course, in the rich narrativium deposits, there's the particularly high-grade seam that is the Trent Affair. What better place to hang the turning point of your story?

Let's examine the alternatives:


  • The UK does nothing. That's OTL, and boring.
  • The UK allies with the US. Lincoln won't wear it. If it's not ASB, it's very close.
  • The CSA drops the idiot ball, and provokes the UK into declaring a separate, concurrent war. The blockade of Confederate ports just got a heck of a lot harder to break. The fact that many of the blockade runners were bringing goods from the likes of Birmingham and Manchester means that there's much less stuff even trying to get through. There'll also be no funny business on the US-Canadian border. End result? The CSA goes down, harder and faster than OTL. It might be interesting to read, but it tends to go against the desired result of most of those who are writing about the ACW.
 
TFSmith121 is an American Nationalist, not an American Exceptionalist. VERY hard from the outside to make the distinction, I'm sure. You don't see from him the factless hokey jingoism you see from the Exceptionalists, nor the severe xenophobia. To be blunt, many are putting their own words and opinions into their personal interpretations of his posts, rather than analyzing what he is actually saying.

In this case what's the difference.

TFSmith121's stance seems to be that, because no European power in OTL reconquered territories in the western hemisphere, any victorious war by Europeans over Americans is impossible.

It doesn't matter what the POD Americans will always triumph.

Only Americans are capable of finding the will to win and relative strengths (wealth, population, power projection capabilities and wealth etc.) have no effect on the outcome.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Because two different wars, 80 years apart, begun in completely separate fashions in completely separate geopolitical climates with completely separate alliance systems can't really be compared, maybe.
If A is at war with B, and C declares war on A, does that mean C supports the political system of B no matter what the relative details are of A,B and C?

'cause the whole argument of "Britain would be fighting for slavery" is predicated on that.

Another example would be 1812 - were the Americans fighting for Bonapartism when they declared war on Britain after Chesapeake/Leopard?

Of course not. They were fighting Britain.

Bringing up the other wars is intended to demonstrate the issue.


So - do you think that, by fighting the US in 1862, Britain would be fighting for Slavery? Or do you think it would instead be fighting against the US - no more, no less?
 
Top