WI: Britain and France intervene in the ACW

One popular trope in Southern victory scenarios is the intervention of Britain and France forcing Union capitulation.

Assuming this happens (most likely BEFORE the Battle of Antietam) what impact would this have on the ACW? Would British and French intervention be genuinely decisive?
 
Any intervention would be supplying material and money rather than troops or ships so we might see a better armed Southern army, as well as a better fitted out navy.
 
At least there would be more Union troops guarding the Canadian border - maybe even a few battles (small) and an invasion or two.

UK interference could result in a naval blockade of the north instead of the south.
France has troops in Mexico, some could sent north (California).

New Orleans would be in Confederate hands (probably)

Even with European intervention the best outcome is a short war with the South staying free, but beating the North so that the South can demand concessions would be impossible.

ITTL France would probably stay in Mexico making it a puppet state for a longer time (eventually a revolution muight change this).

French pride would be high, so maybe it would NOT attack Prussia in 1870/71...
 
Why does Britain / France always side with the Confederacy? I know that Britain main supplier of cotton was the American south, but surely there were voices supporting the Union as well?

WOuld Britain / France ever have considered supporting the North?
 
The US could well have lost the ACW in OTL.

Add British and French support to the CSA and the odds of the North winning drop to zero. Just to start the RN's intervention means the blockade of the CSA is destroyed while the USA is blockaded and cut off from vital resources including nitrates. Lincoln may have a bit of a problem fighting a war without gunpowder.
 
The US could well have lost the ACW in OTL.

Add British and French support to the CSA and the odds of the North winning drop to zero. Just to start the RN's intervention means the blockade of the CSA is destroyed while the USA is blockaded and cut off from vital resources including nitrates. Lincoln may have a bit of a problem fighting a war without gunpowder.

It's extremely unlikely that a large enough portion of the Royal Navy would be committed to blockade the North. If they did they'd have a hard time defending and supplying their colonies.
 
Didn't Russia threaten to enter the war if Britain or France did? Although, I'm not sure if that was just a bluff.

No. Russia sent her ships to American ports as a precaution just in case Britain and/or France intervened in the Polish uprising of 1863 and bottled her navy in their few ice-free ports. The Union totally misinterpreted that as a sign of support to their cause but it wasn't.
 
Daylight Savings, Russia is in no position to fight a naval war as recovery from the Crimean debacle is just getting underway while France is allied with the UK in this scenario so there isn't anyone the British need to defend their colonies against.
 
depends on the level of intervention. If the UK/France just 'recognize' the CSA without any military aid, then the US will shrug and go on about the business of beating the rebels. If the UK intervenes militarily, then the US is going to lose... breaking the blockade against the south and simultaneously blockade the northern ports will break the USA. The USN has a powerful coastal and river force, but nothing to stand up to the RNs ships of the line. The blockade alone is a war winner, but if the UK goes so far as to send troops over, it's just one more nail in the coffin (although land battles are notoriously luck-dependent)...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
depends on the level of intervention. If the UK/France just 'recognize' the CSA without any military aid, then the US will shrug and go on about the business of beating the rebels. If the UK intervenes militarily, then the US is going to lose... breaking the blockade against the south and simultaneously blockade the northern ports will break the USA. The USN has a powerful coastal and river force, but nothing to stand up to the RNs ships of the line. The blockade alone is a war winner, but if the UK goes so far as to send troops over, it's just one more nail in the coffin (although land battles are notoriously luck-dependent)...

If memory serves the position of the US is that recognition of the CSA would result in the severing of relations with the UK (and France) and would likely rapidly escalate anyhow.
 
If memory serves the position of the US is that recognition of the CSA would result in the severing of relations with the UK (and France) and would likely rapidly escalate anyhow.

it would be the Europeans' onus to start anything military though... the USA certainly isn't going to attack them first...
 
Top