WI: British and french had more involved in American Civil war?

The Northern cause suffered too - the North still had slaves early on and indeed made moves to protect slavery. (Such as reversing emancipation measures attempted by some of their more abolitionist generals.).

The reversal of measures were for a number of reasons, from the desire to ensure the war activities maintained general popular support (that is, we're not too radical) to the need to maintain executive power. This was not about the Lincoln Administration being pro-slavery, more about them being pro-winning the war.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The reversal of measures were for a number of reasons, from the desire to ensure the war activities maintained general popular support (that is, we're not too radical) to the need to maintain executive power. This was not about the Lincoln Administration being pro-slavery, more about them being pro-winning the war.
I know that.

But from the point of view of the British at the time, it looked like the North was not only half-hearted about abolishing slavery but was actually taking measures away from it.

Basically the British expected that as soon as the South broke away then the North would "see the light", abolish slavery, and push south bringing freedom to all within the year.

They were rather disappointed when things didn't follow the "script"... breaking from it quite substantially by the time of Lincoln's inauguration, even.
 
Americans always want to pretend that the Trent incident was a minor peccadillo not worth getting worked-up about, but for a good parallel you should consider the Iranian storming of the US Embassy in Tehran, back in the 70's.

As for the topic under discussion I can only say Hebrews 13:8.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, because taking four rebel agents and an hour's delay in the mails

Americans always want to pretend that the Trent incident was a minor peccadillo not worth getting worked-up about, but for a good parallel you should consider the Iranian storming of the US Embassy in Tehran, back in the 70's.

Yes, because taking four American traitors off a British merchant ship and an hour's delay in the mails in the Nineteenth Century is exactly like the Iranians violating a diplomatic mission and holding 60 Americans hostage for 444 days in the Twentieth...:rolleyes:

Considering that both Leopard-Chesapeake and Little Belt-President were resolved without resorting to war (and, for that matter, the Saumarez-Volage, and Amethyst incidents were as well), and - in fact - an authority no less than the British prime minister acknowledged that the Crown's own law officers acknowledged the treatment of Trent was entirely legal, the only way there would be a war over Trent is if the British wanted one...

Lord Palmerston would seem a reasonable source on the legality of what was done with Trent, since, in fact, the British government's legal advisors said the treatment of Trent was perfectly legal, even without Wilkes forcing Trent into harbor for a court review.

See page 22-24, here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...iew=1up;seq=28

To appreciate the true significance of the interview described in his diary by Mr. Adams it is necessary to bear in mind that it took place on the 12th of November, the Confederate envoy having been taken on the 8th from the Trent. On the day preceding his talk with Mr. Adams, Lord Palmerston, it now appears, had addressed the following letter to J. T. Delane, the editor of the Times:

My
dear Delane:

It may be useful to you to know that the Chancellor, Dr. Lushington, the three Law Officers, Sir G. Grey, the Duke of Somerset, and myself, met at the Treasury today to consider what we could properly do about the American cruiser come, no doubt, to search the West Indian packet supposed to be bringing hither the two Southern envoys; and, much to my regret, it appeared that, according to the principles of international law laid down in our courts by Lord Stowell, and practised and enforced by us, a belligerent has a right to stop and search any neutral not being a ship of war, and being found on the high seas and being suspected of carrying enemy's despatches; and that consequently this American cruiser might, by our own principles of international law, stop the West Indian packet, search her, and if the Southern men and their despatches and credentials were found on board, either take them out, or seize the packet and carry her back to New York for trial. Such being the opinion of our men learned in the law, we have determined to do no more than to order the Phaeton frigate to drop down to Yarmouth Roads and watch the proceedings of the American within our three-mile limit of territorial jurisdiction, and to prevent her from exercising within that limit those rights which we cannot dispute as belonging to her beyond that limit.
...
I mention these things for your private information.

Yours sincerely,

Palmerston.

...
While the opinion of the officers of the Crown referred to was no mystery at the time, and is mentioned, though in much more general language, by Spencer Walpole in his Life of Lord Russell (n. 354-356), yet the statement here made of that opinion by Lord Palmerston is well calculated to excite surprise. It will be noticed that the officers referred to .the Lord Chancellor, Westbury, and Dr. Lushington being among them are said to have laid it down as law that the belligerent had a right to stop and search any neutral, not being a ship of war, on the high seas, suspected of carrying enemy's despatches. Consequently, then, in this case, the Southern insurgents having been granted belligerent rights, the San Jacinto might, On English principles of international law, stop the Trent, search her, and if the Southern men were on board, either do exactly what Captain Wilkes had already just done, .take them out, and then allow the packet to proceed on its voyage, or seize the packet and carry her to some American port for trial and adjudication as prize.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Nice list...

Answering the question more generally, without addressing any of the long running debates and a disagreements, there are a number of hard points any foreign intervention in the ACW is going to hinge around.

1. Almost no-one seriously wants the Trent incident to turn into a war. Lincoln has one war. The British are coming off of a major and serious revolt in the jewel in their crown. Both powers prefer unobstructed sea lanes and the status quo of peace. The US would prefer not to manufacture everything at home; the British like grain coming in. The British would rather keep getting rich and expanding the areas they control at peace. Wartime armies are expensive, especially when...

2. The North Atlantic is a Big, Wide Ocean. Goes without saying, but its something to consider. Compared to the Wars of the French Revolution, armies need more. More bullets, more powder, more shot and shell. Warships can't elegantly sail as long as they have food supplies, coal is bulky, heavy, and gives warships short legs. Sealift takes a lot of ships. Very little can match the railroad in that day and age. This affects the use of...

3. The British Army is Quite Good, but has a list. In 1861, the U.S. has a lot of good engineering and staff officers, but for how to use a regiment of rifles, the British have an edge, and doesn't need to unlearn as much. Regiment for Regiment, the British have an edge. They have fewer regiments though, and likely less ability to expand quickly, and again - they also have to hold down a good sized chunk of the globe. AS referenced in (1), if the choice is between India or Boston, the choice is India. Bleeds into...

4. Time is very much on the Union's Side. Every passing month is more for the USA. More indigenous production of war material, more tactical competence, more competent men in high command, fewer idiot illusions. There's a faction that views the ACW U.S. Army as just another tribal society to be swept aside by a few volleys by the redcoats; but one remains skeptical. Each month is also another month where British merchant shipping is not hauling resources to the UK and finished goods to market. Again, all for an avoidable war of choice, dealing with...

5. The American Civil War Was About Slavery. The myth making of the war not being about slavery doesn't exist until after the war. The South needs to lose, and abolition needs to be achieved, for the South to need another tale of what it was really about. Now honestly, I don't think this is as big a bar to British intervention as others do. Chattel slavery is horrible. But read up on British India to see how little of a shit the British cared when the rubber hit the road.
Still though, you can argue that the British cared a great deal about putting the veneer of progress over the reality of colonial exploitation. Supporting a band of feudal throwbacks does not do this.

You can make a tale where the Union still succeeds; you can make one where the some segment of the South obtains some measure of independence - likely as a British client, as has been mentioned above. Heck, you can make one where the British regain their colonies and the British run their Empire worldwide for all time - but it's a heavier lift.

Still though, those five need answer.

Nice list...

Best,
 
Top