I didn't say Spain was pro slavery, just that if it was willing to deal with it in the colonies, maybe they could overlook it in the CSA for raw materials or anything else they might need.
WI: Confederate States get support from European powers?
- Thread starter frenchiestfries
- Start date
Gaius Julius Magnus
Gone Fishin'
Despite moral objections to slavery, as well having it outlawed for decades by that point, both Britain and France saw value in an independent CSA. The right justification and both nations would have been content to at least aide the Confederacy more directly.
France was always more of a possibility of outright military intervention than Britain, out of a belief that a divided US wouldn't have the means to oppose Napoleon III's imperial designs in Mexico and South America (now with a potential Confederate ally to aide in the process). However France would only have intervened if it was part of a joint-venture with Britain that would have given it a veneer of an international mediation. Similar to the French invasion of Mexico initially.
In Britain's case, many in the British government and upper-classes were sympathetic to the South out of a sense of shared cultural connections, a distaste of rampant American democracy, and that a divided US would kneecap a serious long-term rival to Britain. But actual intervention was another thing entirely, especially as it put holdings like Canada in danger.
A possible mediation offer and intervention was considered around 1862 when the Emancipation Proclamation was declared (the mediation offer being in conjunction with France and, they hoped, Russia also) but events closer to home in Europe killed any momentum it had.
Last edited:
kingwilliam14
Banned
France and Spain aid the Confederacy in order to keep the US from enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Thus commences a French invasion of Mexico and a Spanish invasion of Central and South America.
This pushes the UK firmly into the Union camp as the British join the fight to push France and Spain out of the Americas (they had a bigger interest in preserving the Monroe Doctrine than the Americans did). Seeing the French distracted and using their belligerence as an excuse. Bismarck starts the Franco-Prussian War a few years early, bringing Prussia onto the Union's side. Austria countermoves against Prussia, Italy unites earlier and moves against Austria.
And just like that, the American Civil War has become a global conflict.
One side:
United States
United Kingdom
Prussia
Italy
Portugal
Republican Mexico
Other side:
Confederate States
France
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Monarchist Mexico
Irish rebels
This pushes the UK firmly into the Union camp as the British join the fight to push France and Spain out of the Americas (they had a bigger interest in preserving the Monroe Doctrine than the Americans did). Seeing the French distracted and using their belligerence as an excuse. Bismarck starts the Franco-Prussian War a few years early, bringing Prussia onto the Union's side. Austria countermoves against Prussia, Italy unites earlier and moves against Austria.
And just like that, the American Civil War has become a global conflict.
One side:
United States
United Kingdom
Prussia
Italy
Portugal
Republican Mexico
Other side:
Confederate States
France
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Monarchist Mexico
Irish rebels
What? This doesn’t make any sense. There’s no way France or Spain attacks the US without Britain on their side—and Britain may not be enamored of the idea of helping the CSA about that doesn’t mean they’re at all inclined to intervene on behalf of the USA.
kingwilliam14
Banned
France and Spain were keen conquer Latin America, and the US was basically preventing them. If they can weaken the US by supporting the Confederacy, they'd have their ticket in.
And Britain would be very opposed to a continental European power getting a foothold in Latin America.
Marc
Donor
Another factor that isn't often mentioned, but was no doubt considered in the British cabinets in the 1860's was that about 40% of the wheat imported to Great Britain came from the United States - and there was no quick and easy replacement.
Hostilities that could involve some serious food shortages are not generally felt to be a worthwhile sacrifice - even for the Empire.
Hostilities that could involve some serious food shortages are not generally felt to be a worthwhile sacrifice - even for the Empire.
Last edited:
It's useful that the upper echelons of British society are sympathetic to the CSA, but for the reasons laid out, that's not enough for intervention on the side of the CSA. So effectively, what you need is a diplomatic scandal created by the USA that leads to an essentially separate war with Britain where the CSA can be easily assumed as "my enemies enemy is my friend". This just about circumvents the issues of slavery, etc. But at most this means the British navy will mop up the US blockade and ship arms.
Now Marc's mention of wheat is important - does this factor into any potential troop deployment (if it heats up that much) on the US-Canada border?
Now Marc's mention of wheat is important - does this factor into any potential troop deployment (if it heats up that much) on the US-Canada border?
France and Spain were not “keen to conquer” Latin America. Mexico was a one-off colonial venture for Napoleon III, and Britain and Spain immediately stopped supporting him once they found out that he had bigger plans than just making Mexico pay its debts. And if Britain really wants to stop someone from getting a foothold in Latin America, it can do that on its own terms without getting involved in the Civil War.
It was not. Until the late 19th century it was Britain that enforced the Monroe Doctrine.
My own TL Wrapped in Flames deals with this to a limited extent. However, the long and short of any kind of general support the CSA gets from the European powers is that it is, whether it is offers of mediation or recognition up to military power, a boon for the CSA. Now it should go without saying that mediation and recognition is only effective in a scenario where the Union is looking for an out (say a worse 1864) and even if offered earlier would do little beyond buoy Confederate spirits and bring the Copperheads ahead in certain districts. If France and Britain were to offer loans to the CSA then it would be a huge turning moment since the Confederate government would go from being effectively insolvent to monetarily well off practically overnight, taking some of the strain off their economy.
The only thing that would make the most practical difference is direct military intervention. Absent mediation coming with the clause that the Royal Navy will not respect the blockade it's no direct help. If Britain went to war (or if they were joined by France) the independence of the Confederate States of America is basically guaranteed.
The only thing that would make the most practical difference is direct military intervention. Absent mediation coming with the clause that the Royal Navy will not respect the blockade it's no direct help. If Britain went to war (or if they were joined by France) the independence of the Confederate States of America is basically guaranteed.
Not going to happen after 1862, at this point the war is at a stalemate and most in Europe thought the best way to deal with the rebellion was just for the North and South to amicably divorce. At this point Charles Francis Adams (U.S Ambassador to Great Britain) basically told the British that any attempt to recognize the Confederacy would result in an invasion of Canada, an attack on British commercial shipping, most importantly an end to American grain shipments that were providing a large part of the British food supply. This food supply was necessary to keeping the industrial cities of Britain fed, on top of this the working class of Britain was so deeply opposed to the Confederacy that a resolution of support was passed by the inhabitants of Manchester and sent to Lincoln. Declaring war on the U.S. is a really bad idea for Britain, one that Palmerston and Russell (British Foreign Secretary) correctly recognized. The problem with the Confederacy was that they were not so much fighting to leave the country as they were fighting to not leave the past.
Mediation yes, intervention no. No one wanted to get into a war with the US. GB already got its hands burned twice in NA, it wasn't eager to go round 3.