WI: France gets involved in the USCW, and Britain doesn't?

Most discussion of foreign intervention in the US Civil War on this forum revolves around what would happen if Britain got involved, either on its own or in conjunction with France. I was wondering, though: what would happen if Napoleon III, but not the British, decided to recognise the Confederacy? IOTL Napoleon was probably more pro-Confederacy than the UK, but he didn't want to recognise them without Britain doing so as well. Maybe ITTL he decides that it's unlikely that Britain would do anything one way or the other, and that the potential advantages of having a friendly state next to Mexico (where Napoleon is currently supporting the Emperor Maximillian) outweigh the potential disadvantages of annoying the US. What would be the result of this? Would Northern public opinion be willing to continue the war if it looked like international opinion was turning in favour of the Confederacy? Would Napoleon send aid to the Confederacy, and if so, of what kind? Would this mean war between France and the US? And how would the rest of the world react?
 
ASB. Napoleon III was not going to go one inch/centimeter further in supporting the CSA than the British were. Maybe if the CSA is seen as being about to dictate a peace to the USA - Washington DC under siege, etc, France may use what naval power it has to break the Union blockade on their own. Otherwise, no way. France is too deeply involved in Mexico and unlike the UK has no bases capable of supporting any military efforts in North America/North American waters. If France intervenes and the CSA wins they have a free hand in Mexico. If the CSA loses then things will go worse for France in Mexico even faster than OTL.
 
ASB. Napoleon III was not going to go one inch/centimeter further in supporting the CSA than the British were.
Not quite. Napoleon III did contemplate supporting the CSA, but was not going to lift a finger without as a minimum, some guarantee that he wouldn't face British opposition. Being exposed to Royal Navy attack was not what he wanted. So any French intervention scenario is only possible if for some reason, Britain has (officially or unofficially) assured France that in the event of war with the USA, Britain won't intervene against France. Which would in turn require a clear causus belli for Britain to give such an assurance.

Even that only moves things into the realm of extremely unlikely rather than impossible.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Here's a PoD for you - the US mistakes a French ship on the way to Mexico with a Confederate blockade runner, and this leads to a sequence of shooting incidents such that a war has effectively started before the Union can try to de-escalate things.

Unlikely? Perhaps, but workable IMO. It also fits most places when the French might have contemplated interfering.

Alternatively, the Union blatantly violates French neutrality in pursuing a Confederate raider (or in some other way) and kicks off a crisis that gets used as a casus belli.

(Or perhaps the French generate a casus belli under orders?)

The British are the sticking point, so it does need to be some kind of "outrage" (real or imagined) or perhaps happen right on the heels of the Union insulting the British. (Perhaps there's an incident during Trent and the Union manages to defuse Trent - but by that time they're already at war with the French.)
 
Here's a PoD for you - the US mistakes a French ship on the way to Mexico with a Confederate blockade runner, and this leads to a sequence of shooting incidents such that a war has effectively started before the Union can try to de-escalate things.

Unlikely? Perhaps, but workable IMO. It also fits most places when the French might have contemplated interfering.

Alternatively, the Union blatantly violates French neutrality in pursuing a Confederate raider (or in some other way) and kicks off a crisis that gets used as a casus belli.

(Or perhaps the French generate a casus belli under orders?)

The British are the sticking point, so it does need to be some kind of "outrage" (real or imagined) or perhaps happen right on the heels of the Union insulting the British. (Perhaps there's an incident during Trent and the Union manages to defuse Trent - but by that time they're already at war with the French.)

Maybe the British allow France to go to war with the US and don't interfere specifically with the intent on allowing France to further weaken their interests in America while also letting the USA get a bloody nose by French proxy?

After all, why not just sit back and let the two destroy each other while profiting off their misery with war profits?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Maybe the British allow France to go to war with the US and don't interfere specifically with the intent on allowing France to further weaken their interests in America while also letting the USA get a bloody nose by French proxy?
The thing is, under normal circumstances the British would rather the Union won than the Confederacy - hence why I stipulate it has to either be something that makes the Union look bad or during something else that makes the Union look bad, as that way the British are more likely to "look the other way" in French eyes.


After all, why not just sit back and let the two destroy each other while profiting off their misery with war profits?
Tricky thing here is that the Brits were already making plenty of money! They were selling vast quantities of materiel to the Union, and private companies were also making huge amounts trading with the Confederacy through the blockade.
 
No doubt the British would prefer the Union win -- but then, would they feel strongly enough to actually intervene if Napoleon was determined to support the Confederacy? Especially given that many in England saw the Union as the lesser of two evils, at least until the Emancipation Proclamation, I don't see the British government taking any action more serious than the sending of a strongly-worded telegram or two.
 
Probably not - the question is making sure the French are confident in that!

Maybe during or in the immediate aftermath of the Trent crisis the British ambassador in Paris could make some ill-tempered remarks about the Union in Napoleon's hearing, causing the Emperor to believe that Britain wouldn't be likely to help the Union if they got in trouble. Alternatively, he could get his ambassador in London to discretely enquire of various government officials what they'd do if France decides to get involved, and the response he gets is "Not a lot, frankly."
 
This may probably be too late for a PoD, but what about something related to the Battle of Cherbourg?
The top result I got from searching that battle was a WWII battle, which certainly seemed like it was after the PoD, but then I realized the one you were referring was almost exactly 80 years earlier. :p

Perhaps in the battle, the USS Kearsarge attacks the CSS Alabama while the latter is in the port of Cherbourg instead of waiting for the Alabama to leave the port?
 
Perhaps in the battle, the USS Kearsarge attacks the CSS Alabama while the latter is in the port of Cherbourg instead of waiting for the Alabama to leave the port?

Interesting thought...

Mind you, you would have to move it to winter 1863 at the earliest. That would be before the twin defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and Nappy III is still thinking about recognizing the CSA. If the Kearsarge attacked the Alabama in French waters that would be a huge problem diplomatically, maybe couple it with a Confederate victory somewhere and Nappy III recognizes the CSA.

That of course, according to the Union government, meant war.

Some rather fabulous butterflies start flying about Paris, Vienna, Mexico...
 
Interesting thought...

Mind you, you would have to move it to winter 1863 at the earliest. That would be before the twin defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and Nappy III is still thinking about recognizing the CSA. If the Kearsarge attacked the Alabama in French waters that would be a huge problem diplomatically, maybe couple it with a Confederate victory somewhere and Nappy III recognizes the CSA.

That of course, according to the Union government, meant war.

Some rather fabulous butterflies start flying about Paris, Vienna, Mexico...

Maybe one of the Alabama's raids is less succesful, prompting them to head to France sooner for repairs?
 
The top result I got from searching that battle was a WWII battle, which certainly seemed like it was after the PoD, but then I realized the one you were referring was almost exactly 80 years earlier. :p

Perhaps in the battle, the USS Kearsarge attacks the CSS Alabama while the latter is in the port of Cherbourg instead of waiting for the Alabama to leave the port?
Interesting thought...

Mind you, you would have to move it to winter 1863 at the earliest. That would be before the twin defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and Nappy III is still thinking about recognizing the CSA. If the Kearsarge attacked the Alabama in French waters that would be a huge problem diplomatically, maybe couple it with a Confederate victory somewhere and Nappy III recognizes the CSA.

That of course, according to the Union government, meant war.

Some rather fabulous butterflies start flying about Paris, Vienna, Mexico...

Oddly that's very similar to the spark that Tsouras uses in Britannia's Fist.
(Although he seems to think that a US Navy Warship opening fire in British Territorial waters is somehow perfectly justified and not at all an Act of War!?)

CSS Alabama did operate in the Gulf of Mexico in 1862-3 and defeated USS Hatteras in an Action Off Galveston Light.
Perhaps in the aftermath of this one of the Blockading squadron that pursued her chases Alabama into Mexican Waters and engages her, within sight of a French controlled port. Or possibly encounters a French Warship?
Relations concerning the Mexican Intervention were not good, and it would not take much for someone to over-react?
This would allow a slightly early POD and some magnificent Monarch Butterfly migration.
 
The French have the troops that are actually available to intervene effectively? They only sent 40,000 to Mexico, and if they leave that situation ends in quick disaster for the French client state (as it did historically). Another 7,000 French troops are in China or Indochina (2nd Opium War just ended 1860), tens of thousands of troops tied down in Imperial garrisons, and it just fought a war with Austria in 1859. So there are a lot of things to keep the French Army busy. At least a field army (40-60,000 men) is needed to be a credible force.

At sea the French Navy has significant force. But some of it is busy as the Conquest of Indochina is underway (1861-62), a lot of it are types unsuitable for operations outside of coastal or Mediterranean operations, and that reduces the numbers significantly. I don't know what the actual French Naval Order of Battle is for 1861-63 but I am sure some one will post it soon enough. It is probably strong enough to break the Union blockade and cause serious problems.

So depends on when as to the effect.

After July 1863 it would be foolish instead of ill advised, as there are not going to be enough available French troops to offset that already severe weakening the Confederacy has suffered to attrition.

It would appear based on other French commitments (and the character of Napoleon III who seems to be one of those people can only focus on one project at a time) that 1862 is the year of greatest impact and probably the greatest likelihood and that depends on when. In early 1862 the South was in deep trouble, only restoring its appearance of possible success mid to late year.

So you need your trigger at that time I think.

As to Winslow, he fought his battle with prudence and great competence. I don't think he is the man to make a disastrous diplomatic error. Now Wilkes, he appears to be actually crazy, so if he is in command of the Kearsarge literally anything could happen.
 
Top