WI: The Confederate States had Found an Ally Willing to Help it Fight Against the U.S.?

Could the Confederate States had found a potential ally in any other country that was against the US at the time? Mexico and Latin America jump to mind, but I feel Mexico would still have a sore spot against Americans of any sort, and wouldn't see the Confederacy as anything other than the original aggressors less than a decade before. Maybe if the Confederacy promised to return land to Mexico, if the CSA won the war? Or how about Europe, or somewhere else in the World?
 
Could the Confederate States had found a potential ally in any other country that was against the US at the time? Mexico and Latin America jump to mind, but I feel Mexico would still have a sore spot against Americans of any sort, and wouldn't see the Confederacy as anything other than the original aggressors less than a decade before. Maybe if the Confederacy promised to return land to Mexico, if the CSA won the war? Or how about Europe, or somewhere else in the World?
Well, Mexico during the 1860s was fighting its own war. The powers of Europe, specifically Britain, France, and Spain but other nations as well, ganged up on Mexico in 1861 and fought a war with them in an attempt to regain payment owed to them by Mexico. That conflict didn't end until 1867, so Mexico was in no shape to help the CSA out at all. Even if the intervention didn't happen, I don't know if Mexico would side with the rebels. Mexico had been free of slaves for decades by that point. They'd be more likely to enter the war as a third party, if at all, and that's a big if in the first place.

Honestly, the most likely candidates to help the Confederacy are the regulars: Britain and France. Britain, for one, was building ships for the Confederates in their own harbors, and Nappy III desperately wanted to retain control over Mexico, something a reunited USA would put a stop to. Problem is, there's not a lot of reason for either power to get involved at all. Cotton, the South's main export, could easily be acquired in Egypt or British India, meaning there was little to no incentive for a European empire to help out the CSA. That would risk angering the United States, which was much more important to Europe than a few swamps and plantations.

Really, it's hard to see any country wanting to help the Confederacy, unless you've got a POD a few decades before the Civil War. Something to spark tension between the US and Britain or France or Spain or Russia.
 
Intervention by one or more European powers is the only way the Confederates can win at all - so long as the Union still possessed a will to fight, they had the weapons, the industry, the supplies and the manpower they needed to win the war, and the longer the war continues, the more disadvantaged the Confederacy will be.
 
To be honest the only states that would matter the UK and France said that the Confederacy had to prove it's independence before they would help it. They mostly stuck with that position with a couple of exceptions which were because the people involved didn't understand the US would fight as long as it could no matter what.
 
I'm in agreement that the only way the Confederacy has a realistic shot at winning is through foreign intervention. While blowing up the Trent affair (among other issues) is a popular route, something like the Laird Rams getting blown out of proportion is also an option.

However, the intervention of the two powers which matter (Britain and France) would essentially guarantee a Confederate victory. The combined naval power of those two empires would be a dire threat, as would the inevitable passage of a British army to Canada. The sudden imbalance that would bring to the military situation would be bad enough, but the sudden economic and political pressure brought to bear would also be great. With the blockade broken the Confederacy can export cotton to European markets and earn income, her economy doesn't sink, and she can get foreign loans, supplies, and credit. The Union meanwhile, would find itself open to blockade and arms embargoes, while her own internal markets would suffer for want of certain supplies which she would suddenly be required to suck up from the domestic economy.

Basically, foreign entry into the civil war tips the scales in a very nasty way. The Confederates did recognize this was what had helped win the American Revolution, and so were hoping for it themselves. One power would be bad enough, but both is a death knell for the Union war effort.
 

Lusitania

Donor
You would of needed a POD in the 1840-1850 that would of put US on a confrontation with either Britain or France and these countries would of sided with Confederate as way to get back at US.
 
If you don't mind, could you elaborate further on the Laird Rams? It's a potential POD I almost never see fleshed out, if at all.

I'm going off memory here, so bear with me. In 1863 the Union was suffering from the effects of Confederate commerce raiders causing much alarm and damage, two in particular the CSS Florida and the Alabama were causing much mischief. The greatest problem was that both had been built in British yards and had been allowed to make a clean break. The British, who did not particularly care about this in 1861-62 were being put under increasing pressure by the American government to watch the ships being built in their harbors, but there was some resistance to this at first. With the Laird Rams, two very obviously armored military ships, there was a lot of subterfuge to make them look like they were being outfitted for Egypt. In reality, hulls 294 and 295 were going to be the North Carolina and Mississippi once they were fitted out. In September of 1863, it was beginning to look like they might slip past the customs officials in Liverpool and sail for North America. OTL Lincoln and Seward exerted as much pressure as they could for the British to find out just who the ships were being built for, and act as neutrals by stopping the ships if they were being outfitted for the CSA. Charles Francis Adams, ambassador to the UK, famously said "It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war." when discussing the issue with the British foreign minister, who did not want to interfere. Historically, the British detained the ships, but had they not there is every indication that the US would have been willing to do anything to stop them. This might include something like the Bahia Incident where a Union warship violated the integrity of Brazilian waters. The British, sensitive about that kind of thing, would have no choice but to retaliate and take the ships back, the Americans couldn't really let that happen and so...

Wild speculation, but you would have a bad diplomatic incident sometime in September-October 1863, the British would remember the Trent and probably decide that had to issue a sharp lesson while the Union would remember the raiders and be very unsympathetic to British protests or reprisal.
 
Top