Would the U.K. Have Even Suppoeted the C.S.A?

67th Tigers

Banned
why was that? Weren't India and Egypt pretty much 'captive markets' for the UK, and cheaper to deal with than the USA?

All cotton is not equal, and American grown cotton was much superior (hence commanded a higher price in the markets).

BTW: Since I was at that page, and I happened to have it, I put up the Order of Battle of the British Expeditionary Force sent to Egypt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1882_Anglo-Egyptian_War
 
All cotton is not equal, and American grown cotton was much superior (hence commanded a higher price in the markets).

It was? I mean, of course it was, it was American! :D

so it was the ACW that caused Britain to take Egypt into the colonial empire, eh? Wow, there's nothing that we can't do!! :p
 
Of course.
But Britain was a democracy, to directly support the CSA would be political suicide for no (or even negative) gain.

Britain was NOT a Democracy. Probably 70% of men and 100% of women were voteless.

We cannot be certain of the state of public opinion.

A significant proportion of the UK establishment (which certainly hated democracy) sympathised with the treasonous rebels who had refused to accept a lawful election.

Later in the war, when it was more clearly about slavery, it was possible to get mass meetings in favour of the legal government of the USA in areas that were suffering very real hardship because of the "Cotton Famine".


There was one other factor. Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy. The Monarch in the final analasys could not defy a Parliamentary majority but Queen Victoria was both abolitionist and less racist than most of her contemporaries.
 
Britain was NOT a Democracy. Probably 70% of men and 100% of women were voteless.

We cannot be certain of the state of public opinion.

A significant proportion of the UK establishment (which certainly hated democracy) sympathised with the treasonous rebels who had refused to accept a lawful election.

Later in the war, when it was more clearly about slavery, it was possible to get mass meetings in favour of the legal government of the USA in areas that were suffering very real hardship because of the "Cotton Famine".


There was one other factor. Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy. The Monarch in the final analasys could not defy a Parliamentary majority but Queen Victoria was both abolitionist and less racist than most of her contemporaries.

A limited democracy is still a democracy.
The US was quite a limited democracy at this time too.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
A limited democracy is still a democracy.
The US was quite a limited democracy at this time too.

Indeed, at the time of the ACW, 1 in 7 males is enfranchised (all males over 21 owning property worth over £2). Under the 1865 Reform Act the propery qualification is dropped, giving the Franchise to all males over 21 owning property or paying rent (60% of males).

The US, by comparison, had a much higher property qualification (40 acres in many states) until this was (largely) dropped in 1856. In 1861, about 1 in 3 adult males hold the vote (about 1 in 6 before 1856)*.


* My calculations, based on votes cast vs population
 
Top