For the first few months of the American civil war the South held on to a small hope that the British would intervene after cotton shortages impacted on the English textile industry. Of course it never happened- the South never even got diplomatic recognition.
The first few battles of the war showed how undisiplined and untried the opposing amies were. Had the redcoats been there, with Generals and men who have war experience they could have won some decisive battles early on maybe making the Union let the confederacy secede. They could have also attacked from Canada.
Then again this may have steeled the population of the North and truly united it thus making the Yankees even stronger and more determined. Also the Union navy employed Ironclads before the Royal Navy so maybe the poms would have never got to North America.
What are your opinions?

The biggest chance for intervention was the Trent Affair... deftly handled by Lincoln.

Like Tom Berringer (as James Longstreet) said in the movie Gettysburg: "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." The fact that the CSA was linked so closely with the institution of slavery made it impossible for Europeans to intervene.

Originally posted by napoleon526
Like Tom Berringer (as James Longstreet) said in the movie Gettysburg: "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter." The fact that the CSA was linked so closely with the institution of slavery made it impossible for Europeans to intervene.

I thought that Britain was seriously thinking about intervening until the Emancipation Proclamation shifted British public opinion from indifferent to strongly pro-Union.

I think Britain had more links with the south but as it was very anti slavery it wasn't realistcaly going to support it. Anyway wouldn't the old masters intervening on either side have pissed off too many people

Originally posted by GerrardCapashen
I thought that Britain was seriously thinking about intervening until the Emancipation Proclamation shifted British public opinion from indifferent to strongly pro-Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation made the abolition of slavery a direct war aim. Prior to the EP, it was an unspoken war aim.

The South based their hopes for European intervention on the idea that Britain's booming textile industry could not survive without southern cotton. The British gov't, however, merely started growing cotton in India, which has a similar temperature to the deep south. Going to war with the US just wasn't worth it.

Although britain was once involved in the slave trade i think by then we were actually using the royal navy to try to wipe slavery out.
And public opinion was anti-slavery so supporting the south, unless hidden would have been unrealistic.

As to wether support would have tipped the balance..probably.

The Americans overtook Britain as the world's no 1 industrial power in 1880. Maybe if Britain had forseen this she would have done her best to keep a 'free' South. But, as Rhett Butlers says: Britain doesn't side with a loser, thats why she's Britain. Or something along those lines.
If the South had freed the slaves prior to going to war then their manpower shortages would have been even worse. Most northerners didn't fight out of sympathy for the slaves they just hated the upstart rebels.

To some extent, the British and the French were waiting for the South to demonstrate that they had the ability to fight the North, and at least remain as an independant state. Gettysburg was probably the last, best (B5 reference for those who missed it!)hope for the CSA. Everything went downhill from there.

-- Ravensfire