Could Britain have saved the Confederacy?

[7ronin]

We should remember that Britain was supporting the Confederacy in many ways. Short of declaring war on the United States, an event which could not possibly have happened, there was no way that British support and/or recognition could have influenced a Confederate victory. The Confederacy was doomed.

 

[simonnomis]

I think intervention from Britain almost certainly would have saved the Confederacy. But I wonder just how long any settlement would have realistically lasted before hostilities broke out again?

 

[Irish Caesar]

CSA didn't have the infrastructurer to beat USA at all. However, UK support for CSA would have turned American public opinion farther away from the war. Had only a few battles turned out differently, perhaps the American people would have voted McClellan in as president in 1864 and had "peace with honor" with CSA.

 

[EdwardTking]

Suppose after the trent afair, the British and Confederacy make some sort of deal to abolish slavery in return for British entrence into the war against the union side. Could this have won the war and independence for the confederacy?

The Southern states saw the Confederacy as a temporary
military alliance to achieve independence for each slave state.

If the Confederacy had agreed to abolish slavery,
the underlying reason for the war would have ended.

The North would almost certainly have recognised
states rights, and all would live happily ever after in USA.

And there'd be no need for Britain to get involved.

 

[Dr Tiny]

It is interesting to come across this thread. I live in Manchester in the UK and we have a place called Lincoln Square named after Abraham Lincoln that has a statue presented to the city by Lincoln. During the civil war with the american ports blockaded there were no imports of cotton to the Manchester region, this area of the UK made some 90%+ of the worlds textiles and was obviously very important to the British economy. The lack of work brought about the Cotton Famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_famine
But despite this hardship the cotton workers voted to support Lincoln

Lincoln sqaure was established in MAnchester and Lincoln wrote to thank the people of the region for their support
http://www.manchester.com/features/manchesters.php

"...I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was likely to obtain the favour of Europe.

Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.

I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual."

 

[bhsup]

Even if The UK and France had given monetary support and supplies to the Confederacy, time was limited.

Lee had to get some smashing victories and keep the war going long enough with enough doubt in the minds of the North's population as to whether they would lose. Eventually, though, the outcome would be inevitable if it dragged down. Similiar technological abilities, but a population of 20 million to 5 million? No, the South would have eventually lost of it dragged on and on.

Frankly, I think it was nothing short of a miracle that The Confederacy lasted as long as it did, given the disparity in population and industrial might. Just shows how far brilliant leadership and strength of will can carry people.

 

[privatehudson]

Lincoln didn't just use words though he sent supplies of food and organised cash donations for the Lancashire workers. In an ironic twist one of these ships, the Brilliant was sadly caught, burnt and sunk by the Birkenhead built CSS Alabama. Semmes (Alabama's Captain) said it went to his heart to do so but he felt that it was his duty.

That single incident in a nutshell sums up the divided sentiments in Britain over the Confederacy. Many like Laird made money off the cause despite knowing its faults, thousands of others meanwhile starved or risked the workhouse because they bitterly opposed the cause and hated it's faults.

 

[Israelite9191]

I do believe that British and/or French intervention would have saved the Union, under the proposed conditions or any others. First of all, at the begining of the war slavery was not the driving force behind Confederate revolution and the Unionist response (infact, when one Union general attempted to make slavery an important point and declared abolition of slavery in Mossouri, Abraham Lincoln had said general removed and the declaration of abolition nullified). However, Abraham Lincoln later changed his mind and with the Emancipation Proclamation made slavery the central focus. While it would be nice to think that Lincoln did this for moral reasons, the real reason was that the North at this point was not doing very well and had a very low moral. By shifting the focus to slavery, rather than the vague notion of states' rights, he united the North in a moral crusade against the heathen practices of the Old South, giving the Union the moral boost, and volunteers, it needed to win the war.

Now, the Emancipation Proclamation came after the Trent Affair. If the Confederacy had declared abolition in exchange for British and French support, then slavery would not have been an option for Abraham Lincoln in uniting the Union on a moral crusade against the Old South. This would just add on to the fact that British and French support would give the South more than enough power to take on the North. It must also be remembered that the South had more than just General Lee. They had much better military leadership on all fronts, they also had a much larger amount of troops at the begining of the war (IIRC something like 2/3-3/4 of the U.S. army at the begining of the war was made of Southerners), and last but far from least, the South was fighting for something they believed in and understood. The Confederate soldiers were fighting for the homeland, they were fighting for, in their minds, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. The Unionists, on the other hand, were fighting to keep a chunk of land most had never seen under their flag, not quite the same emotion builder. The last reason for the Confederacy coming out on top from such a situation is the France factor. While it is true that the British military and some of the navy could possibly have been distracted in Canada, the French would have not been so distracted and would have been easily able to concentrate their forces on the Northern homeland. Furthermore, while British military and some naval power could possibly be distracted in Canada, that does not mean that their entire navy, several times larger and more powerful at this point than the Union's, and their industry would be. It is my humble opinion that even with a Union attempt at distraction in Canada and any other number of small setbacks, the combined power of Britain and France along with, maybe even more importantly, the lack of a point for the Union to gather round, the Confederacy in this situation would have surged back to attain their independence, and possibly even more.

 

[shortguy]

I do believe that British and/or French intervention would have saved the Union, under the proposed conditions or any others. First of all, at the begining of the war slavery was not the driving force behind Confederate revolution and the Unionist response (infact, when one Union general attempted to make slavery an important point and declared abolition of slavery in Mossouri, Abraham Lincoln had said general removed and the declaration of abolition nullified). However, Abraham Lincoln later changed his mind and with the Emancipation Proclamation made slavery the central focus. While it would be nice to think that Lincoln did this for moral reasons, the real reason was that the North at this point was not doing very well and had a very low moral. By shifting the focus to slavery, rather than the vague notion of states' rights, he united the North in a moral crusade against the heathen practices of the Old South, giving the Union the moral boost, and volunteers, it needed to win the war.

Now, the Emancipation Proclamation came after the Trent Affair. If the Confederacy had declared abolition in exchange for British and French support, then slavery would not have been an option for Abraham Lincoln in uniting the Union on a moral crusade against the Old South. This would just add on to the fact that British and French support would give the South more than enough power to take on the North. It must also be remembered that the South had more than just General Lee. They had much better military leadership on all fronts, they also had a much larger amount of troops at the begining of the war (IIRC something like 2/3-3/4 of the U.S. army at the begining of the war was made of Southerners), and last but far from least, the South was fighting for something they believed in and understood. The Confederate soldiers were fighting for the homeland, they were fighting for, in their minds, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. The Unionists, on the other hand, were fighting to keep a chunk of land most had never seen under their flag, not quite the same emotion builder. The last reason for the Confederacy coming out on top from such a situation is the France factor. While it is true that the British military and some of the navy could possibly have been distracted in Canada, the French would have not been so distracted and would have been easily able to concentrate their forces on the Northern homeland. Furthermore, while British military and some naval power could possibly be distracted in Canada, that does not mean that their entire navy, several times larger and more powerful at this point than the Union's, and their industry would be. It is my humble opinion that even with a Union attempt at distraction in Canada and any other number of small setbacks, the combined power of Britain and France along with, maybe even more importantly, the lack of a point for the Union to gather round, the Confederacy in this situation would have surged back to attain their independence, and possibly even more.

A couple points:

1. The Civil War was largely about slavery. States' rights is a nice rationalization from a southern perspective, but slavery was the sticking point that made it an issue. No way the South would have abolished slavery on its own in that era.

2. The South did not have better military leadership on all fronts. They were soundly whipped in the Western theater almost from the beginning, and the leadership position of the Army of Tennessee was a revolving door of commanders, all of whom were unsuccessful. Chickamauga was the only major Southern victory in the west after 1861, and they were completely unable to capitalize on that victory.

 

[Sims2789]

Had they entered very early, it is possible they would have. However, the United States would eventually have the largest standing army in the world, making it quite hard for Britain to invade. Furthermore, the Emancipation Proclamation made it impossible to get the British people to support a war with the United States. The main reason Britain didn't enter, though, was that it expanded cotton growing in Egypt, thus no longer relying on the South.

 

[Israelite9191]

Why would the Emancipation Proclamation make it impossible to get the Brits? The Brits did eliminate slavery before the US.

 

[privatehudson]

I believe his point is that the proclomation made it impossible for the British to side with the Confederacy against the North - and therefore go to war with (i.e. fight) the North.

 

[Israelite9191]

That is true, but the situation that was given to us is in reference to the Trent Affair, which took place before teh Emancipation Proclamation. This means that at this point both Union and Confederacy have slavery, even if the Union slavery is much more restricted (slave states that didn't seceed, aka "Border States"). As such, the Brits would not be compelled to join either, as it would go against British moral values. However, if the Confederacy, as in this PoD, were to emancipate slavery as part of an atempt to get the Brits on their side, then the situation becomes an emancipated Confederacy and a slave holding Union (with a Confederate emancipation, the slave holding border states would not be compelled to seceed, as states' rights and economics were obviously not enough reason for them to seceed). This means that the Brits would now have a moral obligation to not side with the North, and every reason, inculding moral, economic, and because of the Trent Affair, diplomatic, to side with the South.

So, to sum up, what we must remember in discussing the PoD of this thread is that the Trent Affair happened before the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[privatehudson]

I don't find it very likely at all that the Southern states would willingly emancipate their slaves either just before or during the war. I therefore don't see a great deal of value in speculating what may have happened had they done so. That may have been the original point but I think most of us are rather commenting in general. I myself have merely been remarking on the depth of feeling in Britain at the time for either cause.

It might however be worth noting that for all the support the South got from the British ruling classes, the working people's disdain for her predates the emancipation proclomation.

 

[shortguy]

That is true, but the situation that was given to us is in reference to the Trent Affair, which took place before teh Emancipation Proclamation. This means that at this point both Union and Confederacy have slavery, even if the Union slavery is much more restricted (slave states that didn't seceed, aka "Border States"). As such, the Brits would not be compelled to join either, as it would go against British moral values. However, if the Confederacy, as in this PoD, were to emancipate slavery as part of an atempt to get the Brits on their side, then the situation becomes an emancipated Confederacy and a slave holding Union (with a Confederate emancipation, the slave holding border states would not be compelled to seceed, as states' rights and economics were obviously not enough reason for them to seceed). This means that the Brits would now have a moral obligation to not side with the North, and every reason, inculding moral, economic, and because of the Trent Affair, diplomatic, to side with the South.

So, to sum up, what we must remember in discussing the PoD of this thread is that the Trent Affair happened before the Emancipation Proclamation.

The South would never have done that. When you consider that they practically went to war to protect slavery and that their national government was very weak, it's easy to see that slavery was going to be around for a while if the South survived.

 

[Dreadnought]

The Brits would have probably intervined, if:

a. Lee won at Antietam
b. Bragg won at Perryville

But in 1865 the Confederates said to Britian that if they helped the south win, then the south would abolish slavery, so in the end it wasn't about slavery....

 

[shortguy]

The Brits would have probably intervined, if:

a. Lee won at Antietam
b. Bragg won at Perryville

But in 1865 the Confederates said to Britian that if they helped the south win, then the south would abolish slavery, so in the end it wasn't about slavery....

At that point the Confederacy was on its last legs, and Britain would have been little help. The point is, in 1862 when the war was, or at least seemed, still in doubt, the South wouldn't have freed the slaves because they would've seen no reason to.

 

[Israelite9191]

Well, if you take context our of the PoD which is based on the South agreeing to give up slavery, then things look a little dimmer for the South. However, if the Trent Affair had gone overboard to the point of a major diplomatic collision between the Union and Britain that resulted in the Union or Britain or both breaking ties with the other, then Britain and France would have entered the war. This PoD is a much more likely one, don't you think?

Now, the major thing that changes here is the effectiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation. In this PoD the Proclamation is still an extremely effective tool for boosting national moral. However, since the Union in this PoD would now be fighting not only the slave holding Confederacy but also free Britain (I'm not sure if France was free yet, but I believe that it was), it would be somewhat less efective as one of their enemies was a free nation.

 

[privatehudson]

However, if the Trent Affair had gone overboard to the point of a major diplomatic collision between the Union and Britain that resulted in the Union or Britain or both breaking ties with the other, then Britain and France would have entered the war. This PoD is a much more likely one, don't you think?

Slightly more likely yes. Britain wasn't going to enter the war just on moral grounds, she also needed to see concrete evidence that the South could stand on it's own two feet. This in realistic terms meant that intervention was unlikely without both a moral reason and events forcing it. In november 1861 there was little sign of the South in the ascendent.

The trent affair could have lead to war but more out of diplomatic loss of face than it making sense for Britain to do so at the time.

 

[Flotsam]

The help of Britain or France would've drug the war out longer but the outcome would still be the same. The Unions superiority in industrial capacity, infrastructure, man-power, naval power and a much more established, effective government was too much to over-come.

I think the differences in government is the biggest factor why the CSA could never win. The Union was united under a federal government with a powerful executive branch. It had one leader that was able to pool and organize all resources for the good of the nation. The CSA, on the other hand, was a loose confederacy. Jefferson Davis had little to no power over individual states. As a result, the southern states would often do what's in their best interest at the expense of the CSA. No amount of outside assistance could overcome this fundamental flaw.