Could Britain have saved the Confederacy?

[Israelite9191]

In industrial capacity, while the Union was far ahead of the Confederacy, Britain and France could easily make up for this. Infastructure is more of a problem, but those problems could most likely be overcome through a combination of superior military leadership in the form of General Lee and a few others (most notably Stonewall, although IIRC he was dead by this point) and naval superiority in the form of Britain's navy, which would also be in combination with the French navy. In man-power while the Union had a larger population, the Confederacy had more trained soldiers, when we consider the fact that app. 2/3 of American soldiers at the start of the war were Southerners. In naval power, the British navy was still the most powerful in the world, and when we consider the fact that it would have the support of the French and Confederate navy, they combined navies far outpace the Union. On all of these points, the Confederacy has the upper hand in this situation or at least equal footing.

I must conceed that government is the factor that had the greatest damage on Confederate propects. The Confederate central government was simply to weak to function as a supreme power. However, I believe you are over estimating the disadvantage this creates. This freedom of the states may have posed a problem for creating a unified effort, but it also had some minimal advantages. First, the central government and states were much more capable of recovering if one less important state fell. Second, it gave the generals of the state armies the freedom to pursue their endeavors. While at first this seems a bad point, this is actually an advantage when you consider that several of the generals were more capable independently than if they were under constant surveilance (see General Lee). Also, the lack of co-ordination problem would have been at least mitigated by having British and French armies, willing to work with each other and with generals like General Lee. The poor governmental strucure might have caused the eventual fall of an independent Confederacy, but in war time situation it was not enough of a problem to prevent British and French help from overcoming the challenges they faced.

EDIT: As for Private Hudson's comment, it may be true that the motives would have been different and not have had the driving power of a moral motive, but it still meant war. Furthermore, and just as importantly, it robbed the Unionists of the moral crusade necessary for a succesful campaign agaisnt the Confederacy.

 

[MarkC1]

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.

Many northerneres wanted to go to war with the UK after the trent affair, it was Lincoln that stopped it

 

[privatehudson]

Don't underestimate the contribution of Prince Albert who intervened from his deathbead apparently to water down the British demands. Without this it's possible that the wording would have been so beligerant that no compromise was possible.

 

[simonnomis]

Many northerneres wanted to go to war with the UK after the trent affair, it was Lincoln that stopped it

Which goes to show Lincoln was a better politician than some claim. Taking on the UK directly would have been a ridiculous proposition for a nation embroiled in a civil war, and would have virtually guaranteed CSA independence, and probably led to an enlarged Canada from the north at the Union's expense.

 

[privatehudson]

Certainly at that time it would have yes. Later in the conflict the Union felt much more secure and this reflected in the British will to act against Southern interests in certain ways - i.e. the seizure of the Laird rams. After the war the situation was completely reversed with the newly united USA feeling strong enough to threaten war if compensation was not forthcoming for the acts of ships like Florida, Alabama and Shenendoah

 

[simonnomis]

Well, certainly they felt justified in demanding compensation, and obviously more militarily secure having united the nation, but without the moralising Gladstone in power, its doubtful the UK would have paid out a penny, and the bluff would have been called. The threats of war, after such a devastating conflict, were completely hollow; the Union did not have the will or the means to fight a protracted full-scale war against the UK, militarily or financially.

 

[privatehudson]

The arbitration wasn't begun until 7 years after the end of the war, America was still battered but would have been more than able to pose a considerable threat to Canada. Considering this and the fact that the acceptance went some way to restoring the damaged relations between the two countries the deal was somewhat in Britain's best interests. Gladstone may have been more motivated by the morality of the issue (for which there was certainly a case) but any PM would have recognised the political sense behind the move.

Gladstone did however allow the judgement to be based on newer laws brought in since the end of the war. Disraeli (for example) would almost certainly have insisted on the arbitration being based on the laws in existence at the time of the events. I would find a more likely situation to be the arbitration still being agreed to but the amount being considerably less.

Anyway the point is that the two nations at each time felt strong enough politically to threaten war, whether they were strong enough militarily is another matter entirely.

 

[rilnator]

The threats of war, after such a devastating conflict, were completely hollow; the Union did not have the will or the means to fight a protracted full-scale war against the UK, militarily or financially.

I don't know, their military was in better shape than ever with seasoned troops and commanders, a large navy, new railroads and a large munitions industry.

The people were well and truely sick of war, but their attitude may have been different if directed towards the old enemy (Britain).

Finally getting rid of the British from North America could have been the next natural step after re-uniting the nation.

 

[privatehudson]

Well we'd just have to drive them off, invade and set fire to the White House all over again, such a tiresome task but someone has to do it...

 

[rilnator]

Only if your navy could land troops in North America that is.

 

[shortguy]

Only if you had the troops to spare to overcome a very large and by this point seasoned army.

 

[privatehudson]

Well firstly assuming the war occurred when I was suggesting earlier a large percentage of that army would already have returned to civilian life. I understand that at the time of the Trent affair Britain had around 100,000 "spare" troops ready for deployment there and I don't imagine that number would fluctuate amazingly. As for the navy I believe we've already established that the Royal Navy was a force to be reckoned with during this period.

 

[simonnomis]

People also readily forget the economic aspects of these things. Most of the financial capital being pumped into the US post Civil-war and aiding in the recovery, development of the raliways and the like, was from British financiers. And Britain was still the most economically and industrially advanced nation. Despite their inherant loathing of British people, there is still no way the US would have declared war over the compensation issue and risked more military upheavals, economic instability, casualities, property damage etc etc.

 

[simonnomis]

Only if your navy could land troops in North America that is.

Though I hold aspects of the US Navy of this period in high regard, I question whether they would have been able to realistically oppose the British Navy head on without being seriously crippled.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The Confederacy ran out of money at the end of the war, because no nation dared recognize them and/or trade extensively with them. Had Britton bought her cotton and paid with guns and ammo, the Confederacy could have lasted longer. At some point, the US citizens would have run out of patience and demanded that we "pull out" and ask Lincoln why he had to invade a foreign contry for monetary reasons.

Lasted longer yes. Won the war, no. Because cotton and tobacco were some of its best resources for trade, and send enough to England, and the due to the surplus, the price of the cotton will go down, the South would get less for it, and thus return to dire financial straits.

 

[rilnator]

Though I hold aspects of the US Navy of this period in high regard, I question whether they would have been able to realistically oppose the British Navy head on without being seriously crippled.

The ironclads were relatively new at the conclusion of the ACW. I know some of the Europeran powers already had them but were they sea worthy enough, or had the range to make it all the way across the Atlantic to fight their American equivalent? Which, by the end of the war had 42 of them.

 

[simonnomis]

The ironclads were relatively new at the conclusion of the ACW. I know some of the Europeran powers already had them but were they sea worthy enough, or had the range to make it all the way across the Atlantic to fight their American equivalent? Which, by the end of the war had 42 of them.

Sea-worthy? Yes, they were certainly sea-worthy. lol.

 

[silver 2039]

Sea-worthy? Yes, they were certainly sea-worthy. lol.

Ironclads were far too low to cross the Atlantic they would have been swaped and sunk. The ironclas was a coastal vessle not able to cross the Ocean. Espically the Atlantic.

 

[Hotpoint]

Ironclads were far too low to cross the Atlantic they would have been swaped and sunk. The ironclas was a coastal vessle not able to cross the Ocean. Espically the Atlantic.

Although the USN Ironclads were unable to cross the Atlantic the same is not true of the RN ones.

This is the 1860 Ironclad Frigate HMS Warrior.

 

[Adler17]

It depends on the ship. Ironclads as used in the ACW were relative small boats built for coastal fights. In Europe however, beginning with Gloire and HMS Warrior, so called armoured frigates were built. Each of them was able to cross the ocean and with a displacement of about 7.000 ts and about 36 guns. So one of these ships could cope with a handful ironclads.

Adler