Is there any scenario possible in which Britain or France helps a side directly in the US Civil War?
In fact, why wouldn't they? If Britain supported the South they'd cut one of their main competitors in half and get a loyal trade partner and maybe even some northern territory out of it.
Why would they?
>If Britain supported the South they'd cut one of their main competitors in half and get a loyal trade partner and maybe even some northern territory out of it.
Or maybe they won't.
Do you think major geopolitical decisions are made based simply on what the best possible outcomes could possibly be? Are you Adolf Hitler?
The Union Could never invade Britain. Worst outcome for Britain is neutral peace with no gains or losses. Why not?
brits outlawed slavery universally around 1800
its why the south/america exists at all really, nth came in line to pax anglo, why would britain ever support the south?
american historys worse then australian
awkward
I may be wrong, but didn't France at some point finance the South when it was already verging on the point of defeat, for the South to last some more months in the war.
This of course being with the intention of occupying the Americans in their civil war some more, to not to be shackled by what the Americans thought of their Mexican expedition?
Read it somewhere but could be very wrong!
>The Union Could never invade Britain. Worst outcome for Britain is neutral peace with no gains or losses.
The could invade Canada, however.
brits use superior navy to ruin their's and cut them off from trade until they accept peace with no border changes, i suppose.
With what ironclads? The USN had the most armored navy in the world during the Civil War. They couldn't project worth a damn, but they could keep the Brits from making an effective blockade.
>fields of hemp
In this case, Brits best bet would probably be to divert some of the fleet into the Pacific and navally invade California, threatening to ruin the local land unless peace was accepted, while sponsoring the Indians and Southerners to launch a guerilla campaign against the Union, and sharing Mexican Supply Lines with the French.
I assume OP hasn't heard of the Trent Affair.
If so, yes, Britan and France were actually poised to help the Confederates if they asked kindly enough.
Never heard of that. Britain for sure supplied the South with some amount of rifles and assorted supplies, but after the Battle of Antietam they lost all interest in escalating their support.
So, why didn't the CSA ask for British Support? Guys were outmanned and outgunned.
That plus after the Emancipation Proclamation British support evaporated.
To answer that there is two things to keep in mind. One both of those powers were doing things in mexico at the time, and those things were going poorly. Second Russia publicly stated that if a "foreign power" sided with the CSA they would enter into the war on the side of the Union. They got large amount of technological aid for their navy as part of that deal. They may not of gone thru with it, bu the fact they had 16 warships in New York harbor for a bit of the war makes it look they would of done it. It is not to say the UK and France could not of won that, but it did rise the costs to the point that it would not be worth it barring the Union army already having its core elements defeated.
Only in the event of all out war with Russia.
1. If the Confederate States had been decisively triumphant in the Antietam campaign.
2. If the Fenian Brotherhood had chimped out and started attacking Canada in large numbers.
3. If the New York Draft Riots had gotten any more out of control than they already did (a mob tried to storm a French warship docked in the port to attack the black sailors on board and were only driven back after the crew threatened to start shelling the harbor).
4. If France had been successful in it's war against Mexico and if the US had taken a more forceful stance against them.
Henry John Temple (Prime minister) was strongly against slavery but also didn't want to go to war with America for trade reasons. Lucky really considering cotton was so worthless by the end of the war
>Second Russia publicly stated that if a "foreign power" sided with the CSA they would enter into the war on the side of the Union
I never heard of this before. Seems like a really important bit of info.
Russia wanted a strong America so the UK couldn't invade them from Alaska.
The reason they gave Alaska to the US in the first place was to act as a buffer state between the UK and Russia.
>4. If France had been successful in it's war against Mexico and if the US had taken a more forceful stance against them.
France basically conquered most of the country and occupied it until 1866 when the US having won the Civil War started to pressure the French diplomatically
It's basically the US who made the French withdraw from Mexico, as they didnt want a war with the Americans now that they werent busy with fighting each others anymore
>implying such a large expansion could occur shortly after a crippling war