Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 3
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:18:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.
View Quote


If I recall correctly, the defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were the final nails in the coffin with regard to the British decision whether or not to step in on the side of the Confederacy.  I do know there were other countries, including Prussia, looking at providing some sort of support for the Confederacy before Gettysburg.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:45:19 AM EDT
[#2]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


England sent advisors to the South.
View Quote
Really?  Who?

 



There were foreign observers.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:50:22 AM EDT
[#3]



Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:




For all of our current making fun of France here in the US, we don't know our own history.
France, threw in with US after the Battle of Saratoga.  To the tune of about 13 billion dollars. (today's dollars), their Navy across the globe, and also blockading the Brits at "their" own ports in the new world, and putting pressure on around the world.  (at this point France tossed in with "the rebels" and it was war.)   I know they put "boots on the ground" in some cases 3000 French to assist 2000 US forces, such as in Newport.  
France did so, once they saw the rebellion had a chance, and because they wanted to weaken England's global grip.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Proxie war?  Yup.
View Quote
Really? The French sided with the South ?

 









Amazing. I guess we dont know our own history, Care to enlighten us?


 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 9:50:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


And unfortunately for Mexico, the U.S. ended up backing him against Emperor Maximilian.  The brief period of Habsburg rule is probably the best period of rule that the country ever had.  I guess for the U.S. a murderous socialist was better than a liberal monarch from a European dynasty.

Anyhow, I recall reading something about a small amount of support for the Confederacy on the part of the 2nd Empire and also that a few Confederate formations still intact at the end of the war (sometime after Lee's surrender) were permitted to retreat into Mexico rather than surrender.  I think they even ended up establishing a town or something near the border.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Benito Juarez supported the Union.


And unfortunately for Mexico, the U.S. ended up backing him against Emperor Maximilian.  The brief period of Habsburg rule is probably the best period of rule that the country ever had.  I guess for the U.S. a murderous socialist was better than a liberal monarch from a European dynasty.

Anyhow, I recall reading something about a small amount of support for the Confederacy on the part of the 2nd Empire and also that a few Confederate formations still intact at the end of the war (sometime after Lee's surrender) were permitted to retreat into Mexico rather than surrender.  I think they even ended up establishing a town or something near the border.


I think we all know that Porfirio Diaz was the best leader Mexico ever had.  I'd support a zombie-Diaz for El Presidente right now.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:01:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think we all know that Porfirio Diaz was the best leader Mexico ever had.  I'd support a zombie-Diaz for El Presidente right now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Benito Juarez supported the Union.


And unfortunately for Mexico, the U.S. ended up backing him against Emperor Maximilian.  The brief period of Habsburg rule is probably the best period of rule that the country ever had.  I guess for the U.S. a murderous socialist was better than a liberal monarch from a European dynasty.

Anyhow, I recall reading something about a small amount of support for the Confederacy on the part of the 2nd Empire and also that a few Confederate formations still intact at the end of the war (sometime after Lee's surrender) were permitted to retreat into Mexico rather than surrender.  I think they even ended up establishing a town or something near the border.


I think we all know that Porfirio Diaz was the best leader Mexico ever had.  I'd support a zombie-Diaz for El Presidente right now.


Not sure if serious, but personally I am a monarchist when it comes to Mexican politics.  I'd support a Habsburg restoration in Mexico City.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:13:39 AM EDT
[#6]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



One of the reasons for The Emancipation Proclamation was to keep France from helping the south.


The French did not like the idea of slavery and it kept them out.


he Brits did help some and many nations traded with the south.
View Quote
Almost.

 






You have it backwards.  Great Britain was deterred because while the British GOVERNMENT was sympathetic to the Confederacy, the British PEOPLE were anti-slavery.







The French Imperial government refused to act except in concert with the British government.







"Many nations" didn't "trade" with the Confederacy.  Confederate purchasing agents were active in the UK and Europe buying military goods using funds loaned from British consortiums against Confederate bonds backed by cotton the Confederate government had seized.  Goods were run in by blockade runners who - by law - had to carry a certain amount government cargo for free.







But the Confederacy had, essentially, no commercial foreign trade.  What ever cotton was exported was cotton confiscated by the Confederate government at the onset of the Union blockade and used as collateral for war loans.







And antebellum, the Southern states produced limited-in-scope exportable agricultural raw materials - cotton, sugar and tobacco.  Egyptian cotton, Cuban sugar and alternate tobacco sources filled the gaps caused by the Union blockade.  Southern commercial agriculture never really recovered.

 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:24:36 AM EDT
[#7]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Maybe I should be more clear and stuff. Boots on the ground. The equivalent of dropping bombs. Things like that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:





What would have happened if other countries got involved in our civil war?  Which side would they have picked?




You failed history too




Maybe I should be more clear and stuff. Boots on the ground. The equivalent of dropping bombs. Things like that.




 
What North American or European power had the strategic ability to place any significant forces on American soil?  The US and the CSA had millions of men (some 6 million combined) under arms and (during the War) the US Navy was the largest in the world.




The British didn't even have a division in Canada and the Canadian militia was militarily insignificant unless concentrated - and the border is immense.




France was neck deep in Mexico and barely able to afford to support a short corps there - 38, 000 French (initially) and some 9,000 "others".
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:37:18 AM EDT
[#8]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


several Mexican states were giving aid to the South and several Governors had given word that if the South won, they would join the Confederate States in the new government. like others have said, England had advisors on the ground.
View Quote




 
States of the Mexican Empire under Maximilian or states controlled by the Mexican Republicans?  Which states and which Mexican governors?  

What British "advisors" (not "observers")?This was never mentioned in my Civil War Studies course work and not a peep about it in any political or military history of the ACW.




Britain never recognized the Confederacy.  Never received a Confederate ambassador or had one in Richmond.  No government-to-government official contact of any kind.  Neither did France.




No country ever officially recognized the Confederacy - though British, France and some others (including the US -unofficially but practically) granted that it was a 'belligerent' - i.e., it's armies and navy were organized forces under the laws and customs of war and not brigands or pirates.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:38:12 AM EDT
[#9]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


For all of our current making fun of France here in the US, we don't know our own history.



France, threw in with US after the Battle of Saratoga.  To the tune of about 13 billion dollars. (today's dollars), their Navy across the globe, and also blockading the Brits at "their" own ports in the new world, and putting pressure on around the world.  (at this point France tossed in with "the rebels" and it was war.)   I know they put "boots on the ground" in some cases 3000 French to assist 2000 US forces, such as in Newport.  



France did so, once they saw the rebellion had a chance, and because they wanted to weaken England's global grip.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Proxie war?  Yup.
View Quote




 
Spain too.  We always forget Spain.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:39:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  Spain too.  We always forget Spain.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all of our current making fun of France here in the US, we don't know our own history.

France, threw in with US after the Battle of Saratoga.  To the tune of about 13 billion dollars. (today's dollars), their Navy across the globe, and also blockading the Brits at "their" own ports in the new world, and putting pressure on around the world.  (at this point France tossed in with "the rebels" and it was war.)   I know they put "boots on the ground" in some cases 3000 French to assist 2000 US forces, such as in Newport.  

France did so, once they saw the rebellion had a chance, and because they wanted to weaken England's global grip.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Proxie war?  Yup.

  Spain too.  We always forget Spain.


And the Netherlands, as well as the Poles that volunteered.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:42:17 AM EDT
[#11]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

England supplied the Confederacy with about 300,000 Enfield rifles.



And as already mentioned they sold Confederate agents an unarmed fast ship, it was named the CSS Alabama. The Rebs armed it and turned it into a warship.



The Alabama's record of commerce raiding still stands to this day. She destroyed, sank or captured more US ships than any other ship, ever.



The US sued England after the war, over the Alabama totally trashing their commerce fleet, and actually won the case. It was known as the Alabama Claims and England paid 15.5 million in damages.




Federal Enfield Rifles
Both sides BOUGHT a shit-ton of small arms in Europe.

 



No European government GAVE the CSA (or the USA) any arms.  The Confederate (and Union) purchasing agents bought them, some times buying them out from the other side.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:48:15 AM EDT
[#12]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
With apologies to all Yankee  sympathizers here, one thing for sure, Raphael Semmes is the most successful American ships captain ever, when it comes to the sheer number of  enemy ships he thumped.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Quoted:




Quoted:


England supplied the Confederacy with about 300,000 Enfield rifles.





And as already mentioned they sold Confederate agents an unarmed fast ship, it was named the CSS Alabama. The Rebs armed it and turned it into a warship.





The Alabama's record of commerce raiding still stands to this day. She destroyed, sank or captured more US ships than any other ship, ever.





The US sued England after the war, over the Alabama totally trashing their commerce fleet, and actually won the case. It was known as the Alabama Claims and England paid 15.5 million in damages.

Best book on CSS Alabama is "Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States" by the Captain Raphael Semmes.






With apologies to all Yankee  sympathizers here, one thing for sure, Raphael Semmes is the most successful American ships captain ever, when it comes to the sheer number of  enemy ships he thumped.


Until his decision to take on the USS Kersage outside Cherbourg with an unseaworthy, beat-to-hell CSS Alabama - where he was out-gunned and out-fought.

 






Now, the CSS Shenandoah under North Carolinian James Waddell...

 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 10:59:30 AM EDT
[#13]
I would say the primary reason England and/or France did not support the Confederacy was over the paculiar institution of slavery.  I believe they didn't support the Union because they heavily relied on the South for goods such as cotton.  They did not know how it would end, but probably favored the South due to economic reasons.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:04:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.
View Quote


Good point, England and France may possibly have both joined the South, they would both like to have seen the US loose. But the slavery thing in the South could not be supported. Kind of hypocritical when it was European ships and US ships that brought all the slaves here. Not Confederate ships. And of course, during the war the Union still had slavery in some states.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:11:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Prussia was keeping continental Europe busy.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:16:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Really? The French sided with the South ?    

Amazing. I guess we dont know our own history, Care to enlighten us?
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
For all of our current making fun of France here in the US, we don't know our own history.

France, threw in with US after the Battle of Saratoga.  To the tune of about 13 billion dollars. (today's dollars), their Navy across the globe, and also blockading the Brits at "their" own ports in the new world, and putting pressure on around the world.  (at this point France tossed in with "the rebels" and it was war.)   I know they put "boots on the ground" in some cases 3000 French to assist 2000 US forces, such as in Newport.  

France did so, once they saw the rebellion had a chance, and because they wanted to weaken England's global grip.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Proxie war?  Yup.
Really? The French sided with the South ?    

Amazing. I guess we dont know our own history, Care to enlighten us?
 


I was able to read and understand the thread title.
I was using the Revolutionary War, and the foreign aid as an example of what was given, but under what circumstances.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:17:00 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Ever wonder what our population would be if the civil war never happened?  Watched Gettysburg other day and couldn't help but think of all the extra people living today if all those people lived to have 3-10 kids each k stead of being killed in battle.

We could easily be 3x the population today.

Wheather that's a good thing or not I'll let someone else argue.  Just food for thought.
View Quote

Think about it on a larger scale what if the Nazis/hitler had never killed anyone and there want a ww2
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:19:48 AM EDT
[#18]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Post-war Great Britain was successfully sued by the U.S. for supplying the Confederacy.





View Quote




 
tell me more.  what court heard this suit, and what governing body enforced it?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:25:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
English mills needed Southern cotton
View Quote


Trivia bit there. The 700 foot long solid iron Great Eastern was almost contracted to carry the South's entire yearly cotton crop to England in a single shipment. Nothing could have stopped her.

The owners, absolute fools, were convinced she could pay in the passenger service, which  she never did.

But for a group of stupid board members, the South could have had a LOT more funds.

Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:26:30 AM EDT
[#20]
The North is pretty lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South (their primary trading partner). The North would have likely faced a two front war, and would have definitely lost supremacy at sea.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:26:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Until his decision to take on the USS Kersage outside Cherbourg with an unseaworthy, beat-to-hell CSS Alabama - where he was out-gunned and out-fought.  

Now, the CSS Shenandoah under North Carolinian James Waddell...
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
England supplied the Confederacy with about 300,000 Enfield rifles.

And as already mentioned they sold Confederate agents an unarmed fast ship, it was named the CSS Alabama. The Rebs armed it and turned it into a warship.

The Alabama's record of commerce raiding still stands to this day. She destroyed, sank or captured more US ships than any other ship, ever.

The US sued England after the war, over the Alabama totally trashing their commerce fleet, and actually won the case. It was known as the Alabama Claims and England paid 15.5 million in damages.




Best book on CSS Alabama is "Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States" by the Captain Raphael Semmes.


With apologies to all Yankee  sympathizers here, one thing for sure, Raphael Semmes is the most successful American ships captain ever, when it comes to the sheer number of  enemy ships he thumped.
Until his decision to take on the USS Kersage outside Cherbourg with an unseaworthy, beat-to-hell CSS Alabama - where he was out-gunned and out-fought.  

Now, the CSS Shenandoah under North Carolinian James Waddell...
 


 Agreed, after  being at sea for 2 years without ever stopping at a home port the Alabama was in desperate need of repairs and fresh powder and fuses. They had US warships looking for them all over the world. They had left a 75,000 mile trail of bad news for US shipping. They had to go to France for the repairs.  The USS Kearsarge found them, and they had chain armor. Can't say Semmes was outgunned when it is documented that a hit from Alabama  to the sternpost of Kearsrage did not explode because of the wet fuse. The two ships fired hundreds of rounds at each other.

As for the CSS Shenandoah, They were still burning whalers after the war was over, never really got word to stop.




Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:35:34 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  tell me more.  what court heard this suit, and what governing body enforced it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Post-war Great Britain was successfully sued by the U.S. for supplying the Confederacy.



  tell me more.  what court heard this suit, and what governing body enforced it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims

Alabama Claims:  

"The Alabama Claims were a series of claims for damages by the U.S. government against the government of the United Kingdom for the assistance given to the Confederate cause during the American Civil War. After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million for damages done by several warships built in Britain and sold to the Confederacy, thus ending the dispute and ensuring friendly relations."

"During the American Civil War, several warships that became Confederate commerce raiders (the most famous being the CSS Alabama) were built in the United Kingdom and did significant damage to the American merchant marine."


Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:40:46 AM EDT
[#23]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims



Alabama Claims:  



"The Alabama Claims were a series of claims for damages by the U.S. government against the government of the United Kingdom for the assistance given to the Confederate cause during the American Civil War. After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million for damages done by several warships built in Britain and sold to the Confederacy, thus ending the dispute and ensuring friendly relations."



"During the American Civil War, several warships that became Confederate commerce raiders (the most famous being the CSS Alabama) were built in the United Kingdom and did significant damage to the American merchant marine."





View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:

Post-war Great Britain was successfully sued by the U.S. for supplying the Confederacy.







  tell me more.  what court heard this suit, and what governing body enforced it?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims



Alabama Claims:  



"The Alabama Claims were a series of claims for damages by the U.S. government against the government of the United Kingdom for the assistance given to the Confederate cause during the American Civil War. After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million for damages done by several warships built in Britain and sold to the Confederacy, thus ending the dispute and ensuring friendly relations."



"During the American Civil War, several warships that became Confederate commerce raiders (the most famous being the CSS Alabama) were built in the United Kingdom and did significant damage to the American merchant marine."









 
interesting--thanks for posting that.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:45:30 AM EDT
[#24]
I actually wrote a paper on this topic in college.  The biggest factor was the Emancipation Proclamation.  Britain had abolished slavery several decades before and the British public considered slavery to be one of the greatest evils in the world.  Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation there were several incidents which where smoothed over by Lincoln's diplomacy, and during those incidents the British public and press often clamored for war.  After the Emancipation Proclamation, the was was seen as a crusade against slavery and the British public and press turned 100% against the war, making intervention impossible for Parliament.  
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:47:37 AM EDT
[#25]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Trivia bit there. The 700 foot long solid iron Great Eastern was almost contracted to carry the South's entire yearly cotton crop to England in a single shipment. Nothing could have stopped her.



The owners, absolute fools, were convinced she could pay in the passenger service, which  she never did.



But for a group of stupid board members, the South could have had a LOT more funds.



http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/object_images/535x535/10266143.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

English mills needed Southern cotton




Trivia bit there. The 700 foot long solid iron Great Eastern was almost contracted to carry the South's entire yearly cotton crop to England in a single shipment. Nothing could have stopped her.



The owners, absolute fools, were convinced she could pay in the passenger service, which  she never did.



But for a group of stupid board members, the South could have had a LOT more funds.



http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/object_images/535x535/10266143.jpg
Damn, that's a beauty.

 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:04:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Should look up the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove. The south wins the civil war and there is like 12 books covering from 1860s-1945.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:06:33 PM EDT
[#27]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Trivia bit there. The 700 foot long solid iron Great Eastern was almost contracted to carry the South's entire yearly cotton crop to England in a single shipment. Nothing could have stopped her.



The owners, absolute fools, were convinced she could pay in the passenger service, which  she never did.



But for a group of stupid board members, the South could have had a LOT more funds.



http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/object_images/535x535/10266143.jpg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

English mills needed Southern cotton




Trivia bit there. The 700 foot long solid iron Great Eastern was almost contracted to carry the South's entire yearly cotton crop to England in a single shipment. Nothing could have stopped her.



The owners, absolute fools, were convinced she could pay in the passenger service, which  she never did.



But for a group of stupid board members, the South could have had a LOT more funds.



http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/object_images/535x535/10266143.jpg


Depends on how fast she is on the screw only.  Those paddle wheels and sails are going to get shot to hell running a blockade.  



 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:09:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I actually wrote a paper on this topic in college.  The biggest factor was the Emancipation Proclamation.  Britain had abolished slavery several decades before and the British public considered slavery to be one of the greatest evils in the world.  Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation there were several incidents which where smoothed over by Lincoln's diplomacy, and during those incidents the British public and press often clamored for war.  After the Emancipation Proclamation, the was was seen as a crusade against slavery and the British public and press turned 100% against the war, making intervention impossible for Parliament.  
View Quote


Maybe England didn't really understand exactly what Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did. Like freeing the slaves of the Confederacy and allowing the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey to  keep their slaves.

Actually many Americans don't know that all these Union states still had slavery after slavery was over in the Confederate states. But it makes Lincoln look better if this is not really known.  
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:14:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Nations weren't supposed to interfere with the internal affairs of another nation.  Post-war Great Britain was successfully sued by the U.S. for supplying the Confederacy.

Now, had the Confederacy proved itself viable, it may have been recognized.  French Emperor Louis Napoleon certainly wanted to recognize the Confederacy but wouldn't do it unless Great Britain acted similarly.  After the  Emancipation Proclamation, it was no longer feasible to have foreign intervention.  No nation wanted to come out in support of slavery.
View Quote

It wasn't about slavery!  States rights damnit, states right!  Haven't you been reducated by the neo Rebs here?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 12:21:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The North is pretty lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South (their primary trading partner). The North would have likely faced a two front war, and would have definitely lost supremacy at sea.
View Quote

England's lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:05:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
For all of our current making fun of France here in the US, we don't know our own history.

France, threw in with US after the Battle of Saratoga.  To the tune of about 13 billion dollars. (today's dollars), their Navy across the globe, and also blockading the Brits at "their" own ports in the new world, and putting pressure on around the world.  (at this point France tossed in with "the rebels" and it was war.)   I know they put "boots on the ground" in some cases 3000 French to assist 2000 US forces, such as in Newport.  

France did so, once they saw the rebellion had a chance, and because they wanted to weaken England's global grip.  Enemy of my enemy is my friend?  Proxie war?  Yup.
View Quote


I might not know history as well as you but I can read well enough to know he asked about the Civil War.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:13:34 PM EDT
[#32]
no chemical weapons were used.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:15:46 PM EDT
[#33]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Nations weren't supposed to interfere with the internal affairs of another nation.  Post-war Great Britain was successfully sued by the U.S. for supplying the Confederacy.



Now, had the Confederacy proved itself viable, it may have been recognized.  French Emperor Louis Napoleon certainly wanted to recognize the Confederacy but wouldn't do it unless Great Britain acted similarly.  After the  Emancipation Proclamation, it was no longer feasible to have foreign intervention.  No nation wanted to come out in support of slavery.
View Quote


There it is, in a nutshell.  Parliament would never have supported any direct military assistance.



 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:16:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Nobody else got involved because it was not Syria.

FBHO
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:27:45 PM EDT
[#35]
From what I've seen, Rhett Butler was to busy having his way with Scatlett O'Hara to do decent job of running the Union blockades.  Otherwise, there would have been way moar foreign invlvlement in terms of materiel.  I think that by the end of the War he had figured out the sex wasn't worth it (at least he said he dion't give a damn).  He should have read his Homer.  The Greeks figured that out from their experience with the whole Helen/Trojan War thing.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:31:52 PM EDT
[#36]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


From what I've seen, Rhett Butler was to busy having his way with Scatlett O'Hara to do decent job of running the Union blockades.  Otherwise, there would have been way moar foreign invlvlement in terms of materiel.  I think that by the end of the War he had figured out the sex wasn't worth it (at least he said he dion't give a damn).  He should have read his Homer.  The Greeks figured that out from their experience with the whole Helen/Trojan War thing.
View Quote


No, Scarlett's constant sexual advances towards poor Ashley Wilkes distracted him from doing his job as a commander.  That's why the South lost.



 
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 1:43:37 PM EDT
[#37]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





England's lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

The North is pretty lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South (their primary trading partner). The North would have likely faced a two front war, and would have definitely lost supremacy at sea.


England's lucky England didn't come to the aid of the South




 
Absolutely.  The wartime US Navy was not only the largest in the world, but also highly combat experienced.  




After the war is another story.




The US also had a massive army (compared to the UK) and a huge, mobilized industrial base.




While a British surprise "stab in the back" intervention might have had initial local success,  long term?




Not to mention that the intense antislavery attitude of the British people would have brought down the Palmerston government.  The British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in 1833.  
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 4:14:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Foreign fighters and suppliers say that many countries did get involved, much in the way that other countries were involved in the Spanish Civil War or in the way that other countries and foreign fighters are involved today in conflicts in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. They had private foreign fighters and companies that got involved, while governments talked, but generally did very little.

Note: most of what I know on the subject is in relation to the South. I consider my knowledge of foreign support for the United States Government to be very limited.

Germanic foreign fighters were a major part of pro-Government forces and were involved in some of the early war/pre-war (POV) atrocities/scandals, such as the Camp Jackson Affair and the St. Louis Massacre. 216,000 pro-Government troops were born in what is now Germany or in Austria. For the South, German foreign fighters also served in smaller numbers. The most famous among them was Heros von Borcke, who infiltrated the South in a blockade runner and fought with JEB Stuart. The double action Tranter Revolver he gave to Stuart is in a museum in Richmond, I think. Borcke's Damascus Steel saber, which is often described as practically a broadsword is there too. The Lorenz Rifle from Austria was extensively used by both sides and is the third most common rifle of the war. Over 300,000 were imported by both sides during the war.

The British Empire didn't just have companies that built ships and weapons for the Confederates (and the Government). British sailors served on raiders like the Alabama. English foreign fighters joined Confederate armies and the Confederate brown water navy. When the H.L. Hunley was recovered, the remains of the crew were autopsied. Only two of the crew were Southern at all. Two others were from non-Confederate states, and the remaining four (half the crew) were European - probably English. During the Trent Affair, 14,000 British troops were deployed to Canada and Canada planned to raise 40,000 militia in the event of a war with the United States. Canada (British North America) also refused to return at least 15,000 draft dodgers and deserters. It is estimated that 33,000-55,000 Canadians fought as foreign fighters for the Government and several hundred fought for the Confederacy. 29 Canadians were awarded the Medal of Honor and the guy who wrote "O Canada" was a pro-Government Lt.

There were thousands of blockade runners during the war. The number destroyed or captured actually is nearly on par with the total number of days between Sumter and Appomattox so imagine how many there were in total, including those that weren't captured or destroyed. English/British owners and sailors were involved in much of this trade. Additionally, while gun powder, ammunition, percussian caps, Enfield Rifles and musketoons, Whitworth Rifles, Whitworth Rifled Cannons, LeMat, Tranter, Beaumont–Adams, and Kerr revolvers, swords,  etc. were imported from the British Empire, blockade runners also brought in medicine, such as Morphine and the antimalarial drug Quinine, which were hidden in hollowed out dolls. They also imported food, since years of blockade and Government policies of burning farms and looting or burning supplies from Southern civilians were creating famine conditions in parts of the South. They delivered mail, lithographers, coal, copper wires and batteries for torpedoes, etc.

French foreign fighters also came to the South, famously including Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac, who rose to the rank of Major General before the end of the War. The French also built the USS Alligator, a pro-Government submarine that was accidentally lost at sea before seeing combat. The LeMat Revolver was a initially produced in France for Confederate use, though most were eventually made in England. The Lefaucheux M1858, a pinfire revolver, was also produced in France and exported in large numbers to both sides. Stonewall Jackson supposedly was armed with one and I think it is also in a museum. The most common artillery piece of the war was the Canon obusier de douze. (In the English speaking world it's called the 12 pounder Napoleon Model 1857.) While almost 2,000 were produced by Northern and Southern factories during the war, many more were imported by both sides. France also built the CSS Stonewall, which was a powerful ironclad ram. By the time she arrived, though, Lee had surrendered so she never saw action. She was sold to the Tokugawa shogunate and fought in the Battle of Hakodate Bay, in the Boshin War.

A Swede designed the USS Monitor prototype ironclad. In fairness, he was probably considered a citizen of New York, not Sweden, by the time of the war. Traditionally, citizenship in America was a state issue and he had lived in New York for decades.

Italian foreign fighters from Italian states, like the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, that had been conquered during the Wars of Italian Unification fought for the South. There is a fortress museum in Civitella del Tronto, Italy, that details Italian support for the Confederacy. And on two occasions, the Italian military leader of the Unification Movement, in Giuseppe Garibaldi, was offered military command by the Lincoln Administration. Each time he refused because Lincoln refused to make emancipation a war aim. Four pro-Government generals were from Italian countries.

Russian Ivan Vasilyevich Turchaninov, alias John Basil Turchin, was a pro-Government brigadier General and instigated the Rape of Athens. Two Russian fleets also were based in American ports for part of the war, to avoid becoming trapped if A British and/or French intervention occurred. The Russian government was the only major power to openly support the pro-Government side, though strictly because they served as a counter to British influence.

There is a rumor that the King of Siam offered war elephants to Lincoln, but this was actually a letter sent to Buchanan and was an offer for elephants in peace time. (Mail was a tad slow back then and the presidency had changed by the time it was delivered.) This was part of an effort to create good trade relations with other nations.

The rebel faction in the Taiping Civil War, known as the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, apparently recognized the Confederacy. However, nothing ever came of that.

Spanish Carlists, many of whom had been refugees in France, fought for the South.

The Vatican's Pope Pius IX never officially recognized the South, but did offer de facto recognition though diplomatic correspondence. Like the Taiping rebels, nothing of note came from this.

During the Tangiers Incident, a crowd of hundreds protested American forces abducting Confederate diplomats, holding them hostage in the American consulate, and using armed Marines and sailors to forcibly extract them. While this protest was about America violating Moroccan sovereignty and using a diplomatic mission as a base for abductions off the streets of Tangiers, not about taking sides in the American Civil War, it is still noteworthy.

Mexico, both prior to and during the French Intervention, openly served as a trading partner with the Confederacy and many Hispanics (Mexicans among them) fought for the South. Cuba was another Hispanic country (colony of Spain at the time) that provided many recruits, including Colonel Ambrosio José Gonzales and the famous female fighter and spy, Loreta Janeta Velazquez (allegedly fought at Manassas, Leesburg, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh).

The Irish Republican Movement's Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) sent Irish Foreign Fighters to both sides in the War. The intention was to gather military experience and make military connections that would help them start a revolt back home. The failed Fenian Rising, the Fenian Dynamite Campaign, and the Canadian Fenian Raids were the poor performing results of these efforts. While tens of thousands of Irish fighters were recruited for these efforts after the American Civil War, aggressive action by British, Canadian, and to a lesser degree American forces prevented any serious threat to British rule. Six Confederate generals, including Patrick Cleburne, were from Ireland. Several units on both sides were primarily or exclusively Irish.

Most people don't consider the tribal nations as foreign nations, but if you do recognize them in that way, I can name at least a dozen tribal nations that formally sided with the Confederacy. That does not include those Indians who fought for the South without formal tribal military treaties. While I'm on the subject, if anyone can point me towards documentation (primary, secondary, or tertiary) regarding Comanche Indians fighting with Confederate forces in the Battle of Prairie Grove, I would be very grateful. I've seen the claim, but no details or evidence. Naturally, also, there were tribal nations that fought on the government side. It was also often the case that tribes split into pro-Government, pro-Confederate, and neutral bands.

There were a few primarily Polish units in the Confederacy as well. I don't know much about Polish service with pro-Government forces, but would assume that more Poles were in the North than in the South.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 6:49:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.
View Quote


Uh, Antietam?  

Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 6:51:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Should look up the Southern Victory Series by Harry Turtledove. The south wins the civil war and there is like 12 books covering from 1860s-1945.
View Quote


Yep- also called the Timeline 191 Series.

Great book series...but I am thankful that the events portrayed in that series never had a chance to take place.  It would've been worse than ugly.  
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 6:57:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Would anyone step in today?
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 6:59:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Uh, Antietam?  

Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.


Uh, Antietam?  

Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?


Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1862. Citadel is right that the Battle of Antietam led to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 7:07:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1862. Citadel is right that the Battle of Antietam led to the Emancipation Proclamation.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.


Uh, Antietam?  

Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?


Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1862. Citadel is right that the Battle of Antietam led to the Emancipation Proclamation.


Yeah, I stand corrected.

I guess I mixed it up with it being alluded to in the Gettysburg Address that it was, actually, as a result of the Battle of Gettysburg rather than Antietam.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 7:10:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Ever wonder what our population would be if the civil war never happened?  Watched Gettysburg other day and couldn't help but think of all the extra people living today if all those people lived to have 3-10 kids each k stead of being killed in battle.

We could easily be 3x the population today.

Wheather that's a good thing or not I'll let someone else argue.  Just food for thought.
View Quote


Nope; it'd just mean more carriers for the Spanish Influenza outbreak a little ways down the road.  We'd still be at more or less the same population number we are today, I'd wager.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 7:14:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yeah, I stand corrected.

I guess I mixed it up with it being alluded to in the Gettysburg Address that it was, actually, as a result of the Battle of Gettysburg rather than Antietam.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam.  The problem was public opinion back home in England and France.  Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point.  This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home.  That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP.  It worked and the South lost.


Uh, Antietam?  

Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?


Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1862. Citadel is right that the Battle of Antietam led to the Emancipation Proclamation.


Yeah, I stand corrected.

I guess I mixed it up with it being alluded to in the Gettysburg Address that it was, actually, as a result of the Battle of Gettysburg rather than Antietam.


A lot of people don't know that it was Antietam not Gettysburg.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 7:15:33 PM EDT
[#46]
John Slidell was the Confederacy's ambassador to France. France showed interest in supporting the CSA, mainly because blockades of Southern ports had cut off the supply of cotton to Europe.

Ultimately France would not enter the war without England, and England opposed slavery.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 7:17:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

No, Scarlett's constant sexual advances towards poor Ashley Wilkes distracted him from doing his job as a commander.  That's why the South lost.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I've seen, Rhett Butler was to busy having his way with Scatlett O'Hara to do decent job of running the Union blockades.  Otherwise, there would have been way moar foreign invlvlement in terms of materiel.  I think that by the end of the War he had figured out the sex wasn't worth it (at least he said he dion't give a damn).  He should have read his Homer.  The Greeks figured that out from their experience with the whole Helen/Trojan War thing.

No, Scarlett's constant sexual advances towards poor Ashley Wilkes distracted him from doing his job as a commander.  That's why the South lost.
 


Reminds me of Drew Faust, Dean of Harvard Univ., who opinioned that the North won because their women supported the war effort  more than the Southern women.  Typical feminist drivel.
Link Posted: 9/8/2013 11:35:27 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Reminds me of Drew Faust, Dean of Harvard Univ., who opinioned that the North won because their women supported the war effort  more than the Southern women.  Typical feminist drivel.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From what I've seen, Rhett Butler was to busy having his way with Scatlett O'Hara to do decent job of running the Union blockades.  Otherwise, there would have been way moar foreign invlvlement in terms of materiel.  I think that by the end of the War he had figured out the sex wasn't worth it (at least he said he dion't give a damn).  He should have read his Homer.  The Greeks figured that out from their experience with the whole Helen/Trojan War thing.

No, Scarlett's constant sexual advances towards poor Ashley Wilkes distracted him from doing his job as a commander.  That's why the South lost.
 


Reminds me of Drew Faust, Dean of Harvard Univ., who opinioned that the North won because their women supported the war effort  more than the Southern women.  Typical feminist drivel.




Link Posted: 9/9/2013 12:33:57 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:


What would have happened if other countries got involved in our civil war?  Which side would they have picked?
View Quote


Does it not count that Csar Alexander II sent his navies to New York and San Francisco as a warning to Europe not to get involved?
Link Posted: 9/9/2013 7:26:38 AM EDT
[#50]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Uh, Antietam?



Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

Great Britain was actually very close to intervening on behalf of the South before Antietam. The problem was public opinion back home in England and France. Antietam was the victory the Union needed to finally launch the Emancipation Proclamation as they had suffered nothing but defeats till that point. This changed the narrative of the war and made it harder for England and France to justify intervening to their own people as slavery was very unpopular back home. That, above all else, was Lincoln's motives for the EP. It worked and the South lost.




Uh, Antietam?



Are you sure you don't mean Gettysburg?


No, he means Sharpsburg (Antietam).  Because McCellan didn't get whipped (he just butchered the Army of the Potomac fruitlessly all day, then Lee departed back into Virginia at his own pace, with no pursuit), Lincoln issued the Eancipation Proclamation.
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top