| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War Gaming > If France had joined the Confederate Cause. |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War Gaming > If France had joined the Confederate Cause. |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| If France had joined the Confederate Cause. | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Here Come the Rebels! Member
|
Hey Good People, I am hoping to do some research to find out about France's role in the ACW. Early on, 1861-1863 there was a chance that France would come on to the Confederate side, as they preferred Southern cotton, and had worked to get through any blockades as they had an agreement to have trade with the USA, and therefore the CSA. I am trying to find out information, specifically, about how many men, armaments, boats, artillery, etc., would have been available for use by the CSA, had France signed on to fight alongside. If you have any resources, or any information, I would very much appreciate it. Cheers, Will Green
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member 
|
Considered the best in the world after their victories in Italy. That is why there was the Zouave craze in America.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:36 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Here Come the Rebels! Member
|
The Iron Duke wrote: Considered the best in the world after their victories in Italy. That is why there was the Zouave craze in America. So do you have any resources: websites or books, or information about what the French may have been able to offer as far as men, material, and or resources to further support the Southern Cause?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:40 am |
|
5th Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member
|
Not off the top of my head. I'm not that well versed on the army of Napoleon III.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
I can give yo a run down on their arms & equip a maybe even guess at their numbers but past that not much. It would be reasonable to look at the Italian Campaign, Mexican Campaign & the Franco Prussian War and work from that as all are w/in a decade of the CW. The Mexican Campaign would be a good look at considering what they could deploy because anything bigger than that force they wouldn't be able to keep supplied.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 12:51 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
As a note the French sold far more to the US than the CS.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 02:34 am |
|
8th Post |
|
The Iron Duke Member
|
I recommend the book Maximilian & Juarez by Jasper Ridley if you're curious about Mexico. There are many similarities between that expedition and Iraq. I also think the French did much better during the Franco-Prussian War than they are typically given credit for. Many of those battles were close run affairs with the Germans relying more on pure weight of numbers than tactical prowess.
____________________ "Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Here Come the Rebels! Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: The Mexican Campaign would be a good look at considering what they could deploy because anything bigger than that force they wouldn't be able to keep supplied. The French had 30,000 troops in Mexico for a few years. So, from what I gather, you are saying that that would have been a reasonable estimate of the number of troops that France might have sent to support the South. Most likely they would have been sent to New Orleans, given the Creole/France connection. What I've read suggests that France would not have given support to the South without support of England. Do you have any insight as to their position on this? Also, any websites, or additional books/ resources that you know of that may give additional perspectives on this? Thanks for the lot so far!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 04:50 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Widow Member
|
I can't give you any resources for your research, but, as usual, I have lots of undocumentable opinions. Here goes. Napoleon III may have toyed with the idea of recognizing the CSA, but he never did. Why? Because the other two great European powers, Britain and Russia, would not have joined him. He didn't want to take them on at the same time. Remember, the Tsar freed the serfs in - when? 1861?. He couldn't then do a 180 and support the side which still had slaves. Both Britain and Russia had enormous empires which they struggled to hold together. It would have gone against their interests to recognize the seceded states. Imagine the effect in Egypt and Ukraine if the Queen and the Tsar had said, in effect, we think secession is OK. Patty aka Widow
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:42 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
fedreb Member 
|
I have never researched this but why would France want to commit to the CSA in a war seen as a fight to retain slavery? Both Britain and France were big cotton importers and although the drying up of that did, for a while, cause very great damage to the economy and industry of both countries it was not too long before cotton imports from the Indian sub-continent filled that void and the mills started rolling again. Also the ship-building industry in both countries profited greatly from the war churning out blockade runners and commerce raiders. Neither Britain or France had anything to gain from military intervention.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 05:58 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Here Come the Rebels! Member
|
JDC Duncan wrote: hadn't noticed you'd posted this in the Gaming forum. Actually there are two game ideas that I am working on. One is Stones River, the other one, may, as an optional rule allow France, to join the CSA. However, only if the research suggests that the possibility was somewhat real. At the moment, I too, am having doubts about such a what if.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 06:31 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Here Come the Rebels! Member
|
Widow wrote: I can't give you any resources for your research, but, as usual, I have lots of undocumentable opinions. Here goes. Yes, the Tsar did free the serfs, in the same way that Lincoln freed the slaves "in the Southern states." The difference with the Russian serfs was that according to tradition, serfs had to be bought in order to free them. The state held that as it had freed the serfs, it had effectively bought them from the nobility, and thus demanded repayment. The serfs never earned enough to do so. LArge numbers of them continued to live in desperate povery. Without their own land, they still had to work the land of others in order to survive. So, yes, they were "free" yet they were most likely in the exact same circumstance.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:47 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Widow Member
|
There is a major difference between serfdom and slavery. Slaves were movable property, like livestock. They could be bought and sold and taken to live elsewhere. Serfs weren't property. They had no cash value. Instead, they were tied to the land, and couldn't leave it. They couldn't be sold off to raise cash. The Tsar untied them. True, most of them didn't leave because they had nowhere to go and had lived there for generations. But it was no longer a crime to leave, and some went their own way. Patty aka Widow
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:47 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Widow Member
|
OOPS, double post, sorry. There is a major difference between serfdom and slavery. Slaves were movable property, like livestock. They could be bought and sold and taken to live elsewhere. Serfs weren't property. They had no cash value. Instead, they were tied to the land, and couldn't leave it. They couldn't be sold off to raise cash. The Tsar untied them. True, most of them didn't leave because they had nowhere to go and had lived there for generations. But it was no longer a crime to leave, and some went their own way. Patty aka Widow Last edited on Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:49 pm by Widow |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Russia had declared it's support in a very political and military way. When the Russian Baltic Fleet sailed into NY harbor they were there as much to support the US as to keep from being iced in should the Brits & Russia go to blows again. They were very close to doing so at that time. The French had serious difficulties keeping their troops in Mexico supplied and to be honest I see France as less likely to have intervened in the Civil War than the Brits. For all of Napolean III's bluster he was a realist. He knew what his military was capable of. He was careful to send observers to both sides... what the observers said from the US side of the lines is still classified and unavailable from the French Military. French operations against New Orleans were not a real option after the US capture of the city. They would have had to fight there way through a small fleet past several well armed forts and into the city itself which was very stronglt garrisoned. Frankly Farraguat probably would have pulled his fleet away from New orleans and used it to operate against French shipping where it would have been very dangerous indeed. Also the French took a lot away from the CW. It decided them on the breachloader, rifled guns (they copied the 3" Ordnance rifle and in fact the first French 75's were reworked 3" Rifles.) And a very real appreciation of the use of rails in warfare. French observers were very interestged in the US supply and logistical system. While much of the European generalship viewed the ACW as a war fought between amatuers... they were nonetheless sobered and not a little impressed by what they saw. A French observer called US Arty the best in the world, another, a veteran of the Crimea, believed Sherman's Army as the equal to any in the world. Also any realistic intervention by the French would not have come into play prior to the fall of 62 or possibly the Spring of 63 at the earliest. Most realistic would likely have been in the Summer/fall of 63. Which would have put Grants Army just finishing the seige of Vicksburg and those tough vets able to be deployed against them. And Grant would have been more than happy to march them through CS territory to get at any French force landing near New Oreleons. To me it isn't realistic, in hindsight, for either the French or the English to have intervened in the Civil War.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 02:10 am |
|
19th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
From what I remember of similar discussions in Professor Foner's class, we know now that Britain and France were never going to intervene in the American war. (Of course, Northerners and Southerners didn't know that, and even the Europeans might not have been totally aware of it until after the fact) Napoleon III had shown some initial interest in the idea, but was unwilling to act without cooperation from Britain. From the records that available of the concerned ministries and cabinets, they weren't all that inclined to get involved. Of course, I might be remembering my lectures wrong. 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Current time is 05:12 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Entertainment: Books, Movies, Music & Art > Civil War Gaming > If France had joined the Confederate Cause. | Top |
