View single post by BobInFla
 Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 05:00 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
BobInFla
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 30th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: BobInFla-

  First of all, we're dealing here with what ifs instead of facts. Having said that, in my view you are far too dismissive of British military power in the early 1860s.

True, this is all very hypothetical. But I am convinced that any land invasion of the North by the British would have failed miserably. It would have united and aroused the people of the North as nothing else could have. If the British couldn't beat us in 1776 or 1812, they certainly were not going to beat us in the 1860's. Again, look at their Crimean War debacle. The Civil War awakened the industrial might of the North which even the British could never have matched. Yes, the North had "it's plate full" trying to subjugate the South, in part due to  initial inept Union military leadership.  It did NOT have "it's plate full" trying to prevent the South from conquering the North. The Confederate failures in Missouri, Kentucky, Pennsylvania are proof of that.  

I agree that the Royal Navy presented a far greater threat than any land invasion.

from "The Confederate States of America 1861-1865" by E. Merton Coulter: 

"The Southern belief that their cotton monopoly would be their greatest diplomatic weapon failed because England had a large surplus of raw cotton on hand, suffcient to last her almost through 1862, as well as a large supply of finished cloth which she marketed at an immense profit on the rising market. The cotton embargo also led the British to try to fulfill fond hopes, long entertained, of breaking the Southern cotton monopoly by encouraging growth in India and Egypt. Before the end of the war, they had succeeded in securing large supplies from these regions."

 

 Close Window