Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Other foreign help - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 07:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There are alot of highly intelligent people on here and I'm hoping i could get your input on something.

Why was the South solely independent on getting help from England? Why not Mexico? They surely would have loved to get some vengence on the U.S. Or Germany? Maybe even France? I know they recieved help from a few tribes of Native Americans, but why not look at other countries for help instead of just England?



 Posted: Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 09:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

England was the big dog. Without their support no meaningful intervention was going to happen by anybody. The working class of England supported Lincoln especially after the Emancipaftion of the slaves. Another thing was that monarchies of Europe were reluctant to support rebellions. It would like the French Revolution give their own citizens ideas on overthrowing them.



 Posted: Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 09:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

http://azrebel.tripod.com/page11.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/cottondiplomacy.htm

http://www.iol.ie/~kiersey/civwar.html

Last edited on Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 09:52 am by Hellcat



 Posted: Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 12:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In addition to the others responses, to your specific suggestions: France would not move without British intervention (though Napoleon III was probably the most sympathetic to the Confederate cause in Europe), Mexico was not an independent country in the 1860s. It was ruled by a puppet government in France. There was no Germany until the late 1860s, just a bunch of independent monarchies. Prussia, the largest of the these states had no way of supporting the Confederacy without a navy (even if Bismarck had been so inclined). The Russians were probably the only other country that might of been able to help, but the Czar was a big supporter of Lincoln. Hope that answers your questions.

Mark



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 02:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

i appreciate the responses people. I remember now about France having its own governor over mexico during the time. I guess france still hadnt recovered from the neopoleonic wars. I dont think England would have ever supported the south... so the war was over before it began.



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 03:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamillerp-

  I completely disagree with your contention that England would never have supported the south, and that the war was over before it began.

  There were considerable tensions between the US and the British governments in the opening years of the war due to incidents like the TRENT affair. Fortunately for Mr. Lincoln, cooler heads prevailed on both sides, otherwise there could have been serious trouble between the two governments.


‘Trent Affair’ Crisis during the U.S. Civil War: Great Britain Almost Fights t


  Even without direct foreign intervention, I believe that the South was still: "In the game" until Mr. Lincoln was re-elected. If General McClellan had been able to win the presidency in 1864 (As Lincoln thought was going to happen shortly before the election), it would have indicated a different mindset among the northern people. That could well have led to a different conclusion of the war. I believe that the capture of Atlanta probably saved the Lincoln presidency.

Last edited on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 03:13 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 05:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

that is true. I remember reading a book about the trent affair several years ago. If i'm not mistaken it was about a U.S naval ship boarding a British ship without reason. But if England would have helped the CSA would they have sent troops along with supplies or just supplies? I could be wrong but i think the key to the souths success would have been to get that help during the first year or two of the war. By 1864 the south didnt have means to transport enough supplies from place to place. I heard that a train could derail several times on its way from OCCH to richmond.



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamillerp-

  Captain Charles Wilkes of the USS SAN JACINTO stopped and boarded the British steamer TRENT with the expressed purpose of removing Confederate Commissioners James Mason and John Slidell, who were travelling to Europe to become CSA Ambassadors to England and France.

  Captain Wilkes removed Mason and Slidell and their secretaries, along with their official correspondence and belongings. This was done over the indignent protests of Captain Moir of the TRENT, who pointed out the illegality of that action. Wilkes thought that he could regard the Confederates as: "Contraband." He thought that he was doing the right thing and didn't care if he was doing the wrong thing. Indeed, he was hailed as a hero when he first arrived back in the US.

  The British were outraged at the violation of British sovereignty and demanded the release of the Confederates, as well as an apology. The British also sent 8000 troops to Canada at this time. Jefferson Davis was delighted by all of this, while Mr. Lincoln had the opposite reaction. Diplomats on both sides went to work to try to prevent the thing from getting out of hand. The immediate problem was resolved when the Confederates were released and Captain Wilkes' action was repudiated. But bad feelings remained after the incident. In essence, the US backed down, and wisely so.

  As you say, foreign recognition and assistance would have had its maximum effect the earlier in the war it came. The British Royal Navy could have been of great help to the Confederates by breaking the Union blockade of its ports, thus allowing large amounts of weapons and supplies to reach the southern states.

  As far as the railroad systems go, the Confederates were at a huge disadvantage. Not only was their rail system relatively undeveloped, there was no standardization of railroad gauges. Thus, cargos would have to be unloaded and reloaded when some borders were crossed, wasting valuable time and resources. The Confederates also suffered from a lack of standardization of just about everything, including weapons, ammunition, and other equipment. All of this gave the northern states a huge advantage. They not only had more of virtually everything, but it was more efficiently produced, more efficiently organized, and more efficiently transported.



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There was no doubt a faction in the British government wanted to see the US split up. They viewed America as a long term threat to the Empire. But there was also a faction that resisted intervention for a number of reasons.

1-Canada was lightly defended...war breaks out and it wouldn't take much to overrun it. Lincoln's Sec of War Cameron assured him that an army of 3 million could be raised if England chose to intervene.

2-North supplied most of England's grain shipments. That would have been a big obstacle to overcome in pursuing intervention.

3- The US Navy by late 1862 was not going to be an easy opponent to defeat. Plus the US could raid the far flung Empire's shipping. By 1865 there was over 600 ships in the US Navy.

4- The British Empire had eliminated any slavery in its soveriegn in 1807ish. They had pursued the total elimination of this practice worldwide. They would probably not have gone to war to support a pro-slavery government seeking independence.

5-the British working class who did all the actual fighting were pro-Lincoln for his anti-slavery views. That was before the Proclamation.  When he did the Proclamation it ended any sympathy for the Confederacy they had left.

Anyway this is why I think the deck was stacked against the Confederacy as far as actual intervention by England. Probably the reason the Trent Affair (which was a reversal of what caused the War of 1812) didn't blow up into actual shooting. Without England leading the way France didn't have the cahonas to go do it.

Last edited on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:36 pm by BHR62



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Gary Gallagher once pointed out to me that the British were also concerned about the precedent of breaking blockades in a legal sense. According to the laws of international war at the time, once a blockade was proclaimed neutral nations simply stopped trading with the blockaded nation. It DID NOT have to be physically enforced. Now, one of the chief weapons in the British arsenal was the use of a blockade. If they announced that they were going to "break" the Union blockade and trade with the south, they could expect that the United States would do the same to them the next time the British went to war. Just something else to think about.

Mark



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 06:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62-

  You are correct that it was not in the best interests of Great Britain to start a war with the US. But nations do not always act in their own best interests. One example is the US declaration of war against Great Britain in the War of 1812.

  You also correctly pointed out that the US Navy was doing the very thing to the British in 1861 that caused the US to go to war with the British in 1812. I wonder if anyone in the US government saw any irony in this.

  The TRENT affair was not the only provocation carried out by the US Navy in 1861. Less than a month after the TRENT was stopped, the British ship EUGENIA SMITH was stopped and boarded by the USS SANTIAGO de CUBA off the mouth of the Rio Grande River. A man by the name of J.W. Zacharie of New Orleans was removed from the British ship. He was not a Confederate diplomat, but a purchasing agent. Still, the events were similar.

This Day in the American Civil War for December 7



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 07:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark-

  It was customary at that time to declare a blockade against an enemy nation, not some sections of ones own nation. Mr. Lincoln maintained that the southern states had not actually left the Union, but then he declared a blockade against their ports. In effect, this would seem to be a de facto admission that the Confederacy was another nation. It was just another inconsistency in the policies of the US Government at that time.



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 07:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

But wouldn't the same have been true about 78 to 86 years earlier? The British did blockade the colonies during the Revolution and it seemed they viewed the colonies as British territory in rebellion to British sovereignty to be brought back under British authority. What I'm saying is I think there was often inconsistencies with how a parent nation treated the new nation trying to break away after declaring itself independent.



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 08:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat-

  The British would have said that they CLOSED:" their" ports during the Revolutionary War.

Blockade Proclamations



 Posted: Fri Nov 25th, 2011 08:20 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Call it what you want, it's still a blockade.



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 04:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thanks Texas defender. Since my daughter was born i find it harder and harder to find time to read and thus enjoy my favorite hobby ( the civil war ). I wonder if the south ever thought to put an american flag on one of their ships and fire on a British ship to insure Englands intervention? Maybe even attack a settlement in Canada dressed in union blue.



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 06:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Considering Confederates did operate out of Canada, that would probably have been a bad idea. They have to flee south through northern territory and hope they didn't get captured there. And there was a chance of getting captured in Canada after such an attack. If it came out they were Southern agents Canada wouldn't have been pleased by the attempt.

 And firing on a British ship would probably have been a bad idea as well. CSS Alabama was built in the John Laird Sons and Company shipyard in Birkenhead, England. CSS Shenendoah was built by Alexander Stephen and Sons on the River Clyde in Scotland.  CSS Florida was built by William C. Miller and Sons of Liverpool, England. CSS Georgia was purchaserd in Dumbarton, Scotland. The steam sloop-of-war CSS Rappahannock was built by Money Wigram & Son on the Thames in the Blackwall area of London and was originally HMS Victor. CSS Tallahassee/Olustee/Chameleon was also built on the Thames, this time by J & W Dudgeon in London's Cubitt Town area. CSS Stonewall and her sister CSS Cheops were both built by L. Arman de Riviere in Bordeaux, France. If anyone recgonized any of these ship's by and found out where they originated then that would have caused the Confederacy a problem. But even if a ship was not recgonized (or was American built) there would still have been the problem of getting away with it. They'd have to make sure no British warships were around to observe and that they were fast enough to not be tracked down and captured.



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 09:33 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I dont think it would have been improbable though. A desperate man can make desperate decisions and it's no secret that the south was just about always desperate. I have never heard of southern troops in canada thats very interesting. What were they doing there?



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 10:22 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I believe Hellcat is talking about the Confederate 5th Column. THey were spies and propagandists for the Southern cause operating out of Canada. I don't believe they were actual soldiers.

Another thing to think about is if England would enter the conflict....what would the Russians have done. The Czar was a forward thinker like Lincoln. He really liked the guy. The reason he would sell Alaska to us was to stick it to British Canada. He had it out for the British and French ever since the Crimean War where they sided with the Turks against him. He even parked his fleet in New York and San Fran warm water ports when it appeared Russia was on the verge of war with England in 1862-63. The American Civil War could have turned into World War 1.



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 10:39 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BHR62, thats really interesting to think about. WWI in the 1860's! That would have been very bloody. Imagine what the borders would look like today.



 Current time is 03:24 pmPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4394 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 25 queries executed.