historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Ehran RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 1:00:46 PM

the confederacy probably still loses due to manpower shortages. the union has to shift men north to watch the canadian border but hopefully doesn't invade. invading would cause the british to commit an army to defend canada which makes the union's life much more "interesting" and ties up a lot more troops than just watching the border would. the british probably blockade the union rather than the union blockading the confederates. net upshot probably isn't that big a deal as the union doesn't depend on sea traffic to any great extent at that time. does mean more union troops posted along the shores to guard against british raids. confederates are better supplied with industrial goods due to the british. all things considered the confederates just didn't have the manpower to win that war and the british are going to be rather reluctant to commit a large enough army to the fray to change that.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 1:14:50 PM

Neither Britain, nor France, would lend more than kind words of support a slave holding society. Inimical to both "English Liberty", and "Libertie, Fraternatie, Egalitie". Plenty of cotton in Egypt. Cato

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 1:39:11 PM

Also, it was King Cotton versus Prince Wheat. The South couldn't get their cotton out during the war. Meanwhile, during the war, Buffalo, New York became the 3rd busiest port in the owrld in tons of goods shipped because of the wheat coming through the Great LAkes down the Erie Canal and down to New York for shipment to Europe. The Federal Government held the trump card of food over Europe.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 1:55:31 PM

I'm not sure a blocade would have been all that successful. I don't know how the oaken ships and the iron men of the Royal navy would have fared against the iron hulled, steam driven, turreted Union monitors firing explosive shell. Would have given the R.N. real problems, at least in the littoral. Cato

Quote Reply

ShallowThinker1 RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 2:11:58 PM

I agree with Cato. Britain's interests in the southern US - the Confederacy - were primarily commercial. Those interests were not equal to the costs they would have had to accept to do anything like break the Union blockade or, much costlier, move an army to Canada and invade the north from there. England had an empire to manage and protect and getting involved in the US civil war would have been downright foolish on their part.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 2:17:52 PM

It seems messing about in other peoples civil wars is tricky business. Sage advice ShallowThinker. Cato

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 2:21:56 PM

I'm no expert on the US civil war, but I was taught at school that Britain was divided over who to support. Apparently the UK nobility supported the South, because they were "their type of people", whilst the ordinary folk thoroughly supported the anti-slave owning north! Worcester made some interesting comments about the UK's empire building mentality on another thread (called something like the "Downfall of the British empire"). His thesis was that we were interested in profit, and the empire was developed for those motives. Although perhaps his view is too rational (individual ambition played a part as well, and we never had the manpower to take over well developed countries such as Prussia) its easy to see that intervention in the civil war would only have led to a world of hurt for the UK. When you consider internal divisions and the lack of profit, why should we bother? I would imagine that the Union was too big for the UK to defeat by 1860 - what was your population size then? I'm not sure about the respective strengths of the Royal Navy and US Navy at that point, but didn't those original ironclads have seagoing problems (i.e they couldn't handle rough seas)? I'm a Brit by the way.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 2:36:16 PM

interestedamateur, Britain was a great merchant empire, and Worcester (Wahstah as we say in Mass.) was absolutely correct in that fact being one of its the greatest strengths. There were others:good, non sectarian government, modern education, sowing the seeds of representative governmetn ect. One of your compatriots (notice I don't say countrymen, as he is a Scot) wrote a great piece on this very topic. It is, rather imaginatively titled "Empire". If you havn't picked it up, do so. It would make you proud to be a Limey. You are correct about the seaworthyness of the early ironclads, however, a close blocade is an effective blocade. The Union ironclads would have made a close blocade well neigh impossible. Beyond the fact that Gladston's government would never have supported war against the North, the cost-benefit analysis dictated against involvement. I'm Californian ;) Cato

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about._Population 6/9/2005 2:38:02 PM

I believe the population of the Union States in 1860 was 22 million, the Confederate States 9 million, 3 million of whom were slaves. The Union Navy expanded rapidly, but if I'm not mistaken most of the expansion was in frigates not ships of the line. There were also the ironclads, but they operated on rivers and coastal waters. There were even some primitive submarines. The one nation that unequivocally supported the Union was the Russia of Tsar Alexander II. He sent his navy to New York and San Francisco as a show of support. During a reception in New York the Tsarist officers and the Union officers, after too many toasts, decided to sail out and challenge the ever present, and distinctly unpopular Royal Navy. Fortunately more sober heads prevailed.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about._Population 6/9/2005 2:58:40 PM

According to my "An Illustrated History of Modern Britain 1783 - 1980" (Richard and Hunt, 1983 - my old schoolbook which I nicked!), the population of the UK was 23.1 million plus you might be able to add the 5.8 million of Ireland. 23 million vs 22 million, both wealthy, organised, and 3000 miles apart. I'm not surprised Gladstone didn't want to interfere!

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:05:51 PM

Putting the question of capabilty to one side, I'm glad the UK didn't interfere in the ACW. Slavery is a terrible thing, and it would have been totally ignoble to have done anything to support it.

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:36:56 PM

The British working class was strongly opposed to slavery, and even though for some of them it was against their economic interest they opposed recognition of the Confederacy. Also, the Richard Cobden "Little Englander" faction in Britain was opposed to foreign adventures. There were some close calls, The Trent Affair in 1862, but I don't think either side wanted a conflict.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 3:57:38 PM

I seem to remember that another close call was the Alabama incident, for which we paid you some compensation in the first ever case of international arbitration. I know a lot of the fighting was brutal, but a lot of good came out of the ACW. Do most Americans view it as a moral war? p.s I take your point about your Ironclads and the blockade by the way.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 4:09:22 PM

Trust me, Ferguson is an idiot. Period. One lovely argument I picked up from our late Gixxerking was: "They are the people who believe that the Soviets would have succeeded if they had tried harder" The same logic holds true for Mr Ferguson and his kind: "They are the kind of people who believe the Brits could have succeeded in an eternal empire if they had tried harder".

Quote Reply

Cato RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/9/2005 4:26:37 PM

The vast majority of the American people believe the Civil War to be just. Now, that changes a little bit when you get South of the Mason Dixon Line. Feelings can be a little sore about the whole thing, even after one hundred and forty years. However, the Civil War was one of the formative events in the history of the U.S., and the touchstone of modern America. It was a conflict that was destined from the moment all thirteen States ratified the Constitution. It was horrible in ways that your people only discovered during the Great War, and its effects were possibly even farther reaching. Fundamentally, it was a war for the soul of America. I believe that one of the ramifications of the Civil War, is that we Americans tend to view politics, and therefore, war through the lense morality, which both exasperates and infuriates other peoples. Unfortunately, despite all this, I'm sad to say most Americans don't consider the Civil War much at all, anymore. My generation (b. 1975) and those younger are a product of a deeply flawed educational system that values issues like "gender equality" more than history. Sorry for the rant. My $.002 turned into $1.50. Cato

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us