You have 0 bookmarked item(s)
Viewing Topic "Secret British influence on the Civil War "
  Topic Description
Posted by: moraka

Posted on: 24/06/2014 19:33:00

6 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 411
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013
Frankly, this is old news. It's been long known that there was a lot of sympathy for the Confederates in some British business circles. Also that plenty more of them seized the chance to make profits out of the war. If you read any serious history of the period you will find that, once the Trent incident was settled, the British government did its best to stymie this trade.

Quite how this comparatively small trade is meant to have lengthened the ACW by 2 years I cannot see. (And the article certainly does not make it clear.) Does anyone seriously see Lee giving up the fight early in 1863?
Posted on: 24/06/2014 22:09:00
Posted by: Pompeius Minus
Total Posts: 6
Joined Date: Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Very interesting, although I agree stating two years as some kind of fact is weird.
Posted on: 25/06/2014 16:06:00
Posted by: Civil War General
Total Posts:
Joined Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2022
The idea that Great Britain, as an erstwhile neutral, were selling guns and ships to the CSA not only extended the war but they helped the South fight it because with little or no industry in the south at the start of the war the question had to be asked; How would The Confederacy have fought the war without the aid of France and Great Britain they? They could barely maintain their Railroads they had very little iron ore very poor coal production and were using all their man power to fight the war. The American Civil War would have been over in 1863 if the South had no aid. The fact is that The US won a court case against Britain for it's interference in the "Alabama Claims Case" which has had an effect on countries to this day. The question really is why did the South think that Great Britain would abandon it's best supplier of raw materials in the North.
Posted on: 26/06/2014 00:11:00
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 411
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013
I would think it reasonable that Britain and France, as neutrals throughout the ACW, would seek to trade with both sides in the conflict. (As America did at the start of WW1.) And surely if it was wrong to trade with the Confederates it was a similar fault to trade with the Union? I seem to recall that both sides used Enfield rifles, so there were advantages to both sides in the European powers not being completely scrupulous in observing neutrality.

Of course I admit that things get very much more difficult for the Confederates if they have no external supplies, but necessity is the mother of invention and I just do not see how the arbitrary figure of 2 years (or any other number) can be trotted out in these cases. Germany was closely blockaded in 2 World Wars and still fought to the point of exhaustion, only surrendering when physically occupied, not because she ran out of guns. In any circumstances I think the ACW would have gone the same way. The Confederates did not feel themselves defeated because their army was dressed in rags and armed with odds and ends, but because Sherman and Grant had ravaged huge areas of their territory.
Posted on: 26/06/2014 09:14:00
Posted by: xeneize
Total Posts: 75
Joined Date: Friday, 18 January 2013
The CSA great card was the "King Cotton", at the time a commodity as the oil today, but UK need the food of the north even more and after Antietam and the emancipation act, the CSA was done, England and France never will support a slavery state.
Posted on: 27/06/2014 01:57:00
Posted by: Paintybeard
Total Posts: 411
Joined Date: Monday, 4 February 2013
It was one of the proudest boasts of the British working classes that, even though many of their workers were almost starving for lack of work, support for the North and the abolition of American slavery was unshaken by the "cotton famine". (Unlike many British mill-owners, who were only too keen for the blockade to be broken.) The long-term effect was that Britain developed her own sources of raw cotton in India and Egypt and the American cotton trade never really recovered.
Posted on: 28/06/2014 07:56:00

6 Item(s)     Sort:  Newest Oldest

per page

Who is online

User(s) browsing this topic: 1. 0 logged-in customer(s) and 1 guest(s) (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)