Why did Britain stay out of the American Civil War?

"We want the South to succeed in seceding, so that we hamstring our global economic competitor."

"But the South is moustache-twirlingly eeeeeevil, and we've been categorically opposed to slavery - using the RN to stamp out that terrible trade - for absolute donkey's years."

"Good point, well made. Maybe we should just get some popcorn and watch?"

"Probably best, yes."

"Maybe we should intervene on the North's side? That would shorten the war and reduce the human cost."

"What about the actual cost? In sterling?"

"Well, it would be... hmm... carry the one... gosh. I say, old bean, that's really quite a large number."

"So... butter on your popcorn?"

"Top hole, old bean."
 
"We want the South to succeed in seceding, so that we hamstring our global economic competitor."

"But the South is moustache-twirlingly eeeeeevil, and we've been categorically opposed to slavery - using the RN to stamp out that terrible trade - for absolute donkey's years."

"Good point, well made. Maybe we should just get some popcorn and watch?"

"Probably best, yes."

"Maybe we should intervene on the North's side? That would shorten the war and reduce the human cost."

"What about the actual cost? In sterling?"

"Well, it would be... hmm... carry the one... gosh. I say, old bean, that's really quite a large number."

"So... butter on your popcorn?"

"Top hole, old bean."

Pretty much this.
 
Well for one the Trent affair by itself wasn't enough to force their hand (that's a point I make in Wrapped in Flames, and one TFSmith makes in his TL Burnished Rows of Steel to good effect with some well researched follow up). Another part is purely economics. Though the loss of US trade wouldn't be crippling to the British, it wouldn't be a light pinch either (mind you if the blockade is broken it creates an amusing avenue for smuggling from North to South) and while Southern cotton was a sticking point between Britain and the US, the cheap wheat from the North couldn't be overlooked either. Another point of course is the damage which could have been caused to the British merchant marine by American raiders, which they would have had to spend some time tracking down.

On the diplomatic front there were other reasons as well. Though there were a number of proponents who were all gung-ho to recognize the south as late as September 1862 (Russel and Gladstone being the most notable, Palmerston telling them to knock it off in October) and even though many in Britain still saw Southern secession as inevitable as late as 1863 (with most changing their minds as 1864 rolled around) and were concerned on humanitarian grounds for the well being of both the white population and the blacks of the whole Union. However, Lincoln's passage of the Emancipation Proclamation did much to dampen (but I stress not completely) support for the South. The final nail in the coffin though was the 13th Amendment where no one in Britain could even offer the pretense of supporting the South.

All in all it would take some pretty big divergences to get the two sides to go to war. The public on both sides of the Atlantic would need to be incensed over some issue, and the two sides would have to be angry enough to intervene.
 
"We want the South to succeed in seceding, so that we hamstring our global economic competitor."

"But the South is moustache-twirlingly eeeeeevil, and we've been categorically opposed to slavery - using the RN to stamp out that terrible trade - for absolute donkey's years."

As an aside you'd be absolutely shocked how few of the British higher ups gave a damn about slavery in this case. In early 1862 slavery existed on both sides of the war and abolitionists in the Union didn't seem to be gaining any traction. The big three players in the Cabinet (Palmerston, Gladstone, and Russell) barely even mentioned it, with Palmerston saying at one point: "We don't like slavery but we want Southern Cotton."*

The money issue is a big one though. I mean they slapped over a million pounds into the defence of Canada during the Trent Affair alone, imagine how much more they would have had to invest had war actually broken out?

*This is a rough paraphrase.
 
A) British public would not support a war to entrench a pro-slavery government

B) Although the US might not win they *will* take burn parts of Canada in retaliation if not actually claim most of it

C) British development of cotton from Egypt and India is underway

D) US is a rising power in the world and creating a powerful nation with that level of antagonism is a bad idea

E) British interests might not be well served if large quantities of Spencer rifles appear in Ireland
 
A) British public would not support a war to entrench a pro-slavery government

In 1862? That's a moot point since the US is still legally a slaver nation, despite the protests of Radicals in Congress. When the Emancipation Proclamation became official it had more effect.

B) Although the US might not win they *will* take burn parts of Canada in retaliation if not actually claim most of it

That's intensely debatable. I don't say that because I'm a Canuck either. Thinking up an invasion plan is one thing, implementing it is a whole different ballpark. Canada isn't as vulnerable to the depredations of the US military in 1862 as it was in 1812 (or would be post 1890).

C) British development of cotton from Egypt and India is underway

A definite factor.

D) US is a rising power in the world and creating a powerful nation with that level of antagonism is a bad idea

That is a factor which is definitely only available in hindsight. Trade was more a concern than the idea of the US as a rising power.

E) British interests might not be well served if large quantities of Spencer rifles appear in Ireland

That would be a pure fantasy on the part of the Americans. The Fenians couldn't even have dreamed of initiating an uprising in 1862 (and considering how the 1867 rising went...).
 
For one, Britain knew not to back the clearly losing horse.

But more importantly, British investment was fuelling the industrialization of the North. They had far more to lose in terms of money from a hostile North than they did from a blockaded South.
 
For one, Britain knew not to back the clearly losing horse.

But more importantly, British investment was fuelling the industrialization of the North. They had far more to lose in terms of money from a hostile North than they did from a blockaded South.

But if Britain joined the war then the union would be caught in a 2 front war. Historically speaking, two front wars rarely end in victories. Britain could then defeat the northern states and reintegrate them into the Empire.
 
But if Britain joined the war then the union would be caught in a 2 front war. Historically speaking, two front wars rarely end in victories. Britain could then defeat the northern states and reintegrate them into the Empire.

America fought a two-front war from 1941-1945.

I seriously hope you're kidding about re-integration. That notion had been discarded since at least the war of 1812, if not the end of the ARW.

Sure, Britain might win the war, but you're failing to address why they'd be even going to war in the first place. They have far more to gain economically from a victorious Union.
 
"We want the South to succeed in seceding, so that we hamstring our global economic competitor."

"But the South is moustache-twirlingly eeeeeevil, and we've been categorically opposed to slavery - using the RN to stamp out that terrible trade - for absolute donkey's years."

"Good point, well made. Maybe we should just get some popcorn and watch?"

"Probably best, yes."

"Maybe we should intervene on the North's side? That would shorten the war and reduce the human cost."

"What about the actual cost? In sterling?"

"Well, it would be... hmm... carry the one... gosh. I say, old bean, that's really quite a large number."

"So... butter on your popcorn?"

"Top hole, old bean."

Basically. Ultimately, I think the bit about the cost of war was the deciding factor (I never bough the whole "upper class Brits were too noble to even think of supporting slavery" thing). Why waste money trying to cripple the Americans (and earning yourself a very dangerous enemy in the long run) when you can just trade with them and get rich?
But if Britain joined the war then the union would be caught in a 2 front war. Historically speaking, two front wars rarely end in victories. Britain could then defeat the northern states and reintegrate them into the Empire.

That's adorable.
 

Delta Force

Banned
There were significant economic interests involved. The British imported significant quantities of grain from the United States, and exported significant quantities of military equipment. Also, by remaining neutral they could trade with both sides.
 
Not our fight.

Analagous to USA between 1914-17 and 1939-41.

Until something threatened the country's national interests then it was a foreign matter and Britain in the 1860's was just as focussed on its own interests as USA was later.
 
In 1862? That's a moot point since the US is still legally a slaver nation, despite the protests of Radicals in Congress. When the Emancipation Proclamation became official it had more effect.

What's that phrase?

"When you know nothing about the civil war, you say it was about slavery. When you know a little about the civil war, you say it was about states rights. When you actually study all about the civil war, you realize that it was really just about slavery."

I mean, it's in their constitution and their declarations of succession. The Civil War was without a doubt about slavery, even if the Union was still a slave state. Of course, all your points about trade are valid, but Britain knew as much as the Union did what was really going on.
 
Top