If Great Britain recognizes the Confederacy for whatever reason, could the Union still win? Parliament was leaning towards recognition before Antietam, and again after Chancellorsville. Perhaps they extend recognition after Chancellorsville, but the Confederates still lose at Gettysburg. The British don't have to intervene in the war, simply recognizing the C.S.A is enough, but is there any way the Union could still win if they do?
AHC: Britain recognizes the C.S.A, but the Confederates still lose
- Thread starter Jedi Dragon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- acw british in acw csa usa
One needs to better define lose as it comes in a lot of flavors from a conventional war devolving into an insurgency, from Lee having a hat in hand panhandling for scraps of food for his men to something along the lines sitting down with two teams of officers for a military convention to reunite the Union.
Last edited:
When I say "lose," I mean the Confederacy is forced to surrender and rejoin the Union.
I think the best you would get there is a conditions based surrender likely meaning no real occupation of the South not the unconditional kind. The South with the support of the British Navy could keep fighting for quite awhile.
The US after hammering out peace with the South probably takes a bite out of a large chunk of Canada and then invades Mexico if France is still there. You might not even see the quick demobilization of the Confederate Army if the US is still at war when peace with the South is had.
Recognition without support would be an interesting take, but I can’t see them taking the step with all it’s possible fallout without minimally busting the blockade.
They'd do something, the question is how much Parliament would be willing to do. The blockade gets broken up, but large armies getting sent to North America are another matter.
Securing Canada/British North America with troops, likely. But invading the union is something else, as is landing troops.in the confederacy...
It's a slippery slope to break the blockade and not land troops...
The main issue is if the Union goes for Emancipation Proclomation, suddenly the British have the realization the US just gained the moral high ground
bguy
Donor
Assuming that breaking the blockade is as far as the British are willing to go would that alone be enough for the Confederates to win? Even if the Confederates are able to freely import war material, they are still going to be grossly outnumbered by the Union armies. Also the Confederate rail system isn't that great and is only going to get weaker as the war progresses due to a lack of proper maintenance (hard to keep up during a war), Union cavalry raids, and rail hubs falling to Union forces, so how much ability do the Confederates have to get all the additional war material they are importing to their armies? (I could easily see it developing into a situation like with Russia in 1917 where there are tons and tons of war supplies sitting in their harbors that can't be moved to the front because the rail network has collapsed.) And of course the Confederates will still have to pay for anything they import from Europe. They can maybe do so by exporting their cotton but that requires getting the cotton from the fields to the ports which will just put further strain on the Confederate transport network.
The first war in the memory of many of the older generals like General Scott and Lee was the War of 1812 were the peace left both sides less then fully satisfied compared to some of their earlier war aims. That is probably the case here if the British bust the blockade and nothing more.
It would allow for the South to have the minimal foodstuffs to keep full starvation from hitting their armies.
They were fairly bled white of men by late 1864-early 65, but they were also just starting to tap their black population for soldiers.
The plans were actually in place before the end in many regiments for how they would be reordered once tens of thousands of freedmen were trained.
In this scenario the war will go extra innings and you will see far greater numbers of freedmen fighting for the South. That will impact the post war politics of the South.
Generally I think no blockade would probably lead to a more McClellanesk peace. The South back in the Union, but no real post war occupation. The longer war however would kill slavery itself. Too many black men would be in uniform to turn back the clock. First it would end relatively quickly in the northern South. In the Cotton States they would try to hang on, but it wouldn’t be that long before there is enough support to end slavery nationally by amendment.
Last edited:
This would change Union war strategy quite a bit. If they can't rely on a blockade on Confederate Shipping then I'd expect the Union Army to attempt to seize and potentially even destroy Southern ports to keep them from receiving goods from Britain as a top priority. I imagine the longer the war goes on the more likely the Union will fund insurrectionists and slave revolts in the South, expect Black Militias made up of Freedmen and Runaway Slaves. A longer war may even have Texas leave the Confederacy and sue for peace alone depending how long it takes the North to fully control the Mississippi River. British politicians who supported an alliance with the CSA will not be seen favorably by the public and driven from power, painted by their enemies as pro-slavery and amplified by the press. If the Prime Minister was involved I'd expect he gets a vote of no confidence and the opposition forms a new government.
Last edited:
It would certainly make for one almighty headache in London. The only reason there were even mumbles of support for the confederacy was because Lincoln confused everyone in Britain by arguing the war was not about slavery (not that I'm criticising Lincoln for it). If he proclaims it after Britain has recognised the south it definitely leaves Palmerston with egg on his face.
Eh, that really depends how big a deal it becomes. Even Union supporters in Britain were massively insulted by the Trent affair. If all that happens is the blockade is swept away and trading links re-opened then the issue wont really take up much of peoples time.
Certainly possible. Say the Confederacy wins at Antietam in 1862, and Britain reaches out with an offer of mediation, but a later defeat (say October or November) still allows Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The initial (and obvious) rebuff of mediation would perhaps cause Britain to recognize the CSA in an effort to force mediation, and this would most likely to lead France and Spain to follow suit in close order.
That's a problem for Lincoln since it opens the CSA to international banking, loans, and other issues which make life for the Confederacy easier, and any further tensions with European powers mean that there is even more scrutiny regarding the blockade since going into 1863 nations like France and the Low Countries will wonder why they are having to deal with the Union blockade for cotton rather than directly with the Confederacy.
However, as bad domestically as recognition would be, since it is a big propaganda and morale boost for the Confederacy, if the European powers did not move to back it up with force - at least to the extent of France and Britain conducting a joint naval action in the Caribbean as a sign of 'we will break the blockade if you don't conduct negotiations' - then it's a moot point. Britain and France will not win Confederate independence for them, and even pre-Antietam was only supposed to be 'supporting facts on the ground' where Confederacy had shown it could win the war in the field to European observers satisfaction. If they can't, well that's just a recognized country that couldn't win its independence. For reference, the Second Mexican Empire was recognized as the legitimate government of Mexico between 1864-67, but absent European support, no one was too bothered when it crumbled and the European powers moved on. The Confederacy would be the same way.
Sure when the CSA loses it will sour relations between the US and Europe for a time, but it won't be the end of the world.
That's a problem for Lincoln since it opens the CSA to international banking, loans, and other issues which make life for the Confederacy easier, and any further tensions with European powers mean that there is even more scrutiny regarding the blockade since going into 1863 nations like France and the Low Countries will wonder why they are having to deal with the Union blockade for cotton rather than directly with the Confederacy.
However, as bad domestically as recognition would be, since it is a big propaganda and morale boost for the Confederacy, if the European powers did not move to back it up with force - at least to the extent of France and Britain conducting a joint naval action in the Caribbean as a sign of 'we will break the blockade if you don't conduct negotiations' - then it's a moot point. Britain and France will not win Confederate independence for them, and even pre-Antietam was only supposed to be 'supporting facts on the ground' where Confederacy had shown it could win the war in the field to European observers satisfaction. If they can't, well that's just a recognized country that couldn't win its independence. For reference, the Second Mexican Empire was recognized as the legitimate government of Mexico between 1864-67, but absent European support, no one was too bothered when it crumbled and the European powers moved on. The Confederacy would be the same way.
Sure when the CSA loses it will sour relations between the US and Europe for a time, but it won't be the end of the world.
Wouldn't that depend on exactly which actions Britain takes? Recognition isn't exactly a declaration of war in and of itself. Nor is breaking a blockade, depending on how they might choose to do it. If they don't shoot up the blockade but instead sail straight through with Royal Navy escorts, the blockade is essentially broken even if it on paper still exists and nobody has declared war yet.
And then there's also questions of "If Britain either declares war or is declared war upon by the US, do the other power's of Europe sit and watch or turn it into a proxy war?"
Maybe, although TBH I think most people would regard it as just a cynical PR ploy. They might even take it as vindicating their recognition of the CSA -- "See, Lincoln said the war wasn't about slavery, but once it looked like the rebels might get foreign support, he changed his tune pretty quickly!"
I don't think American public opinion will be in favour of fighting the world's biggest empire immediately after a gruelling, multi-year civil war which caused hundreds of thousands of casualties.
bguy
Donor
From where would the South import foodstuffs though? Britain isn't a food exporter itself, and if it goes to war with the US (which breaking the blockade would presumably trigger) it's going to likely be vacuuming up much of the world's grain exports itself to make up for losing access to US grain exports.
And of course even if the Confederates can find a source of food imports, they will still have the problem of distributing imported grain with their rickety transportation system.
Would those freedman actually fight for the South though or are they likely to desert to the Union at the first opportunity?
The few freedmen the South did recruit IOTL mostly did desert. For example, the Louisiana Native Guards joined the Union Army after New Orleans fell, and the handful of slaves recruited towards the end of the war largely chose to run away.