What if the English had recgonized and supported the Confederacy?

[The Super Pope]

Britain would not launch an invasion, rather it would supply weapons, uniforms, training and ships to the South. I think we provided privateers and soldiers to the South, including an Ironclad

[ajm317]

A "nation" that is recognized by only itself is not a sovereign nation.

That is one interpretation yes.

In regards to the OP again it depends on what kind of aid. If the Brits just sent some money and smuggled some guns...well that's basically what they did anyway. Didn't help.

If they sent the British fleet...well why would they do that? The U.S. fleet at this time was the largest it had ever been, it was large enough to blockade 3000 miles of Southern coast extremely effectively and it sported a contingent of ironclads. It was not a threat on the open ocean, but to lift the blockade the Brits would have to fight near the coasts. Could the USN have beaten the British navy? No, but it would have given them a bloody nose, and the navy is Britains most valuable asset. They can't go risking it on every wild adventure. It was the basis of the empire. Even if the USN was sunk, does that win the war for the confederates? It helps, a lot, but I doubt it wins anything.

So the Brits would have to send troops. If this happens the South might win, but it's the most unlikely scenario. The Brits would probably have to institute conscription, given that the war at this point was being fought with about a million men on the Union side (which I'm guessing is the biggest army seen west of India since the days of Alexander) and Britains peacetime forces aren't going to amount to a drop in the bucket of that.

Given that the South was a slave state, and after Antietam the North had signed the Emancipation Proclamation, is the UK going to have the popular support necessary to send 100,000 or more men across the world to fight the Union?

I'm guessing no.

EDIT: Then there's the issue of command. IF the Brits do send an army, who's in charge of operations? Logically it would be General Lee calling the shots, but are the big egos of the Brits at the time going to allow a colonial who leads an "armed mob" to call the shots? I doubt it.

EDIT2: Western involvement in the Russian Civil War? Anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...sian_Civil_War

[Semper_Crecis]

I don't believe that British intervention in the American Civil War would have been the flop you suggest.

The British, at the time it seemed most likely that war would break out (The Trent Affair) had the capability to place half a million men in the American theatre in a short space of time. More men fielded even by the Confederacy. Sources suggest the Union could afford to redeploy only 40 000 troops against Canada.

I've very little knowledge of the ACW but it seems to me that both the Union and Cofederate armies were little better than sprawling militia who were prone to giving way to instinct and allowing their attacks to degenerate into indescisive firefights as in Pickett's charge. The rate of atrittion for these amateur soldiers was vast, with many regiments losing up to half of their men a short time after they had been raised, nescessitating more drafted, inexperianced troops who needed training and lacked any combat experiance.

Compare those troops to the British, with a wealth of combat experiance in the last decade, (against the Russians and the Sepoys) better equipped (with breeechloading rifled cannon and rockets [whatever good they were], and in some instances, breech-loaded rifles, shunned by the US and CS), well trained and professional with greater morale and discipline, thus capable of carring offensive actions as at the Alma, which as we saw, confounded the troops of the ACW.

I also question your conclusion on the USN's ability to give a 'bloody nose' to the RN which was both technologically and numerically superior. Posessing ships such as the Warrior class ironclad, faster, better armed and armoured than anything the US could put to sea.

[ajm317]

The British, at the time it seemed most likely that war would break out (The Trent Affair) had the capability to place half a million men in the American theatre in a short space of time. More men fielded even by the Confederacy. Sources suggest the Union could afford to redeploy only 40 000 troops against Canada.

I read the link, it goes on to say that it is unlikely that you would have commited that many men unless pressed (in other words, we invaded Canada.) The entire war plan was defensive, not offensive. How you're going to save the Confederates by hiding in Canada I'm not sure, but the implication was you didn't have the stomach for the kind of intervention necessary to win the war.

I've very little knowledge of the ACW but it seems to me that both the Union and Cofederate armies were little better than sprawling militia who were prone to giving way to instinct and allowing their attacks to degenerate into indescisive firefights as in Pickett's charge. The rate of atrittion for these amateur soldiers was vast, with many regiments losing up to half of their men a short time after they had been raised, nescessitating more drafted, inexperianced troops who needed training and lacked any combat experiance.

This was the prevailing European view at the time.

It was inaccurate.

It was true in 1861, but not by the time this scenario takes place. McClellan drilled the Union army along European lines, and at any rate by 1863 both sides had extensive combat experience. Picketts charge certainly did not fail due to lack of discipline as you seem to imply, but rather because changes in military technology since the days of Napolean rendered Pickett's charge impossible.

The ACW was basically WWI V .5. Direct frontal assaults were suicidal. It took generals on both sides some time to realize this (just as it did in WWI) leading to high attrition rates.

I also question your conclusion on the USN's ability to give a 'bloody nose' to the RN which was both technologically and numerically superior. Posessing ships such as the Warrior class ironclad, faster, better armed and armoured than anything the US could put to sea.

Heaven forbid anyone ever suggest that some other navy could even POSSIBLY sink even one of your precious ships.

Note that I didn't say we'd win the naval battle, just that we'd inflict some damage.

[Semper_Crecis]

I read the link, it goes on to say that it is unlikely that you would have commited that many men unless pressed (in other words, we invaded Canada.) The entire war plan was defensive, not offensive. How you're going to save the Confederates by hiding in Canada I'm not sure, but the implication was you didn't have the stomach for the kind of intervention necessary to win the war.

The Union would have been forced to act quicky in Canada to try and knock the British out of the conflict before the effects of full, open British support for the Confederate war effort began to show. Even if the US simply concentrated on defending its own frontiers, great numbers of men would need to be diverted from the South.

Additionaly, the negative effect on national morale of fighting a two-front war and being subject to a British blockade would have been significant, the reverse would be true of the South, where recognition by a foreign power and the end of the Union blockade would significantly bolster morale.

Picketts charge certainly did not fail due to lack of discipline as you seem to imply, but rather because changes in military technology since the days of Napolean rendered Pickett's charge impossible.

I'll need to read Noseworthy's crucible of courage (as I've been intending to do for a while) and get back to you on that as I wouldn't be able to debate anyone on a point like that.

Heaven forbid anyone ever suggest that some other navy could even POSSIBLY sink even one of your precious ships.

Note that I didn't say we'd win the naval battle, just that we'd inflict some damage.

Well, you seem to suggest that enough damage would be inflicted to raise questions at home about 'wild adventures' and the security of 'the basis of the empire'.

[ajm317]

The Union would have been forced to act quicky in Canada to try and knock the British out of the conflict before the effects of full, open British support for the Confederate war effort began to show. Even if the US simply concentrated on defending its own frontiers, great numbers of men would need to be diverted from the South.

But again, would you have public support to move enough men to make a difference? We're talking about 100's of thousands of men here. Certainly Britain is capable of that, I never said otherwise, but given that the U.S. had signed the Emancipation Proclamation, you're basically fighting for slavery here. That's not going to be a popular position in the most staunchly abolitionist country on Earth at the time.

Additionaly, the negative effect on national morale of fighting a two-front war and being subject to a British blockade would have been significant, the reverse would be true of the South, where recognition by a foreign power and the end of the Union blockade would significantly bolster morale.

My suspicion is that a true 2 front war would never develop. Invasions to and from the U.S. from Canada are very difficult due to the terrain (see the revolutionary war and 1812.) More likely the two forces would sit on opposite sides of the St. Lawrence and thumb their noses at each other after a few early defeats.

I'll need to read Noseworthy's crucible of courage (as I've been intending to do for a while) and get back to you on that as I wouldn't be able to debate anyone on a point like that.

Pickett's charge was made over a mile of open terrain under constant Union artillery fire up a hill at a fortified position. Very few of the confederates actually made it to the Union lines. It is generally considered Lee's greatest mistake and General Longstreet spent a night trying to talk him out of it.

Well, you seem to suggest that enough damage would be inflicted to raise questions at home about 'wild adventures' and the security of 'the basis of the empire'.

I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion either. The U.S. fleet was a brown water fleet, it was never a threat to the Royal Navy unless the Royal Navy attacked it, which they would have to do to lift the blockade. Although we had no ocean going vessels we had a number of coastal gunships including the Monitor (a turret ironclad which only stuck up a foot above the water, making it very hard to hit) which would doubtless cause you headaches.

We had 500 ships at one point during the war. I don't know what the RN was, but that's nothing to sneeze at.

How many ships do we have to sink before the French suddenly start to look a little scarier?

Maybe you'd kick our butts, but why mess with 500 ships that can't sail the open ocean (and thus are no threat to YOU), all to save a couple shillings on cotton and show the Union it can't board your ships without permission?

EDIT: The U.S. and Russia, I recall hearing, were relatively friendly during the ACW, if the Brits joined the war, might the Russians?

[Londinium]

If the Brits had entered the war, there would be a divided union now, the French under Napoleon III had been actively courting the British for a while and were ready to support any military intervention as soon as the British signed up for it, with the British holding back the boisterous emperor on a number of occasions.

And any British plans for war were not halfhearted, they had actively prepared for a full scale war with the Union which would be devastating:

British military preparations were swift. Thirteen crew transports were chartered to carry British troops to the Americas, each capable of embarking over a thousand troops with a round-trip time of about six weeks. These would have made approximately three runs each by the time campaigning season started in March, and would thus have raised British fighting strength in the Americas to approximately 50,000 (there were approximately 100,000 troops available for deployment to the Americas). Both the U.S. and British governments estimated that the maximum number of Union troops available for service against Canada was 50,000. While the first wave of reinforcement troops was still at sea, the crisis was averted, and no further reinforcements were sent.

The British had a fairly detailed plan for the defence of Canada and war with the Union. The special war cabinet consisting of Lord Palmerston, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Edward_Seymour, 12th_Duke_of_Somerset, Henry Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd Earl Granville and the Duke of Cambridge, advised by Earl de Grey, Lord Seaton, General John Fox Burgoyne and Colonel PL MacDougall decided on making extensive use of fortifications, spoiling attacks, and the use of the fleet to cut the North off.

Lieutenant General William Fenwick Williams planned on destroying the bridges across the St. Lawrence River and defending the cities of Montreal, Quebec and Kingston. To accomplish this he had 12,000 British regulars and about 35,000 Canadian volunteers and militia. The Niagara Peninsula was effectively to be abandoned until additional forces could arrive. This was not that serious, as the Union logistics chain to Michigan was non-existent, and months of preparation would be required for such an invasion. The defense of the peninsula was to be given to a British-Canadian Division at London, Ontario, which would screen the border and, if practicable, seize Fort Niagara as part of a forward defence.

The Beauharnois Canal was a major concern, since it ran south of the St. Lawrence. Its loss would limit the ability of the Royal Navy to put warships on the Lakes. A large force of gunboats and other small ships was being prepared in Britain for this service.

Additionally, since it was assessed that the main U.S. invasion would come by the traditional Hudson Valley – Lake Champlain route, the British intended a preemptive strike at the incomplete Fort Montgomery at Rouses Point, dislocating the Union advance. A similar strike across Lake Ontario on Sackets Harbor was also planned. It was hoped to thus delay the Union until reinforcements from Britain arrived.

Reinforcements in the form of a 50,000-man expeditionary force were prepared in the United Kingdom, to be transported if needed. These three infantry corps and one cavalry division would integrate with the main 25,000-man army at Montreal to form a field army. Notably, suggestions were being made in Britain that 10,000 Volunteers could be raised to garrison the fortifications and free the regular army and militia for offensive action.

At sea, Rear Admiral Alexander Milne had a three part plan. First his squadron, along with Commodore Dunlop's, would smash the U.S. Navy ships and squadrons in detail, or in a major action should they concentrate. This would have been a very difficult task since the Union shipbuilding program brought more and more vessels in the Union Navy every day. The coastal batteries were also reinforced which would have wrought heavy damage to British naval vessels. Moreover the Navy grew so strong that any attempt at a blockade would have resulted in heavy losses for the Royal Navy, although, with their superior experience and seamanship, the British and Canadians would have been ultimately successful.

It was estimated that the British would require something like 54 ships to enact a blockade of the entire Union coast, considering at this time the Royal navy consisted or more than 250 rated ships, ignoring the smaller ones, it's more than possible they could have committed such a force and strangled any outside supplies from reaching the union, in addition to lifting the Southern blockade and allowed supplies to flood in.

Interestingly the first of those British regulars arrived mere weeks after the Trent affair was concluded amicably, showing just how close the British came to war, they eventually returned to Britain via Canada, after refusing safe passage through the states.

The effect a war on two fronts would have on the Union would be devastating, troops would have to be diverted northwards and where ever the French landed, thus depriving forces for action against the Confederacy. It's worth remembering that the population of the Union was hugely against the war in the early stages in various sectors, and had Gettysburg been won and the South driven towards Philadelphia, most historians agree that popular support would have collapsed and the Union may have sued for peace, the emancipation act would have been knocked out of the equation as Lincoln needed a big victory to deliver it, or it would have just looked like the final act of a desperate man. And with British supplies and forces in the north necessitating a split in forces and no blockade strangling the south, theres a much bigger chance of a Gettysburg style battle being won by the south, opening up the North

Even ignoring Gettysburg, with the British actively involved, there would have been many more opportunities for the South to attempt a similar campaign and achieve the same goal, unlike in our historical outcome, and much less opportunity for the North to follow up any victories with full scale invasions of the South.

The Russians wouldn't have been a problem, they didn't really have the power projection to interfere in any way other than navally, in which case their navy would have been smashed by the huge combined Anglo-French fleet.

[Semper_Crecis]

But again, would you have public support to move enough men to make a difference? We're talking about 100's of thousands of men here. Certainly Britain is capable of that, I never said otherwise, but given that the U.S. had signed the Emancipation Proclamation, you're basically fighting for slavery here. That's not going to be a popular position in the most staunchly abolitionist country on Earth at the time.

Neither did I, I seriously doubt that the UK and US would have come to blows in the first place for the reasons you give, I was merely contesting your appraisal of the outcome of any such conflict.

However, given the documented ideological barriers to such a war ocurring it stands to reason that in order for a tensions between the US and UK to escalate into war some serious incident has occured or action been taken to give the UK causus belli to fight for slavery. Such an event which would cause Britain to fight against fellow WASP abolitionists would undoubtedly also be of sucg magnitude to override any other concerns that would limit the scope of British intervention.

We had 500 ships at one point during the war. I don't know what the RN was, but that's nothing to sneeze at.

How many ships do we have to sink before the French suddenly start to look a little scarier?

The majority of naval vessels of this time were similar to those of the turn of the century with the addition of a screw propeller, making the RN technological edge even more of an advantage.

The usual british practice was to have as many active ships as the French with perhaps as many again (usually more) in reserve in home waters, in practice, these reserve ships would have required up to six months to reach full readiness, unfortunately, I was unable to find accurate figures for RN dispositions, but a realistic guesstimate would be that the US total could be equalled or surpassed by ships from the Channel and Med. fleets plus ships already on station in Bermuda, Canada and the West Indies within three months, with even more arriving from foreign stations. US totals for frigates and smaller are slightly reduced by foreign comittments.

(All figures for 1861 and subject to generalization, conjecture and error on my part)

In terms of ships to fight the brown-water USN, the UK posessed a total of 160 sloops and corvettes: 83 in reserve, The USN posessed 42 sloops, corvettes and similar. The USN posessed 12 frigates in comparison to a RN total of 104 with 73 in reserve, I believe that Britain had in the region of 5 Battleships on station in America, out of a total of 90 with 42 in reserve while the USN posessed 6 hulls in total with only 3 at full readiness, one kept 'unarmed' and the other two used as 'recieving ships,' the practical implications of which eludes me.

Given the serious preparation the UK was making for war, an eventual naval victory would be almost certain (although its course is another matter entirely)

[NaptownKnight]

I would like to say that lifting the blockade would of been monumental. The South lived off of it's cotton trade, and with the Union blockade, very little was getting out. As such the Confederate treasury was not full, and the troops suffered for it. Also, New Orleans would not have fallen if the Union blockaded had been defeated, there wouldn't be any ships left to attack the harbor. New Orleans was either the most, or second most important city to the CSA, and having it for the duration of the war might have changed a few things.

Also, the South would have required some troops from Britain in order to be successful, the Union had a lot of men to throw around. Personally, I believe Robert E. Lee figured out a solution to this on his own, but it was to late. He was going to free the slaves, as long as they served in the Confederate army. This was proposed two weeks before Appomattox, and maybe Brit pressure would have passed this bill before hand, thus giving the Confederacy tens of thousands of troops, albeit untrained.

[ajm317]

It was estimated that the British would require something like 54 ships to enact a blockade of the entire Union coast, considering at this time the Royal navy consisted or more than 250 rated ships, ignoring the smaller ones, it's more than possible they could have committed such a force and strangled any outside supplies from reaching the union, in addition to lifting the Southern blockade and allowed supplies to flood in.

Interestingly your own source (Wik's article on the Trent affair) seems to imply that the defeat of the USN would be a royal (no pun intended) pain in the butt, so I don't know how you can insinuate it would have been easy as you do.

the emancipation act would have been knocked out of the equation as Lincoln needed a big victory to deliver it, or it would have just looked like the final act of a desperate man.

In this scenario the Emancipation Proclamation has already happened. It occured after Anteitam on 22 September 1862.

It's worth remembering that the population of the Union was hugely against the war in the early stages in various sectors

Yes, but you have now changed the scenario. By introducing British intervention you have changed things from the South wanting to leave the Union to a foreign invasion. This would undoubtedly rally support to Lincoln. This is a common phenomena in situations where you have foreign intervention in civil wars, see for example Russia's civil war.

For this reason I suspect that if the Brits did go at this half-***ed they might have actually made things EASIER on the Union.

The Russians wouldn't have been a problem, they didn't really have the power projection to interfere in any way other than navally, in which case their navy would have been smashed by the huge combined Anglo-French fleet.

I certainly wasn't implying that the Russians would interfere in NA. Rather that they might stir things up in Europe, diverting "Allied" attention.

If the British really went full bore at this then yes, the South would have won. I just question the likely hood of that scenario. Given the high casualty rates of Civil War battles, coupled with the issue of slavery, I can't help but foresee riots in London. WE had riots in New York and it was OUR war.

[Count of Montesano]

I've read a couple what-if scenarios that talk about a war between the US and Britain either before or after the Civil War, but personally I can't see any real factor why the British would join the conflict in any significant way to change the final outcome.

However, in 1859 there was a border dispute between the US and Canada over which country controlled the San Juan Islands in the Pacific Northwest. Nicknamed the "War of the Pig" because the only casualty was an English pig that an American settler shot, I guess it's possible that this border dispute combined with some of the pro-confederate sympathizers in Parliament could have brought the UK into the war. But in real life the US was quick to let the dispute drop during the Civil War and not bring it up again till the early 1870s.

And didn't the UK have more important things to worry about, considering the great Indian mutiny happened only 4 years before the Civil War broke out?

BTW, here's a link to more info on the Pig War:

http://www.historylink.org/essays/ou...m?file_id=5724

[The Super Pope]

Why would Rusia fight? They had been smashed in 1854 by Britain, France and the Ottomans.

[Captain Blackadder]

They would not lets just say that england decided to join in it would be a defeat of the northen states the secound that english forces landed i suspect that the union would quickly let the confedercy become independent it was not a populer war in the north

[ajm317]

They would not lets just say that england decided to join in it would be a defeat of the northen states the secound that english forces landed i suspect that the union would quickly let the confedercy become independent it was not a populer war in the north

Again, it wasn't a popular war in our timeline. If you throw a foreign invasion into the mix I suspect support would rally to Lincoln quite quickly.

Suddenly thing change from an invasion of the south to defending the Union from British imperialists.

Suggesting we would be defeated without Britain firing a shot is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Why would Rusia fight? They had been smashed in 1854 by Britain, France and the Ottomans.

I don't know that they would, I was just suggesting the possibility.

Perhaps they would fight BECAUSE of 1854. I don't know. I'm not that familiar with European politics of the time.

[mightyfenrir]

Something could also be said about the role that slavery played in all of this. The British Empire had outlawed slavery in 1833, and so the issue was still fresh with them. I think that GB would have lost a lot of face by forming an alliance with the Confederate states, where slavery was not only legal, but common.

I'd just like to make the point here that there were other reasons that the war started. Slavery didn't run at the front of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation and by that time Jefferson Davis had been trying to free slaves of his own free will because the South needed troops and because he thought it would be a gesture of goodwill that might help the British and French come in on the Southern side.

Here we go again arguing whether or not secession was legal, and if the war was about slavery. They did leave the union, so they did not rebel nor start a civil war. As the above poster mentioned, a civil war is when more than 1 faction attempt to rule the whole country. The south simply wanted to leave and be their own country.
OT, direct aid from europe could have saved the confederacy. Depending how much aid. Simply weapons and such, could have helped since the south did not have enough manufacturing power, but they needed manpower. The north simply had to many soldiers. Im not sure exactly how good europes armies were at the time, but i think France and UK could have beaten the union in battles. -Leon

Had the South been able to fight a purely defensive war and receive goods from an outside source such as Britain while creating a fortified dividing line they probably could have become their own country regardless of the number of men the US threw at them because mothers would get tired of their sons dying in a war that would then be painted as an invasion of a country that was only protecting its borders from a hostile neighbor... a la Russia and Germany pre-outbreak of WWI.

It was true in 1861, but not by the time this scenario takes place. McClellan drilled the Union army along European lines, and at any rate by 1863 both sides had extensive combat experience. Picketts charge certainly did not fail due to lack of discipline as you seem to imply, but rather because changes in military technology since the days of Napolean rendered Pickett's charge impossible.

The ACW was basically WWI V .5. Direct frontal assaults were suicidal. It took generals on both sides some time to realize this (just as it did in WWI) leading to high attrition rates.

I've always held that in many ways the American Civil War, because of the high number of foreign officers visiting both armies and watching the way it was conducted is the general precursor of WWI. If you take into account the battles of Fredericksburg, Vicksburg, Fort Wagner, and Arkansas Post, to name a few of the more prevalent examples, one can clearly see why the visiting Germans, British, and French officers all thought trench warfare was a reasonable method of carrying out a war. With the purchase of Gatling guns by the South and a few by one general in the North, most of which he placed on river boats, you could also say that the visiting officers saw a great deal of promise in machine guns whether they were being invented elsewhere at the time or not since this was their first trial by fire.

Also, I recommend reading this:

and then continuing in his series... Guns of the South is a sci fi book he wrote where a modern militia group goes back in time and gives the South AK-47's... good book and entertaining... but not where you should start reading his alternate history on this topic for obvious reasons. It also has nothing to do with this book, the prologue explains how the South won.

[ajm317]

Again, Britain's intervention COULD win the war, but only if they went all out. Hundreds of thousands of men in Canada. The Royal navy lifting the blockade. Naval assualts to recapture New Orleans, and the threat of such an assault on New York or Boston. Then, yes, the South would win.

But 40,000 men, a naval squadron and a pat on the back? No way. All that's going to accomplish is rallying public support for the war in the north.

And I have a hard time imagining the UK fighting WWI 50 years early when they're supporting slavery to save a few shillings on cotton. I don't think that'll fly back home.

[Lord Condormanius]

I'd just like to make the point here that there were other reasons that the war started. Slavery didn't run at the front of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation and by that time Jefferson Davis had been trying to free slaves of his own free will because the South needed troops and because he thought it would be a gesture of goodwill that might help the British and French come in on the Southern side.

This is true, the war did not start over slavery. It started over succession. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move more than anything noble. Lincoln knew that such an order would cripple the South economically (no more free labor) and would quell any fears of conscription of slaves as soldiers.

...and I don't know if it would be accurate to say that Jeff Davis was trying to free the slaves of his own free will. It might be better to say that he was starting to feel backed up against the wall. Such a move (on his part) would read more like the last resort of a desperate man. It certainly would not fit into the Confederate ethos.

[mightyfenrir]

This is true, the war did not start over slavery. It started over succession. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move more than anything noble. Lincoln knew that such an order would cripple the South economically (no more free labor) and would quell any fears of conscription of slaves as soldiers.

...and I don't know if it would be accurate to say that Jeff Davis was trying to free the slaves of his own free will. It might be better to say that he was starting to feel backed up against the wall. Such a move (on his part) would read more like the last resort of a desperate man. It certainly would not fit into the Confederate ethos.

It was last resort and in all honesty it wasn't his idea entirely... I'm pretty sure it was a military decision because of the lack of troops... You confused me for a second though because Jefferson Davis was, well, Jefferson Davis, but Jeff Davis was an early 20th century demagogue that nearly incited riots in Arkansas, so I had to think back again.

[Captain Blackadder]

I dids not say you would be defeated you would surrender on your own terms since you admit that if england went all out it would be folly to try and stop them that is the situation i was refering to since it would be suicide to continue to fight you would let the south form its own nation and possibly attack them latter when england was otherwise occupied like the` boer war of the afghan war

[Juvenal]

I cannot see Britain going "all out" in a war against the Federals.

They would have limited their involvement to diplomatic, economic and military support, and breaking the blockade. There was no vital British strategic interest in the United States, so their stance was opportunistic.

Only a Federal invasion of Canada could have brought on a general war.

All that was required for a Confederate victory was for the Federals to give up trying to subdue the South by force of arms. This could easily have happened. If European intervention had hindered Federal progress against the South, then Lincoln might have lost the 1864 election to a peace candidate.

I don't think the Slavery issue would have deterred Britain from supporting the Confederacy. The war was fought on the right of states to secede from the Union, even though it was caused by the loss of dominance of the Slave states over Free states.

In any case, I am sure the Confederacy would have made whatever changes were necessary to ensure continued British support. We have ample evidence that slavery can be enforced informally by other means, such as indentured labour (may God praise the Capitalist system).

The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool to help win the war - not the fundamental purpose of it. Don't forget that Lincoln only initially announced the freedom of slaves in the Confederacy - not in the Union. He also believed in segregation of the races, to the extent that he supported exiling freed slaves to an African Colony.