RE: Why British involvement in the ACW is a pipe dream.

> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:52:16 -0500
> From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>

> The South also had sugar, cotton, and wood that Britain
> needed. Cotton was
> eventually developed in other regions (notably Egypt) but
> the South had a fair
> amount to offer Britain as an ally. The South also had some
> excellent
> possibilities in expansion. California was technically
> northern territory, but
> it's likely that part of it would have become Confederate.

That's trade, not alliance. We bought Tea from the Chinese in this
period but were not allied [To the point of shooting them up if they
wouldn't sell us Tea / buy Opium.]

Wanting to trade with someone wasn't enough on its own for the Empire
to ally with them. Historically the resources the CSA possesed were
not enough to pursuade the Empire towards military invovlement. Mostly
and simply because to back up any threat to get that blockade lifted
means being ready to go to war with the Union. Which among other
things means moving troops to Canada from either Africa or India. We
could use the more marginally loyal sepoy units from the RIA as a
method of firming up after the Mutiny, but that has its risks.

Various Indian, African and Asian States produced resources the Empire
coveted and were assimilated on a variety of pretexts.

> That's not likely at all. Neither side would allow a
> British designed peace treaty.

> It required Britain to pose the threat and "offer" to mediate
between
> the two powers. It is likely that the US would have let the South
> secede in such a case without Britain actually fighting.

British mediation in such things if it happened at all is likely to
involve the British drawing up the treaty. Somewhere or other the
results will show a Quid pro Quo for the Empire getting involved.

The reason it will be British drawn is simple. The two sides are
already in a state where they cannot solve thier differences
peacefully. If they could then the threat or actuality of British
military involvement wouldn't be needed.

> >Having won a war that is has taken as it triggering clause
> the right
> >to have slavery that is unlikely without some external force.
>
> That's a very simplified view of what triggered the war.

I may have miss stated my point here. The South has just fought a War
in which one of its stated aims is the ability to retain slavery [or
prevent the abolishionists from being able to abolish]. Having won
that war it becomes more rather than less difficult to abolish.
[people start asking what the War was for.] Not that that was why the
war happened.

> Ironically, Virginia didn't even want slavery
> in the first place. Slavery was foisted on
> it... by Britain, when Virginia was a colony.

Back when Bristol was a major port in the Slave trade. Foisted is also
a slightly strong word.

> > You like Turtledove assume that
> > there would be a peace lasting decades. There is a good chance the
> > Union will want a rematch if nothing else.
>
> I've studied the Civil War for long enough to understand
> the reasons men fought in the war.

A Northern loss enforced by threat of British intervention leads to a
situation similar to Germany between the Wars. [Missing perhaps I'll
give you the simultaneous economic crisis.]

> I think both sides were quite capable of developing
> a diplomatic solution.

Being capable of diplomatic solutions does not mean the capability
will be used. In theory there were diplomatic solutions to the
secession of the US from the Emipre, but they didn't happen.

Adam
--
“Woe, woe, woe, with a side order of despair.” The Four Horsemen of
the Apocalypse attempt to order at a restaurant.