Alternate History: Brits Recognize Confederacy in 1862

[Coito ergo sum]

How would history have been different, had the British recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation in, say, 1862? Could the US have avoided another war with the Brits? Could that have changed the outcome of the War?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They did consider it, but the Prime Minister nixed the idea, IIRC. They also confiscated ironclads being built in Great Britain for the Confederacy, sparking one of the weirdest trivia facts in naval history.

[Coito ergo sum]

They did consider it, but the Prime Minister nixed the idea, IIRC. They also confiscated ironclads being built in Great Britain for the Confederacy, sparking one of the weirdest trivia facts in naval history.

...although the Brits did actually sell some ships to Johnny Reb....

I think if the UK had recognized the South, then the US would have had no choice but to declare war on the UK. An invasion of Canada would have ensued. I wonder if France would have jumped on England in that event? Hmmmm....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They did consider it, but the Prime Minister nixed the idea, IIRC. They also confiscated ironclads being built in Great Britain for the Confederacy, sparking one of the weirdest trivia facts in naval history.

...although the Brits did actually sell some ships to Johnny Reb....

I think if the UK had recognized the South, then the US would have had no choice but to declare war on the UK. An invasion of Canada would have ensued. I wonder if France would have jumped on England in that event? Hmmmm....

The Parlimentary Debates on the issue are interesting. Been 20 years since I read them, so I can't say exactly how they went, but there wasn't much support for the South because of the slavery issue.

[Clinton Huxley]

I've read an argument we should have cheerfully sold weapons to both sides, letting the US fuck itself for longer, boost British industry and maybe set back American industrial development. But we were just too damned ethical.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've read an argument we should have cheerfully sold weapons to both sides, letting the US fuck itself for longer, boost British industry and maybe set back American industrial development. But we were just too damned ethical.

And you would have made a mortal enemy of the North, even if they lost. Given the industrial expansion of the next fifty years, that would not have been a good thing.

An additional problem there was the Anaconda Plan, the "damn Yankee blockade out there on the water". The RN would have had to break it to get weapons to the South. And by the end of the Civil War the USN was the largest navy in the world. For a few years. (Ships made of green timber rotted faster than they could be sold after the war.)

[Clinton Huxley]

Aye, avoided the First Anglo-American War of 1875, where you would have been forced to cede Wisconsin as part of reparations. Or wherever the main US cheese producing region is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Aye, avoided the First Anglo-American War of 1875, where you would have been forced to cede Wisconsin as part of reparations. Or wherever the main US cheese producing region is.

If you took Canada down around the Great Lakes that would have made an interesting dynamic for the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've read an argument we should have cheerfully sold weapons to both sides, letting the US fuck itself for longer, boost British industry and maybe set back American industrial development. But we were just too damned ethical.

Why, yes, I had heard that it was "ethics" which built the British Empire.....

[Rob]

Well CES, the founding of the empire does necessarily mean they have to act the same way for every choice, as you well know.

Funny enough I just finished a book on the civil war where it seem rather close to an official recognition by the British government. At first glance I was going to say that official recognition by England would not have done much but my understanding is that they were hit hard by the lack of cotton coming from the south. It was so scarce that when the Union started pushing southward they would smuggle back cotton to their families to sell. Perhaps if they recognized the confederacy they then would have started to support the south to regain the transportation of cotton. At the same time I don't think going to war, or supporting the war in any significant manner, to regain the trading routes is economically efficient.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well CES, the founding of the empire does necessarily mean they have to act the same way for every choice, as you well know.

Funny enough I just finished a book on the civil war where it seem rather close to an official recognition by the British government. At first glance I was going to say that official recognition by England would not have done much but my understanding is that they were hit hard by the lack of cotton coming from the south. It was so scarce that when the Union started pushing southward they would smuggle back cotton to their families to sell. Perhaps if they recognized the confederacy they then would have started to support the south to regain the transportation of cotton. At the same time I don't think going to war, or supporting the war in any significant manner, to regain the trading routes is economically efficient.

That crisis was resolved when they figured out they could raise cotton in Egypt.

[Rob]

Mmmm, do you happen to know any dates associated with that by chance?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mmmm, do you happen to know any dates associated with that by chance?

They actually started it in the 1850, 1857 I think, but the war firewalled the project. It was the determination that Egypt could supply the English mills that turned the tables, IIRC. Caveat, it's been a while since I looked at the docs.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well CES, the founding of the empire does necessarily mean they have to act the same way for every choice, as you well know.

I don't well know that, because it makes no sense. "they have to act the same way for every choice?" That doesn't appear to be required, or even advisable...

Funny enough I just finished a book on the civil war where it seem rather close to an official recognition by the British government. At first glance I was going to say that official recognition by England would not have done much but my understanding is that they were hit hard by the lack of cotton coming from the south. It was so scarce that when the Union started pushing southward they would smuggle back cotton to their families to sell. Perhaps if they recognized the confederacy they then would have started to support the south to regain the transportation of cotton. At the same time I don't think going to war, or supporting the war in any significant manner, to regain the trading routes is economically efficient.

Well, the question was what would have happened had the Brits recognized the confederacy....I think it's plainly more than "not much," because of the ripple effect that such a recognition under international law at the time would have. Other countries would follow. Power would shift. It would have been so important to the North, IMHO, that the US would have declared war on Britain almost immediately.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Recognition would be useless without support.