- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Civil War - Was it a missed opportunity for foreign nations?
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:16 am to Sus-Scrofa
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:16 am to Sus-Scrofa
quote:
It’s like someone picking on your brother. Y’all may fight from time to time, but frick the guy messing with your brother.
It probably would have sparked a historical “time out” where we kick the invader’s arse for trying and then go back to killing each other.
Honestly, this is probably what would have happened
0
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:17 am to IAmNERD
quote:
Or am I thinking of when they helped us kick some British arse?
It was this
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:20 am to Emteein
quote:
good point, and if a nation took that opportunity to attack the CSA, they would have immediately had to take on a geared up US army, because The US was dead set on staying unified.
Yea north wouldn’t have allowed that, if they did though, south would have surrendered with quickness. No way the south would have been able to manage north and another country attacking it. But yea, US navy would not have let another country come in and attack the confederates
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:20 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Also, France just had been rocked by revolutions, Britain recently expelled, and Spain was a paper tiger. That’s probably a good start
The Brits were distracted with the Opium Wars.
The French were in Mexico:
wiki: In 1862, French Emperor Napoleon III maneuvered to establish a French client state in Mexico, and eventually installed Maximilian of Habsburg, Archduke of Austria, as Emperor of Mexico. Stiff Mexican resistance caused Napoleon III to order French withdrawal in 1867
Here's a pretty good article on the French invasion of Mexico in the 1861
This post was edited on 6/17/19 at 9:24 am
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:20 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Google the Trent Affair. TL;DR, two confederate diplomats were traveling on a British ship. The US Navy stopped it on the high seas and captured them. The Union and Britain nearly went to war over it.
Never heard about that, I will look that up.
quote:
The Confederacy did hope for outside intervention. Europe depended on southern cotton. Then the British learned how to grow their own cotton in India and Egypt and that was that.
I figured that might have been a reason for britain to not get involved, they probably got over the loss of the american colonies pretty easily. Its kind of hard to grasp the size of their empire, I know its for a separate discussion, but it is truly amazing they were able to keep it together as long as they did consiering how vast the empire was.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:26 am to Emteein
There's an interesting book called Spain and hte American Civil War. The author asked why Spain wasn't a stalwart Confederate ally - it was the only European power that still had slaves in the Americas and it had no great relationship with DC who always seemed ready to annex Cuba and Puerto Rico.
For Spain specifically it came down to 2 things:
1) By that time Spain was a 3rd tier power and had no choice but to follow Britain and France's lead.
2) The Confederacy didn't really have the money or the expertise to fund an effective diplomatic corps, especially compared to the US. This is perhaps most obvious in what people have already mentioned - threatening to withhold cotton as a diplomatic threat only for the Europeans to find other sources.
Although European powers were tempted, it was still a tough sell to bet against the US. Even if the Confederates were winning battles, I think Europeans needed to see even more before really getting behind the CSA. The inability to do anything about the blockade didn't help.
For Spain specifically it came down to 2 things:
1) By that time Spain was a 3rd tier power and had no choice but to follow Britain and France's lead.
2) The Confederacy didn't really have the money or the expertise to fund an effective diplomatic corps, especially compared to the US. This is perhaps most obvious in what people have already mentioned - threatening to withhold cotton as a diplomatic threat only for the Europeans to find other sources.
Although European powers were tempted, it was still a tough sell to bet against the US. Even if the Confederates were winning battles, I think Europeans needed to see even more before really getting behind the CSA. The inability to do anything about the blockade didn't help.
This post was edited on 6/17/19 at 9:28 am
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:27 am to Emteein
Europe had just wrapped up the Crimean War. Mexico was a shite show in the 1860's with France fricking around with them.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:37 am to Emteein
all other nations who had the capacity at the time were deeply into their own problems at the time with internal and external issues going on, very few, if any, had the will or the ability to get into a fresh war with any new country let alone the USA that was half way across the world and was more heavily armed then any other country on earth at the time.
it would be like a foot soldier with a rifle trying to start a fight with an armored car full of machine guns, to put it simply, we were never an easy target ripe for taking over.
i would also add that i dont think other countries saw the idea of taking us over as that big of a prize, i think we were looked at more as a trading partner then something of value as an acquisition worth going after.
it would be like a foot soldier with a rifle trying to start a fight with an armored car full of machine guns, to put it simply, we were never an easy target ripe for taking over.
i would also add that i dont think other countries saw the idea of taking us over as that big of a prize, i think we were looked at more as a trading partner then something of value as an acquisition worth going after.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 10:04 am to dietcoke7
For a brief time, the North had the most powerful army in the world at the end of the war. North had a huge, battle hardened army with good leadership, economy on war footing. Not to mention repeating rifles were starting to be adopted.
Navy could've given Britain a tough fight off our own coasts.
Navy could've given Britain a tough fight off our own coasts.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 10:14 am to Emteein
Your only two players could have been the French or British. They were so stretched from fighting around the globe that resources weren't available.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 10:17 am to Emteein
quote:The Brits abolished slavery in 1833. One of Lincoln's primary goals in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep the Brits out of the war on the Confederate side.quote:
Britain by that time was against slavery.
didn't realize that, it seems like they wouldn't have had a problem with. this was still a time when the sun didn't set on the British Empire. They had their thumb firmly on many indigenous peoples from asia to africa and islands in between, seems like they would have been exploiting that to no end.
After Lee was forced to withdraw back to Virginia after the battle at Antietam, there was no great southern victory for the Confederacy to tout, no obvious sign that the south could win the war, so there wasn't a chance for the European powers to acknowledge the Confederacy as a legit nation.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued for two reasons (considering that it only "freed" slaves in states on open rebellion and didn't touch slaves in states like Maryland or Delaware). The first reason was to coalesce support of the various factions in the north to continue supporting a war that had just seen nearly 21,000 men killed or wounded in one day at Antietam. Only by preserving the union and abolishing slavery would support stay strong enough to keep fighting.
The other reason was to keep the Brits out, as they could no longer publicly support a country that is endorsing the continuation of slavery.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 10:20 am to Emteein
quote:
Britain could have attacked
Britain would have gotten slaughtered if they had attacked/invaded. Honestly, I think it's totally plausible to believe the Civil War would have been put on hold and both the North and South would have fought together to defeat a foreign army had the US been invaded.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 12:31 pm to Emteein
quote:
Most obvious to me, Britain could have attacked. we were a former colony and had already fought two wars against the US the most recent within the previous 50 years.
Why would Britain go to war over spite from something 50 years prior, that didn't matter?
Things change, hell japan and Germany (west germany) were basically our allies in the 60s onward if not before and that was only 20 years after ww2.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 12:38 pm to Emteein
At the time of the Civil War the North and South had the two largest standing armies in the world respectively.
The logistics of transporting a force large enough to fight either side across the Atlantic would have made the entire enterprise not worth it.
The logistics of transporting a force large enough to fight either side across the Atlantic would have made the entire enterprise not worth it.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 12:47 pm to mule74
Well, this thread got pretty damn interesting.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 12:49 pm to kingbob
Really sad that Abe Lincoln killed so many Americans just so he could make gay marriage legal
Posted on 6/17/19 at 1:05 pm to Cump11b
quote:
Honestly, I think it's totally plausible to believe the Civil War would have been put on hold and both the North and South would have fought together to defeat a foreign army had the US been invaded.
Considering that the Confederacy actively sought intervention from France and Britain, I doubt this is the case.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 1:31 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Yes, the French had their eyes on helping the Confederacy
I heard the other day that the “French”, actually European bankers, were all set to intervene on the Confederacy’s behalf, because leaders of the Confederacy were willing to accept a central banking scheme, until the bankers were threatened by the tsar of Russia who clearly saw the menace they posed.
Those bankers later repaid him with the Russian Revolution and Communism that killed tens of millions of Russians and spawned the Marxism that is frying everyone’s brain to the point that taxpayers are now funding surgeries to cut off the penises of boys who have been convinced they are girls by Netflix-addled, adderall addicted parents.
Tldr slavery, that abominable national sin against God and man, caused transgenderism.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 3:56 pm to Emteein
My quick hot take- If a foreign entity had invaded to hold land/ colonize within the US the North and South forces probably would have stood down and joined to eradicate the foreign invader.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 3:59 pm to uway
Quit reading William Guy Carr
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News