- This topic has 4 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
Say you were the leader of a European nation in 1861. Diplomats from both the United States of America and Confederate States of America show up on your shores seeking international relations and perhaps even arms or resources. How would you have responded to each? Would the sovereignty of the United States or the secessionist principles of the Confederate States have persuaded you more?
In the cases of England and France, seems that they were reluctant to support the South due to the slavery issue (at least until a Northern capitulation / negotiation could have been achieved)… would have been poor form since they both had previously outlawed slavery.They also benefited from trade with the North that might have gone away had they really put in with the South. They set the standard for this type of thing... play both ends against the middle.
So sounds like they were just content with the status quo. But even if they had already abolished slavery, would it really have been “taboo” to support the south? Nowadays it wouldn't be p.c. to trade with a nation that was engaged in certain activities and there would be a large outcry. But would this have held true in the 1860s?
Based on my studies most sources seem to lean that way… if the South had somehow pulled off the capture of DC or Lincoln (or at least worn down the North to the point of negotiating) then England would have supported them.
It is my opinion (and that of my professors) that the prospect of European intervention was practically zero. Basically England still harbored resentment from the War of 1812 and France was already too involved in Mexico to embroil itself in any more North American chinanigans. England didn't need the South because it had India for its cotton supply. To be honest, America was still a secondary market to Europe, and not so important that other trade venues could be secured in Asia and Continental Europe. Both the North and South were emerging competitors with England and France, so the incentives to prop up either one of them were not very rewarding in the long term.
Southern ?King Cotton? strategy was based on the idea that Europe couldn?t do without the South?s cotton. The Confederacy really expected England and/or France to provide it with military assistance , which had been the key to the American Revolution. The South intended to follow this strategy again in what they were calling the Second American Revolution.Cotton, however, was not king. There was a glut of cotton in Europe when the Civil War began. Also, as Donald said, Europe found alternate sources of cotton in places such as Egypt and India.Often overlooked is the importance that wheat played; wheat turned out to be more important than cotton. During the Civil War European harvests were poor and Europe needed the wheat it imported for the Mid-West. One can wear last year?s coat, but one cannot eat yesterday?s loaf of bread and Europe was unable to find an alternate source for Northern wheat.The European aristocracy was sympathetic to the South; European military assistance was a real possibility as long as the war was framed in terms of the right to succeed from the Union. It was the Emancipation Proclamation that made European help impossible. It changed the view of the war from the right to succeed to the right to own slaves. Lincoln paid a heavy domestic price for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but it forever closed the door on European recognition and assistance.
Nicely put Daniel. The South was, in many ways, our aristocracy (or so they felt) being to a large degree Cavaliers; those that weren't were from the borderlands or Scots-Irish and generally of a military inclination and so for the Revolutionary ideal as well.
We call the Southern “aristocracy” the Gentry or more technically the Landed Gentry as they were prominent landowners dating back to the early colonial charter period.
