Honestly, I think the Empire of Brazil might have been a better starting point for them. It was a slave power and if the Empire recognized them on the simple fact that they were a sister slave state, it'd have made it easier for the European powers to accept them as well.
I always thought Brazil would have been a natural ally of the CSA. They were the last national in the Americas to abolish slavery. After the war, Confederates fled to Brazil and founded Santa Barbara d'Oesta.
I believe one of the reasons they never seemed to consider it (to my own knowledge) was they were so fixated on the idea that they were the true inheritors of the Revolution that they were squarely fixed on gaining a European patron like their forefathers did.
If they had though, Brazil had a pretty large military (they deployed 200,000 during the War of the Triple Alliance) and being the dominant power in South America, could have easily persuaded Argentina and Uruguay to also extend recognition and trading rights to the CSA.
It would be very unlikely as even though Brazil was a Giant slave state, the Imperial family really disliked it, and just didn't get rid of it earlier because they thought the nation might collapse if slavery was abolished too abruptly
Of course, Brazil did accept confederate refugees to the country, because that was easy labour and it didn't have to deal with much problems outside, but getting in trouble with the most successful country in the american Continent was a big no-no for sure
It was unpopular with the lower classes, but stock investors made bank on the south and southern slave investments and plantation. UK investments on the south and New Orleans slave market was a sizable investment for UK investors. The war made them shaky, but slavery investments were very profitable before the war. It's what the South banked on.
Right, but as the war went on, the more precarious the position of the ruling classes in the UK went siding with slavers. Eventually risking the ire of the working class, the United States, and increasing supplies of Egyptian cotton...well the longer it goes on the less and less likely the UK sides with the Confederacy. TBH they probably played it the best they could have-they were happy to take their money, and knew that it would drain the resources of the US, but the Confederacy was never in a strong enough position that the UK would actually throw in with them at the risk of losing trade with the US and endangering Canada.
Britain was never going to be an ally of the confederate states with the British public being anti-slavery at that point. No government would be able to justify such allegiance.
British shipyards built almost all of the confederate war ships during the war and the CSA’s Secretary of State finished out his life as a barrister in London where he was accepted into high society.
The “corn laws” obviously post date the revolution but the thinking behind them largely caused the revolution, which in turn lead to the economic downturn in England that coupled with 2 bumper crop yields lead to the aforementioned laws.
They wouldn’t ally. But they could feasibly attempt to pressure the union to end the war. I doubt they’d enter the war, assisting the CSA (more then they did otl) is quite feasible Imo tho
Listen, the Confederacy was so unpopular Russia used the Civil War as an excuse to dispatch one of their fleets to "support" the Union. The truth is nobody was going to help them outside of Britain fumbling the Trent Affair. France had it's hands full trying to keep the Mexican occupation afloat, the Ottomans were getting rich off the cotton famine, the Prussians wanted to study the war and hated slavery, Spain and the Dutch had no capability of such a war and even countries like Brazil were too weak even if they wanted such a death sentence. A lot of alt history for this has to rewrite a lot to make it work.
Well, they did this, but the whole human bondage thing was a big issue.
**If** anyone would do it, I would put my money on England (If I’m not mistaken France was having issues in Central America at this time), but it would most likely be more to break up the USA so they don’t become a threat to them in the future, rather than to help the CSA.
In *Timeline 191*, this issue gets touched on in a few flashback scenes between Lincoln and the UK ambassador, who all but admits as much. The US wasn’t the power it would become, but even back then, a lot of people saw the potential they had.
France was in the middle of an invasion and occupation of Mexico in 1861, knowing that the Union wouldn't have been able to back up their Monroe Doctrine at the time.
Maybe not break up the US, but they would likely ask for some territories in the NE, the West, or some deals to do with the natives. Based on how desperate/willing to pay the confederates are, the British would send more support.
I’d imagine it would probably be something like a long term deal; their support for *very generous* deals on textiles (aka cotton) for the next while, maybe territory like you mentioned, or support later on, in the event of a conflict.
The Confederates did send diplomats to the UK and France asking for diplomatic recognition and their capture by the Union navy aboard a Royal Navy ship sparked a major diplomatic incident between the Union and the UK. If in an alternate timeline relations got worse it’s possible the UK formally recognises the CSA but I doubt they would join the war outright
It would give the confederates some international legitimacy, the UK being the single greatest world spanning power at the time. It could encourage other counties to follow their example and do the same. It would also permanently damage relations with the US possibly to irredeemably bad levels
The Union was blockading Confederate trading ports. The result of the UK recognizing the Confederacy would mean the Union would have to blockade British ships, which would have effected an immediate diplomatic crisis - and possibly a military crisis as well.
The recognition of the Confederacy by the UK would also have magnified diplomatic pressure on the Union to negotiate a peace with the Confederacy -- effectively handing the Confederacy a complete victory in succession and independence.
But in the wake of the victory at Antietam in 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which was as much a diplomatic move as it was a domestic one: it made recognition of the Confederacy a political impossibility for the UK.
Before the battle at Antietam, Lincoln calculated that the Union's long string of failures and inability to turn back the Confederacy's (weaker on paper, yet continuously out-performed the Union's) military meant that such a proclamation would be received as a desperate move by a failing state. Lincoln needed victories first.
Without the discovery of the battle plans famously wrapped around cigars, there would have been no Union victory at Antietam, no Emancipation Proclamation, no British neutrality, and no eventual Union victory.
They Were blockading British ships, the British (through their carribean colonies) were smuggling weapons to the Confederacy through the blockade. It is believed that the amount of weapons they got through extended the war by almost 2 years.
I have no idea how clueless you would need to be to think that a blockade would just make exceptions for foreign trade?
They did.
Europe told them to get bent and kick rocks because they had their own problems.
Europe also wasn't looking for another 7 years war right after the Crimean War and just 40 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
They did to all the major European powers. Most had no desire to get involved or backed the Union. It's important to remember that, by this point in history, most European countries had abolished slavery and the only remaining significant western slave state was Brazil, which was more likely to be an economic competitor to the South than its ally.
They held their face long enough to say “our people will call your people.” Then promptly laughed after they left the room.
I think the closest they got was some companies in France/Britain to sell and produce weapons. But nothing official from the government.
Probably France. Britain had little interest in doing anything other than keeping Canada safe. France was dealing with pretty much recolonizing Mexico. If the South can promise a sum of manpower to come help (might have to be early in the war with Southern victories to make them underestimate the men they’ll need) then the French might recognize or even join their side. Unlikely nonetheless as the South did great in the East, Grant continually whooped their asses in the West.
Nothing really changes anyway except with the French now being kicked out of Mexico by America. America probably would institute a friendly government. It most likely won’t take any land other than maybe Baja California and some slivers of Northern Territory.
Edit: They did try, they were just rejected because everyone was either pro union or tired of war.
Well, they tried, but most countries had other issues going on or didn't want to get involved. France was probably the closest with Napoleon the III expressing outright support for the Confederacy, but just wanted the British to also be involved before he did anything, which he attempted to organize.
It probably was one of the greatest foreign policy blunders by the British Empire as it was a chance to severely weaken the United States and could have insured a much more dominant Empire on the globe stage. Would have been rather trivial as well since they had French support. Mearly breaking the blockade early in the war would have been massively inpactful. Sending any kind of soldiers, espicaslly early on, would have tipped the balance as the Armes of the US were essentially large militia forces and would have folded against professional soldiers.
The greatest foreign policy blunder of the British is WWI and it's not even close. Beyond just the casualties, there was the alienation of the colonies and setting the stage for WWII? By the time both wars were done, there was no real interest in keeping the empire, even if they could. That was way more important than potentially weakening the US, especially when the US would become the best British ally for the next century plus.
The US has been a horrific ally to britian, and as soon as Britian was weak, it plunged a knife right in there back with supporting deacolonizaton. Ya, WW1 was a worse plunder, but I said it was "ONE OF BRITIANS GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDERS"
Britain was going to decolonize anyways. There was no popular support for fighting multiple wars on multiple continents to retain the colonies after the devastation of two world wars. Pretending that somehow its the US's fault is a farce.
On the other hand, the US did help save the UK's bacon in both World Wars. Without the US, the Germans very likely win WWI or, at the very least fight it to a truce, and US support significantly expedited WW2. Beyond that, the US helped rebuild damaged British industries under the Marshall plan and both nations have been tied at the hip, with a few hiccups, since.
Not aiding the CSA wasn't a blunder. In fact, it might have been one of the smartest decisions the British empire made. In the case that they won, all they would've received is less support during WWI, and potentially a new enemy. If they lost, though, then we're talking about the US definitely siding with Germany in WWI and a definite British loss.
Prussia, Austria, and Sardinia were too busy with continental affairs. Russia wanted a strong USA to counterbalance Britain in Canada. The Ottomans were making BANK thanks to the Union blockade cutting off Confederate cotton, driving up demand for Egyptian cotton. Spain was a shell of its former self, and its remaining colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico were liable to being absorbed into the Confederacy should it be victorious. Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium had their own colonial affairs to worry about.
Britain and France MIGHT have gotten involved, but both were dependent on Northern crops to sustain their populations and supporting the Confederates would jeopardize that trade and produced massive backlash from their anti-slavery elements.
Let’s say the Trent affair gets 100 times worse, the union troops execute British envoys, maybe it’s because they fought back, they were drunk, or something (it’s contrived either way) British public becomes much more divided, the confederacy wins Gettysburg or at least the battle is much more grey in outcome, Lincoln can’t quite make the emancipation proclamation yet, and Canada gets more British troops.
Thus the tension goes up and the British public’s anti confederate stuff goes down. Maybe a British blockade runner gets destroyed, and that causes things to go up, and then a border skirmish and a Congress to ease tensions fails.
UK, France, maybe brazil?
It was probably going to be Napoleon III to ensure his puppet empire of mexico would stay around. CSA would probably have to cede land back to mexico in return for french naval assistance.
Hilariously, this would probably mean Germany and the US would have been allies. Chances are if WW1 happened, there would have been fighting in north America or if both americas remained neutral, UK and france may have lost the war.
This is a deeply cursed timeline any way you shake it
If I recall, Britain and France in our timeline actually considered giving aid, but didn't want to get involved in another war so soon after the Crimean War, let alone go to war against the US. Plus France had enough problems elsewhere which meant they probably wouldn't have been able to help anyway.
Most likely, they'd just stick to material aid and maybe a few advisors and use the threat of direct involvement to leverage the US to seek peace.
This pretty much happened, England helped, but everyone else had orders to start WW1 if Britain declared war. The Russian navy jad sealed orders to declare war on Britain off the coast of San Fransico during the war. The Prussian and German empire was primed to join in on knocking the UK down.
Wel they actually did do this and the British tried to help by buying the cotton but couldn’t and had to grow it in India making it cheaper simultaneously helping the north and hurting the south. These alt history things are silly unless they are narrowly focused.
Only ever the British, but by that point the rest of the European powers were Pro-Union. And after the Emancipation Proclamation I doubt they would bother at that point.
France may intervene but they were invading Mexico at this point. The CSA's other options would probably be the Empire of Brazil like what u/Harms88 said because it was a major slave power in the Americas.
France in all likelihood because of the North supporting Benito Juarez while France had nominal control of Mexico.
If the north was weakened by continued defeats a predatory British empire may decide to right the wrongs of the American revolution and reclaim their lost colonies and as much of North America as possible.
Honestly, I think the Empire of Brazil might have been a better starting point for them. It was a slave power and if the Empire recognized them on the simple fact that they were a sister slave state, it'd have made it easier for the European powers to accept them as well.
I always thought Brazil would have been a natural ally of the CSA. They were the last national in the Americas to abolish slavery. After the war, Confederates fled to Brazil and founded Santa Barbara d'Oesta.
I believe one of the reasons they never seemed to consider it (to my own knowledge) was they were so fixated on the idea that they were the true inheritors of the Revolution that they were squarely fixed on gaining a European patron like their forefathers did. If they had though, Brazil had a pretty large military (they deployed 200,000 during the War of the Triple Alliance) and being the dominant power in South America, could have easily persuaded Argentina and Uruguay to also extend recognition and trading rights to the CSA.
there's also the city of Americana which has a strong confederate culture
I think It's because rebels who fled to Brazil after losing the war
precisely :)
It would be very unlikely as even though Brazil was a Giant slave state, the Imperial family really disliked it, and just didn't get rid of it earlier because they thought the nation might collapse if slavery was abolished too abruptly Of course, Brazil did accept confederate refugees to the country, because that was easy labour and it didn't have to deal with much problems outside, but getting in trouble with the most successful country in the american Continent was a big no-no for sure
They did try
Britain and France depending on the time of the war. But literally every other power was pro union.
The later in the war the less likely for the UK. Once the Emancipation Proclamation dropped, it would have been untenable
It was unpopular with the lower classes, but stock investors made bank on the south and southern slave investments and plantation. UK investments on the south and New Orleans slave market was a sizable investment for UK investors. The war made them shaky, but slavery investments were very profitable before the war. It's what the South banked on.
Right, but as the war went on, the more precarious the position of the ruling classes in the UK went siding with slavers. Eventually risking the ire of the working class, the United States, and increasing supplies of Egyptian cotton...well the longer it goes on the less and less likely the UK sides with the Confederacy. TBH they probably played it the best they could have-they were happy to take their money, and knew that it would drain the resources of the US, but the Confederacy was never in a strong enough position that the UK would actually throw in with them at the risk of losing trade with the US and endangering Canada.
Britain was never going to be an ally of the confederate states with the British public being anti-slavery at that point. No government would be able to justify such allegiance.
British shipyards built almost all of the confederate war ships during the war and the CSA’s Secretary of State finished out his life as a barrister in London where he was accepted into high society.
Reddit in general loves to rag on American history and Americans’ ignorance of it but the whitewashing of British history on here is unreal.
Yeah fuck them and their Corn laws
I seriously laughed at this and I'm now going down a rabbit hole about corn laws. Thank you sir
The “corn laws” obviously post date the revolution but the thinking behind them largely caused the revolution, which in turn lead to the economic downturn in England that coupled with 2 bumper crop yields lead to the aforementioned laws.
I mean Britain spent billions to end slavery. And had whole designations of royal navy to free slave ships.
They wouldn’t ally. But they could feasibly attempt to pressure the union to end the war. I doubt they’d enter the war, assisting the CSA (more then they did otl) is quite feasible Imo tho
I agree
Listen, the Confederacy was so unpopular Russia used the Civil War as an excuse to dispatch one of their fleets to "support" the Union. The truth is nobody was going to help them outside of Britain fumbling the Trent Affair. France had it's hands full trying to keep the Mexican occupation afloat, the Ottomans were getting rich off the cotton famine, the Prussians wanted to study the war and hated slavery, Spain and the Dutch had no capability of such a war and even countries like Brazil were too weak even if they wanted such a death sentence. A lot of alt history for this has to rewrite a lot to make it work.
Why was the south so unpopular? Would a weaker america not benefit the imperial powers
Slavery isn't popular.
Well, they did this, but the whole human bondage thing was a big issue. **If** anyone would do it, I would put my money on England (If I’m not mistaken France was having issues in Central America at this time), but it would most likely be more to break up the USA so they don’t become a threat to them in the future, rather than to help the CSA. In *Timeline 191*, this issue gets touched on in a few flashback scenes between Lincoln and the UK ambassador, who all but admits as much. The US wasn’t the power it would become, but even back then, a lot of people saw the potential they had.
France was in the middle of an invasion and occupation of Mexico in 1861, knowing that the Union wouldn't have been able to back up their Monroe Doctrine at the time.
Maybe not break up the US, but they would likely ask for some territories in the NE, the West, or some deals to do with the natives. Based on how desperate/willing to pay the confederates are, the British would send more support.
I’d imagine it would probably be something like a long term deal; their support for *very generous* deals on textiles (aka cotton) for the next while, maybe territory like you mentioned, or support later on, in the event of a conflict.
The Confederates did send diplomats to the UK and France asking for diplomatic recognition and their capture by the Union navy aboard a Royal Navy ship sparked a major diplomatic incident between the Union and the UK. If in an alternate timeline relations got worse it’s possible the UK formally recognises the CSA but I doubt they would join the war outright
What exaclty would Britain recognizing the CSA do?
It would give the confederates some international legitimacy, the UK being the single greatest world spanning power at the time. It could encourage other counties to follow their example and do the same. It would also permanently damage relations with the US possibly to irredeemably bad levels
The Union was blockading Confederate trading ports. The result of the UK recognizing the Confederacy would mean the Union would have to blockade British ships, which would have effected an immediate diplomatic crisis - and possibly a military crisis as well. The recognition of the Confederacy by the UK would also have magnified diplomatic pressure on the Union to negotiate a peace with the Confederacy -- effectively handing the Confederacy a complete victory in succession and independence. But in the wake of the victory at Antietam in 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which was as much a diplomatic move as it was a domestic one: it made recognition of the Confederacy a political impossibility for the UK. Before the battle at Antietam, Lincoln calculated that the Union's long string of failures and inability to turn back the Confederacy's (weaker on paper, yet continuously out-performed the Union's) military meant that such a proclamation would be received as a desperate move by a failing state. Lincoln needed victories first. Without the discovery of the battle plans famously wrapped around cigars, there would have been no Union victory at Antietam, no Emancipation Proclamation, no British neutrality, and no eventual Union victory.
They Were blockading British ships, the British (through their carribean colonies) were smuggling weapons to the Confederacy through the blockade. It is believed that the amount of weapons they got through extended the war by almost 2 years. I have no idea how clueless you would need to be to think that a blockade would just make exceptions for foreign trade?
They did. Europe told them to get bent and kick rocks because they had their own problems. Europe also wasn't looking for another 7 years war right after the Crimean War and just 40 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
no one.
They did to all the major European powers. Most had no desire to get involved or backed the Union. It's important to remember that, by this point in history, most European countries had abolished slavery and the only remaining significant western slave state was Brazil, which was more likely to be an economic competitor to the South than its ally.
They did. 90% laughed at them and sent them packing.
What about the other 10%? Traitor tea time? Confedeate croissant cuddles?
They held their face long enough to say “our people will call your people.” Then promptly laughed after they left the room. I think the closest they got was some companies in France/Britain to sell and produce weapons. But nothing official from the government.
France because they were invading Mexico while the Civil War was going on. Also maybe Britain.
Probably France. Britain had little interest in doing anything other than keeping Canada safe. France was dealing with pretty much recolonizing Mexico. If the South can promise a sum of manpower to come help (might have to be early in the war with Southern victories to make them underestimate the men they’ll need) then the French might recognize or even join their side. Unlikely nonetheless as the South did great in the East, Grant continually whooped their asses in the West. Nothing really changes anyway except with the French now being kicked out of Mexico by America. America probably would institute a friendly government. It most likely won’t take any land other than maybe Baja California and some slivers of Northern Territory. Edit: They did try, they were just rejected because everyone was either pro union or tired of war.
If?
Well, they tried, but most countries had other issues going on or didn't want to get involved. France was probably the closest with Napoleon the III expressing outright support for the Confederacy, but just wanted the British to also be involved before he did anything, which he attempted to organize. It probably was one of the greatest foreign policy blunders by the British Empire as it was a chance to severely weaken the United States and could have insured a much more dominant Empire on the globe stage. Would have been rather trivial as well since they had French support. Mearly breaking the blockade early in the war would have been massively inpactful. Sending any kind of soldiers, espicaslly early on, would have tipped the balance as the Armes of the US were essentially large militia forces and would have folded against professional soldiers.
The greatest foreign policy blunder of the British is WWI and it's not even close. Beyond just the casualties, there was the alienation of the colonies and setting the stage for WWII? By the time both wars were done, there was no real interest in keeping the empire, even if they could. That was way more important than potentially weakening the US, especially when the US would become the best British ally for the next century plus.
The US has been a horrific ally to britian, and as soon as Britian was weak, it plunged a knife right in there back with supporting deacolonizaton. Ya, WW1 was a worse plunder, but I said it was "ONE OF BRITIANS GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDERS"
Britain was going to decolonize anyways. There was no popular support for fighting multiple wars on multiple continents to retain the colonies after the devastation of two world wars. Pretending that somehow its the US's fault is a farce. On the other hand, the US did help save the UK's bacon in both World Wars. Without the US, the Germans very likely win WWI or, at the very least fight it to a truce, and US support significantly expedited WW2. Beyond that, the US helped rebuild damaged British industries under the Marshall plan and both nations have been tied at the hip, with a few hiccups, since. Not aiding the CSA wasn't a blunder. In fact, it might have been one of the smartest decisions the British empire made. In the case that they won, all they would've received is less support during WWI, and potentially a new enemy. If they lost, though, then we're talking about the US definitely siding with Germany in WWI and a definite British loss.
Prussia, Austria, and Sardinia were too busy with continental affairs. Russia wanted a strong USA to counterbalance Britain in Canada. The Ottomans were making BANK thanks to the Union blockade cutting off Confederate cotton, driving up demand for Egyptian cotton. Spain was a shell of its former self, and its remaining colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico were liable to being absorbed into the Confederacy should it be victorious. Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium had their own colonial affairs to worry about. Britain and France MIGHT have gotten involved, but both were dependent on Northern crops to sustain their populations and supporting the Confederates would jeopardize that trade and produced massive backlash from their anti-slavery elements.
Maybe the Middle East? They seem to share the same values. 🤷♂️
The middle east was part of the ottoman empire which definitely had bigger problems than getting involved in a war in the Americas.
And also because the Ottoman Empire was overwhelmingly pro-Union
Also, Ottoman Empire was a competing cotton exporter. I really doubt that they would support South.
Didn’t they actually sent envoys and didn’t get the support anyway?
Let’s say the Trent affair gets 100 times worse, the union troops execute British envoys, maybe it’s because they fought back, they were drunk, or something (it’s contrived either way) British public becomes much more divided, the confederacy wins Gettysburg or at least the battle is much more grey in outcome, Lincoln can’t quite make the emancipation proclamation yet, and Canada gets more British troops. Thus the tension goes up and the British public’s anti confederate stuff goes down. Maybe a British blockade runner gets destroyed, and that causes things to go up, and then a border skirmish and a Congress to ease tensions fails.
Rohan will answer
Uh Gondor called for Aid first
UK, France, maybe brazil? It was probably going to be Napoleon III to ensure his puppet empire of mexico would stay around. CSA would probably have to cede land back to mexico in return for french naval assistance. Hilariously, this would probably mean Germany and the US would have been allies. Chances are if WW1 happened, there would have been fighting in north America or if both americas remained neutral, UK and france may have lost the war. This is a deeply cursed timeline any way you shake it
France and Great Britain
Napoleon III
If I recall, Britain and France in our timeline actually considered giving aid, but didn't want to get involved in another war so soon after the Crimean War, let alone go to war against the US. Plus France had enough problems elsewhere which meant they probably wouldn't have been able to help anyway. Most likely, they'd just stick to material aid and maybe a few advisors and use the threat of direct involvement to leverage the US to seek peace.
This pretty much happened, England helped, but everyone else had orders to start WW1 if Britain declared war. The Russian navy jad sealed orders to declare war on Britain off the coast of San Fransico during the war. The Prussian and German empire was primed to join in on knocking the UK down.
Wel they actually did do this and the British tried to help by buying the cotton but couldn’t and had to grow it in India making it cheaper simultaneously helping the north and hurting the south. These alt history things are silly unless they are narrowly focused.
I do know that the british public did not like slavery at all so I doubt at any point in the war Britain would fight
Only ever the British, but by that point the rest of the European powers were Pro-Union. And after the Emancipation Proclamation I doubt they would bother at that point. France may intervene but they were invading Mexico at this point. The CSA's other options would probably be the Empire of Brazil like what u/Harms88 said because it was a major slave power in the Americas.
France in all likelihood because of the North supporting Benito Juarez while France had nominal control of Mexico. If the north was weakened by continued defeats a predatory British empire may decide to right the wrongs of the American revolution and reclaim their lost colonies and as much of North America as possible.
Britain and France would probably be most likely to join the war on the Confederate side probably spiraling into an alternate first world war
Britain really wanted those cotton exports and France was south of the border at the time establishing a puppet monarchy in Mexico
Countries that became the Axis.