Civil War outcome...

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,962
If French support makes it so that the war is still being fought by 1866, I wonder if the Chassepot rifle could be supplied to the CSA in any substantial numbers? The next question would be is if that would be any kind of significant help?
The Chassepot was an advanced weapon, but it did not change the course or outcome of the 1870 war for France. Both the Union and Prussia were able to bring organization and resource mobilization together to defeat their enemies. France had no real ability to determine the outcome of a North American war of attrition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
French help could have made a difference before 1863. If they could have mustered the effort to bombard Boston, New York City, etc., if might have affected hearts and minds. My geography might be off, but wasn't McClellan's Army standing on the same peninsula, if not the same spot, where Cornwallis's Army was squeezed with help from French ships?

Europe was never going to help the CSA.
From its inception American Democracy was a threat to Monarchy. After the smoke cleared from the Napoleonic Wars, the great Jefferson-Madison friendship with France has passed, and European monarchs set about undermining democracy with the Verona Treaty lest it overthrow them. There was a treaty in the mid 1850s regarding the protection of commercial shipping from blockades even in war. The CSA asked, but the European powers would not help.

Democracy in American was probably most concerning to the aristocrats of Britain. They had spent many years preaching the glory and benefits of divine right and empire that the aristocrats had bestowed upon the people. And yet their cousins in America were beginning to do better economically and politically without aristocrats. The idea that government ought to be comprised of a few "well bred" men always had more of a home in New England (Hamilton and the Essex Junto) than in the south.

The interest of the European aristocrats would be served by disunion and a long destructive war, and an end to the decentralized system of government. They got what they wanted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
I think it is interesting to think what would happen to Mexico in this case. The US Civil War coincided with the French invasion of Mexico so it is interesting to think how the official French recognition and aid to the CSA affect French campaign there. Let's say the North still wins. Would the USA want to exact some revenge on the French by fighting them in Mexico? Would the South ask the French to transport some of their troops from Mexico to help the South? Would the South try to curry favour with France by helping them in Mexico? We do know after their defeat, around 2000 Southerners fought for the French in Mexico.
I’m reading The Education of Henry Adams. His father Charles Francis Adams was Lincoln’s ambassador to the UK, and Henry says that Napoleon III tried to get the UK to recognize the Confederacy and support Maxmillian in Mexico. They said no, even though there was a fairly strong faction in the British cabinet in favor of recognition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,429
France had an interest in protecting their intervention in Mexico, which Union victory helped destroy. By allying with the Confederacy and invading the US southwest, France could have gotten more support for Maximillan in Mexico and prevented the US from undermining their intervention. France could have also broken the blockade and sent an army to aid the Confederacy.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,429
The interest of the European aristocrats would be served by disunion and a long destructive war, and an end to the decentralized system of government. They got what they wanted.
Members of the British House of Lords were pushing for support or war for the Confederacy. The Pope wrote to "His Excellency Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America" when no other head of state would do so. In general aristocratic and reactionary forces were sympethic with the Confederacy.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
Members of the British House of Lords were pushing for support or war for the Confederacy. The Pope wrote to "His Excellency Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America" when no other head of state would do so. In general aristocratic and reactionary forces were sympethic with the Confederacy.
But your imagined sympathy in the House of Lords never literally materialized. No one helped the CSA.

I find it hard to believe the Pope wanted success for the predominantly Protestant CSA. Perhaps if he had issued a statement for the tens of thousands of Irish-Catholic immigrants entering Lincoln's Army not to do so, you'd have a substantive basis to conclude any genuine "sympathy."
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,429
There was a move early on by members of the House of Lords to get Britain in the war on the side of the Confederacy. The British "aristocracy" and "gentry" was mostly pro-Confederate.

Pope Pius IX was a reactionary monarchist. He made a proclamation that protestants were heretics and the Church was against liberalism, socialism etc. He and Jefferson Davis became pen pals while Davis was in prison. Davis was high church Episcopal, partly from an English Catholic background, and went to Catholic schools.

There weren't many Catholics in the US. There were more in the north, but there were Catholic plantation owners and so on from French and Spanish areas and originally from Maryland. The Pope wasn't going to officially take a position on the war, but he did sort of recognize the Confederacy, which no other country did.

You claim that European aristocracy wanted to weaken US democracy. If so, then splitting up the US would be a good way to do that. Was the US, particularly the south, really viewed as a democracy in Europe? Was it viewed as an ideological threat?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
Pope Pius IX was a reactionary monarchist. He made a proclamation that protestants were heretics
Betgo, I believe that issue was settled at the Council of Trent: that "heretics" must be "extirpated." Not by the Syllabus of Errors.

There weren't many Catholics in the US.
So. I didn't refer to the US. I referred to Lincoln's Army. That would include 200,000 of them. This includes Generals Sherman and Sheridan - who were somewhat destructive. .If the Pope wanted to help the CSA, he could have called off these dogs of war.

No one helped the CSA. Why are you arguing?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,429
You implied that European aristocracy wanted a more centralized form of government in the US as a result of a Union victory. I don't know of any evidence of that. The evidence is that aristocratic and conservative / monarchist public figures were pro-Confederate.

I know no one helped the Confederacy. No country could get any advantage by doing so except maybe France. Not many in Europe cared what happened in the US or what form of government it had.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
Not many in Europe cared what happened in the US or what form of government it had.
I surely agree there are not many aristocrats as a percentage of the population. What I don't agree with is that the Euro-Aristocracy would have no interest in the nature and administrators of governments in the other countries. That includes having an interest in the internal affairs of the USA.

You implied that European aristocracy wanted a more centralized form of government in the US
I do not imply, I state - aristocrats (etc.) are in favor of centralization (and empire; anywhere and everywhere; overt or covert; territorial, financial and ideological).
You never noticed that? lol
 
Last edited: