Civil War outcome...

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,220
#41
British public opinion was divided on the American Civil War. The Confederacy tended to have support from the elites: the aristocracy and the gentry, which identified with the landed plantation owners, and Anglican clergy and some professionals who admired tradition, hierarchy and paternalism.
Wikipedia

The people of France were not entirely in agreement. The Confederacy was endorsed by those who also supported Napoleon III and the Roman Catholics. French Republicans supported the Union.
warhistoryonline.com

From all I can see, aristocracy and monarchists in Europe tended to be pro-Confederate. In general, the kings of Europe were happy to see the US broken up and sympathetic to what they viewed as southern aristocracy.

It would have been difficult for anyone but Britain, France, or maybe Mexico to get involved. It was also seen as dangerous and not advantageous to get involved in a civil war.

Russia did sort of ally with the Union. Russia was worried about British and French intervention in the Polish rebellion. The US and Russia formed a common front to discourage intervention in either rebellion. Russia also did not want to see the US weakened, which might increase British power in the area. The Czar had freed the serfs and Russia had a very centralized system, so the US and Russia had some things in common ideologically.

Not sure why you think aristocracy favors centralization. Absolute monarchies, such as Russia, Spain, France, and China in the 18 century and before favored centralization. Aristocracy traditionally favored decentralization, as in feudalism.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,981
Caribbean
#42
From all I can see, aristocracy and monarchists in Europe tended to be pro-Confederate.
See from what? From the nothing that happened, I see something else.

Maybe we don't define the word "pro" to mean the same thing, and maybe you don't agree with me that actions and inaction speak louder than words. This is from a book called The Civil History of the Government of the Confederate States, by Curry. It speaks of the diplomatic ventures of the aforementioned Mr. Adams, as well as Sidell, Lamar, others. It is written from the southern point of view, and it has a hint that 'lost cause tone of - but for this, we almost won - nostalgia.

Curry quotes Lamar on an embassy in Paris.
"I know very well that Louis Napoleon was not only in favor of interfering in our behalf, but warmly so. He received me frankly and spoke with utmost kindness on the subject."
But, he never did!!

This sounds like the kind of thing that you call being "pro" Confederate, that I would call being "diplomatic," - and like everyone else - Napoleon's lack of buying cotton bonds, agreeing to let the CSA be part of the 1856 treaty on blockades, the lack of using force unilaterally, and basically the lack of lifting a finger is 'evidence' of his intent by his inaction. Part of the art of diplomacy is 'saying" no, without actually using the word.

There are also communique's between British diplomats that it is the right time or a good thing to recognize the CSA
- but they never did!!
No one helped the CSA. Why do you continue to argue this point?

It would have been difficult for anyone but Britain, France, or maybe Mexico to get involved. It was also seen as dangerous and not advantageous to get involved in a civil war.
Sure, the modern history of Europe is a study in reluctance to go to war. NOT.

INot sure why you think aristocracy favors centralization.
First, it's the name. Otherwise, they'd be called Anarchists. And your argument about feudalism? It never occurred to me that having control of all the land in the hands of a few was decentralization.

Around this time in history, the saying was developing, that the sun never set on the British Empire. How did that happen? Aristocrats who did not want empire accidentally addicted the Chinese population to opium, and controlled as much as half of international commerce in the East India Company, backed by a private mercenary argument more than double the size of the army of Great Britain - and accidentally forgot to abandon all that in the name of decentralization?
 
Last edited: