Was Britain still angry about the American Revolution and 1812 during the US civil war?

Sep 2018
40
Sri Lanka
If so, why didn't the British send more weapons, ships and men, in secret if it had to, to the South during the civil war and made sure it won for revenge for those things?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,442
Dispargum
I never heard of revenge or resentment as a motive behind British policy during the ACW. Factors driving British policy were:
1. need of cotton in British factories
2. need of grain from the Northern US to feed British population
3. long standing British policy against slavery
4. to some extent, the British were willing to sell arms to whichever side could pay for them

The British probably did not perceive the War of 1812 as a defeat. It was something of a stalemate or possibly a slight British victory, especially if one overlooks New Orleans which was fought after the peace treaty was signed. Also, at the time, from the British point of view the War of 1812 was so insignificantly small compared to Napolean and Waterloo.

By the mid-19th century the British were over the American Revolution. The independent US remained in the British economic sphere of influence so the British didn't really lose very much other than the cost of administering the 13 colonies. Profits from trade with the US remained intact.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,322
The British considered the War of 1812 a British victory. Just listen to the British and Canadian posters here. The British were annoyed that the US got involved when they were struggling against Napoleon. The southern states were involved in the other wars, so I don't think that would be a factor.

The main reason for the British to get involved would be to break up the US to maintain British dominance. There was also support for the Confederacy from the aristocracy, which had power then.

It wasn't worth it for the British to get involved, particularly since they had neighboring territories in Canada and the Bahamas, which could potentially be invaded by the US.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,803
Stockport Cheshire UK
If so, why didn't the British send more weapons, ships and men, in secret if it had to, to the South during the civil war and made sure it won for revenge for those things?
British politicians of this period were men who took their jobs seriously, they would only have done things which they thought were in the best interests of Britain and her Empire, getting involved in a major war merely for revenge for a defeat decades before was not in Britain's best interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: betgo

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
The U.S. did not step onto the world scene as a power until the late 19th century, with their victory over Spain. In the early, and even mid, 19th century Britain was the world's premier power. They probably had to much on their plate to worry about revenge. With that said,Britain did aid the CSA during the Civil War, but it was probably more for economic reasons (i.e., cotton).
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,846
At present SD, USA
The U.S. did not step onto the world scene as a power until the late 19th century, with their victory over Spain. In the early, and even mid, 19th century Britain was the world's premier power. They probably had to much on their plate to worry about revenge. With that said,Britain did aid the CSA during the Civil War, but it was probably more for economic reasons (i.e., cotton).
In 1812, I think they were still worried about Napoleon to be too interested in the US. They might have had some trade issues with regards to the Ohio River Valley, and thus their overtures to Native American leaders like Tecumseh, but I don't think there was really any major rub on Britain's part with regard to its interactions with America. The greatest issue between the US and the British was the issue of impressment on the part of the US, which the British defended as that the men taken were British citizens deserting the Royal Navy during a time of war against Napoleon... who was out of power when the war with America ended and thus wasn't an issue when the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

Britain's involvement in the Civil War goes a bit both ways, though by the time Egypt and India began to develop, the loss of cotton trade with the US became less of an issue. The real thing that inspired a lot of Britain's "support" for the Confederacy was in the perceptions on the part of some of Britain's people that the war was about the right to self-determination, as the Confederates sold it as. But at the same time, the British also actively supported the Union as well in many ways. They still had active abolitionist societies that proved to be critical voting blocks in parliamentary elections... and many of these differences of opinion lead British citizens to volunteer for both armies in the US.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,803
Stockport Cheshire UK
With that said,Britain did aid the CSA during the Civil War, but it was probably more for economic reasons (i.e., cotton).
No, the British did not 'aid' the South.
Private UK companies sold weapons and war material's to the South through 3rd parties, at the same time they sold far more weapons and war material's directly to the Union.

British industry's involvement was not aid, it was business, and British industry was happy to sell to both sides.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,803
Stockport Cheshire UK
Britain's involvement in the Civil War goes a bit both ways, though by the time Egypt and India began to develop, the loss of cotton trade with the US became less of an issue. The real thing that inspired a lot of Britain's "support" for the Confederacy was in the perceptions on the part of some of Britain's people that the war was about the right to self-determination, as the Confederates sold it as.
In the early years of the war it wasn't just the South who were telling the rest of the world the conflict wasn't about slavery, the Union was telling them the same.
It wasn't until later on, when the Lincoln administration had given up hope of a compromise with the South, that the ending of slavery became a Union war aim.

ps: I know the war was caused by slavery, it's just that at the start of the war it suited both sides to deny the fact.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,460
Japan
As they won the war of 1812 I’d doubt they’d be angry about it.
Also the American Rebellion was old news... 1812 had seen repeated acts of US aggression batted down and US ports blockaded... more than enough to remove any ill will. I’d doubt any one alive in 1860 would have been alive in 1776.

Britain’s attitude to the ACW was complex and diverse. Class, trade, geographic location all influenced opinion on who was in the right.

Generally. Upper classes supported the south. Working class from the cities supported the north. Working class in port cities like liverpool snd Bristol also had a lot of sympathy for the south.... government was muted. Deep down they would have liked a Southern victory ... it would have weakened a rising industrial competitor, but out right support would have threatened Canadian security and been immensely unpopular with the common people.... slavery being a big and unpopular issue in GB.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,469
North America was not a highly vaualble colony, it was vansiging small importance ecnomically, and it remained virtually a British maket after the war(s) anyway, the British continued to invest and tarde with the former colonies much much more than other powers, the ecnomical relationship was not chnaged much by Independence.

Just because the former colonies went on to a super power later is there need to project that backward to attitudes when it was not,