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

Oct 2018
53
Minneapolis, MN
#11
Well the US Rev war wasn't as big of a situation for Britain as it was for the USA. They'd had other much deadlier wars in that time, and plenty of colonies fighting for their freedom. Figure Britain had been involved in about 50 other conflicts between the Rev war and the Civil War. For example, in the Rev war about 10k brits were killed in action, about the same as the first Anglo-Maratha war in India which was going on at the same time. They'd just wrapped up the 7 years war about 15 years earlier where over 150k had been killed in action.

And the war of 1812 was a speck on the map for them. For example they had about 1200 killed in action in that war. And around the same time they were also fighting a war in France that killed over 100,000 in action (another 300k+ died because of it).

If the British held grudges against everyone they fought in the later 1700's and earlier 1800's, there would be no one left to deal with.


Private citizens and businesses funded and sold ships and weapons to the Confederacy, and a lot of those were blockade runner ships to try and get cotton through. But England itself due in a large part to it's tight relationships with the USA remained neutral, and any hope of supporting the South was gone when Lincoln released his Emancipation Proclamation.

The british gov't really just wanted the war over so their cotton trade could resume.
 
Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#12
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?
Because A the South were fighting to maintain the institution of slavery which supporting would be a PR nightmare and B because they didn't need the South's cotton cause Egypt. It made more tactical sense for the French to jump in.

Also the South were part of the US until several years earlier and US southerners had played a big part in the things you are describing the UK should have wanted revenge for. All the people who'd be running an independent CSA would be former US officials and military officers for quite some time if things had went differently. Also the USA had a massive advantage over the CSA and secret support would not change the outcome especially since the support the UK would be supplying would be naval hence building ironclad's, and the US had a massive enough advantage over the CSA that nothing except direct UK involvement would change the naval war.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
#14
Yeh, I have discussed the Alabama here. She and the Shenandoah destroyed most of the US merchant marine, the main competitor the the British merchant marine. Blockade running also came out of the Bahamas and Bermuda. Britain might have been a little less than neutral without actually getting involved.