| AH Challenge: Foreign Intervention in the US Civil War | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 9 2013, 09:57 AM (383 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Sep 9 2013, 09:57 AM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Quite simple, I hear you say. Ah, but there is a twist: Find a way to bring about European intervention against the Confederacy. Bonus marks if it is Britain. |
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 9 2013, 11:33 AM Post #2 |
|
In that case, it would almost certainly have to involved 1) a even more brutal and/or well-documented treatment of slaves in the South and 2) a highly anti-slavery government in Britain, to the extent that they were willing to prevent the slave trade with the use of their naval assets. Almost immediately after the start of the War of the Rebellion, the South attempted to re-open the slave trade between itself and Africa. The British Empire had a decades-old policy of declaring "that slaving [is] equal to piracy and [is] punishable by death" (Wikipedia, 'Atlantic slave trade', 2013) which it enforced through the British Royal Navy. In July of 1861, a Confederate warship fired upon and sunk a British vessel off the Gold Coast, causing outrage in Parliament and the eventual involvement of the British in the blockade of the South. What began, at first, as the supply of British arms and war materials to the North, eventually evolved into direct involvement on land. This was due largely to outrage among the British people and their parliament upon hearing the news of a Confederate massacre of slaves in an uprising late in 1862 (documentation would later show that this uprising was fomented by the British and American Govt's who knew that it would fail and lead to a massacre). The first British land forces would take part in the destruction of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Gettysburg, on July 1-2, 1863. Of the nearly 70,000 men that took part in the battle on the side of the Confederates, roughly half, or 35,000 men were killed during the battle or later, as a result of their wounds, including the beloved General Robert E. Lee, who had just the year before crushed the Union Army at Antietam, making it appear that the war might nearly be over. The war was soon to be over, but not in the South's favor. With the loss of so many men and no significant armed force between the Union Army and Richmond, the Confederate government was forced to flee the city and move further South or face capture, followed by immediate overtures for peace, which were rejected. The South would survive another six months of fighting, but would eventually surrender early in 1864. With supplies and material running low due to the air-tight blockade, the massive numbers of Union volunteers, and the arrival of British forces from overseas, the cause was lost. There would be decades of guerrilla-style warfare in the American south causing the occupation leading "reconstruction" to extend for more than 50 years. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Sep 9 2013, 12:24 PM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I like that a lot; some interesting potential butterflies floating around there. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Sep 9 2013, 01:20 PM Post #4 |
![]()
The General
|
Lee falling on the battlefield? Eh... I think that's overdoing it a tad. Maybe wounded, but dead... Longstreet could fall, if an important general needs to be killed. With Lee losing both his arms (as he called Stonewall Jackson and Longstreet)... it's as lethal, if not even worse, situation for the Confederate forces in the East. There simply weren't other generals capable of fulfilling Lee's orders as well as Stonewall Jackson and Longstreet. Remove them, and the cause is more or less lost very, very quickly, even with Lee alive. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Sep 9 2013, 01:28 PM Post #5 |
|
Would the Union accept British land forces in the US? Maybe Naval support for the Anaconda plan, but I think the Americans would not at all like the idea of having a second invasion of redcoats.
Edited by JBK, Sep 9 2013, 01:28 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Sep 9 2013, 01:54 PM Post #6 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Now that's an interesting one. You would probably need some sort of incident between the CSA and Britain. The slavery issue seems the most logical place to start. However, the problem is that even with some kind of reverse Trent Affair, relations between the United States and Britain were not too cozy to begin with. Many Englishmen didn't have the highest opinion of Abraham Lincoln or Uncle Sam pre-1860, and they'd probably be disposed to view both sides as bad. The Union would just be less bad. They'd probably prefer funneling in financial aid and weapons to overt intervention. There might be a "limited strike" in the form of a naval blockade. Hmm, that sounds rather familiar... |
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 9 2013, 02:58 PM Post #7 |
|
Throughout the first and second day, General Lee often was found riding up along the front lines, often alone or with few companions to get a view of the Union lines due to the fact that he had lost contact with General Stuart, who commanded the cavalry, and therefore he had very little intelligence coming in, except from a few civilian scouts. Stuart did not arrive on the battlefield with his cavalry until late in the evening on the second day. In my proposed alternate history, the battle ends on the second day and the assumption is that Lee was killed either by Union skirmishers or his own troops while scouting for himself. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Sep 9 2013, 03:03 PM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
The war was more dangerous for the generals than the infantry, oftentimes. Still, a bit of a slap at Lee.
|
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 9 2013, 03:04 PM Post #9 |
|
Even I saw this as a bit of a stretch and I certainly would think that the number of troops would be limited. However, the assumption is that a declaration of war by the British against the South would prompt the Union and British to cooperate. It really would not be practical to have the British and Union forces fighting separate wars against the Confederacy. It could, in fact, ignite a war between the Union and Britain, if they did not cooperate. The Union considered the South to be in rebellion and that the territory was still that of the United States. So, the really wasn't a practical choice not to work together. The major thing would be that British forces would have to stay far away from major cities and not be used as occupation forces. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Sep 9 2013, 04:11 PM Post #10 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
It's kind of goofy, but the most pro-Union states in 1861 were Prussia and Russia. Russia sent a fleet to visit America, though this was little more than a propaganda ploy because the Russians wanted to disperse their navy in the event of a war with Britain. They don't seem to have been serious about getting involved. Prussia, despite being conservative, was very favorable toward the Union because national unification was a major issue in pan-German politics. I'm not sure if Bismarck personally supported Lincoln or if he would contemplate getting involved, but many Germans did. Perhaps in an alternate timeline where Prussia has a stronger navy, something could happen. Perhaps if Germany were already united (in 1848 or in an earlier Franco-Prussian War) it would be more likely. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Sep 10 2013, 10:59 PM Post #11 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
In other news, it appears Ratcliffe House was the site where one of the CSA flags was made... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |








8:40 AM Jul 11