From: Adam Benedict Canning <dahak@d...>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:41:25 +0100
Subject: RE: Why British involvement in the ACW is a pipe dream.
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:52:16 -0500 > The South also had sugar, cotton, and wood that Britain That's trade, not alliance. We bought Tea from the Chinese in this period but were not allied [To the point of shooting them up if they wouldn't sell us Tea / buy Opium.] Wanting to trade with someone wasn't enough on its own for the Empire to ally with them. Historically the resources the CSA possesed were not enough to pursuade the Empire towards military invovlement. Mostly and simply because to back up any threat to get that blockade lifted means being ready to go to war with the Union. Which among other things means moving troops to Canada from either Africa or India. We could use the more marginally loyal sepoy units from the RIA as a method of firming up after the Mutiny, but that has its risks. Various Indian, African and Asian States produced resources the Empire coveted and were assimilated on a variety of pretexts. > That's not likely at all. Neither side would allow a > It required Britain to pose the threat and "offer" to mediate British mediation in such things if it happened at all is likely to involve the British drawing up the treaty. Somewhere or other the results will show a Quid pro Quo for the Empire getting involved. The reason it will be British drawn is simple. The two sides are already in a state where they cannot solve thier differences peacefully. If they could then the threat or actuality of British military involvement wouldn't be needed. > >Having won a war that is has taken as it triggering clause I may have miss stated my point here. The South has just fought a War in which one of its stated aims is the ability to retain slavery [or prevent the abolishionists from being able to abolish]. Having won that war it becomes more rather than less difficult to abolish. [people start asking what the War was for.] Not that that was why the war happened. > Ironically, Virginia didn't even want slavery Back when Bristol was a major port in the Slave trade. Foisted is also a slightly strong word. > > You like Turtledove assume that A Northern loss enforced by threat of British intervention leads to a situation similar to Germany between the Wars. [Missing perhaps I'll give you the simultaneous economic crisis.] > I think both sides were quite capable of developing Being capable of diplomatic solutions does not mean the capability will be used. In theory there were diplomatic solutions to the secession of the US from the Emipre, but they didn't happen.