The Trent Affair

[Jim Martin]

I seem to recall reading that the cotton crop of 1860 was especially bountiful, leaving huge surpluses in European warehouses. This meant that there was no especially urgent need on the part of European manufacturers to re-open trade with the South in order to obtain more cotton.

[Richard Lindquist]

I seem to recall reading that the cotton crop of 1860 was especially bountiful, leaving huge surpluses in European warehouses.  This meant that there was no especially urgent need on the part of European manufacturers to re-open trade with the South in order to obtain more cotton.

168401[/snapback]

 

On the outbreak of war, the CS government made cotton a government monopoly and ried to temporarily embargo export of cotton in an attempt to drive up the price to increase their take from the cotton. This also caused the users of raw cotton to develop other suppliers.

[Guest Hans Engström]

What would the effects of a British declaration of War been on the policies of the French?

 

However, as noted before, it is hard to see what advantages to Britain there could have been on entering the war (although the breakup of the USA into smaller parts might have been to the good of the Empire).

 

Waht would the long temr effects have been on a situation with the USA stalemated in the South, occupying tracts of Canada but blockaded by the United Kingdom (and perhaps France). In a history of New York I read a few years back I was informed of a fairly active secessionist movemnt in New York City, something I was unaware of.

[Richard Lindquist]

What would the effects of a British declaration of War been on the policies of the French?

 

However, as noted before, it is hard to see what advantages to Britain there could have been on entering the war (although the breakup of the USA into smaller parts might have been to the good of the Empire).

 

Waht would the long temr effects have been on a situation with the USA stalemated in the South, occupying tracts of Canada but blockaded by the United Kingdom (and perhaps France). In a history of New York I read a few years back I was informed of a fairly active secessionist movemnt in New York City, something I was unaware of.

168464[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily pro-secession, just anti-war and anti-draft (rich man's war, poor man's fight). There were anti-negro and anti-draft riots in New York. Also, many northern Democrats looked at a victorious war as advancing Republican power (as happened in the 1865-1913 time frame) and tried to sabotage the war effort both passively and actively.

 

I am not sure how an independent Confederate government would have viewed a French imperial client-state in Mexico with possible revanchist claims to southwestern US territory.

[swerve]

I am not sure how an independent Confederate government would have viewed a French imperial client-state in Mexico with possible revanchist claims to southwestern US territory.

 

Depends, I s'pose. I'm sure the Confederacy wouldn't have liked it, but maybe if it was willing to ally against the US, writing off Texas (or at least, most of it) as too long lost & too settled by Anglos in exchange for maybe a sliver of mostly Mexican-inhabited land along the Rio Grande, & co-operation against the Yanquis further west, the Confederates might warm to the idea. In the long run, the Confederacy needed all the friends it could get, faced with a future with a long border with a far more powerful enemy.

 

I wonder how the Mormons might have reacted to an offer of Confederate/Mexican/French backing for independence?

[Richard Lindquist]

However, as noted before, it is hard to see what advantages to Britain there could have been on entering the war (although the breakup of the USA into smaller parts might have been to the good of the Empire).

 

Waht would the long temr effects have been on a situation with the USA stalemated in the South, occupying tracts of Canada but blockaded by the United Kingdom (and perhaps France).

168464[/snapback]

 

A peace which gave Canada back to England and gave independence to the CSA would have saddled England with the status of being a protector of the CSA as the US and CS bickered off and on about westward expansion and border disputes. In addition, England would eventually have been forced to exercise political will and pressure to end slavery in the CSA.

 

As it was, with both the US and GB willing to be flexible on the "Alabama Claims", there emerged an era where all of the resources of the US were poured into reconstruction of the south and westward expansion 1865-1895. The US wasn't comepitive and often was cooperative with Brit imperial exapnsion in Africa and Asia, and in policing Latin America and the Carribean to keep the peace. The US also did not interfere with Brit efforts to maintain the balance of power in Europe andf their efforts to build against the Russo-French alliance. The US was only a rival to the Brits on a commercial basis.