- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Civil War - Was it a missed opportunity for foreign nations?
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:32 am
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:32 am
I'm not a huge civil war history guy, I haven't read any books on the subject but do have a fair interest in the subject. I know there are a bunch on here that appear to have a pretty in depth knowledge on the subject, so I bring my query to you gentleman/lady scholars of the OT.
It seems that a lot of if not all of the resources and attention of the united states was aimed at defeating the confederacy, why didn't foreign nations take this opportunity to attack the US whilst its "pants" were around its ankles playing with itself? Not to aid the confederacy or anything like that but simply to take advantage of the whole situation, and if it helped the confederates in the process so be it. Or am I completely ignorant and foreign countries did indeed attack the US at this time?
Most obvious to me, Britain could have attacked. we were a former colony and had already fought two wars against the US the most recent within the previous 50 years.
Mexico, we had within the previous 20 years fought a war with them. With concentration on the CSA, it seems mexico could have easily seized back at least some of the territories lost.
the Native Americans. This probably would have been a little more difficult to pull off, because organizing a thousand or so tribes into one unified attack would be next to impossible, but if they did they could have inflicted a huge blow to the US.
Spain. We eventually had a war with them 30 years later, but I'm sure in the 1860's there were probably building tensions there.
It seems that a lot of if not all of the resources and attention of the united states was aimed at defeating the confederacy, why didn't foreign nations take this opportunity to attack the US whilst its "pants" were around its ankles playing with itself? Not to aid the confederacy or anything like that but simply to take advantage of the whole situation, and if it helped the confederates in the process so be it. Or am I completely ignorant and foreign countries did indeed attack the US at this time?
Most obvious to me, Britain could have attacked. we were a former colony and had already fought two wars against the US the most recent within the previous 50 years.
Mexico, we had within the previous 20 years fought a war with them. With concentration on the CSA, it seems mexico could have easily seized back at least some of the territories lost.
the Native Americans. This probably would have been a little more difficult to pull off, because organizing a thousand or so tribes into one unified attack would be next to impossible, but if they did they could have inflicted a huge blow to the US.
Spain. We eventually had a war with them 30 years later, but I'm sure in the 1860's there were probably building tensions there.
24
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:34 am to Emteein
Yes, the French had their eyes on helping the Confederacy until they were defeated at the Battle of Puebla (Cinco de Mayo). However, I imagine that would have ignited a world war given the royal alliances of the times.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:34 am to Emteein
quote:
I'm not a huge civil war history guy, I haven't read any books on the subject but do have a fair interest in the subject
You don’t say.......
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:41 am to Emteein
Both sides were arming to the teeth and mobilizing millions of troops. North building up the navy. Anyone who tried to take advantage would have been crushed. Unless a foreign power was specifically allied with one side or the other it would have possibly had to fight both sides.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:46 am to Emteein
Mexico was competing against the South in the cotton trade. One of the big issues of the war. The north was raising or threatened to raise taxes on cotton and making it hard for southerners to compete with other countries.
Britain by that time was against slavery. Not sure France take
Britain by that time was against slavery. Not sure France take
This post was edited on 6/17/19 at 8:49 am
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:48 am to Emteein
Honest to god answer? There’s this thing called the Atlantic Ocean and it’s a very good deterrent to invasion.
Also, France just had been rocked by revolutions, Britain recently expelled, and Spain was a paper tiger. That’s probably a good start
Also, France just had been rocked by revolutions, Britain recently expelled, and Spain was a paper tiger. That’s probably a good start
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:52 am to Emteein
it damned sure was a missed opportunity for indian tribes
Posted on 6/17/19 at 8:55 am to Emteein
quote:
It seems that a lot of if not all of the resources and attention of the united states was aimed at defeating the confederacy, why didn't foreign nations take this opportunity to attack the US whilst its "pants" were around its ankles playing with itself?
During the Civil War, the Union boasted the largest army and navy on earth.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:01 am to Emteein
The population of the states had grown too big. No planes to bomb cities into submission. Sure an armada could’ve blocked ports and captured port cities. But either the north of the south could’ve defeated any army reliant on ships to transport them. And remember the war machine was in full swing in both halves of the country.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:01 am to Emteein
They didn’t want any part of RE Lee.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:03 am to dietcoke7
quote:
Both sides were arming to the teeth and mobilizing millions of troops. North building up the navy. Anyone who tried to take advantage would have been crushed
I get that both were armed to the teeth, but they were also engaged at the time. My thought was while guns were pointed south, Britain could have attacked from Canada. I don't see why it wouldn't have been possible for them to occupy NYC. The british navy was pretty stout at the time, they could have made a blockade at New York harbor and shelled the city while an attack came south from Canada. With the US focused on CSA it seems like it could have been a possibility. Any attention away from the CSA would have given General Lee a huge help.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:08 am to Emteein
Google the Trent Affair. TL;DR, two confederate diplomats were traveling on a British ship. The US Navy stopped it on the high seas and captured them. The Union and Britain nearly went to war over it.
The Confederacy did hope for outside intervention. Europe depended on southern cotton. Then the British learned how to grow their own cotton in India and Egypt and that was that.
The Confederacy did hope for outside intervention. Europe depended on southern cotton. Then the British learned how to grow their own cotton in India and Egypt and that was that.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:09 am to Emteein
quote:
Any attention away from the CSA would have given General Lee a huge help
Would have helped some but the north had plenty of troops at its disposal. They had more soldiers at the end of the war than the first couple years. They would have had plenty enough to fight the south and defend its northern border. Like I said it wouldn’t have hurt (for the south) but in the long run wouldn’t have mattered. The south was the one that lacked troops, food, medical care, ammo, etc.
This post was edited on 6/17/19 at 9:10 am
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:12 am to windshieldman
If not for Lee the CW would have been over quickly. Prior to war even southern commanders were noted saying they expected to be defeated within weeks or months. Britain wouldn’t have been able to help much unless they got their army in prior to the blockade.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:12 am to Emteein
China really missed their chance to get a hold of the southern states rice patties
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:13 am to windshieldman
quote:
Britain by that time was against slavery.
didn't realize that, it seems like they wouldn't have had a problem with. this was still a time when the sun didn't set on the British Empire. They had their thumb firmly on many indigenous peoples from asia to africa and islands in between, seems like they would have been exploiting that to no end.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:15 am to Emteein
It’s like someone picking on your brother. Y’all may fight from time to time, but frick the guy messing with your brother.
It probably would have sparked a historical “time out” where we kick the invader’s arse for trying and then go back to killing each other.
It probably would have sparked a historical “time out” where we kick the invader’s arse for trying and then go back to killing each other.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:15 am to windshieldman
quote:
Like I said it wouldn’t have hurt (for the south) but in the long run wouldn’t have mattered. The south was the one that lacked troops, food, medical care, ammo, etc.
good point, and if a nation took that opportunity to attack the CSA, they would have immediately had to take on a geared up US army, because The US was dead set on staying unified.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:16 am to Emteein
Hold on, I got a buddy.....
Posted on 6/17/19 at 9:16 am to Emteein
Nevermind, I'm pretty sure I was thinking of the Revolutionary war. Not the civil war.
This post was edited on 6/17/19 at 9:18 am
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News