Discipline in American Civil War Armies

[ulmont]

Supporting the confederacy really made no sense for the UK. No matter what happened, the US (North) would still survive and still thrive as growing industrial power.  What is the upside of causing anger and resentment in such a country, where you also happen to share a long an indefensible land border?  The only sensible policy is the one it actually followed: keep open the threat of recognition to keep the North honest without any real sincere intention of following through.  And it worked - Lincoln was careful not to offend Britain and after the war ended, American elites became increasingly Anglophilic over the following decades.

The potential upside of a Confederate win for the UK was real enough - create what would amount to a new state that was both a major supplier of a vital commodity and virtually beholden to the UK; cut a growing potential great power rival down to size before it became a major threat. Sure the North would be angry, but it would hardly be likely to start a war with the UK over that undefended border, having just lost a major civil war.

Of course all of this may not weigh in the balance against the downside - anger the provider of another vital commodity, grain; and of course no guarantee that the South would win, even with overt UK support.

All of which though would be predicated on supporting the South being politically possible - I suspect that could only have been the case if the South gave up slavery, which was impossible for it to do, as that was what it was fighting to preserve.

Agreed with Minsky all the way through on this one.  If the CSA hadn't been totally pro-slavery, the UK could have supported it with significant possible benefits.  But if the CSA hadn't been totally pro-slavery, it would have just stayed in the USA...

[viper37]

The stupid starts and puts nations on roads that lead inexorably to disaster long before it is so clear that the only possible end is in fact disaster. By the time that Captain fired the mortar at Ft. Sumter, I don't think anyone could have stopped the war.

It was very late, but it could still have been stopped.  It was a catalyst of anti-southern sentiment rising in the North.  Most people wouldn't have fought willingly to keep the South in the Union only for the sake of keeping the South in the Union, but once "they" were attacked, it all changed, imho.  The issue of slavery was the same: most were willing to help the slaves flee and relocate, they were certainly against slavery, but fighting a war just for that?  Not enough volunteers.  But once they declared secession and fired on Fort Sumter, everything changed. There was enough of a momentum to recruit volunteers for a few months, then extend it with a war going on.

Southerners seemed way more eager to fight to keep their independance than the Northerners were willing to fight simply to keep the Union.  I don't think Lincoln could have mustered support to invade the South without the Fort Sumter - or any openly agressive action by the South.

Again, not an expert of the general feelings, just my feeling of the situation.  I could be wrong.

[dps]

I don't think Lincoln could have mustered support to invade the South without the Fort Sumter - or any openly agressive action by the South.

I think you're probably correct.  IIRC, Lincoln didn't even call for volunteers until Fort Sumter was fired on.  OTOH, even if Fort Sumter hadn't been fired on, there would have probably been another incident that would have galvanized public opinion in the North, probably sooner rather than later.

[alfred russel]

I don't think Lincoln could have mustered support to invade the South without the Fort Sumter - or any openly agressive action by the South.

I think you're probably correct.  IIRC, Lincoln didn't even call for volunteers until Fort Sumter was fired on.  OTOH, even if Fort Sumter hadn't been fired on, there would have probably been another incident that would have galvanized public opinion in the North, probably sooner rather than later.

Though arguable, the flip side that rarely gets discussed is the confederacy needed a crisis sooner rather than later. Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina only seceded after Lincoln's call for troops. Those states represented half the Confederacy's population and more than half the industrial capacity.

Had the precipitating event not happened for 6 months, that would have given Lincoln time to frustrate secessionists in the slave states that were still with the union. it would have also given the south time to organize, but the south was barely viable as it was constituted--at half the size it certainly was doomed.