Explanation: The Confederacy of the US Civil War in the South attempted to secede from the US in order to preserve the institution of slavery. One of their core strategies was to pressure Europe to intervene on their behalf in some way - as Southern cotton had been a very important part of the economy of the industrialized states of Europe.
The strategy was troubled from the start. First, the Union, also a major trade partner of Europe, was obviously not happy about any form of support given to the Confederacy. Second, the mood amongst European voters was decidedly anti-slavery by the 1860s. And third, once the war started, European states just started growing cotton in India, Egypt, and other colonies of suitable clime for cotton, rather than get involved in a whole-ass war with a serious military power just to buy cotton at slightly cheaper prices.
I don’t know if the Europeans would have called the US a serious military power until WW1, or WW2 to be sure. Yes, we’d mobilized a large army, but it was busy and we hadn’t grown the Navy to the same extent. I think Chapter 15 of “Makers of Modern Strategy” would back this up, but I don’t have that book at hand.
However, we were a more important economic partner than the rebels, and I suspect being anti-slavery gave the Europeans moral cover to pursue their various projects of colonialism. Besides, there’s always the “what’s in it for us?” aspect - what would they gain from helping the rebels? If I were a diplomat planning strategy for the Confederacy, I would slit my wrists target Napoleon III and try to convince him that the Confederacy would underwrite his expansionistic plans in Latin America if he opened the French markets to southern cotton. Maybe they tried that, I dunno. From a quick search,
From the very start of the war, the Confederates and their sympathizers tried to cast themselves out as the natural allies of Napoleon’s new Mexican regime, but the French had their doubts about the sincerity of the South’s support. Until the eve of secession, Southern nationalism was reflected by an unremitting desire for conquest in the Caribbean, Mexico, or Central America. To the Quai d’Orsay, a Confederate victory would signal the resumption of Southern conquests to fuel a slave empire. At the same time, Maximilian, the new emperor of Mexico set up by Napoleon, preferred to remain neutral and keep his distance from the Confederacy.
I don’t know if the Europeans would have called the US a serious military power until WW1, or WW2 to be sure. Yes, we’d mobilized a large army, but it was busy and we hadn’t grown the Navy to the same extent.
I mean, by the end of the US Civil War, the US Navy was one of the most powerful in the world. Didn’t last, because we didn’t see the point in keeping the expense beyond the war, but my point was primarily that the Union during the Civil War wasn’t some backwater that could be toppled by an expeditionary force.
The US Navy had some 700 warships by the end of the Civil War, which was about the size of the British Navy, if memory serves. While the British navy almost definitely had more large ships, 700 is a sizable force no matter how you slice it, short of them all being a guy in a canoe with a punt gun.
King Cotton was such a deluded economic concept that I’m surprised it hasn’t displaced “eggs” as the thing people say in the phrase “don’t put all your X in one basket.”
In fact, Trump’s pro-tariff policy is self-defeating in many ways similar to King Cotton: piss off everyone in the world simultaneously, belligerently assuming you’re the only place in the world with a given commodity. Meanwhile, other nations will fill in the gap you left behind and leave you in the dust.
Republicans are the children who couldn’t fit a square peg in a round hole, threw a temper tantrum, and broke the toy trying to shove that square peg in a round hole over and over.
Republicans are the children who couldn’t fit a square peg in a round hole, threw a temper tantrum, and broke the toy trying to shove that square peg in a round hole over and over.
Explanation: The Confederacy of the US Civil War in the South attempted to secede from the US in order to preserve the institution of slavery. One of their core strategies was to pressure Europe to intervene on their behalf in some way - as Southern cotton had been a very important part of the economy of the industrialized states of Europe.
The strategy was troubled from the start. First, the Union, also a major trade partner of Europe, was obviously not happy about any form of support given to the Confederacy. Second, the mood amongst European voters was decidedly anti-slavery by the 1860s. And third, once the war started, European states just started growing cotton in India, Egypt, and other colonies of suitable clime for cotton, rather than get involved in a whole-ass war with a serious military power just to buy cotton at slightly cheaper prices.
England cultivating cotton in Egypt was a guarantee the confederacy had 0 chance in a decade, and the south itself was doomed.
But no, they’re still blaming us.
Sometimes hate should be a badge of honor.
I don’t know if the Europeans would have called the US a serious military power until WW1, or WW2 to be sure. Yes, we’d mobilized a large army, but it was busy and we hadn’t grown the Navy to the same extent. I think Chapter 15 of “Makers of Modern Strategy” would back this up, but I don’t have that book at hand.
However, we were a more important economic partner than the rebels, and I suspect being anti-slavery gave the Europeans moral cover to pursue their various projects of colonialism. Besides, there’s always the “what’s in it for us?” aspect - what would they gain from helping the rebels? If I were a diplomat planning strategy for the Confederacy, I would
slit my wriststarget Napoleon III and try to convince him that the Confederacy would underwrite his expansionistic plans in Latin America if he opened the French markets to southern cotton. Maybe they tried that, I dunno. From a quick search,https://academic.oup.com/north-carolina-scholarship-online/book/31030/chapter-abstract/264006213
So maybe brokering a deal in which French-enabled Confederate economic gains funded French expansionism would have worked…
I mean, by the end of the US Civil War, the US Navy was one of the most powerful in the world. Didn’t last, because we didn’t see the point in keeping the expense beyond the war, but my point was primarily that the Union during the Civil War wasn’t some backwater that could be toppled by an expeditionary force.
Sounds a little fishy (ha!) but I’ll take your word for it, I haven’t even read Mahan.
The US Navy had some 700 warships by the end of the Civil War, which was about the size of the British Navy, if memory serves. While the British navy almost definitely had more large ships, 700 is a sizable force no matter how you slice it, short of them all being a guy in a canoe with a punt gun.
I haven’t either tbf, lol
King Cotton was such a deluded economic concept that I’m surprised it hasn’t displaced “eggs” as the thing people say in the phrase “don’t put all your X in one basket.”
In fact, Trump’s pro-tariff policy is self-defeating in many ways similar to King Cotton: piss off everyone in the world simultaneously, belligerently assuming you’re the only place in the world with a given commodity. Meanwhile, other nations will fill in the gap you left behind and leave you in the dust.
Republicans are the children who couldn’t fit a square peg in a round hole, threw a temper tantrum, and broke the toy trying to shove that square peg in a round hole over and over.