Why didn't the British invade during the American civil

Because God was on America's side.

Because we were too busy maintaining our massive empire to bother with you silly burgers.

Cause there were next to zero interest in conquer a bunch of people who just 80 years earlier made it obvious they didn't want to be ruled by a crown agian.

Cotton could be found else where and as for a footnote in the Americas they already had Canadia and the Bahamas.

>inb4 feinian raids

>Both confederates and union sides come to conclusion that they'd prefer each other over the fucking crown
>Renewed nationalism, civil war ended diplomatically, all war resources dedicated towards defense of major east coast cities
>Ship every last nigger to the british isles, whether they want them or not
>????
>PROFIT

Half way through the civil war the armies of both sides would BTFO of any english force they could get to the Americas. The British were also getting btfo everywhere else at this time.

>>2367436
It would be extremely costly and I doubt they could conquer the confederacy and definitely not the union.

File: 1468538401263.jpg (11KB, 200x235px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x235px

>>2367572
>56%

>>2367436
Because Russia would immidiately join the war on the US side, this topic has been beaten to death.

>>2367593
For Zhou

>>2367436
Because the great powers said they'd join the opposing side of the UK joined. Also the 13 colonies were wealthy in that they bought up so many goods rather than producing goods themselves.

>>2367913
Source?

>>2368368
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html

File: IMG_2855.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>2367938
Is there a problem?

>>2367436
What would be the justification?

>>2367560

Fine for literally decades following the civil war.

Why the fuck are you judging the 1860s by a collapse that happened in the 20th century?

Why don't you go around posting in literally any thread discussing countries that used to be major powers but floundered and ask that stupid question?

>>2368504
That was a nice read thanks.

File: 1477349445972.png (326KB, 389x750px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 389x750px

>>2367436
There were many points that Europe felt the need to intervene in the conflict, due to the unimaginable body count.

However, the CSA ambassador to Britain sucked and Lincoln warned that any intervention would result in a declaration of war.

Why go to war when you can do nothing with no consequences?

>>2367436
Yeah, let's send an expeditionary force all the way across the ocean to fight a large industrial country in a state of full military mobilization with hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened troops deploying advanced experimental weapons.

the british didn't have enough men to intervene and what they did have was tied up in bengal and india because it's only six years after the mutiny

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/863DAA.pdf

moreover, the ACW was a bloodbath the british didn't fucking want to get tied into. The European high societies cried over American youth getting sent to their death but hell over high water if their governments would intervene. They were quite too busy scheming against each other.

>>2367436
You playing to much GSG

They would have had to have stationed and supplied over half a million men across an ocean (which would have been one of the greatest military expenditures in the history of mankind to that point). To conquer a people and land that had both modern technology and clearly shown they had no interest in being part of the British Empire.

They could have down that or conquered most of the other 80% of the world, guess which one they picked.

>>2367436
Because Russia and Prussia backed the Union.