Why didn't the British attack america during the american

>>957299
They had good relations with the Confederacy. If they attacked from Canada things would have gotten interesting desu. I wonder if the Confederacy would have accepted British entry into the war

>>957299

Well, Britain was going to ally with the south but I seem to recall Russia being like "IF ANYONE DOES ANYTHING TO HELP THEM I WILL FUCK YOU UP"

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but for some reason that is coming to mind.

File: rare john.jpg (66KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1280x720px

>>957299
On which side? for the Confeds who had a shit load of cheap cotton to sell to the industrial powerhouse of the world, or for the Union who were abolishing the very thing they'd spent the last 50 years destroying?

>>957321
A good alternate history book would be Britain going in for the confederacy and russia for the union.
That would have changed some shit for sure

>>957340

I think it would be even more interesting if the French went for the Union and continued their wars against the English who sided with the south.

>>957299
No casus belli. Europeans couldn't just attack other white people willy-nilly in the 19th century.

What for? The land disputes were long settled.

>>957299
Why would they want to? Canada isn't exactly populated and the Northeast was very populated. Say they win and occupy a good chunk of America.

You think fighting guerrillas during the Revolutionary War was hard? Woo boy you better get ready.

There was just no real incentive to do so, the US wasn't really enough of a threat to their interests to justify intervening solely to weaken the US.

>>957320
>They had good relations with the Confederacy.
only because of the cotton
>>958023
>>957733
>>957752
>>957321
these

>>957321
>Russia being like "IF ANYONE DOES ANYTHING TO HELP THEM I WILL FUCK YOU UP"
Why did Russia care?

>>958032
Visceral hate for Britain. Great Game and all that jazz.

>>958023
>You think fighting guerrillas during the Revolutionary War was hard?
The only reason the Americans stood a chance was because of the French cockblocking British ships. If it wasn't for that then the revolution would have been put down the same way the Whiskey rebellion was.

>>957320
>I wonder if the Confederacy would have accepted British entry into the war
They certainly accepted their Enfield rifles.

The bigger picture which Lincoln saw to a degree was not just Britain, but any number of European nations carving up the US should had they remained divided.

Fortunately none of that occured, and we can savor ancient confederate butthurt to this day.

>>958048
A fair point but moot by the time of the Civil War, naval supremacy was not going to win the war for Britain then.

File: imrs.php.jpg (377KB, 1484x947px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1484x947px

>>957299
Czar Alexander threatened war on any nation who attacked US

>>958256

I heard Czar Alexander II was very good friends with good ol' Abe Lincoln.

Why doesn't France invade Uruguay?

Are they stupid?

Any European power trying to enter the war would have just seen all their new world holdings getting fucked over.

>>958032
They wanted their own subjects to not get any ideas, so they wanted the confederacy to fail hard.

>>958032
They were undertaking their own great emancipation scheme at the time.

>>958280
Russia had no holdings in the new world.

>Confederate cotton being relevant when India exists

Ah yes, very impressive

Getting directly involved in the conflict could have easily lead to general war back in Europe, something the major powers were avoiding at all costs in the 19th century

File: 1860-russian-america.jpg (198KB, 732x831px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 732x831px

>>958321
Then what was Alaska?

>>957299
France tried, but the french army took Mexico too late (cinco de mayo) and the CSA lost Louisiana too soon (main trade port) also the brits backed off the enterprise, mostly because they knew a third invasion of Canada by the USA would be simple inevitable also this >>958256

>>957299

Being that the war was planned and financed on both sides by European interests (Jesuits) in order to divide the nation and crush Protestantism, I find this to be an interesting thread.

Protip: they did the same stuff In ww1 and 2. They keep doing the same stuff but nobody see's.

>>960898
>muh Jesuits

>>957299
Britain had an abysmal record fighting land wars in America

>>960918

$0.02 has been credited to your account.

>>957299
Aside from the Russians which have already been mentioned, the Unions diplomatic game was on point compared to the CIA. When the emancipation proclamation came out, it confirmed what every relevant power already thought; the confederates were fighting to preserve the (extremely unpopular) institution of slavery

They were begrudgingly allied with the confederacy due to cotton trade for uniforms and were in the process of building 3 ships as gifts
But due to ethnic make up of America even though it's pre 1900, it could easily spiral out into ww1
But also confederates made slavery the main reason for succession rather than a defendable position such as because the tyranny of the north could never be overcome

>>957299

Because they could get cotton from India.

Didn't Britain find cotton somewhere else?

File: Indian cotton.jpg (130KB, 812x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 812x600px

>>957299
>Why didn't the British attack america during the american civil war?

>>957299

Because contrary to popular belief, the British don't give a shit about America or about taking it back.

File: 1455386179700.jpg (240KB, 1656x1009px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1656x1009px

>>958023

>You think fighting guerrillas during the Revolutionary War was hard?
>he thinks that the American Revolution was fought by amateurs taking potshots from the trees