"Economics of British intervention" Topic

Every so often we get someone with the enduring Southern fantasy that Britain would at least recognise the Confederacy if not outright intervene in the Civil War.

The biggest issue was, for the principle industrial power in the world, economics.

The following programme covers the Lancashire Cotton Famine, but also sets out the fact that as the major investor in the Northern economy Britain had much more to loose by entering the war than it could gain. Witness the response to the 'Trent Affair' if Wilkes actions did not provoke a war it is hard to imagine what would.

So if you've 45 minute to spare enjoy:

Lawrence Goldman
Director of the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London
Emma Griffin
Professor of History at the University of East Anglia
David Brown
Senior Lecturer in American Studies at University of Manchester

All under the direction of the incomparable Melvyn Bragg.

link

Any British intervention, would most likely needed a pre-war area of conflict. For the alternative history player, the Washington-Canada border could have been the focal point. Another could have been British support and sanctuary of native plains tribes.

Economics by itself would not have incited a war weary Britain.

The US had more to lose than to gain as well. That's why the Trent Affair fizzled out. The Fenian Brotherhood could certainly have seen opportunities in involving the US in a war with Britain. Planting evidence that the US would support Irish republicans in Ireland might have done the trick.