Re: Just how big a threat was French or British intervention anyway?
- Having read the entire thread up till now:
1) I would say it's relevant enough, if Lincoln thought Stone's River
essential to avoiding foreign recognition; and if it was possible New
Orleans would have been retaken by the Confederacy, etc.
2) I don't have too much to add except a question: Would foreign
recognition have automatically meant foreign INTERVENTION? It seems to
me that it is often automatically assumed that the former would bring
the latter. Is there some reason to believe this?
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "aot1952" <wakefield1952@m...> wrote:
> With the approach of the end of the year , I have been re-reading
> some material on the Battle of Stone's River (Murfreesboro). As most
> here know, Lincoln considered Rosecrans year ending victory at this
> battle critically important. As I understand it Lincoln held this
> belief because: of the defeats that had occurred in other threatres
> earlier in the month (Chicksaw Bluffs, Holly Springs, and
> Fredricksburg; the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation;
> sinking Northern war effort morale; and the victory's supposed
> chilling effect upon British evaluation of possible diplomatic
> recognition of the Confederacy.
> My question to the group is just how decisive they think British and
> French recognition would have been to the ultimate outcome of the
> I certainly understand that such recognition would have probably
> meant a radical reversal of the increasingly effective Union
> blockade. However, I think that it is now generally throught that
> internal distribution was just about as great a problem to the
> Southern war effort as the actual blockage of European war materials
> from entering Southern ports. I mean so what if British enfields are
> stacked high on the docks of Mobile if they can not be delivered to
> the trenchs in North Virginia?
> I guess what I am asking is did the French and British really have
> the land forces necessary to place in North America to reverse the
> advance of Union forces? As I understand it British military
> at the time was to fight its various Victorian Wars with small
> contigents of highly trained British regulars augumented with
> colonial militia. Would the resulting 25,000 British /Canadian
> operating out of say Quebec really have been that big of a problem
> for the Union war effort? I am no expert on this but as I understand
> it France had placed about 10,000 troops in Mexico to try and prop
> Maximillan. Did France really have enough of a standing Army to
> significantly increase this troop commitment to the point that a
> French incursion into the American South West could become a
> I just can not see Lincoln being cowed by a mere declaration of
> recognition by either the British, French or both. Lincoln and his
> government was going to fight to preserve the Union and I do not
> think it would have mattered alot whether they had to fight
> Southerns, British, and/or French to do it.
> Once again I certainly may be missing something here... but is the
> whole issue of the realistic impact of possible foreign recognition
> real one or is it just another chapter of the 'lost cause' myth? I
> would be interested in reading this august body's thoughts on this
> Hey it beats watching the WeedEater.com Bowl!!!!!!!
> Once again I may be all wet-