I'm very disappointed...

[unmerged(26770)]

There was a little war called the war of 1812. In this war the UK was attacked by the US. No side made any significant gains however it cemented the independence of the US. Just outside of New Orleans Stonewall Jackson humiliated the British army. When the civil war started British members of the parliament wanted to provide help for the Confederacy. They wanted to attack American ships that blockaded the coast and provide the Confederacy with much needed artillery and ammunition. Even though this did not happen, they could have very well done it, but they were still consolidating their empire, fighting boxers in china and paying of debt. In the world of politics rulers dont care much what type of country they attack. For them it is rather more important how to benefit from such attack.
PS. The UK supplied the confederacy with blockade runners

 

[unmerged(18767)]

There was a little war called the war of 1812. In this war the UK was attacked by the US. No side made any significant gains however it cemented the independence of the US. Just outside of New Orleans Stonewall Jackson humiliated the British army. When the civil war started British members of the parliament wanted to provide help for the Confederacy. They wanted to attack American ships that blockaded the coast and provide the Confederacy with much needed artillery and ammunition. Even though this did not happen, they could have very well done it, but they were still consolidating their empire, fighting boxers in china and paying of debt. In the world of politics rulers dont care much what type of country they attack. For them it is rather more important how to benefit from such attack.
PS. The UK supplied the confederacy with blockade runners

Absolutely true, UK was thinking of joining but couldn't because of the slavery issue. In fact many other nations would have supported CSA if it wasn't for the slavery. In my opinion CSA should have abolished slavery as soon as they seceded. Then they had achance of winning

 

[Varyar]

In my opinion CSA should have abolished slavery as soon as they seceded. Then they had achance of winning

If the south had been willing to abolish slavery then there would have been no civil war to begin with...

 

[unmerged(26770)]

The CSA could not have abolished the slavery after they secceded, since their economy was based on it. Thats what the war started for. However people dont do what they preach. My point is that even though slavery was abolished throughout Europe, the overseas colonies still treated native inhabitants as slaves and some of the richer europeans still unofficially owned slaves. My argument is that first of all if the south had received help from Europe and promised to later abolish slavery they would have succeded in what they were doing. If the South did not abolish it, then they would have faced massive embargoes. BTW lets get realistic here. The American union would have survived anyway. Even after a temporary seccesion, there would have been a reunification. Truthfully after African Americans were emancipated, they were not treated nicely by either North or South. When people say yeah Europe did not intervene, because they did not like slavery is like saying Germany lost WW2 because Hitler did not take over the UK. Hitler did not take over the UK not because he was stupid, but because he knew he couldnt. The Wermacht couldnt just swim accross the channel. The European did not intervene because they were too busy with their own mess. Not because they cared so much about humane treatement.

 

[unmerged(23946)]

You lost one battle as the hardest nation in the hardest campaign of the game on your second day of owning vicky and you got pissed because you lost? The C.S.A. isn't hopeless anyway, you just have to go bankrupt if you want to beat the U.S.A. in the first war.

 

[Thistletooth]

Even after the War of 1812, there wasn't that much animosity between the US and the UK; at least not much more than there was between the UK and any of the other European countries. The most contentious issue, the border with Canada and the Northwest Question (you know, "54' 40 or Fight"?), had already been settled in the 40's. As with the period between the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, most Britains (including most in Parliament) were more interested in keeping on friendly terms with the US, seeing them more valuable as a trading partner than as a potential conquest.

Even as far back as the months leading up to the American Revolutionary Wars, there was a sizable minority in Parliament who wanted to simply let them go, as they believed a war, followed by an occupation, would cost too much as compared to a comfortable trading relationship. Britain knew even then that occupation of an unwilling populace oftentimes just isn't worth the price. I have read nothing that suggests that Britain was still smarting after the Battle of New Orleans, especially since the battle really decided nothing major other than Andrew Jackson's career.

The only reason that Britain would have ever joined in the U.S. Civil War to help out the Confederacy was in order to safeguard the cotton supply that was crucial to the British textile industry (think of several fabric and regular/luxury clothes factories). Many were agitating for intervention. And yes, the policy of slavery, not to mention the fact that many believed the war was all about slavery, instead of state versus federal rights, the political balance in Congress, and slavery (the abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic had a hand in this), did help to lose the South a lot of sympathy.

But to me, the single greatest reason why Britain didn't become involved, even over the demands of their textile industry, was that they were able to quickly shift their primary source of cotton production to India. Once their cotton supply was secure, and this only took a couple of years, the textile industry was safe again, and intervention wasn't necessary.

 

[Lamprey]

As far as difficulty goes, EU2/HoI are to Vicky what a kid's bike with training wheels is to a motorcycle. And, like everyone said, the ACW as the south is just about the toughest thing to play in Vicky (I'm not including small uncivilized Asian/Afridan minors because they're just hopeless without exploiting the system ).

A few things that would've helped ya as the south (not necessarily to win the war, but maybe afew battles) had you started with something easier and learned the game properly:

- Making more troops. You said you couldn't make more; you didn't know you can buy small arms/canned food, promote pops to soldiers, increase military funding.
- Winning battles. Terrain affects combat, so does envelopment/encirclement and entrenchments. Let the north take a few provinces while you entrench further south.
- Budget: you're *supposed* to tax at 50%, heck, to win as the CSA you need to tax even higher. Going into the red in Vicky is allowed, often desired. This isn't EU2.

There are many other things you should know before tackling a country as difficult as the CSA. Learn them with an easy one (Belgium Brazil, Prussia) before diving into the deep water.

 

[unmerged(34826)]

Even as far back as the months leading up to the American Revolutionary Wars, there was a sizable minority in Parliament who wanted to simply let them go, as they believed a war, followed by an occupation, would cost too much as compared to a comfortable trading relationship. Britain knew even then that occupation of an unwilling populace oftentimes just isn't worth the price. I have read nothing that suggests that Britain was still smarting after the Battle of New Orleans, especially since the battle really decided nothing major other than Andrew Jackson's career.

-Wait a moment here, yes, the battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty of Ghent, BUT, had the British won, they would have anulled, the treaty and continue with the war in order to get a treaty favorable to them.

But to me, the single greatest reason why Britain didn't become involved, even over the demands of their textile industry, was that they were able to quickly shift their primary source of cotton production to India. Once their cotton supply was secure, and this only took a couple of years, the textile industry was safe again, and intervention wasn't necessary.

-This is an excellent point, once the British secures their cotton, they wanted nothing elso to do with the Confederacy.

 

[unmerged(26770)]

However while the war was going on Britain had sent blockade runners with supplies to the south and had shared intelligence with them. If that did not show their willingless to at least help the Confederacy, then I dont know what else would.
BTW there was a sizable group in the Parliament that wanted a total british blockade of American coast. For whatever reason it just doesnt look good for the world's superpower to lose twice to a newly formed state.
There were differences of opinion back then and the Pro-American politicians won. However I think that if the CSA wins the first war in Vicky 2 things need to happen.
1) an event needs to trigger asking whether the south would like to emancipate slavery.
2) The CSA needs to ask for foreign recognition and see who will answer the call.(in reality i think that of the south have won, they would have gotten many allies and much recongnition)
PS About the Treaty Of Ghent, the news of which supposedly did not arrive to the British on time, they would have canceled the treaty and maybe demanded teritorial seccesions. There were many merchants in New England who were friendly with the UK and did not want the war of 1812 in the 1st place

 

[Thistletooth]

However while the war was going on Britain had sent blockade runners with supplies to the south and had shared intelligence with them. If that did not show their willingless to at least help the Confederacy, then I dont know what else would.

Many in Britain did sympathize with the South, especially early on, and would have liked to have seen them survive the war. That doesn't mean that the government was going to enter the war and commit the Royal Navy and Army to an offensive war against a large, modern power on the other side of the ocean. Sending supplies (i.e. arms smuggling) or intel (spies, advisors) is easy, cheap, and deniable.

BTW there was a sizable group in the Parliament that wanted a total british blockade of American coast.

When? After 1812, or in 1861?

For whatever reason it just doesnt look good for the world's superpower to lose twice to a newly formed state.

Well, for the record, the War of 1812 was a draw. And if anything, it was a technical victory for the British (or the Canadians too, if you choose to see it that way), since the Americans were the more aggressive of the two. Not to mention that, at the time, the British were distracted by some little Corsican guy who was giving the Continent a bit of a headache.

It was a moral victory for the US, though, since, as mentioned above, it helped to re-affirm the nation's independence (though in a very silly and ignorant way, if you ask this American), and perhaps more accurately, helped to unify its citizens and establish a more "national" identity. But on the battlefield...:

- Complete failure to seize Canada (a major aim)
- Burning of Washington and British seizure of other coastal cities
- Failure to defeat the British, even on more-or-less equal terms (European distractions)
- Small naval victories only possible due to the fact that the massive Royal Navy was forced to fight the American Navy one-on-one, due, once again, to European distractions (that said, the US had some amazing ships, just not enough of them to hold a candle to the entire Royal Navy, or even the pre-Trafalgar Spanish, probably)

...I wouldn't consider it such a spiffy war.

There were many merchants in New England who were friendly with the UK and did not want the war of 1812 in the 1st place

Yes, "Mr. Madison's War" wasn't that popular, now was it? I'll bet many of the New England and Mid-Atlantic merchants were quite happy with peaceful relations with the British. Promotes good trade, it does.

PS About the Treaty Of Ghent, the news of which supposedly did not arrive to the British on time, they would have canceled the treaty and maybe demanded teritorial seccesions.

-Wait a moment here, yes, the battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty of Ghent, BUT, had the British won, they would have anulled, the treaty and continue with the war in order to get a treaty favorable to them.

Interesting. Do you have any sources? This would be news to me.

 

[unmerged(22575)]

The fact of the matter...

With out getting to much into it, was that by September 1862 the CSA was one victory on Northern soil away from getting UK recognition... for a number of reasons, during that summer Prime Minister Palmerston, after the battle of second Manasas wrote his foreign secretary, "the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Gov't, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates".

The British had a vested interest in getting Confederate cotton off of the wharves and into its textile mills.

After the battle of Sharpsburg, Lincoln emancipated the slaves, and it was the first "loss" for the army of Northern Virginia, which caused Palmerston to hold off on recognition writing to his foreign secretary (Russel I believe) "The whole matter is full of difficulty and can only be cleared up by some more decided events between the contending armies".

Incidentally, the reason the emancipation proclamation followed the battle of Sharpsburg, was that the Lincoln administration wan't to blunt the possibility of British recognition, and had been waiting for a Union victory to do so. He wanted to issue the proclamation earlier, but felt that the world would consider it pathetic and see it for what it was, namely an attempt by the United States to influence British foreign policy.

AND, I don't want to get into it, but saying the American War Between The States was solely about slavery, is a gross simplification.

-Scott

 

[unmerged(24218)]

Numerous cabinet memoranda of the time show that the UK Liberal Government realized that supporting the CSA would greatly raise CON/MIL (to use Vicky terms ) among industrial workers. In fact, textile workers were some of the most "pro-Union" even though you might expect they would have supported the chief supplier of cotton.

It's also not widely remembered that the USA was a key supplier of grain to England at that time, another factor that certainly influenced UK neutrality.

Proof?

 

[unmerged(24218)]

If you make those events, and you should probably bring this up in the VIP area, you need to also allow for the following:

1) Emancipation in the South should raise MIL significantly for Southern Laborers and Farmers AND you should bring in a strong possibility of revolt by former slaves. RGO production would have to fall sharply, because no way Uncle Tom is going to stay on the farm...

2) Recognition does not mean alliance -- I suspect military intervention would still be an extraordinary event.

3) You would need to factor in a number of retaliatory options for the USA.

4) You would need to factor in greater CON/MIL for UK and French laborers, none of whom were sympathetic to the South (and no, I don't think opportunistic emancipation would quite cure that).

5) You would need to increase the factionism in CSA politics.

Actually, I don't think Vicky's political program is robust enough to handle all this... nevertheless, when you talk about European recognition, you shouldn't forget that the economic, POP, and political consequences are greater than the military ones.

However I think that if the CSA wins the first war in Vicky 2 things need to happen.
1) an event needs to trigger asking whether the south would like to emancipate slavery.
2) The CSA needs to ask for foreign recognition and see who will answer the call.(in reality i think that of the south have won, they would have gotten many allies and much recongnition)

 

[Aragos]

Guys,
On the VIP USA thread, we went through all this months ago. Basically, vanilla Vicky is broken when it comes to the ACW. That is why the majority of us on the VIP USA team got involved in the first place. Not saying that winning the war as the CSA is any easier, but there is a process by which ENG and/or FRA can join the war, and a more realistic/historical event chain that can lead to a better chance for the CSA to survive. So give it a try if you want to see something different than a slave holding USA (never end the war before Lincoln's second election and his assassination! in vanilla Vicky-land that is what it takes for the end of slavery).

 

[Aragos]

If you make those events, and you should probably bring this up in the VIP area, you need to also allow for the following:

1) Emancipation in the South should raise MIL significantly for Southern Laborers and Farmers AND you should bring in a strong possibility of revolt by former slaves. RGO production would have to fall sharply, because no way Uncle Tom is going to stay on the farm...

2) Recognition does not mean alliance -- I suspect military intervention would still be an extraordinary event.

3) You would need to factor in a number of retaliatory options for the USA.

4) You would need to factor in greater CON/MIL for UK and French laborers, none of whom were sympathetic to the South (and no, I don't think opportunistic emancipation would quite cure that).

5) You would need to increase the factionism in CSA politics.

Actually, I don't think Vicky's political program is robust enough to handle all this... nevertheless, when you talk about European recognition, you shouldn't forget that the economic, POP, and political consequences are greater than the military ones.

Great ideas Francis, the majority of which are in VIP. For example, if the CSA decides to 'free the slaves' the bulk of the South breaks out in revolts (nearly all the aristocrats will revolt; a big hit in MIL and CON, and a change of government to presidential dicatorship (how else could Davis have done this--the CSA Congress would have never allowed it to happen through the legislative process).

There are also ways that he CSA can end slavery gradually if they win the ACW (starting in the 1880-1890 timeframe), and there is a way to end slavery without a Civil War (if you can keep the Union together until 1880).

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

There was a little war called the war of 1812. In this war the UK was attacked by the US. No side made any significant gains however it cemented the independence of the US. Just outside of New Orleans Stonewall Jackson humiliated the British army.

The war was over by this point- and it was hardly a humiliation.

First, we'd already burnt Washington D.C., and second, the British regulars at New Orleans never broke, IIRC. Just took massive losses in repeatedly assaulting a fortified position. Humiliation lies is routing, not dying.

When the civil war started British members of the parliament wanted to provide help for the Confederacy.

There's a number of things which influenced British decision making.

First off, British business interests (which meant British parliament in turn) wanted to help the South to secure their cotton supplies. However, the Confederate stockpiling of Cotton in the first year of the war turned them off.

Second, the British electorate was violently abolitionist. Hence no MP would dare advocating supporting a slave state. If the South abolished slavery, Britain would be more favourable to the South, probably to the extent of recognising their independence.

Third, any war with the US- even alongside the Confederacy- would have been HUGELY expensive. Britain was very strong in this period, but did NOT like expensive foriegn wars.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

If the south had been willing to abolish slavery then there would have been no civil war to begin with...

Not so. There were elements in the Confederacy immediately after secession who advocated freeing the slaves in order to knock the abolitionist basis out from under the Northern War effort.

Had the South freed the slaves, it's likely they could have won the war one way or another. Whether they could have done so, given the opposition from so many landowners, is a problematic point. But the civil war certainly would have happened anyway. Slavery was not the only issue on which the Confederates differed from Lincoln's position.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

Even after the War of 1812, there wasn't that much animosity between the US and the UK;

Sort of. The two hated each others guts, at least through to late 19th century. But Britain's exports to the US were a big chunk of her economy. It's true that trade leads to good relations.

Even as far back as the months leading up to the American Revolutionary Wars, there was a sizable minority in Parliament who wanted to simply let them go,

At this time "letting them go" would have meant devolved government in the colonies. There would have been no "United States". This should have happened- alas, it didn't.

But to me, the single greatest reason why Britain didn't become involved, even over the demands of their textile industry, was that they were able to quickly shift their primary source of cotton production to India.

Yeah. Combine this with the early Confederate stockpiling of cotton and it becomes a factor.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

-Wait a moment here, yes, the battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty of Ghent, BUT, had the British won, they would have anulled, the treaty and continue with the war in order to get a treaty favorable to them.

Not really. The reasons of the war- trade sanctions and impressment of American sailors for the Napoleonic Wars- had ceased to apply by 1814. That's why the war ended when it did.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

If you make those events, and you should probably bring this up in the VIP area, you need to also allow for the following:

1) Emancipation in the South should raise MIL significantly for Southern Laborers and Farmers

Aristocrats. Don't forget Aristocrats.

AND you should bring in a strong possibility of revolt by former slaves. RGO production would have to fall sharply, because no way Uncle Tom is going to stay on the farm...

What else is he going to do? You could have an event to make the blacks migrate- I believe this is possible. See the Irish famine events.

2) Recognition does not mean alliance -- I suspect military intervention would still be an extraordinary event.

Recognition would increase CSA prestige. Maybe give the USA badboy as they are now viewed as fighting an independent nation. British recognition might well lead to a string of recognitions in Europe.

3) You would need to factor in a number of retaliatory options for the USA.

I don't think the US would fight Britain after recognition only. It would destroy relations, though.

4) You would need to factor in greater CON/MIL for UK and French laborers, none of whom were sympathetic to the South (and no, I don't think opportunistic emancipation would quite cure that).

More like clerks and craftsmen. If the South became a free state this wouldn't happen.