Indeed, but they were fighting for reasons that were much closer to home. The French and British didn't want the Russians to get too much influence in the Middle East (sound familiar doesn't it...). The Brits in particular were worried about overland Russian expansion threatening their the jewel of India. Plus they had a local ally, Turkey, that was more or less holding the line. (Plus the whole thing turned into a bloody mess, which kinda turned the public off on those sorts of adventures.)tripax wrote: together France and the UK sent 500,000 to Crimea
Gray Fox wrote: armed with modern breech-loading rifles and artillery versus a Union army as green as a field of grass. They would stage in eastern Canada and then invade parts of the Northeast.
pgr wrote:Breech loaders? I didn't believe the British army had those until 1866 at the soonest. As for breech loading cannons, they invented Witworth rifled cannons, but my understanding was that the breech was quite tricky and weak....nothing like those french 75s of 40 years later
pgr wrote:Welcome to the Forum James. I think you are correct in thinking that the only way the South wins is if the North gives up. I would suggest there were only two moments where that was truly possible: The Congressional Elections of 1862 and the Presidential Election of 1864. Anti-war Democrats spent most of the War calling for a negotiated in to the war. Everyone talks about how Lincoln's re-election was in doubt in the Summer of 64, but people tend to forget that the Republicans suffered big losses in 1862, and lost their absolute majority in the House. The only thing that kept the War going were the 25 "War Democrats" that caucused with the Republicans and gave Lincoln a majority. The anti-war Democrats ran most strongly in the in the Mid-West, and I think a case can be made that if Bragg's Invasion of Kentucky, Lee's Invasion of Maryland or some other event (say the attempt to capture New Orleans going badly) had happened differently, then anti-war democrats could have gained control of Congress, and forced an end to the war...
James W. Starnes wrote:Thank you for the welcome, and I think you definitely brought out the point I was trying to make!
Durk wrote:To add my two cents worth, North and South, leaders were infatuated with the Napoleonic notion of the destruction of the opposing army.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests