From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: exit
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:20:47 GMT

In article <tecump.724621503@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:

>Do you really think the European nations would intervene under any 
>circumstances unless they were absolutely sure they could win.

Yes, I do. Witness the Crimean War, four years earlier. In broader historical
scope, think of the US in Vietnam.
On the other hand, I think that if the European powers intervened with large
forces, they plus the Confederacy would have been reasonably certain of
victory.

> Do you
>not think britain had enough to do with all her colonies?  Do you think
>france wouldve jumped in without British help, and, if so, what could
>france do?

Again, Britain found time to get involved in Crimea. Also at this point in
time, Britain's colonies are relatively quiet and aren't giving her much
trouble. France would not have gone in without British naval help, but I think
the British had that to spare. I don't think they needed British land forces
as long as the Russian army was in on the deal, which it would presumably
have been.

>This "intervention" would give lincoln more cause to issue is Emancipation
>Proclamation, and wouldnt that put egg on the Crowns' faces.  Perhaps it
>would be seen as a deperated attempt by a desperate man.

I think it would have been disregarded by the powers that be, although it
would probably have made the war more unpopular back in Europe. Remember that
France and Russia aren't democracies and popular opinion isn't too important
there.

>However, soon,
>Federal ironclads would be steaming out of the drydocks.  the largest
>army ever assembled in the modern western world would be on the march, now
>, not only fighting for the Union, but for its survival as well.

Napoleon's Grand Armee was larger, and I believe the Russian army opposed to
him was larger also. Also, the purpose of the Europeans would not be to
threaten the North but to keep them from attacking the South. I think the
"let erring sisters go in peace" faction would have received the most
benefit from an intervention. Also, both the British and French navies had
ironclads at this point also (although I understand the seaworthiness
problems someone raised earlier).
>
>As for the Russians, eh. their big fleet they sent to NY harbor was "hiding"
>from the British was it not?  The Czar extended a hand of friendship, but
>he was really looking for help, himself.

True, but I don't know if I see the relevance of this.
>
>Breaking the blockade would set a bad precedent for England, a country who
>had upheld in "maritime" rights, and had and would use the blockade 
>"legally".

I disagree with this, the British had been impressing American seaman into
the Royal Navy in 1812, starting a war with the US. The flagrant violation
of the "rights" of neutral shipping by the British had been a sticking point
between the US and Britain for a long time. I don't think breaking the US
blockade would've hurt Britain's international reputation.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!