why did the south, during the civil war, fail to gain foreign intervention?

Answer 1

One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government. Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil. The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.

Southerners began the war effort confident that the cotton their plantations provided European textile manufacturers would naturally ally their governments to the Confederacy, especially Great Britain. After declaring succession, the North would declare a blockade on Southern ports. Any interruption of cotton supply would disrupt the British economy and reduce the workers to starvation, they thought. Britain would have to break the blockade and provoke a war with the North that would allow Confederates to solidify independence and gain international recognition.

When the Union did declare a blockade upon the rebel states in April 1861, however, it did not prompt the response expected from the Europeans. The blockade’s legal and political implications took on greater significance than its economic effects because it undermined Lincoln’s insistence that the war was merely an internal insurrection. A blockade was a weapon of war between sovereign states. In May, Britain responded to the blockade with a proclamation of neutrality, which the other European powers followed. This tacitly granted the Confederacy belligerent status, the right to contract loans and purchase supplies in neutral nations and to exercise belligerent rights on the high seas. The Union was greatly angered by European recognition of Southern belligerency, fearing that is was a first step toward diplomatic recognition, but as British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell said, “The question of belligerent rights is one, not of principle, but of fact.”

Sensitive to any further international recognition of the Confederates as statesmen rather than rebels, Secretary of State William H. Seward instructed Charles Francis Adams, Minister to England and the son of former Secretary of State and President John Quincy Adams, to warn the British not to “fraternize with our domestic enemy,” whether officially or unofficially, or risk an Anglo-American war. But the Union realized that Europe’s declarations of neutrality also constituted official acceptance of the blockade, a position with many long-standing implications. Although international law stated that a blockade must be “physically effective” to be legally binding on neutral powers, the definition was ambiguous. From before the War of 1812, the United States had insisted upon a strict definition in order to maintain trading rights as a neutral. Now, however, the United States was the belligerent and Britain the predominant neutral power. By officially respecting the Union blockade, even if it was not fully “physically effective,” Britain maintained a consistent position on belligerent rights. The U.S. reversal of its traditional position stressing neutral rights set the precedent that it would be obligated to respect the British argument in future naval issues.

God Bless You and Our Southern People.

Answer 2

because of the same reason that the French stayed out of the revolutionary war for so long. because they didn't want to back a loser. now if the south had won Gettysburg england would have sent troops to aid the south. but i wouldn't say the failed to gain aid all together. they had been getting money and weapons and even military advisor's from Britain and other country's just not army or navy help

Answer 3

They weren't allied with France or Britain and it replaced into in general by way of slaves. Had they freed the slaves then that's somewhat in all hazard that those 2 eu powers, alongside with others, might have brazenly sided with the South. Even previously the Emancipation replaced into issued there replaced into consistently a gamble of this happening regardless of slavery. the actual purpose of the Emancipation wasn't to unfastened the slaves because of the fact in case you look on the wording it purely freed those slaves in aspects in open insurrection against the federal government (ie. no longer the border stats that have been the slave preserving states of the North and not the climate of the South that have been under federal administration while the Emancipation went into bring about January, 1863, months after it replaced into issued in September 1862), aspects that have been effectively a separate u . s . in the process the conflict. the actual purpose replaced into to avert the eu powers from brazenly siding with the South by potential of making it look like he North replaced into struggling with to unfastened the slaves and the South replaced into disobeying the regulation of the land (even nevertheless the South replaced into effectively a separate u . s . in the process the conflict it replaced into technically nonetheless a factor of the rustic as there's a great distinction between affirming independence and particularly being self sufficient; that distinction potential that jointly as a rustic struggling with to make it rather is announcement of independence a certainty does not could desire to obey the regulations of its parent u . s . those regulations nonetheless practice and subsequently the infantrymen of the parent u . s . can effectively be considered as a police tension implementing the regulation). regardless of the Emancipation, had the South been able to win a significant offensive victory on Northern soil it replaced into somewhat in all hazard the eu international locations might have nonetheless brazenly sided with the South. regardless of the question of slavery Britain very almost entered the conflict early on. This replaced into owing to USN Captain Charles Wilkes ill-recommended removing of accomplice brokers John Slidell and James M. Mason from the British provider provider deliver Trent in November 1861. This experience, now everyday because of the fact the Trent Affair, led to such an outrage that the U. S. replaced into of the verge of having to combat Britain returned. It took an apology by potential of the Secretary of State and the launch of Slidell and Mason to diffuse the placement.

Answer 4

If other countries intervened it would appear that they condoned slavery. England had abolished it years before the US did.