Whom would the UN have supported during the American Civil War?

[djinteractive]

I had been thinking of this question for a few days now after the resolution for the No Fly Zone in Libya but hadn’t really asked about it and after Reading Whom would the UN have supported during the American Revolution? by Gedd

If there were a global body like the UN with their current policies. Who would they side with.

I would tend to say North because of the slavery angle on it war and Human Rights.

But at that time it was a different world. The US was a smallish speck in international affairs compared with now many of the states were still parts of territories back then.

If there were a UN led by global powers of the time what do you believe they would do about this civil uprising.

Specifically I am asking about the ideals that this UN would do rather than “Nothing because they couldn’t fight a global war/they wouldn’t have cared” Would a UN with, at that time, the worlds greatest powers agreed enough to pass a resolution like they did for Libya? Would it have been viewed as rebels vs the state/state vs the rebels? What would they have done? Naval blockade?

Other questions welcome. I just like playing alternate time lines but there are some interesting parallels.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

Is that the companion thread to this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=601564 ?

Are you talking about the Civil War or the American Revolution (already a thread on for the latter)?

[John_Mace]

@Capitaine_Zombie

Is that the companion thread to this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=601564 ?

Did you read the first sentence in the OP?

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@John_Mace

Did you read the first sentence in the OP?

No, I find reading posts impairs my creativity.

[John_Mace]

@Capitaine_Zombie

No, I find reading posts impairs my creativity.

Oh, you’re such a free spirit, CZ!

[carnivorousplant]

Given that slavery was illegal in England, probably the North.

[John_Mace]

We know what the 2 great powers did (they stayed neutral), so I don’t see how it would have played out any differently if there was some council of other powers involved.

[Gedd]

@djinteractive

But at that time it was a different world. The US was a smallish speck in international affairs compared with now many of the states were still parts of territories back then.

Well this was a smallish speck that had already beat Great Britain at war twice.

You have a good point with the “crimes against humanity” part though. Most (or at least a good chunck) of the major powers had already done away with slavery, specificaly Great Britain, Spain, France, the Ottoman Empire, actually most of Europe and the Americas.

Also, IIRC, both France and England were keeping an eye on things and (feel free to correct me) ready to get involved.

[Gedd]

@Gedd

Also, IIRC, both France and England were keeping an eye on things and (feel free to correct me) ready to get involved.

Just need to correct myself.

It seems both England and France had economic interests, but decided to stay out of it. Lincoln made it clear that recognition of the Confederacy would lead to war, and neither wanted to be on the loser’s side at the end of it.

[carnivorousplant]

@Gedd

Well this was a smallish speck that had already beat Great Britain at war twice.

Had been lucky enough to go to war with Great Britain when she was at war with most of Europe.

[Candyman74]

@Gedd

Well this was a smallish speck that had already beat Great Britain at war twice. :).

Yup, it felt well and truly conquered.

Kinda like Vietnam beat the USA.

[Martin_Hyde]

The UN would have done nothing. Much as the major powers of the day did nothing.

Given the situation back then, if France had decided to press for a resolution, the UK would have vetoed it and vice versa. The two never would be of the same mind about intervention and we would have to assume UK/France would be the equivalent of “permanent security council” members.

[VarlosZ]

@John_Mace

We know what the 2 great powers did (they stayed neutral), so I don’t see how it would have played out any differently if there was some council of other powers involved.

Though they did in fact stay neutral, they came tolerably close to recognizing the CSA and intervening. France, in fact, *wanted *to intervene, but was unwilling to do so without the English, who were more reticent.

So, of the two, I would assume that a hypothetical 19th Century U.N. would favor the South (which is not to say that anything would come of it).

[Frylock]

@VarlosZ

Though they did in fact stay neutral, they came tolerably close to recognizing the CSA and intervening. France, in fact, *wanted *to intervene, but was unwilling to do so without the English, who were more reticent.

So, of the two, I would assume that a hypothetical 19th Century U.N. would favor the South (which is not to say that anything would come of it).

Did people want to recognize the CSA basically to keep North America divided?

[Frank]

@Gedd

Well this was a smallish speck that had already beat Great Britain at war twice.

Once. The war of 1814 was more or less a draw. Less, probably, from the U.S. point of view, as we failed to take Canada. More, probably, from the U.S. point of view as we succeeded in asserting that Britain was not the boss of us.

[VarlosZ]

@Frylock

Did people want to recognize the CSA basically to keep North America divided?

Probably, as well as for other strategic reasons (CSA was a more important trade partner, so ending the war and therefore the blockade was good business).

[carnivorousplant]

@Frank

Once. The war of 1814 was more or less a draw. Less, probably, from the U.S. point of view, as we failed to take Canada. More, probably, from the U.S. point of view as we succeeded in asserting that Britain was not the boss of us.

I can’t find the Alfred Mahan quote, but it more or less goes, “The United States had the misfortune to declare war on Great Britain just before Napoleon abdicated, and had to settle for the best terms it could find.”

[Dissonance]

@Frylock

Did people want to recognize the CSA basically to keep North America divided?

France was under the rule of Napoleon III at the time, who had all of the ambition but none of the skill of his uncle. France had intervened in Mexico when Mexico defaulted on its loans. They were initially supported by Britain and Spain until France’s actual intentions of invading Mexico became clear, from wiki:

Napoleon III of France was the instigator. His foreign policy was based on a commitment to free trade. For him, a friendly government in Mexico provided an opportunity to expand free trade by ensuring European access to important markets, and preventing monopoly by the United States. Napoleon also needed the silver that could be mined in Mexico to finance his empire. Napoleon built a coalition with Spain and Britain at a time the U.S. was engaged in a full-scale civil war. The U.S. protested but could not reverse the invasion until its civil war was over in 1865.[6]

The three powers signed the Treaty of London on October 31, to unite their efforts to receive payments from Mexico. On 8 December the Spanish fleet and troops from Spanish-controlled Cuba arrived at Mexico’s main Gulf port, Veracruz. When the British and Spanish discovered that the French planned to invade Mexico, they withdrew.

Most of the French desire to support the CSA came from this.

[MOIDALIZE]

No Blood For Cotton

[Little_Nemo]

@Martin_Hyde

The UN would have done nothing. Much as the major powers of the day did nothing.

Given the situation back then, if France had decided to press for a resolution, the UK would have vetoed it and vice versa. The two never would be of the same mind about intervention and we would have to assume UK/France would be the equivalent of “permanent security council” members.

No, it was a period when France and the United Kingdom were generally working together. They were essentially the two main status quo powers at that point so they had common interests.