Foreign Involvement in Civil Wars

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for foreign powers to support one of the sides in a civil war?

US in Vietnam?
French in American Revolution?
Cortez in Mexico?

EDIT - USA and Iran/Iraq war is similar.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Under what circumstances is it acceptable for foreign powers to support one of the sides in a civil war?

US in Vietnam?
French in American Revolution?
Cortez in Mexico?

I have been studying the American Civil War recently and I have been appalled to find out how close the U.K. (and France) came to intervening against the U.S. Appalled.

Originally posted by FMF
I have been studying the American Civil War recently and I have been appalled to find out how close the U.K. (and France) came to intervening against the U.S. Appalled.

What was their reasoning?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What was their reasoning?

The U.S.'s blockade of the Confederate States was messing with Britain's business interests (cotton, tobacco), or so they say.

Originally posted by FMF
I have been studying the American Civil War recently and I have been appalled to find out how close the U.K. (and France) came to intervening against the U.S. Appalled.

why appalled?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why appalled?

For one I don't think the U.K. should have taken sides in a civil war, regardless of commercial interests. Secondly, continuity of diplomatic relations surely required the U.K. to stick with the U.S., although it didn't require it to actively take the U.S.'s side. Thirdly, I think the U.K. was well placed to act as an honest broker of some kind, if necessary, so the idea that it would simply take sides for commercial reasons is appalling.

I suppose it's justifiable if the conflict threatens to spread across one's own borders.

Originally posted by FMF
I have been studying the American Civil War recently and I have been appalled to find out how close the U.K. (and France) came to intervening against the U.S. Appalled.

APPALLED !! Sit down and have a cup of tea old boy !
Another little snipe at the UK eh ?

Originally posted by phil3000
Another little snipe at the UK eh ?

For almost intervening against the U.S. in the American Civil War? Yes.

Originally posted by FMF
For one I don't think the U.K. should have taken sides in a civil war, regardless of commercial interests. Secondly, continuity of diplomatic relations surely required the U.K. to stick with the U.S., although it didn't require it to actively take the U.S.'s side. Thirdly, I think the U.K. was well placed to act as an honest broker of some kind, if necessary, so the idea that it would simply take sides for commercial reasons is appalling.

re relations with the US, it was only 50 years or so after the war of 1812. and i thot that countries often go to war for economic reasons, whatever their stated purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Blocking_international_intervention

Blocking international intervention

Main articles: Britain in the American Civil War and France in the American Civil War

The Confederacy's best hope was military intervention into the war by Britain and France against the Union.[140] The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William H. Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America (none ever did). In 1861, Southerners voluntarily embargoed cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to enter the war in order to get cotton. Cotton diplomacy proved a failure as Europe had a surplus of cotton, while the 1860–62 crop failures in Europe made the North's grain exports of critical importance. It was said that "King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton", as US grain went from a quarter of the British import trade to almost half.[141]

When Britain did face a cotton shortage, it was temporary, being replaced by increased cultivation in Egypt and India. Meanwhile, the war created employment for arms makers, iron workers, and British ships to transport weapons.[142]

Charles Francis Adams proved particularly adept as minister to Britain for the U.S. and Britain was reluctant to boldly challenge the blockade. The Confederacy purchased several warships from commercial ship builders in Britain. The most famous, the CSS Alabama, did considerable damage and led to serious postwar disputes. However, public opinion against slavery created a political liability for European politicians, especially in Britain. War loomed in late 1861 between the U.S. and Britain over the Trent Affair, involving the U.S. Navy's boarding of a British mail steamer to seize two Confederate diplomats. However, London and Washington were able to smooth over the problem after Lincoln released the two.

In 1862, the British considered mediation—though even such an offer would have risked war with the U.S. Lord Palmerston reportedly read Uncle Tom’s Cabin three times when deciding on this.[143] The Union victory in the Battle of Antietam caused them to delay this decision. The Emancipation Proclamation further reinforced the political liability of supporting the Confederacy. Despite sympathy for the Confederacy, France's own seizure of Mexico ultimately deterred them from war with the Union. Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for diplomatic recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_in_the_American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Civil_War