Best Possible Confederate Victory?

[Bexar]

Hello lads and lasses,


While perusing the board, I have come across a common theme: that what the Confederacy does, is able to do, and how long it, and the institution of slavery last all hinge on the manner in which the Confederacy receives independence. Now my question for the board is, in your opinion, when would be the best time for the Confederacy to win the war; that is, which way of winning would leave her at the strongest possible position externally and internally, or what win allows the Confederacy to survive, but weakens slavery enough to allow its speediest abolition.

What I am striving for a future timeline of mine is either a Confederacy that includes the Eleven states that seceded plus Arizona territory, or one that contains the only the eleven but where the Confederacy wins by creating CSCT regiments.

Please no ASB, scenarios

[Theodore Gladstone]

The best victory for the Confederacy would probably be one at least in the 1840s, if not earlier. At an earlier point in time, the Confederacy might even get more territory than what you say, and if there was a civil war, it would be far less punishing to the south.

[NothingNow]

Being allowed to leave (minus Key West and Fort Jefferson, and with the Mississippi being treated like the Dardanelles,) and not having the Union come down and slap their shit.
That's it.

[Bexar]

I'm sorry I didn't post this in the beginning, but I meant within the 1860s time frame.

[Elfwine]

What NothingNow said.

No CSCT - a Confederacy in a position to win the war will not raise them (and it has to be noted in all honesty that supplying them with uniforms, training, weapons, rations, and officers will be a near impossibility with the Confederacy's resources - not so much weapons, but only relatively - in 1864) - and no Arizona territory (The CSA is simply not going to be accepted as taking that territory).

[Snake Featherston]

The sole really good shot at a late war victory is Chattanooga. Have an accident happen to both Grant and Thomas and Bragg captures the entire Army of the Cumberland intact. He just has to sit there, and after capturing that army is also in a position to capture Burnside's IX Corps, in what would be his second major reclamation of CS territory. This puts a fatal operational loss on the Union army, and the CSA may well turn to black soldiers when the manpower crunch gets desperate enough. But if it does that, that means the war's lost anyway, just in a different form. Grant and Thomas were the sole generals of a vision beyond the tactical level in the Union army, and their loss leaves it with a number of tacticians but no operational or strategic generals.

[dgharis]

Being allowed to leave (minus Key West and Fort Jefferson, and with the Mississippi being treated like the Dardanelles,) and not having the Union come down and slap their shit.
That's it.

This. Once the war starts, it's downhill from there. And the longer the war, the worse for the Confederacy. The best possible outcome is for them to be allowed to leave the Union peacefully.

[67th Tigers]

Best possible outcome?

The 14 states (The 13 plus Maryland, which the Confederate war aims stated should be allowed to democratically determine their future), NM, AZ and the west coast (as a "Pacific Republic" that joins the Confederacy) with their capital at Washington DC form the Confederacy.

New England breaks away from the US.

An extreme outlier to be sure.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

The sole really good shot at a late war victory is Chattanooga. Have an accident happen to both Grant and Thomas and Bragg captures the entire Army of the Cumberland intact. He just has to sit there, and after capturing that army is also in a position to capture Burnside's IX Corps, in what would be his second major reclamation of CS territory. This puts a fatal operational loss on the Union army, and the CSA may well turn to black soldiers when the manpower crunch gets desperate enough. But if it does that, that means the war's lost anyway, just in a different form. Grant and Thomas were the sole generals of a vision beyond the tactical level in the Union army, and their loss leaves it with a number of tacticians but no operational or strategic generals.
I really like this idea. Especially if the war ends with Bragg of all people being the great hero of the South instead of Lee. :p

[Advernt]

Best possible outcome?

The 14 states (The 13 plus Maryland, which the Confederate war aims stated should be allowed to democratically determine their future), NM, AZ and the west coast (as a "Pacific Republic" that joins the Confederacy) with their capital at Washington DC form the Confederacy.

New England breaks away from the US.

An extreme outlier to be sure.

I don't know why, but every-time I hear of US screw in the 19th Century, my thoughts immediately turn to the strong prospect of either Russian or German hegemony over the European Continent by the mid 20th Century.....

[Fiver]

Best possible outcome?

The 14 states (The 13 plus Maryland, which the Confederate war aims stated should be allowed to democratically determine their future), NM, AZ and the west coast (as a "Pacific Republic" that joins the Confederacy) with their capital at Washington DC form the Confederacy.

New England breaks away from the US.

An extreme outlier to be sure.

Well, at least 67th didn't include Kansas this time. For the CSA to keep all of their 11 states is an extreme outlier. 67th's scenario is well into ASBs.

Like Confederate politicians of the time, 67th persists in the delusion that Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland wanted to be part of the Confederacy. Confederate attempts to prop up puppet governments there and in Arizona Territory failed abjectly. There's no chance of a New England breakaway or an independent Pacific Republic, let alone one that wants to join the Confederacy.

Best case for the Confederacy is a peaceful secession of the original 7 states. This will require neither Lincoln nor Davis as Presidents. This is the only way the Confederacy isn't left with massive debts, runaway inflation, a major section of its work force dead, crippled, or run off, damaged infrastructure, and a long border with a more powerful and hostile power.

Best credible case in the event of war is British intervention leads to the Union calling for international arbitration. The Confederacy keeps all of it's 11 states except for West Virginia and perhaps Eastern Tennessee.

[67th Tigers]

Well, at least 67th didn't include Kansas this time. For the CSA to keep all of their 11 states is an extreme outlier. 67th's scenario is well into ASBs.


No. Confederate independence = 11 states. That's prettymuch the deal. You'd be hard pressed to make a TL that didn't include the 11 states.


Like Confederate politicians of the time, 67th persists in the delusion that Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland wanted to be part of the Confederacy. Confederate attempts to prop up puppet governments there and in Arizona Territory failed abjectly.


Yeah. Military occupation does that.


Best credible case in the event of war is British intervention leads to the Union calling for international arbitration. The Confederacy keeps all of it's 11 states except for West Virginia and perhaps Eastern Tennessee.

Nope. The territorial integrity of the CSA was not negotiable. The US will want it, but that doesn't mean they get it.

[mowque]

Nope. The territorial integrity of the CSA was not negotiable. The US will want it, but that doesn't mean they get it.

Losers don't get to make demands like that.

[Fiver]

No. Confederate independence = 11 states. That's prettymuch the deal. You'd be hard pressed to make a TL that didn't include the 11 states.

You'd be hard pressed to make a credible timeline where the CSA didn't lose at least some territory. At a minimum they lose West Virginia. It would be quite easy to lose some or all of Tennessee and Arkansas as well. In 1867 peace by exhaustion also loses them most or all of Louisiana, half of Mississippi, northern Alalbama, northern and coastal Virginia.

[67th Tigers]

Losers don't get to make demands like that.

By definition they are not the loser in such a TL.

[Johnrankins]

No. Confederate independence = 11 states. That's prettymuch the deal. You'd be hard pressed to make a TL that didn't include the 11 states.



Yeah. Military occupation does that.



Nope. The territorial integrity of the CSA was not negotiable. The US will want it, but that doesn't mean they get it.

The CSA definitely loses WV and probably TN as the Union Army is sitting on them. The CSA has no real way of moving them off of both states. Almost every time the CSA went on the offensive the CSA got its butt kicked. It was an era of defensive warfare and the Union has far more men.

[Johnrankins]

By definition they are not the loser in such a TL.

In any reasonable TL they will be in WV and proably TN as well as both went quick.

[Elfwine]

In any reasonable TL they will be in WV and proably TN as well as both went quick.

Even if they somehow manage to hold on to/regain Tennessee, and keep West Virginia smaller than OTL...the CSA doesn't have the power to force the issue, and shouldn't try, beyond that.

[Snake Featherston]

Nope. The territorial integrity of the CSA was not negotiable. The US will want it, but that doesn't mean they get it.

The territorial integrity of the CSA would be negotiable The original CSA, after all, was only 7 states, the 11 that joined it did so semi-voluntarily at best.

[Snake Featherston]

By definition they are not the loser in such a TL.

By definition they are not a winner, either. The CSA had absolutely no power to win the war on its own power outside one occasion. A USA that exhausts itself will have admitted West Virginia into the Union, the CSA has no ability to force a short war.

[Johnrankins]

The territorial integrity of the CSA would be negotiable The original CSA, after all, was only 7 states, the 11 that joined it did so semi-voluntarily at best.

Also WV and TN are mine because my army is sitting on it is a pretty good argument, particularly with the weapons at the time. What does the CSA if Little Mac calls for a cease fire in place with the US fortifying the TN and WV borders? After a number of senseless, bloody one-sided battles the Georgians, Floridians and Texans will figure they aren't worth dying for.

[BlondieBC]

While perusing the board, I have come across a common theme: that what the Confederacy does, is able to do, and how long it, and the institution of slavery last all hinge on the manner in which the Confederacy receives independence. Now my question for the board is, in your opinion, when would be the best time for the Confederacy to win the war; that is, which way of winning would leave her at the strongest possible position externally and internally, or what win allows the Confederacy to survive, but weakens slavery enough to allow its speediest abolition.

What I am striving for a future timeline of mine is either a Confederacy that includes the Eleven states that seceded plus Arizona territory, or one that contains the only the eleven but where the Confederacy wins by creating CSCT regiments.



In 1908 in British controlled Zanzibar, slavery was outlawed for any person born in 1908 or later. This act would not have ended slavery in Zanzibar until the 1970's, so it is a bit of a myth that the CSA would have to give up slaves now. For your TL, you might want to look at some better diplomatic performance by the CSA. For example, the CSA agrees in its constitution to end slavery with compensation for all person born 10 years AFTER the conclusions of a peace treaty with the USA. Have this done with in the frame of an diplomatic effort to get the UK to at least recognize the CSA. Not intervene necessary, but at least be more pro-CSA.

Next deal with the blockade. The CSA had many sailors and captains of ships but not many ships. This is because the officers sailed their ships to union harbors, resigned their commissions, and traveled to the South. A few ways to get around this problem, such as

1) The ships captained by CSA members sail their ships to CSA ports, then send the yankee sailors home.


2) Move many of the ships to the state control leading up to the war, where each state maintains it own coastal Navy

3) Or maybe some president before the war decides to base most of the American Navy in a port such as New Orleans, so the ships simply fall into CSA hands.

Any of these POD allow a few benefits.

1) The CSA is not blockade, so it logistics is much better.

2) It can export cotton, so it finances are better.

3) Maybe the CSA can even bring in European mercenaries.

4) The CSA can do amphibious operations against the north. Major operations like taking New York are not likely, but taking things such as Martha Vineyard are possible with control of the seas. A few troops raiding and burning the coastline of the Union could tie up a lot of troops and divert a lot of troops from the attacks in Tennessee.

5) Also, Union has partial blockade, so much worse logistics and finances.


On ASB type TL, many things are ASB if the POD is a few days before the event you want to change, but easily doable if the POD is moved a decade or two back. I wanted to do a TL where the German had twice as many U-boats started the war, and I simply could have posted in the ASB section. But instead, I went back 14 years to get a POD that did the same thing, and settled for a much better trained U-boat fleet with better bases. Look below for the evolution of thought.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=225249

The TL is in my signature.

So I would suggest you think about what you want to happen early in the war for the CSA to win, the back into the POD. For example, maybe you want the CSA to do well in Tennessee, then think about what would have to happen for that to be true. So lets say it would be 100,000 more soldiers for the CSA, so then you ask, what would it take for the CSA to have that many more soldiers. Or maybe you want Britain to intervene in 1861, so you then need to decide what it would take to make the UK want to intervene. You might need a plan to eliminate slavery in the CSA constitution, then you have to work out what the POD is.

There are few things that are truly ASB, if you want to put the work into the TL. Now with the ACW, it is going to be hard to have a POD in early 1861 that causes the CSA to win by late 1862. But if you go back 5 or 10 years, you can probably find what you want. Also, you don't have to strengthen the CSA, you can weaken the USA.

And finally, sometimes a few small POD are easier to handle than one large POD. I had trouble coming to a situation where Germany could have 90 submarines in 1914, so I had a single POD and butterflies. Different leaders early on, means U-boat designs are 1-2 years ahead of OTL. I built lightly fortified ports in Dar Es Salaam and Douala. Then the most important change was better leaders and men, in my ATL, many of the commanders have 5-8 years U-boat experience, not 1-2 years. You might want to look at some option like this for your TL.

[NothingNow]

Best case for the Confederacy is a peaceful secession of the original 7 states. This will require neither Lincoln nor Davis as Presidents. This is the only way the Confederacy isn't left with massive debts, runaway inflation, a major section of its work force dead, crippled, or run off, damaged infrastructure, and a long border with a more powerful and hostile power.

Yeah, any sort of shooting war would end with the CSA in a bad place.

The territorial integrity of the CSA would be negotiable The original CSA, after all, was only 7 states, the 11 that joined it did so semi-voluntarily at best.
Very negotiable. I doubt the CSA would be willing to try and fight a war to take Key West/Fort Zachary Taylor and the Dry Tortugas/Fort Jefferson, even if Fort Barrancas, Fort McRee Fort Pickens and the Pensacola Navy Yard are worth fighting over.

Also WV and TN are mine because my army is sitting on it is a pretty good argument, particularly with the weapons at the time. What does the CSA if Little Mac calls for a cease fire in place with the US fortifying the TN and WV borders? After a number of senseless, bloody one-sided battles the Georgians, Floridians and Texans will figure they aren't worth dying for.
Agreed.

[Evan]

I think we're all ignoring the OP's other requirement: that slavery be on the way out despite CSA victory. I think that requires a quite different South leading up to the war - which might very well mean no war at all. It's still possible, but it'd take a definite balancing act.

[zoomar]

A "velvet divorce" in the 1860-61 period would be the best. A peaceful, negotiated separation agreed to by both the USA and CSA would:

(1) eliminate the possibility of war and set the stage for a positive relationship between the two nations immediately.

(2) Negotiated separation would also set the precedent for a peaceful solution to other tricky border issues, such as Southern regions like West Virginia that did not want to secede and slaveholding "Union" states like Missouri and Maryland that might have wanted to align with the Confederacy but who didn't want to participate in a violent rebellion.

(3) Negotiated settlement might also allow the USA and CSA to meet as diplomatic equals to discuss and resolve the status and future affiliation of western territories that had been a suorce of conflict over slavery and South/North affiliation.

(4) Finally, a peaceful secession leaves the door open for eventual reunification in the event that the CSA (or some of its constituent states) find after several decades that independence was not all they thought it would be - especially if the CSA eventually has to bow to worldwide diplomatic pressure and eliminate slavery.

[Johnrankins]

A "velvet divorce" in the 1860-61 period would be the best. A peaceful, negotiated separation agreed to by both the USA and CSA would:

(1) eliminate the possibility of war and set the stage for a positive relationship between the two nations immediately.

(2) Negotiated separation would also set the precedent for a peaceful solution to other tricky border issues, such as Southern regions like West Virginia that did not want to secede and slaveholding "Union" states like Missouri and Maryland that might have wanted to align with the Confederacy but who didn't want to participate in a violent rebellion.

(3) Negotiated settlement might also allow the USA and CSA to meet as diplomatic equals to discuss and resolve the status and future affiliation of western territories that had been a suorce of conflict over slavery and South/North affiliation.

(4) Finally, a peaceful secession leaves the door open for eventual reunification in the event that the CSA (or some of its constituent states) find after several decades that independence was not all they thought it would be - especially if the CSA eventually has to bow to worldwide diplomatic pressure and eliminate slavery.



The chances of which were nil. Neither side wanted it. The South fired on Star of the West BEFORE Lincoln was president.

[rain crow]

The territorial integrity of the CSA would be negotiable The original CSA, after all, was only 7 states, the 11 that joined it did so semi-voluntarily at best.

Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas all seceded after Lincoln called for an army to invade the seven original Confederate states. As far as I know the majority of voters in all four of these states voted for secession, with significant minorities existing in north west Virginia and East Tennessee. Of course, there were reluctant Confederates (who only changed their loyalties after Lincoln announced his intention to invade their home states) and outright Unionists in every Confederate state, and especially in the Appalachian mountains, but they were minorities, and because of that I doubt that the victors would negotiate their sister states back to the US. Of course, it all would probably depend on exactly how the victory had come about, and the political sentiments in the north.

Perhaps some counties in western Virginia would be allowed vote on whether or not they wished to remain in the Confederacy, but East Tennessee is far too strategic an area for the Confederates to trade away, and it is too far away from most northerners for them to be willing to keep spilling blood if they've already lost the war overall.

As far as the original question goes, I'd say that the best chance for an eleven state Confederacy to survive is for the 1st battle at Manassas to be such a disaster for the Union that the Confederates are able and willing to reorganize shortly after the battle and march on an unfortified Washington D.C. In OTL the battle was a very near thing until Confederate reinforcements arrived, and even after the Union army routed the green Confederate formations were in no shape to mount an effective pursuit.

Maybe an quick capture of Washington would have been possible if the actual fighting is delayed, giving the Confederate forces in Virginia more time to train and organize, but that same time would be used in a similar fashion by the Union army across the Potomac...

[Snake Featherston]

Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas all seceded after Lincoln called for an army to invade the seven original Confederate states. As far as I know the majority of voters in all four of these states voted for secession, with significant minorities existing in north west Virginia and East Tennessee. Of course, there were reluctant Confederates (who only changed their loyalties after Lincoln announced his intention to invade their home states) and outright Unionists in every Confederate state, and especially in the Appalachian mountains, but they were minorities, and because of that I doubt that the victors would negotiate their sister states back to the US. Of course, it all would probably depend on exactly how the victory had come about, and the political sentiments in the north.

Perhaps some counties in western Virginia would be allowed vote on whether or not they wished to remain in the Confederacy, but East Tennessee is far too strategic an area for the Confederates to trade away, and it is too far away from most northerners for them to be willing to keep spilling blood if they've already lost the war overall.

As far as the original question goes, I'd say that the best chance for an eleven state Confederacy to survive is for the 1st battle at Manassas to be such a disaster for the Union that the Confederates are able and willing to reorganize shortly after the battle and march on an unfortified Washington D.C. In OTL the battle was a very near thing until Confederate reinforcements arrived, and even after the Union army routed the green Confederate formations were in no shape to mount an effective pursuit.

Maybe an quick capture of Washington would have been possible if the actual fighting is delayed, giving the Confederate forces in Virginia more time to train and organize, but that same time would be used in a similar fashion by the Union army across the Potomac...

Nope, actually a majority in all these states voted *against* secession prior to Sumter, and they never so much embraced secession as a goal in itself, but instead decided if it came to a shooting war their interests were served with the so-called CSA. The Union will give up West Virginia, which it conquered in 1861 when Hell freezes over. The CSA might get back West Tennessee if it's really lucky, the odds of it taking Kentucky by conquest are slim to none.

Bull Run was not in actual fact as close a battle as it's made out to be, it was a razor-thin victory for the CSA of their 18,000 troops against the Union's 18,000 troops. By the same token a Union victory requires much less changes to secure at the tactical level than did the OTL CSA victory. Even then with even number of troops actually fighting there was not army enough *to* pursue, which is precisely why the idea of pursuit only appeared in the postwar war of memoirs.

[jkay]

I'm afraid both losing slavery quickly and getting Arizona both seem hard to do. The South's going to be triumphant in a win. And Arizona was hardly cotton turf, which all the slave turf had in common - that's how WV came to be detached.


There's robertp6165's GO SOUTH, YOUNG MAN, in which Lincoln runs the South instead of the North; The lesser Seward becomes President. But the scenario ends there (wimp ;-)).

Seward wanted war with with Britain, to try to bring the South back by patriotism. But, I'm guessing it would've failed, and we would've had a two-front war to fight instead.

I'm in such a scenario, the South might have its starting turf via Northern exhaustion, minus West VA and the Mississippi. After all, the Navy was both able to be effective offensively, and would've been useless at sea once the RN.

It'd probably also be status quo on the Northern border, too, like 1812. Though, also, by the end of the war, the USN'd be an equal to the RN, if for not much time before we got tired.

[mrmandias]

1860i
filler

Hello lads and lasses,


While perusing the board, I have come across a common theme: that what the Confederacy does, is able to do, and how long it, and the institution of slavery last all hinge on the manner in which the Confederacy receives independence. Now my question for the board is, in your opinion, when would be the best time for the Confederacy to win the war; that is, which way of winning would leave her at the strongest possible position externally and internally, or what win allows the Confederacy to survive, but weakens slavery enough to allow its speediest abolition.

What I am striving for a future timeline of mine is either a Confederacy that includes the Eleven states that seceded plus Arizona territory, or one that contains the only the eleven but where the Confederacy wins by creating CSCT regiments.

Please no ASB, scenarios

[AtriumCarceris]

I want to do a "best" Confederate Victory Timeline eventually. I wouldn't say "best" because you can do a lot for it, more than I plan.

My current idea is to do this by giving the Confederacy as many people as possible, so multiple PoD's starting with basically stealing Robert's Go South Young Man PoD, said timeline already been mentioned previously, and ending with about five other people who sided with the North, side with the South.

But there are other ways you could give a good end for the South. War is a tricky thing, and there are all sorts of accidents of random happen-stance that could hamper the North or boost the South, or both. Kill off key people, prevent key people from dying, cause a bit of random luck and make a key battle swing the other way. It's not hard. A commander could trip on a rock at a key moment and delay an advance just enough so the entire battle goes differently, which changes future battles just enough so a major Southern Victory happens down the line. You never know with these things. Just get creative. Find any opportunity you can. There are loads of them.

[Elfwine]

And yet...not. The odds are stacked against the CSA in so many areas that simply causing a rout of some brigade at Stone's River doesn't turn into Tennessee Stays in Confederate Hands Through Out the War.

Hell, even a rout of the Army of the Cumberland doesn't do that.

It's something, but it's only the start, it needs to be built on - and building on success with such slim resources and such a stubborn opposition is going to be hard.

[John Fredrick Parker]

If you want a clean PoD, and would like it to be after the guns start shooting in 1861, then your best bet is going with a classic -- the Lost Orders of 1862 stay lost, leading Lee to a victorious Maryland Campaign.

Since this is something of a contentious point, my case in brief: PM Palmerson and his government was more than ready to "step in as intermediaries" at this point, and one more CSA victory was all that would be needed to push him; Napoleon, meanwhile, was more than ready to intervene on the condition of British assistance; the Proclamation that would change the war (and henceforth make said European intervention impossible), and ultimately save the Union, had not yet been issued, and would not be in the wake of such a defeat. How soon this turn of events might lead to a Confederate victory, even among those who agree to its plausibility, is itself also open to some debate -- though I think one likely outcome is some major victories by the Peace Democrats in the midterms, sizeable enough that (at least upon the Congress' inauguration) the Lincoln administration would be unable to sustain the War effort.

I don't know why, but every-time I hear of US screw in the 19th Century, my thoughts immediately turn to the strong prospect of either Russian or German hegemony over the European Continent by the mid 20th Century.....

Frankly, that's always bugged me a little -- if the CSA wins w UK and French help (likely IMO), then they're going to rely as much on the "protection" of Napoleon as much as on Britain in the years to come. Meaning Nappy can't lose a war w Prussia, which means no final German Unification.

So a CSA victory would probably be as much a German-screw as a US-screw...

[AtriumCarceris]

And yet...not. The odds are stacked against the CSA in so many areas that simply causing a rout of some brigade at Stone's River doesn't turn into Tennessee Stays in Confederate Hands Through Out the War.

Hell, even a rout of the Army of the Cumberland doesn't do that.

It's something, but it's only the start, it needs to be built on - and building on success with such slim resources and such a stubborn opposition is going to be hard.

And you know what? I say if you can't weave your way to it, you're just not thinking hard enough.

[Elfwine]

And you know what? I say if you can't weave your way to it, you're just not thinking hard enough.

Well, if one does unto the CSA what Eurofed does unto the Roman Empire, yes.

If one is more concerned with what's feasible, not so much.

I would hate to say anything is inevitable, but some things would take such a convoluted train of events that it could never get going.

"I can imagine a scenario" doesn't mean "this scenario could be done without a POD so far back as to render the OTL situation at the time its trying to change things unrecognizable" - for instance, you could have the Byzantines controlling Anatolia in the 15th century, but not with a POD in Manuel II's reign and probably not even John V's (aka almost a century earlier).

Similarly, the CSA simply has so much against it that undoing that to the point of say, merely outnumbered in total white population by 2 to 1 would make the 1860 situation nothing anyone would recognize.

[AtriumCarceris]

Well, if one does unto the CSA what Eurofed does unto the Roman Empire, yes.

If one is more concerned with what's feasible, not so much.

I would hate to say anything is inevitable, but some things would take such a convoluted train of events that it could never get going.

"I can imagine a scenario" doesn't mean "this scenario could be done without a POD so far back as to render the OTL situation at the time its trying to change things unrecognizable" - for instance, you could have the Byzantines controlling Anatolia in the 15th century, but not with a POD in Manuel II's reign and probably not even John V's.

And I still don't agree. If one situation follows from the other, it doesn't matter how different it ends up being from what actually happened. If you have a PoD in 1861, and then keep "forcing" things to end up going the way of the CSA, that's not a "convoluted train of events" in any meaningful way so long as it could have happened from the events preceding. Unlikely things have happened in History at many points. And the probability of a future unlikely thing doesn't change if past ones happen, no more than the probability of future coin flips change even if previous coin flips all ended up heads.

[Elfwine]

And I still don't agree. If one situation follows from the other, it doesn't matter how different it ends up being from what actually happened. If you have a PoD in 1861, and then keep "forcing" things to end up going the way of the CSA, that's not a "convoluted train of events" in any meaningful way so long as it could have happened from the events preceding. Unlikely things have happened in History at many points. And the probability of a future unlikely thing doesn't change if past ones happen, no more than the probability of future coin flips change even if previous coin flips all ended up heads.

The problem is, there isn't a chain that would be sufficient to undermine the entire Union war effort from any POD.

For instance, one of my "favorite" alternate history scenarios - doubly so because it uses a POD I think is a perfectly credible one as the starting point.

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/USCW/unlost_cause.htm This doesn't violate any scientific laws, but it's impossible in all but the loosest sense.

And while the Confederacy does what does differently, the Union behaves identically, like a rigidly scripted AI, up until July 2 when the Army of the Potomac routs.

Nevermind things like Hampton not having much choice other than to ride pretty similarly to Stuart's OTL ride, because that would bog us down in a side argument - sufficient to say, even he arrives early, this does not work.

This is what happens when you "force' things to go the way of the CSA without regard for whether or not such a thing would happen if you had people deciding differently back in May.

And any POD that would cause such stupidity and cowardice as the Union shows here would cause the entire 1863 situation to look different than OTL to begin with. Hell, changing the Confederate leadership enough for this snippet would butterfly the entire ACW:
Now is where Davis gets his chance to shine. (NOTE – this is by no means the historical Davis – it is the one needed to seize this moment). The Southern fire-eaters want a Carthaginian peace. Davis understands that the North’s failure is one of will, not means. Let them off easy and the war stays won. Push it and Dixie could provide the missing Northern will to reignite the conflict.


Does this mean all Confederate victory scenarios are this bad? No. But that one can conjure this up doesn't make it a scenario that would actually work with the people involved or changes small enough not to cause a hurricane of butterflies that would eliminate what you're trying to alter.

If the Confederacy wins at Gettysburg, there are a number of possible scenarios, some good, some bad, some about equal to OTL. And from whatever one pursues from there, there are others. But all of those have to take into consideration the opposition to the "desired" outcome by the forces in play, both those of the opposition (in this case, the Union, those not in favor of the plans being proposed by Lee, etc.) and things like friction (in the Clausewitz sense) which will be desperately important to overcome and desperately difficult.

This is less about coin flipping as arm wrestling, and there's only so long you can take on superior opponents (or in this case, difficult situations) before getting worn out.

[Bexar]

Hello again

I was wondering, if, say in an 1867 or so win where the south wins by exhaustion, similar to the scenario posted by Snake Featherson, could it be possible that the powers that write up the war ending treaty could put a clause into it that places, say, a fifty year limit on slavery? That is, that the European and federal meditators put in a clause that states the south must figure out a way to abolish the slave in a de jure (not necessarily de facto) manner? If noyhing else, as a inal screw you from the U.S. to the C.S.?:o:(

[Elfwine]

How is that going to be enforced?

[Bexar]

I figured that it would be enforced along the lines of war repriations, that is, pony up or we send troops in.

[M79]

Heavy British intervention might come at the cost of abolition, gradual or otherwise. I believe the UK was ready to support CSA independence in 1862 in exchange for abolition but it fell through when the South said no. In many ways the leadership and inept diplomacy of its own diplomats were a key part of the downfall of the Confederacy.

An "ideal" victory scenario to me would depend on people who faded into shadow after 1862. Sibley needs to win in Arizona/New Mexico and create the illusion that the Confederates might have a chance to invade California. Perhaps he can work with Mormons in the area and the promise of an independent state for them if they aid the Confederacy in cutting off the West and its resources from the East as much as possible. Nashville needs to stay Confederate if at all possibleor barring that Bragg needs to be able to hold onto Kentucky, which in my opinion was looking to see who would win the war before most of her citizens would commit themselves heavily either way. Missouri would probably be a negotiating ground as would West(ern) Virginia, though the areas south of the Missouri River were held by the rebellion in the early part of the war. Western Virginia becomes more problematic as the northernmost counties wanted to secede, I could see Wheeling leaving and joining Pennsylvania for the sake of their people and simplicity of border control. Get some of the nothern Mexican states to join in as well, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila if not Tamapulias, Sonora, and Chihuahua could make Confederate states with seemingly little hope of Mexican recovery after Maximillian comes along. All in all I think you could get the original Confederate states with Kentucky and Western Virginia restored, Missouri is unlikely and would be split at the Missouri River at best. Arizona and the Indian Territories are not unreasonable and perhaps New Mexico if the West turns out very differently. Add anywhere between two and five Mexican states (not sure how Baja California plays out) and that's the best you get in any TL in my opinion. BTW I do not think the Confederacy could survive with anything less than the original 11 states that seceded, if they try they're likely bankrupt in 15-20 years or end up like a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on a few cash crops and notable class division.

[Fiver]

I think we're all ignoring the OP's other requirement: that slavery be on the way out despite CSA victory.

We're ignoring it because it's flatly impossible. A South where slavery is on the way out is a South that never would have seceded in the first place.

[Johnrankins]

Heavy British intervention might come at the cost of abolition, gradual or otherwise. I believe the UK was ready to support CSA independence in 1862 in exchange for abolition but it fell through when the South said no. In many ways the leadership and inept diplomacy of its own diplomats were a key part of the downfall of the Confederacy.

An "ideal" victory scenario to me would depend on people who faded into shadow after 1862. Sibley needs to win in Arizona/New Mexico and create the illusion that the Confederates might have a chance to invade California. Perhaps he can work with Mormons in the area and the promise of an independent state for them if they aid the Confederacy in cutting off the West and its resources from the East as much as possible. Nashville needs to stay Confederate if at all possibleor barring that Bragg needs to be able to hold onto Kentucky, which in my opinion was looking to see who would win the war before most of her citizens would commit themselves heavily either way. Missouri would probably be a negotiating ground as would West(ern) Virginia, though the areas south of the Missouri River were held by the rebellion in the early part of the war. Western Virginia becomes more problematic as the northernmost counties wanted to secede, I could see Wheeling leaving and joining Pennsylvania for the sake of their people and simplicity of border control. Get some of the nothern Mexican states to join in as well, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila if not Tamapulias, Sonora, and Chihuahua could make Confederate states with seemingly little hope of Mexican recovery after Maximillian comes along. All in all I think you could get the original Confederate states with Kentucky and Western Virginia restored, Missouri is unlikely and would be split at the Missouri River at best. Arizona and the Indian Territories are not unreasonable and perhaps New Mexico if the West turns out very differently. Add anywhere between two and five Mexican states (not sure how Baja California plays out) and that's the best you get in any TL in my opinion. BTW I do not think the Confederacy could survive with anything less than the original 11 states that seceded, if they try they're likely bankrupt in 15-20 years or end up like a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on a few cash crops and notable class division.

KY is a maybe, WV is flat out impossible after it secedes from VA as the area is mountainous as hell with the population strongly hostile to the idea of rejoining VA. Invading WV in some ways is about as smart as invading Switzerland. Missouri is also impossible as it was taken over in 3 months. If the population was pro-CSA it would have held out at least a year. AZ/NM is Twilight Zone as the Union could always send more troops to the area than the CSA could in this very sparsely populated area. The CSA had ZERO chance of getting land in Mexico as it doesn't have the army to conquer it or the money to buy it. No matter what they do they wind up a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on cash crops and a notable class division.

[Fiver]

My current idea is to do this by giving the Confederacy as many people as possible, so multiple PoD's starting with basically stealing Robert's Go South Young Man PoD, said timeline already been mentioned previously, and ending with about five other people who sided with the North, side with the South.

That should go in the ASB section. For that many prominent Union men to go south and rise to prominence about as likely as flipping a coin and having land on its edge a couple dozen times. Far more credible is have pro-Confederate time travelers assassinate the Union’s best and brightest. Just imagine a timeline where the Rivington men weren’t incompetent bunglers.

But there are other ways you could give a good end for the South. War is a tricky thing, and there are all sorts of accidents of random happen-stance that could hamper the North or boost the South, or both. Kill off key people, prevent key people from dying, cause a bit of random luck and make a key battle swing the other way. It's not hard.

Changing things so the Confederacy win a battle they lost in OTL is not hard. The problem is most CSA victorious ATLs assume that is enough and then the Confederate-wank domino effect goes into action. Winning battles is useless if you cannot win campaigns. Winning campaigns is useless if you cannot win the war. Logistics and politics are also important.

If you have a PoD in 1861, and then keep "forcing" things to end up going the way of the CSA, that's not a "convoluted train of events" in any meaningful way so long as it could have happened from the events preceding.

I could stand ten feet in front of a firing machine gun and be missed by every bullet, but anyone who claimed that happened to them would not be considered credible. The more wildly unlikely things in an ATL, the less credible it is.

“…the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.” – Mark Twain.

And the probability of a future unlikely thing doesn't change if past ones happen, no more than the probability of future coin flips change even if previous coin flips all ended up heads.

If I used a fair coin, the odds of it coming up heads twenty times in a row are less than 1 chance in a million. If I use a two-headed coin that happens 100% of the time. “Forcing” things to go the Confederacy’s way becomes less credible the more you do it.

[AtriumCarceris]

That should go in the ASB section. For that many prominent Union men to go south and rise to prominence about as likely as flipping a coin and having land on its edge a couple dozen times.

No it's not.

Changing things so the Confederacy win a battle they lost in OTL is not hard. The problem is most CSA victorious ATLs assume that is enough and then the Confederate-wank domino effect goes into action. Winning battles is useless if you cannot win campaigns. Winning campaigns is useless if you cannot win the war. Logistics and politics are also important.

I'm aware. Just make that Confederate-wank domino effect happen. You may not like it. It doesn't matter. As I've said, things are not "realistic" by their adherence to OTL, they are realistic so long as what follows is possible from what happened before. A Confederate-Wank domino affect can be perfectly possible, just like it's possible to flip ten coins and get 10 heads. Each consecutive head doesn't make it any less likely a future head is going to happen. If you're goal is to make ten of them happen, then just do it.


I could stand ten feet in front of a firing machine gun and be missed by every bullet, but anyone who claimed that happened to them would not be considered credible. The more wildly unlikely things in an ATL, the less credible it is.

“…the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.” – Mark Twain.

I agree. These things aren't "miracles" they are possibilities.



If I used a fair coin, the odds of it coming up heads twenty times in a row are less than 1 chance in a million. If I use a two-headed coin that happens 100% of the time. “Forcing” things to go the Confederacy’s way becomes less credible the more you do it.

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

[NothingNow]

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

Probability yes, but reality, no. Every victory the CSA buys it time to win via diplomatic means. But those losses suffered will not be as easily replaced by the Confederacy as by the Union. Those casualties suffered in a victorious offensive will be sorely felt weeks or even days later as momentum slows and the Union counters. Thus continued victories across the board are highly improbable.

[Johnrankins]

It doesn't matter what the probability of the set is. If I toss a coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads. Next time, it's still a 50 percent chance. And it will continue to be 50 percent no matter how many times I do it and no matter how many times heads shows up in a row. If the Confederacy wins a battle it had a 50% chance of winning, the next battle doesn't have it's Confederacy-wins probability lowered if the Confederacy won before. That's not how probability works.

True, but you have to beat better than 500,000 to 1 odds to GET to the 20th flip in the first place. Odds are 524,288:1 against getting to that 20th flip in the first place which means it is overwhelmingly likely you never get to that 20th flip as you flipped tails at least once in the first 19 flips assuming a fair coin.

[Kevin R.]

Best-case scenario for a Confederate victory in OTL's Civil War would be to prevent Tennessee and the Mississippi River from getting overrun so quickly. This is the POD for a Confederate victory TL that I'm working on -- the Confederacy doesn't recognize Kentucky's secessionist government, allowing the state to stay neutral for longer and thus keep the Western Theater limited to the low-level fighting in Missouri. Instead, it's the Union that invades Kentucky in mid 1862 in order to strike at the Confederacy's soft underbelly once it becomes clear that the war in Virginia isn't going their way, causing pro-Confederate elements to flare up at Washington's violation of their neutrality.

As a result, Kentucky is pushed into the Confederate camp instead of the Union camp as in OTL, which, combined with a later start to the war in the west (giving the Confederacy another year to prepare for invasion), greatly stalls the Union effort in the Western Theater. By late '64, they're still bogged down in Tennessee and trying to push down the Mississippi River. As a result, a war-weary electorate boots Lincoln out of office in favor of Peace Democrats. At the treaty table, the CSA gets all eleven states that seceded initially, plus the western part of Kentucky, the southern part of Missouri, and the Arizona Territory. The Indian Territory becomes a nominally independent CS protectorate.

[Johnrankins]

Best-case scenario for a Confederate victory in OTL's Civil War would be to prevent Tennessee and the Mississippi River from getting overrun so quickly. This is the POD for a Confederate victory TL that I'm working on -- the Confederacy doesn't recognize Kentucky's secessionist government, allowing the state to stay neutral for longer and thus keep the Western Theater limited to the low-level fighting in Missouri. Instead, it's the Union that invades Kentucky in mid 1862 in order to strike at the Confederacy's soft underbelly once it becomes clear that the war in Virginia isn't going their way, causing pro-Confederate elements to flare up at Washington's violation of their neutrality.

As a result, Kentucky is pushed into the Confederate camp instead of the Union camp as in OTL, which, combined with a later start to the war in the west (giving the Confederacy another year to prepare for invasion), greatly stalls the Union effort in the Western Theater. By late '64, they're still bogged down in Tennessee and trying to push down the Mississippi River. As a result, a war-weary electorate boots Lincoln out of office in favor of Peace Democrats. At the treaty table, the CSA gets all eleven states that seceded initially, plus the western part of Kentucky, the southern part of Missouri, and the Arizona Territory. The Indian Territory becomes a nominally independent CS protectorate.

The most they get out of that scenario is all 11 states + KY (And even that is a stretch as it would have to get bogged down in KY for that to happen). Even Peace Democrats won't give up territory that the Union didn't lose, they would be MASSACRED in the next election if they did that.

[Elfwine]

And what happens from what came before should not be determined on the basis of "it might, theoretically, be possible that this happens, even if the odds are really high against it, therefore it happens"

Sometimes long shots pay off. Usually they don't, unless you're writing Discoworld alternate history.

[BlondieBC]

We're ignoring it because it's flatly impossible. A South where slavery is on the way out is a South that never would have seceded in the first place.

I disagree. I could see it being phased out over an extremely long time horizon. Given the choice between ending Slavery in 4 years or ending it in 50 years for British support, the second is the rational decision. It is more a matter of the Southern leaders believing that outside support was the only way to win than how strongly they preferred to keep slavery.

[Fiver]

I disagree. I could see it being phased out over an extremely long time horizon. Given the choice between ending Slavery in 4 years or ending it in 50 years for British support, the second is the rational decision.

If Confederate leadership was good on rational decisions, they wouldn't have started a war with a country that had twice the population and ten times the industry.

And they wouldn't have seen it that way until it was too late, they'd have seen it as ending slavery in 50 years in return for British help, or keeping slavery forever.

[M79]

KY is a maybe, WV is flat out impossible after it secedes from VA as the area is mountainous as hell with the population strongly hostile to the idea of rejoining VA. Invading WV in some ways is about as smart as invading Switzerland. Missouri is also impossible as it was taken over in 3 months. If the population was pro-CSA it would have held out at least a year. AZ/NM is Twilight Zone as the Union could always send more troops to the area than the CSA could in this very sparsely populated area. The CSA had ZERO chance of getting land in Mexico as it doesn't have the army to conquer it or the money to buy it. No matter what they do they wind up a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on cash crops and a notable class division.

Given the choice KY will go confederate, the major Unionist areas in the state are along the Ohio River but dividing the state will be tricky at best. Missouri is going to be the same way though the state could be split at the Missouri River. In both cases the populace is not going to irritate large groups of armed people in their homeland, if nothing else they are as likely to see how the war goes and side with the likely victor, as one nation's ability to continue to exist is questionable. West Virginia as a state was a largely Union creation, and several of the counties in southern West Virginia were actually pro-confederate. Were they as pro Union as you suggest why not lead a strong force and link up with eastern Tennessee to divide the cis-Mississippi in two?

As for Mexican States, there were diplomatic efforts to claim these early in the war, one of which nearly came to fruition for Nuevo Leon and Coahuila but fell through at the last minute. Sonora might also have gone differently if not for one lucky reporter who broke a story before other diplomacy could take its course. Feel free to read up on the subject, it is actually an interesting if unknown piece of the Civil War. Arizona and New Mexico were also sparsely populated by *anyone*. Union reinforcement will also have difficulty reaching the area, especially if a Confederate victory in the area gives Utah any dreams of possible independence and causes Union worry about what territory they would eye if any.

Best chance for Confederate Victory: Late 1861 Trent Affair goes wrong, Confederates hold much stronger position, they grab at least two Mexican border states and force plebiscites in Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and New Mexico Territory. Utah/Nevada might begin to dream of independence though it will *not* happen except under very unusual circumstances. Arizona and Indian Territory become property of Richmond and everyone is left spoiling for a sequal war, which is played out in proxy in 1866 in Mexico's Civil War.

[Johnrankins]

Given the choice KY will go confederate, the major Unionist areas in the state are along the Ohio River but dividing the state will be tricky at best. Missouri is going to be the same way though the state could be split at the Missouri River. In both cases the populace is not going to irritate large groups of armed people in their homeland, if nothing else they are as likely to see how the war goes and side with the likely victor, as one nation's ability to continue to exist is questionable. West Virginia as a state was a largely Union creation, and several of the counties in southern West Virginia were actually pro-confederate. Were they as pro Union as you suggest why not lead a strong force and link up with eastern Tennessee to divide the cis-Mississippi in two?

As for Mexican States, there were diplomatic efforts to claim these early in the war, one of which nearly came to fruition for Nuevo Leon and Coahuila but fell through at the last minute. Sonora might also have gone differently if not for one lucky reporter who broke a story before other diplomacy could take its course. Feel free to read up on the subject, it is actually an interesting if unknown piece of the Civil War. Arizona and New Mexico were also sparsely populated by *anyone*. Union reinforcement will also have difficulty reaching the area, especially if a Confederate victory in the area gives Utah any dreams of possible independence and causes Union worry about what territory they would eye if any.

Best chance for Confederate Victory: Late 1861 Trent Affair goes wrong, Confederates hold much stronger position, they grab at least two Mexican border states and force plebiscites in Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and New Mexico Territory. Utah/Nevada might begin to dream of independence though it will *not* happen except under very unusual circumstances. Arizona and Indian Territory become property of Richmond and everyone is left spoiling for a sequal war, which is played out in proxy in 1866 in Mexico's Civil War.

They more or less were given the choice before the CSA invaded though both sides didn't really want that. Lincoln didn't interfere in KY at all until the CSA invaded. There were elections in June in which the Unionists won five out of six congressional seats and won 3/4 of the seats in the state legislature in Aug. Union troops didn't enter KY until Sept so there goes the idea that KY was pro-Confederate as the election would have went the other way if it was.When Bragg invaded he took along tens of thousands of rifles to arm Kentuckians that he was sure were going to swarm to the cause. He got maybe a few hundred.

Missouri was taken in 3 months so the Union Army is sitting on it in any realistic scenario. It WON'T leave under any remotely realistic scenario. The CSA gets whatever states it has its army sitting on but no more in a victory.

What became the state of WV seceded from VA 3 MONTHS after war broke out. Soldiers of West Virginia in the Union Army followed orders like all other Union soldiers and wouldn't invade East Tennessee by themselves. Until ordered by the Union Army to do so they would go to where the Union Army told them to go like everyone else.


A bunch of rich people in Sonora talked about selling the land but the locals would never accepted it and the CSA didn't have the troops to spare to put down a revolt. Besides it had no money to spare. It was going bankrupt as is (A big part of the reason it lost the war) and buying Sonora would have only made it worse. If it bought Sonora it would only lose that much quicker.


AZ and NM being hardly populated by anyone WAS the point. That means there won't be any locals to conduct irregular warfare or to point out passes or fords. In the long run it will come down to who can spare the most troops. This is a contest the Union will win EVERY TIME. Every soldiers sent to take AZ is a soldier that can't defend somewhere else and the South doesn't have soldiers to spare. If it tries a truly serious effort to take AZ it loses quicker.

Even if the Trent Affair spins out of control the CSA can't force the USA to hold plebiscites ANYWHERE. The most GB will do is break the blockade, it almost certainly won't send troops. If they send troops for some bizarre reason they are massively outnumbered, with a very long logistical line fighting a very unpopular war. The US would certainly have seized all British property in the US and sold it to the highest bidder. The Brits would have lost their very lucrative trade with the US . The US sold GB very large amounts of food during the war which means that the Brits would have had to buy it at considerably higher cost from someone else. The costs would have been passed on to the British public which would have resulted in food riots or lower profits for British employers who would have to pay their workers more or both. GB had a lot to lose and very little to gain by getting involved which is why they didn't do so.

[67th Tigers]

Even if the Trent Affair spins out of control the CSA can't force the USA to hold plebiscites ANYWHERE. The most GB will do is break the blockade, it almost certainly won't send troops. If they send troops for some bizarre reason they are massively outnumbered, with a very long logistical line fighting a very unpopular war. The US would certainly have seized all British property in the US and sold it to the highest bidder. The Brits would have lost their very lucrative trade with the US . The US sold GB very large amounts of food during the war which means that the Brits would have had to buy it at considerably higher cost from someone else. The costs would have been passed on to the British public which would have resulted in food riots or lower profits for British employers who would have to pay their workers more or both. GB had a lot to lose and very little to gain by getting involved which is why they didn't do so.

Except the British will send troops, quite a lot of troops. 200,000 British-Canadian troops on the northern border and a navy burning most of the major US industrial centres will rapidly change peoples minds. If a plebiscite in Maryland is the price to be paid for a return to normality, trade and food in the belly then the people will take it.

[Johnrankins]

Except the British will send troops, quite a lot of troops. 200,000 British-Canadian troops on the northern border and a navy burning most of the major US industrial centres will rapidly change peoples minds. If a plebiscite in Maryland is the price to be paid for a return to normality, trade and food in the belly then the people will take it.

NO WAY IN HELL is the RN going to burn down most US cities. For one thing a lot of them are inland and for another the Lord Palmerston wasn't Prime Minister Tojo. For a third it is incapable of doing that. Even with napalm dropped out of B-17s firestorms happened only on occasion. With more firepower than the 19th century navy COULD DREAM OF HAVING the RAF and the USSAF never totally destroyed a large city without the use of nukes or napalm.

[67th Tigers]

NO WAY IN HELL is the RN going to burn down most US cities. For one thing a lot of them are inland and for another the Lord Palmerston wasn't Prime Minister Tojo. For a third it is incapable of doing that. Even with napalm dropped out of B-17s firestorms happened only on occasion. With more firepower than the 19th century navy COULD DREAM OF HAVING the RAF and the USSAF never totally destroyed a large city without the use of nukes or napalm.

Yeah, unfortunately they were. The British knew it. The Union knew it. That's why the British were negotiating from the position of strength.

The US senate's report: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n3/mode/2up

[Johnrankins]

Yeah, unfortunately they were. The British knew it. The Union knew it. That's why the British were negotiating from the position of strength.

The US senate's report: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n3/mode/2up

It talks about possible shelling of cities but nothing about burning them to the ground which British forces were UNABLE TO DO. The US in WWII with firepower that was more formidible than the 19th century in its wildest fantasy could dream of having was unable to totally destroy a single major city without the use of napalm or nukes. German and Japanese cities were producing weapons all through the war even though they were being hit by 1000 B-17 bomber raids. There is NO way the 19th century RN was capable of doing what the USSAF was unable to do even in 1944!

[RamscoopRaider]

This is all assuming the British would be willing to burn the cities of a White, Christian, English speaking nation without a very strong causus belli

[Johnrankins]

This is all assuming the British would be willing to burn the cities of a White, Christian, English speaking nation without a very strong causus belli

Apparently 67thTiger thinks that Prime Minister Palmerston was little better than Adolph Hitler! :rolleyes:

[Snake Featherston]

Yeah, unfortunately they were. The British knew it. The Union knew it. That's why the British were negotiating from the position of strength.

The US senate's report: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n3/mode/2up

So the British concept of peace was purely of the Tacitean sort, eh? :rolleyes:

:eek:

My God, if they do something that nutty, even ol' Muraviev the Hangman looks like a nice guy. :eek::eek:

[Valus36]

the only thing i can think of is the 1862 fall campaign that saw the south go on the offensive on such a massive scale. for starters, have lee rest his army for a few weeks after 2nd manassas, possible giving him more troops than he actually had, then invade the north, either have a no lost order181 or not and possibly he can destroy mcclellan's army. as far as bragg's invasion of ky, you would need an overall commander for bragg's army and kirby smith's and also possible have breckinridge and his ky boys go along as well. maybe this and the fact that both armies combine in chattanooga and follows smith's otl route might win ky for the confederacy, also i think that many people forget about price and van dorn in northern mississipi. have them combine early and actually give van dorn a victory at cornith, maybe they could either prevent union reinforcments going to ky or to the east, or maybe marching into ky itself, i don't know. Other than that, i can't think of a better possible confederate win.

[Johnrankins]

So the British concept of peace was purely of the Tacitean sort, eh? :rolleyes:

:eek:

My God, if they do something that nutty, even ol' Muraviev the Hangman looks like a nice guy. :eek::eek:

Of course the Brits don't have to worry about European reaction to something so barbaric! :rolleyes:

[Snake Featherston]

Of course the Brits don't have to worry about European reaction to something so barbaric! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, Alexander II's going to rub his hands with glee once the Polish Rebellion starts and rake the UK over the coals with this precedent.

[67th Tigers]

This is all assuming the British would be willing to burn the cities of a White, Christian, English speaking nation without a very strong causus belli

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

[Elfwine]

"The British commander's orders to burn only public buildings and strict British discipline among its troops are credited with preserving the city's private buildings."

British policy of "burning cities" to the extent to render them ruins would be far beyond that.

[RamscoopRaider]

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
And this caused some outrage and condemnation in Europe and Britain and at least on MP spoke out against it

What you are advocating is a whole lot more extreme for a whole lot less of a reason (Burning Washington was semi-justified by the burning of York)

[Glen]

A Confederate survval would always be a political one. In a Way it is like Vietnam where the Union has the military wherewithal to win militarily if fully and unrelentingly committed but where the will to do so is lacking. The first thing you need is for the Union to handle secession even worse than otl making the borderstates join in with the Confederacy early on. This was a great fear of Lincoln's and he thought the war mightbe lost without them. Solose them early. Then have some Confederate victories plus Trent or something like it Gain recognition rom the UK and France. Then have the peace movement take a more prominent role in the Congressional elections citing Republican blunders and thenyou may end up with an independent CSA. As for slavery being on the way outit was for most nations and they may a few decades after end up ending it themselves though on their terms.

[Glen]

A Confederate survval would always be a political one. In a Way it is like Vietnam where the Union has the military wherewithal to win militarily if fully and unrelentingly committed but where the will to do so is lacking. The first thing you need is for the Union to handle secession even worse than otl making the borderstates join in with the Confederacy early on. This was a great fear of Lincoln's and he thought the war mightbe lost without them. Solose them early. Then have some Confederate victories plus Trent or something like it Gain recognition rom the UK and France. Then have the peace movement take a more prominent role in the Congressional elections citing Republican blunders and thenyou may end up with an independent CSA. As for slavery being on the way outit was for most nations and they may a few decades after end up ending it themselves though on their terms.

A defensive posture for the South may be good as well.

[Fiver]

Heavy British intervention might come at the cost of abolition, gradual or otherwise. I believe the UK was ready to support CSA independence in 1862 in exchange for abolition but it fell through when the South said no.

In OTL, it took their capital being besieged for months plus direct appeals from Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee to get the Confederate Congress to agree to enlist slaves in the Army and even then there was no promise of freedom for those slaves. If British intervention comes at the price of abolition, then the Confederacy will refuse to accept British intervention.

In many ways the leadership and inept diplomacy of its own diplomats were a key part of the downfall of the Confederacy.

Much of the inept diplomacy was because Jefferson Davis gave his diplomats nothing to negotiate with. Britain was only going to intervene if they thought it was to their advantage, and the Confederate diplomats literally had nothing to negotiate with.

An "ideal" victory scenario to me would depend on people who faded into shadow after 1862. Sibley needs to win in Arizona/New Mexico and create the illusion that the Confederates might have a chance to invade California. Perhaps he can work with Mormons in the area and the promise of an independent state for them if they aid the Confederacy in cutting off the West and its resources from the East as much as possible.

The logistics of the campaign meant Sibley only had to lose one battle and he would lose everything. Despite Buchanan’s pre-war delusions, the Mormons were not secessionist and did not want to fight the US government. So long as the US has a navy, the Confederates cannot cut off the west and its resources from the east.

The New Mexico Campaign was a waste of men and materials for the Confederacy. Best case, they could have ended up controlling perhaps a quarter of the territory. To improve Confederate chances, the troops need to be sent where they can make a difference.

Nashville needs to stay Confederate if at all possibleor barring that Bragg needs to be able to hold onto Kentucky, which in my opinion was looking to see who would win the war before most of her citizens would commit themselves heavily either way.

While Kentucky was divided, significantly more of its leaders and its citizens were pro-Union. Invading Kentucky was a bigger Confederate blunder than invading New Mexico. The Confederacy lacked the men and material for an army of occupation, the best they could manage was, in effect, large and extended raids. A more defensive strategy coupled with aggressive cavalry raids on Union stores would have served the Confederacy much better than maintaining the delusion that Kentucky would welcome them as liberators.

Missouri would probably be a negotiating ground as would West(ern) Virginia, though the areas south of the Missouri River were held by the rebellion in the early part of the war.

Better coordination between regular and irregular forces could have bought the Confederates more time on the Missouri front. Best case, they might keep the southern portion of Missouri, but more likely its Arkansas that ends up partitioned between the Union and the Confederacy.

Western Virginia becomes more problematic as the northernmost counties wanted to secede, I could see Wheeling leaving and joining Pennsylvania for the sake of their people and simplicity of border control.

The Appalachians made it hard for the Confederacy to mount an offensive in West Virginia, let alone hold territory. Raids to keep the Union off balance are fine, but a concerted effort to reclaim West Virginia risks fatally weakening Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.

Get some of the nothern Mexican states to join in as well, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila if not Tamapulias, Sonora, and Chihuahua could make Confederate states with seemingly little hope of Mexican recovery after Maximillian comes along.

The Confederacy tried to persuade these Mexican states to join in OTL. It was less than successful. Better diplomacy might get some of these states to join the Confederacy, but that guarantees the hostility of the Mexican government and cuts off the Confederates best way around the Union blockade. If Maximilian comes to power as in OTL, one of the best ways he can improve his popularity is by declaring war on the Confederacy to get those Mexican territories back. Any additional troops the Confederates get from obtaining these territories would be needed for defense.

BTW I do not think the Confederacy could survive with anything less than the original 11 states that seceded, if they try they're likely bankrupt in 15-20 years or end up like a desperate banana republic with heavy dependence on a few cash crops and notable class division.


Clearly you’re defining “best” as “biggest”. Your scenario requires the Confederacy to have radically better diplomacy, generalship, and logistics than in OTL. It would leave them with two large hostile neighbors as well as ongoing problems with pro-Union and pro-Mexican guerillas. Kentucky, West Virginia, and the Mexican states would need to be heavily garrisoned. Public debt and inflation would be far worse than in OTL.

I’m defining “best” as “most likely to survive”. That means minimizing enemies, casualties, economic damage, and areas of internal dissent. Best is the peaceful secession of the original 7 states, less West Virginia, which leave no external enemies, no casualties, no economic damage, and virtually no internal dissent. Best in case of war is the Confederacy loses West Virginia, East Tennessee, and North Missouri. This leaves them with one war-weary external enemy, heavy casualties, severe economic damage, and minimal internal dissent.

[Fiver]

Except the British will send troops, quite a lot of troops. 200,000 British-Canadian troops on the northern border and a navy burning most of the major US industrial centres will rapidly change peoples minds.

In December 1861, the British had increased troops in Canada to about 19,000 and they were hard pressed to find enough shipping for that. There were also 38,000 Canadian militia, about 5000 of whom received 6 to 12 days of annual training, the rest of which were untrained. If it came to war, they expected to face an American invasion force of 50,000 to 200,000.

The British Navy specifically decided they would not attack American shipping in harbor because it risked damage to American port towns.

If a plebiscite in Maryland is the price to be paid for a return to normality, trade and food in the belly then the people will take it.

OTL's example of the Confederacy shows your opinion is wrong.

[Johnrankins]

In December 1861, the British had increased troops in Canada to about 19,000 and they were hard pressed to find enough shipping for that. There were also 38,000 Canadian militia, about 5000 of whom received 6 to 12 days of annual training, the rest of which were untrained. If it came to war, they expected to face an American invasion force of 50,000 to 200,000.

The British Navy specifically decided they would not attack American shipping in harbor because it risked damage to American port towns.


You mean the Brits didn't have unlimited shipping and manpower? Who would have guessed? You mean the Brits had no plans in burning down White, Christian cities in which it had very profitible trade with in the past? I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! :D

[M79]

In OTL, it took their capital being besieged for months plus direct appeals from Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee to get the Confederate Congress to agree to enlist slaves in the Army and even then there was no promise of freedom for those slaves. If British intervention comes at the price of abolition, then the Confederacy will refuse to accept British intervention.

I concur that the CSA required significant motivation to change things, and in OTL I believe the CSA refused British intervention. Also please note that the British leadership saw a growing US as a significant threat in the future, slowing its growth potential is in their advantage and if they can have a friendly satellite on the southern border then even better.

Much of the inept diplomacy was because Jefferson Davis gave his diplomats nothing to negotiate with. Britain was only going to intervene if they thought it was to their advantage, and the Confederate diplomats literally had nothing to negotiate with.

As goes the captain so goes the team.

The logistics of the campaign meant Sibley only had to lose one battle and he would lose everything. Despite Buchanan’s pre-war delusions, the Mormons were not secessionist and did not want to fight the US government. So long as the US has a navy, the Confederates cannot cut off the west and its resources from the east.

They might be able to make it very difficult to move material from east to west or vice versa and if the Union is having to keep watch on California then it will become more difficult for them to move elsewhere. The Colorado river makes a very nice natural boundary and is quite trecherous to cross.

The New Mexico Campaign was a waste of men and materials for the Confederacy. Best case, they could have ended up controlling perhaps a quarter of the territory. To improve Confederate chances, the troops need to be sent where they can make a difference.

I disagree, the territory places them significantly closer to the Pacific and might give them a chance to grab a port city if northern Mexico does not defect. They might also be able to dredge a port out of the Colorado river in the area, I am not familiar with the headwaters of that waterway.

While Kentucky was divided, significantly more of its leaders and its citizens were pro-Union. Invading Kentucky was a bigger Confederate blunder than invading New Mexico. The Confederacy lacked the men and material for an army of occupation, the best they could manage was, in effect, large and extended raids. A more defensive strategy coupled with aggressive cavalry raids on Union stores would have served the Confederacy much better than maintaining the delusion that Kentucky would welcome them as liberators.

Most of pro-Union Kentucky is the Ohio River corridor, so Louisville, Covington, Owensboro are the area in question. Most of the rest of the state is pro-Confederate or neutral at best. They goofed in *starting* the invasion and pushed the state government firmly into the Union camp. Pursuing Kentucky was a wise strategy, they would be the second-most industrial state in the Confederacy, had the tobacco and horse farms already in place along with hemp capacity,

Better coordination between regular and irregular forces could have bought the Confederates more time on the Missouri front. Best case, they might keep the southern portion of Missouri, but more likely its Arkansas that ends up partitioned between the Union and the Confederacy.

Military strategists will argue for rivers as borders and the Confederacy had most of Missouri in December 1861. Arkansas itself was a quagmire and might end up divided if the CSA wins by attrition or diplomacy instead of a military victory.

The Appalachians made it hard for the Confederacy to mount an offensive in West Virginia, let alone hold territory. Raids to keep the Union off balance are fine, but a concerted effort to reclaim West Virginia risks fatally weakening Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.

It also makes a Union offensive tricky, and local loyalty in the southern and central parts of the state will swong for the Confederacy.

The Confederacy tried to persuade these Mexican states to join in OTL. It was less than successful. Better diplomacy might get some of these states to join the Confederacy, but that guarantees the hostility of the Mexican government and cuts off the Confederates best way around the Union blockade. If Maximilian comes to power as in OTL, one of the best ways he can improve his popularity is by declaring war on the Confederacy to get those Mexican territories back. Any additional troops the Confederates get from obtaining these territories would be needed for defense.

Maximillian declaring war on the Confederacy is IMO not likely, especially as it will be seen by Washington as a possible grab for Texas and possibly other territory in the process. France will have to make a few serious choices in short order and it gets *really* creative after that.

Clearly you’re defining “best” as “biggest”. Your scenario requires the Confederacy to have radically better diplomacy, generalship, and logistics than in OTL. It would leave them with two large hostile neighbors as well as ongoing problems with pro-Union and pro-Mexican guerillas. Kentucky, West Virginia, and the Mexican states would need to be heavily garrisoned. Public debt and inflation would be far worse than in OTL.

I do not agree that the Mexican states would have to be garrisoned. Prior to Maximillian the states were largely semi-independent with several movements for independence, including one among three of the states in question. Kentucky would only need a garrison in one or two areas, and West Virginia would probably be placated with its own state government and relinquishment of the northern tip. A victorious Confederacy would encourage thoughts of independence elsewhere, California was 2500 miles from DC and Utah was populated with those who looked more to the church than to Congress. Maybe not during the ACW but perhaps in the next war...

I’m defining “best” as “most likely to survive”. That means minimizing enemies, casualties, economic damage, and areas of internal dissent. Best is the peaceful secession of the original 7 states, less West Virginia, which leave no external enemies, no casualties, no economic damage, and virtually no internal dissent. Best in case of war is the Confederacy loses West Virginia, East Tennessee, and North Missouri. This leaves them with one war-weary external enemy, heavy casualties, severe economic damage, and minimal internal dissent.

I'm thinking "best" as "largest" and "most likely to survive into the modern age". Leaving only the original 7 states leaves little opprtunity for economic growth or survival in the long term and the 11 states including Virginia means they will probably develop but stagnate when mineral resources grow scarce and have class problems when slavery is abolished. Bringing in other states and setting up a potential for Western mineral resources makes life and a future notably easier.

*Note - would a modern Confederacy legalize marjiuana and export it as a cash crop?

[67th Tigers]

In December 1861, the British had increased troops in Canada to about 19,000 and they were hard pressed to find enough shipping for that.


Balls. Citation needed.



The British Navy specifically decided they would not attack American shipping in harbor because it risked damage to American port towns.


Balls. Citation needed.

The Times says is better than I ever could:

LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1862.


One of the most astonishing characteristics of the American people is the ignorance which they show in discussing the power and resources of other nations as compared with their own. They are well educated, they are enlightened, they had till lately a free Press, they are given to foreign travel, and it was their justifiable boast that in no country was useful knowledge more universally diffused. Nevertheless, their delusions on the subject of their own omnipotence and invulnerability are as strange as any ever entertained by the Chinese themselves. They have been so flattered and befooled by their own mob orators that they have lost all measure of their real strength. Their few isolated victories in the war of 1812 have been made the foundation of such, a blind presumption, as would befit some semi-barbarous Eastern Court rather than a sensible and well-instructed Anglo-Saxon nation. The key-note of their boasting is that the British conquered the world, and that they conquered the British. They might as well style themselves Lords of the Earth and Brothers of the Sun and Moon. They never conquered us at all, and the little that they did fifty years ago they would have a very poor chance of doing again. What consummates the prodigy is that they enter into circumstantial calculations of their power, and, with ample proof to the contrary staring them in the face, establish to their own satisfaction that they can crush, ruin, and destroy any nation, or all the nations of the world together, while no nation is capable of doing them any sensible harm. As an example of these wonderful self-delusions we take their estimate of the British and Federal Navies, which they have worked out, at any rate on their own side, with elaborate detail, Their conclusion, as illustrated in the extract which we yesterday gave from American journals, is, that they could sweep our commerce from the face of the ocean, destroy our maritime renown, annihilate us as Tyre and Sidon were annihilated, and reduce us immediately to the position of "a poor fourth-rate Power," to become, probably, "an appendage to France". All this while they, the Federal States, would enjoy perfect immunity from the evils of war, and, excepting that they might possibly lose a few luxuries, would thrive and prosper, independently of the world, sustained by the boundless and all-sufficing resources of a vast and fertile country. When we look to the means proposed for achieving all these triumphs, we are told that the Northern States would, on a declaration of war, equip and arm 6,000 privateers to drive us from the face of the deep.


It is as well, perhaps, that in this estimate then was no mention of ships of war. What the Federal Navy was at the commencement of the Civil War we showed a few weeks ago; what it is now we can explain this morning. As the emergency was pressing, the Federal Government at once resolved on purchasing a whole fleet of vessels from the mercantile marine. They spent on this service about a million and a half of money, and bought up apparently every floating thing at hand that would carry a gun or two. They did not even confine themselves to steamers, but snapped up old sailing brigs, barks, and schooners, which they added to packet-vessels, tugs, and ferry-boats, and so "reconstructed " their Navy. That Navy, therefore, which six months ago consisted of about half-a-dozen serviceable frigates and twice as many serviceable sloops, now comprises, in addition, 35 paddle wheel steamers, 43 screw steamers 13 ships, 18 barks, and 23 schooners, all picked up in the various Federal ports since July last. This, as far as ships of war go, is the force on which they rely to contend against a Navy of a thousand vessels, including 80 ships of the line 100 powerful frigates, and swarms of smaller craft admirably built and armed. Admiral Milne (http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=68)'s squadron alone included on the 1st of this month eight ships of the line, as many heavy frigates six corvettes, and eleven lighter steamers or gunboats. A telegram from the Admiralty could double or treble it at the shortest notice. A to reinforcing such a marine by purchased merchantmen, we could add a thousand steamers to it in a month, if the idea could be entertained. As it is, we are going rather on the opposite tack If the good people of the Northern States will but look at the Naval Intelligence given in these columns, they will see that, instead of buying, we are selling. A very pretty little fleet of frigates and sloops is just now on sale at our dockyards, most of them newer and better vessels than those which formed the sailing Navy of America a few months back, and all infinitely superior to the bargains by which it has since been increased. This survey, too, will materially assist us in appreciating the grand scheme of sweeping us from the ocean by the guns of 6,000 privateers. If the Northern Americans, acting under the strongest stimulus, and with a prodigality of outlay beyond all bounds, have only been able to equip and arm some 150 merchantmen of all descriptions in the course of six months, - not half of these being seaworthy, - we may guess what success they would experience in turning out about forty times that number to sweep England from the ocean.


But there is a good deal more to he said on this point. The Americans here, as everywhere else, are lost in dreams of a bygone age. It is clear that if much was to be done by privateering we, as being infinitely stronger, could do more than they. If such a game were to be played, we could send out three privateers to their one, our ships being no longer inferior in sailing qualities, but a match for any vessels in the world. Our privateers would be as certain in the long run to beat theirs as our Royal Navy would to beat their ships of war. It is far more probable, however, that the days of privateering would be found to be past. Steam has now superseded sails, and steamers require not only greater original outlay and organization, but convenient ports for fitting and coaling. A steam privateer could hardly keep the sea more than ten days at a time. Our large mail packets would carry guns, and would be unassailable by any but ships of war, of which it is to be hoped Admiral Milne (http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=68) would soon give a good account. Then, again, the electric telegraph has so improved communications that the first sight of a hostile sail on this side of the Atlantic would set every port and every guardship on the alert, and supposing, after all, that an American privateer should succeed, as no doubt she might, in snapping up a prize, where is she to dispose of it? She could not carry it into any European port, and our blockading squadrons would take good care that she got into no port of her own. The Americans, in short, could never send out "6,000 privateers," nor a twentieth part of the number; if they did so, and privateering was found to be an effective service, we could beat them hollow at their own game; but the probability is that the system would never answer in these times as it did in times past.


Equally marvellous, again, is the delusion of the Americans about their own invulnerability all this while, and their absolute independence of foreign trade. The first effect of our blockade would be to deprive them at a blow of their Customs and their cotton - in other words, of the raw material for their home manufactures, and the chief source of their ordinary revenue. At the same moment, the very embargo which they boast they could themselves lay on their breadstuffs would rob the Western States of the profits of their agriculture, and convert communities already uneasy into disloyal and disaffected States. Is the Federal Government prepared to encounter these perils, and in an unjust cause? We should think not, but such are the hallucinations which a long course of flattery has engendered in the American mind that it is impossible to predict the policy which the people may dictate. In this crisis of their destinies, when a war with England would, comparatively speaking, be sport to us, though death to them, they are persuading themselves that the advantages are all on their side, and the risks on ours. With a Navy scarcely more formidable than that of Italy or Spain, they are not only defying, but menacing, the chief maritime Power of the world, and all this they are doing in the light of day and with abundant information to guide them to a better judgment. Under such circumstances, who can calculate on their course?

[Elfwine]

You cannot seriously be suggesting we take that as an objective or informed depiction of the situation.

If this is "better than you ever could", that says a lot - but not about the power of Great Britain.

[67th Tigers]

You cannot seriously be suggesting we take that as an objective or informed depiction of the situation.

If this is "better than you ever could", that says a lot - but not about the power of Great Britain.

"One of the most astonishing characteristics of the American people is the ignorance which they show in discussing the power and resources of other nations as compared with their own."

[Elfwine]

"One of the most astonishing characteristics of the American people is the ignorance which they show in discussing the power and resources of other nations as compared with their own."

The Times saying something doesn't make it true.

[BlondieBC]

"One of the most astonishing characteristics of the American people is the ignorance which they show in discussing the power and resources of other nations as compared with their own."

The British often overestimated their power too, even in retrospect. I often read how it was a mistake for Kaiser Wilhelm to have a naval race with Britain, and it i was. But the other side of the coin is rarely mention, that the UK broke the back of their empire because they massively overestimated their land power.

Despite what the chest beating article give says, Britain is not master of the land and sea. Sea yes, land no. Only with France's help did the UK manage a small victory against Russia. IMO, without France's help, it would be a best a draw, and probably a small loss for the UK. While the UK MIGHT win land war with an undivided USA, it would only be after years and crippling costs. Taking a few port cities would only be the beginning of a long war, not the end. And any war with the USA carried huge potential risk and cost for the UK. Even a win against the USA has a potential to cripple the UK, because the other Great Powers will not be standing still during this time frame, and a loss will mean a different Great Power is the dominant power.

[67th Tigers]

The British often overestimated their power too, even in retrospect. I often read how it was a mistake for Kaiser Wilhelm to have a naval race with Britain, and it i was. But the other side of the coin is rarely mention, that the UK broke the back of their empire because they massively overestimated their land power.

Despite the cost the UK emerged from WW1 with an improved position - an enlarged empire and the temporary near destruction of their main enemy (Russia). It was WW2 that actually damaged the UK (with Japan, not Germany delivering the major blows to British power) and it was still one of three new great powers, at least until 1956.

[67th Tigers]

The Times saying something doesn't make it true.

No, the fact that it is true makes it true.

[Johnrankins]

The British often overestimated their power too, even in retrospect. I often read how it was a mistake for Kaiser Wilhelm to have a naval race with Britain, and it i was. But the other side of the coin is rarely mention, that the UK broke the back of their empire because they massively overestimated their land power.

Despite what the chest beating article give says, Britain is not master of the land and sea. Sea yes, land no. Only with France's help did the UK manage a small victory against Russia. IMO, without France's help, it would be a best a draw, and probably a small loss for the UK. While the UK MIGHT win land war with an undivided USA, it would only be after years and crippling costs. Taking a few port cities would only be the beginning of a long war, not the end. And any war with the USA carried huge potential risk and cost for the UK. Even a win against the USA has a potential to cripple the UK, because the other Great Powers will not be standing still during this time frame, and a loss will mean a different Great Power is the dominant power.

Yep, as shown before a war with the US would be a long costly bloodbath that would cripple GB. By 1860 GB doesn't have a chance at conquering the US. It is too large, too populous and too far away. It is fully connected by rails and is the #2 industrial power on the planet. GB neither had the desire or the capacity to destroy US cities outside of marching their troops into them. Bombardment will do some damage to them but won't destroy them. Vicksburg and Atlanta were both bombarded for about a month and their ammo didn't come from thousands of miles away. The Union Army was able to resupply almost continously while the RN would have to make port in Canada to resupply. No city was ever destroyed by bombardment without the use of napalm or nukes. Not even 1,000 heavy bomber airraids were able to completely destroy industrial production in either Germany or Japan during WWII using firepower far, far in excess of what the RN could dream of using and was unable to ruin cities badly enough to stop production. On land GB is massively outnumbered and has very long and shaky supply lines and has to depend mostly on horses instead of trains for supplies. All in all not a good situation for them.

[67th Tigers]

Despite what the chest beating article give says, Britain is not master of the land and sea. Sea yes, land no. Only with France's help did the UK manage a small victory against Russia. IMO, without France's help, it would be a best a draw, and probably a small loss for the UK. While the UK MIGHT win land war with an undivided USA, it would only be after years and crippling costs. Taking a few port cities would only be the beginning of a long war, not the end. And any war with the USA carried huge potential risk and cost for the UK. Even a win against the USA has a potential to cripple the UK, because the other Great Powers will not be standing still during this time frame, and a loss will mean a different Great Power is the dominant power.

The British won the Great War against Russia in the Baltic. See Lambert: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4CfoAAAAIAAJ

Also see Lambert on how effective British Grand Strategy for controlling the US was: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bEKnQyYliFwC&pg=PA164

[Elfwine]

No, the fact that it is true makes it true.

Unfortunately, you have done nothing to show that it is true, just demonstrated that the best you can do is exceeded by a newspaper article with a bias so strong you could walk on it.

I'm not saying this as someone who thinks the US can do more than - at best - some possibly effective campaigning in Canada (although given previous US "successes" there, that's not encouraging) and fending off British invasion - I'm more Anglophilic than Ameriphilic - but you greatly underestimate the US and greatly overestimate the Confederacy and Great BRitain.

[Fiver]

In December 1861, the British had increased troops in Canada to about 19,000 and they were hard pressed to find enough shipping for that.Balls. Citation needed.

"The reinforcements raised the number of British troops in Canada, the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland to 924 Officers and 17658 men." - Fountain of Discontent: The Trent Affair and Freedom of the Seas, Gordon H. Warren (http://books.google.com/books?id=llUSAAAAYAAJ&q=17%2C658#search_anchor), p 130.

"The navy did not have the eighteen troopships on hand to transport the 11,000 soldiers who were going to Canada in the first wave. Jonny's vessel, the Adriatic, had been purchased from an American shipping firm and refitted in such haste that the US Flag could still be seen on the paddle box." - A World on Fire, Amanda Foreman, p.184.

The British Navy specifically decided they would not attack American shipping in harbor because it risked damage to American port towns.Balls. Citation needed.

The First Lord of the Admiralty wrote Admiral Milne, saying "The object of the war can of course only be considered to cripple the enemy. That is his trade and of his trade it can only be his shipping. No object would be gained if the Forts alone are to be attacked, as modern views deprecate any damage to a town. If ships are fired upon in a Port the town must suffer; therefore the shipping cannot be fired on. This actually reserves operations to against vessels at sea." - Britain and the balance of power in North America, Kenneth Bourne (http://books.google.com/books?id=pDVCAAAAIAAJ&q=The+object+of+the+war+can+of+course+only+be+cons idered+to+cripple+the+enemy.+That+is+his+trade+and +of+his+trade+it+can+only+be+his+shipping.+No+obje ct+would+be+gained+if+the+Forts+alone+are+to+be+at tacked,+as+modern+views+deprecate+any+damage+to+a+ town.+If+ships+are+fired+upon+in+a+Port+the+town+m ust+suffer;+therefore+the+shipping+cannot+be+fired +on.+This+actually+reserves+operations+to+against+ vessels+at+sea.&dq=The+object+of+the+war+can+of+course+only+be+con sidered+to+cripple+the+enemy.+That+is+his+trade+an d+of+his+trade+it+can+only+be+his+shipping.+No+obj ect+would+be+gained+if+the+Forts+alone+are+to+be+a ttacked,+as+modern+views+deprecate+any+damage+to+a +town.+If+ships+are+fired+upon+in+a+Port+the+town+ must+suffer;+therefore+the+shipping+cannot+be+fire d+on.+This+actually+reserves+operations+to+against +vessels+at+sea.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M7GBT82XAoixiQKutsSyAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)

[Johnrankins]

Unfortunately, you have done nothing to show that it is true, just demonstrated that the best you can do is exceeded by a newspaper article with a bias so strong you could walk on it.

I'm not saying this as someone who thinks the US can do more than - at best - some possibly effective campaigning in Canada (although given previous US "successes" there, that's not encouraging) and fending off British invasion - I'm more Anglophilic than Ameriphilic - but you greatly underestimate the US and greatly overestimate the Confederacy and Great BRitain.

Hell, I am not even saying that the US can invade Canada very effectively. What it CAN do is make it so expensive to GB that GB quickly realizes that fighting in the US is an expensive drain on resources that can be better used elsewhere. Fighting the US in the 1860s is NOT a cakewalk.

[67th Tigers]

"The reinforcements raised the number of British troops in Canada, the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland to 924 Officers and 17658 men." - Fountain of Discontent: The Trent Affair and Freedom of the Seas, Gordon H. Warren (http://books.google.com/books?id=llUSAAAAYAAJ&q=17%2C658#search_anchor), p 130.

"The navy did not have the eighteen troopships on hand to transport the 11,000 soldiers who were going to Canada in the first wave. Jonny's vessel, the Adriatic, had been purchased from an American shipping firm and refitted in such haste that the US Flag could still be seen on the paddle box." - A World on Fire, Amanda Foreman, p.184.


Well Foreman is a fool. She should know that the troops were always carried on hired oceanic steamers.



The First Lord of the Admiralty wrote Admiral Milne, saying "The object of the war can of course only be considered to cripple the enemy. That is his trade and of his trade it can only be his shipping. No object would be gained if the Forts alone are to be attacked, as modern views deprecate any damage to a town. If ships are fired upon in a Port the town must suffer; therefore the shipping cannot be fired on. This actually reserves operations to against vessels at sea." - Britain and the balance of power in North America, Kenneth Bourne (http://books.google.com/books?id=pDVCAAAAIAAJ&q=The+object+of+the+war+can+of+course+only+be+cons idered+to+cripple+the+enemy.+That+is+his+trade+and +of+his+trade+it+can+only+be+his+shipping.+No+obje ct+would+be+gained+if+the+Forts+alone+are+to+be+at tacked,+as+modern+views+deprecate+any+damage+to+a+ town.+If+ships+are+fired+upon+in+a+Port+the+town+m ust+suffer;+therefore+the+shipping+cannot+be+fired +on.+This+actually+reserves+operations+to+against+ vessels+at+sea.&dq=The+object+of+the+war+can+of+course+only+be+con sidered+to+cripple+the+enemy.+That+is+his+trade+an d+of+his+trade+it+can+only+be+his+shipping.+No+obj ect+would+be+gained+if+the+Forts+alone+are+to+be+a ttacked,+as+modern+views+deprecate+any+damage+to+a +town.+If+ships+are+fired+upon+in+a+Port+the+town+ must+suffer;+therefore+the+shipping+cannot+be+fire d+on.+This+actually+reserves+operations+to+against +vessels+at+sea.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M7GBT82XAoixiQKutsSyAw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)Or rather the selective quote on wikipedia. Funny how it misses Milne agreeing with Newcastle about the "regrettable necessity of having to burn New York and Boston." - Bourne, pg237

Edit: Your quote doesn't exist in "Balance" BTW. Try again.

[Elfwine]

Wikipedia (the only place a quick google search mentions the quote):

The object of the war can of course only be considered to cripple the enemy. That is his trade and of his trade it can only be his shipping. No object would be gained if the Forts alone are to be attacked, as modern views deprecate any damage to a town. If ships are fired upon in a Port the town must suffer; therefore the shipping cannot be fired on. This actually reserves operations to against vessels at sea. If a town is undefended or the defenses subdued an embargo might be put on it and a subsidy demanded.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair#cite_note-111)


Note the source given.

Posting just to see if anything else comes up.

[Johnrankins]

Wikipedia (the only place a quick google search mentions the quote):


The object of the war can of course only be considered to cripple the enemy. That is his trade and of his trade it can only be his shipping. No object would be gained if the Forts alone are to be attacked, as modern views deprecate any damage to a town. If ships are fired upon in a Port the town must suffer; therefore the shipping cannot be fired on. This actually reserves operations to against vessels at sea. If a town is undefended or the defenses subdued an embargo might be put on it and a subsidy demanded.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair#cite_note-111)


Note the source given.

Posting just to see if anything else comes up.



Which also says GB MIGHT be able to occupy Maine. The occupation of Maine is hardly going to stop the US from fighting. It also states flat out that it won't be able to win a decisive military victory. Unlike Tiger67th the British government can't handwave the logistical problems of fighting an heavily industrialized power on its home turf thousands of miles away.

[Fiver]

They might be able to make it very difficult to move material from east to west or vice versa and if the Union is having to keep watch on California then it will become more difficult for them to move elsewhere.

Most material moved east to west was by ship. Utah can do precisely nothing about that.

I disagree, the territory places them significantly closer to the Pacific and might give them a chance to grab a port city if northern Mexico does not defect.

They had no chance of getting that much of the territory, thus it was a waste of time, material, and lives. At best they could hope for the SE portion of the Territory.

Military strategists will argue for rivers as borders and the Confederacy had most of Missouri in December 1861. Arkansas itself was a quagmire and might end up divided if the CSA wins by attrition or diplomacy instead of a military victory.

In a win by attrition there is no reasonable chance the border will be that far north. In a win by diplomacy, the Union will not cede territory they already control.

Maximillian declaring war on the Confederacy is IMO not likely, especially as it will be seen by Washington as a possible grab for Texas and possibly other territory in the process. France will have to make a few serious choices in short order and it gets *really* creative after that.

The Confederacy gaining some of the northern Mexican states, guarantees the hostility of Mexico. That eliminates trade with Mexico, leading to Confederate shortages of sulfur, copper, gunpowder, and nitre.

If Maximillian doesn't declare war on the Confederacy over their seizing Mexican states, he can expect major portions of his Mexican support to go over to the Juaristas. Chances of the French officially recognizing the Confederacy disappear.

I do not agree that the Mexican states would have to be garrisoned. Prior to Maximillian the states were largely semi-independent with several movements for independence, including one among three of the states in question.

Most of the population of these Mexican states were opposed to being ruled by foreigners, as Maximillian found out. Independence from Mexico is quite a different thing from being annexed by the Confederacy, where slavery will be forced on them and they will be considered second class citizens. Without significant Confederate garrisons, these states will be in constant unrest against the Confederacy and will easily fall to Maximillian or the Juaristas.

Kentucky would only need a garrison in one or two areas, and West Virginia would probably be placated with its own state government and relinquishment of the northern tip.

There is no way that the Confederacy could take and hold either of those areas during the ACW. Post-war they would be sources of Unionist unrest.

A victorious Confederacy would encourage thoughts of independence elsewhere...

Agreed. Britain, France, and Spain may all come to regret the example of an independent Confederacy. For that matter, the Confederacy will probably see its own rhetoric turned against it when various Confederate states secede from it.

I'm thinking "best" as "largest" and "most likely to survive into the modern age".

Except largest means least likely to survive into the modern age. This is a country where any state can leave at any time for any reason. The larger and more diverse the Confederacy is, the more likely that sections will break away from it. Your largest also requires the Confederacy be left with two large hostile powers on its borders. This requires a larger army that the Confederacy cannot afford, and leaves them at constant risk of war with powers their size or larger.

Leaving only the original 7 states leaves little opprtunity for economic growth or survival in the long term..

Why do you think that?

and the 11 states including Virginia means they will probably develop but stagnate when mineral resources grow scarce and have class problems when slavery is abolished.

How does adding more states reduce class problems in the Confederacy?

Bringing in other states and setting up a potential for Western mineral resources makes life and a future notably easier.

Those mineral resources didn't start getting extracted until decades later based on Union investment. That's not a good tradeoff for the Confederacy's immediate problems of crippling debt, runaway inflation, overtaxed infrastructure, loss of major portions of its labor force, major internal unrest, and being surrounded by large, hostile neighburs.

*Note - would a modern Confederacy legalize marjiuana and export it as a cash crop?

In period, marijuana was not illegal. Regulation or criminalization would be decided by individual states, not the Confederate government.

[Fiver]

Funny how it misses Milne agreeing with Newcastle about the "regrettable necessity of having to burn New York and Boston." - Bourne, pg237

Actually, what Milne said (http://books.google.com/books?id=netrU16-ZU0C&pg=PA237) was "War has no doubts its honours and its evils but to make war felt it must be carried against the enemy with energy and every place must be made to feel what war really is."

That's not an endorsement of Newcastle's view and Newcastle was Secretary of State for the Colonies, not First Lord of the Admiralty.

For that matter, Newcastle (http://books.google.com/books?id=netrU16-ZU0C&pg=PA246) ended up deciding that "the burning of New York and Boston would be as great a blow to England as the the destruction of Liverpool and Bristol".

Edit: Your quote doesn't exist in "Balance" BTW. Try again.

Googlebooks sure seems to think it does.

[Johnrankins]

Actually, what Milne said (http://books.google.com/books?id=netrU16-ZU0C&pg=PA237) was "War has no doubts its honours and its evils but to make war felt it must be carried against the enemy with energy and every place must be made to feel what war really is."

That's not an endorsement of Newcastle's view and Newcastle was Secretary of State for the Colonies, not First Lord of the Admiralty.

For that matter, Newcastle (http://books.google.com/books?id=netrU16-ZU0C&pg=PA246) ended up deciding that "the burning of New York and Boston would be as great a blow to England as the the destruction of Liverpool and Bristol".



Googlebooks sure seems to think it does.

Tiger67th never let the facts interfere with his opinion! ;)

[Mr. Magi]

Tiger67th never let the facts interfere with his opinion! ;)

Actually, I get the feeling that how his stance works is highlighted brilliantly in this comic (http://v.cdn.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/080115.png) whenever I see him post in a CSA thread.

But to be serious, I honestly think that their best victory would be a status quo ante bellum, or essentially the eleven states that seceded. I could see Indian Territory go their way too. I don't think they'd get Kentucky or Missouri, and they sure as hell aren't getting Maryland.

I can see them being quite unstable, pretty darn poor, and suffering some serious revolts unless their leaders can get their act together (and with the roster they have, this is totally unlikely). I state this with an early victory in mind. Anything later than 1863 only makes this worse.

[Johnrankins]

Actually, I get the feeling that how his stance works is highlighted brilliantly in this comic (http://v.cdn.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/080115.png) whenever I see him post in a CSA thread.

But to be serious, I honestly think that their best victory would be a status quo ante bellum, or essentially the eleven states that seceded. I could see Indian Territory go their way too. I don't think they'd get Kentucky or Missouri, and they sure as hell aren't getting Maryland.

I can see them being quite unstable, pretty darn poor, and suffering some serious revolts unless their leaders can get their act together (and with the roster they have, this is totally unlikely). I state this with an early victory in mind. Anything later than 1863 only makes this worse.

Agreed, even in 1863 the CSA economy is pretty much screwed and it will take a LONG time for it to climb out of debt.

[BlondieBC]

The British won the Great War against Russia in the Baltic. See Lambert: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4CfoAAAAIAAJ

Also see Lambert on how effective British Grand Strategy for controlling the US was: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bEKnQyYliFwC&pg=PA164

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Why did you link the book about the UK winning, when I state they won?

Only with France's help did the UK manage a small victory against Russia.

You are having trouble with a concept. Actual events that happened are facts that prove things. Someone writing a book about something that did not happen is an opinion. The book you link is no more "authoritative proof" than my U-boat ATL. If you are unable to explain you position beyond linking some books, you should not be posting on this thread.

Your previous one from the times of London was just a editorial. It no more proves what would have happened than linking a pre-Iraq War editorial would "prove" Bush II won in Iraq. You positions are generally so bizarre as to be almost laughable, and now I know why after this thread. You have trouble separating objective evidence from editorials/opinions. You can pretty much take any modern war, go to the decade before the war, and find authoritative analyst that will tell you the war could never happen like it did in OTL. You can normally find a few books that will also layout how it happened, but no book will get it entirely correct. This is why you have to do analysis.

On other threads and this threads, you have the UK accomplishing things in the ACW that they were unable to accomplish in the Crimean War and often unable to accomplish in Northern France in a war of national survival with more advance technology, when they only had to travel 20 miles not several thousand. The major problem with your analysis is you ignore what was actually accomplished, and instead go to opinion peaces.

[BlondieBC]

Hell, I am not even saying that the US can invade Canada very effectively. What it CAN do is make it so expensive to GB that GB quickly realizes that fighting in the US is an expensive drain on resources that can be better used elsewhere. Fighting the US in the 1860s is NOT a cakewalk.

My take is similar. The UK intervening in the ACW means both the USA and the UK are much, much weaker financially and strategically than OTL. The USA could easily lose some territory such as California, Maine or the CSA. The USA could also be a net "winner" and gain some land. A lot depends on how the UK decides to intervene, which could be anything from a large naval role with limited (under 100K land forces) to a total mobilization like WW1. I can't see the later as being very likely, but I can't absolutely rule it out. The first case would be most likely, followed by a graduated level of increase in land forces scenario.

The real winner of any UK intervention in the ACW would be the European Great Powers who did not intervene. The UK was still carry substantial debt after the Napoleonic wars, and intervening in the ACW will greatly increase these debts and stop the gradual payoff. The ACW cost the USA around 4 billion dollars, and it is easy to see the UK spending as much or more in a full scale war since they have to bring the supplies from much farther away.

[Snake Featherston]

Despite the cost the UK emerged from WW1 with an improved position - an enlarged empire and the temporary near destruction of their main enemy (Russia). It was WW2 that actually damaged the UK (with Japan, not Germany delivering the major blows to British power) and it was still one of three new great powers, at least until 1956.

Yeah, I seem to remember that the crippling of the British Empire began around WWI when Ireland broke off, India demanded and received assurance it would be allowed to do so, the UK was financially crippled and overstretched, and the experience of mass armies and mass casualties to go with them was such a shock it was never thereafter repeated again.

[67th Tigers]

Yeah, I seem to remember that the crippling of the British Empire began around WWI when Ireland broke off, India demanded and received assurance it would be allowed to do so, the UK was financially crippled and overstretched, and the experience of mass armies and mass casualties to go with them was such a shock it was never thereafter repeated again.

Maybe you remember such things, but you have a perchant for believing in myths.

[Snake Featherston]

Maybe you remember such things, but you have a perchant for believing in myths.

I think this is no myth but objective reality. This is why the UK had less of an issue with the Depression than in some areas. It had less far to fall and had less difficulty in getting back into its 1920s MO. I seem to remember also that in the interwar era the British had all kinds of fun and games try to hold together their new empire, what with instances like Jewish and Arab terrorists both taking potshots at them.....

[Johnrankins]

I think this is no myth but objective reality. This is why the UK had less of an issue with the Depression than in some areas. It had less far to fall and had less difficulty in getting back into its 1920s MO. I seem to remember also that in the interwar era the British had all kinds of fun and games try to hold together their new empire, what with instances like Jewish and Arab terrorists both taking potshots at them.....

Agreed, 67thTiger is the only one I know of that even tries to deny it. The UK had over 700,000 dead and over a million wounded in WWI with a casualty rate of 44%. http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar1/a/blww1casualties.htm It also cost GB $35 billion which was a whopping sum in WWI. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcosts.htm Those are costs that definitely weakened the UK.

[67th Tigers]

The real winner of any UK intervention in the ACW would be the European Great Powers who did not intervene. The UK was still carry substantial debt after the Napoleonic wars, and intervening in the ACW will greatly increase these debts and stop the gradual payoff. The ACW cost the USA around 4 billion dollars, and it is easy to see the UK spending as much or more in a full scale war since they have to bring the supplies from much farther away.

It won't be that expensive as the naval forces largely exist, the Canadian militia with a stiffening of regulars and the Confederate army can do the bulk of the fighting. The British spent ~£120 m extra for two years fighting against Russia. It's difficult to see them spending anything like that to fight the US at this time.

1. Breaking the US blockade - essentially free, the forces already exist and coal and shell are very cheap.

2. Imposing a blockade - the need to increase the naval establishment for to bring out the reserves to replace the forces committed to a blockade will cost about £1 m pa

3. Destruction of major US fortifications and coastal industries - essentially free, the forces exist etc.

4. Securing the Great Lakes - the construction of ironclads for the Lakes is already accounted for. It will cost ~ £500,000.

5. Mobilisation of 150,000 Militiamen - if equipped, fed, housed and paid to British regular standards (£40 per man pa) then this will cost £6 m.

6. Cost of ~ 300 transport ships to land 75,000 regulars and supply the armies: ~ £ 6 m pa

With a subsidy to the Confederacy (given as industrial produce - Armstrong field guns, a couple of hundred thousand Enfields etc.) the UK could probably successfully prosecute a war against the US that sees victory in 1862 for about £20-30 m. Not peanuts, but the bank is hardly going to be broken. HMG were giving Prussia less than this in 1814.

[Snake Featherston]

Agreed, 67thTiger is the only one I know of that even tries to deny it. The UK had over 700,000 dead and over a million wounded in WWI with a casualty rate of 44%. http://europeanhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar1/a/blww1casualties.htm It also cost GB $35 billion which was a whopping sum in WWI. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWcosts.htm Those are costs that definitely weakened the UK.

I think his mistake is to look at the degree to which the Empire's territorial extent grew and to think this equals an overall increase in strength. It really did not do this at all, otherwise Japan could not in a second war in a generation have dealt the Empire its mortal wound. :rolleyes:

[67th Tigers]

Agreed, even in 1863 the CSA economy is pretty much screwed and it will take a LONG time for it to climb out of debt.

$750 m in bonds is quite a bit but not crippling. To put in another way, at the end of 1863 they were in for about three years worth of cotton crop.

[Johnrankins]

$750 m in bonds is quite a bit but not crippling. To put in another way, at the end of 1863 they were in for about three years worth of cotton crop.

Most of which would go into the planter's pocket. The planters aren't going to plant cotton for nothing. Cotton production does not equal tax money for the government. If the government takes half (fat chance) it would take 6 years of production at a third nine years and that the most it could reasonably take. At a third the planters would be screaming bloody murder not talking half.

[Ace Venom]

If you want to stick to the 1861 start date, there are ways to get a "best" Confederate victory.

1) Somehow get the Trent Affair to explode into war between the UK and the United States. France will get involved as well.
2) Get France to send military aid to the CSA.
3) Have some major Confederate victories in Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky that lead to to the secession of these states from the Union.
4) Somehow avoid an irredentist USA from trying to reconquer them a few years down the road.

[Zmflavius]

Most of which would go into the planter's pocket. The planters aren't going to plant cotton for nothing. Cotton production does not equal tax money for the government. If the government takes half (fat chance) it would take 6 years of production at a third nine years and that the most it could reasonably take. At a third the planters would be screaming bloody murder not talking half.

And this, obviously, doesn't mention all the other necessary uses for that tax money.

[Reggie Bartlett]

An early victory would be best.

So a Trent Affair victory, perhaps a scenario that comes from a CS victory at Shiloh, or a TL191 style victory in Maryland and Kentucky.

[Johnrankins]

And this, obviously, doesn't mention all the other necessary uses for that tax money.

True enough, like paying a 75,000 men+ army!

[Mr. Magi]

True enough, like paying a 75,000 men+ army!

And its navy needed to prevent the US from storming the beaches again, and maintenance of its infrastructure, as well as any form of state programs that they might have. Also the public sector.

[Johnrankins]

And its navy needed to prevent the US from storming the beaches again, and maintenance of its infrastructure, as well as any form of state programs that they might have. Also the public sector.

Exactly, they could consider themselves lucky if they paid down the debt to reasonable levels in 15-20 years. One good thing they got out of losing the war is that the debt was made worthless. They didn't pay a dime on all their debt after the war ended and that helped the South greatly.

[Bexar]

4) Somehow avoid an irredentist USA from trying to reconquer them a few years down the road.[/QUOTE]

How could you avoid an irredentialist USA, with the CSA staying whole?

[Fiver]

$750 m in bonds is quite a bit but not crippling. To put in another way, at the end of 1863 they were in for about three years worth of cotton crop.

$700 million in bonds, $1,500 million in treasury notes, and $500 million in impressed goods that the Confederacy will need to pay back to its citizens. That's $2.7 billion in debt.

Your "three years of the cotton crop" requires the Confederate government confiscating every pound of cotton in the Confederacy, selling it for the government's profit, and giving the cotton growers nothing. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

If the Confederacy taxes 25% of the profit on cotton, which the cotton growers will not stand for, it will take them about 70 years to pay of the national debt.

[Mike]

The British won the Great War against Russia in the Baltic. See Lambert: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4CfoAAAAIAAJ

Also see Lambert on how effective British Grand Strategy for controlling the US was: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bEKnQyYliFwC&pg=PA164

And how do you demonstrate that Lambert is an authority on this? Just like that Times article you linked?

My reading of the Crimean War is that it was the armies of France and the Turks that defeated Russia while the UK provided naval support.

As proof, consider what happened 20 years after the Crimean War. The war was fought to prevent Russia from interferring in Ottoman affairs. Guess what? 20 years later France was defeated in the Franco-Prussian war and the resulting French Republic was no longer hostile to Russian interference in Ottoman affairs. The newly-formed Germany too did not care. Russia took this opportunity and established a fleet in the Black Sea and started interferring in Ottoman affairs. Britain, now isolated, protested vehemently but did nothing to stop it. Nothing but stand back helplessly.

In the long run, the UK and its allies lost the Crimean War. The supposed British "grand strategy" failed.

[Mike]

The real winner of any UK intervention in the ACW would be the European Great Powers who did not intervene. The UK was still carry substantial debt after the Napoleonic wars, and intervening in the ACW will greatly increase these debts and stop the gradual payoff. The ACW cost the USA around 4 billion dollars, and it is easy to see the UK spending as much or more in a full scale war since they have to bring the supplies from much farther away.

Agreed. UK intervention against an established industialized power miles away would require BOTH a large army and a large navy. The UK, even doing its "superpower" days has never demonstrated it could support both types of forces. In every major war the UK has fought from the 17th century onwards, it depended on its allies to provide the armies while the UK provided the naval support and blockade and sometimes providing only a token army.

WW1 was the exception. In that war, the UK provided a substantial army to go with the naval forces but proved unable to sustain them such that the war was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. When you add the fact that the French, Russians and the USA were also fighting the Central Powers and barely defeating them, it doesn't seem likely that the UK alone could prosecute a successful war against an established industrialized power miles away in the 19th century. If the UK somehow was successful, it would have been pyrrhic. They even had trouble defeating a small people, the Boers, and a Stone Age civilization, the Zulus, in the 19th century.

[eighthgear]

They even had trouble defeating a small people, the Boers, and a Stone Age civilization, the Zulus, in the 19th century.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, the Zulus were hardly Stone Age and the British didn't have that much trouble crushing them. Yes, the Zulus had early victories, since the British underestimated them, but later battles saw the Zulus losing thousands of men whilst the British only lost dozens.

Nevertheless, you are correct that superpower Britain didn't really have that stellar of an army. It was, for all essential purposes, an imperial police force.

[Snake Featherston]

Agreed. UK intervention against an established industialized power miles away would require BOTH a large army and a large navy. The UK, even doing its "superpower" days has never demonstrated it could support both types of forces. In every major war the UK has fought from the 17th century onwards, it depended on its allies to provide the armies while the UK provided the naval support and blockade and sometimes providing only a token army.

WW1 was the exception. In that war, the UK provided a substantial army to go with the naval forces but proved unable to sustain them such that the war was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. When you add the fact that the French, Russians and the USA were also fighting the Central Powers and barely defeating them, it doesn't seem likely that the UK alone could prosecute a successful war against an established industrialized power miles away in the 19th century. If the UK somehow was successful, it would have been pyrrhic. They even had trouble defeating a small people, the Boers, and a Stone Age civilization, the Zulus, in the 19th century.

The Zulus weren't quite Stone Age, and relied on the oxhide shields and spears version of encirclement tactics. The British beat that "stone age" people by reviving medieval tactical formations amplified by modern small-arms fire.

[Rush Tarquin]

WW1 was the exception. In that war, the UK provided a substantial army to go with the naval forces but proved unable to sustain them such that the war was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. When you add the fact that the French, Russians and the USA were also fighting the Central Powers and barely defeating them, it doesn't seem likely that the UK alone could prosecute a successful war against an established industrialized power miles away in the 19th century. If the UK somehow was successful, it would have been pyrrhic.

We need to remember the concept of relative power. The time periods being compared in this thread (not singling you out in particular Mike) are too different. Relative power between the Great Powers was very fluid in the last two centuries.

[Elfwine]

We need to remember the concept of relative power. The time periods being compared in this thread (not singling you out in particular Mike) are too different. Relative power between the Great Powers was very fluid in the last two centuries.

But the 1860s are Britain's height, and it's still running the military budget - well, mostly the army - on a shoestring.

For Britain to send a substantial force to North America is a considerable drain on the forces available to do anything else, even if nothing else is immediately threatening, that's an investment not to be made lightly.

[Rush Tarquin]

But the 1860s are Britain's height, and it's still running the military budget - well, mostly the army - on a shoestring.

For Britain to send a substantial force to North America is a considerable drain on the forces available to do anything else, even if nothing else is immediately threatening, that's an investment not to be made lightly.

I don't doubt it. But if we're going to put a price tag on this, it needs to be accompanied by what exactly Britain's war aims would be, which in turn needs to be commensurate with how much the British government and public would care about guaranteeing the independence of a bunch of slaveocrats and righting a bloody nose from Trent. On the other hand, they might have France's help and even some logistical or token support from Emperor Max.

[Elfwine]

I don't doubt it. But if we're going to put a price tag on this, it needs to be accompanied by what exactly Britain's war aims would be, which in turn needs to be commensurate with how much the British government and public would care about guaranteeing the independence of a bunch of slaveocrats and righting a bloody nose from Trent. On the other hand, they might have France's help and even some logistical or token support from Emperor Max.

Agreed. Britain smashing the US utterly is going to be ridiculously costly. Britain pointing out it has the power and the US can't return the favor might be one of the few easy wars.

[67th Tigers]

But the 1860s are Britain's height, and it's still running the military budget - well, mostly the army - on a shoestring.

For Britain to send a substantial force to North America is a considerable drain on the forces available to do anything else, even if nothing else is immediately threatening, that's an investment not to be made lightly.

£ 15m a year (excluding India) is hardly shoestring.

Yet again this strange notion that when you go to war you don't actually fight your enemy.....

[Elfwine]

£ 15m a year (excluding India) is hardly shoestring.

Yet again this strange notion that when you go to war you don't actually fight your enemy.....

On the scale of the British Empire? Yes, it is. It is to be - largely - commended that Britain was able to rule so much so cheaply, but keeping a small army with far flung commitments does have consequences when having to do something like this.

Not sure on what you mean by the "strange notion" - I'm not ruling out Britain actually fighting, simply that if it wants to have large scale invasions of the US, those are going to send the bills (and challenges) up, up, and up.

[Snake Featherston]

£ 15m a year (excluding India) is hardly shoestring.

Yet again this strange notion that when you go to war you don't actually fight your enemy.....

The UK refused to pay for a huge standing army until 1914. Why is it going to suddenly pony up one for an intervention into a Civil War in North America across the Atlantic? For that matter, how does one precisely go from the USA's performance in this timeframe against the Boers and the laughable logistical incompetence of the Crimean War to assuming the UK has any better idea of where the USA's center of gravity is a third time than it did the first two? The UK wins due to its superior strength, but primarily from the US economic stranglehold and the reality that with so much US strength tied down against the CSA and engulfed in the war the USA will have a perpetual declining strength rivaling WWI Russia post-October 1914.

[Johnrankins]

The UK refused to pay for a huge standing army until 1914. Why is it going to suddenly pony up one for an intervention into a Civil War in North America across the Atlantic? For that matter, how does one precisely go from the USA's performance in this timeframe against the Boers and the laughable logistical incompetence of the Crimean War to assuming the UK has any better idea of where the USA's center of gravity is a third time than it did the first two? The UK wins due to its superior strength, but primarily from the US economic stranglehold and the reality that with so much US strength tied down against the CSA and engulfed in the war the USA will have a perpetual declining strength rivaling WWI Russia post-October 1914.

Depends on what the US does. If I were Lincoln I would go on the defensive in the south and hurl the rest at the UKs 50,000 troops. Once they are kicked out I can turn back to the CSA. If they do what 67thTigers stupidly suggests and try to burn down New York and Boston (They would have to land a lot of troops to actually pull it off, doing it by bombardment is simply impossible) then it is CERTAIN that the US will turn most if not all of its attention against Canada. In which case the CSA might well be recognized but at the cost to GB of ALL OF CANADA except maybe a few port cities. By 1860 there are far too many Americans vs too few Canadians for the contest to be in much doubt if the US goes all out.

[Elfwine]

Depends on what the US does. If I were Lincoln I would go on the defensive in the south and hurl the rest at the UKs 50,000 troops. Once they are kicked out I can turn back to the CSA. If they do what 67thTigers stupidly suggests and try to burn down New York and Boston (They would have to land a lot of troops to actually pull it off, doing it by bombardment is simply impossible) then it is CERTAIN that the US will turn most if not all of its attention against Canada. In which case the CSA might well be recognized but at the cost to GB of ALL OF CANADA except maybe a few port cities. By 1860 there are far too many Americans vs too few Canadians for the contest to be in much doubt if the US goes all out.

Problem.

Logistics.

Speaking as someone who has read about the state of Canada between this period and the building of the Canadian Pacific, and cannot imagine supporting an invading army like you're proposing across the vast majority of Canada.

It made sense - barely - to think in terms of conquering Canada when it was basically Quebec province that was meant. In this regard, that is.

The area from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

It's just downright not workable.

[Snake Featherston]

Depends on what the US does. If I were Lincoln I would go on the defensive in the south and hurl the rest at the UKs 50,000 troops. Once they are kicked out I can turn back to the CSA. If they do what 67thTigers stupidly suggests and try to burn down New York and Boston (They would have to land a lot of troops to actually pull it off, doing it by bombardment is simply impossible) then it is CERTAIN that the US will turn most if not all of its attention against Canada. In which case the CSA might well be recognized but at the cost to GB of ALL OF CANADA except maybe a few port cities. By 1860 there are far too many Americans vs too few Canadians for the contest to be in much doubt if the US goes all out.

How does the USA afford raising and equipping and most crucially given that the USA was best able to arm itself in 1864 to a tune of 50,000 to overrun Canada?

[Fiver]

£ 15m a year (excluding India) is hardly shoestring.

"Given the choice between an effective way of resourcing a military measure, or a cheap, but less effective way, the Commons would usually find an even cheaper and wholly ineffective third way."

"Responsibility for commissariat and transport matters rested with the Treasury, and in consequence they were run on a shoestring."

"Army logistic systems, such as they were, had to be improvised from scratch. For a long time, British general officers had not only to master the art of war, but if they were to succeed beyond the limited environment of small-scale amphibious expeditions, had of necessity to be brilliant and instinctive logisticians, too."

"... the combined medical, transport, and commissariat services remained a ludicrously small proportion of the Army's overall strength...."

"...considerably more was spent on housing the average convict than the average soldier."

"Statistical analysis showed that when the annual mortality rate amongst men of military age in the civilian population was between 7.5 and 9 in a thousand, it was 18 in the infantry, 11 in the cavalry, and 20 in the Guards. In the specific case of deaths from consumption, the mortality rate in the Army was an extraordinary five times higher than, amongst civilians." - Into the Jaws of Death, Mike Snook

[Johnrankins]

How does the USA afford raising and equipping and most crucially given that the USA was best able to arm itself in 1864 to a tune of 50,000 to overrun Canada?

This is ONLY in the Tiger67th scenario where GB tries burning down NYC and Boston AND the US as a result recognizes the CSA and then throws everything at Canada to make sure it never happens again. In 1864 the US had around 1,000,000 troops which is much more than enough to overrun Canada. Even by late 1862 it has enough to do that. There just isn't very many Canadians.

[Elfwine]

This is ONLY in the Tiger67th scenario where GB tries burning down NYC and Boston AND the US as a result recognizes the CSA and then throws everything at Canada to make sure it never happens again. In 1864 the US had around 1,000,000 troops which is much more than enough to overrun Canada. Even by late 1862 it has enough to do that. There just isn't very many Canadians.

John, what about the logistics of actually supplying that invading army?

Not as in producing the supplies, but as in getting them to the army.

[Johnrankins]

John, what about the logistics of actually supplying that invading army?

Not as in producing the supplies, but as in getting them to the army.

Horses, trains etc. It would take time and it would take money but I am sure the US population would be willing to pay it if it makes it impossible for GB to do it again. Most of Canada wasn't settled then. Once the settled areas are taken you have no more worries. It isn't like the Inuit will come down in a massive horde. The important thing is to get the UK off the continent.

[Elfwine]

Horses, trains etc. It would take time and it would take money but I am sure the US population would be willing to pay it if it makes it impossible for GB to do it again. Most of Canada wasn't settled then. Once the settled areas are taken you have no more worries. It isn't like the Inuit will come down in a massive horde. The important thing is to get the UK off the continent.

Trains? Canada's railroad system makes the Confederacy's look well developed.

Horses? That's going to be a lot of horses.

And if you want the whole of Canada, taking only the places near the border might not be enough to convince the UK to fork it over.

[67th Tigers]

Depends on what the US does. If I were Lincoln I would go on the defensive in the south and hurl the rest at the UKs 50,000 troops. Once they are kicked out I can turn back to the CSA. If they do what 67thTigers stupidly suggests and try to burn down New York and Boston (They would have to land a lot of troops to actually pull it off, doing it by bombardment is simply impossible) then it is CERTAIN that the US will turn most if not all of its attention against Canada. In which case the CSA might well be recognized but at the cost to GB of ALL OF CANADA except maybe a few port cities. By 1860 there are far too many Americans vs too few Canadians for the contest to be in much doubt if the US goes all out.

Essentially this was what the British feared, the US making terms with the CSA on the basis of separation and combining the available forces to besiege Montreal (which is the only major military move possible, an advance up the Hudson Valley to invest Montreal).

If they're not willing to come to terms then getting the men is problematic. At the time of the Trent Affair the only large usable military force is McClellan's Army of the Potomac which can maybe detach 5 divisions north to combine with Burnside's Division giving 60,000 men to advance up the Hudson.

The question becomes can McClellan break through the defenses at Fort Montgomery, then those at St Jean and cross the St Lawrence to invest Montreal before April?

[67th Tigers]

Trains? Canada's railroad system makes the Confederacy's look well developed.

Horses? That's going to be a lot of horses.

And if you want the whole of Canada, taking only the places near the border might not be enough to convince the UK to fork it over.

Well the Confederacies rail system was as developed as the norths. Same track mileage per capita, same rolling stock per capita. Almost like they were once one country....

Canada also had a fairly healthy rail system, but of course had a much healthier waterborne transport net. The fate of Canada is prettymuch decided by control of the Great Lakes.

[Elfwine]

Well the Confederacies rail system was as developed as the norths. Same track mileage per capita, same rolling stock per capita. Almost like they were once one country....

Canada also had a fairly healthy rail system, but of course had a much healthier waterborne transport net. The fate of Canada is prettymuch decided by control of the Great Lakes.

More like they were the less developed part of the country.

[Johnrankins]

More like they were the less developed part of the country.
It isn't like the US Army didn't have practice building railroads. It kept repairing its own, rebuilt Southern railroads in areas where they were completely conquered while private companies were building a transcontinental railroad. If need be the US Army simply builds one.

[Elfwine]

It isn't like the US Army didn't have practice building railroads. It kept repairing its own, rebuilt Southern railroads once they were completely conquered while private companies were building a transcontinental railroad. If need be the US Army simply builds one.

That's easier said than done, however. Rebuilding Southern railroads is a lot easier than building a railroad from scratch.

Speaking as a railroad history buff.

[Johnrankins]

That's easier said than done, however. Rebuilding Southern railroads is a lot easier than building a railroad from scratch.

Speaking as a railroad history buff.

True, but it isn't like the US had no practice at that either. The US had the largest rail network in the world before the ACW.

[Elfwine]

True, but it isn't like the US had no practice at that either. The US had the largest rail network in the world before the ACW.

Whether it has practice in it or not isn't the problem, it's the actual doing - we're looking at months of work (and the more this is rushed, the more the problems of rushing come in).

I'm not sure off the top of my head how the US's rail network compares to Britain's, but it's certainly up there.

[Mr. Magi]

True, but it isn't like the US had no practice at that either. The US had the largest rail network in the world before the ACW.

All I know was that the US had some decent logistics and could easily repair their rails quickly, unlike Johnny Reb. http://lparchive.org/MS-Saga-A-New-Dawn/Update%2010/emot-downs.gif

Didn't they also have a more organized rail system too?

[67th Tigers]

Whether it has practice in it or not isn't the problem, it's the actual doing - we're looking at months of work (and the more this is rushed, the more the problems of rushing come in).

I'm not sure off the top of my head how the US's rail network compares to Britain's, but it's certainly up there.

The pre-breakup US had 3 billion ton-miles of stock (the CSA took 1 b t-m of this). The UK had 15 billion ton-miles.

[Elfwine]

All I know was that the US had some decent logistics and could easily repair their rails quickly, unlike Johnny Reb. http://lparchive.org/MS-Saga-A-New-Dawn/Update%2010/emot-downs.gif

Didn't they also have a more organized rail system too?

Much - system is entirely the wrong word for the Confederate railroads, although it wasn't exactly ideal in the loyal states, it was workable.

Higher quality (tracks and so forth), too.

The pre-breakup US had 3 billion ton-miles of stock (the CSA took 1 b t-m of this). The UK had 15 billion ton-miles.

Source?

Partially asking because my knowledge of UK railroads is scantier than I'd like, so any good books on them are welcome.

[Johnrankins]

Whether it has practice in it or not isn't the problem, it's the actual doing - we're looking at months of work (and the more this is rushed, the more the problems of rushing come in).

I'm not sure off the top of my head how the US's rail network compares to Britain's, but it's certainly up there.

So what? What's the rush? After an attempt by GB to burn down NYC and Boston (Remember we are going by 67thTiger's INSANE plan) the US public would be willing to fight for years to make sure that the Brits can't do it again. Losing Canada would make GB's logistical situation even worse than before making it far more difficult for GB to even attempt not talking about pulling off.

[Elfwine]

So what? What's the rush? After an attempt by GB to burn down NYC and Boston (Remember we are going by 67thTiger's INSANE plan) the US public would be willing to fight for years to make sure that the Brits can't do it again. Losing Canada would make GB's logistical situation even worse than before making it far more difficult for GB to even attempt not talking about pulling off.

Point well taken.

I was making the mistake of assuming we were looking at a realistic war scenario.

[Johnrankins]

Much - system is entirely the wrong word for the Confederate railroads, although it wasn't exactly ideal in the loyal states, it was workable.

Higher quality (tracks and so forth), too.



Source?

Partially asking because my knowledge of UK railroads is scantier than I'd like, so any good books on them are welcome.

According to Battle Cry of Freedom page 12 in 1860 the US had more rail milage then the rest of the world COMBINED.

[Elfwine]

According to Battle Cry of Freedom page 12 in 1860 the US had more rail milage then the rest of the world COMBINED.

That sounds hard to believe.

[Mike]

Problem.

Logistics.

Speaking as someone who has read about the state of Canada between this period and the building of the Canadian Pacific, and cannot imagine supporting an invading army like you're proposing across the vast majority of Canada.

It made sense - barely - to think in terms of conquering Canada when it was basically Quebec province that was meant. In this regard, that is.

The area from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

It's just downright not workable.

The main economic and population centers of Canada back then is basically the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. This is basically a small strip hugging the US border. Once this corridor is taken, the rest of eastern Canada basically falls. The USA of 1860 is more than capable of getting that. The British would be kicked out of eastern North America and, if they still want a presence in North America, would be forced to settle the Pacific coast out of reach of the huge US population centers in the east. Even today, 80% of the Canada's population lives close to the southern border.

But it would be costly for the USA of the 1860 to take Canada while fighting the UK and the Confederacy at the same time such that it would hamper the USA's later status as a superpower. The best way for the USA of 1860 to proceed in case of war with both the UK and the Confederacy is to commit some Union forces (of which they had plenty to spare) to defend US territory and supplies from UK attacks while continuing to attack the Confederacy as per OTL. Once the Confederacy could be defeated, the US could then go on the offensive against the UK and take Eastern Canada and if they really wanted, drive west to take the rest of Canada.

[Snake Featherston]

According to Battle Cry of Freedom page 12 in 1860 the US had more rail milage then the rest of the world COMBINED.

Except that statement took into account both the North *and* the South......

[Johnrankins]

That sounds hard to believe.

The US in 1860 was very large and despite what 67thTiger says highly industrialized. Who had rails to any great extent in 1860? GB, France, US, maybe parts of Germany and Italy. The US at the time was already larger than Western Europe.

[Johnrankins]

Except that statement took into account both the North *and* the South......

True enough, but it DOES show the US had LOTS of practice building railroads. Of course, the railroads were larger and better maintained in the North than the South. Even without the South the US probably had the world's largest rail network.

[Johnrankins]

The main economic and population centers of Canada back then is basically the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. This is basically a small strip hugging the US border. Once this corridor is taken, the rest of eastern Canada basically falls. The USA of 1860 is more than capable of getting that. The British would be kicked out of the eastern North America and, if they still want a presence in North America, would be forced to settle the the Pacific coast out of reach of the huge US population centers in the east. Even today, 80% of the Canada's population lives close to the southern border.

But it would be costly for the USA of the 1860 to take Canada while fighting the UK and the Confederacy at the same time such that it would hamper the USA's later status as a superpower. The best way for the USA of 1860 to proceed in case of war with both the UK and the Confederacy is to commit some Union forces (of which they have plenty to spare) to defend US territory and supplies from UK attacks while continuing to attack the Confederacy as per OTL. Once the Confederacy could be defeated, the US could then go on the offensive against the UK and take Eastern Canada and if they really wanted, drive west to take the rest of Canada.

I would do the opposite. Go on the defensive in the South and after the Brits are kicked out of Canada go back on the offensive in the South. Route all the Irish formations to fight the Brits along with any new Irish formations .The Irish were reluctant to fight the South because they were worried about losing their jobs to newly freed Blacks. Fighting the English on the other hand....

[Elfwine]

The main economic and population centers of Canada back then is basically the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. This is basically a small strip hugging the US border. Once this corridor is taken, the rest of eastern Canada basically falls. The USA of 1860 is more than capable of getting that. The British would be kicked out of eastern North America and, if they still want a presence in North America, would be forced to settle the Pacific coast out of reach of the huge US population centers in the east. Even today, 80% of the Canada's population lives close to the southern border.


Is Britain going to hand over Canada just for that, though?

But it would be costly for the USA of the 1860 to take Canada while fighting the UK and the Confederacy at the same time such that it would hamper the USA's later status as a superpower. The best way for the USA of 1860 to proceed in case of war with both the UK and the Confederacy is to commit some Union forces (of which they had plenty to spare) to defend US territory and supplies from UK attacks while continuing to attack the Confederacy as per OTL. Once the Confederacy could be defeated, the US could then go on the offensive against the UK and take Eastern Canada and if they really wanted, drive west to take the rest of Canada.That drive is going to be the insanely impossible part, while fighting the CSA or not.

John: Looking up numbers, apparently in 1850 Great Britain had 6,000 miles of track to have something to put vaguely in perspective. Trying to find numbers for elsewhere. I see the statement on the US>the rest of the world put together repeated (by sources other than Battle Cry of Freedom, that is), I should note.

Anyway, this is an argument on a detail - as you said, the US is definitely industrialized.

[Johnrankins]

That drive is going to be the insanely impossible part, while fighting the CSA or not.

John: Looking up numbers, apparently in 1850 Great Britain had 6,000 miles of track to have something to put vaguely in perspective.
The US had 30,000 in total by 1860 , 9000 by 1850 according to what I cited.

[Elfwine]

The US had 30,000 in total by 1860 , 9000 by 1850 according to what I cited.

Yeah, finding 1860 figures for elsewhere is proving more difficult than anticipated.

So I'll accept the point until/unless I find something contradicting it.

[Mike]

I would do the opposite. Go on the defensive in the South and after the Brits are kicked out of Canada go back on the offensive in the South. Route all the Irish formations to fight the Brits along with any new Irish formations .The Irish were reluctant to fight the South because they were worried about losing their jobs to newly freed Blacks. Fighting the English on the other hand....

I disagree. Fighting the UK would be a lot harder than fighting the Confederacy for the USA of 1860. Taking eastern Canada would still have been difficult if the USA back then didn't have to fight the Confederacy too. It would be that difficult such that it would take a long drawn-out war for the USA back then. But it it is definitely doable. It would have been better to deal with the Confederacy and securing its borders before the USA of 1860 commits itself to a long drawn-out war to take eastern Canada and the rest of the continent if it really wanted to.

[BlondieBC]

I would do the opposite. Go on the defensive in the South and after the Brits are kicked out of Canada go back on the offensive in the South. Route all the Irish formations to fight the Brits along with any new Irish formations .The Irish were reluctant to fight the South because they were worried about losing their jobs to newly freed Blacks. Fighting the English on the other hand....

IMO, best solution would be to go on defensive against CSA initially, and secure Great Lakes area (Southern Ontario and Quebec). Then try to take Halifax, which probably not work due to British naval resupply. Threatening Halifax is the best way to tie up UK forces that would otherwise be in Boston, NYC, etc. Then after the northern front stalls, go on the offensive in the South down the Mississippi. The RN is going to make operations in coastal Virginia very challenging.

Of course, a lot will depend on how and when the UK intervenes.

[Mike]

That drive is going to be the insanely impossible part, while fighting the CSA or not.

John: Looking up numbers, apparently in 1850 Great Britain had 6,000 miles of track to have something to put vaguely in perspective. Trying to find numbers for elsewhere. I see the statement on the US>the rest of the world put together repeated (by sources other than Battle Cry of Freedom, that is), I should note.

Anyway, this is an argument on a detail - as you said, the US is definitely industrialized.

The rest of Canada at that point was not settled much and could be taken by the much more populous and industrialized USA of 1860. The USA back then has the the industrial know-know to build railroads and wagons to send troops there. The costs would be huge but they have a huge logistics advantage in taking the rest of Canada compared to the UK in defending it. But it would be costly such that it might hamper the USA's later status as a superpower.

[Johnrankins]

IMO, best solution would be to go on defensive against CSA initially, and secure Great Lakes area (Southern Ontario and Quebec). Then try to take Halifax, which probably not work due to British naval resupply. Threatening Halifax is the best way to tie up UK forces that would otherwise be in Boston, NYC, etc. Then after the northern front stalls, go on the offensive in the South down the Mississippi. The RN is going to make operations in coastal Virginia very challenging.

Of course, a lot will depend on how and when the UK intervenes.

That would work as well, maybe better than mine. In any case you want to tie up any British troops and fighting in Canada does that. In a sane, realistic scenario you want to bleed the Brits just enough for them to go home. Offer them the deal that if they stop the naval war you will withdraw from Canada. With 67thTigers insane plan that goes out the window and you want to drive the British out of NA at all costs.

[TheKnightIrish]

IMO, best solution would be to go on defensive against CSA initially, and secure Great Lakes area (Southern Ontario and Quebec). Then try to take Halifax, which probably not work due to British naval resupply. Threatening Halifax is the best way to tie up UK forces that would otherwise be in Boston, NYC, etc. Then after the northern front stalls, go on the offensive in the South down the Mississippi. The RN is going to make operations in coastal Virginia very challenging.

Of course, a lot will depend on how and when the UK intervenes.

Thats a thought. There are potentially very large numbers of troops in south eastern Virginia, coastal Carolinas, and on the Gulf coast who would quickly be cut off by the Royal Navy. This is a very large bag of potential prisoners for Britain/CSA - the Dept of Virginia, the Dept of the South etc etc.

[Snake Featherston]

I remain convinced that the only way the CSA can win the war on its own steam is through the lucky accidents of Grant and Thomas biting the bullet at Chattanooga, leaving the US Army of the Cumberland under the command of Rosecrans, the USA under a bigger command crisis, and Bragg just having to sit there and wait for General Starvation to win the battle for him. As a result he can capture an entire Union army of veterans that was the second-largest of all the individual Union armies, following this with capturing Burnside's IX Corps and for the third straight time in a row in his career being the only CS general to actually push the Union army back.

In terms of manpower losses this is a crippling defeat for the USA strategically, and for all Lincoln's actions to force the war to an end, there is no strategic means for the Union Army to fix the loss of 30,000 men, while this actually gives the CSA for the first time in the war since its general offensive of 1862 a strategic advantage. It would also provide a morale boost to counterbalance the catastrophes at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, as well as providing the first instance since Harper's Ferry of a major haul of Union prisoners *and* the first time in the war where a CS general takes prisoners in numbers to rival Grant's captures of entire armies, as both Rosecrans and Burnside would be captured here.

Meanwhile the US Army is left with a number of brilliant tacticians like Ord, but has no strategists who can conduct an all-Union campaign to bring the CSA to a complete defeat. Tacticians alone don't win wars, we could ask the Germans about that sometime.....

Foreign intervention is not really workable or very likely in an ACW context. Europe has more to worry about with Prussia at home and Napoleon III and the Polish Rebellion than it does with the particular circumstances of the US Civil War. Especially with the UK seeing a chance to develop its own cotton supplies to be more autarkic on that matter. Foreign intervention would ala Libya 2011 lead to the inevitable triumph of the CSA, but it also creates a Dolchstosslegende of epic proportions in the USA and a long-term geopolitical clusterfuck for everyone involved.

OTOH, North American history would be a lot more dynamic and a lot less "Canada stays British forever, US history, and Mexico's sad gallery of civil wars, coups, and authoritarian asshole nutbars".......

[Tegytsgurb]

Thank you Snake for being sick to death of the GB talk and actually getting back on-topic. I've been waiting for this moment for pages.

The problems with your scenario, One: Once the cracker line is opened the North has enough troops to keep it open, regardless of who's in command. Any battlefield loss will not result in their starvation.

Two: There is effectively no way for the cracker line to *not* be opened. It was proposed by "Baldy" Smith, chief engineer, and respected by all (well enough). He wouldn't be a front-line troop and so getting him out of the picture is unlikely. He presented it to Rosecrans who endorsed it completely, and in fact was making plans to open the line just before Grant arrived. Grant and Thomas of course both endorsed it completely, and getting them both out of the picture *before* mid-October is well-nigh impossible.

Three: In the event of Grant and Thomas being killed at Chattanooga, Rosecrans won't assume command (he was in Missouri I believe by this time). Senior officer on-hand is either Sherman or Hooker. Both have their issues but neither is outright incompetent. Most of the next echelon are actually pretty good (McPherson, Howard, Slocum, Logan, Sheridan, Davis, Granger, Baird, etc.)

Admittedly none of them are strategical geniuses, but I question whether this is a critical factor. By this point in the war Lincoln and Stanton know something about what's what. If they order one of their good tacticians to march on Atlanta starting in Spring 1864, Atlanta will fall by the autumn. The campaign will be more in the form of a couple major battles than protracted skirmishing, but given a 2:1 numerical advantage I fail to see Johnston or whoever holding the city.

Then whoever is in the east just keeps Lee occupied with their own 2:1 advantage throughout the year - maybe gets lucky and the Valley falls as well - and even without a Shermanesque March to the Sea or a Siege of Petersburg, the North's position by the elections is just too strong for Lincoln to not get re-elected, and then he has 4 more years to win the war. Even the most strategically inept can win enough stand-up battles in 4 years to win by attrition if nothing else.

----

I'd argue for an earlier string of southern victories. Say, A. S. Johnston not falling at Shiloh and bagging Grant, Sherman, and their 30,000 men at the end of the first day. Then Buell falls back to Nashville to regroup, and the South can keep Van Dorn and Price's men with the main army for their autumn raid into Kentucky, leading perhaps to a victory.

Butterflies from the above lead to victory in Virginia - at latest, if all else goes as OTL, say Day 6 of the 7 Days (Glendale) Jackson actually performs competently and Lee bags half of McClellan's men. The other half retreat demoralized to Washington. Pope falls pathetically easy, and then simultaneously with the Kentucky campaign Lee lolls about in Maryland, not even searching for a pitched battle, avoiding Washington like the plague, maybe going for Baltimore...

Anyway, the 1862 elections go horribly against Lincoln. At the same time he has no opportunity for the EP. Combination of the above plus Confederates in 2 Border states lead to England + France recognition in the late autumn of '62 (coming out of OTL November Conference...) and even without comitting any troops the South has a good enough position that Lincoln has to acquiesce.

I came up with the above after mayb 15 seconds of thought. Doubtless there is better - but overall I say the earlier PoD the better for the South. No EP is critical in any case.

[Snake Featherston]

Tetsysgurb: It was proposed by Baldy Smith, yes. There was very much a means that the AoTC *could* have done it before Grant got there. As I remember it the concept remained a proposal until Grant got there at which point he took it from theory and implemented it. He actually made a comment about that in his memoirs. My POD is less Grant dying at Chattanooga and more the third instance where he had a fall from his horse that could have killed him, in this case because his horse got spooked by a train. Thomas was to die in the ATL equivalent of the Battle of Wauhatchie and it's his death that causes the thing to spiral into a debacle and results in an inglorious Union defeat, but Longstreet and Bragg were doomed to fall out anyhow so he'd still be sent to Knoxville.

The problem the Union has is that it needs a strategist *and* tactician who can not only come up with good plans but have the means, the mind, and the will to see how they would be implemented in practice. Grant and Thomas are the only ones that actually qualify IOTL, and while Rosecrans, Ord, McPherson, and the like are all good tacticians, again a tactician alone won't win wars. War is more than mere battlefighting, especially a civil war where the political aspect of a battle is much more important in terms of its ultimate role than what unit A does to unit B for result C.

[Johnrankins]

Tetsysgurb: It was proposed by Baldy Smith, yes. There was very much a means that the AoTC *could* have done it before Grant got there. As I remember it the concept remained a proposal until Grant got there at which point he took it from theory and implemented it. He actually made a comment about that in his memoirs. My POD is less Grant dying at Chattanooga and more the third instance where he had a fall from his horse that could have killed him, in this case because his horse got spooked by a train. Thomas was to die in the ATL equivalent of the Battle of Wauhatchie and it's his death that causes the thing to spiral into a debacle and results in an inglorious Union defeat, but Longstreet and Bragg were doomed to fall out anyhow so he'd still be sent to Knoxville.

The problem the Union has is that it needs a strategist *and* tactician who can not only come up with good plans but have the means, the mind, and the will to see how they would be implemented in practice. Grant and Thomas are the only ones that actually qualify IOTL, and while Rosecrans, Ord, McPherson, and the like are all good tacticians, again a tactician alone won't win wars. War is more than mere battlefighting, especially a civil war where the political aspect of a battle is much more important in terms of its ultimate role than what unit A does to unit B for result C.

There still is Sherman who still will want to smash the CSA economy to pieces. That is what more than anything did the CSA in. They no longer had the economic means to sustain the war.

[BlondieBC]

Thats a thought. There are potentially very large numbers of troops in south eastern Virginia, coastal Carolinas, and on the Gulf coast who would quickly be cut off by the Royal Navy. This is a very large bag of potential prisoners for Britain/CSA - the Dept of Virginia, the Dept of the South etc etc.

Absolutely, they could be. Like many non-POD specific wartime what if's, the devil is in the details. Yes, the RN could catch the Union forces off guard and isolate a lot of them. Now I doubt the CSA has the forces to do a lot of siege operations at the same time, and it will take the UK a while to get forces there to besiege them. And the Union would have some real desperation to get a breakthough to relieve them. It would make a great TL to read.

Another interesting idea is they are still exchanging prisoners early in the war, so it may just mean a bunch of CSA soldiers are released too.

That would work as well, maybe better than mine. In any case you want to tie up any British troops and fighting in Canada does that. In a sane, realistic scenario you want to bleed the Brits just enough for them to go home. Offer them the deal that if they stop the naval war you will withdraw from Canada. With 67thTigers insane plan that goes out the window and you want to drive the British out of NA at all costs.

A lot depends on what the UK is fighting for. I do like occupying parts of Canada as a first move, so there is something to trade for potentially lost USA land like California. Without a POD, it is hard to establish what would happen. I have trouble seeing a POD that gives a WW1/Napoleonic type effort by the UK.

IMO, a more realistic scenario is the UK recognizes the CSA, and insists that its merchants ships can trade with the CSA without interference. I did enjoy Turtledove book where about 35,000 UK soldiers were sent to Virginia, but I have a hard time seeing this happening. I would think the UK would first send soldiers to garrison the Halifax to Quebec to Toronto to Niagara to Windsor line, then issue the ultimatum. The RN is powerful, and it would be tempting just to intervene, but it would be wise to start moving land forces well before this point in time.

I have a lot of trouble seeing a POD where the UK felt so strongly it was willing to go for a full mobilization type war, but where Lincoln would not back down. Something like the Trent Affair where the RN occupies Long Island and threatens to attack NYC, followed by a USA apology seems much more likely.

[Snake Featherston]

There still is Sherman who still will want to smash the CSA economy to pieces. That is what more than anything did the CSA in. They no longer had the economic means to sustain the war.

But Sherman was a lousy tactician. The degree to which he was one is illustrated at Missionary Ridge where a single division held off his entire army. This was because he completely failed to take into account either the terrain or any actual nature of the opposition facing him. Sherman needed good tacticians to compensate for these weaknesses, and without either Grant or Thomas......

[Elfwine]

But Sherman was a lousy tactician. The degree to which he was one is illustrated at Missionary Ridge where a single division held off his entire army. This was because he completely failed to take into account either the terrain or any actual nature of the opposition facing him. Sherman needed good tacticians to compensate for these weaknesses, and without either Grant or Thomas......

This might not be unsalvageable versus Johnston, although given that Chattanooga is not going to be a win without Thomas's army performing as well as it did...that won't even come up.

Not to mention the Virginia theater. I do not want to imagine Lee invading the North for a third time in 1864, even if it isn't successful per se, him being able to would be a terrible thing for the Northern public.

[Snake Featherston]

This might not be unsalvageable versus Johnston, although given that Chattanooga is not going to be a win without Thomas's army performing as well as it did...that won't even come up.

Not to mention the Virginia theater. I do not want to imagine Lee invading the North for a third time in 1864, even if it isn't successful per se, him being able to would be a terrible thing for the Northern public.

Eh, given that Meade was able to slap Lee silly in the fall of 1863, I think any misguided attempt by Lee to attack Meade will end extremely well.....for George Meade. As I said, the Union will have a lot of good tacticians, but that alone won't win them the war.

[Elfwine]

Eh, given that Meade was able to slap Lee silly in the fall of 1863, I think any misguided attempt by Lee to attack Meade will end extremely well.....for George Meade. As I said, the Union will have a lot of good tacticians, but that alone won't win them the war.

True, although I can think of a scenario where Lee is able to do this well enough to cause problems in the political-civilian sphere even if we know that Meade can whoop him as a general.

Meade is not quite good enough to beat Lee as Grant beat Lee, I'm afraid.

[Snake Featherston]

True, although I can think of a scenario where Lee is able to do this well enough to cause problems in the political-civilian sphere even if we know that Meade can whoop him as a general.

Meade is not quite good enough to beat Lee as Grant beat Lee, I'm afraid.

Hence why I said that tacticians alone can't win the Union the war. Civil wars don't really operate on the ability of generals in a purely military sphere (no war really does do this in full, but in civil wars this is transparent more than elsewhere).

[Johnrankins]

But Sherman was a lousy tactician. The degree to which he was one is illustrated at Missionary Ridge where a single division held off his entire army. This was because he completely failed to take into account either the terrain or any actual nature of the opposition facing him. Sherman needed good tacticians to compensate for these weaknesses, and without either Grant or Thomas......

Sherman was bad at frontal assaults which is what he had to do at Missionary Ridge. He hated them so he wasn't good at them. What he was good at is flanking attacks. He outflanked Johnston all the way to Atlanta and then did the same thing to Hood. As one Southerner put it "Sherman will never go to Hell. He will outflank the devil and get into Heaven despite in spite of the guards."

[Elfwine]

Sherman was bad at frontal assaults which is what he had to do at Missionary Ridge. He hated them so he wasn't good at them. What he was good at is flanking attacks. He outflanked Johnston all the way to Atlanta and then did the same thing to Hood. As one Southerner put it "Sherman will never go to Hell. He will outflank the devil and get into Heaven despite in spite of the guards."

But all of those flanking moves are manuevering, not battle fighting. And with the enormous assistance of Johnston's passive - or if you prefer (@ Nytram mostly), reactive - response.

Using Johnston as shorthand for "the Army of Tennessee", as an argument on how Hood was a backstabbing son of a blankedy-blank gets us nowhere - the point is, Sherman never had to worry about being forced to deal with what the enemy was doing to keep him from flank, flank, and more flanking. Had Johnston been able (again, why he couldn't is not the point) to force Sherman to have to fight on his (Joe's) terms, Sherman would look like one of the least effective generals of the war.

[scholar]

It is a silly and misguided notion that the Confederacy would never have been able to win a war against the North in a way that allows them to maintain territory sovereignty.

This seems to come into my head whenever a serious topic of conversation about the survival of the Confederacy is brought into question.

"Nope, its impossible, its ASB to the nth power because the Confederacy was maybe a third as strong as the United States, if not less, and it is a done deal that any war between them will be a complete and total war in which the union will absolutely and mercilessly burn down and destroy every city and town that gets in their way. We also know that the Union will absolutely have competent leadership, and that leadership will be more competent than that overrated mediocre general known as Robert E. Lee. Besides, even ignoring the absolute impossibility that they could win in a war against the north, it is impossible that they would remain a democracy. We all know that the south would be destined to become a dictatorship, corrupt and on the level of Brazil in terms of global importance and that's being generous."

Which is ridiculous. Its like saying the United States was destined from the moment the constitution was signed to have fifty states from the Pacific to the Atlantic and beyond, inevitably becoming a superpower.

[Elfwine]

Given the material disadvantages and leadership disadvantages it had to overcome, it would be very difficult at best for the CSA to win with any recognizable ACW scenario.

OTL was not a fluke.

[scholar]

Given the material disadvantages and leadership disadvantages it had to overcome, it would be very difficult at best for the CSA to win with any recognizable ACW scenario.

OTL was not a fluke.
A fluke? It depends by what you mean by a fluke. Everything that happened in OTL is because of a fixed motion of events, each one preceding the next. In the canvas that is our history it all makes perfect sense, even those battles where 500 heavy cavalry routes tens of thousands of infantry. They make sense because of the events leading up to it, the renown of the generals who at time only truly gained fame after those battles, and the record written afterwords. History is always written in a way that it implies that it was all predestined to result in the present, only recognizing a handful of pivitol battles that change the course of history not recognizing that a single soldier firing a gun one second out of place radically alters the flow of time. A single stray bullet can change the course of a war. A single butterfly can change the course of history. How many strategic blunders did the South commit? How many strategic boons did the North receive? How many of the challenges the South faced were born out of personal misgivings and short comings? These can all change with some of the more minor PODs even after the Civil War started. This does not mean the Confederacy will win all the time, or even half the time. Merely that stating that the South winning in the civil war would be a fluke seems rather disingenuous.

[Snake Featherston]

Sherman was bad at frontal assaults which is what he had to do at Missionary Ridge. He hated them so he wasn't good at them. What he was good at is flanking attacks. He outflanked Johnston all the way to Atlanta and then did the same thing to Hood. As one Southerner put it "Sherman will never go to Hell. He will outflank the devil and get into Heaven despite in spite of the guards."

Except that what Sherman wanted was to trigger Johnston into a battle. Johnston, ironically *also* wanted to fight but the two wound up in a maneuver campaign because neither could get what they wanted. The Atlanta Campaign is a classic example of something happening in spite, as opposed to because of, the belligerents' actions.

[Snake Featherston]

A fluke? It depends by what you mean by a fluke. Everything that happened in OTL is because of a fixed motion of events, each one preceding the next. In the canvas that is our history it all makes perfect sense, even those battles where 500 heavy cavalry routes tens of thousands of infantry. They make sense because of the events leading up to it, the renown of the generals who at time only truly gained fame after those battles, and the record written afterwords. History is always written in a way that it implies that it was all predestined to result in the present, only recognizing a handful of pivitol battles that change the course of history not recognizing that a single soldier firing a gun one second out of place radically alters the flow of time. A single stray bullet can change the course of a war. A single butterfly can change the course of history. How many strategic blunders did the South commit? How many strategic boons did the North receive? How many of the challenges the South faced were born out of personal misgivings and short comings? These can all change with some of the more minor PODs even after the Civil War started. This does not mean the Confederacy will win all the time, or even half the time. Merely that stating that the South winning in the civil war would be a fluke seems rather disingenuous.

The CSA (which was not the South) has as much chance to beat Lincoln as Imperial Japan does to win the Pacific War against the WWII USA.

[Elfwine]

A fluke? It depends by what you mean by a fluke.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluke

"An accidental stroke of luck".

Let's say Jackson is never killed. That doesn't change the fate of Vicksburg. That doesn't change the fighting qualities of the Army of the Potomac or the shortcomings of the Army of Tennessee's supply system or any of a hundred other things that make it immensely difficult for the Confederacy to adjust things in its favor in the summer of 1863.

Picked as just one example of the "a single stray bullet scenario" and one used as a POD a lot. The Confederacy is far too far behind to catch up with something on that level, however. It's trying to win a race when it didn't even start running until the other guy was half way to the finish line, and was a faster runner to begin with (in terms of difficulty, this is not meant as an analogy for any particular policies).

[scholar]

The CSA (which was not the South) has as much chance to beat Lincoln as Imperial Japan does to win the Pacific War against the WWII USA.
No.

The North and the South are references to the Union and the Confederacy.

Further, Imperial Japan is not an adequate comparison to the ACW, not in the slightest. Not only is this incorrect on most logistical standings, it would have eliminated any feeling towards each other as fellow Americans, any common roots with the founding fathers and resisting the British. Its an unlike comparison that lacks all the qualities of those that could be found in a civil war. Can you even find an instance of significant resistance to being drafted to fight against the Japanese? I don't think I've heard of one.

[Elfwine]

I do agree that Imperial Japan is a bad comparison, but it does raise the same issue - the CSA is facing a considerably stronger opponent with no shortage of will or ability.

[usertron2020]

The Times saying something doesn't make it true.

Particularly when the Times was noted in England as being the Voice of the Confederacy. Long after the rest of Fleet Street had come around to the inevitability of Union victory, the London Times was writing up the ACW as if the Confederates were either still winning, or at least holding their own. This was a source of considerable embarrassment to the British government regarding Anglo-American relations, as Washington saw the Times as basically representing the opinions of Britain's ruling classes. Which was certainly TRUE!

Example? When Sherman took Savannah, completing his famous March, the Times declared that "Sherman Escapes To The Sea!":rolleyes::p:D

[Elfwine]

Particularly when the Times was noted in England as being the Voice of the Confederacy. Long after the rest of Fleet Street had come around to the inevitability of Union victory, the London Times was writing up the ACW as if the Confederates were either still winning, or at least holding their own. This was a source of considerable embarrassment to the British government regarding Anglo-American relations, as Washington saw the Times as basically representing the opinions of Britain's ruling classes. Which was certainly TRUE!

Example? When Sherman took Savannah, completing his famous March, the Times declared that "Sherman Escapes To The Sea!":rolleyes::p:D

That's rather alarming. I mean, we don't exactly expect objectivity from newspapers of this era, but there's a fine line between blatant wishful thinking and mere opinionated writing.

[scholar]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluke

"An accidental stroke of luck".
You are aware that OTL is, in its entirey, a very large fluke. Humanity itself, if one believes in evolution, is a fluke of natural selection. One random mutation doesn't occur we never exist as a species. Its important to keep this in mind.

Let's say Jackson is never killed. That doesn't change the fate of Vicksburg. That doesn't change the fighting qualities of the Army of the Potomac or the shortcomings of the Army of Tennessee's supply system or any of a hundred other things that make it immensely difficult for the Confederacy to adjust things in its favor in the summer of 1863.The American Civil War began in 1861, you give an example when the war is already half of the way through and the Confederacy is struggling. If we assume the best possible Confederate victory we already avoid Vicksburg. Any of those hundred things could be helped or fixed with a half way competent person in charge of them. Some of them can't be fixed by competence alone and the south will suffer for it, this doesn't mean that its not enough to help in some way or another. Even with Jackson still breathing, its still enough to already radically alter everything that follows his death. He was an important general that would no doubt have been involved in all of the battles and campaigns in his region, and this, in turn, would influence others. This could make the Union win faster, or win slower. It may even prevent them from winning at all, though at this point it is growing increasingly unlikely.

[Johnrankins]

But all of those flanking moves are manuevering, not battle fighting. And with the enormous assistance of Johnston's passive - or if you prefer (@ Nytram mostly), reactive - response.

Using Johnston as shorthand for "the Army of Tennessee", as an argument on how Hood was a backstabbing son of a blankedy-blank gets us nowhere - the point is, Sherman never had to worry about being forced to deal with what the enemy was doing to keep him from flank, flank, and more flanking. Had Johnston been able (again, why he couldn't is not the point) to force Sherman to have to fight on his (Joe's) terms, Sherman would look like one of the least effective generals of the war.

I admit Hood greatly assisted Sherman both by backstabbing Joe the entire campaign and then screwing it up when he was in charge. However, he is likely to go against them in TTL as well. Also if Sherman is able to destroy the Southern economy without fighting it is still going to be devastating. After all that is what happened in OTL.

[scholar]

I do agree that Imperial Japan is a bad comparison, but it does raise the same issue - the CSA is facing a considerably stronger opponent with no shortage of will or ability.
The Union was definitely facing a shortage of will and very easily could have made tremendous errors in judgment with the command structure of the union army. Its also not very difficult to do even greater harm to the will to fight the civil war.

[Elfwine]

The Union was definitely facing a shortage of will and very easily could have made tremendous errors in judgment with the command structure of the union army. Its also not very difficult to do even greater harm to the will to fight the civil war.

If the Union was facing a shortage of will, it didn't slow down the war. The draft riots were a pretty minor event for the Western armies.

As for the errors of judgment: Not without FAR less able leadership. As in, you'd have to have guys like Burnside be the norm.

Nor would it be easy to make people feel less inclined to support fighting traitors - something that they were far less hesitant to call the Confederates than most people are today.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but you can't just knock off say, Meade, and bam, the Union war effort collapses.

[Elfwine]

I admit Hood greatly assisted Sherman both by backstabbing Joe the entire campaign and then screwing it up when he was in charge. However, he is likely to go against them in TTL as well. Also if Sherman is able to destroy the Southern economy without fighting it is still going to be devastating. After all that is what happened in OTL.

The problem is that Sherman was only in a position to do so (OTL) after a campaign that practically played into his hands.

[scholar]

If the Union was facing a shortage of will, it didn't slow down the war. The draft riots were a pretty minor event for the Western armies.

As for the errors of judgment: Not without FAR less able leadership. As in, you'd have to have guys like Burnside be the norm.

Nor would it be easy to make people feel less inclined to support fighting traitors - something that they were far less hesitant to call the Confederates than most people are today.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but you can't just knock off say, Meade, and bam, the Union war effort collapses.It certainly made politics at home very chaotic and led to massive mixed feelings about the war, where there were mixed feelings to begin with. Desertion rates were something like 10-15% in the war, that's even with many being punished for doing so very severely.

Stating that it would require far less leadership means that something that some of the best generals in the Union accomplished could have been achieved by someone mediocre placed in command. That's just not how it works.

Traitors? Highly subjective, especially in the border states and in the territories. Assuming that the United States people is of one mind on pretty much of anything is a very bad move. The closest thing we came to that was in the second world war, every other war, every other issue, we have been divided. Heavily so. Draft Riots. Troop Desertion. Bloody horrific wars against other Americans who largely in the same position you are in. This was especially true in the border states, which had many slave owners. Hell, early screw ups in the secession process could have resulted in one or two more states joining the Confederacy.

No one's saying "BAM! One guy is killed, therefore the Union will and must collapse into nothingness. Glory for the Confederacy" (:rolleyes:), rather I'm only trying to point out is that its not as clear cut as you think. That history is not so predetermined. Other civil wars will actually show that the Confederacy is one of the more well off oppositions to the main government and has some of the more humble of goals, far smaller ones had succeeded in unifying the country with far, far, less.

[usertron2020]

Well the Confederacies rail system was as developed as the norths. Same track mileage per capita, same rolling stock per capita. Almost like they were once one country....

Canada also had a fairly healthy rail system, but of course had a much healthier waterborne transport net. The fate of Canada is prettymuch decided by control of the Great Lakes.

*satisfied sigh* Sometimes, you just make it SO easy...:)

The Confederacy's rail network was an ungodly mess. Designed to support the planter's needs, not the region as a whole. Whole cities were bypassed by the rails in the name of favoring the cotton trade.

And 67th Tigers? You REALLY don't want to bring up the Great Lakes and American versus Canadian abilities to project power on those large aquatic bodies. You really don't.:D

[Elfwine]

It certainly made politics at home very chaotic and led to massive mixed feelings about the war, where there were mixed feelings to begin with. Desertion rates were something like 10-15% in the war, that's even with many being punished for doing so very severely.


As civil wars go, nothing particularly worrisome here.

[quoet]
Stating that it would require far less leadership means that something that some of the best generals in the Union accomplished could have been achieved by someone mediocre placed in command. That's just not how it works. [/quote]

Not someone mediocre, just someone else. Getting rid of Meade doesn't leave the Army of the Potomac without decent officers, for instance.


Traitors? Highly subjective, especially in the border states and in the territories. Assuming that the United States people is of one mind on pretty much of anything is a very bad move. The closest thing we came to that was in the second world war, every other war, every other issue, we have been divided. Heavily so. Draft Riots. Troop Desertion. Bloody horrific wars against other Americans who largely in the same position you are in. This was especially true in the border states, which had many slave owners. Hell, early screw ups in the secession process could have resulted in one or two more states joining the Confederacy. Not subjective at all according to numerous people at the time. As for the border states - being a slave owner did not make one automatically in favor of joining the Confederacy.


No one's saying "BAM! One guy is killed, therefore the Union will and must collapse into nothingness. Glory for the Confederacy" (:rolleyes:), rather I'm only trying to point out is that its not as clear cut as you think. That history is not so predetermined. Other civil wars will actually show that the Confederacy is one of the more well off oppositions to the main government and has some of the more humble of goals, far smaller ones had succeeded in unifying the country with far, far, less.
It's not a matter of predetermined, its the fact that the overwhelming majority of times that a side grossly materially disadvantaged fights a side able to employ its material advantage (as the USA most certainly is here), the weaker battalions lose.

Add in the leadership factor, where the Confederacy is also outclassed, and it becomes pretty much hopeless unless things go very, very wrong.

"A single stray bullet can change the course of a war." simply does not work in these situations. The Jackson example was picked because the Confederacy has been steadily losing the war for two years here, just changing one small event does not overcome that at all.

And let's say Vicksburg doesn't happen as OTL. That just means Pemberton doesn't lose his army and the city, he just loses the city and Grant can go after his army and do unto it what Grant did to every other Confederate army he fought.

Are there possibilities? Yes. Very slim ones, however. People exaggerate the power of Jackson's survival to change things, people underestimate the commitment and successes of the Union.

[usertron2020]

Elfwine

In terms of the South being able to win...?

Do you think a lot of people are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from the ARW regarding the ACW? Regarding the differences of LOCs of Britain compared to the Union?

[Elfwine]

Elfwine

In terms of the South being able to win...?

Do you think a lot of people are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from the ARW regarding the ACW? Regarding the differences of LOCs of Britain compared to the Union?

I think so. Either consciously or unconsciously.

[67th Tigers]

*satisfied sigh* Sometimes, you just make it SO easy...:)

The Confederacy's rail network was an ungodly mess. Designed to support the planter's needs, not the region as a whole. Whole cities were bypassed by the rails in the name of favoring the cotton trade.


Really?

Then why are all the major southern cities connected by rail?

http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/USAH065-H.gif


And 67th Tigers? You REALLY don't want to bring up the Great Lakes and American versus Canadian abilities to project power on those large aquatic bodies. You really don't.:D

It's a done deal. The RN can project huge quantities and the US can't. Go look at canal sizes etc.

[Snake Featherston]

67th Tigers, there was no direct cross-Southern rail link of the sort from the Trans-Missisippi to Montgomery to Richmond that might have actually benefited the Confederacy, while Southern railroads in general were too many and too disparate in stock and gauge. The Confederacy relied heavily on rivers from necessity more than choice as pre-war Southern governments left it a terrible situation insofar as railroads were concerned. Southern cities were also by no means all linked by rail, in some cases rivers were much more important than the railroad.

[Snake Featherston]

Elfwine

In terms of the South being able to win...?

Do you think a lot of people are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from the ARW regarding the ACW? Regarding the differences of LOCs of Britain compared to the Union?

Absolutely. Which is why, for instance, they keep trying to shoehorn in foreign intervention. That bailed out the Union of the ARW when it won Saratoga, of which the CSA has but one chance for such a victory too late in the war for victory to be any less ruinous than defeat. It also has to do with the general neglect of the Western theater, and the degree to which in terms of major strategic battles in the war the Union grew stronger by the year in direct proportion to the CSA's growing weaker.

[67th Tigers]

Of course, the real reason why the Union won was.....


http://www.b3tards.com/u/fa2a3ab468c53bb760c2/custer_boba.jpg

[Fiver]

If they're not willing to come to terms then getting the men is problematic. At the time of the Trent Affair the only large usable military force is McClellan's Army of the Potomac which can maybe detach 5 divisions north to combine with Burnside's Division giving 60,000 men to advance up the Hudson.

Actually, the British thought that was the minimum force the Union could invade Canada with. Short term, the Union can easily detach that many troops from the AotP. Midterm, the Copperhead movement is as dead as America First was on the day after Pearl Harbor, so the Union should be able to raise the additional 150,000 troops that Britain feared would be committed to an invasion of Canada, though they’d probably be more useful elsewhere.

BTW, does anyone have a period map for the Grand Trunk Railroad? All the ones I can find seem to postdate the ACW.

The question becomes can McClellan break through the defenses at Fort Montgomery, then those at St Jean and cross the St Lawrence to invest Montreal before April?

Looking at his performance in the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan could probably start the invasion of Canada in May, reach Montreal by July, and retreat to US soil in August. Even with a better commander, such as Hooker or Burnside, April will be the earliest the Union can start a major invasion of Canada.

Well the Confederacies rail system was as developed as the norths. Same track mileage per capita, same rolling stock per capita. Almost like they were once one country....

Take another look at the map you posted. Note how “convenient” it is to transport goods from Wilmington, North Carolina to Chattanooga, Tennessee or from Savannah, Georgia to New Orleans by rail. The Union rail network is notably more efficient.

Now let’s look at what your map doesn’t cover. The Confederacy had four major gauges of track. When multiple CSA railroads met in a city, the goods had to be unloaded, transported across the city by wagon, then reloaded onto the other train. In many southern cities you had to do this even if the railroads were the same gauge, since they did not connect.

The Confederacy had few places capable of producing rails and IIRC, one capable of producing rolling stock. (IIRC, Massachusetts had 17.) During the ACW, Confederate rails and rolling stock were wearing out far faster than they could be replaced. Even when replacement rails were available, Confederate railroads usually couldn’t afford to buy them, since the Confederate government forced the railroads to carry government cargoes at a loss.

Canada also had a fairly healthy rail system, but of course had a much healthier waterborne transport net. The fate of Canada is prettymuch decided by control of the Great Lakes.

Then the fate of Canada is to be annexed by the Union. New England has about as many people and significantly more industry than all of Canada combined. The Union states that border the Great Lakes have over twice the industry and over 4 times the population of New England.

You’ve postulated Canada raising a militia of 100,000, which would be about 1 person in 30. If the Union mobilizes half as effectively (1 person in 60) and only does it in New England and the states bordering the Great Lakes, they’ll be able to counter with about 285,000 troops. The US states that border Lake Erie dwarf the whole of Canada in population and manufacturing; the lake and its surroundings should fall to the Union. Lake Ontario is the only one the British might have a chance of holding, but the Lachine Canal limits the size of what they might be able to put onto the lake.

[Johnrankins]

Absolutely. Which is why, for instance, they keep trying to shoehorn in foreign intervention. That bailed out the Union of the ARW when it won Saratoga, of which the CSA has but one chance for such a victory too late in the war for victory to be any less ruinous than defeat. It also has to do with the general neglect of the Western theater, and the degree to which in terms of major strategic battles in the war the Union grew stronger by the year in direct proportion to the CSA's growing weaker.

That is what usually happens when a heavily industrialized power fight an agrarian one.

[Snake Featherston]

Of course, the real reason why the Union won was.....

http://www.b3tards.com/u/fa2a3ab468c53bb760c2/custer_boba.jpg

Was what? Is this supposed to mean something?

[Zmflavius]

Was what? Is this supposed to mean something?

Take a good look at the left of the photo.

[Elfwine]

Take a good look at the left of the photo.

I'm not sure I get the joke. I mean, I think I know who that is, but I don't get it.

[Zmflavius]

I'm not sure I get the joke. I mean, I think I know who that is, but I don't get it.

I'm not entirely sure what the joke means either, but I think the photo is interesting.

[Elfwine]

I'm not entirely sure what the joke means either, but I think the photo is interesting.

It is that.

[usertron2020]

The photo means that 67th Tigers has revealed to us all what he has always suspected: That the only way the Union could defeat the Confederacy was by cutting a deal with the Evil Galactic Empire!:eek::p:rolleyes:

[usertron2020]

67th Tigers

Your "map" of Southern railroads left a lot to be desired, as many of those rails actually went NEAR some of those cities while still bypassing them. But on the map scale you used, that doesn't show up.

I warned you to leave the matter of the Great Lakes alone. Remember again, the St. Lawrence Seaway won't be opening for another century. No Great Lakes Cruiser Squadrons, I'm afraid. Unless they are flying the Star and Stripes, that is.

[Snake Featherston]

The photo means that 67th Tigers has revealed to us all what he has always suspected: That the only way the Union could defeat the Confederacy was by cutting a deal with the Evil Galactic Empire!:eek::p:rolleyes:

Technically with a Galactic Bounty Hunter. Boba Fett wasn't in the Empire. :p

[67th Tigers]

Screw AK-47's and your "guns of the south" General Lee, we have AT-AT's....

[67th Tigers]

I warned you to leave the matter of the Great Lakes alone. Remember again, the St. Lawrence Seaway won't be opening for another century. No Great Lakes Cruiser Squadrons, I'm afraid. Unless they are flying the Star and Stripes, that is.

Again, the frigate Amphion, the ironclad Aetna and a number of sloops and corvettes can make it onto Lake Ontario. Gunvessels can get to Lake Erie via the Welland Canal.

The Illinois and Michigan Canal to Chicago has a depth of 3 feet. The Erie Canal connecting NY city to the Lakes has a depth of 3.5 feet.

It's simple. The RN has over 200 fighting ships it can put on the Lakes. The US has one.

[TyranicusMaximus]

The RN has over 200 fighting ships it can put on the Lakes. The US has one.

Obviously a clue that your argument is completely made up by your own hand.

[EnglishCanuck]

The only semi-realistic scenario that I ever had for the CSA gaining independance was a long time in the making. It took the USA over stretching itself in Mexico and occupying many of the northern Mexican states, with the Californians actually fighting the invading Americans to a standstill and simply being annexed (that took some working) and then having a number of different presidents after the war. Basically California is denied statehood for arbitrary reasons and the Mexican states are hot beds of guerilla activity. There is a harsher Utah war too. The South starts the war in 1860 and incites the Mexican states to rebel, Maximillian actually gains their trust by promising to free them (something that Mexican liberals took alot of flak for) and French intervention takes place. The US blunders in the Trent affair and the UK recognizes the CSA and breaks the blockade. Poor leadership leads to an end of the war in 1863 with a negotiated peace with the CSA independent and California getting uppity for its own independence.

The Union lost due to being overstretched and pissing off the wrong people and in the long run it put them back quite a while.

On an unrelated note before I blow a gasket, the US is not going to cakewalk through Canada. Not only is the war in Canada not a series of epic land battles which favor the Union, much of the region was thinly settled and swampy or covered in lakes and forrests, but would be an absolute nightmare for an army to march through. They would have to use the rivers and that would give the advantage to the Brits. Logistically it is a nightmare for the US and a long series of bloody painful delaying actions for the British. Sorry but I just hate seeing the whole 'US easily invades and occupies Canada' thing. It just pissess me off because people clearly have no idea what that would entail.

[Johnrankins]

The only semi-realistic scenario that I ever had for the CSA gaining independance was a long time in the making. It took the USA over stretching itself in Mexico and occupying many of the northern Mexican states, with the Californians actually fighting the invading Americans to a standstill and simply being annexed (that took some working) and then having a number of different presidents after the war. Basically California is denied statehood for arbitrary reasons and the Mexican states are hot beds of guerilla activity. There is a harsher Utah war too. The South starts the war in 1860 and incites the Mexican states to rebel, Maximillian actually gains their trust by promising to free them (something that Mexican liberals took alot of flak for) and French intervention takes place. The US blunders in the Trent affair and the UK recognizes the CSA and breaks the blockade. Poor leadership leads to an end of the war in 1863 with a negotiated peace with the CSA independent and California getting uppity for its own independence.

The Union lost due to being overstretched and pissing off the wrong people and in the long run it put them back quite a while.

On an unrelated note before I blow a gasket, the US is not going to cakewalk through Canada. Not only is the war in Canada not a series of epic land battles which favor the Union, much of the region was thinly settled and swampy or covered in lakes and forrests, but would be an absolute nightmare for an army to march through. They would have to use the rivers and that would give the advantage to the Brits. Logistically it is a nightmare for the US and a long series of bloody painful delaying actions for the British. Sorry but I just hate seeing the whole 'US easily invades and occupies Canada' thing. It just pissess me off because people clearly have no idea what that would entail.

Easy? No However given the differences in the size of population AND economy Canada falls if the US is willing to pay the price in money and lives. You can hold on only so long when you are outnumbered THAT badly. The US will invade only if the UK intervenes, in fact that was the plan if the UK did so. In a normal scenario this continues only as long as it takes for the UK to decide that intervention was costing them too much. In 67thTiger's insane scenario it won't end until all the settled areas of Canada are conquered and the Brits kicked off the continent. The latter would only happen if most of the British government is replaced by loons and morons. Outside of that they merely try to break the blockade and hold Canada. If they get lucky they take Maine.

[Fiver]

Again, the frigate Amphion, the ironclad Aetna and a number of sloops and corvettes can make it onto Lake Ontario. Gunvessels can get to Lake Erie via the Welland Canal.

HMS Amphion had a length of 69.3m, a beam of 13.2m, and a daft of 5.8m. HMS Aetna had a length of 52.69m, a beam of 13.78m, and a draft of 2.64m.

Neither could fit through the Lachine Canal locks, which were 61m long, 13.5m wide, and 2.7m deep.

[67th Tigers]

HMS Amphion had a length of 69.3m, a beam of 13.2m, and a daft of 5.8m. HMS Aetna had a length of 52.69m, a beam of 13.78m, and a draft of 2.64m.

Neither could fit through the Lachine Canal locks, which were 61m long, 13.5m wide, and 2.7m deep.

and the Beauharnois Canal? :rolleyes:

[Fiver]

and the Beauharnois Canal? :rolleyes:

Locks (http://books.google.com/books?id=rvEV1-MhUt8C&pg=PA57) were 61m long (too short for the HMS Amphion) and width was 13.7m (too narrow for the HMS Aetna). Draught (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1456) was 2.7m, much too shallow for the Amphion.

Still waiting for you to provide any British gunboat capable of fitting through the locks at Quebec.:D

(Correcting accidental mislisting of Aetna, when I meant Amphion is some places.

[usertron2020]

Locks (http://books.google.com/books?id=rvEV1-MhUt8C&pg=PA57) were 61m long (too short for the HMS Aetna) and width was 13.7m (too narrow for the HMS Aetna). Draught (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1456) was 2.7m, much too shallow for the Aetna.

Still waiting for you to provide any British gunboat capable of fitting through the locks at Quebec.:D

Fiver, you have a l-o-o-o-ng wait ahead of you.:( He's arguing inches of depth in canals built over 150 years ago PLUS, and he doesn't know about the largest canal ever built in Canada.

This guy had British Heavy Cruisers sailing into the Great Lakes and laying waste to American shoreline cities in the American heartland (In a War Plan Red/Orange set in 1942). And not just in Lake Ontario, but ALL five Great Lakes. When it was asked whether his calculations allowed for the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway would not be opened until 1959, he refused to respond. Then, and ever since. That was three years ago.:rolleyes:

[usertron2020]

Locks (http://books.google.com/books?id=rvEV1-MhUt8C&pg=PA57) were 61m long (too short for the HMS Aetna) and width was 13.7m (too narrow for the HMS Aetna). Draught (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1456) was 2.7m, much too shallow for the Aetna.

Still waiting for you to provide any British gunboat capable of fitting through the locks at Quebec.:D

Fiver, those locks were designed for commercial vessels and barges. Warships, especially ironclads, tended to be a whole lot heavier, with resultantly deeper drafts. Those RN warships had to be able to navigate the oceans, and that meant deep drafts. Try to navigate across the Atlantic with a shallow draft vessel, and the odds of your surviving the trip are very poor.

The qualities of ocean going warships and 19th century canals are in fact mutually exclusive. Its just a simple matter of physics. Unless 67th Tigers is trying to tell us that Harry Harrison's abomination of a trilogy Stars and Stripes (you know, monitors crossing the Atlantic!?) represented something OTHER than the delirium of a stoned out ASB?

[Wolfpaw]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=1948&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=0;11;7&AZ=2;4;5&AR=0;9;6&CA=2;25;4&CO=2;6;5&CT=2;8;4&DE=2;3;5&FL=0;8;4&GA=0;12;6&ID=2;4;4&IL=2;28;5&IN=2;13;4&IA=2;10;5&KS=2;8;5&KY=2;11;5&LA=0;10;4&ME=2;5;5&MD=2;8;4&MA=2;16;5&MI=2;19;4&MN=2;11;5&MS=0;9;8&MO=2;15;5&MT=2;4;5&NE=2;6;5&NV=2;3;5&NH=2;4;5&NJ=2;16;5&NM=2;4;5&NY=2;47;4&NC=0;14;5&ND=2;4;5&OH=2;25;4&OK=0;10;6&OR=2;6;4&PA=2;35;5&RI=2;4;5&SC=0;8;7&SD=2;4;5&TN=0;12;4&TX=0;23;6&UT=2;4;5&VT=2;3;6&VA=0;11;4&WA=2;8;5&WV=2;8;5&WI=2;12;5&WY=2;3;5

[67th Tigers]

Locks (http://books.google.com/books?id=rvEV1-MhUt8C&pg=PA57) were 61m long (too short for the HMS Aetna) and width was 13.7m (too narrow for the HMS Aetna). Draught (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1456) was 2.7m, much too shallow for the Aetna.

Still waiting for you to provide any British gunboat capable of fitting through the locks at Quebec.:D

ummm. First look at the hull form:

http://www.philographikon.com/imagesships/thunderfloatingbattery.gif

Depth of Beauharnois Canal = 9 ft
Draught of HMS Aetna = 6 ft

Length of Locks = 186 ft
Length of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 157 ft 9 in (the bowsprit is not an issue with lockage.... see length definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_overall)

Width of Locks = 45 ft
Width of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 43 ft 11 in

Of course, this is only because Aetnas engines were weak. "Strong steamers" could simply ascend the rapids if they could steam above 8 kts, and were less than 18 ft in draught (WO33/11 - report of the defence of Canada).

BTW, thanks. When I checked I realised HMS Thunder can also go upto the Lakes.

[usertron2020]

Nice drawing. Drawing, that is.:) Doubt it makes a good ice-breaker, though.

BTW? With all these claims you make about all these shallow-drafted ocean steaming warships, have you produced an example of one that actually HAD used those canals?

If this boat is so seaworthy, can you explain why the British never allowed it out of harbor except in the warmest weather months?

I would however love to see these ironclad riverboats try to stay afloat when the gales of November come early.:D

[Johnrankins]

Nice drawing. Drawing, that is.:) Doubt it make a good ice-breaker, though.

BTW? With all these claims you make about all these shallow-drafted ocean steaming warships, have you produced an example of one that actually HAD used those canals?

If this boat is so seaworthy, can you explain why the British never allowed it out of harbor except in the warmest weather months?

I would however love to see these ironclad riverboats try to stay afloat when the gales of November come early.:D

This is 67thTigers we are talking about he NEVER lets the facts get in the way of his opinions!!

[Mr. Magi]

Remember, his opinion makes too little sense to fail.

Also, I love the rounding and the change in systems used to measure.

And no, the Thunder's a standard Aetna class. The standard Aetna class can't go in there due to its draught. Only the lengthened Aetna class could barely fit in there (and I still have doubts due to the length of the vessel over all).

[67th Tigers]

And no, the Thunder's a standard Aetna class. The standard Aetna class can't go in there due to its draught. Only the lengthened Aetna class could barely fit in there (and I still have doubts due to the length of the vessel over all).

Only in an alternate history where 8 ft 8 in is greater than 9 ft.

[Fiver]

Length of Locks = 186 ft
Length of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 157 ft 9 in (the bowsprit is not an issue with lockage.... see length definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_overall)

Length of HMS Aetna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Aetna_%281856%29) at the keel = 157 ft 9in
Length of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 186 ft 0 (your own link shows bowsprits were not included in the overall length of sail-rigged ships.)

Now lets look at the Welland Canal (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1454)

Depth of Welland Canal = 8 ft
Draught of HMS Aetna = 6 ft

Length of Locks = 110 ft
Length of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 186ft 0in
Length of HMS Aetna at the keel = 157 ft 9in

Width of Locks = 22 ft
Width of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 43 ft 11 in

"Strong steamers" could simply ascend the rapids if they could steam above 8 kts, and were less than 18 ft in draught (WO33/11 - report of the defence of Canada).

Steaming up miles of rapids makes the Red River Campaign sound like a good idea. Not that I expect the British had many ships with enough power and shallow enough draft to make the attempt.

When I checked I realised HMS Thunder can also go upto the Lakes.

Depth of Beauharnois Canal = 9 ft
Draught of HMS Thunderer = 8ft 8 inches

Presuming there's no silting or leakage, the Thunderer has barely shallow enough draught.

Width of Locks = 45 ft
Width of HMS Thunderer = 45 ft 2.5 in

So no luck for the Thunderer.

[torque7844]

So at the risk of getting tarred and feathered by jumping in, I suggested in another thread the possibility that hotter heads prevailed in July 1859 during the Pig Incident in the Oregon territory.

In OTL both the British and American ground force commanders were directed to take every possible precaution NOT to fire the first shot and open up a war but the individual soldiers on both sides taunted the hell out of each other trying to goad the other side into shooting first.

At the end of July 1859 the Governor of the Vancouver Island Colony ordered Rear Admiral Baynes to land Marines on San Juan Island and engage the American forces there. In OTL Baynes refused to spark a war over a pig but what if someone had already broken discipline and fired a shot opening up the war anyway?

Would an armed conflict with the British in the Northwest impact the southern states' ability to secede at all?

[Evan]

Very nice idea... I don't think it'll stop secession; I don't see the fire-eaters stopping for anything except the election of Beckenridge (or Bell), and I don't see the North electing either of them. What might happen is that the US Army is strengthened somewhat sooner. And, of course, if Britain turns this into an actual war...

[torque7844]

I don't think it'll stop secession either - by mid-1859 it was pretty much a foregone conclusion I think. What I'm wondering, though, is if a shooting war in the Northwest would soften the Northern response to secession?

Consider this, the first ground commander assigned to protect the settlers on San Juan Island was Capt. George Pickett. Pickett made a name for himself at the Battle of Chapultepec during the Mexican-American War. Now if Pickett the war-hero were killed during skirmishing in the northwest there's sure to be a public outcry against the British.

According to one source, by the end of July the American force in the area was around 460 soldiers and 14 cannon facing 5 British warships - approximately 2100 men and 70 cannon. Pickett was apparently quoted as telling his men to "make a Bunker Hill of it" when they were initially deployed in early July.

So what I propose is this -

An anonymous shot (never certain which side fired first) opens up a skirmish between a small force of Pickett's men and British Marines. A few deaths on both sides will be enough to get the mens' blood up. Both Pickett and the British receive word that the American position is to be reinforced by several hundred men under Colonel Silas Casey (as in OTL) which shores up Pickett's resolve.

As Casey's troops arrive and begin to fortify the American position, Pickett is killed in another skirmish. The situation escalates and in this timeline Admiral Baynes accedes to the Governor's order to land troops on San Juan Island.

That ought to spark one hell of an international incident - possibly even impacting the politics of the day enough to sway the outcome of the 1860 election...

[67th Tigers]

Length of HMS Aetna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Aetna_%281856%29) at the keel = 157 ft 9in
Length of HMS Aetna at the waterline = 186 ft 0 (your own link shows bowsprits were not included in the overall length of sail-rigged ships.)


Correction. Length OA was measured from the bowsprit to the aft.


Depth of Welland Canal = 8 ft
Draught of HMS Aetna = 6 ft


Welland Canal is 10 ft deep, but I have not mentioned it. Keep moving those goalposts.


Steaming up miles of rapids makes the Red River Campaign sound like a good idea. Not that I expect the British had many ships with enough power and shallow enough draft to make the attempt.


Mail steamers did it all the time.

What could make it?

At least four screw corvettes (Highflyer and Esk (21, 15 ft 9, 9.4 kts) and Cossack and Tartar (20, 9 ft, unknown speed but kept up with the fleet)) can ascend the St Lawrence to Lake Ontario fully armed etc.

The 10 screw corvettes of the Pearl class and the Jasons that have been completed to transit if lightened. Indeed plans existed to transship their armament by barge via the canals and rearm with at Kingston. The one off Pylades is in the same situation.

All the screw sloops can make the transit, with a tug if necessary.

Phoenix (21)
Encounter (14)
Niger (15)
Conflict and Desperate (8)
Plumper (12 - may need a tug)
Archer and Wasp (6 - but really need tugs, they're only 6 knotters)
Miranda (15)
Brisk (14, needs tug before refit)
Malacca (17)
Cruizer class - six ships (6, need tugs)
Swallow class - four ships (9, need tugs)
Racer class- five ships (11)
Greyhound and Mutine (17)
Camelons - Sixteen ships laid down, some cancelled, some completed as ironclads (17). Incidently, the two that were completed as ironclads had the draught and power to reach Lake Ontario via the rapids.
Rosario class - thirteen built or under construction in 1861, not all completed (11)

I haven't even started on paddle vessel or the smaller gunvessels (which can all reach Lake Ontario) and gunboats (all of which can get onto all of the lakes, transiting from Ontario to Erie via the Welland canal).


Depth of Beauharnois Canal = 9 ft
Draught of HMS Thunderer = 8ft 8 inches

Presuming there's no silting or leakage, the Thunderer has barely shallow enough draught.


and that she doesn't land stores to lighten herself.


Width of Locks = 45 ft
Width of HMS Thunderer = 45 ft 2.5 in

So no luck for the Thunderer.

Check your facts. The figure above is for the "broad beam" Glatton and Trusty. My initial figure is correct for Aetna, Meteor (broken up already) and Thunder. Sorry, but you learn to actually read things in full.

[67th Tigers]

Fortunately the US government understood the issue much better than Fiver:

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n13/mode/2up/search/canal

[usertron2020]

Fortunately the US government understood the issue much better than Fiver:

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924083504187#page/n13/mode/2up/search/canal

Ditto for the British Government. NEITHER side were a bunch a blood thirsty war mongers, thankfully. A war would have served the best interests of no one, save that of Jefferson Davis. Besides, the lessons of 1812-14 were already learned. The Great Lakes were not the Black Sea. In ocean waters, you can stay ahead of a storm for days at a time, in the Great Lakes you have no such option. American Great Lakes captains knew this. Royal Navy captains did not.

Though the RN DID know this: Sending those shallow-bottomed cakes of soap across the North Atlantic, then through canals on the US border flanked by Union railroads, then onto aquatic environments for which they were specifically NOT designed, then to face whatever aquatically designed opposition the Union would have had brought forward to face them (1), would have represented a death sentence for the crews of these harbor defense boats four times over.:eek::(
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) I and the rest of the forum are well aware of the nature of your hyper-partisan "analysis" when comparing not only existent American versus British capabilities in ANY era, but also the ASB levels of mobilization, logistics, and strategic redeployment you ascribe to Britain compared to the USA. Not to mention (your handwavium opinionated view) of the complete NON-ABILITY of the US to raise any new forces beyond a corporal's guard. NEVER is the specter of any NEWLY RAISED American forces (Land, marine, or aquatic) ever mentioned in your "studies".:rolleyes:

You have the Canadians raising a Militia so large there wouldn't be enough able-bodied men left to harvest the crops to prevent FAMINE! But since these are all toy soldiers, apparently, it can be expected that "every man shall do his duty", while 100% of the available non-mobilized pool of Union manpower are all fire-breathing Copperheads.:p

[67th Tigers]

There is a difference between not wanting a war and being in one.

Make no bones about the fact that HMG considered the worst thing for everyone was a prolonged conflict - hence the decision to strike massively and knock out the US's capacity to fight.

As to building on the Lakes, the USG had it right. It was simply impossible to do once a RN force is on the Lakes. The harbours would be under RN guns rendering building pointless.

As to sending the RN's New Ironsides equivalents over the Atlantic, look up the career of HMS Terror, who spent an interesting few years off the US east coast.

As to Canada, it has a population of 3.2 m (Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick etc.). Please stop pouring scorn on HMG planning figures. HMG and USG knew much better what they were doing than you can second guess.

[Elfwine]

Which, assuming equivalent mobilization to the Confederacy (around half again as many whites), which could fall back on slaves (not an option), and did suffer tremendously from raising too many soldiers . . .

Half a million men, counting the days of robbing the cradle and the grave.

But Canada cannot afford to strip its able bodied male population to that extent.

[67th Tigers]

Which, assuming equivalent mobilization to the Confederacy (around half again as many whites), which could fall back on slaves (not an option), and did suffer tremendously from raising too many soldiers . . .

Half a million men, counting the days of robbing the cradle and the grave.

But Canada cannot afford to strip its able bodied male population to that extent.

No-one ever suggested they were. Planning figures were to arm 100,000 men in "Canada" and about upto 50,000 in the Maritimes.

The plans (as iterated in WO33/11) were:

Military District 1 (London)

Permanant Works
Fort Edward at Sarnia: 500 men and 20 guns
Fort Malvern and a Fort on Bois Blanc Island at Amherstburgh, both 500 men and 20 guns
A fortified place of arms at Sarnia with 1,000 men and 50 guns

Temporary Works
North and south side of Goderich Harbor, east and west side of Port Stanley, and the mouths of the Thames River and Sydenham, each with 150 men and 10 guns

Entrenched positions at London, Paris and Chatham with ca 11,600 men

Military District 2 (Toronto)

Permanant Works

On the Niagara frontier and Welland Canal:
Fort Erie with 500 men and 20 guns
Fort Mississagua with 500 men and 20 guns
Port Dalhousie with 300 men and 15 guns
Port Colborne with 200 men and 10 guns
A fortified place of arms with 1,000 men and 50 guns

At Burlington Bay (Hamilton) a battery with 100 men and 6 guns
At Toronto New Barracks 500 men and 25 guns
New naval dockyards to be constructed at Dunnville and Port Maitland

Temporary Works
Opposite Black Rock on the Niagara River; a battery with 150 men and 5 guns
At the entrances to Collingham and Sydenham Harbours; 150 men with 10 guns each
At Port Hope several batteries totalling 400 men and 20 guns

Entrenchments on the Queenstown Heights (a Corps of Observation of 10,000), in front of Hamilton and at Toronto near the Holland River (2,200 between the two)

Military District 3 (Kingston)

Permanant Works
At Kingston; Murney Tower, Shoal Tower, Market Battery, Cedar Tower, Fort Henry and Fort Patrick totalling 94 guns (no manning figure, but by inspection 3,300 men in the district are remaining after other positions filled)

Prescott: a fort with 500 men and 20 guns
Bay of Quinte: a new naval dockyard

Temporary Works

Port Cobourg: a battery with 100 men and 5 guns
Kingston Mills: a fort at the mouth of the canal with 500 men and 12 guns
Brockville: a battery on a St Lawrence river island with 100 men and 10 guns
An entrenched camp at Prescott with 500 men

A field division of 5,000 men to be based at Prescott

Military District 4 (Montreal)

Permanant Works
Montreal: Citadel with 2,000 men and 50 guns, St. Helen's Island with 500 men and 15 guns, St. Lambert's Island and Tete de Pont with a total of 400 men and 40 guns

St Johns: the fort was to be rearmed with 20 modern guns
Isle aux Noir: this fort was also to be rearmed with 20 modern guns

Temporary Works
Cornwall canal: 200 men and 10 guns to protect of locks
Coteau du Lac: on the site of the old fort a battery of 100 men and 4 guns


At Montreal:
Vandreuil: 200 men and 10 guns
Isle Perrot: 300 men and 20 guns
Nun's Island: 300 men and 20 guns
St. Lambert: 600 men and 40 guns
St. Helen's Island: 30 guns to reequip the existing garrison
Bout de l'isle: 150 men and 10 guns
Lachine: 150 men and 10 guns

St John's, at Tete du Pont 200 men and 15 guns
Chambley, at Tete de Pont 150 men and 10 guns
Richmond, redoubts with 400 men and 25 guns

Entrenchments west of Montreal Mountain, at Sherbrooke and at St. John's with 10,650 men (including some manning works above, probably 10,000 troops in the field force)

Military District 5 (Quebec)

Permanant Works
Repair of Quebec Citadel, the addition of a battery of 10x 110 pounder rifles and a new work replacing the old French works with 200 men and 15 guns (number garrisoning the Citadel unknown, but probably 2-3,000)

Point Levi: enclosed work with 500 men and 30 guns

Temporary Works
On the left bank of the St. Charles a battery of 200 men and 12 guns, and an entrenched position on the Plains of Abraham
At Riviere du Loup, 200 men with field artillery to protect the railway, at Fort Ingall and Black Rover another 100 men each with field artillery also protecting the railway

Naval force:

A force of 550 guns manned by 9,350 men, including 9 small ironclads to be placed on the Lakes

Manpower:

The planning figure for Canada is 50,000 regulars and 100,000 militia. Around 20,000 militia are in the garrisons above, leaving 130,000 for the field army. Around half this field force is spread out in 5 Corps de Observation of 10,000 men at 1 per military district. The remaining 60-70,000, including the bulk of the regulars, were to form a field army to counterattack any US invasion force.

This of course excludes the Maritimes, which expected to receive 25,000 regulars, 25,000 militia and a force of 10,000 British militia to guard Halifax.

[Elfwine]

No-one ever suggested they were. Planning figures were to arm 100,000 men in "Canada" and about upto 50,000 in the Maritimes.

The plans (as iterated in WO33/11) were:
(snip.)

Naval force:

A force of 550 guns manned by 9,350 men, including 9 small ironclads to be placed on the Lakes

Manpower:

The planning figure for Canada is 50,000 regulars and 100,000 militia. Around 20,000 militia are in the garrisons above, leaving 130,000 for the field army. Around half this field force is spread out in 5 Corps de Observation of 10,000 men at 1 per military district. The remaining 60-70,000, including the bulk of the regulars, were to form a field army to counterattack any US invasion force.

This of course excludes the Maritimes, which expected to receive 25,000 regulars, 25,000 militia and a force of 10,000 British militia to guard Halifax.


Overwhelming, this is not. Even assuming every single militaman is equivalent to a well trained USV, which seems unlikely.

[67th Tigers]

Overwhelming, this is not. Even assuming every single militaman is equivalent to a well trained USV, which seems unlikely.

In January 1862? There's probably little difference in quality. Overwhelming? Reverse that, it is the US that has to be overwhelming. Canada simply has to hold on until the US inevitably collapses when they have no nitrates (no powder and no fertiliser) amongst other things.

The British understood that lower quality troops can hold works quite well, and that low quality troops can't attack them effectively. A few thousand Canadian militia with well dug works and sufficient artillery can stop any US army dead in their tracks and force them to resort to sieging the post, which renders them vulnerable to the main British army surrounding them.

[Elfwine]

In January 1862? There's probably little difference in quality. Overwhelming? Reverse that, it is the US that has to be overwhelming. Canada simply has to hold on until the US inevitably collapses when they have no nitrates (no powder and no fertiliser) amongst other things.

The British understood that lower quality troops can hold works quite well, and that low quality troops can't attack them effectively. A few thousand Canadian militia with well dug works and sufficient artillery can stop any US army dead in their tracks and force them to resort to sieging the post, which renders them vulnerable to the main British army surrounding them.

In January 1862, probably not. But the point is that they're certainly no better.

As for the US having to be overwhelming; Only in the sense "if the US wants to take Canada" - this might hold Canada but is not enough to invade the US.

An the main British army:
Which is also not overwhelming (the field force). A few thousand Canadian militia with well dug works and sufficient artillery . . . so, like Vicksburg lite (which fell in six weeks of siege)? Lite since we're talking smaller forces.

Not to mention that its unlikely any American invasion of Canada is going to allow the field force to conveniently focus on relief of only one city at a time, even allowing for past American incompetence continuing.

No powder and no fertilizer, because we all know that the US is absolutely dependent on Britain and cannot possibly do anything about it. :rolleyes:


http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/cannon.htm#B

Relevant part bolded:

"Practically all nitrates are soluble, so it is very unusual to find a nitrate mineral. Chile Saltpetre, NaNO3, is found in large quantities in Chile and Peru, but this was not known until much later. Nitre, KNO3, is very much rarer. Until the development of the Haber process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen at the beginning of the 20th century, nitrates were always in very limited supply. In places where nitrates are present in the soil, dissolved nitrates may appear as efflorescences on rocks in caves and similar places where the nitrate waters have evaporated. (Not all efflorescences are nitrates, however.) It seems that in certain places in Asia far from the ocean, lacking ordinary salt, saltpetre, scraped from rocks, was used in its stead, since saltpetre has a distinctly salty taste. This would have greatly facilitiated its recognition as something special when it happened to fall into cooking fires. These deposits were known in the valley of the Ganges, and at certain locations in China, Tibet, Kashmir, Russia, Sumatra and Mindanao. This origin is much simpler than would have been the case if one white powder was to be separated from another white powder before the peculiarity of the first white powder could be discovered. These deposits were rare and unrecognized in the West, so nitrates were unsuspected there. Mineral springs in Calabria contain nitrates, and nitrates are found in Touraine in France, but the largest source was from the urine of animals, in which the urea is converted by weathering into nitrates. Stable earth was the King's property in France and England, to which salpetrières had legal access. To manufacture usable nitrates, the technique of purification by fractional crystallization and treatment with wood ashes is essential. In the United States, saltpetre was worked in the "nitre caves" of Kentucky at the beginning of the 19th century."

Something completely available to the Union.

Looking up to see what is mentioned with "saltpeter imports". and "nitrate imports". And it's curious how little is coming up.

Now, obviously I'm searching the internet in general here.

This is also interesting: http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=S0717-71942006000100001&script=sci_arttext

Specifically, this: "Bascuñán deplored that Canada did not buy a single liter of Chilean wine, unknown in the Canadian market, while buying wine in 1933 for over a million dollars worth from France, Spain and other European countries. Moreover, he pointed out that from the beginning of the crisis, 87% of the Canadian saltpeter imports came from the United States, while before 1930 Chile sold 30,000 tons a year of that product to Canada, an amount that was reduced to only 51 by 19334 (http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?pid=S0717-71942006000100001&script=sci_arttext#4)."

A later era obviously, but it's not as if the natural resources of the US changed over time except to become depleted.

[Fiver]

Welland Canal is 10 ft deep, but I have not mentioned it.

Whereas I have mentioned it, as it's the only way to get ships from Lake Ontario to Lake Eire. The Welland Canal was 8 feet deep (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1454).

Mail steamers did it all the time.

Rather than use the canals? Evidence, please.

At least four screw corvettes (Highflyer and Esk (21, 15 ft 9, 9.4 kts) and Cossack and Tartar (20, 9 ft, unknown speed but kept up with the fleet)) can ascend the St Lawrence to Lake Ontario fully armed etc.

Considering Highflyer was paid off in May of 1861 and not taken to sea for years later, it probably wasn't in condition to make the attempt. Esk was part of the East Indies Station and had a smaller engine than the Highflyer. Cossack and Tartar keeping up with the fleet says nothing about the capabilities of their steam engines, since they were also sail-rigged.

The 10 screw corvettes of the Pearl class and the Jasons that have been completed to transit if lightened. Indeed plans existed to transship their armament by barge via the canals and rearm with at Kingston. The one off Pylades is in the same situation

Challenger and Clio had a draft of 18ft 10in.
Scylla had a draft of 19ft 2in.
Satellite and Raccoon had a draft of 19ft 6 in.
Pearl had a draft of 19ft 9in.
Charybdis and Scout had a draft of 19ft 10 in.
Pelorus had a draft of 20ft 6in.
Cadmus had a draft of 20ft 11 in.

Orestes had a draft of 16ft 5 in.
Orpheus had a draft of 19ft 9in.
Rattlesnake had a draft of 20ft.
Jason and Barrosa had a draft of 20ft 3in.

Orestes is the only one that could clearly make it through the rapids, presuming the estimated power (8 knots) and draft requirements (less than 18 feet) are are correct. Challenger and Clio would require reducing draft by 10 inches. Scylla would require reducing draft by 14 inches. Satellite and Raccoon would require reducing draft by 18 inches. Those seem risky, but possible. The remainder seem to be non-starters.

All the screw sloops can make the transit, with a tug if necessary.

So now we're talking towing a ship through miles of rapids? Got any examples of ships with shallow enough draft and the power to do that?

Camelons - Sixteen ships laid down, some cancelled, some completed as ironclads (17). Incidently, the two that were completed as ironclads had the draught and power to reach Lake Ontario via the rapids.

Only 10 were actually built. Only 5 were built by the end of the Trent Crisis. The 2 ironclads weren't completed until April and June of 1864.

Rosario class - thirteen built or under construction in 1861, not all completed (11)

Only 7 were actually built. Only 5 were launched before the end of the Trent Crisis.

I haven't even started on paddle vessel or the smaller gunvessels (which can all reach Lake Ontario) and gunboats (all of which can get onto all of the lakes, transiting from Ontario to Erie via the Welland canal).

The Welland Canal (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1454) locks are 110 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 8 feet deep. What are the beam and drafts of the gunboats you refer to?


The figure above is for the "broad beam" Glatton and Trusty.

Looks like I missed that. That gives the Thunderer a beam of 43 ft 11 in. That will fit in the locks with about six inches clearance on each side and 4 inches beneath the keel. A very tight fit and they'd better hope the rest of the canal has rather gentle curves.

[Fiver]

Planning figures were to arm 100,000 men in "Canada" and about upto 50,000 in the Maritimes.

That's about 5% of the population of BNA. If the Union mobilizes half as effectively, they'll be able to counter with 575,000 troops.

[Fiver]

On an unrelated note before I blow a gasket, the US is not going to cakewalk through Canada. Not only is the war in Canada not a series of epic land battles which favor the Union, much of the region was thinly settled and swampy or covered in lakes and forrests, but would be an absolute nightmare for an army to march through. They would have to use the rivers and that would give the advantage to the Brits

Or they could use the railroads.

http://members.kos.net/sdgagnon/te37.jpg

[Elfwine]

Or they could use the railroads.

http://members.kos.net/sdgagnon/te37.jpg

The rail network is pretty disappointing though, especially away from the more settled areas.

[usertron2020]

In January 1862? There's probably little difference in quality. Overwhelming? Reverse that, it is the US that has to be overwhelming. Canada simply has to hold on until the US inevitably collapses when they have no nitrates (no powder and no fertiliser) amongst other things.(1)

The British understood that lower quality troops can hold works quite well, and that low quality troops can't attack them effectively. A few thousand Canadian militia with well dug works and sufficient artillery can stop any US army dead in their tracks and force them to resort to sieging the post, which renders them vulnerable to the main British army surrounding them.(2)

1) See Elfwine's post.

2) Assuming said army can strategically redeploy there with the lightening speed and absolute ease with which you ALWAYS grant them in every possible scenario of every conflict Britain has ever or could ever have fought.:rolleyes:

[usertron2020]

The rail network is pretty disappointing though, especially away from the more settled areas.

If Canadian railways are that disappointing, then doesn't that inhibit internal Canadian movement as well? Especially as the rivers and (Great) lakes do NOT always evolve to Canada's defensive advantage.

[67th Tigers]

The Welland Canal (http://books.google.com/books?id=VUDyAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1454) locks are 110 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 8 feet deep. What are the beam and drafts of the gunboats you refer to?


I see your error. That is the size of the first Welland Canal. The canal of 1861 was larger, with the smallest locks at 150 ft x 26 ft 8 x 10 ft. The guard locks at either end are larger to shelter warships.

The screw gunboats in service in 1861 were:

6x Gleaner class (86 ft 4 x 22 ft x 6 ft 6)
118 x Dapper class (93 ft 2 x 22 ft x 8 ft)
20x Cheerful class (85 ft 5 x 21 ft 10 x 6 ft 7)
12 x Clown class (110 ft x 21 ft 10 x 4 ft)
6x Algerine (110 ft 2 x 23 ft x ~ 8 ft)
20 (inc. building) x Britomart class (120 ft x 22 ft x 8 ft)

The largest of these, the Britomarts, were sent onto the Lakes in 1865, and steamed all over.

[Elfwine]

If Canadian railways are that disappointing, then doesn't that inhibit internal Canadian movement as well? Especially as the rivers and (Great) lakes do NOT always evolve to Canada's defensive advantage.

Yeah. The vast majority of Canada is a logistical nightmare for even a small army. And I do not think the Grand Trunk would be able to take as much use as would be necessary - not with its regular business, which it will probably try to carry out if it can.

On the canal: http://www.wellandcanals.com/History.html

1850 -- The canal was once again widened to fifty feet wide and ten feet deep


Although I would dearly love to see sources on the Royal Navy ships involved.

[67th Tigers]

Yeah. The vast majority of Canada is a logistical nightmare for even a small army. And I do not think the Grand Trunk would be able to take as much use as would be necessary - not with its regular business, which it will probably try to carry out if it can.

On the canal: http://www.wellandcanals.com/History.html

1850 -- The canal was once again widened to fifty feet wide and ten feet deep


Although I would dearly love to see sources on the Royal Navy ships involved.




Rail was always second fiddle to waterborne supply, even in the US. This is why the river systems in the west proved so important.

You overstate the size of the 2nd Welland. The 3 locks to St Catherines were 200x 45 x 10 ft, and the guard lock at Port Colbourne even larger, but most were smaller.

Which sources? The war never actually happened, so all we have are the planning figures in WO33/11 of the National Archives:

At Quebec: 2x line of battle and 1x ironclad battery

Operating between Quebec and Montreal: 2x ironclad battery, 2x corvettes (noting a maximum draught of 18 ft), 2 dispatch vessels and 7 gunboats

On Lake St. Francis: 4x gunboats

On Lake Ontario: 3x ironclad battery, 4x dispatch vessels, 16 gunboats

On Lake Erie: 3x ironclad Battery, 20x gunboats

On the Richelieu River: 6 gunboats

Total for the inland seas of Canada: 2 line-of-battle, 9 ironclad batteries, 2 corvettes, 6 dispatch vessels, 53 gunboats = 72 vessels

[Elfwine]

Rail was always second fiddle to waterborne supply, even in the US. This is why the river systems in the west proved so important.

You overstate the size of the 2nd Welland. The 3 locks to St Catherines were 200x 45 x 10 ft, and the guard lock at Port Colbourne even larger, but most were smaller.


Let's see, a source specifically on the canal, or you . . . gee, who do I trust more.

Where's your source?

As for rail vs. waterborne: The river systems in the West proved so important because rail wasn't an option, not because people preferred rivers to rails.


Which sources? The war never actually happened, so all we have are the planning figures in WO33/11 of the National Archives:

Sources on the dimensions of the ships and their availability.

[67th Tigers]

Let's see, a source specifically on the canal, or you . . . gee, who do I trust more.


Well, I was actually strengthening your argument. Ho hum.


As for rail vs. waterborne: The river systems in the West proved so important because rail wasn't an option, not because people preferred rivers to rails.


It's jawdropping notions like that which make me say "read a book".

In this case Hagerman: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hg7UfLDHBoIC

[Elfwine]

Well, I was actually strengthening your argument. Ho hum.

My argument is as much as possible based on the facts of the situation, which is why I made the remark I did.


It's jawdropping notions like that which make me say "read a book".

In this case Hagerman: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hg7UfLDHBoICShow me a case of someone choosing rivers over rails in areas with good rail systems, when those systems are equally usable (Virginia, several of the relevant railroads for army supply are easier for the Confederacy to control than the Union) and I will take my statement back. The Western theater didn't have any of the latter, did have the former, of course they're going to rely on the rivers.

Where does Hagerman argue that rivers were preferred when that wasn't the case?

I have a finite budget, and more relevantly, finite shelf space.

[67th Tigers]

My argument is as much as possible based on the facts of the situation, which is why I made the remark I did.


Then maybe you should use the search function.


Show me a case of someone choosing rivers over rails in areas with good rail systems, when those systems are equally usable (Virginia, several of the relevant railroads for army supply are easier for the Confederacy to control than the Union) and I will take my statement back. The Western theater didn't have any of the latter, did have the former, of course they're going to rely on the rivers.

Where does Hagerman argue that rivers were preferred when that wasn't the case?


The same as everyone, it's easier to move tonnage by rivers and rail is fairly difficult to move sufficient tonnage to support a large army.

However, Hagerman is one of the more important general books, along with Hattaway and Jones How the North Won.

[Elfwine]

Then maybe you should use the search function.

Where did you post sources? None of your comments on the ships in the last few pages come with any sources of their dimensions.


The same as everyone, it's easier to move tonnage by rivers and rail is fairly difficult to move sufficient tonnage to support a large army.

However, Hagerman is one of the more important general books, along with Hattaway and Jones How the North Won.I guess this explains why railroads did so poorly commercially, and were so irrelevant in the Civil War. :rolleyes:

[Fiver]

The rail network is pretty disappointing though, especially away from the more settled areas.

Direct rail connections from Chicago, New York, and Boston to the major cities of BNA is disappointing?

[Elfwine]

Direct rail connections from Chicago, New York, and Boston to the major cities of BNA is disappointing?

Do you have a source for this? Asking partially out of curiosity and partially out wanting to confirm it.

And on the scale of Canada, yes. Obviously there isn't as much need for a railroad in the Canadian Shield, but it still leaves much of Canada unrailed.

[Mike]

All this talk about canal sizes is ridiculous. Even if the UK of 1860 could fit their ships into the canals, they would still be dangerous to the ships and waught with accidents and disasters because of the tight spaces, not to mention being easy prey to Union attacks since the ships could only enter in single file. The UK back then would have had to deploy a huge land force to protect the ships during its passage through the canals. Something that they would not be capable of doing because of logistics. If, by some miracle all the ships make it to the Great Lakes they would only have superiority until the the USA of 1860 becomes fully mobilizes for war against the UK and starts building their own ships RIGHT ON the Great Lakes. Because of logistics, the USA of 1860 would win a naval arms race on the Great Lakes.

The best the UK of 1860 could hope for is a short war, a "shock and awe" display of military might that cows the USA of 1860 into submission. But if the USA is not cowed and willing to commit to a long war with the UK, there is nothing the UK and Canada could do to stop them from taking Canada and kicking the British out of North America, albeit at a huge cost. The best the UK back then would be able to do would be to hold onto Halifax because it borders the Atlantic Ocean and can be readily supplied by the British navy. That's it.

The USA of 1860 has the men, the industry and the experience to prevail in a long war with the UK over North America

[usertron2020]

Fiver
Mike
Elfwine

67th Tigers has a long history on this forum of giving near-ASB levels of mobilization capability to the British Empire while insisting that the USA was incapable of mobilizing anything up to the actual levels she was capable of. Indeed, leaving the US with immutable peacetime levels of forces or predicting "inevitable collapses" instead. No amount of data or historical sources from you or anyone else will change his mind. Produce the works of the greatest historians that ever lived, and trust him to call them "hacks". That is what Negationists do.