WI: Britain goes to war with America during the ACW

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Corder

I haven't considered the Short War idea before but it does seem very plausible. If the US and CSA are both hostile to the UK in the second half of the 19th century, the UK's splendid isolation will lead to worse consequences for the Empire than OTL I suspect.

That assumes in a short war that the USA gives up, and the CSA survives.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

That's not a very long war. If the USN flees to harbors and the RN is not aggressive in the blockade of Northern ports (no you-know-who's apocalyptic visions of every Union city anywhere near the shoreline burned to the ground, along with the UK/Canadians seizing the Great Lakes-Thanks, Skippy!), then I could see a much easier peace being settled between the Union and the UK.

that's what I'm thinking. Lincoln realises he has misjudged how angry Britain is and quickly realises how disastrous for the north's war effort and economy conflict with Britain is. The British see one of their main trading areas cut off, quite possibly a disruption of other trade by US commercial raiders and the expensive of war. Also the anti-slavery movement will be angry at the conflict even indirectly aiding the south. Hence tempers cool and both sides decide they want to end it quickly. I presumed it lasted until spring 62 simply because with the difficulties of communicating between the two nations without a trans-Atlantic telegram.

This describes a very aggressive war by the UK, including campaigns that are being employed to directly aid the Confederate war effort! With bases in Bermuda, Canada, and the Caribbean, the British do not need much in the way of further bases to enforce a blockade of the North. So invasions of Port Royal, New Orleans, Fortress Monroe, and the Confederate ports already occupied by the Union cannot be seen as anything but a direct British Intervention in the ACW, and most importantly, British recognition of the Confederacy.

Palmerston will find himself doing that whether he wants to or not, once the troops land. After all, if British troops land in Confederate New Orleans, then they are either outright Allies of the CSA or foreign invaders. That is one hair you cannot split. Not to mention that recognition of the CSA by the British Empire will be the price demanded by Jefferson Davis for the landing of British troops on Confederate soil. Otherwise, you start to see just a little bit of the politics in Henry Harrison's abomination.

I think you're mis-understanding me here? Possibly on the comment about various union pockets/footholds in the south being lose? What I meant by that is that with the RN blockading the north it can't supply those and hence their either abandon or captured by the south. Definitely not presuming any direct British involvement in the south. [To correct that, no government involvement]. You might see some businessmen doing deals, including for arms and equipment as others, or possibly the same people, would do with the north after peace was obtained with them. The British government of the time was very hands off on private business, although one part of the peace agreement might be some subtle pressure by the government disapproving of arms sales to the south.

Anyway, definitely no direct aid to the south, forces landing there or recognition. Britain's stance is that its at war with the union because of the latter's actions against the Trent. There might again be an implied 'if you don't end this quickly this might change' but strict neutrality in the internal dispute inside the US. [Which worded in those terms is an acceptance of the union's claim to the south but I think you know what I mean].

1) stevep, have you noticed that no one (besides me, that is) has considered the politics of British Intervention being put to good use by the Union? Namely, if it can be spun as Britain trying to sabotage the Union war effort (even if not to destroy it outright), then once peace is established between the USA and UK the war effort can be doubled against the South? If anyone could pull off such a feat of political legerdemain, it would be Abraham Lincoln.

The Union basically fought the South with one hand tied behind it's back. But if the war becomes not just for the Union, but national survival, and revenge against the South for betraying the country to America's Original Enemy!? Remember, steve, this is the 1860s, not the 1940s.

OTL, the South engaged 90% of it's available military manpower (minus minor militia and slave patrollers) for the duration of the war. The North, only 50%, and many of those were short-termers, anywhere from 3 year enlistments all the way down to 90 day militia. If the North should be struck by a Spanish-American War level of jingoistic patriotism following Britain's intervention and later departure, it'll be the South, not Britain, who faces the full wrath of the Union Army. Imagine a Union Army of in-for-the-duration enlistees and draftees matching close to the South's per capita level of mobilization?

Union curbstomp of the South. Consider these possible outcomes:

a) The war might be over by 1864 Election Day. Lincoln wins every state but his opponent's.

b) The war might be at a point comparable to OTL on Election Day. Lincoln wins in a landslide, slightly bigger than OTL's.

c) The war might be further behind than OTL on Election Day, but the country blames Southern Treason and Perfidious Albion for the level of the Union's progress up to that point. Lincoln wins, with a margin less than OTL's.

d) The war may be struggling even further back, but the rage in the Union is such that though Lincoln may be defeated, a War Democrat (it is unlikely to be McClellan ITTL, as his campaigns would have been butterflied) is elected, resulting in no stinting in the war effort. The front bursts in 1865, CSA runs out of food and warm bodies by the end of the Winter of 1865/66, the Confederacy is overrun before the 1866 off-year congressional elections. Big pickups for the Republicans that year, and in 1868 Grant is elected President.

2) The trick to remember is that the USA is NOT a parliamentary system. If it were, the "Lincoln Government" would probably collapse due to a vote of no confidence over the Trent Affair, and be replaced by the likes of Thaddeus Stevens (or Seward, if Lincoln had his way). America's cyclical elections mean that Lincoln still has until Inauguration Day 1865 to win the war, regardless of re-election. Also, the Democrats are prostrate, being the "Party of Treason". The Democrats in the North are split badly between the Copperheads (CSA sympathizers, many of whom were being bounced in and out of jail, those who weren't being put on a horse and sent South), and the War Democrats (many of whom were determined to outdo the Republicans in their support of the war).

Interesting point there. It could well be that rather than a reaction of division and buck-passing after a disaster against Britain you get greater unity with regards to the real war with the south. I had been thinking the counter to a longer war here was that the south might get too ambitious and do something very rash but a more committed north is also a possible factor. Again you could combine the two with the south possibly starting to make outlandish claims helping to re-focus attention against them.

One question. If this did happen and the war continued until the 1864 election campaign would Lincoln stand again? Or would he consider himself, be considered by others in the party, too tainted by failures in his 1st term? Most noticeably the war with Britain but possibly others will complain about the fact the war is still on-going, some of the draconian war powers or whatever. [Mind you possibly a southern sympathiser or possibly someone who's business has gone belly up due to the war with Britain, still kills him, but prior to the election].

So, politically, the disaster with Britain would hurt very badly, but the people themselves held much of the blame for making the vainglorious Wilkes into such a tin-plated hero.

I think in this case, if it was widely excepted that Wilkes has been in the wrong and the war with Britain a mistake, rather than blaming themselves the people are more likely to blame the ones in power at the time. [This is why I was wondering if Lincoln might find himself too weakened to stand for a 2nd term].

3) See (1). There are so many many different parameters involved I wouldn't want to make a guess. Except that I consider an American invasion of Canada while the CSA is virtually intact to be fully ASB. Lincoln just wasn't that stupid, Negationist opinions to the contrary.

I can't see one succeeding with the main forces in the south and Britain reinforcing but might see some border clashes. Nothing too large as I think the main British aim would be defending Canada and having the RN win the war. Hence I can't see either side doing anything major on the land border unless someone tries to make a name for himself, which is always a problem.

4) Actually, now that I think on it, a post-mini-Trent War Union Victorious TL would be fascinating. Though personally, I'd find the ramifications for WWI to be the most interesting. Note- No recognizable WWII. After all, if the Kaiser survives, no Hitler.

Given the butterflies I'm not sure that you could that reliably make commitments about events after about 1870, if that far. Prussia will almost certainly become the dominant power in Germany and probably defeat France in a conflict but that's not certain and a lot of the players of 1914 aren't even born yet, or in their very early years.

Steve

[Tyr]

I can't stand this frequent idea that always comes up in 19th century Britain-US war discussions "Yeah, Britain will win, but the union will be pissed! The US is special and it never forgets and it will be gunning for vengeance!"
The world however tends not to work that way.
France in the F-P war was a bit of a special case, it was utterly humiliated and lost territory it considered utterly French. It also saw the balance of power in Europe severely turned against it.
With the US losing a minor war against Britain....its going to get back to business as usual for the majority of the population. The balance of power is as it was before (not that the US was too concerned with such things), Britain has no interest in embarassing the US or conquering any states, and the links between the two are just too huge.
Might there be another Britain-US war? Well sure. Is it the most likely outcome? Not at all. Its only marginly more likely than a late 19th century US-UK war was IOTL. (i.e. not very).

OTL, the South engaged 90% of it's available military manpower (minus minor militia and slave patrollers) for the duration of the war. The North, only 50%, and many of those were short-termers, anywhere from 3 year enlistments all the way down to 90 day militia. If the North should be struck by a Spanish-American War level of jingoistic patriotism following Britain's intervention and later departure, it'll be the South, not Britain, who faces the full wrath of the Union Army. Imagine a Union Army of in-for-the-duration enlistees and draftees matching close to the South's per capita level of mobilization?

And what will the union arm them with?
They've had all access to arms and saltpeter imports cut off. Not that they'd have the money to pay for them.
The US is going to have trouble keeping its current troops armed and supplied let alone expanding its army by any remotely serious degree.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Tyr

With the US losing a minor war against Britain....its going to get back to business as usual for the majority of the population. The balance of power is as it was before (not that the US was too concerned with such things)

Actually, it helped break the nation in two so the southerners could treat people as property.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tyr

I can't stand this frequent idea that always comes up in 19th century Britain-US war discussions "Yeah, Britain will win, but the union will be pissed! The US is special and it never forgets and it will be gunning for vengeance!"
The world however tends not to work that way.
France in the F-P war was a bit of a special case, it was utterly humiliated and lost territory it considered utterly French. It also saw the balance of power in Europe severely turned against it.
With the US losing a minor war against Britain....its going to get back to business as usual for the majority of the population. The balance of power is as it was before (not that the US was too concerned with such things), Britain has no interest in embarassing the US or conquering any states, and the links between the two are just too huge.
Might there be another Britain-US war? Well sure. Is it the most likely outcome? Not at all. Its only marginly more likely than a late 19th century US-UK war was IOTL. (i.e. not very).

Given the Soviets followed a similar pattern with the Treaty of Rapallo and its successor the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, [citation needed].

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Tyr

I can't stand this frequent idea that always comes up in 19th century Britain-US war discussions "Yeah, Britain will win, but the union will be pissed! The US is special and it never forgets and it will be gunning for vengeance!"

if you've been reading what most of us say, it's "there will be a grudge for a whole generation, but economics will drive the two sides into commerce... what you won't have is any kind of alliance if there is still a WW1"... provided that you don't have any other UK/USA wars in between to keep the hatred going. It depends a lot too on if this intervention leads to an independent south or not (personally, I think that if the UK is going to go so far as to go to war, they'll recognize the CSA, and so will France)... if it doesn't, then the UK interference will scarcely be a blip in US/UK relations...

[Derek Jackson]

I had one other thought. Ironclads started about 1860. In some ways they reset naval power.

Could the US have built a fleet to beat Britain in a longish war?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Tyr

And what will the union arm them with?
They've had all access to arms and saltpeter imports cut off. Not that they'd have the money to pay for them.
The US is going to have trouble keeping its current troops armed and supplied let alone expanding its army by any remotely serious degree.

Do remember that the US does have resources of its own, of both arms and saltpeter (Kentucky, for instance) and money. Also: It may be cut off from imports from Britain, and there's some extent a British blockade if imposed might be "from anyone else", but .. .

Derek Jackson: Not really - Britain has a superior starting fleet (even with ironclads "resetting" things) and greater industrial/economic capacity at this point.

The US - minus the CSA, although the contribution of the seceding eleven is minimal - is a bit behind France, for comparison, in terms of manufacturing capacity (I don't have much in the way of more specific figures).

Naturally this will change over time, but not in a Trent War. By 1900, yes, probably.

[Tyr]

Actually, it helped break the nation in two so the southerners could treat people as property.

Some populist nationalist could try and spin things that way but thats not what the war would be at all, it would be the US making the crazy decision to pick a fight with the UK whilst its fighting a civil war.
That the south won the civil war might well be seen as a natural course of events anyway, with or without the British factor. Certainly I'd see the southerners trying to paint it as a second American revolution which was won because of their own pluck and determination.
I really don't see people being that bothered after a while about the CSA being independant, once its economy begins to tank and it is forced to give up slavery and the unemployed blacks begin flooding north, people in the US will be glad to have an official border between them and the CS.
People fundamentally care about their own lives- and without the south the US will be just as capable of becoming a modern, succesful first world country as it was IOTL.

Do remember that the US does have resources of its own, of both arms and saltpeter (Kentucky, for instance) and money. Also: It may be cut off from imports from Britain, and there's some extent a British blockade if imposed might be "from anyone else", but .. .

Not too much saltpeter to be had in the US. See the guano islands act. Its a valuable resource to be obtained from abroad, domestically the quantities it can be made in are rather limited.
As to money- well the American economy is screwed from the get go, and then add the blockade on top of that....

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I had one other thought. Ironclads started about 1860. In some ways they reset naval power.

Could the US have built a fleet to beat Britain in a longish war?

Not in terms of numbers or quality. The UK has the edge in expertise, steel making and ship building.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Tyr

That the south won the civil war might well be seen as a natural course of events anyway, with or without the British factor.

no, if the UK intervenes and the CSA gains it's independence, you can bet that the north will blame the UK for it all, and have the idea they would have won without the damn Brits butting into it (and as we in OTL know, that would be right )... it's just human nature.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Tyr

I can't stand this frequent idea that always comes up in 19th century Britain-US war discussions "Yeah, Britain will win, but the union will be pissed! The US is special and it never forgets and it will be gunning for vengeance!"(1)
The world however tends not to work that way.
France in the F-P war was a bit of a special case, it was utterly humiliated and lost territory it considered utterly French. It also saw the balance of power in Europe severely turned against it.
With the US losing a minor war against Britain....its going to get back to business as usual for the majority of the population.(2) The balance of power is as it was before (not that the US was too concerned with such things), Britain has no interest in embarassing the US or conquering any states, and the links between the two are just too huge.
Might there be another Britain-US war? Well sure. Is it the most likely outcome? Not at all. Its only marginly more likely than a late 19th century US-UK war was IOTL. (i.e. not very).(3)



And what will the union arm them with?
They've had all access to arms and saltpeter imports cut off. Not that they'd have the money to pay for them.
The US is going to have trouble keeping its current troops armed and supplied let alone expanding its army by any remotely serious degree.(4)

1) My view was in regards to the South, and doubling its efforts against them, not Britain, assuming a short losing war against Britain in which the UK refuses to act in concert with a Slave Power.

2) My view again was that if the North loses the ACW in this scenario, it will be seen by ALL sides as the result of British Intervention. I assumed an ACW 2 in the 1870s, with a more-or-less ACW OTL result, with no European entry. France and Britain now being full fledged democracies, they will not fight for a Slave Power in a conflict without any confrontations against the European Powers.

Business as usual? Well, maybe for businessmen, I guess. But I wouldn't want to be walking down the streets of Manhattan in this world in a British Army uniform, or even just plain being caught using an English accent! What's the poor fellow going to say? "No! No! Wait! I'm a businessman!*AAAAAGH!*

3) A US-UK war, by itself, is essentially ASB. Especially if we are talking about separate from the Trent Affair. What I was discussing was the long term political effects of the bloody costs of the Union LOSING ACW 1 (British Intervention), and WINNING ACW 2 (No British Intervention). Considering the casualty numbers of the two wars combined, that level of blood shed will scar the American soul to degree never seen in this world. Britain lost a million sons in WWI. Between an ACW 1 & 2, the US could lose almost half again that. So, this leaves a level of hate and mistrust by the US for Britain that makes what came after the ARW pale in comparison.

4) The trick here, and we are getting further and further into the abstract here, is just how long does a US-UK war last while the ACW is continuing? And would the Union Army still try to launch offensives against the South when they have to worry about defending their own coastline? I think not. The question is, how far do the British go in supporting the South?

If they:
a) Break the Union Blockade
b) Blockade the North
c) Cutoff all forms of trade between the North and the outside world
d) Provide arms and equipment to the South

Then the US/UK War, as well as the ACW 1, is over. Britain, and the Confederacy, win. I wonder what this would do for the chances of passing the Great Reform Act of 1867 though. The Reform Act of 1866, like the US Civil Rights Act of 1956, was a joke. The fact that IOTL ex-slave Black men enjoyed full voting rights after the Union's victory in the ACW had to have had a very serious political effect in London. Though I snigger when I see Britons vociferously cry out that it was merely a coincidence. "Bloody Hell! We were all set to give universal male suffrage back in 1066, but you know what the British Civil Service is like..."

Plenty of people keep saying that we can't know what will happen past a certain point. Well, I happen to be something of a Tolstoyan when it comes to the big ticket items. Want to say Winston Churchill is butterflied? Any number of ways to do that. Want to say a particular war is butterflied? Well, within reason, I could agree to that. WWII, Korea, Vietnam (French and American), just to name a few. But the Austro-Prussian War? The Franco-Prussian War? The Ruso-Japanese War? WORLD WAR ONE!?

No. Just no. The irresistible environmental forces of history demand, by the time of the 1860s, that these conflicts must be resolved. Especially World War One. The technology of modern warfare had gone far beyond the ability to control by the increasingly enfeebled and inbred aristocratic elites of Europe. The fact was, by this time, the people in charge flat out did not know what the hell they were doing. Consult "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

no, if the UK intervenes and the CSA gains it's independence, you can bet that the north will blame the UK for it all, and have the idea they would have won without the damn Brits butting into it (and as we in OTL know, that would be right )... it's just human nature.

Sometimes it's also just plain common sense.

Not to mention that the Brits, even today, say if it wasn't for the French (1), WE never would have made it in the ARW. And guess what? THEY ARE RIGHT!

1) Not to mention the Spanish and the Dutch. What was the idea of the British to declare war on Holland and launch a sneak attack on the Netherlands just for giving the Americans 67,000 guilders? Especially since it not only brought another fully active member to the anti-British alliance but it prompted Elizabeth the Great to form the British-hostile League of Neutrality, cutting off trade with Britain for the duration of the conflict. Adding the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Portugal, Prussia, several German and Italian States, Denmark, Sweden, and even the Ottoman Empire into hostile neutrality with the British Empire.

DAMN! Some wars you just absolutely DESERVE to lose!

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I had one other thought. Ironclads started about 1860. In some ways they reset naval power.

Could the US have built a fleet to beat Britain in a longish war?

The British Navy was operating under the two power standard. The only way the Union would have a chance of outbuilding Britain is if the British are fighting France and Spain as well as the Union.

Originally Posted by Tyr

Some populist nationalist could try and spin things that way but thats not what the war would be at all, it would be the US making the crazy decision to pick a fight with the UK whilst its fighting a civil war.

The Union would not pick that fight. Lincoln firmly understood "one war at a time". If there is British intervention, it is because Britain decided to declare war and that will be resented by the Union.

I agree the Confederacy would "paint it as a second American revolution which was won because of their own pluck and determination." That's exactly how the US paints the Revolutionary War.

Why would the Confederate economy tanking force them to give up slavery?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tyr

Some populist nationalist could try and spin things that way but thats not what the war would be at all, it would be the US making the crazy decision to pick a fight with the UK whilst its fighting a civil war.
That the south won the civil war might well be seen as a natural course of events anyway, with or without the British factor. Certainly I'd see the southerners trying to paint it as a second American revolution which was won because of their own pluck and determination.
I really don't see people being that bothered after a while about the CSA being independant, once its economy begins to tank and it is forced to give up slavery and the unemployed blacks begin flooding north, people in the US will be glad to have an official border between them and the CS.
People fundamentally care about their own lives- and without the south the US will be just as capable of becoming a modern, succesful first world country as it was IOTL.

Ironically this is true insofar as the view of people in 1861. What would not be probable is the CSA avoiding another war, and the question then is if the UK decides to allow the CSA to be destroyed or steps in for "preserving the balance of power."

[BELFAST]

US Navy could have abandon the blockade and used their ships to attack British commerce world wide, Like the CSS Alabama did.

US threaten to build commerce raids for the Fenians (Irish republican brotherhood) crewed by American sailors if the British did not stop build ships for the CS Navy.

I read about this in the book The Rebel Raiders: The Astonishing History of the Confederacy's Secret Navy (American Civil War S.).

Sorry cannot give the page as I lost my copy of the book.

How big an impact commerce raiding would have would depend on how long the war went on.