WI: Britain goes to war with America during the ACW

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by frlmerrin

Usertron2020,

I am shocked at the tone and viciousness of your post, I cannot see the need for it. In essence you are accusing me of being a sock-puppet of 67th Tigers. You have done this in a very milquetoast and what I consider dishonourable way in that you have insinuated I am a sock-puppet but failed to have the courage to says so explicitly. So before I address the rest of your response to my post let me deal with the elephant in the room.

I am not a sock-puppet of 67th Tigers. If as you suggest this can be checked by comparing IP addresses then any cursory glance by a Moderator will reveal that to be the case. I have no idea if they can really do that, computers are not my forte.

How do I know so much about 67th Tigers writings if I am, as you say, a new member (did I really join in Jan.! It seems more recent, I have been busy this year)? I know, because I have a great interest in the Trent Affair and Anglo-American relations in the Civil War period. I have been following 67th Tigers’ postings all over the internet for several years, including those on this site. He is one of the best posters on the matter, second only to Tielhard, who often posts here under various names and robcraufurd who posts here under his own name from time to time. Several other people that only post here also have interesting things to say on the matter including, Dave Howery, Snake Featherston, Anaxagoras and stevep. In fact the only really interesting poster on the issue who does not seem to be here is Mark L Bailey. This really is such a good site for discussion of the matter, the reason I joined was to have somewhere to post a large body of work on California at the time of the ACW and the probably impact of a Union war with Britain on the west, unfortunately it is still not quite as I would like it before I post it.

You appear to be asking why I defended 67th Tigers last post*#? First, off I read the post, then I read the references he linked to and I could find no evidence that he held the views that he was alleged to have held. I then posed the question to the readers of the thread and asked where he wrote what it was claimed he had written and no one came back with anything I would consider definitively damming or even slightly damming. If no one can point to unambiguous evidence, it seems to me that maybe this was a case of a ban being incorrectly applied or of being applied for reasons other than those stated. If he wrote what it is claimed he wrote then clearly he should have been banned, but it appears he did not. Second, I have actually met him in person when he was at Imperial College and he did not strike me as either a racist or a closet recidivist wishing to revive slavery. The whole affair of his banning, but more especially the subsequent claims about him by other posters has something of the Ted Knight about it.

Turning now from your allegations to the rest of your post:



1) I don’t think you have quite ‘got’ Alternative History as a concept.
2) You missed my point, 67th Tigers had to take liberties to give the Union any chance at all in his story. I am not talking about the POD here, I am talking about simply giving the USA advantages it never really had, for example the saltpetre crisis is ignored. Any reasonable historical extrapolation into alternative history would have made the conflict far more one sided in favour of the British empire than he had it.



I note that the three commercial authors that have written book length alternative histories on an Anglo-Union conflict during the ACW have ALL turned wise men or clever men into idiots and indeed vice-versa. Tsouras for example finds it necessary to lower the IQs of the British Army officers he presents to somewhere below 90, those of the Royal Navy to below 70 to the level of what was once called mentally subnormal and those of British diplomats and Politicians to somewhat below that of the army but above the navy. I invite you usertron2020 to condemn Harrison, Conroy and Tsouras as loudly as you have condemned 67th Tigers for the same ‘crimes’ against your view of Alternative History?



I really have no reason to trust you because a) you have traduced me and b) you have offered no evidence that Lincoln knew this. It is suggested in more than one writer that Lincoln had be briefed by both the Army and Navy and that he knew what the military/naval situation was (poor from a Union perspective). I have no reason to doubt this although I have no primary source for it. What Lincoln had absolutely no idea about was how important the issue was to the British Government and how close it was to going to war over the issue.



Seward and the Postmaster were the only members of Lincoln’s cabinet that did not make public statements in support of Wikes and San Jacinto after the Affair. At the Xmas day cabinet meeting they were the only voices in favour of yielding to the demands in the British note initially (this is quite widely reported). The reason they needed a second cabinet meeting on Boxing day to decide the issue was that Lincoln wanted to go away and attempt to write a rebuttal of Seward’s position paper. At the second meeting he had to admit he had failed to do so.



This is a very silly response to my post. It is clear you did not know what I was talking about. If you had asked me I would happily have explained what I was talking about which had little to do with the French occupation and subsequent annexation of Mexico. Instead you decided to make a complete fool of yourself by making stupid jokes about the French involvement in the area. The issues the British were concerned about included the inspection and subsequent taking as prize of British merchant shipping inside Mexican territorial waters including some on the Rio Grande, incursions into Mexico by Union troops and the shipping of military supplies through Mexico. Lastly, the Union offer to buy the Mexican debt in exchange for land (which the British, French and Spanish subsequently forbade).



I don’t think he flames Lincoln; I think rather he puts him in a position to make poor decisions. I think your personal appreciation of Lincoln is clouding your judgement over this. Regarding McClellan, I have not really made my mind up over McClellan, 67th Tigers presented quite a convincing argument but then so too did some of his traditionalist opponents. Unfortunately I do not have the depth of knowledge in this area to judge the issue for myself.

*pun unintentional but funny anyway so I left it in.
#you might not be but your post is not a model of clarity.

I VERY strongly suggest you work on your base of knowledge regarding 67's post history before issuing such opinions of 67 yourself. Personal impressions may not tell you everything. Considering your own tone employed here, you are hardly in a position to lecture on bad manners. I will take you at your word that you are NOT a sock puppet. But between the timing, language, and beliefs involved, you have to admit it IS very suspicious. Though your lack of using endless statistics and questionable sources does speak well of you in that regard. Indeed, to the point of actually proving the negative. So, since I have obviously hurt your feelings very badly, I do apologize. Just spare the sarcasm, and no one will ever believe you to be 67th Tigers.

What are the odds that a personal acquantaince of 67th Tigers should suddenly become so active right after his banning on just the type of thread that would arouse his interest? It is a perception issue, you must admit.

1) Alternate History has many definitions. There are those so extreme on what constitutes "Alien Space Bats" Forums that unless Skippy the Alien Space Bat (or some magical/extreme science fiction/ISOT) actually is shown by name the OP will claim it's merely "alternate history". The idea has always been one of believability. Make it believable, or it is just fantasy. Period.

2) The saltpeter crisis was not as critical as he liked to pretend, but no question that the US WOULD have been in a crisis had the war continued. The US HAD sources of salt peter, but not enough to meet needs. That the US had ANY was what 67 handwaved in countless posts on AH.com.

The reason he had the US "do better" was because he was looking for the dissolution of the USA, not simply a defeat of the Union. To do this, it HAD to be a longer war.

In 1848, the revolutions of that year represented a time in which the world faced a turning point in history wherein history failed to turned. There are more than a few people who believe the ACW was another such case. A war in which history was to turn, in the direction of a breakup of the Union into a dozen of more warring republics, with expensive standing armies, fortified borders, and ruined economies. "Just like Europe". And leaving North America in a position to not "interfere" with European politics and their empires. Since, after all, the Europeans did such a great job on their own before America's arrival on the world stage.

Hence, the frustration and Union-screwing by posters who believe that the Trent Affair SHOULD have led to a general war, as it was really the only time in American history post-1850 when Europe had the chance to break up America. Namely, when the general populace may have supported such actions.

As to America's chances against Britain? No question. An absolute curbstomp of the Union. To suggest otherwise is patently ridiculous. But the formula of 1 Southron soldier being worth 5 Yankees? Of 1 British soldier being worth 5 Southrons? He never explicitly says this, but that is the impression you are left with.

Harrison and Tsouras are hacks. You and I are in complete agreement about them. Especially the Neo-Confederate Tsouras. Harrison's trilogy was so bad I felt like bleaching my brains to get the memory of it out of my head. ASB all the way. Makes 67th Tigers look like Shelby Foote. I'm not familiar with Conroy, except the author of the Great Santini and the Lords of Discipline. I can't believe you mean him.

As to 67's actual posts? I let the language of BKW and Ian speak for itself. As to your defending it? See above on reading up on the content of his post history to get a better grasp of his work. And thinking.

And as I and countless others have posted, for war to come, Lincoln would have had to refuse to negotiate (cave). He never had any thought but to placate the British. If he didn't realize how upset the Palmerston Government was, in the end, it didn't matter. If he caves, and Palmerston demands war anyway, then Palmerston is the one with problems. Back home in Britain.

As to trust? It is not a oneway street. See the quote from Hamlet.

As to Mexico, YOU should have been more specific.

Seward's position on making war with Canada was well-known. The idea being that it would unite North and South against Britain. Yeah, I know. But curious, that he would reverse himself? In any event, then it is at Trent that the bellicose Seward is turning into a dove, then?

My judgement of Lincoln? The vast majority of the Human Race shares that judgement, so I'm in good company. 67th Tigers' views of Lincoln are NOT Revisionist, but Negationist. The two words are not even remotely synonymous. You can argue successfully, I believe, that MOST of 67th Tigers' beliefs about McClellan are revisionist only. It's just when you go over particulars in the battles of the Seven Days and Antietam where he runs into the iceberg of negationism.

History's judgement on McClellan has been one of "Great organizer, great trainer, but no field general". 67th Tigers' obsession with trying to rehabilitate the man is so ingrained it's even on his AH.com Wiki entry.

EDIT: Ted Baxter. Ted Knight was merely an actor playing the role.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by frlmerrin

So in conclusion Fiver ‘Play up, play up and play the game’. Show us the basis for your statements.

Funny, I thought you said you'd been following 67th Tigers.

The canal discussion is after you signed up. Here on Tanknet, 6 years earlier, we see the actual state of ships 67th will claim could be used in a Trent War.

For 67th misrepresenting sources, we have 67ths claim that Hattaway and Jone considered Robert E Lee to be an average genera in skill, made
July 2008, January 2009, May 2011. As to Hattaway and Jones, they conclude “All of the data on Lee confirms that he was a representative Confederate general except he won more and was on the tactical offensive less. That's page 730 of How the North Won.

Here 67th subtracts every man counted in a hospital report from the forces McClellan had available for the Seven Days Battles. Pity its for the month after the battle.

67th claimed Lee had fulsome praise for McClellan as a commander in March 2010 and September 2010. The quote attributed to Lee was actually from John Mosby.

I can provide more examples if needed.

[Alstein]

Originally Posted by stevep

But why would the US clash with Spain over a, to them, distant Cuba in TTL? Their no longer only ~90 miles away in Florida but much further. It only really makes sense if the US is looking for a military base in the region, which would be a concern for both the CSA and Britain.



It depends on the size of the fleet. Something that would make pressure on the US coast in a future war would probably be acceptable to Britain as it would be a logical reaction to the defeat and the existence of the CSA. Something where the north moves to build a major navy that could greatly threaten British bases or links with Canada and would draw off a high proportion of the RN to N American waters would be more worrying.

It would depend on how high the forces being maintained are. Don't forget that the US is used to maintaining a very small force and there are a hell of a lot of other options for people in the US. Hence, unless you start building up a semi-hereditary military class, the US could have to pay a lot of money to keep suitable recruits. Plus as I've said a navy, especially one designed for blue water action, is bloody expensive to maintain.



I don't know about this. Given traditional relations with France and Russia it probably wouldn't need a vastly different set of circumstances for Britain to be allied with Germany or at least neutral in the alliance set-up. [Largely get rid of Tirpitz's plans for a huge navy to threaten Britain and preferably also have the Kaiser be a little more restrained]. Also, to engage in a navy race at this time is bloody expensive, as the US found in 1916-22. It would definitely be a disestablishing situation. [What you might have is some situation where both powers want better relations in which case tensions are reduced. Needless to say this would NOT include as a condition US colonisation of Canada.]



No it would have to face a population with a far more alien culture, who's national identity is based on not being America. Also why do you think they wouldn't be hell-bent on resisting conquest and occupation. Also I think the Canadians have a similar level of gun ownership to the US so while not as law-less as the US don't think it would be docile. At least in the CSA there might be a few whites and many blacks possibly, at least at first, who will welcome the invasion.

With the common about no Lee-esque call to lay down arms I'm guessing you're referring to a CSA of America that has 50 odd years of independence? With Canada you have a population that has even greater reason to resist and vast areas of forest, marsh and mountains to use for shelter. Not to mention allies across the water to help them.

Why do so many Americans have such a contempt for Canadians?

Steve

My counteresponse

1) Jingoism/Nationalism/yellow journalism could still cause this war, and the US would be itching to get some of its international reputation back, so Europe would think twice before trying this again- if the US decided to go revanchist. The reaction would concern everyone even if the reason wasn't what Europe thinks. The US would also want colonies- this would largely be for prestige.

2) The US, without the South weighing it back, might actually be stronger than in OTL, at the very least it won't be much weaker, and will be able to afford a bloody expensive Navy, and would have reason to make the expense. The USA would likely view Britain is its most likely enemy, and wouldn't just want to sit and fight a defensive war, and has enough natural resources that it wouldn't have to.

3) I agree with your point, but that would depend on butterflies. A Britain-Germany alliance is plausible, but not by any stretch a sure thing or more likely than the alternative. Britain will still be alarmed of any continental domination- if the Franco-Prussian war is butterflied away things will be different. I don't think that's likely though.

4) As for Canada vs the CSA in terms of occupation. Canada is more valuable by far, and while the population would resist, I don't think they'd view the occupation as bad, especially if it's just Western Canada obtained. I so agree that it wouldn't be easy, but I think the CSA would be worse unless the USA was willing to arm blacks, which would alarm the USA citizenry as well. The Southern US is well-suited culturally and geographically for a long-standing, violent guerilla campaign. Eventually the American people would tire of it, especially if they were naturally war weary (and conquering a brit-funded CSA army that is fighting a defensive war would still cost a lot of men) I suspect the same thing would happen with a Canadian full annexation, but I don't see the US going for that either- I think they'd be satisfied with Western Canada.

It's more likely the CSA would lose slices of territory, then a full-fledged annexation in the case of a war defeat. Might see Texas go independent.

[jkay]

I think this is pretty deeply unlikely with the OTL leader set, but gets alot easier if you make at least one change. Palmerston was liberal and antislave, Confederate diplomacy was Rumsfeldesque, and tending more to hurt, especially with Britain, and Lincoln was wisely determined on only one war. OTOH, the Republican frontrunner, Seward, and later the Secy of State brought up inthread, t wanted war with Britain to try and bring back the South, which likelier would've brought two wars instead

I think there'd be nothing fast about the effective part of a British military response. After all, the big fleet and the big army would start at the other side of an ocean, and, it takes time to mobilize a big force. And, a big reserve'd likely hafta stay, because Russia'd so get in on our side, and maybe other antiBritish European countries.

Economic strangling, only 1/3 right. The RN had no ability to attack land railroads, and not much of the Royal Navy could fit in rivers, where ALOT of the rest off our commerce ran. We would lose trade by sea, though. Well, unless we're in 67thland, in which case Britain could beat us all just looking at us cross :-).

And, wouldn't California'd be as harder for THEM as Canada is for US? It's defensiveland for everybody. And, it might take longer than the war lasts for a California to invasion arrive because of how long it'd travel; it's come up before.

US probably gives in, I agree, in '65, by a Democrat winning. Gives up few Canadian gains, check. The borders depend on which front gets what priority ... though we'd likely own the Mississippi River states after the war, because water was where we COULD make good progress, and the British Fleet'd be too big to enter.

I'm on the we'd hate you and CSA and want a rematch, because then it'd be like before 1812, when you had no respect for us.

[Grimm Reaper]

jkay, why would Russia, less than a decade after the disastrous Crimean War, have the slightest interest in fighting the British again?

Nor were there other European powers with an interest in fighting the British, least of all France under Napoleon III.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

jkay, why would Russia, less than a decade after the disastrous Crimean War, have the slightest interest in fighting the British again?

Nor were there other European powers with an interest in fighting the British, least of all France under Napoleon III.

I don't think Russia would be willing or able to take Great Britain on at this time, but it would be a good time for the Russians to muck around in Afghanistan, and it's only been four years since the Mutiny...

Even if Russia did nothing but glare at India, that's going to hamper UK responses. The forces for a California invasion would likely come from India, but if Russia does so much as sneeze in the direction of the Indus, those forces aren't going anywhere. India is worth a hundred Californias.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by jkay

I think this is pretty deeply unlikely with the OTL leader set, but gets alot easier if you make at least one change. Palmerston was liberal and antislave, Confederate diplomacy was Rumsfeldesque, and tending more to hurt, especially with Britain, and Lincoln was wisely determined on only one war. OTOH, the Republican frontrunner, Seward, and later the Secy of State brought up inthread, t wanted war with Britain to try and bring back the South, which likelier would've brought two wars instead (1)

I think there'd be nothing fast about the effective part of a British military response. (2) After all, the big fleet and the big army would start at the other side of an ocean, and, it takes time to mobilize a big force. And, a big reserve'd likely hafta stay, because Russia'd so get in on our side, and maybe other antiBritish European countries.

Economic strangling, only 1/3 right. (3) The RN had no ability to attack land railroads, and not much of the Royal Navy could fit in rivers, where ALOT of the rest off our commerce ran. We would lose trade by sea, though. Well, unless we're in 67thland, in which case Britain could beat us all just looking at us cross :-).(4)

And, wouldn't California'd be as harder for THEM as Canada is for US? It's defensiveland for everybody. And, it might take longer than the war lasts for a California to invasion arrive because of how long it'd travel; it's come up before. (5)

US probably gives in, I agree, in '65,(6) by a Democrat winning. Gives up few Canadian gains, check. The borders depend on which front gets what priority ... though we'd likely own the Mississippi River states after the war, because water was where we COULD make good progress, and the British Fleet'd be too big to enter. (7)

I'm on the we'd hate you and CSA and want a rematch, because then it'd be like before 1812, when you had no respect for us.(8)

1) Upon mature reflection I wonder if Seward WOULD HAVE been so bellicose as POTUS rather than as SecState. It is far easier to give advice from a darkened corner than to risk its merit on the point of attack.

2) Yeah, the 21st century type of logistical blitzkrieg launched by mid-19th century Britain described by 67 over and over again in discussion threads was second only to his Great Lakes fantasies when it came to ASB beliefs.

3) I'm actually with 67 on this. The economic effects on the Union would be doubly devastating. Not only the effects of the Unions being cut off from trade, but the CSA having open trade routes thanks to a broken Union blockade. One only has to look at the circumstances of the better equipped, fed, and armed troops of the CSA army in Texas to get an idea of what it would have been like fighting the Confederacy without them being blockaded. Even the most jingoistic Southron fire-eaters acknowledged the blockade.

4) Actually, in his case, I think it was more a matter of believing Palmerston wanted a continental conquest of Napoleonic proportions!

5) Yeah, the war WOULD be over by then. But he liked to pretend that British forces in India have satellite communications and long-range airlift capability, so... It never ceased to amaze me what he thought the British could accomplish basing from tiny islands thousands of miles from the US West Coast. As to Vancouver, they'd have to be thinking about their own affairs.

6) Much sooner, I'd say. I don't think the Union could last more than a year away from the bargaining table, assuming Palmerston isn't demanding Unconditional Surrender.

7) Yes, brown water warfare wouldn't be a problem for the Union. But I doubt seriously the British would even try.

8) It's nice to know there's one person who agrees with me. If "importance of trade" trumped politics, then wouldn't there never have been a thousand year war between the powers of England (Britain), France, and Germany/the Germanies/Austria/the Holy Roman Empire/Spain? ACW 2 with NO confrontations with anyone else. The Union determined to finish off the CSA once and for all, and doubly damned determined to prove that without Foreign Intervention the South can't win. The Franco-Prussian War IS NOT butterflied (why SHOULD the Prussians stop trying to unify the country because of events on the other side of the world?). Now France is neutered as a threat. The Third Republic is NOT going to war on behalf of the CSA, and would likely have lost Mexico in the FPW anyway. Britain, post-Great Reform Act of 1867 isn't getting involved either. No defense treaties with a Slave Power. The British working man can vote now, and cotton is no longer king, or even prince.

A long dark period of hostility between the UK and the USA following ACW 2. If there was one thing I felt was accurate about TL-191, it was post-1900 Anglo-American relations. All the good gestures by Britain in the world weren't going to mean a damn thing in a TL where American ACW 1 & 2 dead would easily climb over 1,300,000 (probably worse). That's just doubling losses from OTL ACW. Reunification after ACW 2 isn't going to result in the American people just saying to the British: "Oh well, all's well that ends well!" Uh, no. After a SECOND such war, by the time of WWI most of the veterans of ACW 2 (assuming it happens in the 1870s) will not only still be alive but holding the reins of power.

Good news for the Kaiser, anyway.

[frlmerrin]

Dear Gertrude,

Thank you for your response to my post.

Considering your own tone employed here, you are hardly in a position to lecture on bad manners.

In what way have I been bad mannered?

Harrison and Tsouras are hacks. <snipty-snip> I'm not familiar with Conroy, except the author of the Great Santini and the Lords of Discipline. I can't believe you mean him.

Can’t fault you on that as we are in agreement, although Harrison is at least a fun hack where Tsouras& just has me chewing the table cloth.

Seward warmonger and unionist.

Seward's position on making war with Canada was well-known. The idea being that it would unite North and South against Britain.Yeah, I know. But curious, that he would reverse himself? In any event, then it is at Trent that the bellicose Seward is turning into a dove, then?

Timing is everything in comedy and politics. Seward concocted his idea for a small war with Britain before the bombardment of Fort Sumpter and before any states had left the Union. For my money, at that time it would probably have worked. The danger would be that the war got out of hand. After the Southern states had left the Union he quickly gave up the idea because by then it would not have worked and trying would have been stupid!

Lincoln and Negotiations

And as I and countless others have posted, for war to come, Lincoln would have had to refuse to negotiate (cave). He never had any thought but to placate the British. If he didn't realize how upset the Palmerston Government was, in the end, it didn't matter.

No, this is fundamentally wrong. ALL Lincoln had to do in order to start a war was to attempt to negotiate. Britain’s note was couched in polite terms so that the USA could yield to their demands BUT they had to yield to them and within the allotted time period. Unlike most ministers abroad at that time who had great autonomy in their dealings Lyons was given no latitude to negotiate this matter by the Earl Russell. The conditional war orders had been sent to Monck, Milne, Dunlop and Maitland. All Lyons had to say was yes I believe our demands have been met (and he even stretched his remit over this!) or no and telegraph the theatre commanders to say diplomacy has failed (cry “Havoc” sounds better but it is far less accurate. If Lincoln makes a counter proposal, if he suggests international arbitration, even if he suggested they put the matter before a British Admiralty Court there will be war. Negotiation is not possible with the British over this matter. Negotiation is a rejection of their demands. An attempt at negotiation is an act of war. Lyons was very punctilious in making Seward understand this.

On top of this all Lincoln did not want to placate the British, he argued against it in cabinet, he wanted to negotiate as you suggest. That is why, as I said in a previous post, there needed to be a second cabinet meeting on Boxing Day (St. Stephen’s) so that Lincoln had an evening to come up with counter proposals to Seward’s that the USA yield to the British demands.

Mexico

As to Mexico, YOU should have been more specific.


I must disagree, you and most of the persons posting in this thread represent yourselves to be expert or at least well read on the subject. It was reasonable to expect you to know what I was referring to. If you didn’t then it was reasonable of you to ask me and for you to expect me to explain to you. This is a similar process to the one I am trying to get Fiver to enter into with me now. Coming back with the remarks you did when you did not know what I was talking about, was at best unwise.



The Saltpetre crisis

This is an interesting subject. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever amassed enough data to write a series of balance equations of the form below.

Rate of increase or decrease in saltpetre stock =
Amount being produced + Amount being imported
– Amount being consumed – Amount being exported - Amount spoiled in storage

Unfortunately things are not quite as simple as I show in the equations above. You need equations for Military, Naval and Civil use and you need separate sets of equations for the East and the West as they are only linked by the sea so far as bulk goods are concerned (which will stop in an Anglo-USA war). You also need to be able to solve these equations at least on a yearly basis for each year of conflict. If you can’t solve these equations and to the best of my knowledge no one can at the present time due to lack of data, then it is only possible to make estimate of when the Union would run out of powder. This rather surprises me as it is a dead easy PhD study.

What can be said with some authority is:

In late 1861 the Union Navy was running out of powder and knew it,
In late 1861 the Union Army was running out of powder and did not then know it. The Army was down to (ca. 1670 long tons of saltpetre in stock as at May 16th 1861),
The allocation between Military, Naval and Civil use of powder varied throughout the ACW,
Confiscation of Civilian powder would have a profound effect on the Union economy as it was used in large quantities in quarrying, coal, iron, gold and silver mining,
There were no indigenous sources of saltpetre in the USA,
India was the world’s main source of saltpetre where a quirk of the climate, the dryness of much of the year and the regularity of the Monsoon, made production easy and yields vast. The British controlled India and the trade,
Northern European production methods for saltpetre, primarily Nitre Beds could have been employed by the Union as indeed they were by the Confederacy,
Nitre Beds take at least six months to mature once you have built them and filled them up,
Farming in the USA where the farms are spread far apart, compared to those of Northern Europe is not as efficient for the use of Nitre Beds as it might be because the collectors have far further to travel to collect the animal waste products and the time between visits might be correspondingly longer leading to some of the product leaching away,
Chile Nitrate and seabird guano came from either the west coast of South America or islands just off it in this period. The very dry climate of the region prevented seabird guano (a ‘nice’ name for poo) from leaching away into the environment, thus making it abundant,
The guano and Chile Nitre trades were controlled by British companies. In the event of a war between Britain and the USA the Royal Navy on the South East Coast of South America Station would blockade any ships attempting to import this material into the USA,
There were sources of bat guano which could be converted into saltpetre in the USA but they were remote, individually small and spread out, the total amount of bat guano was small with respect to the saltpetre required by the armed forces,
The quantity of saltpetre that Lammot DuPont was attempting to import for the Navy from Britain at the time of the Trent Affair was vast (2300 long ton). The quantity that was imported from India was large over a tenth of that size but small in comparison. Later imports for the Navy and by the DuPont Company itself were also around the 350 long ton mark,
I have no idea how much saltpetre was imported by other powder producers such as Hazard. It was non-zero but they were much smaller companies than DuPont,
The process by which bat guano, seabird guano and Chile Nitrate can be converted to saltpetre (KNO3) by reaction with Potash was never really perfected in the USA during the ACW. Indeed only one company the New Haven Chemical Company was willing to take on the Federal contract to try,
The NHCC produced saltpetre in the later part of the war in reasonable amounts (500 long tons/PA) but from imported Chile Nitre,
To fight the Confederacy AND the British Empire would take a lot more saltpetre than to fight the Confederacy alone. This is because there would be battles on two fronts but most importantly because the artillery in the coastal forts especially the very large guns would have to be supplied and would if attacked consume vast quantities of gun powder.

So what can I say about the saltpetre crisis on the basis of the material I have got? Well, in the event of a war with the British the Union will run out of gunpowder. How quickly depends on how many actions are fought and how often the big guns of the Navy and the coastal fortresses are used. More than two months of modest fighting, somewhat less than six. Somewhere between nine months and eighteen months from the declaration of war, depending how prescient and industrious the Union has been the Nitre Beds will come on line and delivering significant saltpetre. Judging by the Confederate experience however they won’t be in full production for around three years.

Thus:

In a very short war (less than three months) the Union (probably) has no powder problems.
In a short war (three to nine months) the Union has critical powder problems which could cause it to sue for peace.
In a long war (twenty one months at least) the Union eventually has an adequate supply of gun powder but frankly I cannot see how they get from month nine to month twenty four (minimum estimate time to initial Nitre Bed production online plus twelve months)

Gertrude’s incredible sum: 1 British soldier = 5 Southron soldiers = 25 Yankee soldiers!

But the formula of 1 Southron soldier being worth 5 Yankees? Of 1 British soldier being worth 5 Southrons? He never explicitly says this, but that is the impression you are left with.

If 67th Tigers did not say it he probably didn’t intend it. He is never slow in putting his view across after all. However, I think there may be a point to be made here on my own behalf.

As an observation, lots of people, including professional historians seem to get involved in various arguments over which were the best soldiers and comparisons between different troops of different nations. There is even a programme on one of the more obscure TV channels these days about this very issue. I watched an episode with something akin to abject horror. I think it was all about which was the more deadly an Apache Dog Soldier or A Ninja Warrior? I was sitting there watching it thinking “Oh FFS” over and over, interspersed with “Please, please let me find the Zap Gun soon so I can change the channel”. I ‘eagerly’ await other episodes, such as perhaps ‘Which is the more deadly? A Home Guard Corporal with 12” of cold steel (“They don’t like it Upham”)* and A mounted European knight on a Great Horse?’ or maybe ‘Which is most likely to achieve his war aims, A Hippy and a Federalised Member of the USA National Guard?’***. I have been waffling sorry. My point is you can’t compare soldiers like this#.

What I think you can do is give a balanced assessment of the Union, Confederate and British armies around Jan. 1862.

Experience

In the Union army there was a core of 16,000 experienced regular soldiers, a modestly sized officer corps with some experience and some few volunteer officers from the Mexican-American war with some experience. A not insignificant proportion of the NCOs and Warrant Officers in the Union early in the war were of British Empire origin and time served in Victoria’s army, these men, along with other similar men of Prussian and other German origins were valued for that experience. At this time few of the men of the Union army had seen action in a major engagement. The last war of any significance that the Union had been involved with had been the Mexican-American war in 1848. There has been a minor war to occupy Utah and force the Mormons into the Union in 1857. Minor detachments of the USA’s army and Volunteers had been almost continually at war^ with the indigenous peoples of North America since at least the close of the Mexican-American war.

The Confederate army was no better or worse off than the Union army in terms of experience. It is particularly note worth that very few of the experienced professional officers in the pre-war army elected to join the Confederate cause, most stayed with the Union. This was offset to some extent by a strong military and military education heritage in Virginia. Volunteer elements in the Confederate territory of Arizona and in Texas were at war^ with Navajo and Apache.

The British army was hugely experience at this time, the bulk of its infantry regiments served around the world in different spots for several years at a time. The larger part of the soldiery I a given regiment had probably served at least eight years. The use of the depot system whereby new recruits were trained and fed into the active service battalion of the regiment to make good losses ensured that a unit always retained a core of experienced troops. British NCOs and Warrant Officers were normally very experienced men with many years of service behind them. European soldiers of the HEIC which was still being absorbed into the army of the British Raj at this time were also very experienced as were the native troops. Some of the men in the Canadian Volunteers and Militias were ex-army. More of the men in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotian Militias were ex-army. The British Army had fought a major war, the Crimean which started in 1863 and ended in 1856, suppressed a major rebellion/independence struggle in India 1857-59, fought a large war against Imperial China, the Second Opium war from 1856 – 1860, a medium sized war against Persia in 1856/7 and a minor war against the Maori in 1860/1 (1 Taranaki). They were currently attempting to wind-up their involvement in the Tai Ping rebellion in China and had begun the occupation of Lagos Island. Troops in India had been involved in expeditions again recalcitrant Princely States and tribal peoples more or less continuously since the British stole India from its inhabitants.

Training

The bulk of the Union army at this time had received very little training, especially in marksmanship. Many because the training was not to be had, others because they were simply too new. Some of the training received was obsolete by European standards. The professional officers were well trained, probably somewhat better than the British, however some of that training was outdated. The training of the Volunteer field Officers was often non-existent. Many had little idea how to manoeuvre on the field never mind look after the health and wellbeing of their men. Foreign military observers noted this when reporting the war.

I have absolutely no idea about the training of the Confederate army. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

More or less all the troops in the British army had been through training as a recruit and had been training more or less continuously ever since. The training was more modern than that of the Union army emphasising marksmanship and something closer to modern infantry tactics than to linear Napoleonic musket formations. The training of officers in this period was better than it had been for a long time. Advancement was still often through purchase but you also had to pass the exams. It would also be fair to say that the British army in this period was becoming very bound up with non-productive traditions and the extremes of class consciousness which arose within the officer class in the mid-Victorian period seems to have been making itself felt in a counter productive fashion. Training of Indian troops was also very thorough and the Indian troops were the best men picked from a very large pool of applicants they were better physically and mentally than most of the European troops in India. Even some several thousand of the Canadian Active Militia and Volunteers along with the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Militia had received more training than most of the Union Army

Equipment

This early in the war much of the Union Army was poorly equipped, there were both muskets and rifle muskets in use along with the occasional repeating rifle. Many of the rifle muskets available at this time were No 2 Enfields a good weapon but markedly inferior to the No 1s in the hands of the Confederates. Union artillery was a mix of the ancient tried Napoleons which the foundries were still making to the same pattern and more modern weapons most based on cast iron technology which the Europeans had left behind some years before. The Parrot rifle for example was particularly deadly to its crews because quality control was so poor that it was impossible to predict how many shots could be fired safely before the tube exploded. The saltpetre issue I have discussed elsewhere.

In the early part of the ACW the Confederate troops were not particularly badly equipped. In some respects they were better equipped than the Union army. At a time when many Union soldiers were armed with muskets a great many Confederates were armed with No 1 Enfields, the best rifle-musket of the conflict, only a smidgeon better than the Springfield but they never became sufficiently plentiful enough to equip large parts of the Union army until very late in the war. They also had access to the Whitworth sniping rifle. Some of the artillery available to them was of an advanced design particularly the Whitworth field piece and the Blakeney both British weapons.

The British were very well equipped by the standards of the day with No 1 Enfields for the Infantry and some breech loaders for the Cavalry. Some of the Engineers, especially those in British Columbia do seem to have been saddled with the Lanchester rifle however. The regular artillery was equipped with the breach loading Armstrong gun, unlike the naval Armstrongs which had a number of problems, none of which was critical, the Armstrong field guns gave good service until they were phased out by the Ordinance Board in 1864 (neither a Naval nor an Army organisation) largely for political reasons. These guns outranged, fired faster and were far more accurate than anything of a similar calibre available to the Union. In addition to these weapons the British had been using steam traction engines as artillery tractors since the Crimean War. They also had the formidable British army field cooker also developed for the Crimea and so good it was still in service in 1988. Using this means that the cooking fuel requirement of an army is reduced to approximately 1/7 of that needed when cooking over open fires the normal practice at that time.

Support

Supplies to the Union Army were for the most part sumptuous by European standards, nearly everyone had a good pair of boots and shoes and almost everyone ate regularly if not quite always well. There were some troubles in supplying both uniforms and boots which led to the ‘shoddy and mungo’ scandal where some regiments watched as their tunics made of rag cloth dissolved in the rain. To cover up for domestic shortfalls large quantities of blue serge cloth, uniforms, coats, socks and boots were imported from the world’s great textile emporium, Britain. Indeed so much blue cloth was made that this appears to be the reason that several BNA Militia units and regular troops in New Zealand ended up with blue uniforms! All this was an huge advantage over the Confederacy but, and it is a huge but###, if the Union goes to war with the British it completely loses this advantage, indeed its armies in the field would become very poorly supplied with all things except food which I imagine would still be plentiful unless there is a wheat crash@ at the time of the 1862 harvest. Medical support for the Union army seems to have got better as the war went on. The USA had sent military observers to the Crimean war and they had reported back at length on the innovations of Nightingale and more especially the Sanitary Commission. In the ACW the Union applied much of what had been learned to its construction of hospitals and use of ambulances to good effect. On the other hand the use of foreign contract Surgeons and the barbaric training of surgical cadets would appear to have had a notably negative effect on the morale of the troops.

Supplies for the Confederate army were always scarce and as the ACW progressed and the logistical systems of the Confederacy collapsed things got very bad indeed. It would be fair to say however that at the start of the ACW things were not too bad and at least everyone was getting fed. If the British become embroiled in a war with the Union and elect to use the Confederacy as a client army it is fair to say things will change very quickly.

The British army is the military wing of a very parsimonious state, in this period or any other. British armies are routinely expected to achieve victory whilst being insufficiently supplied. It is therefore somewhat surprising to say that it is very well supported in this period. There are an abundance of Military Train units to support logistics. I understand this number was greatly reduced a few years later. The logistics for the overland sled journey from Halifax to the connection with the Grand Trunk via the whole length of New Brunswick was unbelievably well organised and executed. The soldiers of the reinforcement effort were all meticulously equipped for service in the Canadian winter and more than adequate attention was made to medical preparations. The British seemed to have completely learned the lessons of the Crimea well.

Morale

Morale in the Union army during this period does not appear to have been that good. It seems to have stemmed from several factors; some of the early significant battles going against them, lots of minor niggles due to creating a large army from scratch, lots of resentment of untrained junior officers but most of all until the Gettysburg address they didn’t really have a tangible cause to stand for. The desertion rate (modern definition) was huge and the Union army does not seem to have done that much to reduce it.

The Confederate army seems to have had huge esprit de corps. In part this can be explained by the number of significant Confederate victories at the start of the ACW, a sense of community in the regiments and most of all I suspect, having a very clear idea what they were fighting for.

Simply put the regular soldiers of the British army are fanatics. They were brutally trained and drilled to obey orders in the face of massive casualties. During the ACW numerous formations were ‘broken’ with the soldiers retreating in disarray. This hardly ever happened with British regiments. They just advanced into gunfire until they reached their objective, were ordered to retreat or there were so few of them left there was no unit. This is both a great strength and a great weakness. Under a commander how knows when and when not to spend the lives of his troops it is a great strength. Under a profligate commander it is very easy to lose the whole formation.

Ted Knight

Ted Baxter. Ted Knight was merely an actor playing the role.

No, Ted Knight, Lambeth Councillor falsely accused of various wrong doings by the Press, the Right and the more extreme Pink factions of (British) the Labour party. When examined closely the charges had little or no substance. Also a rather apposite pun on fabulous but dangerous Anne Widdecombe’s destruction of Michael Howard’s political career with a few well chosen words ‘There is something of the night about him’. How is Ted Baxter relevant??

Heroes and Hero worship

Lincoln is an interesting President of the USA most people seem to revere him in much the same way people revere Ghandi. A few seem to revile him. Neither response seems appropriate to either man. Both had feet of clay and both should be judged as men and not icons. They did both good and bad things in their lifetimes.

Sad to say I really have no interest in either talking McCleland up or down. I read threads on the debate but as yet have felt no need to jump one way or ‘tother.

Footnotes (‘cos proper history papers have footnotes@@)

*Fabulous double pun on Corporal Jones, Warmington** on Sea Home Guard and Charles Hazlet Upham VC and bar.
**Otherwise known as Hastings.
*** I know you are thinking the National Guardsman armed with a rifle but amazingly the Hippy armed with some really interesting mind altering substances, free love and flowers won the day. What a surprise!
# What is true of course is that one Irishman is equal to Avagadro’s number of Poms, Yanks, Ockers, Canucks, Kiwis, Sidifrikins or whatever##
##Sorry I don’t know what came over me, must be an acute attack of nationalism!
###Oh no, no, no, no, no! I do the big bottom puns on this post not you lot!
@Caused by large numbers of farmers being able to export wheat and therefore having to sell it at hugely under cost. The usual approach for farmers in this situation (which had happened in peace time) was to sell up if they could, burn their fields and move west, often over the frontier and beyond the reach of their creditors.
@@But so too does Terry Pratchett!
^This term perhaps over dignifies these grubby little exercises in ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide.
&Tsouras is such a funny name. I have this huge compulsion to go all ‘Carry On’ on his backside but that might make it sore!

[Nytram01]

People, people. Calm down.

Lets take 67th Tigers out of the conversation here. He's gone and not a member of the board anymore. We are not here to discuss the opinions of a former board member.

We dont want the administrators getting involved and closing the thread or something.

[frlmerrin]

Jkay,

I think there'd be nothing fast about the effective part of a British military response. After all, the big fleet and the big army would start at the other side of an ocean, and, it takes time to mobilize a big force. And, a big reserve'd likely hafta stay, because Russia'd so get in on our side, and maybe other antiBritish European countries.

1) Why would Russia get on our side??? The Russians couldn’t give a monkey’s about the Irish in 1862.
2) What anti-British countries? Everyone in Europe loves them or fears them.
3) Regarding response times. There is already one large British squadron at Vera Cruz and a second at Bermuda and the West Indies. Between them they contain around 34 warships including seven steam line of battle ships and eight screw frigates. There are also four other steam warships at Bermuda. These would attack the Union immediately and there are less than fifty Union warships out of a whole available Union fleet of some 220 ships at the time of the Trent Affair. There are no Union ironclads at this time, Monitor would be available in a month or so. Three more RN ships are in transit to North America in Dec Jan 1861 and will arrive in less than 2 weeks (<declaration of war +14). In addition to those RN ships already in place there are some 7 ships being sent from the Mediterranean station waiting at Gibraltar, they will be sent (via telegraph) as soon as the news of war reaches London (11-14 days) and will be on station within three weeks at most (declaration of war +35 days). In the reserves ready to go or able to go before the end of January (roughly 50/50 split) are 40 warships which need two weeks to transit the North Atlantic (arrive between declaration of war +24-28 and +28-42). There are also three warships in the 1st reserve that will need somewhat longer repairs before they can be made available (ca. 2 months). The six available armoured ships including two batteries will not be sent until the spring, neither will the mortar frigates (4). When those 40 ships have been sent the next 40 in the reserve will be brought forward into service. On average for the next group this would take around six weeks. Gunboats would be quicker. You will have noticed this gives the Royal Navy a fleet of around 88 warships (not to mention the support ships I have omitted) on the Union coast this is close to double the number of warships the Union has available.

Economic strangling, only 1/3 right. The RN had no ability to attack land railroads, and not much of the Royal Navy could fit in rivers, where ALOT of the rest off our commerce ran. We would lose trade by sea, though. Well, unless we're in 67thland, in which case Britain could beat us all just looking at us cross :-).

1) The RN had loads of ability to attack land railroads (as opposed to what? Sky railroads?) you land marines and march them to the railway. Then you have them ‘tear up the tracks’ as they say in the song and march away tootie-sweetie before the locals turn up.
2) The smallest class of British gunboat draws 4’ of water. That is less than some river boats. None of the smaller gunboat classes draws more than 6’8”. They were designed for going up small rivers and killing recalcitrant Russians, they have since refined their tactics killing recalcitrant natives. In a Trent war they would be used for going up small rivers and killing recalcitrant Yankees. That is not a great change in mission objective is it?

And, wouldn't California'd be as harder for THEM as Canada is for US? It's defensiveland for everybody. And, it might take longer than the war lasts for a California to invasion arrive because of how long it'd travel; it's come up before.

1) No the British have these two colonies Vancouver’s Island and British Columbia just up the coast from California and a nice big naval base where they have three frigates, two of them brand spanking new and assorted other ships that they can used to descend on San Francisco when they want. The defences of that city are so weak they can be run without difficulty and the Union navy presence is very weak.
2) Invasion of California is pretty easy. There are two troop ships in China one of the giant HMS Vulcan. There are enough troops in China to detach 1500 of them and still leave enough to deal with the Tai Pings until the reinforcements reach Shanghai. There are enough tramp steamers to hire as colliers to fuel the troop ships and there are enough warships to accompany them (and to mother across a few more gunboats). They can be in California within 8-10 weeks of the start of war. Further afield in India/Burma there are at least seven troopships of HMIN available and warships to convoy them. There are of course lots of troops to fill them with too. These troops would take at least another month to arrive. Union forces around San Francisco and Sacramento, which frankly apart from Fort Yuma is the only part of the state worth worrying about number less than 2500 and to concentrate to much greater numbers would take several weeks.

US probably gives in, I agree, in '65, by a Democrat winning. Gives up few Canadian gains, check. The borders depend on which front gets what priority ... though we'd likely own the Mississippi River states after the war, because water was where we COULD make good progress, and the British Fleet'd be too big to enter.

1) Once again I fail to see why we, the Irish would own anything after an Anglo-American war. Don’t get me wrong Irish colonies sound pretty cool but I just don’t see how we’re going to do it.
2) If the British fleet was too big to enter the Mississippi how come a Union fleet managed it? The British have lots of shallow draft warships and from memory (please don’t work from this number I may be wrong) the depth to the bar at the Head of Passes is 15’ which means you can get some pretty big corvettes over it.

I'm on the we'd hate you and CSA and want a rematch, because then it'd be like before 1812, when you had no respect for us.

1) Nobody ever had any respect for us Irish in the 19th Century mate – don’t have a paddy* about it things are better now. The Yank ambassador usually says please when he gives us our orders.

*Awful pun

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Alstein

My counteresponse

1) Jingoism/Nationalism/yellow journalism could still cause this war, and the US would be itching to get some of its international reputation back, so Europe would think twice before trying this again- if the US decided to go revanchist. The reaction would concern everyone even if the reason wasn't what Europe thinks. The US would also want colonies- this would largely be for prestige.

Its a possibility but would the US be that determined for a serious war of expansion which does so much damage to its trade and economy whether it wins or loses?

2) The US, without the South weighing it back, might actually be stronger than in OTL, at the very least it won't be much weaker, and will be able to afford a bloody expensive Navy, and would have reason to make the expense. The USA would likely view Britain is its most likely enemy, and wouldn't just want to sit and fight a defensive war, and has enough natural resources that it wouldn't have to.

A naval to threaten Britain, coupled with a large army are going to be a lot more expensive than anything America tried maintaining in peacetime before 1945. This will have impacts on both taxation, which will have to go up a hell of a lot, resultant development and public opinion. Its possible but needs a major change in the US psyche. A check in a war against Britain might do that but it didn't in a probably longer and more destructive war in 1812.

3) I agree with your point, but that would depend on butterflies. A Britain-Germany alliance is plausible, but not by any stretch a sure thing or more likely than the alternative. Britain will still be alarmed of any continental domination- if the Franco-Prussian war is butterflied away things will be different. I don't think that's likely though.

I'm just using that as an example. We have no real evidence that a WWI alliance build-up would occur, at least in this time period, let alone what the sides might be. I wouldn't even be sure that the US wouldn't be involved, although that is probably unlikely.

4) As for Canada vs the CSA in terms of occupation. Canada is more valuable by far, and while the population would resist, I don't think they'd view the occupation as bad, especially if it's just Western Canada obtained. I so agree that it wouldn't be easy, but I think the CSA would be worse unless the USA was willing to arm blacks, which would alarm the USA citizenry as well. The Southern US is well-suited culturally and geographically for a long-standing, violent guerilla campaign. Eventually the American people would tire of it, especially if they were naturally war weary (and conquering a brit-funded CSA army that is fighting a defensive war would still cost a lot of men) I suspect the same thing would happen with a Canadian full annexation, but I don't see the US going for that either- I think they'd be satisfied with Western Canada.

I don't see why you think this. An invading army determined to take away you're liberty, especially for a people used to strong legal rights, tends to cause a lot of offensive. Also Canada has far more land and a lot wilder and lower populated that the US could spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of men trying to occupy without success.

Not to mention the question of reciprocity. The US suffers a minor defeat by Britain when it attacks British interests and responds by going into rabid imperialist mode. The US launches an unprovoked attack on an important trade partner and expects it to forget and forgive? By you're own logic the US has just made permanent enemies of the entire British empire who will not stop until the US is in ruins and great chunks annexed to a liberated Canada. More seriously Britain will be determined to regain Canada's liberty and the US will face perpetual conflict because of its own stupidity and aggression.

It's more likely the CSA would lose slices of territory, then a full-fledged annexation in the case of a war defeat. Might see Texas go independent.

Interesting that you still view the south, despite the fact the US has a [highly dubious admittedly] claim on its territory, as a less legitimate target for American imperialism than Canada.

Steve

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by frlmerrin

Dear Gertrude,

Thank you for your response to my post.



I...

Well, that earns a vacation.

Call it Seven Days.

You may want to check out Coventry during your time off. Next time you pull this sort of crap you'll be moving there permanently.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

People, people. Calm down.

Lets take 67th Tigers out of the conversation here. He's gone and not a member of the board anymore. We are not here to discuss the opinions of a former board member.

We dont want the administrators getting involved and closing the thread or something.

My sincerest apologies for losing my temper.

[Alstein]

Originally Posted by stevep

Its a possibility but would the US be that determined for a serious war of expansion which does so much damage to its trade and economy whether it wins or loses?



A naval to threaten Britain, coupled with a large army are going to be a lot more expensive than anything America tried maintaining in peacetime before 1945. This will have impacts on both taxation, which will have to go up a hell of a lot, resultant development and public opinion. Its possible but needs a major change in the US psyche. A check in a war against Britain might do that but it didn't in a probably longer and more destructive war in 1812.



I'm just using that as an example. We have no real evidence that a WWI alliance build-up would occur, at least in this time period, let alone what the sides might be. I wouldn't even be sure that the US wouldn't be involved, although that is probably unlikely.



I don't see why you think this. An invading army determined to take away you're liberty, especially for a people used to strong legal rights, tends to cause a lot of offensive. Also Canada has far more land and a lot wilder and lower populated that the US could spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of men trying to occupy without success.

Not to mention the question of reciprocity. The US suffers a minor defeat by Britain when it attacks British interests and responds by going into rabid imperialist mode. The US launches an unprovoked attack on an important trade partner and expects it to forget and forgive? By you're own logic the US has just made permanent enemies of the entire British empire who will not stop until the US is in ruins and great chunks annexed to a liberated Canada. More seriously Britain will be determined to regain Canada's liberty and the US will face perpetual conflict because of its own stupidity and aggression.



Interesting that you still view the south, despite the fact the US has a [highly dubious admittedly] claim on its territory, as a less legitimate target for American imperialism than Canada.

Steve

1 and 2) War of 1812- Americans consider that war a mild victory that they got a status quo peace. This would be a different scenario. They would lose territory here, and possibly other minor things. I do not think the Brits would go for an Ameriscrew, as this would be more putting the Americans in their place. As for the naval buildup, losing a serious war would change the American psyche some- and I think folks could tolerate the taxation, especially since I suspect overall casualties in the defeat would be less than the victory. Also, the naval buildup and taxation would be gradual, and like it did in Europe, it would start off small than just keep rising. Why wouldn't the US participate if it felt like it's security was at stake- and any sort of Confederate saber-rattling would make Americans itchy, even if it wasn't realistic or serious. (and I think some Confed politicians would want more, though they'd be an unrealistic and crazy minority)

One thing I am curious about- did the ACW affect tactics/expectations of the Franco-Prussian War for either side, or was it just regarded as some quaint war in the middle of nowhere over in Europe?


3-4) On your last points, I suspect both sides in this case would view their defeats as a lot more than minor. The US getting involved in European affairs WWI-style, I suspect that would come from the German side first. I do think the US would be cool to the idea, but as the naval race spirals out of control gradually, that would change.

As for Canada- the US would in the case of a WWI victory, feel it deserves some spoils, especially if it leaves the CSA mostly intact , or even if the CSA stays neutral (which is a possibility if the CSA is smart , I suspect they'd backstab the Brits if they felt they couldn't win- the CSA flat out couldn't afford a naval buildup, and they'd see the US curbstomp Spain in the SA War if that happened. Idiot ball CSA is always a possibility though.)

Post-WWI in either OTL or TTL, how exactly is Britain going to defeat the USA in a long war , unless it has Russian help? The USA wouldn't have to surrender quickly, and in TTL, they got a major victory in TTL's equivalent of WWI, not a Versailles-level victory as the Brits negotiate for terms when German or US ships shell London some and Brits suffer a good number of naval defeats (there's no invasion of England)

If the CSA uses poison gas and the war drags on for years, I could see the CSA being re-annexed, but I think a Britain that is under serious naval threat would try to get terms, and the Americans would take them and be reasonable, and I don't think the CSA would have poison gas and might even dishonor their alliance, claiming the Brits were the aggressor. (I don't think the USA would go for a two-front war if they didn't have to, and a CSA that remains neutral would thaw relations) Also, it's possible the CSA would be too busy with internal matters to even consider a war in the first place- it's not like the CSA is going to be stable for a long time- it will be a basketcase, and will have a hard time keeping itself together without some luck. (Ironically, a US military buildup might help the CSA stay together)

Also, a USA occupation of Western Canada wouldn't be brutal, would be considered a legitimate victory- and folks would be able to move to eastern Canada- or even Manitoba. (I'm assuming the US gets Yukon, Northwest territories, BC, and possibly Alberta- not all of Canada)

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Alstein

My counteresponse

1) Jingoism/Nationalism/yellow journalism could still cause this war, and the US would be itching to get some of its international reputation back, so Europe would think twice before trying this again- if the US decided to go revanchist. The reaction would concern everyone even if the reason wasn't what Europe thinks. The US would also want colonies- this would largely be for prestige.

By the time of a Union revanche, both the UK and France are at long last true functioning full fledged democracies. Democracies don't war with each other. The Confederacy, OTOH, most certainly was NOT a democracy. No way does the post-1867 British Empire and Third Republic French go to war to defend a Slave Power. Colonies are purely a secondary matter AFTER a war of revanche.

2) The US, without the South weighing it back, might actually be stronger than in OTL, at the very least it won't be much weaker, and will be able to afford a bloody expensive Navy, and would have reason to make the expense. The USA would likely view Britain is its most likely enemy, and wouldn't just want to sit and fight a defensive war, and has enough natural resources that it wouldn't have to.

Without the South weighing it back? With a foreign nation controlling the major inland waterways and outlets for the heartland of the United States (Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers)? The US cannot make war on Britain by itself, either with a surviving CSA on its border, or even after the CSA has been conquered and all resistance quelled. Not in the 19th century. But Perfidious Albion, after a British Intervention, is certainly going to be seen as the Main Enemy well into the 20th century.

3) I agree with your point, but that would depend on butterflies. A Britain-Germany alliance is plausible,(1) but not by any stretch a sure thing or more likely than the alternative. Britain will still be alarmed of any continental domination- if the Franco-Prussian war is butterflied away things will be different. I don't think that's likely though.(2)

1) Once Germany is united, Britain's consistent foreign policy since 1066 will automatically kick in. Namely, support the second strongest power (France and/or Russia) on the continent, to produce a disunited Europe that can never threaten Great Britain with invasion. With a Third Republic in France, the British are not going to be very sanguine about an alliance against them, siding with the autocratic regime in Berlin. They could hold their noses regarding allying themselves with autocratic powers, but not against democracies.

2) Absolutely right. Why the heck anyone would think the FPW would be butterflied because of a change in the outcome of the ACW is beyond me. I've only seen people state the idea, without seriously explaining why Otto Von Bismarck had suddenly decided to throw out his life's work, or how the AH Empire could possibly win the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which was, if anything, even more lopsided in favor of the Prussians than the FPW was!

4) As for Canada vs the CSA in terms of occupation. Canada is more valuable by far, and while the population would resist, I don't think they'd view the occupation as bad, especially if it's just Western Canada obtained.(3) I so agree that it wouldn't be easy, but I think the CSA would be worse unless the USA was willing to arm blacks, which would alarm the USA citizenry as well.(4) The Southern US is well-suited culturally and geographically for a long-standing, violent guerilla campaign.(5) Eventually the American people would tire of it, especially if they were naturally war weary (and conquering a brit-funded CSA army that is fighting a defensive war would still cost a lot of men) (6) I suspect the same thing would happen with a Canadian full annexation, but I don't see the US going for that either- I think they'd be satisfied with Western Canada.(7)

3) The Canadian people and the American people were already very different by this time. Mind, if an army of New Englanders and New Yorkers were to be charging into Western Canada, that would be one thing. I still believe the Canadian people would resist ferociously. However, the difference is that in any non-ASB world the invaders will be Western Americans, not Easterners. That means, the very first people the RCMP chased out upon their very first deployments out west.

The people who sold guns, whiskey, and smallpox-infected blankets to Canada's Indian populations. You could expect massacres of Indians, Canadian Blacks (uppity *******), and Whites ([fill-in-the-blank]-lovers). These are NOT the troops employed in the occupation of the South (Eastern Whites, Freed Blacks, Northern Blacks), who were looking for a "Hearts-and-minds" strategy.

In Canada, you wouldn't have "civilized Yankees" trying to have a calming effect on fire-eating Southrons. You'd have bloody-minded Westerners quite literally looking for scalps. Against a civilian population looking to actively resist, to hold out long enough until Victoria can unleash her fleets and legions of troops.

No way in God's Green Earth does the British Empire allow the loss of Canadian territory permanently, even in a scenario where Britain declares war. Canada needs her own natural route to the Pacific, just as the USA does to the Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico.

4) Not arming Blacks? Am I missing something here?

5) Culturally, yes. Geographically, not so much. The regions in which guerrilla warfare would work best in the South are also the most Unionist. The biggest reason Lee insisted on a complete surrender of his army was because he knew full well what would happen to the South if it attempted "...to take up the bushwhacker's trade."

For a national war of resistance to work, you generally need two things:

a) A foreign invader with no real ties to the country
b) Heavy support from a third power to provide the physical means ($$$, arms, equipment) to fight. You can't really defeat a determined professional fighting force that already is in country with squirrel guns.

6) If Britain is in the ACW it's impossible. Union gets curbstomped, period. If it is a war of revanche, Britain can only go so far without violating its own neutrality, which would cause the government in London to fall if caught doing it on the sly.

7) The problem is, I don't see the British sitting still for the loss of one 40 mile square section of Alberta, never mind all of Western Canada.

It's more likely the CSA would lose slices of territory, then a full-fledged annexation in the case of a war defeat. Might see Texas go independent.

I can't the US settling for anything but restoration of the Union. It was the only matter the North was never negotiate on (and Emancipation after 1862), and the only thing the South would never agree to.

My fingers hurt

[stevep]

Alstein

usertron2020 has answered some of you're points from you're previous post but let me reply to a few here.

Originally Posted by Alstein

1 and 2) War of 1812- Americans consider that war a mild victory that they got a status quo peace. This would be a different scenario. They would lose territory here, and possibly other minor things. I do not think the Brits would go for an Ameriscrew, as this would be more putting the Americans in their place. As for the naval buildup, losing a serious war would change the American psyche some- and I think folks could tolerate the taxation, especially since I suspect overall casualties in the defeat would be less than the victory. Also, the naval buildup and taxation would be gradual, and like it did in Europe, it would start off small than just keep rising. Why wouldn't the US participate if it felt like it's security was at stake- and any sort of Confederate saber-rattling would make Americans itchy, even if it wasn't realistic or serious. (and I think some Confed politicians would want more, though they'd be an unrealistic and crazy minority)

a) The US lost territory in the proposed TL, to the south when it won its independence, not Canada. Also in a disputed conflict that was ultimately unsuccessful there are probably a lot of Americans complaining about the war ever being fought.

b) Agree no Ameriscrew. I think we presume that Lincoln realises how badly he has misjudged things and quickly makes peace, possibly within a few months. We're then assuming that it wouldn't seek to conquer the south, which I'm not so certain of.

c) A slow gradual build-up could be more difficult to organise than a one-off. The latter might be accepted if people feel there is an immediate threat but gradually pushing it up year after year, with no clear threat, would be a continued irritation and opposed by many businessmen. Also it would be more difficult for the US to maintain a good 'hate' that long, which is necessary such a build-up. I am working under the assumption that, as OTL, Britain is sending repeated diplomatic messages that it wants a restoration of good relations and it will only be if/when they are repeatedly rejected that it will look at prolonged defence of Canada against US aggression. There is more chance of tension between the US and CSA but that is more likely to direct any US irk southwards.

d) If you did somehow have the scenario you propose then its almost certain to lead to a British defeat. Although I doubt the US will do much in Europe and may make a separate peace. Alternatively, just possibly faced with a massive US build-up and prolonged hostility from it, the British cabinet may decide the direct threat to imperial territory and trade is more urgent than the breaching of a treaty by Prussia. However I would expect that a defeat, especially if it ends up with large scale annexations as you propose, will definitely not be the end of the matter.

One thing I am curious about- did the ACW affect tactics/expectations of the Franco-Prussian War for either side, or was it just regarded as some quaint war in the middle of nowhere over in Europe?

Not to any extent I believe. Apart from anything else and the special circumstances involved in a civil war between overwhelmingly amateur forces in a thinly populated region, I don't think there would be time for much information to be applied in terms of new tactics and weapons. This would be especially the case in TTL with a much smaller and shorter war and a clear British victory.

3-4) On your last points, I suspect both sides in this case would view their defeats as a lot more than minor. The US getting involved in European affairs WWI-style, I suspect that would come from the German side first. I do think the US would be cool to the idea, but as the naval race spirals out of control gradually, that would change.

You seem to be defeating you're own argument here. If the US feels its defeat in 1861/62 as not minor then definitely Britain/Canada would feel a defeat with huge annexations in the alternative WWI as very serious. Hence why would they not seek to reverse this?

As for Canada- the US would in the case of a WWI victory, feel it deserves some spoils, especially if it leaves the CSA mostly intact , or even if the CSA stays neutral (which is a possibility if the CSA is smart , I suspect they'd backstab the Brits if they felt they couldn't win- the CSA flat out couldn't afford a naval buildup, and they'd see the US curbstomp Spain in the SA War if that happened. Idiot ball CSA is always a possibility though.)

A bully often feels its deserves something from its victims but they often disagree. Especially since here its a straight-forward case of naked aggression, the US refusing for two generations attempts to improve relations. This will cause a hell of a lot of resentment in Canada and Britain.

Post-WWI in either OTL or TTL, how exactly is Britain going to defeat the USA in a long war , unless it has Russian help? The USA wouldn't have to surrender quickly, and in TTL, they got a major victory in TTL's equivalent of WWI, not a Versailles-level victory as the Brits negotiate for terms when German or US ships shell London some and Brits suffer a good number of naval defeats (there's no invasion of England)

I can't see the USN operating in Europe, especially since their likely to suffer heavily if they try, being so far from any bases. Whatever happens Britain will still have a large navy and you seem to think Canada won't be annexed in full. Hence there is plenty of capacity for Britain to maintain itself as a major military power and be able to supply aid to the resistance movement. If it came to a new war, without a continental commitment it could cause a lot of problems for the American empire, in both Canada and the Carribean. How long is the US going to cling to its conquests regardless of the costs?

If the CSA uses poison gas and the war drags on for years, I could see the CSA being re-annexed, but I think a Britain that is under serious naval threat would try to get terms, and the Americans would take them and be reasonable, and I don't think the CSA would have poison gas and might even dishonor their alliance, claiming the Brits were the aggressor. (I don't think the USA would go for a two-front war if they didn't have to, and a CSA that remains neutral would thaw relations) Also, it's possible the CSA would be too busy with internal matters to even consider a war in the first place- it's not like the CSA is going to be stable for a long time- it will be a basketcase, and will have a hard time keeping itself together without some luck. (Ironically, a US military buildup might help the CSA stay together)

I don't understand this here? If Germany uses poisoned gas in the alt-WWI then the big question is does it spread to N America. Britain would quite possibly offer a no first use in the region but would the US you describe agree? If it does the war becomes a lot costier for everybody although given the low population densities in N America probably a lot less important than in Europe.

Also, a USA occupation of Western Canada wouldn't be brutal, would be considered a legitimate victory- and folks would be able to move to eastern Canada- or even Manitoba. (I'm assuming the US gets Yukon, Northwest territories, BC, and possibly Alberta- not all of Canada)

Given the nature of the US you describe and the fact their coming in as an army of conquest I think the Canadians would find it pretty brutal. Especially when they start running out of supplies and start looting. Or when hit and run attacks on isolated outposts - Canada is bloody big - inflict casualties and unable to catch the enemy the occupiers try and take hostages. Especially since the main experience of the US army is against the Indians, who were often treated brutally.

How long is the US going to be able to keep occupied Canada as a colony, denied all political rights? How many troops are going to die before they decide that, whether they admit it or not, they have made a mistake and are better off withdrawing?

Steve

[stevep]

usertron2020 or other Americans in the discussion

A question. Say we get a short Trent war as generally being discussed. Britain makes clear its going to war because of the US action in intercepting a British ship on the high seas and refuses to recognise the CSA. Lincoln quickly realised that he has made an error and the US economy is going down the plug because of the blockade.

As a result a cease-fire and then a treaty is fairly quickly agreed. The US apologies for the Trent Incident and possibly pays a small indemnity. No land is exchanges, probably no areas of significance occupied during the conflict. By spring 62 Britain and America are at peace again.

Britain, i.e. the government, has gone back to a policy of strict neutrality. The CSA has received a valuable breather. Its been given time to organise and import at least some of the military equipment it realises it needs. The union has been shaken by the economic and fiscal impact of the blockade and probably seen a number of ships lost. It will have probably lost, or not gained some of the assorted bridgeheads it OTL got along the southern coast, most noticeably New Orleans. Possibly Britain will be less willing to sell to the US, although money talks and British businessmen may well have deals with both sides.

In this case, does the US also concede independence to the south, as most people seem to be concluding, or do they continue the fight? It might depend on how weakened Lincoln's government is by the debacle against Britain. If it does fight does it still win and how how different would the war be to OTL? I would expect it to be longer, presuming the CSA doesn't get too over-confident and really mess up big time, but how do people think it might work out?

Steve

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by stevep

A question. Say we get a short Trent war as generally being discussed. Britain makes clear its going to war because of the US action in intercepting a British ship on the high seas and refuses to recognise the CSA. Lincoln quickly realised that he has made an error and the US economy is going down the plug because of the blockade.

As a result a cease-fire and then a treaty is fairly quickly agreed. The US apologies for the Trent Incident and possibly pays a small indemnity. No land is exchanges, probably no areas of significance occupied during the conflict. By spring 62 Britain and America are at peace again.

This seems the most likely thing. Canadian winter is going to severely hamper immediate campaigning there by either side. And while the British could eventually produce overwhelming naval force, there' won't be any of these instant, total mobilizations some posters seem fond of.

The Lincoln administration would devote all its diplomatic resources to ending the war with Britain quickly. The question is how much of a breather would this provide for the Confederates? Probably enough for them to exhaust Union will to fight, leading to the election of a Democrat in 1864 and a peace in place in 1866, with lines similar to OTLs 1863. The Union has control of the Mississippi River. They have West Virgina, northern Virginia, most or all of Tennessee and Arkansas, much of Louisiana, and likely portions of Mississippi and the Union isn't giving any of it back to the Confederacy.

The Union will blame Britain for losing the war. The Confederacy will consider Britain to have betrayed and abandoned them, even though they weren't formally allied. That's not reasonable, but Confederate leadership generally wasn't and they were very, very good at grudges.

The region will be destabilized, the Monroe doctrine deceased, and Britain will need to beef up their troops in their territories in the Americas. Germany has a good chance of gaining territory in the Caribbean. Confederate slave smuggling will also require greater British commitment to the Anti-Slavery Patrols.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by stevep

usertron2020 or other Americans in the discussion

A question. Say we get a short Trent war as generally being discussed. Britain makes clear its going to war because of the US action in intercepting a British ship on the high seas and refuses to recognise the CSA. Lincoln quickly realised that he has made an error and the US economy is going down the plug because of the blockade.

As a result a cease-fire and then a treaty is fairly quickly agreed. The US apologies for the Trent Incident and possibly pays a small indemnity. No land is exchanges, probably no areas of significance occupied during the conflict. By spring 62 Britain and America are at peace again.

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.

Britain, i.e. the government, has gone back to a policy of strict neutrality. The CSA has received a valuable breather. Its been given time to organise and import at least some of the military equipment it realises it needs. The Union has been shaken by the economic and fiscal impact of the blockade and probably seen a number of ships lost. It will have probably lost, or not gained some of the assorted bridgeheads it OTL got along the southern coast, most noticeably New Orleans. Possibly Britain will be less willing to sell to the US, although money talks and British businessmen may well have deals with both sides.

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.

In this case, does the US also concede independence to the south, as most people seem to be concluding, or do they continue the fight? (1) It might depend on how weakened Lincoln's government is by the debacle against Britain. (2) If it does fight does it still win and how how different would the war be to OTL? (3) I would expect it to be longer, presuming the CSA doesn't get too over-confident and really mess up big time, but how do people think it might work out? (4)

Steve

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).

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.

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.

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.

[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.