AHC Britian and France join the ACW

[TFSmith121]

Sap, you're the one who suggested the British would

Sap, you're the one who has suggested the British would a) ally with Davis, Stephens, et al, and b) tell those same allies they are out of luck when they come and ask for their property back.

Now, you could suggest the British would ally with slavers against the United States in 1862-??; or you can suggest the British would go to war to abolish slavery (in the confederacy, US, Spain, and Brazil, apparently) in 1862-??...

But you really can't do both.

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

A curious amount of whataboutism over Britain and slavery going on here, curiously no mention of France. However, I suppose it remains to be said that the facts on the ground speak to the US not being close to spontaneously abolishing slavery across the whole of the nation in December 1861-January 1862, which makes the issue somewhat moot from a policy perspective in Parliament, to say nothing of the Tuileries.

All that aside of course, it would pay for the conversation to examine the particular reasons Britain and France would be going to war with the Union.

as discussed in another thread, France wants the Monroe Doctrine to go away, which puts the British in a pickle because the British government helped event the Monroe Doctrine to begin with, and benefits from it as much or more than the United States does

all that free British trade with Latin America is definitely worth a lot of money and it loses that trade if European nations start imperial conquest in Latin America

I would expect that would make the alliance or partnership or even co-belligerency even more complex than other Anglo-French alliances over history

 

[EnglishCanuck]

as discussed in another thread, France wants the Monroe Doctrine to go away, which puts the British in a pickle because the British government helped event the Monroe Doctrine to begin with, and benefits from it as much or more than the United States does

all that free British trade with Latin America is definitely worth a lot of money and it loses that trade if European nations start imperial conquest in Latin America

I would expect that would make the alliance or partnership or even co-belligerency even more complex than other Anglo-French alliances over history

Most likely. However, even in the 1860s South American nations were willing (and more than capable) of standing up to European powers (though not necessarily European interference) either via military action or diplomatic protest. France's expedition to Mexico(1), the Spanish war in the Dominican, the Empire of Brazil severing diplomatic relations with the British Empire from 1863-1865, and of course the mainly naval war over the Chincha Islands.

Palmerston himself was not adverse to France mucking about in the New World since it meant that the Bonapartes were less likely to cause trouble in Europe. The only other competitor in that corner (Spain) had its hands full dealing with internal issues, never mind the external ones!

Short term it's relatively easy to see the two powers cooperating in an entente to inflict damage to the United States, but long term as their interests diverge I can say with certainty that it would prove detrimental to good relations to both powers.

I don't see a scenario where they manage to completely lose that Latin American trade though.

=X=X=X=X=​

1) Though I will say that one came startlingly close to success. Unlike the various Spanish adventures. However, a successful Second Mexican Empire would have interesting repercussions to say the least!

 

[galveston bay]

Most likely. However, even in the 1860s South American nations were willing (and more than capable) of standing up to European powers (though not necessarily European interference) either via military action or diplomatic protest. France's expedition to Mexico(1), the Spanish war in the Dominican, the Empire of Brazil severing diplomatic relations with the British Empire from 1863-1865, and of course the mainly naval war over the Chincha Islands.

Palmerston himself was not adverse to France mucking about in the New World since it meant that the Bonapartes were less likely to cause trouble in Europe. The only other competitor in that corner (Spain) had its hands full dealing with internal issues, never mind the external ones!

Short term it's relatively easy to see the two powers cooperating in an entente to inflict damage to the United States, but long term as their interests diverge I can say with certainty that it would prove detrimental to good relations to both powers.

I don't see a scenario where they manage to completely lose that Latin American trade though.

=X=X=X=X=​

1) Though I will say that one came startlingly close to success. Unlike the various Spanish adventures. However, a successful Second Mexican Empire would have interesting repercussions to say the least!

I am thinking longer term (and I bet the British would too).... a united Germany or more aggressive France would likely look at several Latin American states with interest if the Monroe Doctrine is a dead letter

 

[Saphroneth]

Well, I did a thing on this topic.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ot-meet-us-on-the-open-sea-a-trent-tl.389708/

Just the British, but hopefully it makes the point.

 

[edgeworthy]

Well, I did a thing on this topic.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ot-meet-us-on-the-open-sea-a-trent-tl.389708/

Just the British, but hopefully it makes the point.

You know how some people are going to respond!?

However, its very good, well balanced and objective. And the timeline is excellent, pointing out that timing, and how long things take, is everything.

 

[Saphroneth]

Indeed - my initial outline didn't allow for recoaling and had the final NY battle taking place about a week before Monitor initially commissioned.

The point about the Armstrong was also one that I was introduced to during the research for this. Basically a 40-lber or 110-lber Armstrong could put shell two or three feet into a masonry wall, and the shell would then detonate - and since these were 4.7" or 7" weapons, the resultant explosion was extremely destructive to the wall. It's really interesting that the Armstrong gun (rifled) was better against masonry, while the 68-lber (smoothbore but with an extremely high MV) was better against armour. The OTL pivot by the British to RML guns makes sense in this light - they needed a weapon with the power of the high MV smoothbore and the range and penetration of the rifle. TTL I think they might continue with a mixed armament (ML for anti armour, BL for faster firing) until the development of a good breech (since the RBL has proven itself very useful in quickly demolishing fortifications.)

 

[Saphroneth]

Something else I'd like to point out, while I'm at it - the Union as of the Trent have neither torpedoes (spar or otherwise) nor naval mines. The spar torpedo has in fact not been invented, and the naval mine is something the CSA is working on but has not yet managed to functionally replicate - the Union would simply not be able to rush either out with any efficiency or effectiveness in the face of British attack. (It takes a lot of testing to produce a reliable naval mine, and more to produce one that actually can sink a ship - OTL there were several developments in this direction before they got to a workable level.)
The very fact that they keep showing up as serious discussions is as if every time an ATL was proposed about a different Union attack in 1862 the counter was that the Confederacy would deploy large quantities of breechloading artillery or rifles.

 

[galveston bay]

You know how some people are going to respond!?

However, its very good, well balanced and objective. And the timeline is excellent, pointing out that timing, and how long things take, is everything.

I will politely disagree with well balanced and objective description as well as its excellence and completely disagree with the time frames

But it is reasonably well written and avoids the tendency Saph has toward 'wall of posts' and information dumps of questionable validity.

 

[TFSmith121]

Something else I'd like to point out, while I'm at it - the Union as of the Trent have neither torpedoes (spar or otherwise) nor naval mines. The spar torpedo has in fact not been invented, and the naval mine is something the CSA is working on but has not yet managed to functionally replicate - the Union would simply not be able to rush either out with any efficiency or effectiveness in the face of British attack. (It takes a lot of testing to produce a reliable naval mine, and more to produce one that actually can sink a ship - OTL there were several developments in this direction before they got to a workable level.)
The very fact that they keep showing up as serious discussions is as if every time an ATL was proposed about a different Union attack in 1862 the counter was that the Confederacy would deploy large quantities of breechloading artillery or rifles.

Actually, the USN was funding experimental work with electrically fired naval mines as early as the 1840s, and Samuel Colt demonstrated the ability to successfully do such against a moving target at the time.

In addition, spar torpedoes amount to stepping a mast forward on a steam launch and securing an explosive charge at the fore end of the mast. This is not especially challenging, especially given the US had used submersibles with explosive charges as early as the revolutionary war and DuPont was experimenting with submersibles in 1861 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

So, yes, actually. You're incorrect.

So, what comes next from you, Sap? Black confederates? You've posted as much in ASB, after all...

 

[Dave Howery]

Gawd, this train wreck of a thread has come back to life... I was hoping it had disappeared into the nether regions of the board forever...

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I am thinking longer term (and I bet the British would too).... a united Germany or more aggressive France would likely look at several Latin American states with interest if the Monroe Doctrine is a dead letter

Well Monroe Doctrine non-withstanding France and Germany seemed quite content to muck about in the Western Hemisphere historically, if ineffectually. Butterflies will effect who does what of course, but it all depends on how deep they end up being somewhere else first.

Gawd, this train wreck of a thread has come back to life... I was hoping it had disappeared into the nether regions of the board forever...

It'll lumber on until everyone involved is banned at this point

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually, the USN was funding experimental work with electrically fired naval mines as early as the 1840s, and Samuel Colt demonstrated the ability to successfully do such against a moving target at the time.

In addition, spar torpedoes amount to stepping a mast forward on a steam launch and securing an explosive charge at the fore end of the mast. This is not especially challenging, especially given the US had used submersibles with explosive charges as early as the revolutionary war and DuPont was experimenting with submersibles in 1861 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

Colt's dead by the time the declaration of war reaches the US (died Jan 10 1862) and nobody knew how his mines worked - the man was vey secretive.
http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/HistoryTechnology/pdf_hi/SSHT-0029.pdf
They also were very small (smaller than these keg mines) and needed to be in direct contact to work.
Of course, if you've got an example from 1861 or early 1862 of the Union deploying electrically triggered mines then I'll be glad to up the effectiveness of these ones quite considerably.

As for the spar torpedo - I'm sure it's not especially challenging, but then nor was the concept of corned powder and that took hundreds of years to be thought of. Indeed, OTL the Spar Torpedo (despite how it would have been an extremely useful weapon at least from the early fifteenth century) was not invented until the Civil War and not deployed successfully until 1864. It has not been invented yet.

Meanwhile, as to breechloading artillery, there are at least two places the Confederacy could have simply purchased breechloading artillery if they saw the need (Armstrong and Krupp).

 

[TFSmith121]

Gawd, this train wreck of a thread has come back to life... I was hoping it had disappeared into the nether regions of the board forever...

You're not alone.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Colt's dead by the time the declaration of war reaches the US (died Jan 10 1862) and nobody knew how his mines worked - the man was vey secretive.
http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/HistoryTechnology/pdf_hi/SSHT-0029.pdf
They also were very small (smaller than these keg mines) and needed to be in direct contact to work.
Of course, if you've got an example from 1861 or early 1862 of the Union deploying electrically triggered mines then I'll be glad to up the effectiveness of these ones quite considerably.

As for the spar torpedo - I'm sure it's not especially challenging, but then nor was the concept of corned powder and that took hundreds of years to be thought of. Indeed, OTL the Spar Torpedo (despite how it would have been an extremely useful weapon at least from the early fifteenth century) was not invented until the Civil War and not deployed successfully until 1864. It has not been invented yet.

Meanwhile, as to breechloading artillery, there are at least two places the Confederacy could have simply purchased breechloading artillery if they saw the need (Armstrong and Krupp).

And in other news, Nimitz is sure to order his carriers to Midway only after the island is secured, Adm. Yamamoto...

It's in the OR; Ordnance had all of Colt's work, as well as reports from the Russo-Turkish War in 1853-56, and they went into production at the Philadelphia and Washington navy yards in the summer of 1861. Operationally, mines were laid in the Potomac, Patapsco, Delaware, Hudson, and innumerable other locations beginning in the autumn, using the previous work and the examples of the British defeats at Kronstadt, Taganrog, Petropavlovsk, and the Taku Forts, since the attaches reports and analysis were in the hands of the NSS...

 

[Spengler]

I hate this thread because it keeps TFS from completing his masterpiece.

 

[TFSmith121]

I hate this thread because it keeps TFS from completing his masterpiece.

Kind of you to say.

Seems bizarre that given the capabilities demonstrated by Maury, Davidson, Rains et al in the south, with the extraordinarily limited resources available to them in 1861-65, that somehow that men who had gained their particular experience and education in the same service, in the same period, and yet with all the resources of the US, including functioning naval yards, industry capable of manufacturing insulated wire, and the examples of Bushnell, Fulton, Colt, Delafield, DuPont, Dahlgren, etc., that naval mines were somehow beyond the ken of mortal men...

Especially given their obvious utility in frustrating the goal of an attacking squadron trying to enter defended waters, as demonstrated at Kronstadt, Taganrog, Petropavlovsk, and the Taku forts...

I dunno, it's almost like there's a thumb on the scales or something.

Best,

 

[Dave Howery]

I hate this thread because it keeps TFS from completing his masterpiece.

I hate this thread because everyone keeps arguing 'they can't do that/they can do that' and supplying endless reams of data to the point where the mind goes numb, and the OP gets rather ignored in the process. Any thread where Calbear has to come in three times to tell everyone to behave, kick one, and ban one needs to be locked and forgotten...

 

[The Gunslinger]

I hate this thread because everyone keeps arguing 'they can't do that/they can do that' and supplying endless reams of data to the point where the mind goes numb, and the OP gets rather ignored in the process. Any thread where Calbear has to come in three times to tell everyone to behave, kick one, and ban one needs to be locked and forgotten...

I think that says more about the people doing the arguing than the quality of the thread. There's been some great pieces of information unearthed because of the thread.