It been fascinating to read so many jingoistic posts, about 19th Century British Exceptionalism. England will always muddle through, while keeping a stiff upper lip, quite. This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. The only country that can make rifles that don't burst, naval rifles that don't blowup, has chemists, metallurgists, strategists, international lawyers, has soldiers who can shoot straight, or has logistics, (because the Americans have no logistics).
So 130 gun ships of the line can't just sail into New York Harbor, and burn the city down? No they can't. One of the great lessons of the Crimean War was shell guns can burn wooden ships. A lot of the waters off the U.S. East Coast are shallow, the weather is often rough, all the major ports have narrow channels, that were guarded by forts, and none of them are deep. The officers who would've been ordered to carry out a blockade thought it would be a tough job, because they didn't have enough of the right kinds of ships, but what did they know? They actually thought the Americans were ahead in some critical technological areas, but what did they know?
By 1862 the standard gun on USN Frigates, and Sloops were 8" or 9" Smooth Bore shell guns, that could also fire solid shot. The 9" Dahlgren compared very favorable with the British 64 lb. gun, and far more reliable then the 110 lb. guns, that had to be taken out of service. The 32 lb. gun was still the most common weapon on RN Ships of Line. Taking their capital units out of the mix leaves near parity in naval strength in American Home waters, making it hard to maintain a blockade on a long coastline. In the event of war the Union planned to build a class of 17kt raiders, to prey on British Merchant ships. If the RN couldn't stop American Privateers form going to sea in the ARW, or War of 1812 with a blockade, how can the stop them in 1862 without one? Or certainly not a close one.
Now about the Americans have no logistics, (Is that good English?) It's strange to even have to mention this but there were railroad lines running up to the Canadian Border. The Americans had railroad heads within 45 miles of Montreal, they ran to Buffalo NY on the Niagara River, and to Detroit Mi. Do supply lines count as logistics? The Union Army was very good at using railroads, and even building them, when needed. More logistics?
By the 1850s, fears of an American invasion had begun to diminish, and the British felt able to start reducing the size of their garrison. The
Reciprocity Treaty, negotiated between Canada and the United States in 1854, further helped to alleviate concerns.
[138] However, tensions picked up again during the
American Civil War (1861–65), reaching a peak with the
Trent Affair of late 1861 and early 1862,
[139] touched off when the captain of a US gunboat stopped the
RMS Trent and removed two
Confederate officials who were bound for Britain. The British government was outraged and, with war appearing imminent, took steps to reinforce its North American garrison, increasing it from a strength of 4,000 to 18,000.
[139] However, war was averted and the sense of crisis subsided.
Add 40,000 troops shipped that Spring, and maybe 30,000 Canadians, and you have up to 90,000 men to defend upper, and lower Canada. Their 1863 assessment stated that only Quebec City was well defended, so nothing could be effectively defended west of Montreal. I think that Vancouver, and the rest of British Columbia are west of Montreal? A pincer movement by 40,000 men base out of Buffalo, and Detroit could secure the Canadian territory between them, before linking up, and marching on Toronto. 75,000 men could march on Montreal, from the Plattsburg area. Another 40,000 men based in Northern New England could march on Quebec City, to screen the movement on Montreal. IMHO this strategy would give the Americans an excellent chance of securing a good part of the populated areas of Canada, by the Fall of 1862.
Now I'm sure some will say the Americans will run out of gunpowder, their rifles will burst, their cannon will explode, and each British Soldier will simply have to shoot twice, and the whole operation will end in a humiliating defeat, but I don't think so. Others will say the Confederates will overwhelm the 200,000 Union Troops holding the Border States, and easily capture Washington, but I don't think so. The Union Army had over 500,000 men present that Spring, and under this kind of desperate situation during the course of the Winter, and Spring, another 100,000 men could be raised, formed into regiments, and armed with older weapons from State Arsenals. Not suffering the embarrassing Eastern defeats of 1862 the Union hasn't lost as many weapons.
Partly addressing the shortage of Union Rifles, of course not all of the men listed as present, in the Union, Confederate, or even the British Army are frontline riflemen. No every British Soldier isn't a sharp shooter, or grenadier guardsmen, so they don't all even need rifles. I wonder can the Americans make revolvers without British Steel? Probably not. But despite British Exceptionalism, and the invincibility of the RN the British Government might find in the Spring of 1863 that paying the costs of a war with the Union hurts more then the sting to their pride in the Trent Affair.
Lord Palmerston will make an eloquent speech in the House proclaiming victory over the Americans. He'll state, "The affront to international law, and British honor have been avenged, and American arrogance chastised. But we are a Christian People, who love peace, so now we offer peace. If the Americans apologize, and give us back Canada all will be forgiven, and peace restored." What do you think would be the American terms? "A phased withdrew, from Canada, and a British arms embargo of the South." The British counter with an ok, but here's an itemized bill for the cost of the war. The Americans say drop dead. The British say ok, no reparation's, land for peace. The Americans say ok. Gee the war was really worth it, wasn't it?