A Confederate Navy after independence?

[NothingNow]

'
Interesting.

So there might be differences, but it won't be an economic powerhouse to help the rest of the CSA along.

Not necessarily that poor either if I'm understanding you right (will read the link in a bit, possibly going to be going out to eat soonish), but not enough to make up for the CSA's disadvantages.

Oh, it certainly won't. Key West lives and dies by the Maritime courts and salvage law (and was only considered wealthy by dint of there only being 3000 people on the Island, all directly involved in, or immediately supporting the Wrecking industry, which had a fairly high casualty rate,) and most of south Florida was openly hostile to the state government in Tallahassee, and rather indifferent to the federal government.

The Union Navy would also sooner allow Key West to re-earn it's old name of Cayo Hueso in a very literal and immediate form than give up a very well defended, and extremely strategic position, same with the Dry Tortugas.

Otherwise Florida's really just a liability with some nice stands of Oak.

The Rest of the State will really only be valuable to the CSA for Salt, Beef, timber and small amounts of Sugar, and would be a smuggler's paradise.

 

[hairysamarian]

Otherwise Florida's really just a liability with some nice stands of Oak.

It occurs to me that defending Florida against a determined (and sufficiently numerous) foe who possesses naval superiority would be a nightmare for the CSA. Most likely they'd pull back to somewhere around the Georgia line in the face of a credible invasion.

 

[Johnrankins]

It occurs to me that defending Florida against a determined (and sufficiently numerous) foe who possesses naval superiority would be a nightmare for the CSA. Most likely they'd pull back to somewhere around the Georgia line in the face of a credible invasion.

Yeah, the US or GB could pretty much land troops at will all along the coast.

 

[frlmerrin]

Sorry Gentlemen (and ladies?) I have been away on business, the discussion has moved on considerably since I last posted and I have only got a couple of hours before I am back on the road so how can I best add to the debate here? There is after all so much to disagree with and so much more that is simply wrong!

I shall start with Basileus444.

The British public is not going to tolerate a full-out war with the USA in order to defend the CSA, what with its 'peculiar institution'.

My first instinct was to agree with you but to simply point out that the British were quite capable of going to war with Union over something like the Trent Affair or any of the half a dozen or so other less well known naval incident in the American Civil War period and the result of such a war would very likely be Independence for the Confederacy or at least vastly increasing the probability of this happening. Then I thought a bit. You do realise the British were the people who have just finished fighting a war in order that their merchants can freely sell addictive drugs to an impoverished and famine ridden people. These are the people that have committed more than a few genocides and propped up more than a few dictators in the name of Imperial interest. Yes there will be areas of the British population opposed to such a war Socialists, Abolitionists, Trades Unionists and radical Christians but they are not going to be able to stop it.

And there is no way the British can hold anything on the North American mainland (except maybe Canada north of the Saint Lawrence) against the US by this point.

This point being when 1862, 3, 4, 5, 6 … ? Different PODs give rise to different strategic situation.

However the point you are making in nearly all of these situations is specious and often wrong. I would remind you that both Union and British planning for a war over Trent assumed that the Union would be able to sustain no more than 80,000 in the field against British North America. The British did not think they could do much better. I personally do not think the Union could keep up these numbers for more than 6 months in a ‘classic’ Trent war.

Now let us consider what the USA could take from BNA in such a war. They might take all of Canada West and a bit of Canada east in the winter when the St. Lawrence was frozen. They would probably lose most of it again come spring when the British navy would have free access to Lake Ontario again. If lucky the Union might hold on to the Niagara peninsula and deny the upper lakes to the British for the duration of the war. It is an even bet who would control those parts of the province of Canada below the St. Lawrence and Upper New York state. Nova Scotia and Halifax are never going to fall the geography is completely against the Union, it would be a death of armies attack, If the Union were really lucky on the West Coast they could end up controlling British Columbia for a time (as long as it takes the British to assemble a decent force in China and India) but the Union do not have the means of taking Vancouver’s Island. Remember too that Unionists were a minority of the population in California. In OTL California many foreign born supported the vile Union over the even more vile Confederacy if the British are at hand in TTL there will be a large number of foreigners that will support them instead.

What could the British hold? Well the first thing to realise is that they are not in this war for territorial gain and a thalassocracy does not use large land armies if it can avoid it. So the sort of things the British would take include Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket Island and maybe the whole of Cape Cod for a naval base, Long Island is probably not easy to hold in the long term but at any time during the American Civil War easy to take. It would be a blood bath for Union troops trying to land in small boats when the British have gunboats. Similarly taking New York and Boston are easy and compel the Union to commit large numbers troops from elsewhere to ‘frighten off’ the British once they have pillaged the dockyards and warehouses. Portland would give access to the Grand Trunk and would be very hard for the Union to retake the logistics are horrendous for the USA. The whole of the Delaware peninsula is defensible by naval forces on the Delaware canal the Royal Navy can cut it out of the Union with just two or three gunboats and a pair of corvettes. Then invite the Confederacy in and provide merchant vessels to move the troops. The Union had no effective defence. Chase the Union out of the sea islands and all enclaves of course. The Keys would be a useful capture. New Orleans if it has already fallen to the Union then control of the lower Mississippi is pretty easy for the RN. Then we come to West coast, Britain can take San Francisco and Sacramento with naval forces there is nothing to stop them. They can probably take the lower goldfields. They can take the mouth of the Columbia. Santa Catalina islands of course. Best fun of the lot they can take Fort Yuma with gunboats via the Rio Colorado. This would probably give the Confederacy Arizona and New Mexico. What else? They would be well advised to take the strip between Lake Ontario and the Eerie canal. In a war where they do control the upper lakes they could probably hold the upper peninsula. I’m sure I have forgotten some tasty nibbles that the British would take? Ah yes the Chesapeake would be a British lake and the big rivers British controlled. I suppose they would burn Washington again?

Especially Maryland.

As discussed most of Maryland is terribly vulnerable to British attack.

There British supplies have to be shipped from across the Atlantic, while the US can pour in troops and men via one of the most developed rail networks in the world at that time.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of 1860s logistics. The great circle routes across Atlantic from Britain to St. Johns and Halifax are very short and quick. The British have a large number (more than 50 less than 100) of large, fast merchant ships that can do this run in considerably less than two weeks. Note that the great circle route to New York and Sandy Hook is not much longer. Thus the British can deliver more supplies than they need (several thousand tons a day every day) to any point on the Union coast. The route from Britain across the Atlantic to North America is far shorter than the route from Britain to the Crimea and a lot easier to navigate both in the seamanly sense and the diplomatic one.

At this time, in which you think the Union can ‘pour in troops and men[sic]’ the Union rail network was not developed at all, that took at least another 16 years. The only well developed bit is around Chicago and even there most of it is low capacity and largely single track. The daily load capacity of most of the Union rail lines was low. This is because they are mostly single track and the rolling stock is of low capacity and limited in quantity. In addition to this transfers between lines in and out of cities often required carting the supplies several miles between the different stations!

On top of all this the USA was still importing a large chunk of iron especially rails from Britain in 1861/2/3 as the Union could not produce enough. The most advanced lines were importing British steel rails which were much better than iron rails. The USA had no capacity to build steel rails at all.

Then there is the issue that the USA cannot produce enough supplies and gear of war to provide for its armies in the field irrespective of if they could transport them.

And if the British start reenacting the War of 1812, the US won't have to introduce a draft.

In the war of 1812 Britain was fighting a major war in Europe and elsewhere the USA had allies and was frankly low on Britain’s to do list. In 1862 the USA has no allies that will help it (not Russia and not Prussia) the British have lots of allies especially the French who want Mexico and who if they do well might just repudiate the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (sp?)
Out of time sorry

 

[robcraufurd]

You do realise the British were the people who have just finished fighting a war in order that their merchants can freely sell addictive drugs to an impoverished and famine ridden people. These are the people that have committed more than a few genocides and propped up more than a few dictators in the name of Imperial interest.

You should remember that the present prime minister is the man who almost went to war with Portugal in 1839 and America in 1858 because the Royal Navy was boarding slave ships bearing their colours. He voices his opinions on the South very clearly:

"we ought, Russell and I imagine, to declare the maintenance of our Neutrality even in the Case of our acknowledging the Independence of the South." (Palmerston to Gladstone, 24 September 1862).

"Many people who talk of acknowledgment seem to imply that that acknowledgment, if made, would establish some different relations between this country and the Southern States. But that is not the case." (Palmerston, 18 July 1862)

"When an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them" (Palmerston, 26th July 1861)

 

[Basileus444]

frlmerrin:

Being able to attack and potentially take pieces of the US (which GB is capable of) is far different than being able to hold them against a serious Union counterattack, especially since the USN is probably not stupid enough to try and take the RN head-on, but will retreat to help defend the coast. And in narrow, confined waters with which American sailors are more familiar and where the British cannot deploy their greater numbers with coasts controlled by American troops, who do you think is going to have the advantage?

If the British could hold the Delaware canal against Union counterattack with half a dozen light ships, the US can hold the canal against British attack with half a dozen light ships, and the US would have army divisions and those lovely artillery batteries there in support.

If the Royal Navy tried your strategy, it would likely succeed in some places, fail in others, and incur a HUGE body count. The Royal Navy isn't fighting some puny African tribe here, or even the US of 1812, it's fighting a power with huge reserves of manpower capable of burying any seaborne invasion. There's a reason why Great Britain didn't try very many seaborne invasions of Napoleonic France.

This war is not going to be popular with the British public. Abolitionists are a very large and vocal portion of the populace (the British started the movement after all). As soon as British bodies start piling up, and they will, things are going to get very uncomfortable for Parliament. If I was writing a TL about a Great Britain following your attack plan, I'd make sure someone says 'The [American] Southwest is not worth the bones of a single Yorkshire rifleman.' Because that's how the British public is going to feel about this.

But I must have missed the part where the US's economic and military development was suddenly reversed to the 1830s and the entire USN flashed out of existence.


My apologies.

 

[BlondieBC]

How much bang for how much buck, compared to a surface ship?

This is a serious question, I'm short on figures.

And having a handful of nuts (and yes, I use the word nuts for anyone who thought the Huntley was a good idea) behind the Huntley is not the same as there being a great drive even within the navy, let alone those who would be determining what the navy gets to build and its budget, for subs.

1 dreadnought is 20 U-boats in 1914 on construction costs. Much lower on operating costs. It will be decades after the civil war before it is practical, but they would form a useful tool.

Indeed, I ran the figures (for a timeline I am doing) and if so inclined the Texas state government could easily afford to purchase a dreadnought every two years from its oil royalties in the early 1900s for its navy. The state of Texas itself could thus have one of the most powerful navies in the Americas or be a major donor of ships for the CSN to use in the Gulf region. Either would give Texas a lot of clout in the confederate government.

How big did you figure the Texas Navy budget would be?

 

[Elfwine]

1 dreadnought is 20 U-boats in 1914 on construction costs. Much lower on operating costs. It will be decades after the civil war before it is practical, but they would form a useful tool.

Interesting.

I wonder how many u-boats per cruiser.

 

[BlondieBC]

Interesting.

I wonder how many u-boats per cruiser.

I can't find the numbers easily, but I think 4-5 is in the ballpark on construction costs.

 

[BlondieBC]

It is also important to note that the USA/CSA are help hugely by an early end to the war. The war cost 4 billion USD in OTL, so an early 1862 win could mean around a 3 billion USD improvement over OTL, and much of this will be things not destroyed in the south. The Union will be able to return to the gold standard much more quickly than OTL. I am not so sure on the CSA, but I think the bonds were fully secured by Cotton. The debt might be gone by the early 1870's for both sides.

Meanwhile, the CSA has no native source of specie, is underindustralized, overly dependent on a single crop, with a worse transportation network and a smaller internal market, has relied chiefly on paper money to make up for not having money from anywhere else (during the war), and has little it can do about any of those things.

In the near term, the CSA has horrible problems. After 30 or 40 years, there are ways to begin to address these issues. The specie has to be paid for with trade surplus. The transportation network can be improved. Who knows what would really happen.

To me, the CSA is most like Brazil.

What sort of riverine fleet will the CSN build? After the river battles of the war I imagine both USN and CSN would be building up forces to fight for control of the Mississippi and other rivers if another round of fighting started.

The CSA probably focuses on river forts, more than ironclads.

 

[Elfwine]

I can't find the numbers easily, but I think 4-5 is in the ballpark on construction costs.

Sounds right to me, but that's a feeling more than anything else.

 

[BlondieBC]

The real question is what happens at the end of the century when Mahanian thought dominates, and any Confederate pretensions to great power status requires a powerful navy. If so, I think the CSA will be in a similar position to Argentina and Brazil. They'll build smaller vessels themselves, and attempt to purchase dreadnoughts from Britain.

Overall, the CSA navy will be a non-factor in world affairs. They'll be a distinct second to the US in the northern part of the Western Hemisphere (of course, Britain will have its own nearby fleets as well), and perhaps on par with Argentina/Brazil eventually. It'd be many more years before the CSA could be assurred of winning any naval conflict with Spain. It probably doesn't even have a chance to do so until after 1910, and only if war fever over Cuba prompts the CSA to devote significant resources to building a fleet. Lacking a naval tradition, I suspect inexperience will really show in any first battles if there is a war.

Yes, the CSA Navy will be 2nd or 3rd rate, but in a major war in which it participates, it will have an impact. It biggest advantage is good ports in the Western Atlantic.

I see a few big questions before we can talk about the 1900 era.

1) Whose naval philosophy does the CSA follow?

2) Which alliance system will it be in?

3) How big is the budget?

4) How big is the army? or put another way. Is the USA still very hostile, and forcing the CSA to spend a huge amount on its Army?

 

[BlondieBC]

Sounds right to me, but that's a feeling more than anything else.

I have actually done the ballpark work for the TL, so I check the U-boat to BB ratio. I did not get into cruisers much because I did not want to change that before WW1. I am working on the post WW1 navies in a few months, so I have done some reading.

A lot depends on the CSA budget, but a cruiser heavy or submarine heavy force due to budget consideration combined with 2-4 capital surface ships for ego seems like a good bet. Probably with plans for lots of AMC's. And a capable river defense network built around forts a some river gunboats for flexible response. Maybe even a few river monitors.

 

[Elfwine]

I have actually done the ballpark work for the TL, so I check the U-boat to BB ratio. I did not get into cruisers much because I did not want to change that before WW1. I am working on the post WW1 navies in a few months, so I have done some reading.

A lot depends on the CSA budget, but a cruiser heavy or submarine heavy force due to budget consideration combined with 2-4 capital surface ships for ego seems like a good bet. Probably with plans for lots of AMC's. And a capable river defense network built around forts a some river gunboats for flexible response. Maybe even a few river monitors.

Yeah. The tricky part would be whether the CSA recognizes what good naval strategy is for its resources.

Local pressure, and prejudices, may carry more weight than good strategy.

 

[M79]

My two questions for this scenario are:

a. What becomes of the Union navy after CSA independence? They will likely set the tempo for a lot of CSA naval development...

b. Would the Confederacy turn to ships or submersibles like the French "Plongeur" for inspiration or purchase?

I think the prior point about British ships being purchased in the beginning is accurate, the CSA will not be a maritime power of note in the 19th century but by its end she could have a notable squadron for the Gulf (New Orleans?) and one for the Atlantic (Charleston?) to defend her shores.

 

[sharlin]

The purchase of UK build ships is almost a foregone conclusion considering the CSA had a history of purchasing British designed and built ships (also a history of never taking them and the UK ending out with them). At first i'd see a few capital ships like the Wyvern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wivern_(1863) and her sistership as well as the British build CSS Stonewall http://www.cityofart.net/bship/cssstonewall.jpg supported by river gunboats and the like.

With later years the big ships would still probably be built abroad into the 1900s but the CSA would remain a 2nd rate naval power.

 

[jkay]

Whoopsie! I DID mean Shelby Foote. Maybe I'd better check it and make sure what I read..


frlmerrin, what Basileus444 wrote, because he's right. Plus, we had the biggest freshwater navy in the world at the time, as you can check for yourself, so we'd own the Great Lakes, unlike 1812, where it was still a draw. Your big ocean ships'd be mostly be too big to reach any but the deepest bays.

BlondieBC wrote

It is also important to note that the USA/CSA are help hugely by an early end to the war.

But, an early end'd be between hard and impossible, because of the military slows on land; certainly, nobody was tired of it. Nor would foreign intervention help speed it, because it takes almost forever to gather enough forces to do anything and get them at least across the Atlantic to here.

 

[Fiver]

Thus any new Confederate Navy is going to have to perform at least three functions and perhaps 4 functions.
1) Protection of her international trade, this would be primarily on the Atlantic route**.
2) Protection of the home coast
3) Denial of naval superiority to the USA in the Caribbean, Central and South America.
4) Possibly provision of a local amphibious capability (for Cuba and other Spanish possessions)
**As part of this it may wish to support the anti-slavery patrol.

South Carolina seriously considered not joining the Confederacy because their Constitution forbid the international slave trade. There is no way the Confederate public will tolerate the "waste" of building ships to serve in the anti-slavery patrol. For that matter, the British would probably see Confederate ships serving on the anti-slavery patrol as asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

The Confederacy has no chance of denying naval superiority to the Union. The Union has over twice the population, over ten times the industry, over fifteen times the immigrant population, lower inflation, better infrastructure, vastly power per capita public debt, and doesn't have to create and man its navy from scratch.

First almost any resolution of the American Civil War in the Confederacy’s favour will leave the USA in a terrible financial state with a lack of foreign investment, government funds or means of obtaining funds and little in the way of export trade. As a result of these factors immigration and hence the availability of cheap labour which helped drive the USA’s economy in this period will dry up.

Your picture of the postbellum situation makes no sense whatsoever. The Confederacy would be in far worse financial shape than the Union. Export trade was a trivial part of the economy. In 1860, total US exports were about $242 million. That's about 5% of a total GDP of $4345 million. Total Confederate exports would be about $145 million in peacetime. If the CSA government lays 10% export duties that will get them about $15 million a year, which will be needed to pay down the $2.7 billion in public debt.

In addition to this in many Confederate victory scenarios the USA is unlikely to abandon its naval love affair with the monitor. These were obsolete before the first one was built, had little military value and were a technological dead end.

The monitors were better than any ironclad the Confederates built.

 

[NothingNow]

The monitors were better than any ironclad the Confederates built.

Far better, as the CSN's ironclads only had an advantage of weight of fire, which is meaningless if you can't hit something. Breastwork Monitors are thus ideal for Riverine and close in work, while also being cheaper all around.

 

[Fiver]

Confederate revenues from the 12.5 percent tariff which was proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Memminger in 1861 were estimated to be $25,000,000. And based on the proposed 10-12.5 percent export tax on the $237,000,000 of anticipated export revenue for 1861, the Confederate Treasury expected to realize another $25,000,000.Source

Total US tariff revenues in 1860 were $53.2 million with a 15% tariff rate. With a 12.5% tariff, the Confederacy can expect to pull in about $13 million, not $25 million.

Total US exports in 1860 were about $243 million a year. The CSA's share of that would be about $170 million. A 10-12.5 percent export tax would yield between $17 million and $21 million in revenue.

Memminger's numbers are rather optimistic. Combining import tariffs, export duties, excise taxes, etc., the CS government can expect to pull in about $37 million, not $50 million. Combined with a massive federal debt and a bigger bureaucracy than the Union, the CSA will be hard pressed to afford anything.