Wi France allies with confederates

[Arcavia]

Not only that, but it is very possible for the French to convince the British, with diplomacy, to stop at least military imports from going through their territory, after all, I think that we are all working with a Confederates + French vs Union here, not a Confederates + French vs Union + Britain. If Britain is going to let military material or resources obviously intended for military purposes pass through their territory they can't be considered neutral anymore.

Sure they can, as long as they're willing to sell to both sides. Likely British sales to the Confederacy will increase in this scenario, simply because there's no blockade, but this isn't enough to counteract the South's economic and demographic disadvantages.

It would be Britain's wet dream in terms of politics and economics. Our two biggest potential rivals are kicking the crap out of each other and need to buy all our stuff? Please do have this war continue for a few years more!

This indeed.

Commerce does indeed pre-date such, but without the Seaway you're not going to get the deep draft vessels needed to haul the amount of lead the Union needs. Railways did exist, but are limited in both number and capacity.

As for the South, they received something on the order of 40% of their nitrates via blockade runners.

Sure, it'll be limited, but it'll be enough to keep the Union in the game so to speak. Whilst the Federal Army might not have a preponderance of ammunition, it isn't like they won't be able to find any. As for the rail issue, once traffic is on the Great Lakes, it can be handled by the Erie Canal and other pathways.

Or, once the Union Fleet is capable of at least disrupting if not completely eliminating a French blockade, supplies can be transported to Halifax, and from there run along the coast and Gulf of Maine to Boston. If the Union dedicates a significant portion of its fleet to convoying this route, the French probably can't disrupt it easily without risking a hundred different ports letting lose their own blockade runners.

Finally, on the topic of blockade, IIRC there are regions between NY Harbor and Long Island sound which are technically passible but are extremely difficult to navigate. The Union, having locally trained and experienced pilots, might have success using the Sound as an escape.

Once the Transcontinental Railroad is completed, which might well happen even faster under the circumstances, nitrates can be imported from Latin America via the Pacific Coast and San Francisco. The France, aside from maybe a few raiders based at Tahiti, can't really project power sufficient to disrupt this trade.

And one other thing that will make the French efforts at blockade more difficult will be the fact that the North has a much larger merchant marine than the South, which is already overseas at the time when France would declare war/intervene. Under the circumstances, depending on the style of the ship (clippers, after all, were designed to be the fastest possible sailing ships and would still have been in service at the time), their crews and owners might be able to either refit them as blockade runners and/or transfer them to British or other neutral flag.

 

[edgeworthy]

Well, it's clear that you are underwhelmed by the strength of the American economy in the 1860's compared to the French. And I am similarly underwhelmed by the prowess of the French military during that period; knowing quite well their track record in Mexico et al.
So this is a supposing that we can just shrug and do that agree to disagree thing.
Perhaps we can concur that this would be way down the probability ladder?

The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
(Source is Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987; Vintage Books, 1989)

The United States was the world's third economy in the 1860's, France was the worlds second power.

 

[Wendell]

Not only that, but it is very possible for the French to convince the British, with diplomacy, to stop at least military imports from going through their territory, after all, I think that we are all working with a Confederates + French vs Union here, not a Confederates + French vs Union + Britain. If Britain is going to let military material or resources obviously intended for military purposes pass through their territory they can't be considered neutral anymore.

Why would Britain want even a nominal part of the French endeavor in Dixie after it so quickly gave up on the Mexican effort, and has issues festering in the Empire.

 

[Wendell]

Commerce does indeed pre-date such, but without the Seaway you're not going to get the deep draft vessels needed to haul the amount of lead the Union needs. Railways did exist, but are limited in both number and capacity.

As for the South, they received something on the order of 40% of their nitrates via blockade runners.

So, we've seen the argument that Prussia built an army in really only four years out of nothing, despite being on a streak by the 1860's of real victory and prestige, being made by people arguing that a U.S. already at war cannot boost its navy within three.

 

[Marc]

The UK's share of world manufacturing output in 1860 was 19.9 percent; that of France, 7.9 percent; the US, 7.2 percent; Russia, 7 percent, the various German states, 4.9 percent; Austria, 4.2 percent, Italy, 2.5 percent.
(Source is Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987; Vintage Books, 1989)

The United States was the world's third economy in the 1860's, France was the worlds second power.

Thanks for the reference, essentially, and definitely on a per capita basis, the US and France have similar sized economies. I suspect on that on a resource comparison basis - high quality iron ore, coal, etc - the US likely has the edge by 1860.
What is the harbinger of the future are the numbers for 1880:
UK: 22.9%
US: 14.7%
Germany: 8.5% up from (4.8% in 1860)
France: 7.8% - economically, a flat score of years.

 

[RMcD94]

One wonders why the USA bothered wasting any resources on a pointless navy if their blockade had no impact on the result of the war. I guess they liked burning money.

For reference the Monitor was first laid in October 61 and finished in January 62 so navies aren't decade long projects like in the future. However, the USA will have to figure out how to build and design and crew ships that can compete with the French navy if they want to maintain the blockade of the CSA.

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm I recommend this short article for quick comparison

(also the civil war wasn't in 1880?)

 

[funnyhat]

Is this the same France that somehow wasn't able to beat MEXICO?

French forces captured Mexico City and installed Maximilian as emperor. The problem was that thereafter the small (35 000) French force had to become an army of occupation and it didn’t have the manpower to crush resistance. That’s different than saying they “couldn’t beat Mexico.” ITTL France would not be trying to occupy the US, it would just fight in service of the CSA.

That said, as I noted earlier, France is stretched pretty thin due to all of its other imperial adventures so I’m not certain how large of a contribution it can make.

 

[Wendell]

French forces captured Mexico City and installed Maximilian as emperor. The problem was that thereafter the small (35 000) French force had to become an army of occupation and it didn’t have the manpower to crush resistance. That’s different than saying they “couldn’t beat Mexico.” ITTL France isn’t trying to occupy the US, it is just fighting in service of the CSA.

You're kidding yourself if you think French forces lurking in Dixie even on behalf of the Confederacy, are going to get a warmer welcome. At least the Mexicans are fellow Catholics.

 

[funnyhat]

You're kidding yourself if you think French forces lurking in Dixie even on behalf of the Confederacy, are going to get a warmer welcome. At least the Mexicans are fellow Catholics.

Protestant Americans had no problem welcoming the French forces that came during the Revolution. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

 

[Wendell]

Protestant Americans had no problem welcoming the French forces that came during the Revolution. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

That was rather different for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

That was rather different for reasons that should be obvious.

The Confederacy was openly courting foreign powers in the 1860s, and Southerners were falling over themselves to impress foreign visitors when they came. It's rather eye opening to read something like the Fremantle Diary or about Baron Mercier's trip to Richmond. Catholic Frenchmen fighting on behalf of the Confederacy is not going to be a problem.

 

[Marc]

One wonders why the USA bothered wasting any resources on a pointless navy if their blockade had no impact on the result of the war. I guess they liked burning money.

For reference the Monitor was first laid in October 61 and finished in January 62 so navies aren't decade long projects like in the future. However, the USA will have to figure out how to build and design and crew ships that can compete with the French navy if they want to maintain the blockade of the CSA.

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm I recommend this short article for quick comparison

(also the civil war wasn't in 1880?)

I believe that there wasn't any assumption that a blockade would be quick and effective. In fact, if you look at Union naval operations, the real focus of the Navy was capturing Southern ports starting with the capture of Port Royal. The Navy was pragmatic and knew that a successful war effort was going to take some years; and they were fortunate that they had a remarkably capable Naval officer corp from the get-go. If they were tasked to develop a force to match the French, instead of a blockading fleet? Given clearly demonstrated talent, acumen, and ingenuity, given time, I think they were up to it. Also, let's bear in mind that unless the French aren't involved in Mexico - which is another supposing - a fair amount of their naval power is otherwise engaged through the first half 1862.
Of course this is purely a war gaming exercise - rationally, the French aren't going to try save the South, there is little honor or glory, or enough greed.

 

[Wendell]

The Confederacy was openly courting foreign powers in the 1860s, and Southerners were falling over themselves to impress foreign visitors when they came. It's rather eye opening to read something like the Fremantle Diary or about Baron Mercier's trip to Richmond. Catholic Frenchmen fighting on behalf of the Confederacy is not going to be a problem.

But foreign commanders in the field-which formal French involvement will require-was resisted by the North for very good reasons equally applicable to the South.

 

[Marc]

One wonders why the USA bothered wasting any resources on a pointless navy if their blockade had no impact on the result of the war. I guess they liked burning money.

For reference the Monitor was first laid in October 61 and finished in January 62 so navies aren't decade long projects like in the future. However, the USA will have to figure out how to build and design and crew ships that can compete with the French navy if they want to maintain the blockade of the CSA.

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm I recommend this short article for quick comparison

(also the civil war wasn't in 1880?)

I mentioned 1880 because it illustrates the relative economic dynamics in play, starting before the Civil War, and if anything accelerating because of the war.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

But foreign commanders in the field-which formal French involvement will require-was resisted by the North for very good reasons equally applicable to the South.

Coalition warfare kinda mitigates this problem. Marshal Bazaine is not capable of demanding command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Bazaine would be very much playing the supporting role.

 

[Wendell]

Coalition warfare kinda mitigates this problem. Marshal Bazaine is not capable of demanding command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Bazaine would be very much playing the supporting role.

No, there would be too many egos in play and a battlefield that at times would still favor the North, exacerbating such issues further.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

No, there would be too many egos in play and a battlefield that at times would still favor the North, exacerbating such issues further.

Too many egos sums up the Army of the Potomac in a nutshell. Look how that turned out in the end.

 

[Fiver]

The above is American lead production during the Civil War era.

On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs

Lead imports from Britain by year
1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs

From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. If France intervenes, her Navy shall cut off this supply and the Federal cause will collapse for lack of ammunition alone.

As I noted a couple weeks ago, the numbers show the amount of lead "issued or expended", not just expended. That would include the 40 rounds per man carried by the troops in the field and probably regimental stores as well. The figures show that from mid 1862-63 the Union army issued or expended about 2 million more pounds of lead than the country produced that year, but the Union army started that period with a surplus of over 5 million pounds of lead. The numbers show that from mid-1863-64 the Union army only "issued or expended" 7.6 million pounds of lead. Considering that this time period included the Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, East Tennessee, Knoxville, Red River, Atlanta, Bristoe Station, Mine Run, Valley, Bermuda Hundred, and Overland Campaigns; it seems obvious that major portions of the 31 million pounds of lead issued from mid-1862-63 had not been expended.

 

[Fiver]

From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. If France intervenes, her Navy shall cut off this supply and the Federal cause will collapse for lack of ammunition alone.

The US did not expend 31 million pounds of lead over those dates, it issued that amount.

The only way that France can cut off the supply of anything to the Union would be by also blockading Canada as well, Britain might get a teeny bit cranky If France tries to do that.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

If Britain is going to let military material or resources obviously intended for military purposes pass through their territory they can't be considered neutral anymore.

Britain can't move war materials within its own borders? That's some BS right there.