I don't get the impression that it's our side refusing to accept the truth, to be perfectly honest.
Frankly, I
was actually amazed when I saw the evidence that the US was so dependent on key British strategic imports. Having seen it, however, I accepted it rather than spending my time trying to argue it away because it was inconvenient to me.
No, but Germany in WWI did, and they're the only power off the top of my head that I can think of which lost 50% of their exports and still fought on for a while. I notice you have nothing to say about the political factors which mean the US will be brought to the table far quicker than other comparable states.
The reason I picked it was because the Confederate industrial and economic inferiority wasn't as marked in the east as the west, which gave us a bit of a better indication of how successful the US might be against a power that is its economic and industrial superior. However, if you insist, let's base it off the war in the west. It took until September 1863 (30 months) for the US to secure Chattanooga, and September 1864 (42 months) to secure Atlanta. They're 280 and 365 miles respectively from Cincinnati, and 260 and 350 miles respectively from Cairo. At the best case scenario of just over nine miles per month, the US should be in Montreal in four years, eight months. Certainly better than 1885, but hardly the blistering war of movement represented by, say, the Franco-Prussian war (210 miles from Saarbrucken to Paris in two months).
To be honest, when I already gave you
first-hand testimony that "the conditions of defence of the city [New York] were very faulty", I shouldn't really be surprised that I can give you something else saying "
the security of New York requires a vast addition to what now exists" and still find you arguing the following:
You ducked this question before when I asked it, and I just want a straight answer before I lay out some primary evidence: Are you 100% certain that these forts have guns in them?
Your quote says that "there were nominally 70,000 soldiers stationed in Britain, but this included... some recruits not yet trained", and that the British despatched 25,000 troops. Including depots ("recruits not trained," even though some men in depots were trained) in the 1860 figure, the British have 102,080 men in the UK. As such, if they despatched 25,000 men to the Crimea in 1854, they could despatch 25,000 + (102,000 - 70,000) = 57,080 to Canada in 1859 - 7,000 more than the number I suggested. And that doesn't include the fact that the British militia didn't exist in 1854, but as the war went on took on both the responsibility for garrisoning the UK, and foreign garrisons in areas such as the Ionian Islands, thereby providing a manpower reserve available in 1859 but not in 1854.
Yes, interesting that none of the people actually named as top potential US generals were actually put in command of either side at the start of the Civil War. Instead, they had time to hone their skills in minor theatres while others who had the responsibility of command thrust upon them crashed and burned. Name the actual people entrusted with the conduct of the war at its start - McDowell, McClellan, Fremont, Halleck, Wool, Banks, Dix, Butler, Mansfield, Garnett, Beauregard, Polk, Johnston, etc. - and the talent pool starts to look a lot worse.
The endless argument about gun barrels is based on a technical argument that the U.S. armories were using British Steel. Logically you have to ask some follow on questions. What stocks of British Steel did the American have? How did they make rifle barrels before they used British Steel? what alternatives did they have? The, lets call it pro British side is saying there was no short term solution, that some type of retooling would be needed that would greatly reduce American production, crippling their war effort. On the other side, call it the pro American side say they would manage.
Since this war didn't happen we can't say for sure what would happen, but we do have some clues. The Confederates had no access to British Steel yet they used the machinery from Harpers Ferry, and Norfolk to make rifles, with no apparent problem. Other Southern contractors also produced rifles. The CSA even tried to standardize their rifle caliber to .577 Enfield standard, which means they retooled some of their equipment. Confederate rifles didn't have a reputation for bursting. It would seem to be a reasonable assumption that if the Confederacy managed without British Steel so could the United States.
The same arguments are made for gunpowder production. The Confederates lacked regular accesses to British nitrates, but they built the Confederate Powder Works in Augusta GA.
The Confederate Powderworks was the second largest gunpowder factory in the world at that time, 1862-1865, during the 19th century, producing 3.5 tons a day. More than 2.75 million pounds of first-quality
gunpowder (a majority of the powder used by the Confederacy), was produced here before its closure on April 18, 1865.
[5] By comparison, Union gunpowder manufacture was distributed among many mills, with the larger
Hazard Powder Company of Connecticut producing forty percent of the annual production of 8.4 million pounds.
[6]
It has been said the Confederacy never lost a battle for lack of powder.
Again if the Confederates could do that so could the United States.
What happened with Germany in WWI isn't a helpful analogy, Germany was running out of food, the U.S. wasn't. Napoleonic France, or the U.S. in the War of 1812 would be more to the point. Both were able to maintain wartime economies for years, in the case of France decades.
Please lay out some primary evidence that the Forts of NY had no guns in them, or the booms had no chains. I'm sure you can provide sources that will say many of the forts lacked their full compliment of guns, that would be true of most of the forts in the world. Some guns were never mounted, others replaced with more modern guns, others moved to batteries in earthen works, some were being repaired. Some forts were never, or only partly compete. In times of crisis the state of defenses was improved, more guns mounted, and men mobilized.
No commander ever thinks his forces are fully adequate for the job, and would always recommend improving them. The bottom line is shell guns made wooden warship highly vulnerable. At The Battle of Kinburn ships of the line were unable to deliver effective fire from 1,200 yards, and the defenders were armed with nothing heavier then 24 pounders. The American forts mounted.
Smoothbore weapons:[19]
32-pounder (6.4-inch or 163 mm) and 42-pounder (7-inch or 178 mm) seacoast guns
8-inch (203 mm) and 10-inch (254 mm) columbiads
8-inch, 10-inch, 15-inch (381 mm) and 20-inch (508 mm) Rodman guns (a type of columbiad)
Rifled weapons:[20]
Rifled and sometimes banded variants of smoothbore guns ranging from 24-pounder (5.82-inch) to 10-inch caliber; one Union rifling system was called the James rifle
6.4-inch (100-pdr), 8-inch (200-pdr), and 10-inch (300-pdr) Parrott rifles
6.4-inch and 7-inch (178 mm) Brooke rifles (Confederate made)
The mason forts were proven vulnerable to bombardment from rifled guns, but that was from a sustained bombardment from a land battery. A wooden warship couldn't survive that kind of duel. Standing in the Lower New York Bay, and slugging it out with the Brooklyn, and Staten Island forts, or running up the Verrazano Narrows would be suicide. Running up a fleet would have to hope they could break the boom across the river. If they couldn't, or were just forced to slow, and bunch up under the American guns the slaughter would be terrible. Even the Union Ironclad fleet that attacked Charleston in April 1863 had to withdrew, under fire, a wooden fleet would've burned.
On invading Canada vs. the South, they are very different conditions.
The 1861 Census marked the third collection of statistics for the Province of Canada. In 1841, the
Act of Union created the Province of Canada, consisting of Canada West (present-day Ontario) and Canada East (present-day Quebec). Information on population was also collected for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The census officially began on:
- January 14, 1861 for Canada East and for Canada West;
- March 30, 1861 for Nova Scotia;
- August 15, 1861 for New Brunswick.
The precise date of collection of data is unknown for Prince Edward Island.
The enumerators collected information for 3,112,269 individuals distributed as follows:
- Canada East (1,110,664)
- Canada West (1,396,091)
- New Brunswick (193,800)
- Nova Scotia (330,857)
- Prince Edward Island (80,857)
The region west of Montreal was very lightly populated, and most of the country is more open. An American army moving around Lakes Erie, and Ontario is just crossing a lot of space, with less trouble securing it's lines of communication then they did moving along the populated river routes into the South, with heavy forests, swamps, partisans, raiding cavalry, and Confederate strong points.
re-Confederation Ontario was a mainly agricultural society. In 1860, over 80% of the population lived in rural areas. Subsistence farming was the predominant activity, even though farmers were increasingly able to sell part of their crops on the commercial market.
The few existing industries at the time were small and employed only a handful of workers. Industry was based in logging and mills, in canal and railway construction, and in the manufacture of farm implements, shoes and clothes.
The end of the
British preferential system had a serious negative impact on Ontario's economy. Ontario's exports of wheat and wood through Montreal lost their preferred status. To offset this loss, the Canadian government negotiated the
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States. It would be in effect from 1854 to 1866.
Population and Urban Development
At the time of Confederation in 1867, about 3.5 million people had settled in the British North American colonies. Seventy-five percent of these people lived in Ontario and Quebec.
The 1871 census indicates that the population of Ontario was over 1.6 million. Of these, 1.3 million were British (42% Irish, 32% English, 24% Scottish, and 3% Welsh), 159,000 were German, and 75,000 were French. The most popular religious affiliations among the populace broke down as follows: 29% Methodist; 22% Presbyterian; 20% Anglican; 17% Catholic; and 5% Baptist.
From 1840 to 1861, the population of Canada West grew substantially, from 432,000 inhabitants in 1840 to 952,000 in 1851, and 1,396,000 in 1861. In 1861, Toronto (pop. 45,000), Hamilton (pop. 19,000), Ottawa (pop. 15,000) and Kingston (pop. 14,000) were the largest cities in Ontario. These centres experienced strong urban, commercial and industrial growth. Montreal, however, remained the metropolis of United Canada, with a population of 90,000 in 1861.
Toronto (pop. 45,000) Ottawa (pop. 15,000) Kingston (pop. 14,000)
The British army resisted the new militia, wanting nothing to do with them. They were accepted for service in later years. In 1859 they were basically a home guard. Your figures are a misunderstanding the manpower flows of the army. The numbers are similar to what they were in 1854, your counting the number of recruits as if there were none in 1854. In the 2 years of the Crimean War Britain committed over 100,000 men for the conflict. That not all at one time, it's men who were feed into the conflict, like the 3,000,000 figure for men serving in the ACW. It might take a year to build an Army of 57,000 men for Canada, and that's not for one field army, it's for the whole country.
Leaders work themselves out, and the Americans produced first rate leaders within months. Who were the outstanding British war leaders of the Crimean War? Many brave soldiers yes, but who were the best generals commanding Divisions, and Corps? Who were the daring cavalry leaders, who were the eyes, and ears of the army, who screened movements, and raided enemy rear areas? Were their Henry Hunt's, or Porter Alexander's in the British army? Maybe but did they get their chance in a war on such a large scale as they would be fighting? I don't think you can claim the British leadership would be superior.
