A slightly more pro-Confederate Europe?

[Dure]

Just suppose that Europe had been a tiny bit more pro-Confederate in the ACW. Suppose the Confederates are more willing to take financial risks.

Assume the following:-

1) The British let Bulloch complete the two Laird rams as CSS North Carolina and CSS Mississippi, they are commissioned in late 1863.
2) North’s ship, which in OTL became the armoured frigate HMDS Danmark is not sold, it is also commissioned into the CSN in autumn 1863 and the British let it sail.
3) The French permit the Confederacy to build and purchase the ironclads CSS Stonewall (Sphinx) which is commissioned in June 1864 and CSS Cheops which is completed a few months later.
4) The Danes sell the Confederacy the armoured cupola frigate Rolfe Krake prior to her launch in Britain in mid-1863, she is commissioned in to the CSN in July 1863. The British let her sail. To be perverse the Dane's purchase a replacement from Webb's in the USA.
5) The Confederacy purchase from Samuda bros. two speculative builds that will become in OTL the armoured cupola frigates SMS Arminius and the Russian Smerch, the Arminius is commissioned in mid-1864 and the Smerch in late 1864. The British do not halt the sale or sailing of the ships.

This gives the Confederates a modest fleet of European ironclads in late 1863 and a big one, assuming no losses by the close of 1864.

6) The British do not seize any of the Confederate commerce raiders as they did in OTL, indeed they allow them to coal and (discretely) arm and muster crews with impunity.

Let’s assume the CSA can pay for all of this because they decide to sell and export as much cotton as possible rather than attempting to starve Europe of their crop as they did in OTL.

Will they make a difference? What happens next? Any thoughts?

NB: If anyone has any good Confederate names for Cheops, Rolf Krake, Arminius and Smerch please let me know.

 

[lothaw]

There's a reason that Britain didn't let this happen. Britain didn't want a war with the US, which is what such blatant arming of the Confederacy would've led to.

And France isn't going to take point in aiding the rebels, but follow Britain's lead.

 

[Dure]

This idea that the USA would go to war with a European power supporting the Confederacy is often quoted and was sometimes threatened but it does not really hold water. Consider, in all the proxy wars of the twentieth century how many times did a state being attacked by forces armed by the USA or the Soviet Union declare war on the offending super power? None. The reason being that they would have even less chance of victory against a superpower than someone being supplied by a super power. The situation is exactly the same for the USA. If you are having trouble winning a war against a power that has only managed to purchase 6-10 ironclads why declare war on the ironclad supplier when they can (depending on the exact date) send up to almost 30 ironclads against you and almost a hundred battleships and frigates. It is a silly thing to do, prideful, honourable perhaps but still bloody stupid. I do not think it would happen. As Lincoln said during the Trent fiasco 'We can only fight one war at a time'.

 

[Jape]

Dure has a point, particularly when the 'British' aren't doing anything, its private contractors being uninpeaded. It would one thing for Westminster to throw free munitions Richmonds way, but Camel Lairds selling them ironclads is a far sight from the Ho Chi Minh trail.

 

[TomorrowNeverKnew]

A reason the Confederates lost was that they lacked manpower in key areas, not sure if ironclads would alleviate the problem on land

 

[Typo]

True, but it will have some affects anyway

 

[New Potomac]

The United States would still win the war in most cases, unless Europe just fully put themselves behind the Confederacy, which I doubt they would do. If anything, it would probably pro-long the war, and make it more deadly. The biggest effect would be anti-european feelings in the United States, which could have a large effect in the future and on foreign policy.

 

[bill_mchale]

I think the big problem with this time line is that it has to explain away the Emancipation Proclamation. Once Lincoln had explicitly turned the Civil War into a war to end slavery, it was pretty much impossible for England or France to support the Confederacy for fear of appearing to their citizens as supporting slavery.

Any favorable slant by Europe pretty much either requires that Lincoln not make the E.P. or at the very least, has Lincoln do something dumb enough that the E.P. is not enough to get the French and the British to pull away from favoring the South.

--
Bill

 

[Falastur]

Dure has a point, particularly when the 'British' aren't doing anything, its private contractors being uninpeaded. It would one thing for Westminster to throw free munitions Richmonds way, but Camel Lairds selling them ironclads is a far sight from the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Actually, at least in that era but I'm pretty sure in the modern day too, it required government agreement to build ships for a foreign power, and particularly a foreign military. Parliament would be required to vote in favour for this to happen, which means a quite public measure of British governmental support for the CSA.

 

[Claudius]

What about President Davis's decision in 1861 not to purchase the 10-ship East India Company fleet? Most were fairly modern warships and arangements apparently had been made for the purchase. This would have pre-dated the neutrality resolutions of Parliement that occurred later. Of course the CSA would have needed experienced navy sailors to crew them.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Actually, at least in that era but I'm pretty sure in the modern day too, it required government agreement to build ships for a foreign power, and particularly a foreign military. Parliament would be required to vote in favour for this to happen, which means a quite public measure of British governmental support for the CSA.

I'm not sure about this, tho it is possible. I've got a book about the warships that Armstrong built strictly for export which was a lot of ships for a wide amount of nations. The only government body likely to take an interest would be the Admiralty, but parliamentary approval for foreign weapon purchases did not happen. My guess is that the situation did change post-World War II.

 

[Dure]

I think the big problem with this time line is that it has to explain away the Emancipation Proclamation. Once Lincoln had explicitly turned the Civil War into a war to end slavery, it was pretty much impossible for England or France to support the Confederacy for fear of appearing to their citizens as supporting slavery.

Britain and France are not supporting the Confederacy. They are simply executing foreign policies that are more lassiez-faire that the ones they adopted in OTL.
It is true that the sale of warships was prohibited by the British neutrality act of 1819 but much of the interpretation of that act was developed during the ACW. For example the British Govt. could have chosen to interpret the law in such a way as to accept that the sale of ANY ship so long as it was not armed and provisioned for war was the sale of a merchant vessel even a cupola ironclad. They could have, and in the early stages of the war did apply the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to the seizure of ships being built for the Confederacy, that is they would only go to court to seek an order to seize a ship when there was evidence that would pass the test of being ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the ship was to be used as a warship.
In all of the cases above the British public would not have interoperated their government’s actions as being in support of slavery, instead they would have seen it as an affirmation of the concept of free trade. The situation is very different to the way the British public would have seen direct government support for the Confederacy. In that case it probably would have been seen as supporting slavery. The British Government would have been very unlikely to do this unless they actually went to war with the Union over something like the Trent Affair
At its worst, from a Union perspective, Queen Victoria could simply not have issued a proclamation of neutrality and the British could have been openly partisan. In this case I am not sure how the British public would react to Lincoln’s Emancipation proclamation.
As in most things, the French Government were far more flexible in their dealings with the Confederacy than the British and I don’t think selling a few warships would have bothered them much. In any case they cannot sell that many they do not have enough plate iron. Only the British and the Belgians have enough plate iron and the Belgians do not appear to have built ironclads.

What about President Davis's decision in 1861 not to purchase the 10-ship East India Company fleet?

Just when you think you are well read on a subject something comes out of the woodwork to bite you. Do you have any details or references please?

... not sure if ironclads would alleviate the problem on land.

and

The United States would still win the war in most cases, ... If anything, it would probably pro-long the war, and make it more deadly.

I am not sure about either of these. The Confederates in late 1863 would have an ironclad force far more powerful that the USN’s monitor force. They have several options open to them.

· They can rove the southern coast in a co-ordinated fashion breaking the blockade as they wish. As a minimum this would enable the Confederacy to import and export much more easily. At its best it might compel the Europeans to declare the blockade ineffective or even lifted by force majeure.
· The can hold open a single port, Charleston probably. The Union would be forced to send its entire fleet against them if it wished to re-impose the blockade. The problem with this approach is that the USN can build better ironclads than it used for the ACW (those built by Webb) and it can given sufficient time bring enough force to bear on Charleston to defeat both forts and ironclads even so the losses would be horrendous.
· The can fight a guerre de course. This would be wasteful, silly and I don’t think they would do it.
· The can attack and destroy the harbour and yards of Boston, Portland and even New York IF they know how weakly they are defended. If they don’t they might still try it but it is an awful risk. A successful and destructive attack on New York would have a good chance of ending the war.
· They can flank the land forts of Washington DC and spearhead an attack on the Union capital but they can’t use their bigger ships for this so again a big risk.
· They can close the Hampton Roads and take Fortress Monroe. Again a high risk strategy and in this case they may not succeed.
· They may be able to close the whole of the Chesapeake Bay.

 

[Saladan]

Out of curiosity what effect would the citizens in the various European countries have if the Governments chose to support the CSA? From what I've heard the French and British public were both very pro-union. Also wouldn't attacking northern cities kinda ruin the CSA's claim of fighting a war to defend their homeland? I'm not sure if a naval attack on New York as Dure said would be seen in the same light as a land attack.

 

[Johnrankins]

England would have to worry about a few things

1) The US cuts off all food sales to the UK. The price of food in England skyrockets and causes food riots.
2) The US declares war and takes over Central Canada (Something England can not possibly stop) and has its fleet go commerce rating which it did in both the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, this would be much worse for England. The US doesn't have to conquer England just make it too expensive for them to butt in.
3) The merchant class getting antsy because of the cost of the cut off trade with the US and the cost of the war while the lower class isn't too happy about the idea of dying to help no one except various lords and the slave traders of the South.

 

[hzn5pk]

If the Confederates obtained this fleet piecemeal at the enf of 1863, where could it assemble to become a fleet in being?

Could the pieces run the blockades and assemble in Charleston, Wilmington, Savanah, Mobile? Highly doubtful. How would the rebels supply the fleet at the end of 1863 beginning of 1864?

And even if a fleet could be assembled and supplied, any move by the confederates to assemble a fleet may be counted by increased union amphibious or overland campaign to capture it. It fact it might mean the total coordination of union armies, which Grant wanted to subdue the South. Do not let it up to recover, to shift coprs from one theatre to another as it did in 1863.

This might mean the sooner capture of Mobile and Atlanta earlier in 1864. The union would call off the Red River campaign in March of 1864 to strike at Mobile. After Chattanooga is secured by the Union at the end of 1863, Atlanta would be the next concentration.

The war might actually end in 1864.

If the rebels assemble the fleet in neutral waters, the country allowing this to be done is safe in the short term but might have longer term consequences when the Union finally puts down the rebellion and would be ready with an experienced army to go after others.

Would the Union take on the British after the war? Most likely not as the nation was tired of war. But it might not be if the fleet was used to attack a northern city as Dure suggests. That happens, the US could very well get it on with the nation that supported it. If the a Northern city was attacked, the South is still going to loose the war. It makes the entire world picture more interesting though.

 

[Dure]

England would have to worry about a few things

1) The US cuts off all food sales to the UK. The price of food in England skyrockets and causes food riots.
2) The US declares war and takes over Central Canada (Something England can not possibly stop) and has its fleet go commerce rating which it did in both the Revolutionary War and The War of 1812, this would be much worse for England. The US doesn't have to conquer England just make it too expensive for them to butt in.
3) The merchant class getting antsy because of the cost of the cut off trade with the US and the cost of the war while the lower class isn't too happy about the idea of dying to help no one except various lords and the slave traders of the South.

John,

There are lots of threads all over this pre-1900 board on British interventions in the ACW, usually over the Trent Affair that explain why Britain does not have to worry about items 1), 2) and 3) basically:-

1) Britain's grain imports from the Union are not a large part of her total grain consumption and because Britain is very rich she can purchase grain to make-up the short fall on the open market.

2) (a)Central Canada is effectively empty and isolated at this time most of it is still owned by the HBC (Hudson Bay Company), similarly the US states and territories below Central Canada are also nearly empty (of Americans if not Amerindians) but not quite so isolated. There may however have been an error of definition on your part, it may have been that you meant Canada West? This corresponds to the bit of modern Canada above the Great Lakes. The western end of this above superior is almost empty. The area of the peninsular and above Lake Ontario is reasonably well defended post mid-1862 as a result of the Trent Affair.
(b) It is also unlikely that the Union would be able to muster an Army large enough to attack Canada. If the USA were to go to war with Britain it is certain it would not be able to equip the army even in 1863.
(c) Most of the USA's funds to pay for the ACW came from tariffs on imports and western gold. In the even of war with Britain the USA loses 60% of its tariff income (because that is the fraction of its trade with Britain) even in the absence of a British blockade. Similarly they lose the use of the western gold as the ships from California would be blockaded by the British even if the Californian coast were not raided. You will recall perhaps that the USA's finances were already in a very bad state in 1863 in OTL a war with Britain would see an hemhorage of credit from the country.
(d) With what ships would the USA go commerce raiding? It needs most of its fleet to keep up the blockade and the rest of it to chase CSA raiders. In the scenario I suggest it also has to deal with a powerful CSA ironclad flotilla. This is all without having to fight the British. The USN cannot send out enough commerce raiders to make a difference.
(e) Which leaves privateers. Nearly all of the good steam merchant ships have been taken up into the Union service, are in the process of being taken up into service or are on supply contracts to the Union. Those steamships left are either small, old or of poor quality. There are a great many wooden sailing ships that could be used as commerce raiders. However, this is the age of the steam ship, sailing commerce raiders can be picked-off with ease by Royal Navy gunboats, gunvessels and sloops. Very few merchant captains would be unwise enough to take a letter of marquee from the USA.
(f) The treaty of Paris nations in 1863 no longer recognise privateers only pirates. At the best the US privateers could expect to be denied neutral port facilities at the worst to be hunted down by the major maritime nations.
(g) The Union cannot produce enough guns for its navy and the armies in the field. Its coastal forts are more than half empty. How can they equip commerce raiders of any sort?

3) (a) The merchant classes of Britain won’t hurt that much in the event of a war with the USA they will just sell their products to Europe, the CSA, South America and the rest of the Empire. The US merchant classes on the other hand will be in great difficult as they will not be able to procure funds for expansion, the Government won’t be able to pay for war goods and the currency will begin to hyper-inflate.
(b) The working classes (I would rather you did not use the term lower classes) of Britain are never going to be going to fight in Canada in huge numbers, this is the 19th not the 20th century. There will be no conscription only volunteers. A war will make more jobs available. To them the war will be about the USA declaring war on Britain, to some it might be about free trade. It will never have anything to do with slavery in their minds.

So for all of the reasons above, which as I say are discussed in considerable detail elsewhere on this board, the USA is most unlikely to declare war on Britain just because she is supplying the CSA with ships because whilst not at war with Britain the Union has a good chance of defeating the CSA. Trying to hang on to the CSA whilst fighting Britain is an almost hopeless task.

 

[lothaw]

So for all of the reasons above, which as I say are discussed in considerable detail elsewhere on this board, the USA is most unlikely to declare war on Britain just because she is supplying the CSA with ships because whilst not at war with Britain the Union has a good chance of defeating the CSA. Trying to hang on to the CSA whilst fighting Britain is an almost hopeless task.

Clearly you haven't read 1862.

 

[hzn5pk]

In the book 1862, it is Britain which firsts declares war on the US and it is Britain who performs the first act of war by attacking American ships.

In the book, the Lincoln administration does all that it can to avoid a war.

By the way, the book is very unrealistic in that all of that military action could not happen in one year. I am not saying the the US would not win, I am saying that they cannot do it in one year, 1862. Maybe from 1862-1864.

 

[Johnrankins]

Buying grain from anywhere outside of the US is going to cost Britain more because she would have bought from there then. Russia would be the biggest source she could replace it with but Russia would have England right where it wanted. Russia was Pro-Union during the ACW because it was Anti-English. It would probably sell to England but at a big jump in price. It won't starve but it will cost England a LOT.

In the Central US of the time were the cities of Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and Indianapolis among others. This is more than enough to take out Toledo and Quebec and the most valuable parts of Canada that are not on the coast. This is the area GB would worry about losing and there isn't a damn thing they can do about keeping it. GB is going to have a lot of problems holding any land that isn't backed by its warships.

It wouldn't take much to take Canada. It was and is nearly empty. There aren't very many Canadians to hold Canada with. It isn't 1812, Canada is finished almost from the very moment it is attacked. There are simply too many Americans for every Canadian. As far as exports for the US it is far more likely to be willing to fore go them since GB is interfering with ITS land. It would look very like self defense to many if not most people in the US. What can England use to rally its troops? Let us die for Jeff Davis? They had gained nothing in two wars with the US but a lot of debt, why would they want to go round three with a US that is MUCH stronger than it was then? The US would first call off the blockade and then sink any English merchie it could find. After the Brits decide it is too expensive to remain at war with the US it reintroduce it. If the US can't invade England it goes the other way as well. The Brits could break the blockade but it couldn't support nearly enough troops to invade, capture and hold the US. I don't think it would even try, it would be suicide. Basically even if the Confederacy wins the Brits have to deal with a VERY pissed off US that is going to back any Anti-British sentiment anywhere in the world. What does Britain get out of it? A lot of debt? A considerable amount of sunk merchies? Extremely high tariffs in the US? Cotton isn't worth all that. They can get plenty of cotton from Egypt and India. They can't even count on that because the US government would probably wink at any piracy committed anywhere near the Confederacy and England wouldn't want to protect its transports forever. In any case they lose Central Canada at the very least. 1862 isn't 1812, the US is a regional Great Power and a rather wealthy country. They definitely would think twice about pissing it off. The merchant class was screaming bloody murder during the American Revolution. Being cut off from trade with the US in 1862 would cost it a LOT. That isn't even counting for the fact that England previously invested a lot of money in the US. Money that would be probably gone the moment the war started. English property would likely be seized or virtually certainly frozen if not actually seized. If you think English lords looked forward to having their investments in New York, Chicago and Philadelphia seized and sold off (England could do nothing to prevent that) than your crazy. The working class is not going to be thrilled with prices going way up due to lack of trade with the US either or becoming unemployed because the lord who owned their factory just had all his property in the US seized and can no longer pay his bills. There were real reasons that the UK was extremely reluctant to interfere at all in North America.

 

[lothaw]

In the book 1862, it is Britain which firsts declares war on the US and it is Britain who performs the first act of war by attacking American ships.

In the book, the Lincoln administration does all that it can to avoid a war.

By the way, the book is very unrealistic in that all of that military action could not happen in one year. I am not saying the the US would not win, I am saying that they cannot do it in one year, 1862. Maybe from 1862-1864.

I was being sarcastic. I though the book was utter rubbish even if I did like the phrase "Anglo-Confederate Army"

A second front would be disasterous for the Union. Oh they'd be able to man it better than the British would and certainly would have better logistics than the British, but the simple fact of having to pull some hundred thousand men from various fronts is going to create a void that a Confederate general like Lee is going to be able to take advantage of.

Especially if the British break the blockade and all those troops defending the coast can be sent north.