A USN victory against the British in 1862 (or Tielhard has been doing Trent again)
- Thread starter Tielhard
- Start date
So my original thought was Russia would make a move to the Black Sea to reestablish a navy if they saw the British sufficiently distracted. That would draw away some British armies and some of the RN from Federal coast. That was my thought, but I'm now convinced it's a little far fetched. The RN could handle both Russia and the Federals and Russia wasn't in any condition to make such a challenge.
The Prussia bit, I was thinking, they don't like the French and the French don't like us, but that's not a good enough reason for them to get involved. I never really thought this was too likely, but I thought I'd put it out there in case someone knew something that I didn't.
MrP
Banned
Me grow up? Pshaw!
I rather like most of that, old boy.
However, I'm a bit confused on the buying powder from China idea. If, say, a hundred tons of gold can't be easily shipped across the USA from California, then a hundred tons of powder would face similar problems. Just an arbitrary weight, that. I don't see much of a problem getting it across the Pacific, considering what we've noted before about the poor RN admiral covering that part of Canada, just getting it across America afterwards - since it's something one has to move in a similar way.I've no particular knowledge of Milne, but two things spring to mind. To get the Third Line of ships into action, one needs a thick mass of others preceding them to take fire and clear the way (reminds me of Revolutionary Wars French skirmishers!). That'd look a bit odd to the RN and make them suspicious. RN captains will want some sea room to manoeuvre, and with about 70 ships organised in a dozen or so squadrons, it may be problematic to get the Third Line into action if fighting at sea. Fighting in an enclosed area would be the best bet, but it'd be a poor admiral who voluntarily gave up the advantage of his ships' and crews' superior seamanship. I don't think I'm doing the USN of the period an injustice, saying that. Poor chaps were desperately short of trained officers. Of course, there are a few months to practise frenziedly. I just wonder whether it's enough.
One final thought - have you considered ruses de guerre? I don't know whether it'd be politically or morally acceptable to nineteenth century Americans, but using bombships or fireships on a static RN force might be a worthwhile idea. Just a thought!
I agree about the problems with getting America into a good position for this war. Good luck, old man!
MrP
Banned
There was a cruiser scare because the Russians commissioned a few (3 or 4, IIRC) long range cruisers a few years later. But, realistically, had war broken out, they'd have had to escape first the Baltic, then the North Sea.
from what I've been reading on here, sounds like the USN could have succeeded... but only if they had been planning it for a long time, kept their plans absolutely secret (and keep the rebs from telling England those plans after secession) and then building up the navy in a massive hurry...
not impossible, but seems improbable...
not impossible, but seems improbable...
Tielhard, while Spain certainly is not entering the war, a successful CSA all but guarantees that most of Spain's remaining territories in the Western Hemisphere WILL be taken from her, and probably quite soon.
advantage to the US here... they have the shipyards on the spot, and can put new ships right to work. The Brits have to tow them over (and if they are anything like the US monitors, they'll lose some in the process), and it takes them a lot more time.
However, this is all rendered moot by the fact that the RN's blockade of the US coastline will strangle their economy...
67th Tigers
Banned
Portugal was extremely pro-British, indeed, it's Portugal, not America, who's been Britains most constant friend and ally the last few centuries. Their memories of the Peninsula are pretty long.
Thande
Donor
The English-Portuguese alliance supposedly dates originally from about 1300 AD
, albeit with quite a few interruptions between then and the mid-19th century.
MrP
Banned
Sadly, there's almost no other option. Britannia really did rule the waves during this period. One absolutely must go either improbable or impossible to screw her over given Trent as a PoD.
Is this in response to Grimm Reaper's comments about Spain?
As for Spain what did they do OTL in regards to ACW? Would they have helped the Federals if they thought a CSA would someday rob them blind or were they happy to see the Federals/USA take it on the chin?
EDIT: Tielhard
So there may be some self interest in there not being a CSA for the Spanish. Would they think they could handle the CSA more easily than a united US thus making their colonies safer? Or would they see them as a more ambitious enemy than a united US?
Last edited:
Tielhard
Banned
MrP,
You are quite right P but my reasoning was as follows. If they get the gold across the Mississippi-Missouri then it still does them no good as all they can do is smuggle it to Canada (Mexico too I suppose) and get it out that way. Powder however is something they have a desparate need for.
Yep. can't argue with that. Would an Obat help it is not quite complete but fairly far done?
A bomb ship is not an option the Federal Americans are going to be so short of powder they are going to anguish over firing coastal defence guns. Fire ships I discounted due to the number of Iron ships in the RN but I may have been hasty.ars French skirmishers!). That'd look a bit odd to the RN and make them suspicious.
Grimm Reaper,
The CSA do not have a significant navy, the Spanish do, how then is Cuba (or any other territory) to be taken? The CSA, already in a difficult position over slavery risks complete rejection by Europe if it goes up against Spain in an orgy of Leibensraum? I think you are confusing end of the century conditions in OTL with a united USA with a mid century in which there may be two, three, four or more entiities occupying what in OTL is the USA.
Dave Howery,
Alas no. The USA's ship yards do appear to have been heavily used in 1861 but work slacked off in OTL in 1862. The shortage of iron will become accute if they try to build too many monitors. The fact is unless the first or second monitor wins a significant battle they won't build any more. They are expensive, difficult to build and are not a mature technology, they are hard to use. Casemates are cheaper, quicker to build and do not have that difficult moving turret and use less iron. If a British armoured cruiser or battle ship charges down the Moitor or its successor and sinks it by sailing over it or if they sink in a modest sea state that is the last monitor that will be built. Which from the point of view of a beleaugered USA may be no bad thing.
The British on the other hand built many many heavy armoured warships from 1860-65, including export, they don't even need to expand the build programe (though of course they would) they just need to keep the export ships and bring forward the production ramp up a year or two. They can build 600 ocean going gunboats in six months (official boast so divide by two the number is still huge). They already have an excellent small ironclad design which works they just need to tweak it a little, improve sea keeping, bigger engine maybe a few well designed turrets which they have already tested and 'Bobs your uncle' they can turn them out at a rate of twenty or so a month after six month WITHOUT going into war production mode. They can build a few more big wooden cruisers if they need still more resource.
"Rendered moot"? "Rendered moot"? Do I detect a ... Lawyer in the house Dave?
You are quite right about the blockade and the economy. We need to find a way to help the USA keep inflation to acceptable levels.
You are quite right P but my reasoning was as follows. If they get the gold across the Mississippi-Missouri then it still does them no good as all they can do is smuggle it to Canada (Mexico too I suppose) and get it out that way. Powder however is something they have a desparate need for.
Yep. can't argue with that. Would an Obat help it is not quite complete but fairly far done?
A bomb ship is not an option the Federal Americans are going to be so short of powder they are going to anguish over firing coastal defence guns. Fire ships I discounted due to the number of Iron ships in the RN but I may have been hasty.ars French skirmishers!). That'd look a bit odd to the RN and make them suspicious.
Grimm Reaper,
The CSA do not have a significant navy, the Spanish do, how then is Cuba (or any other territory) to be taken? The CSA, already in a difficult position over slavery risks complete rejection by Europe if it goes up against Spain in an orgy of Leibensraum? I think you are confusing end of the century conditions in OTL with a united USA with a mid century in which there may be two, three, four or more entiities occupying what in OTL is the USA.
Dave Howery,
Alas no. The USA's ship yards do appear to have been heavily used in 1861 but work slacked off in OTL in 1862. The shortage of iron will become accute if they try to build too many monitors. The fact is unless the first or second monitor wins a significant battle they won't build any more. They are expensive, difficult to build and are not a mature technology, they are hard to use. Casemates are cheaper, quicker to build and do not have that difficult moving turret and use less iron. If a British armoured cruiser or battle ship charges down the Moitor or its successor and sinks it by sailing over it or if they sink in a modest sea state that is the last monitor that will be built. Which from the point of view of a beleaugered USA may be no bad thing.
The British on the other hand built many many heavy armoured warships from 1860-65, including export, they don't even need to expand the build programe (though of course they would) they just need to keep the export ships and bring forward the production ramp up a year or two. They can build 600 ocean going gunboats in six months (official boast so divide by two the number is still huge). They already have an excellent small ironclad design which works they just need to tweak it a little, improve sea keeping, bigger engine maybe a few well designed turrets which they have already tested and 'Bobs your uncle' they can turn them out at a rate of twenty or so a month after six month WITHOUT going into war production mode. They can build a few more big wooden cruisers if they need still more resource.
"Rendered moot"? "Rendered moot"? Do I detect a ... Lawyer in the house Dave?
You are quite right about the blockade and the economy. We need to find a way to help the USA keep inflation to acceptable levels.
Tielhard, because that was a major issue in the south for decades, which Spain would be all too aware of. Give the CSA a few years of independence and they would then have the navy needed, plus a proven army.
As for European sensibilities, this WAS a nation founding itself as the bastion of slavery while it was fading away around the world(except Brazil).
Seriously, what would happen if the CSA grabbed Cuba(the only item really desired in 1867? Would London announce British action, beyond future relations with the US, has served to uphold and now expand slavery while promoting aggression? Even if so, what could they do about it?
1) Nothing. The British accept that this decision is going to look bad and hope the CSA doesn't do anything else especially offensive in the near future.
2) Diplomatic or economic pressure. Beyond the shame of having to do this to a country which arguably exists because of your recent decisions, what about the USA? Is the USA likely to miss an opportunity for a quick state or two? Once THAT precedent is set I can see several possibilities, all of them potentially troubling for the British.
3) Military force. You saved a nation's very existance less than five years earlier, now you must go to war with them? The USA will be laughing loudly at the irony.
On the issue of gold, keeping it out of enemy hands would appear to serve a useful purpose in and of itself.
In the end, of course, the USA is quickly beaten, and does not suffer too harshly(the British absolutely did not like making permanent enemies) and enjoys the economic boom of the next fifty years a bit more slowly. Of course, US neutrality leads to a Central Powers victory in 1915 but...
As for European sensibilities, this WAS a nation founding itself as the bastion of slavery while it was fading away around the world(except Brazil).
Seriously, what would happen if the CSA grabbed Cuba(the only item really desired in 1867? Would London announce British action, beyond future relations with the US, has served to uphold and now expand slavery while promoting aggression? Even if so, what could they do about it?
1) Nothing. The British accept that this decision is going to look bad and hope the CSA doesn't do anything else especially offensive in the near future.
2) Diplomatic or economic pressure. Beyond the shame of having to do this to a country which arguably exists because of your recent decisions, what about the USA? Is the USA likely to miss an opportunity for a quick state or two? Once THAT precedent is set I can see several possibilities, all of them potentially troubling for the British.
3) Military force. You saved a nation's very existance less than five years earlier, now you must go to war with them? The USA will be laughing loudly at the irony.
On the issue of gold, keeping it out of enemy hands would appear to serve a useful purpose in and of itself.
In the end, of course, the USA is quickly beaten, and does not suffer too harshly(the British absolutely did not like making permanent enemies) and enjoys the economic boom of the next fifty years a bit more slowly. Of course, US neutrality leads to a Central Powers victory in 1915 but...
67th Tigers
Banned
The approx strength of (most) US commands ca Mar 62:
McClellans Army of the Potomac:
I Corps: 33,000 men
II Corps: 26,000 men
III Corps: 33,000 men
IV Corps: 33,000 men
Army Tps: 9,500 men (inc. Cav and Arty Res)
Dept of Virginia (later VII Corps) - 14,000 men with 223 heavy and 44 light pieces garrisoning Ft Monroe etc.
Washington Defences - 19,000 men
Manassas Junction: 10,000 men
Warrenton: 7,700 men
Lower Potomac: 1,300 men
Bank's Army of the Shenandoah (V Corps): 35,000 men
Fremont's Army of the Mountains: 18,000 men
Dix's Defences of Baltimore: 11,000
Grant's Army of the Tennessee: 42,000 men
Pope's Army of the Mississippi: 26,000 men
Buell's Army of the Ohio: 58,000 men
Curtis' Army of the Southwest Missouri: 21,000 men
Steele's Army of Southeast Missouri: 6,000 men
Totten's Army of Central Missouri: 3,000 men
Strong's Army of Cairo: 4,500 men
Schefield's Army of St. Louis: 11,000 men
Lonn's Army of Northwest Missouri: 141 men
Glover's Army of Northeast Missouri: 900 men
(Illinois and Minnesota: 1,600 men)
Burnside's Dept of North Carolina: 14,000 men
Hunter's Dept of the South: 13,200 men
Dept of the Pacific: 4,500 men (Dec 61, most in California)
Dept of New Mexico: 1,500 men
Dept of New England: 1,000 men (Boston is defended by 6 inf coys and an arty bty, Portland by 6 btys)
McClellans Army of the Potomac:
I Corps: 33,000 men
II Corps: 26,000 men
III Corps: 33,000 men
IV Corps: 33,000 men
Army Tps: 9,500 men (inc. Cav and Arty Res)
Dept of Virginia (later VII Corps) - 14,000 men with 223 heavy and 44 light pieces garrisoning Ft Monroe etc.
Washington Defences - 19,000 men
Manassas Junction: 10,000 men
Warrenton: 7,700 men
Lower Potomac: 1,300 men
Bank's Army of the Shenandoah (V Corps): 35,000 men
Fremont's Army of the Mountains: 18,000 men
Dix's Defences of Baltimore: 11,000
Grant's Army of the Tennessee: 42,000 men
Pope's Army of the Mississippi: 26,000 men
Buell's Army of the Ohio: 58,000 men
Curtis' Army of the Southwest Missouri: 21,000 men
Steele's Army of Southeast Missouri: 6,000 men
Totten's Army of Central Missouri: 3,000 men
Strong's Army of Cairo: 4,500 men
Schefield's Army of St. Louis: 11,000 men
Lonn's Army of Northwest Missouri: 141 men
Glover's Army of Northeast Missouri: 900 men
(Illinois and Minnesota: 1,600 men)
Burnside's Dept of North Carolina: 14,000 men
Hunter's Dept of the South: 13,200 men
Dept of the Pacific: 4,500 men (Dec 61, most in California)
Dept of New Mexico: 1,500 men
Dept of New England: 1,000 men (Boston is defended by 6 inf coys and an arty bty, Portland by 6 btys)
Tielhard
Banned
Grimm Reaper,
A very good point.
67 Tigers,
As always an amazing amount of information. One question and one clarification.
Clarification: "Lonn's Army of Northwest Missouri: 141 men". Please confirm size.
Question: "Dept of the Pacific: 4,500 men (Dec 61, most in California)" It has been my understanding from reading a number of websites of dubious provenance admitedly that California was not part of the Dept. of the Pacific and that there were considerably more troops in the state both Federal and militia. The 4,500 number appears to correspond to the number of troops the USA was able to bring into. PNW during the Pig War.
Addntnl. Coflicting info. below:
First Battalion Native California Cavalry (Companies A-D)
First California Cavalry Volunteers (Companies A-M)
Second California Cavalry Volunteers (Companies A-M)
First California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Second California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Third California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Fourth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Fifth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Sixth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Seventh California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Eighth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
First Battalion California Mountaineers (Infantry) (Companies A-F)
First Regiment Washington Territory Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-F, G-I)
http://hometown.aol.com/bgandersen/civ_war/index.html?f=fs
"California is credited with providing 15,725 volunteers for her own units, plus five companies for the Massachusetts Cavalry and eight for the Washington Territory Infantry. Nevada provided 159 men for the California total and 1,158 for her own volunteer units. New Mexico sent an estimated 3,500 men to the war. Arizona Guards were formed under the Confederate occupation and were replaced by Arizona Rangers when the Union reestablished itself in the territory."
http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html
A very good point.
67 Tigers,
As always an amazing amount of information. One question and one clarification.
Clarification: "Lonn's Army of Northwest Missouri: 141 men". Please confirm size.
Question: "Dept of the Pacific: 4,500 men (Dec 61, most in California)" It has been my understanding from reading a number of websites of dubious provenance admitedly that California was not part of the Dept. of the Pacific and that there were considerably more troops in the state both Federal and militia. The 4,500 number appears to correspond to the number of troops the USA was able to bring into. PNW during the Pig War.
Addntnl. Coflicting info. below:
First Battalion Native California Cavalry (Companies A-D)
First California Cavalry Volunteers (Companies A-M)
Second California Cavalry Volunteers (Companies A-M)
First California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Second California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Third California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Fourth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Fifth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Sixth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Seventh California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
Eighth California Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-K)
First Battalion California Mountaineers (Infantry) (Companies A-F)
First Regiment Washington Territory Infantry Volunteers (Companies A-F, G-I)
http://hometown.aol.com/bgandersen/civ_war/index.html?f=fs
"California is credited with providing 15,725 volunteers for her own units, plus five companies for the Massachusetts Cavalry and eight for the Washington Territory Infantry. Nevada provided 159 men for the California total and 1,158 for her own volunteer units. New Mexico sent an estimated 3,500 men to the war. Arizona Guards were formed under the Confederate occupation and were replaced by Arizona Rangers when the Union reestablished itself in the territory."
http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryCW.html
67th Tigers
Banned
The Dept of the Pacific I believe was broken up, but the last figures I found in the Official Records are Dec 61, which breaks down into 2 districts: California and Oregon.
Around this time, an expeditionary force launched out of California to New Mexico, the "California Column" of 1,400 men (about 800 inf, 300 cav and 80 arty, plus logs), the 800 inf being 2 California Rgts (1st and 5th California Vol Inf), the Cav being 1st California Cav and the Arty A/3rd US Light Arty
Around this time, an expeditionary force launched out of California to New Mexico, the "California Column" of 1,400 men (about 800 inf, 300 cav and 80 arty, plus logs), the 800 inf being 2 California Rgts (1st and 5th California Vol Inf), the Cav being 1st California Cav and the Arty A/3rd US Light Arty
Grimm
As mentioned earlier the CSA didn't have much of a fleet at the time and has just fought a probably still long and costly war for its independence. In the longer term it might be a threat but it would be unlikely to have much desire for further conflict and minimal ability to attack even a 2nd level European power. Also, having survived in large part because nations which oppose its status on slavery have upheld international law. They would be taking a hell of a risk picking a fight which might anger those nations. I don't think London would too willingly tolerate aggression, especially when in this secnario they have just fought a war to defeat the same. [Not to mention have a huge military capacity and probably a lot of economic pressure they can exert]. Furthermore the CSA will know they have a hostrile and more powerful USA to their north so are unlikely to start dispersing their forces.
With option 2 it depends on how long the Trent war has gone on. Wouldn't take too long and the US would be in no state to start a new war. Also option 3 is no great barrier as Britain was standing up for international law, as it would now be in helping Spain. The US was in the wrong over the Trent affair, as it accepted in OTL, and the CSA would be over Cuba. Why shouldn't Britain and possibly other European powers be [FONT="]consistent[/FONT]?
True but your also keeping it out of Californian hands. Using it to buy powder which you can't use to any realistic degree may seem less than logical to the people who produced the gold in the 1st place.
I haven't been on the main pre and post 1900 threads recently due to lack of time but remember this coming up frequently before. Been thinking of trying to put together some idea on how dodgy the assumptions are here. There are 3 main ones being made:
a) You still get a situation like WWI
b) The US is fanatically bitter about their defeat and either neutral or hostile as a result.
c) As a result the allies lose the resulting conflict.
All 3 are I think highly dubious.
Steve
As mentioned earlier the CSA didn't have much of a fleet at the time and has just fought a probably still long and costly war for its independence. In the longer term it might be a threat but it would be unlikely to have much desire for further conflict and minimal ability to attack even a 2nd level European power. Also, having survived in large part because nations which oppose its status on slavery have upheld international law. They would be taking a hell of a risk picking a fight which might anger those nations. I don't think London would too willingly tolerate aggression, especially when in this secnario they have just fought a war to defeat the same. [Not to mention have a huge military capacity and probably a lot of economic pressure they can exert]. Furthermore the CSA will know they have a hostrile and more powerful USA to their north so are unlikely to start dispersing their forces.
With option 2 it depends on how long the Trent war has gone on. Wouldn't take too long and the US would be in no state to start a new war. Also option 3 is no great barrier as Britain was standing up for international law, as it would now be in helping Spain. The US was in the wrong over the Trent affair, as it accepted in OTL, and the CSA would be over Cuba. Why shouldn't Britain and possibly other European powers be [FONT="]consistent[/FONT]?
True but your also keeping it out of Californian hands. Using it to buy powder which you can't use to any realistic degree may seem less than logical to the people who produced the gold in the 1st place.
I haven't been on the main pre and post 1900 threads recently due to lack of time but remember this coming up frequently before. Been thinking of trying to put together some idea on how dodgy the assumptions are here. There are 3 main ones being made:
a) You still get a situation like WWI
b) The US is fanatically bitter about their defeat and either neutral or hostile as a result.
c) As a result the allies lose the resulting conflict.
All 3 are I think highly dubious.
Steve
Tielhard
Banned
I would like to make some points here:
1) Getting the gold out of California to a neutral port means that the British can't touch it and far more importantly the Federal Americans can spend it. Even if the British have them blockaded and have cut-off all of thier lines of credit they can still buy things in Europe and elsewhere and as long as the gold stays in the care of a neutral country the British can't touch it even when it is in transit in a neutral ship.
2) A tiny amount of Californian gold would be needed to buy a vast quantity of powder in China. If the US goes to buy the powder before the war starts then using gold to make the purchase would be foolhardy, they need the gold when the war starts and the British start to destroy thier international purchase power.
3) The gold we are talking about here is in the federal depository not personal stocks of gold (although later in a long war who knows) so:
a) Hardly anyone is going to know the gold has gone.
b) It is government money so who cares if it leaves California.