A USN victory against the British in 1862 (or Tielhard has been doing Trent again)

[Tielhard]

Suggestion to even up the odds.

One advantage the USA has is the trans-continental telegraph. They know the news in SF and Sacramento a few hours after the declaration of war. The people in the British colonies get thier news from the Americans. The official news of war won't reach the British colonies in the North West until at least three weeks after the Americans are notified. The British would telegraph to Bombay. Then then dispatches would be put on a fast ship.

The Union fleet in the Pacific is tiny. There are two forts defending SF at Alcatraz and Fort Point. Fort point is a bit of a joke and Alcatraz can be run and is not even fully cannoned up. In short the Union cannot defend California from the British.

My initial thought therefore was that, discounting any ships taking gold out of the country, bringing powder in or the cruiser in dry dock at Hong Kong. They should sail as raiders and disrupt the Whale fisheries, the nitrate and guano trades, just possibly the traders with the trans-continental railway as well.

There is however another possibility. What if they sail for Esquimalt immediately on a declaration of war and attack the British at anchor? They are weak and the British are strong but they could do considerable dammage. Afterwards they might scatter and do the raiding I suggested.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Tielhard, I still find unlikely that the US will accept the war if there is any other choice. Seward's bombast aside, it was widely agreed that the louder he was in public, the harder he worked in private to defuse a crisis.

However, it's your scenario and I'll go along...what if the US brought a few sacrificial ships along in such a raid? Perhaps one or two loaded with whale oil or kerosene or such?



stevep, some good points but it must be remembered that the slave owners truly believed that slavery must expand or surely perish. That was the reason for their hysteria over losing and Kansas and New Mexico and such places, despite the fact that the southern effort to settle the territories with slaves was pathetic at best. As one example, New Mexico(including Arizona) had all of 22 slaves, a majority of whom were with transient owners. This after years of insisting that New Mexico was an obvious slave state.

Given this attitude it seems that once the CSA can target Cuba the result is inevitable.

As for the British, I find it unlikely that they would be interested in a war which is, in effect, taking place because of their own policy choices in the Second American Revolution( ). Now, if they have time to react that would be one thing but if the CSA can present Europe with a fait accompli...

On the issue of when I presume it would be five to ten years after winning that the CSA starts looking at Cuba greedily. The war itself won't last too long as Lincoln surely loses in 1864, always presuming it takes that long to face reality. As to consistency, the British are going to question the virtues of consistency if it requires damaging relations with a nation that they recently spent lives and treasure to establish without any corresponding benefits.

However, we could reasonably have Great Britain lay down the law while the 2ndAR is still going on and leave Cuba safe until the 1890s or so.

Tielhard settled the gold issue nicely, I need not add comment.


As to the next fifty years I see absolutely no possibility that Germany fails to rise in power and prominence until it can dominate Europe and equally no possibility of Great Britain being willing(even if able) to accept such a state of affairs. Since WWI was not a freak event but could have been triggered at any of several crisis points over a period of years the only question would be US involvment and the effects on the war.

I see no reason to believe that the US would, in this TL, be nearly as pro-British and remember that it took the US almost three years to enter WWI in OTL. No bitter and vengeful US, simply a nation devoted to trade and commerce and absolutely not interested in European wars. Whether the US allows debts to run up or begins demanding border adjustments is an interesting issue as, at some point, the likelihood that the British won't be able to pay any debts would become clear but...

Once we assume the premise of WWI in this TL, and I am well aware that WHEN this war begins could be extremely important(tech development and such) the question stands as to whether a primarily agrarian CSA can make a major impact early on.

On one hand CSA manpower will be limited by the inability to arm the blacks and the need to keep a minimum of white men home as guards.

On the other hand, if the US has been less than openly hostile but relations have never really gotten back to goodwill we could posit that Canada and the CSA can rush several standing divisions to Europe right away. Of course, in that scenario it might be that the need to stand guard on the US leaves North American support to the British below OTL.

 

[stevep]

stevep, some good points but it must be remembered that the slave owners truly believed that slavery must expand or surely perish. That was the reason for their hysteria over losing and Kansas and New Mexico and such places, despite the fact that the southern effort to settle the territories with slaves was pathetic at best. As one example, New Mexico(including Arizona) had all of 22 slaves, a majority of whom were with transient owners. This after years of insisting that New Mexico was an obvious slave state.

I'll accept that a CSA might well turn eyes on Cuba but was reading your comments as that being very shortly after it wins its indoendence. Don't think it would be in any condition to for quite a while after that even if it wasn't concerned about possibly having the US landing on its back or as someone said the Spanish had a much more powerful fleet. It depends on exactly how things work out in the Trent conflict but expect that the CSA will have far more important things on their minds. Don't forget also that having won independence they would then have to decide what to do with it. The CSA was more decentralised than the USA and it could have been a decade or more before it had anything approaching a coherent foreign policy, other than looking for allies to help against the US. There will be hotheads looking to expand and there is the danger that some group acting on its own drags the CSA government into a war because it feels obliged to support some of its citizens. However not sure how likely this is or whether the bulk of the population would be that rash. After all in the relationship between Britain and the CSA it is the latter that needs the former, not vice-versa.

As for the British, I find it unlikely that they would be interested in a war which is, in effect, taking place because of their own policy choices in the Second American Revolution( ). Now, if they have time to react that would be one thing but if the CSA can present Europe with a fait accompli...

As far as I understand it the British attitude in a Trent conflict would be that they were standing up for a point of considerable importance to them. If the US choices war as a result and because of this loses the south that is their responsibility and would be viewed as such by the British government and other powers. If the CSA then goes on a conquering spree that is likely to generate opposition in Europe because of the interests in the region.

I very much doubt the CSA could present a fait accompli on Cuba. It would need to mobilise considerable forces and build up a navy that would flag that something was planned.

On the issue of when I presume it would be five to ten years after winning that the CSA starts looking at Cuba greedily. The war itself won't last too long as Lincoln surely loses in 1864, always presuming it takes that long to face reality. As to consistency, the British are going to question the virtues of consistency if it requires damaging relations with a nation that they recently spent lives and treasure to establish without any corresponding benefits.

Depends on the circumstances but if the US is involved in a major conflict until late 64 it would have a major effect on all concerned, probably especially the US. If what has been said about the problems the US would face, including a powder shortage and the financial impact, even without lasting hostility and its impact there could well be significant border changes and not just in the south. Even more important could be the economic and cultural impacts on the development of the US.

As I said above Britain would not be going to war to help establish the CSA, although I accept this will be a probable side effect. I would also disagree that such might not have corresponding benefits. Furthermore a war if largely restricted to a blockage and some minor border clashes is unlikely to be that costly. If it goes on for a year or so and involves heavy fighting that is a different matter BUT then Britain might also make substantial gains.

Tielhard settled the gold issue nicely, I need not add comment.

Point taken. I was reading it as the US taking a proportion of the Californian mines rather than just that gold from there provided a useful way to hold revenue.

As to the next fifty years I see absolutely no possibility that Germany fails to rise in power and prominence until it can dominate Europe and equally no possibility of Great Britain being willing(even if able) to accept such a state of affairs. Since WWI was not a freak event but could have been triggered at any of several crisis points over a period of years the only question would be US involvment and the effects on the war.

I agree it is highly unlikely that Germany would not be united under Prussian leadership by this stage. However it is far from certain there would be a big coalition war, or that Britain and Germany would be on opposing sides if there was. It took considerable amounts of appalling diplomacy by Wilhelm and the German government to build up the alliance that eventually defeated them. A more rational leadership could have seen a drastically different Europe.

I see no reason to believe that the US would, in this TL, be nearly as pro-British and remember that it took the US almost three years to enter WWI in OTL. No bitter and vengeful US, simply a nation devoted to trade and commerce and absolutely not interested in European wars. Whether the US allows debts to run up or begins demanding border adjustments is an interesting issue as, at some point, the likelihood that the British won't be able to pay any debts would become clear but...

Possibly I was mis-reading as references from an earlier thread on this subject seemed to be rather obsessed with a US determined to get revenge. A bit like the highly irrational US in timeline 191 where a war of aggression by it ended up badly but with minimal losses territorially but it militarises heavily as a result. Turtledove however ignores most of the impact of such a programme. If such a UD stance was adopted it would have far reaching impact but long before 1914. If more like the historical one then the US would have vested interests in trading with the allies as they did historically.

You are working under the assumption that the war would inevitably be the long mutually attraction slog that it was historically. That may be the case but may well not. Both sides missed several opportunities to end the war relatively quickly by a clear if limited victory. This would not end tensions but would remove the bulk of the burdens so would remove the main potential for the US to turn the screws on the allies. Or for their reduced involvement to prevent an allied victory.

Once we assume the premise of WWI in this TL, and I am well aware that WHEN this war begins could be extremely important(tech development and such) the question stands as to whether a primarily agrarian CSA can make a major impact early on.

On one hand CSA manpower will be limited by the inability to arm the blacks and the need to keep a minimum of white men home as guards.

If we presume a largely historical US, a bit more hostile to Britain but isolationist and basically neutral then the CSA would probably play little or no part. It would also I expect be only really concerned with events in its locality.

On the other hand, if the US has been less than openly hostile but relations have never really gotten back to goodwill we could posit that Canada and the CSA can rush several standing divisions to Europe right away. Of course, in that scenario it might be that the need to stand guard on the US leaves North American support to the British below OTL.

If continued poor relations then there might extra imperial forces that could be available for the European conflict quickly due to the higher level of historical tension meaning that significant forces are maintained there. This is even presuming no border changes or political factors that could boost Canada's strength. A less friendly US would mean that in the longer term Canada might be able to contribute less overall due to the need to watch its southern border. A lot would depend on how the Trent war developed and what short and medium term results from it, both in North America and elsewhere.

I notice you seem to be thinking of Britain and the CSA as natural allies despite continued racial problems in the latter? Other than having to make common cause against a US that made clear its hostility I can see little reason for this to be likely.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Gunpodwer supply

Guys

On a naval site I'm a member of this was referenced. http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/6.1/notes/robbins/robbins.htm Interesting article and possibly suggests that if the north had been blockaded, while it would have caused problems the shortage of saltpetre might not have been crippling. Not sure how important the cave sources [suspect bat droppings?] were compared with later synthetic sources or how many such sources the north would have had. It would probably have had a much higher demand for powder, especially if fighting Britain as well as the south but with some ingenuity it might have managed to maintain larger forces than I was thinking. Any of the more knowledgeable people on the site able to expand on the issue?

Steve

 

[67th Tigers]

The nitrate mines were mostly in the Kentucky and Tennessee (and passed into Union handed summer 62), but they only accounted for 500lbs/day. The eventual solution was to import bat guano from South America....

If you've a access to JSTOR:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962591/96p00243/0

 

[67th Tigers]

To put matters in perspective, the 2,300 tons embargoed during the Trent Affair equals 27.7 years of CS native production.

 

[Tielhard]

Gimme a clue 67 Tigers, which Journal and when?

 

[Tyr]

Another factor against the US is that their economy was utterly dependant on Britain.
IOTL there mere threat of war with Britain nigh on bankrupted the US.
Sure the British had a lot of investment in the US and it would have upset our economy somewhat but this was managable. The US would be ruined even before the blockade began.

 

[67th Tigers]

Gimme a clue 67 Tigers, which Journal and when?

Alfred D Chandler Jr., DuPont, Dahlgren and the Civil War Nitre Shortage; Military Affairs, Vol 13 No 3 (Autumn 1949) pp142-9

 

[Tielhard]

Buggeration. I can't access Military Affairs - I had a good go at economic history a few weeks ago. Lost of useful facts there.

 

[stevep]

The nitrate mines were mostly in the Kentucky and Tennessee (and passed into Union handed summer 62), but they only accounted for 500lbs/day. The eventual solution was to import bat guano from South America....

If you've a access to JSTOR:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962591/96p00243/0

67 Tigers

What I meant was that the south continued to fight and hence managed to produce the powder it needed. Despite those nitrate mines being lost fairly early on. Given the steady tightening of the northern blockage that suggests that they found local sources for the supplies they needed. If so presumably the north could have done the same if it was blockaded, unless the south had sources that the north couldn't duplicate. [Which doesn't sound likely. Was wondering if the north had no such similar sources, but sounds like it lost them to the north pretty early on]. Would probably have been more difficult as it would I expect have had much higher demands.

I agree that the north would still be at a big disadvantage if Lincoln had decided on war with Britain. Both in terms of powder problems and the sort of economic ones that Lee mentioned. Just sounds like the latter would be more significant.

Steve

 

[Tielhard]

It all depends. If the Union has ready sources of saltpetre and sulphur then they can make gunpowder in year one of the war. If they don't they will have to wait for nitre beds to mature, about a year. I have been looking for a source of saltpetre in the Union for about a year and I have not found a significant one although there are some smallish ones. I have found no source of native (elemental) sulphur in the Union at all.

On the basis of this I would anticipate a sharp drop in Union supplies of powder after 3-6 months of war. If they have a source of sulphur then production would begin to recover after a year of fifteen months. If they don't they face a collapse of thier armies in the field. As I can't see an Anglo-Union war lasting much more than 2 years at most I think the powder shortage will be a pretty significant factor.

 

[67th Tigers]

As various articles point out, it wasn't until Spring 1862 that the CS considered the lack of powder, they'd bought plenty from Europe and had a lot of the pre-war stock.

The problem was more accute in the North, but with a permissive Atlantic, DuPont imported the raw materials from South America.

As to how limiting powder is, IRL there was a restriction (i.e. ban) on target practice until 1864 due to the powder shortage. This has more to do with equipping a much larger army than expected.

Sulphur was imported from Mexico.

 

[Tielhard]

Re: Sulphur.

North Mexico or South? If South USA stuffed. If North then a campaign in Texas and on the Mississippi might open a route.

 

[67th Tigers]

Zapatas and Monterray

 

[marapets]

True Grimm but that is a modern American mindset. We need to think 19th C. British gentleman mind set.

i honestly cant see how the royal navy would suffer a major defeat?? in the 1860's it had by far the most pwerful navy in the world, the rookie federal navy would stand a chance would they??

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Tielhard, 67th, everyone! I've got it! A way to give the North a chance to win!

December, 1862...the war against the CSA and the British Empire goes poorly. The blockade is broken...much of Long Island is held by the British...even Grant's gains in Canada seem to do little to tip the balance...then a mysterious figure with a harsh accent appears in the White House and offers Abraham Lincoln a new weapon, one to turn the tide. It is called the AK-47...​

Couldn't resist...sorry.

 

[Tielhard]

marapets,

i honestly cant see how the royal navy would suffer a major defeat?? in the 1860's it had by far the most pwerful navy in the world, the rookie federal navy would stand a chance would they??

I don't think there is much question that in Q1/Q2 or even Q3 of 1862 the USN is no match for the RN. Britain will win a naval war with ease. That does not preclude a Federal American victory in a fleet action. It is pretty ulikely I grant you BUT I have proposed one way in which I think it might be achieved. If you don't like my scenario please, I encourage you to critique it and say what you think is wrong with it. I have also suggested a sneak attack on Esquimalt at the start of the war might go in the USN's favour.

67 Tigers,

Zapatas and Monterray

Well Monterrey is in the north and has a seaport close by so smuggling or occupation might be an option.

On the other hand Zapatas. Was this city/town not named after E. Zapata? In which case was it there in 1862?

 

[stevep]

Tielhard, 67th, everyone! I've got it! A way to give the North a chance to win!

December, 1862...the war against the CSA and the British Empire goes poorly. The blockade is broken...much of Long Island is held by the British...even Grant's gains in Canada seem to do little to tip the balance...then a mysterious figure with a harsh accent appears in the White House and offers Abraham Lincoln a new weapon, one to turn the tide. It is called the AK-47...​

Couldn't resist...sorry.

Good one. Couldn't resist that.

 

[stevep]

It all depends. If the Union has ready sources of saltpetre and sulphur then they can make gunpowder in year one of the war. If they don't they will have to wait for nitre beds to mature, about a year. I have been looking for a source of saltpetre in the Union for about a year and I have not found a significant one although there are some smallish ones. I have found no source of native (elemental) sulphur in the Union at all.

On the basis of this I would anticipate a sharp drop in Union supplies of powder after 3-6 months of war. If they have a source of sulphur then production would begin to recover after a year of fifteen months. If they don't they face a collapse of thier armies in the field. As I can't see an Anglo-Union war lasting much more than 2 years at most I think the powder shortage will be a pretty significant factor.

Tielhard

Didn't one of those sites mentioned say that the caves were mainly in Kentucky and Tennessee and has such were pretty quickly in US hands? [Although they might not be if it mixes it with Britain. Mind you suspect they would not be producing enough for the north's needs. Interesting comment from Tigers about the restrictions on practicing.

I can't see the north getting much sulphur from Mexico. That's some pretty rough and thickly populated terrain in the way, with most of it by the shortest route under southern control. And given the expected problems with powder and the distraction the US will have if it gets into a rumble with Britain I can't see the north getting much influence in the region.

On a naval conflict I could foresee a possible US victory in a early clash if they are determined and think it out and the RN are complacent. However I think that would be very short-term as the RN would move quickly to restore the situation and its prestige.

Steve