AH CHALLENGE: A stronger US Navy.

burmafrd

Banned
More Constituition class frigates would be a much better investment.

Later in the century, One way we could challenge the RN is for Ericson to have been given a free hand with building improvements to the Monitor class.

(Sort of Like in Harry Harrison's ALT civil war series)
 
Later in the century, One way we could challenge the RN is for Ericson to have been given a free hand with building improvements to the Monitor class.

Give that guy free reign over a deadend warship design? Historically the monitors had severe limitations and most of their great press comes from the inconclusive engagement at Hampton Roads. What the US Navy does not need is more monitors, but more boardside ironclads like USS New Ironsides.
 

bard32

Banned
Right.:rolleyes:


Unfortunately, in 1819, the United States goes bankrupt attempting to keep pace with the building program of the richest empire on Earth. Congress, having begun to make aristocratic appointments(like Admiral) in the midst of the economic collapse, finds a number of members tarred and feathered while in their home districts. The nation teeters on the brink of dissolution until 1822.

In 1832, a small effort begins to rebuild the Navy, under cover of calling the vessels "revenue cutters". A sufficent force is accrued, despite the Panic of 1837, to support the U.S. war with Mexico in 1846. Emboldened by this success the American Congress again embarks on a hare-brained scheme to match the Royal Navy. In 1857 the cost of this idiotic effort, coupled with the economic downturn of 1857 (which, by itself, would have been suvivable) fractures the already fragile Union, this time permanently.

By 1874 the Former United States is home to no less than five separate nations, which engage in intercene warfare with shifting alliances both on the North American continent and with European states. Without the Monroe Doctrine, European countries embark on a massive retrenchment across the Western Hemisphere, starting with Napolean III's successful takeover of Mexico.

NAVIES are EXPENSIVE. One of the things that is consistently forgotten in these thread is that the United States was NOT a rich country in the early 1800's. Even with the fairly small, albeit well designed, fleet that the U.S. was able to construct IOTL, the Navy Department was annually the largest single line item in the American budget, with defense spending sometimes approaching 40% of the total American Government Budget in some years. Where would the money come from for this stunning building program?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to "raise and equip a Navy."
 
a question: could the humphreys frigate design have been upsized for the 74's, and how would they have performed?

Most likely, OTL Humphrey's designed the 74's, and it's believed they were "upsized" (to 74 specs) copies of the his 44s (Constitution, United States, & President).

I wouldn't focus on the effect of SOLs in 1812 or a ATL Anglo American crisis, as has been siad they end up either blockaced or burned/capture. The only time I'd suspect trying to engage a RN SOL force would be if/when they force the Chesapeake Bay toward Washington.

The real impact would be addition (and better) frigates and sloops/brigs, 6 or 7 more Humphrey's 44s, 12 to 14 Humphrey's sloop (never build OTL Humphrey's designed am 14 gun sloop that wasn't accepted). Would a few more RN victory's equal (more US firgate equal more opportunities like the capture of PRESIDENT) or up the damage done by more "super" frigates (and of course more frigates means more JAVAs... and maybe a squadron action)?
 

burmafrd

Banned
I mentioned harrisons books right? If you will look there the Monitors were basically a prototype for a real seagoing ship. His 2 turret designs were very advanced. They were not low freeboard, they were real ships.
 
I mentioned harrisons books right? If you will look there the Monitors were basically a prototype for a real seagoing ship. His 2 turret designs were very advanced. They were not low freeboard, they were real ships.

A word to the wise- Harrison's Stars and Stripes trilogy isn't generally considered a source of useful or accurate information. Your reference of it, however, explains quite a bit...
 
The easy way to do it is to have the whole of North America taken over by the Rebels, a shorter revolutionary war that does less damage, and a tariff to fund the navy.
Then the US just keeps growing. The navy is funded by the tariff, with lots of sloops to stop smuggling and a few 40 gun frigates to keep the British and French honest.
Without a long revolutionary war the French don't go broke, the Estates General is not called, the French Revolution doesn't happen, the Haitian slaves don't revolt, that plantation owner's wife doesn't inspire Whitney to build a cotton gin, the South gets rid of slavery as it stays barely profitable, and there is no Civil War to slow down US economic growth.
In 1874 we would be at 1900 levels without those two, or three (1812) wars to bleed us financially.
Sure we could build a navy to defeat Britain. All those harbors, all those forests...
 

Hashasheen

Banned
what if they did it after the defeat of the Barabary nations on the coast of North Africa? the americans supported the brother of the most powerful sultan against him, but later stabbed him in the back (i think) what if they had gone all out, and defeated that sultan and placed his brother? that would have shown the importance of the navy abroad, having gained an ally in the meditarranian, though this would put them a bit closer to britain, being able to threaten the french a bit more effectivly.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Harrison mentioned in his notes that he got access to dwgs that showed what Ericson wanted to do but was never allowed to. In that ATL he was.
 
Harrison mentioned in his notes that he got access to dwgs that showed what Ericson wanted to do but was never allowed to. In that ATL he was.

And he was the first? RN Captain Cowper Coles also had a design of a warship (not the Captain) that never got off the drawing board. That is the way things go when one is financed by the government. One has to worry about things like expense. Also drawings are not a good indication of what was actually capable of being accomplished at the time.
 
Guys

A couple of points:

a) As MrP said the OP said that the USN be capable of challenging the RN by the 1880's. A lot depends on what challenged means. For instance the German navy challenged the TN in two world wars but, especially in the 2nd was no match for it. Also there is the point that Britain may be distracted by commitments and threats elsewhere.

b) Several people have suggested a better 1812 conflict for the US. The key may be a markedly worse one. AS several people have said the US lacked the political and economic resources for a large fleet for much of this time. Of those the more difficult is the political restriction. The US, even in its early days, had a lot of potential wealth, but never applied this militarily because it never had any need.

Have it get really hammered in 1812, with possibly New England becoming independent, an Indian state under British protection and its trade and coastal settlements subject to disruption. Possibly even some burning of civilian targets to incite anger. This might give the incentive that the US feels it needs a sizeable military establishment and hence financial and government structure to support this.

Its still likely to end in disaster. The US needs to maintain enough anger and discontent at being vulnerable to Britain to motivate continued development of its forces and as population and wealth increases especially its navy. At the same time to avoid going too far and clashing with Britain when it would get stomped. This is especially difficult given that poor relations will make obtaining funds, technology and people more difficult and the latter will have the double penalty of making Canada stronger. It needs to enable a stronger government to make far more efficient use of resources without either tipping into dictatorship or prompting civil war or serious interval division.

Steve
 
Spending money on armed forces makes you stronger at the time and weaker later. The opportunity cost of a navy could be the transcontinental railroad. It's a delicate balancing act.
 
Spending money on armed forces makes you stronger at the time and weaker later. The opportunity cost of a navy could be the transcontinental railroad. It's a delicate balancing act.

Not necessarily. Private capital could have been raised to build the transcontinental railroad - not everything has to be done thru government loans.
 
Spending money on armed forces makes you stronger at the time and weaker later. The opportunity cost of a navy could be the transcontinental railroad. It's a delicate balancing act.

wkwillis

To a degree. But as so often the devil is in the detail. Military spending is often a drain on the economy. However at other times it can give useful boosts. [I think Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers had a section on how the Napoleonic Wars and resultant military demand for iron & steel gave a big, possibly vital, boost to the British industries]. Also, while centralised spending decisions can go very badly wrong, if pointed in the right direction they can be vastly more efficient than relying on private capital.

As I said the US would have to be pretty lucky. Taking a stronger government/higher military spending path has serious potential problems, both internal and external. Odds are in such a course Britain would probably be the big winner but it might work for the US and enable them to obtain the target in the OP. [Ironically this is the role often suggested by the hard-line US-imperialist in response to a defeat in say 1846 or a Treat War scenario and I'm pointing out the pitfalls but you have a chance it might work.

Steve
 
Top