As the challenge says: Have portions of the US Navy join the CSA is their crusade for keeping the South's "peculiar institution".
POD can be anywhere post-Independence.
POD can be anywhere post-Independence.
AHC: Part of the US Navy defecting to the rebels.
- Thread starter GohanLSSJ2
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
There are several problems with this:
There are several problems with this:
1) Ship's crews, by definition, are "national" - they were never recruited on a regional basis by the USN, and the realities are that almost all enlisted recruiting was limited to coastal states (very little inland state recruiting until the new navy of the 1880s; there wasn't even a USN recruiting station in Chicago until the 1890s, for example).
2) Officer recruitment, given that it was (generally) by Congressional appointment to the Naval Academy, and then presidential commission upon qualification/graduation, was well balanced geographically.
3) Sailors (officers and enlisted) tended to stay aloof from politics, in a way the Army officer corps did not; obvious example are Winfield Scott's and Zachary Taylor's involvement in national politics in the antebellum era, as opposed to Conner, Perry, Sloat, and Stockton. Only Stockton had a political career, and he was from New Jersey and a loyalist.
4) The maritime work force in the United States traditionally was drawn from New England and the Mid-Atlantic states; although the South had a long tradition of coastal and inshore (and riverine) merchant service, the deepwater sailors tended to come from the North. "Seafaring" was not a southern tradition, certainly not in comparison to the North.
5) Although there were serving officers who "went south" (Maury and Buchanan, for example) they had (largely) been sidelined during the secession winter; even during President Buchanan's administration, the Navy Department was under Isaac Toucey, who although conservative was from Connecticut, loyal, and not an idiot.
6) The rebels did get control of the Norfolk navy yard, which - along with the much smaller Pensacola yard - was the only significant naval station in the south. Other than the damaged Merrimac (which became CSS Virginia) the ships were generally sailng vessels, unfit for service against the USN.
Best,
There are several problems with this:
1) Ship's crews, by definition, are "national" - they were never recruited on a regional basis by the USN, and the realities are that almost all enlisted recruiting was limited to coastal states (very little inland state recruiting until the new navy of the 1880s; there wasn't even a USN recruiting station in Chicago until the 1890s, for example).
2) Officer recruitment, given that it was (generally) by Congressional appointment to the Naval Academy, and then presidential commission upon qualification/graduation, was well balanced geographically.
3) Sailors (officers and enlisted) tended to stay aloof from politics, in a way the Army officer corps did not; obvious example are Winfield Scott's and Zachary Taylor's involvement in national politics in the antebellum era, as opposed to Conner, Perry, Sloat, and Stockton. Only Stockton had a political career, and he was from New Jersey and a loyalist.
4) The maritime work force in the United States traditionally was drawn from New England and the Mid-Atlantic states; although the South had a long tradition of coastal and inshore (and riverine) merchant service, the deepwater sailors tended to come from the North. "Seafaring" was not a southern tradition, certainly not in comparison to the North.
5) Although there were serving officers who "went south" (Maury and Buchanan, for example) they had (largely) been sidelined during the secession winter; even during President Buchanan's administration, the Navy Department was under Isaac Toucey, who although conservative was from Connecticut, loyal, and not an idiot.
6) The rebels did get control of the Norfolk navy yard, which - along with the much smaller Pensacola yard - was the only significant naval station in the south. Other than the damaged Merrimac (which became CSS Virginia) the ships were generally sailng vessels, unfit for service against the USN.
Best,
Last edited:
TFSmith said everything I could. Heck, I am a veteran sailor from the Mid-Atlantic and can attest to everything he said on recruitment, 'regionalism', and politics! 
TFSmith121
Banned
Yep. It's also worth noting the USN was not exactly known
Yep. It's also worth noting the USN was not exactly known for "mutiny" among the officer corps - the Somers case was hardly that - much less the enlisted; nothing like what happened on HMS Hermione.
Best,
TFSmith said everything I could. Heck, I am a veteran sailor from the Mid-Atlantic and can attest to everything he said on recruitment, 'regionalism', and politics!
Yep. It's also worth noting the USN was not exactly known for "mutiny" among the officer corps - the Somers case was hardly that - much less the enlisted; nothing like what happened on HMS Hermione.
Best,
Well historically a fair number of officers and men (373 out of 1,554 officers for instance) did indeed desert to serve the Confederacy. However, if the OP wants whole ships to mutiny in favor of the CSA, well that's rather difficult.
TFSmith121
Banned
About 25 percent of the officers, and
About 25 percent of the officers, and they would have resigned, rather than desert - as, famously (and rather embarassingly) Marylander Franklin Buchanan did, and then tried to withdraw his resignation. Welles told him he didn't want half-hearted patriots, and told him to go to hell.
Enlisted men would have deserted, but the numbers I've seen have always been tiny. I'm curious what figure you're suggesting would be the number, and where you found it.
Thanks
About 25 percent of the officers, and they would have resigned, rather than desert - as, famously (and rather embarassingly) Marylander Franklin Buchanan did, and then tried to withdraw his resignation. Welles told him he didn't want half-hearted patriots, and told him to go to hell.
Enlisted men would have deserted, but the numbers I've seen have always been tiny. I'm curious what figure you're suggesting would be the number, and where you found it.
Thanks
Saphroneth
Banned
If Samuel Barron was still in command of the Wabash, then - if his crew was mostly mroe loyal to him than to the US - then that might work.
Apart from that - well, if approx. 1/4 of the Navy was willing to go South, then it's not beyond the bounds of possibility you could have a majority Southern-leaning crew.
Apart from that - well, if approx. 1/4 of the Navy was willing to go South, then it's not beyond the bounds of possibility you could have a majority Southern-leaning crew.
TFSmith121
Banned
Except that Barron was not; if he was going to conspire
Except that Barron was not; if he was going to conspire, chief of the Bureau of Detail was the place to do it.
Again, the ~25 percent figure is of officers, not enlisted. If Barron, as chief of the BuDet, couldn't arrange for a crew of rebel sympathizers, random chance isn't going to do it.
Again, USN enlisted in this era were overwhelmingly of northern birth (if native born) or naturalized foreign born: neither is likely to mutiny in support of the rebellion.
Best,
Except that Barron was not; if he was going to conspire, chief of the Bureau of Detail was the place to do it.
Again, the ~25 percent figure is of officers, not enlisted. If Barron, as chief of the BuDet, couldn't arrange for a crew of rebel sympathizers, random chance isn't going to do it.
Again, USN enlisted in this era were overwhelmingly of northern birth (if native born) or naturalized foreign born: neither is likely to mutiny in support of the rebellion.
Best,
Thanks for the input.
Well, my ideas was to have, indeed, whole ships defect. But I see it's a hard thing to do.
That said, as I mentioned on the OP, you can have ANY POD you wish. It can go back as early as you want within US history. Give the Southern States more prescence on the Navy. Some corruption within the aforementioned Bureau of Detail (Not nessesarily linked to the Rebellion. Again ANY POD within US history is valid). Anything goes.
Well, my ideas was to have, indeed, whole ships defect. But I see it's a hard thing to do.
That said, as I mentioned on the OP, you can have ANY POD you wish. It can go back as early as you want within US history. Give the Southern States more prescence on the Navy. Some corruption within the aforementioned Bureau of Detail (Not nessesarily linked to the Rebellion. Again ANY POD within US history is valid). Anything goes.
Saphroneth
Banned
In that case, you can have a rather incompetent Radical end up being elected instead of Lincoln in the 1860 election, and have him kick things off by trying for full abolition of slavery the minute he takes office... as well as having the Union shoot first. (Perhaps he orders the armed arrest of a seccession convention?)
Result is that the North is seen as tyrranical much more than OTL, so you'll probably see the Border States go as well and might get a few ship defections.
Result is that the North is seen as tyrranical much more than OTL, so you'll probably see the Border States go as well and might get a few ship defections.
TFSmith121
Banned
You're asking for factionalism within armed services
You're asking for factionalism within armed forces that were created almost two decades after independence precisely because of fears about standing armed forces that went back past the Revolution, if not to Cromwell.
If you want the rebel states in 1861 to actually have a navy (or navies), there are simpler ways to do it in an organizational sense, i.e. state navies, which were - and remain - completely legal under the US Constitution. The problem is, of course, how and why would any state fund such an organization when they are already funding the USN?
If the reason is "because four score and seven years from now, we'll need a navy" that seems little prescient, don't you think?
Best,
You're asking for factionalism within armed forces that were created almost two decades after independence precisely because of fears about standing armed forces that went back past the Revolution, if not to Cromwell.
If you want the rebel states in 1861 to actually have a navy (or navies), there are simpler ways to do it in an organizational sense, i.e. state navies, which were - and remain - completely legal under the US Constitution. The problem is, of course, how and why would any state fund such an organization when they are already funding the USN?
If the reason is "because four score and seven years from now, we'll need a navy" that seems little prescient, don't you think?
Best,
Saphroneth
Banned
Actually, it occurs to me to wonder whether various states might have naval militias - that is, handling the various ships theoretically in Ordinary, because ships left in Ordinary for too long tend to decay to uselessness. As a militia the drain on State resources would be relatively minor - basically it'd just amount to the cost of keeping the ship in repair, and you could even see the States arguing for a subsidy from the Federal Government as they're saving money the USN would normally spend on bringing a ship back to full readiness.
That also results in a larger capability for the USN to expand in a crisis, is the theory, and it means that the whole thing has a "militia" character for home defence and a "regular" character for overseas cruises. (Not much different from the Army.)
Under those circumstances, you could have the majority of ships that were OTL in Norfolk or the like instead being at ports all along the South (and operated by Southern militia) and hence being available.
That also results in a larger capability for the USN to expand in a crisis, is the theory, and it means that the whole thing has a "militia" character for home defence and a "regular" character for overseas cruises. (Not much different from the Army.)
Under those circumstances, you could have the majority of ships that were OTL in Norfolk or the like instead being at ports all along the South (and operated by Southern militia) and hence being available.
Well with a POD anytime after independence I suppose in theory someone like Jefferson could try to adopt such a program. You'd have a hard time making it stick after 1812 when the militia forces proved themselves completely unsuitable to manage the rigors of a major war though...
Saphroneth
Banned
Navy militias exist now, and in the Spanish American War some of them actually operated warships. (See USS Nantucket). I don't think it's far fetched, after all it's not like either of these happened:
1) The US Navy winning the sea war in 1812.
2) The US deciding to keep a large standing army that didn't rely on National Guard after 1812.
Fair. Though I can't see many individual states retaining anything more capable than a sloop or corvette. Gunships for port protection seem the most likely.
TFSmith121
Banned
The state naval militias of the S-A War were all federalized
The state naval militias of the S-A War were all federalized, and the ships remained federal property (hence the USS designations).
The problem for this latest "save the webels" gambit is that:
a) the slave states' elites, generally, had little interest in spending money on federal assets;
b) the slave states' elites, generally, got what they wanted politically in the antebellum era, either directly or in alliance with the doughfaces;
c) the slave states' elites, generally, had the foresight of a five-year-old.
Other than that, it's a brilliant plan.
If one is willing to go fifty years back from the secession winter, then the butterflys are such as to why even bother?
It's like trying to stack the deck for Nazi Germany in 1939 by going back to 1889.
Best,
The state naval militias of the S-A War were all federalized, and the ships remained federal property (hence the USS designations).
The problem for this latest "save the webels" gambit is that:
a) the slave states' elites, generally, had little interest in spending money on federal assets;
b) the slave states' elites, generally, got what they wanted politically in the antebellum era, either directly or in alliance with the doughfaces;
c) the slave states' elites, generally, had the foresight of a five-year-old.
Other than that, it's a brilliant plan.
If one is willing to go fifty years back from the secession winter, then the butterflys are such as to why even bother?
It's like trying to stack the deck for Nazi Germany in 1939 by going back to 1889.
Best,
I vaguely remember hearing that Georgia donated an ironclad floating battery to the Confederate government at the start of the war, Alabama donated an ironclad ram at the same time too.
Around a dozen or so gunboats were under Confederacy command at the start of the war too. I'm unsure if they were left or transferred over by the men that deserted.
TFSmith121
Banned
They were built, acquired, or converted by the state navies
They were built, acquired, or converted by the state navies that were formed as various states seceded in the winter of 1860-61, but (generally) before the rebel "national" government - and the CSN - was created in the spring of 1861.
Likewise, some of the rebel states - Louisiana being the most effective, which doesn't say much - maintained the state navies that were formed after secession to the point where it became obvious they didn't have the resources to do so (the loss of New Orleans in April, 1862, made it pretty clear). These were not prewar organizations.
Best,
They were built, acquired, or converted by the state navies that were formed as various states seceded in the winter of 1860-61, but (generally) before the rebel "national" government - and the CSN - was created in the spring of 1861.
Likewise, some of the rebel states - Louisiana being the most effective, which doesn't say much - maintained the state navies that were formed after secession to the point where it became obvious they didn't have the resources to do so (the loss of New Orleans in April, 1862, made it pretty clear). These were not prewar organizations.
Best,
jahenders
Banned
I agree. Getting an entire ship to change sides in a war is hard. It's akin to having an entire company change sides en masse. In some ways it's harder than that because you almost need all of the key leaders involved and most of the crew to "go along." Not only that, many of the ships operated in groups, so you'd have ship #1 changing sides, while ships 2-3 are saying "what's up?"
In addition to the reasons others have mentioned, most of the crews were based in the North, with families living there. So, if a crew changed sides, they might not ever see their families again.
Saphroneth
Banned
Atually, that one about operating in groups is not so much of a concern - cruising ships often operated alone, especially when sailing from deployment to home.
I think the Spanish Civil War is a useful example to look at for ships changing sides or not. Take the Espana class - one Republican, one Nationalist.