An all of North America Scenario

Lets say british cotton production is down severely during the last years of the american civil war. The confederacy is able to convince britain and france to support the confederacy in 1864, under the grounds that the confederacy sells britain cotton at ridicously low prices and openly supports a french regime in mexico.

But before a significant number of french and british troops arrive, atlanta has been burned and the war is virtually over.

so, my main point is. once the civil war is over could the union had gotten pissed enough to invade british canada and french mexico? just a thought.
 
1864 is just too late for this type of scenario... the writing on the wall was clear: the Confederacy was doomed, and the European powers weren't about to support a lost cause. In any event, the Brits were hurting a lot less by this point because they were bringing cotton fields online in Egypt and India (specifically to bypass the CSA).
But stranger things have happened. If the CSA does pull off this diplomatic coup and the USA goes ahead and wins the war anyway, before anyone in Europe can get involved, I'd imagine the two Euro powers would just pull back, and publicly acknowledge the fact that the CSA is no more... I don't think the USA, war weary after 4 long years, would press the issue...
 
The US was ready to throw the French out of Mexico in 1867 if they weren't already more than willing to leave of their own accord(which on OTL they were).

Fenian raids across the US-Canada border caused a lot of tension during the same period.

After the Civil War American leaders could decide its time to finally eliminate foreign influence in North America-after all its our continent-and liberate Canada and Mexico from the yoke of European monarchists.
 
they could decide that... but carrying it out would be another thing. Taking on both the UK and France at this time would have been tragic for the US... the two enemy navies outmatched the USN by a vast amount, and the US would quickly find itself blockaded....
 
they could decide that... but carrying it out would be another thing. Taking on both the UK and France at this time would have been tragic for the US... the two enemy navies outmatched the USN by a vast amount, and the US would quickly find itself blockaded....

True enough, the U.S. economy would really go under. However, in 1865 a close blockade would not be possible, not with the swarms of ironclad gunboats and monitors available to the U.S. navy. The U.S. navy would not stand a chance on the open ocean, but close in, Britain's big ironclad's would be outmatched by small monitors and the large numbers of older warships would be defenseless.

Without a close blockade, the U.S. should be able to import enough vital materials (like saltpeter) to keep its war machine going for a good long time. Discounting the problem of morale, the short term position of Britain and France in North America would be dire.
 
the US might be able to move things from port to port in the US itself, but importing/exporting would be near impossible with the RN and French navy parked offshore, even if they didn't come all that close to shore.... those USN monitors and such were really unseaworthy... heck, the Monitor damn near sank in a storm and it never sailed out of sight of land...
 
I'm talking more about blockade running than standard import/export. The USN couldn't really stop the blockade runners and they had a close blockade along with bases on the Confederate coastline itself. Britain or France would be restricted to bases in Canada and places like Bermuda, and would be unable to have a true close blockade even without the USN.

Afterall, the USA is self-sufficient in most of the requisites of a war economy, and a limited amount of blockade running should make up the rest. Assuming the Union army doesn't dissolve from dessertion and mutiny (I'm assuming Britain and France really piss off the average American somehow) it should be able to send a good 100,000 battle hardened veterans against Canada while garrisoning the coast and the South and tying down the French by running guns, ammunition, and advisors to the Mexican rebels.
 
sure, the US could do some blockade running... but that didn't save the Confederates, and it wouldn't save the Union either... blockade running won't save the economy, which will be utterly ruined...
 
True enough, the U.S. economy would really go under. However, in 1865 a close blockade would not be possible, not with the swarms of ironclad gunboats and monitors available to the U.S. navy. The U.S. navy would not stand a chance on the open ocean, but close in, Britain's big ironclad's would be outmatched by small monitors and the large numbers of older warships would be defenseless.

Without a close blockade, the U.S. should be able to import enough vital materials (like saltpeter) to keep its war machine going for a good long time. Discounting the problem of morale, the short term position of Britain and France in North America would be dire.

Monitors are overrated.
A true iron warship such as Warrior could take one out without even having to resort to using its guns if need be.

The only possible issue here I've heard is the possibility that there may not be a Canadian port immediately capable of handling Warrior.
If the threat of war was there though I'd imagine it would be developed.
 
Dave Howery said:
sure, the US could do some blockade running... but that didn't save the Confederates, and it wouldn't save the Union either... blockade running won't save the economy, which will be utterly ruined...

The confederates were more dependent on the importation of war material. It should be noted the the US economy of post-1820 is much different from pre-1820. The US just isn't that vulnerable to naval blockade.
 
The confederates were more dependent on the importation of war material. It should be noted the the US economy of post-1820 is much different from pre-1820. The US just isn't that vulnerable to naval blockade.
but the loss of trade in the economy would be devastating. The US was dependent quite a bit on international trade, even back then...
 
but the loss of trade in the economy would be devastating. The US was dependent quite a bit on international trade, even back then...

I don't think anyone is denying that the U.S. just screwed itself. However, if the American public is sufficiently motivated that morale and desertion are limited concerns, then Britain and France are in trouble too. The U.S. economy would function a lot better under blockade than the CS economy did, and a very limited amount of blockade running can keep the U.S. war machine running indefinitely. Furthermore, a truly tight blockade would simply not be possible. The U.S. Navy had tons of trouble getting a blockade up and it faced no real opposition and certainly didn't have to do it across the Atlantic. The U.S. simply has a lot more coastline to blockade than France or Germany did, and there wouldn't be British bases right across the Channel. I don't think the British garrison in Canada plus whatever militias and armed civilians can scrape up would be able to hold off 100,000 veteran troops based out of the most densely populated, industrialized, and railed part of North America. Actually holding Canada wouldn't even be necessary, simply holding the St. Lawrence and the coastal ports would effectively drive Britain out of North America, and then how would the blockade work?


Leej said:
Monitors are overrated.
A true iron warship such as Warrior could take one out without even having to resort to using its guns if need be.

Can you elaborate? The Warrior had no ram, so I'm curious as to how it can defeat a monitor in coastal waters without using its guns. The CSS Tennessee had 6 inch armor in a sloped casemate compared with 4.5 inch armor unsloped for the Warrior and the Tennessee proved vulnerable to the 15 inch guns on the newer monitors. Consider a monitor's turret armor of between 8 and 10 inches and that the Warrior's main battery couldn't even penetrate its own armor, and I don't really see how the Warrior is vastly stronger than a monitor. Certainly their terrible seaworthiness is problematic, but when all they have to do is break a blockade: monitors would be pretty effective.
 
Last edited:
Can you elaborate? The Warrior had no ram, so I'm curious as to how it can defeat a monitor in coastal waters without using its guns. The CSS Tennessee had 6 inch armor in a sloped casemate compared with 4.5 inch armor unsloped for the Warrior and the Tennessee proved vulnerable to the 15 inch guns on the newer monitors. Consider a monitor's turret armor of between 8 and 10 inches and that the Warrior's main battery couldn't even penetrate its own armor, and I don't really see how the Warrior is vastly stronger than a monitor. Certainly their terrible seaworthiness is problematic, but when all they have to do is break a blockade: monitors would be pretty effective.

Yes, but Warrior wouldn't need a ram. The USN monitors had a freeboard of under a foot, IIRC. Warrior would ride over it like a speedbump. Granted, the 11-inch Dahlgrens would be a problem as Warrior closed the range, but her armour was probably the best in the world at the time (and if her captain was feeling somewhat less gallant, I suspect Warrior's main armament would probably outrange and certainly massively outgun any monitor's).

But all this is ASB. Even if every cotton field in Egypt or India catches fire at once there is no way Britain is intervening on behalf of the Confederacy in 1864. Frankly, even in such a scenario were to occur Britain is more likely to declare war ON the Confederacy in order to get the war over with quicker and buy the cotton from the Union.
 
but the loss of trade in the economy would be devastating. The US was dependent quite a bit on international trade, even back then...

Its not just the direct trade income that would be a problem. The American eocnomy was fully tied into the world economic system- a system centred on Britain.

IOTL the Trent Affair really shook the US economy quite badly and that was just the threat of war with the UK.
 
Yes, but Warrior wouldn't need a ram. The USN monitors had a freeboard of under a foot, IIRC. Warrior would ride over it like a speedbump. Granted, the 11-inch Dahlgrens would be a problem as Warrior closed the range, but her armour was probably the best in the world at the time (and if her captain was feeling somewhat less gallant, I suspect Warrior's main armament would probably outrange and certainly massively outgun any monitor's).

But all this is ASB. Even if every cotton field in Egypt or India catches fire at once there is no way Britain is intervening on behalf of the Confederacy in 1864. Frankly, even in such a scenario were to occur Britain is more likely to declare war ON the Confederacy in order to get the war over with quicker and buy the cotton from the Union.

I agree with you on the likelyhood of the scenario but disagree on combat capabilities. The Warrior had the best armor in the world in 1860. With rapid development, by 1865, her armor was barely adequate. She had a lot more guns than a monitor would have, but they are generally lighter and mounted broadside rather than turreted. Her armor was tested with her own guns and found to be proof against them. Later U.S. monitors had superior armor to the Warrior and so would also be immune to the Warrior's guns. Warrior can certainly run over a monitor, but that requires a 9000+ ton battleship to somehow ram a vessel a quarter its size with superior manuverability. In any case, while the monitor would sink, the Warrior would also cripple herself and have to somehow survive the trip back to Britain for months of repairs. (Iron hulls are not as easy to repair as wooden)
 
Would she cripple herself so badly?

The British weren't idiots. I'd imagine it would be realised if ramming is the best way to sink monitors and Warrior would have its front armour improved quite a bit.
Its guns would be improved too if there was the need.

Also a lot of ships at the time were fully equipped for ramming.

A easy way to sink monitors would be found, it was probally already known even, they were after all just boats when it came down to it.
 
Sure there is an easy way to sink monitors. Just let them try to steam through a minor squall. However, the design was so popular because they are very good at what they do. They lack firepower and can't be used in rough waters, but with only a turret exposed to fire, they can be much more heavily armored than anything that actually has to sail across an ocean.

Certainly the Brits are no idiots and if they realize they need to fight monitors, they can build ships to do so. The Warrior cannot however, not without what would amount to a rebuilding. The U.S. Navy tried ramming with ships not meant to do so and it certainly didn't turn out particularly well for them. The main problem is that ships built to fight monitors are likely to lack sea worthiness and would thus be useless in this scenario as they can't make it across the Atlantic. Ships built both to fight monitors and still be seaworthy are certainly possible and Britain could probably still build them faster than the U.S. of 1865 could built monitors, but it would be damn costly and it would take time to build enough to wrest control of coastal waters from the U.S. By that time, there is unlikely to be a single usable base in Canada still under British control, and any blockade would have to be conducted from the Caribbean.
 
I agree with you on the likelyhood of the scenario but disagree on combat capabilities. The Warrior had the best armor in the world in 1860. With rapid development, by 1865, her armor was barely adequate. She had a lot more guns than a monitor would have, but they are generally lighter and mounted broadside rather than turreted. Her armor was tested with her own guns and found to be proof against them. Later U.S. monitors had superior armor to the Warrior and so would also be immune to the Warrior's guns. Warrior can certainly run over a monitor, but that requires a 9000+ ton battleship to somehow ram a vessel a quarter its size with superior manuverability. In any case, while the monitor would sink, the Warrior would also cripple herself and have to somehow survive the trip back to Britain for months of repairs. (Iron hulls are not as easy to repair as wooden)

Somewhat surprisingly, the HMS Warrior official website directly discusses this issue as follows:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] With the outbreak of hostilities in the American Civil War the situation became serious enough for Warrior or Black Prince to be stationed to the North America Squadron. The Federal government backed down, but it may be worth examining the fighting capabilities of the latest Union ship, the Monitor.

Launched in 1862 with an overall length of 172 feet, Monitor weighed in at a little over 900 tons, or 1/10th of Warrior's displacement. Armour plating consisted of between 2 & 4 inches for the hull, and 8 inches for the gun turret. The ship was armed with 2 11inch smooth bore guns that had a practical rate of fire of one round every 7 minutes. Monitor had an extraordinarily low freeboard, a mere 6 inches, and with a speed of perhaps 5 knots she could not hope to make headway in an open sea.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In the event of an action against the Monitor, Cochrane's [Warrior's first captain, on whose notes this section of the website was based] likely course of action can be discerned. Assuming Warrior, whilst stationary, opened fire at 4,000 yards with her bow chaser, it would take 20 minutes for Monitor to close to within 1,500 yards. In this time 22 rounds would have been discharged from the chaser. Assuming 15% of the projectiles hit their target, we would expect 3 hits before Monitor closed to open fire with her two Dahlgren guns. At 1,500 yards the 68 pound guns of Warrior could be brought to bear, with perhaps 1 in 3 shot hitting their target. The remaining 110lb guns could also be used, with a hit rate of 45%. In the ensuing quarter of an hour it would take Monitor to close on Warrior, Warrior would discharge 213 68lb shot and 108 110lb shot. During this time Monitor would be hit by 71 68lb shot and 48 110lb shot, whilst returning no more than 4 shot.

We know from tests that Monitor's guns could not pierce Warrior's armour plating, which consisted 4.5" of wrought iron, 18" of Teak, a further 5/8" wrought iron and finally 1 3/4" pine cladding. Warrior could pierce 6 inches of Monitor's turret armour plating at up to 500 yards.

As Nelson said 'nothing is certain in a sea fight above all others', but the balance of probability would again suggest a victory for Warrior."

I don't know how an 11-inch gun compares with a 110-pounder, but I doubt it's significantly heavier, and Warrior's armour certainly does not sound inferior to me.
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In the event of an action against the Monitor, Cochrane's [Warrior's first captain, on whose notes this section of the website was based] likely course of action can be discerned. Assuming Warrior, whilst stationary, opened fire at 4,000 yards with her bow chaser, it would take 20 minutes for Monitor to close to within 1,500 yards. In this time 22 rounds would have been discharged from the chaser. Assuming 15% of the projectiles hit their target, we would expect 3 hits before Monitor closed to open fire with her two Dahlgren guns. At 1,500 yards the 68 pound guns of Warrior could be brought to bear, with perhaps 1 in 3 shot hitting their target. The remaining 110lb guns could also be used, with a hit rate of 45%. In the ensuing quarter of an hour it would take Monitor to close on Warrior, Warrior would discharge 213 68lb shot and 108 110lb shot. During this time Monitor would be hit by 71 68lb shot and 48 110lb shot, whilst returning no more than 4 shot. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] We know from tests that Monitor's guns could not pierce Warrior's armour plating, which consisted 4.5" of wrought iron, 18" of Teak, a further 5/8" wrought iron and finally 1 3/4" pine cladding. Warrior could pierce 6 inches of Monitor's turret armour plating at up to 500 yards. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As Nelson said 'nothing is certain in a sea fight above all others', but the balance of probability would again suggest a victory for Warrior."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I don't know how an 11-inch gun compares with a 110-pounder, but I doubt it's significantly heavier, and Warrior's armour certainly does not sound inferior to me.[/FONT]

The 11 inch gun fires 144-pound shot that may or may not be able to penetrate Warrior's armor. However, I'm not talking about the Monitor which is already on the bottom of the ocean by the time of this particular scenario. Rather I'm talking about the late war monitors built specifically to kill ironclads armed with 15 inch guns firing 440 pound shot which can punch through Warrior's armor and protected by 10 inch turret armor proof against anything the Warrior can dish out. As I mentioned, in 1860 or at the time of the Trent affair, the Warrior was beyond state of the art, but far less so in 1865.
 
Top