Why?
There's a Royal Navy outside of America's harbors, remember? How will Prussian, Dutch, etc. ships get there?
I do not think 67th Tiger will play armchair general, but suspect he will pursue the policy that Britain would have pursued.
An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War
- Thread starter 67th Tigers
- Start date
Why?
There's a Royal Navy outside of America's harbors, remember? How will Prussian, Dutch, etc. ships get there?
I do not think 67th Tiger will play armchair general, but suspect he will pursue the policy that Britain would have pursued.
MrP
Banned
Given his recent talk of upgrading the VnB ruleset, and, indeed, crafting his own rules, I'm almost a-tingle with the TW* battles we'll probably soon see.
* Trent War
MrP
Banned
Gah! This is taking us into the murky evil waters of social history, far from the happy shiny bits of history where men blew bits out of each other with small bits of fast metal!
I've got to stop undercutting my own arguments!
From what's come up when we've discussed Trent before, the nature of support in the North of the UK is less certain than is generally assumed, because all the pro-North stuff is written by these Christian chaps who - very reasonably - are against the evil that is slavery. In London (and cue the usual London is a weird place unlike the rest of the country thing
), there was considerable anger from rich and poor alike over the OTL Trent Affair - as intimated in 67th's deliberately period jingoistic/nationalistic/patriotic headline. ITTL there'll be more anger.I'm assuming he won't ignore the facts... which basically means that if the Brits want to win without a doubt, they'll blockade the US coast and bust the US blockade of the south. The RN can do it (I don't thing anyone disputes that). The only way to make the Brits really lose is to not have them blockade the US coast... which is why I doubt that 67th will do that. If the Brits simply toss some troops onto transports, run them across the Atlantic, and land them on the US shores, they run the risk of being militarily beaten, no matter how individually good their commanders and weapons are (the fortunes of war, etc.)... whereas, the blockade is a sure fire war winner. Which is why, frankly, I don't see any 'Trent war' as all that interesting, since the outcome is a foregone conclusion.... although, I suppose it would be interesting to the Brits on the board...
MrP
Banned
Nefarious social historian types! Your ilk is to blame for the soporific way I was "taught" about the Great War.
I'm assuming he won't ignore the facts... which basically means that if the Brits want to win without a doubt, they'll blockade the US coast and bust the US blockade of the south. The RN can do it (I don't thing anyone disputes that). The only way to make the Brits really lose is to not have them blockade the US coast... which is why I doubt that 67th will do that. If the Brits simply toss some troops onto transports, run them across the Atlantic, and land them on the US shores, they run the risk of being militarily beaten, no matter how individually good their commanders and weapons are (the fortunes of war, etc.)... whereas, the blockade is a sure fire war winner. Which is why, frankly, I don't see any 'Trent war' as all that interesting, since the outcome is a foregone conclusion.... although, I suppose it would be interesting to the Brits on the board...
Tbh, I'm interested for two reasons - neither the stereotypical "Teh Empyre will win!!111one" reason.
First, I am genuinely interested to see a comparison of British and Union tactics and strategy in this period (and 67th's well-read on both, AFAIK). Second, the post-war world might get explored in a sensible, non-ludicrous fashion. So neither will Harrison nor Turtledove enter the equation.
Thande
Donor
BURN HIM!!!Nefarious social historian types! Your ilk is to blame for the soporific way I was "taught" about the Great War.
Indeed.MrP said:
Could be a problem for Britain in the long run, of course. We need the US on side to enforce the Monroe Doctrine; the CS alone probably isn't enough.
MrP
Banned
I'd expect a post-war increase in USN spending, no matter the outcome on land, certainly. As Dave says, the RN is head and shoulders above the USN in this period, just as the USN is more numerous and better funded* today.
I'm not going to speculate too much about the post-war environment, however, since I'm just looking forward to the journey that is TTL.
* I just can't bring myself to say it's actually better. Must be some patriotism hidden in me yet.
67th Tigers
Banned
Even in 1860, US grain was less than 7% of supply, in 1861-2 it's something like pretty insignificant (less than re-exports)? The real dependence doesn't start until the late 1870's.
See: Martin P. Claussen, Peace Factors in Anglo-American Relations, 1861-1865, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Mar., 1940), pp. 511-522.
For a good piece on the subject (and on the weakness of the American banking system). I'm in agreement with Claussen, grain is primarily a factor for the Federal economy, Britain can simply get it from elsewhere. ITTL European harvests will be OTL.
67th Tigers
Banned
Monroe (a British ploy to stop other gobbling up SA) is likely dead in a CSA wins TL. I'd lay odds Britain would eventually take Argentina as a colony/ protectorate in a world were other Europeans are seeking Empire in the Latin Americas.
Where do you get the cite regarding grain supply?
I don't see it in the paper you reference.
He mentions how the UK didn't perceive a vulnerability to grain shipments, which isn't the same thing.
Doing the math I did earlier, if you take Britain's production as 98,168 bushels, then importing 37,000 bushels is more like 25% of Britain's grain.
Last edited:
So following the precedent set by 1812 is 'playing armchair general'? The British will presumerably attempt (and largely succeed) in establishling a close blockade. They can check what goes in and what goes out.
While there are considerable beneficial effects of crippling Union agriculture its not beneficial if it forces starvation at home. In 1812 the British blockaded the USA but New England was still permitted (and it might even be argued, encouraged) to export to Canada and Britain despite federal policy.
I consider it largely ridiculous because the effects are only ever considered one way. The devestating effect on Union agriculture of all this grain presumerably just rotting in the fields is rarely mentioned. I highly doubt people are going to rush to embrace financial ruin no matter how high their patriotic fervour. If the British are as desperate for grain as you seem to believe then it is hardly unprecedented for them to allow grain exports.
67th Tigers
Banned
A better overview is:
Morton Rothstein, America in the International Rivalry for the British Wheat Market, 1860-1914, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 3. (Dec., 1960), pp. 401-418.
but the only references to the early 1860's is the competition with Russia and Egypt for the British market
The numbers are something I came across a long time ago (along with the tendency of certain people to attribute all British grain imports as coming from America), but I'd have to find them again
Morton Rothstein, America in the International Rivalry for the British Wheat Market, 1860-1914, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 3. (Dec., 1960), pp. 401-418.
but the only references to the early 1860's is the competition with Russia and Egypt for the British market
The numbers are something I came across a long time ago (along with the tendency of certain people to attribute all British grain imports as coming from America), but I'd have to find them again
So the British will be humiliated when new dependence on Russian grain imports requires London to waive the restrictions imposed at the end of the Crimean War?
Also, since the Monroe Doctrine was simply a fig leaf to hide the fact that the US was going along with British policy I fail to see why the British would endanger the entire Latin American trade situation, which is certainly at risk if France, Spain and perhaps other European power starts gobbling up any former British trade partners.
Far more likely is that France's short-lived protectorate over Mexico collapses with the Franco-Prussian conflict in 1870, instead of 1867, and the British sit back, once again vindicated and perhaps enjoying a fire sale of sorts on French interests in Mexico.
Also, since the Monroe Doctrine was simply a fig leaf to hide the fact that the US was going along with British policy I fail to see why the British would endanger the entire Latin American trade situation, which is certainly at risk if France, Spain and perhaps other European power starts gobbling up any former British trade partners.
Far more likely is that France's short-lived protectorate over Mexico collapses with the Franco-Prussian conflict in 1870, instead of 1867, and the British sit back, once again vindicated and perhaps enjoying a fire sale of sorts on French interests in Mexico.
"During the "corn crisis" of 1846, the Crimean War years, and the first three years of the Civil War, shipments of American wheat and flour were heavy and made up a large proportiorl of British and continental imports, yet they fell to comparatively low levels during the intervening periods."
From the above source. No specifics, alas.
Hopefully you wont do a Turtledovian story where the US HATESORZ!!1! the British and the CSA just jumps on the chance to be Allied with them...
Assuming that things don't get too heated, the US-UK relations will cool down to at least a semi-cordial level.
Assuming that things don't get too heated, the US-UK relations will cool down to at least a semi-cordial level.
Last edited:
Yes. New England is supportive of the civil war but are they supportative of the war with Britain and are they going to embrace economic self-immolation if the British offer them a way out?
The Union as a whole probably won't. The federal government certainly won't. The people who are otherwise facing financial ruin will. Is the Union government in the middle of the civil war going to start deploying forces to prevent people trading grain? You don't see any political problem with this?