Not especially; after all, only 10% of grain grown at the time was exported.
It's a hardship, sure. But not the end of the world.
An Unfortunate Event: The Trent War
- Thread starter 67th Tigers
- Start date
Not especially; after all, only 10% of grain grown at the time was exported.
It's a hardship, sure. But not the end of the world.
We've already posited that America's gone crazy, and that Lincoln ignores the many reasonable people who said war with Britain would be disastrous.
So, ya.
Besides, it's not like the grain is grown in New England.
67th Tigers
Banned
Writing this from the lab computer, overwise I'd post refs.
However, a quick google showed that roughly 25-30% of the British consumption was from abroad. Roughly 1/6th of this was imported from the US, roughly 1/4 each from Russia and Prussia and a few of nations taking up less than 10% each (France 9%, Denmark 6%).
The primary source of British grain (about 2/3rd) was the Baltic trade, much of the rest was split between the Americas (mainly USA) and the Mediterranian (mainly France).
It also showed that 1862 was a good season for the home market and the price of grain fell by a third in 1862, returning to normal during the 1863 season as all of Europe experinced a harsh frost and lower yields.
However, a quick google showed that roughly 25-30% of the British consumption was from abroad. Roughly 1/6th of this was imported from the US, roughly 1/4 each from Russia and Prussia and a few of nations taking up less than 10% each (France 9%, Denmark 6%).
The primary source of British grain (about 2/3rd) was the Baltic trade, much of the rest was split between the Americas (mainly USA) and the Mediterranian (mainly France).
It also showed that 1862 was a good season for the home market and the price of grain fell by a third in 1862, returning to normal during the 1863 season as all of Europe experinced a harsh frost and lower yields.
I'm sure this TL is going to take account of the fact that the British Empire was at the absolute height of its power versus other countries at the time of the ACW. IIRC the British Empire disposed of 25% of world GDP, whilst the US was about 9% (and I think this is the USA + the CSA put together, although I'm not sure).
Although the situation is not as extreme, it reminds me somewhat of the USA versus Japan in WW2. Yes the Japanese could win victory after victory, but in the end the USA's sheer economic power and productive capacity was going to tell.
I do hope that anyone claiming that the economic disparity in this conflict is irrelevant, has some solid arguments to back up that contention.
Although the situation is not as extreme, it reminds me somewhat of the USA versus Japan in WW2. Yes the Japanese could win victory after victory, but in the end the USA's sheer economic power and productive capacity was going to tell.
I do hope that anyone claiming that the economic disparity in this conflict is irrelevant, has some solid arguments to back up that contention.
Bull.
America's Yamato Spirit will prevail, and Lincoln shall establish a Greater North American Prosperity Sphere.
While I agree with you if this is a total war, it's not clear to me why it would be.
Last edited:
It was when British distraction and French arrogance led to the Russian-Prussian intervention on behalf of the United States, just as a group of mysterious figures calling themselves the Remington Men offering Lincoln a futuristic rifle appeared outside of Youngstown, Ohio...
Perhaps a divine wind will protect the USA?
Because people from the future travel back and tell Lord Palmerston what's going to happen otherwise?
And this is what Lord Palmerston's face will look like when they tell him that the British Empire will collapse, the USA will be the world's only superpower and Britain will become the USA's poodle:
Followed shortly by: Tbh, I'm interested for two reasons - neither the stereotypical "Teh Empyre will win!!111one" reason.
the problem with a "Trent War" is that it takes place fairly early in the ACW, long before the Union had those large experienced armies and generals... if you could somehow get the Brits to attack during 1864-65, then it'd be more interesting, since the Union does now have those big experienced armies and generals, plus they're fighting on home ground. But the blockade would still strangle the US and win the war anyway....
economic realities will force just that... both sides trade with each other too much for hostilities to go on ad infinitum. However, this would probably kill any chance of the US ever allying with the UK for a long while. In WWI, I'd imagine you'd have the US gleefully selling whatever they could to the allies at the highest prices they could get, and watching the war from a comfortable distance.
Of course, you have to wonder just how valuable an ally the Americas would be anyway. With a CSA struggling with social/economic problems due to the decline in slavery/cotton one crop, and a USA that was just bullied into majorly losing a war and having a big chunk of itself hacked off to make a rival country, I wonder if either nation would be worth allying with. Frankly, I wonder if both wouldn't become rather like Mexico... prone to rebellions and having various regions continually threatening the authority of the central government. The CSA would be fractious from the start (SC threatened to secede from the Confederacy several times), and the USA just showed that it couldn't keep a big part of it from breaking away. In any event, it's pretty clear that any chance of becoming an important nation in the world just went away...
This is a very short step to a balkanised North America you know . If there's a POD , from 1845 onwards, to Balkanise America into dozens of France size states , and your assertions are justified , then the Trent Affair could be one such POD .
Infact , AFAIK , it's the only possible post 1820 or 1830 POD , short of Yellowstone Exploding , that could effectively cripple any chance of the USA being a Great Power .
But somehow , I suspect that we might simply end up with a hyper expansionistic America either way after the British Empire eventually weakens . Speaking of which - was there anyway that the British Empire could remain the world's most powerful at all by this POD ?
It might be interesting to see a Balkanised America with a Federal British Imperium - two AH clinches merged into 1 !
Infact , AFAIK , it's the only possible post 1820 or 1830 POD , short of Yellowstone Exploding , that could effectively cripple any chance of the USA being a Great Power .
But somehow , I suspect that we might simply end up with a hyper expansionistic America either way after the British Empire eventually weakens . Speaking of which - was there anyway that the British Empire could remain the world's most powerful at all by this POD ?
It might be interesting to see a Balkanised America with a Federal British Imperium - two AH clinches merged into 1 !
Slobber, drool...
Anyway, perhaps restrict/prevent the formation of Germany?
[Susano]
[/Susano]That's a third cliché...
Perhaps no Scramble for Africa?
67th Tigers
Banned
64-5 is just as bad, the armies are spent and no longer capable of maneouvre. The campaigns of 1863 are the real height of "operational art" during that war, Sheridan's Valley Campaign excepted.
However, a question for the board members.
I'm planning on McClellan ridding himself of his more troublesome Generals by sending them north (with a Butterfly that his Army never forms "Corps" in Feb-Mar 62, since the Corps were simply to put McClellan Democrats over the Republicans who were the majority of his senior officers), would those more familiar with his 10 Division Commanders care to nominate 4 (say) to get rid of?
The Confederate armies maybe... the Union ones were larger, stronger, better equipped, and more experienced than they ever had been. Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan were in charge, the best of the Union generals. Of course, by 64-5, the writing on the wall was pretty obvious, and it's doubtful that the Brits would bother to intervene to help the CSA so late in the war....Incidentally, this scenario reminds me of the old "Age of Rifles" DOS based game... the expansion pack to it had two scenarios with the Brits and Confederates working together against the Union. The first one had the enemies attacking a Union port town somewhere; I found it impossible to win that one as the Union, losing the entire army except for a single unit heavily forted up someplace that proved to be damn near invincible. The second one had the two enemies (rather foolishly, I thought) assaulting a heavily fortified hill somewhere south of DC. This one was loads of fun, with lots of cavalry on both sides, Union artillery in forts hitting damn near everything on the map, and a secondary battle off to the north that proved vital to the main attack... whichever side won that battle could reinforce the main battle for the hill and likely win the scenario. As the Union, I never failed to win this one... between the massed artillery on the hill and the Union infantry packed into trenches below it, the enemies just couldn't break through the lines....
67th Tigers
Banned
At the same time, Union Regiments were refusing to charge etc. The Union recruitment problem meant that they ended up with a bunch of "old lags" and a bunch of guys (such as the Hvy Arty) who'd spent the war goldbricking in Washington and Baltimore and were green as my windproof smock.
However, of the four intervention crises (Trent is the second, the most serious was the third, triggered by the Emancipation Proclamation), the last was in Summer 1863. In Autumn of that year intervention was finally ruled out.
I have Age of Rifles and those scenarios are awful!
67th Tigers
Banned
I found them unlikely, but the second one was a blast to play, IMO.... sadly, I can't get AoR to play on my computers now, since they're so old. I should find me an old laptop someplace with Win95 still installed on it, so I can play all my old DOS games....
problem is, during this time frame, the Union armies are led by McClellan/Hooker/Burnside/Meade... put any of these up against about any British general, and you don't have much of a war.
Not that there would be much of a war anyway, once the blockade gets going....
67th Tigers
Banned
I have a lot of respect for McClellan, but he had a fatal flaw, he believed a lot of crappy intelligence reports and pushed too much power down to his Corps Commanders (who were his political favorites). Some of his Operational movements are masterful, far superior to Sherman in 1864.
IMHO, take out the chaff of his army (which I intend to) and he could be a great commander. A smaller Army, under McClellan without a Corps organisation IMHO would be a more potent military force than the bloated AoP of the Peninsula campaign.