Britain declares war on the Union in 1862....

67th Tigers said:
An attempt to bang together a timeline.

"A Very Different 1862"

Jan 62: London receives Lincoln's refusal to release the prisoners. The country is in uproar. Palmerston authorises the activation of the Militia, approves the plan to allow the Volunteer Army to send volunteers and sanctions the Particular Service Squadrons to sail. Canadian Militia are called out en mass, around 25% of the Canadian Beat Militia respond (this is roughly historical).

Feb 62: Goldsborough is no fool. He abandons the blockade and ships as many men to New England as possible, concentrating his forces at Hampton Roads in the Chesapeake. Milne hits him there, the Battle of Hampton Roads is a major British victory. Border raids occur around Canada. Fort Detroit and Fort Montgomery (neither of which are well garrisoned) fall to the British. Fort Monroe comes under naval bombardment from British armoured warships, although reduced, the Fort refuses surrender, and Milne hasn't the land forces for a ground assault. He withdraws, leaving a blockading squadron. In New York, USS Monitor is commissioned and remains in NY harbour, expecting a British attack. Grant starts his penetration of the Mississippi and Cumberland Rivers, capturing Nashville.

Mar 62: With the forces evacuated from the South, the Union forms the Army of the St. Lawrence, Ambrose Burnside commanding, with Sherman as his second. They move north, invest and overwhelm Fort Montgomery with severe casualties. The British blockade of the Union is completed. News starts to reach other outposts. The British and American West African Squadrons fight an action that is essentially a series of single ship duels, resulting in Americas first naval victory of the war, although the Americans are forced to quit and steam for America. McClellan's Peninsula campaign is nigh on impossible, Fort Monroe has fallen to Johnston's Army of Northern Virginia, instead

April 62: The St Lawrence opens to navigation, tens of thousands of British regulars pour into Montreal. The Union Army of the St. Lawrence advances in Canada, seeking to cut the Beauharnois Canal by aiming straight for Montreal. Burnside's 50,000 man Army meets 25,000 British regulars, plus a similiar number of Canadian militia and is repulsed making a series of bloody frontal assaults at British prepared positions. Burnside withdraws from Canada towards Lake Champlain, but loses a considerable number of troops during the march to British cavalry. American newspapers consider the horror of the battle shocking.

USS Galena is commissioned, and joins Monitor in defending NY. Lincoln calls for 300,000 new enlistments, they start trickling in as states form new Volunteer Regiments.

In the West, Shiloh does occur on schedule, however, with no possibility of a naval attack on New Orleans, Johnston is able to spare an additional 15,000 men for the assault, and has gunboats on the Tennessee, while the Union is a Division weaker than in OTL. Hardee's Corps flanks the Federals and Grant is reduced to an orbis against the river, Wallace's Division is beaten off. On the 2nd day, Buell's Army does not cross the Tennessee, but rather covers the withdrawal of the remainder of Grant's Army, before CS gunboats cut them off. Shiloh is a stunning victory for the CS, with 10,000 casualties to 30,000 Yankees (mostly captured when they couldn't cross the Tennessee). The remaining Federals fall back to Nashville. Johnston pursues and the Union withdraws from Nashville.

In the Eastern theatre, the other Johnston is sent as special advisor to Milne, leaving General Lee in command of the Army of Northern Virginia (well, I had too....). Lee decides to settle this war by invading the north and makes his preparations.

The CO, Vancouver, blockades San Francisco.

May 62: Lee attacks McClellan's Army of the Potomac around Manassas junction in what history would call the 2nd battle of Manassas. McClellan's Army is dispersed, trying to defend all axis of approach to Washington, and his 60,000 man wing at Manassas is facing an Army of Northern Virginia reinforced by forces previously containing the Union in the Carolinas and Georgia. Lee's 90,000 men smash Pope's Wing, but Lee is not able to convert this into the complete destruction of Pope. With Pope out of the way, Lee moves to invade the North.

Johnston, in talks with Milne, agrees to have the CS support a British amphibious assault on Baltimore, while the AoP is busy with Lee in June.

In the West, the other Johnston decides to invade Kentucky. A detachment under Bragg recaptures Forts Henry and Donaldson. Johnston advances on Bowling Green, and engages Buells Army of the Ohio (which has incorporated the remains of Grant's Army of the Tennessee), while Beauregard takes a detachment and seizes Munfordville. While tactically Buell does better than Johnston, he is massively outnumbered, and on hearing Munfordville (his line of supply and retreat) has fallen, is forced to surrender his Army, ending the campaign for Kentucky.

The Army of Nova Scotia (20,000 regulars and 30,000 militia), noting that Maine did not decided to seceed, advances to Portland, and secures the Eastern terminus of the Canadian Grand Trunk railway. Williams detachs off an "Army of Michigan" (20,000 regulars and 10,000 militia volunteers) to campaign in the area of Detroit, leaving him with just 20,000 regulars and 30,000 militia in the vinicity of Montreal, and just 20,000 militia on the Niagara peninsula.

The governor of Manitoba makes an adventure into Minnesota, with a column of just 4,000, including just one regular British regiment but many French speaking Canadians and Indians.

An Army arrives at San Francisco from India (30,000). Find the port defences too tough, the Army lands 5 miles up the coast, and takes San Francisco by land.

Monitor, Galena and a number of small Wooden ships sortee against the British at Long Island Sound. The British, aware of Monitor, have placed an Armoured Frigate covering this approach, HMS Defence, in addition to several wooden warships (including 2 Steam Liners and a Large Frigate). The Monitor finds she can't hurt Defence, while the same is true the other way around. However, after 2 hours, a 68 pounder ball from Defence strikes Monitors thinly armoured deck and pierces, an hour later Monitor flounders due to taking on too much water. Galena finds her armour totally ineffective. HMS Queen rakes her for 20 minutes before finally boarding and taking her a prize.

June 62

Burnside has rebuilt his Army. He now has 60,000 men, mostly new recruits who've been in the Army 6 weeks. He doubts his ability to take Montreal, and so digs in. Burnside and Williams face each other off.

The Army of Nova Scotia finds that the people of Maine aren't too averse to the occupation. They even manage to raise a brigade of local troops (mostly from the garrison that surrendered). The Maine born Joseph Chamberlin is appointed Colonel of the King's Maine Regiment, attached directly to the Army as they start to head further west, amazed by the lack of resistance. New Hampshire falls with hardly a shot being fired, and it isn't until they reach the Green Mountains of Vermont that raids on their supply lines by local partisans stop their advance.

Lee's invasion of the north begins. Lee immediately suffers when many of his men refuse to invade the north, reducing his Army to 75,000 men. Crossing the Blue Ridge near South Mountain, and sweeping away McClellan's detachments, he is intercepted near Sharpsburg. The Battle of Sharpsburg is a resounding Confederate Victory,since McClellan is actually slightly outnumbered (75,000 CSA vs 70,000 USA) and considerably outgeneralled, Longstreet's Corps makes a wide right flanking maneouvre, enveloping the Federal left, while Stuart's Cavalry Corps moves to cut off the retreat. McClellan withdraws up the Hagerstown Pike, consolidating to the North with only 40,000 men. He then moves East towards Gettysburg where he hopes to turn south and reunite his army.

Meanwhile, at Baltimore, Milne's squadron reduces the defences of the Harbour and he lands Marines and troops, 6,000 of them. Wool's Division moves to meet them in fierce house to house fighting, but his superior numbers (10,000) are without combat experience. The British seize Baltimore.

Lee wastes no time. Detaching a wing of his Army under Jackson (20,000) to pursue McClellan, he takes the remaining 45,000 towards Washington. Jackson engages in another battle with McClellan at Hagerstown, with McClellan trying to entrain his army. McClellan gets 20,000 out, while the remaining 20,000 are casualties or captured by Jackson. Knowing he can do no more good here. Jackson marchs east to rejoin Lee.

Lee heads for Baltimore, linking up with the British, from there they advance towards Washington.

July 62:

The Siege of Washington

Washington is extremely well fortified, and is considered to be tougher than Sevastapol was. The British however know how to conduct a seige, and they're brought along a large siege train. The Siege of Washington will continue for several months yet.

In the West, Johnston decides he won't be upstaged by Lee. He decides to make not one, but two offensives. One up the Mississippi to St. Louis and one up the Ohio to Cinncinnati (under Beauregard). Given the confused state of the Union forces in the theatre, and the new riverine gunboats the CS has purchased off the British he is wildly successful.

August 62

The Siege of Washington continues, McClellan withdraws accross the Susquehanna, trying to consolidate and gather all the men he can.

Meanwhile, the Nova Scotian Army has crossed Vermont and Burnside has decided the time is right to move on them. . He orders a concentration against them, with his Army. Burnsides 75,000 are confronted by 15,000 British regulars and 25,000 Canadians. They even include a small number of Americans who've enlisted. Burnside shows he's learnt his lessons well, but despite inflicting more casualties than he receives (8,000 British vs 5,000 Americans) he is forced to quit the field to avoid encirclement when Williams Army pursues him. 8 days later another battle occurs in the Hudson River valley, with Burnside on the defensive. He stops the British at the cost of 20,000 men (vs 20,000 Brits), and withdraws further to cover New York City and Boston.

September 62

Washington falls. Despite everything, the US still do not surrender and Lincoln, now in New York, vows to continue fighting.

Johnston reaches and captures Pittsburgh, cutting the US in two.

All that remains is the final act. Since the US won't surrender, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston must be taken.

USS New Ironsides is commissioned at Philadelphia

October 62

Milne leads 7 armoured frigates into Boston Harbour, at the head of the British fleet. He reduces Boston and raids the Harbour, taking many prizes and firing the remainder before withdrawing.

New York explodes. The war has always been deeply unpopular there and the Mayor of NYC declares New York an Open City, effectively secceeding and avoiding a British attack.

November 62

Lincoln, on board USS New Ironsides, meets Admiral Milne and General Lee off Philadelphia. He offers the surrender of the United States.

In the coming negotiations, the CS gain recognition, and include the New Mexico, Arizonia, Indian Territories, as well as Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and the return of Western Virginia.

The US recognises the independence of California and the other western provinces (under effective suzerainity of the British), the Independence of Indian territories around the Dakotas and Minnesota (again, under effective British suzerainity), New York City, and the annexation of New England by the British.

Long term, the US never becomes a Great Power. Denied the west, and the money it brings in there was never the economic draw to bring in new settlers. In 1914, the US population was only 24 million, against 25 million in Greater California and 31 million (including the now freed Blacks in the CSA following the 1867 ruling that every Negro child born after that date was considered Free).

Ok I won't argue with the sequence of events as I can see it going somewhat that way myself... but I think your treaty is way too harsh.....
The Confederacy may want to punish the Union ( though I think that is a bit doubtful) The British would not. the British for one would not want to annex terr. that contained a considerable hostile population. They are likely to confine themselves to adding sparsely populated periferral terr. or strategically valuable real estate.

thus I would modify itas follows:

Confederate gains... no change east of the Mississippi from what you suggest, though I think there would be substantial objection to the annexation of Maryland within the Union. Confederate and British forces are in place though and the Ohio makes a nice natural frontier. West of the Mississippi...why add Missouri and all those pro Union settlers when you are going to have your hands full with pro union sympathizers in E. Tennessee Kentucky and W. Virginia. Make the border the 37th parallel west to the Colorado instead.
Compensate them with a slice of southern California instead to give them a port on the Pacific, say you draw the border west ot New Mexico territory through southern California from the point where the Colorado crosses the 35th parallel to a point on the coast where it crosses the 33rd. This gives them the very good harbour of San Diego. The Ohio River should be demilitarized and open to navigation.

For the brits....annex only Washington Terr. and the northern tier of states north of the 46th eastward to and including the UP. The terr. is for the most part sparsely populated. Add the claimed bits of northern Maine and perhaps Washington county in that state. and a slice of Vermont and NY north of 44.30 as far as the 75th and then SW to and incl. Jefferson county. This pushes the border farther away from Montreal and the population centres on the St. Lawrence and gives them complete control of the St. Lawrence River and the the harbour of Sackett's Harbour on Lake Ontario.
Demilitarization of the Lakes is re-instated as per the treaty ending the War of 1812. (Control of the St. Lawrence allows the Brits to reinforce Naval forces on the lakes from bases on the Atlantic Seaboard if need be and removes this potential threat on the apart of the Reduced Union.

the Union may then remain in tact between the 37th and the 46th or the terr. west of the Rockies could be separated as a separate Californian Republic under British protection. Depends on how Nasty you want to make the Br. bargaining position. I think the Brits would eventually lose control of the West coast parts of this new Protectorate and it devolves into the Federal Republic of California and a more overtly Br. controlled Confederation of Utah in the interior ( border the 119th degree of longitude south to Mono lake and then SE to the Colorado at the 35th. The Confederacy may or may not get the lands south of the Colorado (and west of the Rockies) at this point. California becomes economically associated with Britain ( a la Argentina) but largely independent politically.


In the aftermath... immigration patterns will most certainly change. British emmigration will be directed away from the reduced Union to the CSA, the expanded BNA...California and Australia and perhaps southern South America (Argentina). the Union is reduced but will still become a major power. the growing industry of the NE will still attract some immigration as will the available farmlands on the reduced prairie holdings. Conflict with the plains Indians is likely to go differently ITTL. they may find refuge even in the plains of BNA or in BR. protected Utah.

Given the role of the Fr. Canadians and Indians in the west...they are consulted from the start ITTL before the HBC lands are purchased and the Riel rebellion is avoided, an enlarged Manitoba ( encompassing the entire Red River basin and parts of NW Ontario and NW Minn. )is admitted on equal terms peacefully to the Canadian Confederation in in 1868. Because of the influence of American settlers remaining in the UP...the northern districts of UC are separated and amalgamated with the UP and the remaining parts of NE Minn. that were annexed to form the 6th prov. of the Canadian Confederacy ( call it North Ontario or probably Algoma since its legislature is likely to be at Sault Ste. Marie). Settlement of the prairies occurs earlier and Wash. Terr., annexed to BC, is likely to be settled under Br. auspices this TL. The northern districts are separated as a separate terr. in compensation to the HBC this TL and will eventually be amalgamated with the Yukon or even Alaska as it is likely to be the Br. who obtain it for the Dominion from Russia during the early Balkan conflicts of the 1870's.
 
Last edited:
67th Tigers

I must admit I'm in two minds. Having seen what you're said before I respect your vastly greater knowledge of the period. However I’m uncertain that things would be as quick and decisive as you suggest. A bit surprised that the allies have such a strong numerical superiority just about everywhere, even give the losses the union takes and resulting poor quality of the new recruits that have to be continually fed into the grinder.

Also, for such a short war, how dramatic the peace terms were. Was thinking of a possible independent California but only after a much longer and bitterer struggle. Furthermore, considering the historical attitude of the US to Britain, especially in the NE I would have expected more bitter reaction and some degree of rallying to the flag, so to speak. Also while I would expect considerable unrest and New York City being willing to surrender to avoid a siege, especially for an unpopular war, I wouldn't think that would led to succession afterwards? [Mind you the problems of powder access could play a big part in the rapid defeat of the Union. Given the amount of firearms armies of the time would be using they would run very short very quickly.]

I would agree that given the loss of so much land, especially the south and Pacific coast, the US would see a serious disruption in its development and would probably still only be a regional power a couple of generations later. However I think it would still have a markedly higher population and probably be the single most powerful state in N America. [Although probably outclassed by an alliance of others, let alone if Britain was added to the mix].

Otherwise, from my knowledge of the period sounds fairly accurate in terms of possibilities. The US was wise to abandon the southern blockage ASAP once they thing war was going to develop and this would be a real boost to the CSA. Both in terms of moral and its resulting strength due to trade access being restored. Not sure that Britain would be willing to work that closely with the CSA. Given its opposition to slavery and that Britain will be making a clear point it is at war because of the Unions behaviour I would have thought the British government would probably try and keep some distance from the CSA. Although it might be that once committed to the conflict, possibly pushed by the queen, Palmeston might decide to go for broke and get as many allies on board as possible and worry about the reaction in the UK later.

Steve
 
I doubt Britain would want New England, Maine, even a substantial part of it is one thing but New England as a whole seems way over the top.

On the subject of Missouri, the CSA would want it because it was recognised as a CSA state (and enough of the government was CSA friendly that such recognition was rather legitimate).

Missouri had full representation within the CSA congress and were (I am told) big supporters of Davis within that body.

If the CSA is going to push for Maryland I think they have to push for Missouri as well, although they could possibly agree to a territory swap with north of the river remaining in the Union in exchange for the loss of Kansas to the Union (The Platte and then the Colorado makes very attractive border) although I guess they would need to somehow get the Missouri state government to agree to that (give them Kansas maybe?).
 
Just a quick look at Britain's war aims, in the context of the US being particualrly troublesome.

Basically, they will want to restrict the problems the US can cause in the future. This has a couple of aspects:

Restrict the theatres they can make trouble in. An America with no trans-continental Powers is a much more contained threat to the Empire, thus, keeping the US east of the Rockies is a major goal.

Make Canada more defensible. This has two aspects.

Ensure control of the St Lawrence by getting Maine, Vermont and upstate New York.

Ensure domination of the Great Lakes. The US has demonstrated that they will not keep demilitarisation treaties, ans it is unfortuanetely unfeasible to deny them access to the lakes at all. The only thing to do is too take as much of Michigan and Wisconsin as possible to deny them anchorage.

Reward minor allies. The Indians are going to want something in the North, idealy they would want the 42nd parallel and parts north, but they're not going to get it as there are to many settlers there. 46th and north possibly.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I have my doubts too, but I intended an "anti-Conway's 1862".

In fact, on rereading it (I did it in a hurry, wanting to get out and go running), I wonder about a few things upself, but I'll explain my reasoning.

1. Union soldiers. The timeline starts with about 350,000 Union troops, which is roughly historical. A normal state OTL recruits 2,000 per month on average. Ohio, Illinois and NY considerably more (NY 5 times the norm!), about half of these would desert or be discharged within a month. Natural wastage (even with no combat) was around 1% per month. NY thus adds 5,000 men per month, the New England states around 3,000, the same for both Illinois and Ohio.

2. My main doubts are about the Montreal front. If Burnside does better and reaches the Beauharnois Canal then the British strategic situation is made much worse. It's the equivalent of the CS losing Mississippi. The British won't be able to dominate the Lakes, nor will the US.

Either way, if Burnside was to "go a-Viking", a Cavalry raid might reach the Beauharnois and blow a lock, which would slow the British, and once fixed force the British to disperse a screen over the area.

3. I did intend for no Shiloh, but the tactical conditions were similar enough I couldn't imagine Grant withdrawing. However, the New Orleans gunboats and the garrisons were freed up by the RN smashing the USN. This allowed the CS to effectively isolate Grant and cut him off. Grant had put himself in an incredibly precarious position OTL.

Once Grant was effectively destroyed, I realised Johnston was totally unfettered. He could march at will.

4. I had no idea what to do with the Army of the Potomac. The Peninsula Campaign was obviously untenable with no Fort Monroe. Defending Washington was McClellan's fetish, so I thought sending vast forces North unlikely, especially when the Army of Northern Virginia didn't suffer through the Seven Days, and is reinforced with forces freed up from containment operations along the Atlantic Coast. I had them hunkering down and digging in around Washington.

Lincoln OTL kept a large portion of the AoP back from McClellan, thus he only took 3 Corps to this Sharpsburg (what OTL he took to the Peninsula), plus Popes 2 Corps. He's thus a small Corps weaker than OTL, while Lee is a (double strength) Corps stronger than OTL, and has an organised Cavalry Corps (which the AoP still doesn't have). When I looked at the Antietam map, the CS gain two new options. A frontal assault, or sending Longstreet on a right flanking envelopement, cutting off McClellans line of retreat and communication to Washington.

I now think McClellan probably shouldn't have fought here if he'd been cautious, but the lure of a Sharpsburg was a strong lure....

5. California wasn't that strongly in the US camp. They provided no support for the war effort (the California Regiments were raised in Masschutetts so that every state was a contributer). There was a short lived Californian Republic (25 days) proclaimed by 33 US Citizens living in Sonoma (with backing from the then Captain Fremont), the 33 members of which declared themselves annexed at the start of the Mexican-American War. With the war over Mexico conceeded the territory at the negotiating table. The inhabitants are still Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_and_the_Civil_War
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Notably, there apparently were plans to seceed and form a "Pacific Republic" with Oregon territory according to Wikipedia
 
Alratan said:
Ensure domination of the Great Lakes. The US has demonstrated that they will not keep demilitarisation treaties, ans it is unfortuanetely unfeasible to deny them access to the lakes at all. The only thing to do is too take as much of Michigan and Wisconsin as possible to deny them anchorage.

There were 1.5 million people in those two states in 1860.

The upper peninsula of Michigan had 21,000 people on it, so talking that (along With Minnesota) would deny the US access to Lake Superior and allow fortifications to be built to keep any ships in Lake Michigan stuck there.

The British would also be able to isolate all forces in lake Huron and Lake Erie form each other, so it becomes a question of whether British production on Lake Ontario (which would be secure if the British take Sackets harbour), Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Superior could out done American production on Lake Erie and Lake Huron in detail.

The British might also want to push a lopsided treaty which prevents US militarization of the lakes but allows the British to keep a fleet in being there to give them a head start.

It wouldn’t be as effective as taking Wisconsin and Michigan but it would involve taking far less Americans into Canada and it would be more defensible (once Britain has Michigan and Wisconsin they have a far more exposed border with the US.

Reward minor allies. The Indians are going to want something in the North, idealy they would want the 42nd parallel and parts north, but they're not going to get it as there are to many settlers there. 46th and north possibly.

In the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska there are 33,000 people and 28,000 of those are in Nebraska.

Britain would have no problem with a 40th parallel west of Iowa; if the CSA moves up slightly to around there then the US stops at 97 w and that gives the British a huge amount of space that the US has to cross before they can get to the British ports of the west coast.
 
Darkling said:
There were 1.5 million people in those two states in 1860.

The upper peninsula of Michigan had 21,000 people on it, so talking that (along With Minnesota) would deny the US access to Lake Superior and allow fortifications to be built to keep any ships in Lake Michigan stuck there.

The British would also be able to isolate all forces in lake Huron and Lake Erie form each other, so it becomes a question of whether British production on Lake Ontario (which would be secure if the British take Sackets harbour), Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Superior could out done American production on Lake Erie and Lake Huron in detail.

The British might also want to push a lopsided treaty which prevents US militarization of the lakes but allows the British to keep a fleet in being there to give them a head start.

It wouldn’t be as effective as taking Wisconsin and Michigan but it would involve taking far less Americans into Canada and it would be more defensible (once Britain has Michigan and Wisconsin they have a far more exposed border with the US.



In the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska there are 33,000 people and 28,000 of those are in Nebraska.

Britain would have no problem with a 40th parallel west of Iowa; if the CSA moves up slightly to around there then the US stops at 97 w and that gives the British a huge amount of space that the US has to cross before they can get to the British ports of the west coast.

The assumption here is that the British would connive with the Slavocracy of theCSA to enforce a punishing treaty on the Union...I just don't see that. Until the CSA moves to phase out slavery I think the Brits are going to want to distance themselves from the CSA and mend fences with the Union.

I didn't realize that California was so divided politically.. it seems likely that a Pacific Republic will form out of this that forms economic ties at least to the CSA and Britain. I doubt the Union has been able to send forces west ITTL to secure the state.

Missouri...even though the government may be pro CSA.. I think the general concensus has always been that the citizenry, like kentucky and W.V were decidedly pro Union. All these border states could very well elect pro Union gov'ts and secede from the CSA to rejoin the Union at a later date while Britain distances itself from the CSA and looks the other way. It could be the impetus the CSA needs to phase out slavery.

I don't think the Brits want to see an ubber CSA nor do I think they want to go annexing terr as far south as as 40 or 42 if they want to mend things politically with the Union.

Annexing Wisconsin or LP Michigan are, as posted by Darkling, simply untenable.
however a fortification (a la Citatdel Hill in Halifax) at say, St. Ignace, overlooking the straits of Makinaw should prove sufficient to controlling access from Michigan to Huron. Until the railroads are built through the shield...Immigrants to the Canadian prairies should have unfettered access by steamer from Collingwood and Midland to the lakehead at Ft. William and Duluth ...and thence the Red River valley.
 

The Sandman

Banned
What was British trade with the Union like in the early 1860s? That might also have an effect on this TL.

Assuming that the Confederacy makes the same bone-headed moves as in OTL (destroying the cotton, issuing letters of marque, etc.), the British might not find the prospect of an independent Confederacy, one also necessarily expansionist due to the need to find new cotton-growing land as the older areas were depleted, to be in their best interests.

What they might go for is simply weakening the Union enough to hurt it, while still allowing it to crush the CSA. Then simply express support for guerrilla warfare in the Confederacy (provide some money, supplies, etc.) A North America divided into two countries, one a vengeful industrial colossus and the other an avaricious slavocracy, would be dangerous to the Empire. A United States preoccupied with a guerrilla war in its southern half would not be.
 
AuroraBorealis said:
Missouri...even though the government may be pro CSA.. I think the general concensus has always been that the citizenry, like kentucky and W.V were decidedly pro Union. All these border states could very well elect pro Union gov'ts and secede from the CSA to rejoin the Union at a later date while Britain distances itself from the CSA and looks the other way. It could be the impetus the CSA needs to phase out slavery.

The government of Missouri being pro CSA is the important point, obviously they were able to sufficiently gerrymander the state elections to get a CSA government in charge.

The state population may become self selective with the most pro Union moving out of the state leaving the CSA friendly politicians in an even more favourable position.

Give it a decade or two and things would probably stabilise to the point where people are content to keep the status quo ("rejoin the Union? and give up our states freedom to federal overlords in Washington? I think not").

At the end of the day the CSA officially claimed those states and in any scenario that sees the US badly beaten they are going to press those claims.

I don't think the Brits want to see an ubber CSA nor do I think they want to go annexing terr as far south as as 40 or 42 if they want to mend things politically with the Union.

The British will have an interest in a CSA which is strong enough to be a credible threat to the US and thus keep the US from getting to aggressive with their northern neighbours.

As for where Britain wants to set the border wets of the Mississippi to the Rockies, I didn’t say they would set it at 40 only that there isn’t any large amount of settlers making that a bad plan as was suggested up thread.

Taking that territory does come with the disadvantage of being far form the sea and annoying the US (although less than taking settled territory) but it also brings nice arable land and mines into British control and gives the UK west coast a very valuable strategic buffer from the US.

Annexing Wisconsin or LP Michigan are, as posted by Darkling, simply untenable.
however a fortification (a la Citatdel Hill in Halifax) at say, St. Ignace, overlooking the straits of Makinaw should prove sufficient to controlling access from Michigan to Huron. Until the railroads are built through the shield...Immigrants to the Canadian prairies should have unfettered access by steamer from Collingwood and Midland to the lakehead at Ft. William and Duluth ...and thence the Red River valley.

Exactly, it achieves mostly the same end but at a fraction of the cost (in stability by moving a hostile population into British borders, in annoying the US and in increasing the border to be defended) it is a most 19th century British solution.
 
Darkling said:
There were 1.5 million people in those two states in 1860.
Far too many, you're right.

The upper peninsula of Michigan had 21,000 people on it, so talking that (along With Minnesota) would deny the US access to Lake Superior and allow fortifications to be built to keep any ships in Lake Michigan stuck there.

The British would also be able to isolate all forces in lake Huron and Lake Erie form each other, so it becomes a question of whether British production on Lake Ontario (which would be secure if the British take Sackets harbour), Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Superior could out done American production on Lake Erie and Lake Huron in detail.
So taking say, from 43 N in Michigan would be best, as that would leave Lake Huron entirely British, and I think wouldn't be pushing things too far. As of 1860 81,646 out of Michigan's 734,507 inhabitants live north of the 43 N line, which means it is quite possible for Canada to absorb it. This means you could get Huron, Ontario and Superior entirely British, leaving Eerie contested, and with Northern Wisconsin in British hands, say down to the 44,30, then half of the Lake Michigan shoreline is British.

The British might also want to push a lopsided treaty which prevents US militarization of the lakes but allows the British to keep a fleet in being there to give them a head start.
They could try, but I don't see this going through.

It wouldn’t be as effective as taking Wisconsin and Michigan but it would involve taking far less Americans into Canada and it would be more defensible (once Britain has Michigan and Wisconsin they have a far more exposed border with the US.
As I say above, there were relatively few Americans north of 43 in Michigan.

In the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska there are 33,000 people and 28,000 of those are in Nebraska.

Britain would have no problem with a 40th parallel west of Iowa; if the CSA moves up slightly to around there then the US stops at 97 w and that gives the British a huge amount of space that the US has to cross before they can get to the British ports of the west coast.
That seems like something the British would be very happy with, and even better, it can just be given straight to the natives without having to worry about administering it.

As a side note, the British governement would be very grateful to the US for poducing a useful census a couple of years earlier to let it know exactly how many settlers and the like it was taking on per annexed county :D
 
Last edited:
67th Tigers said:
I have my doubts too, but I intended an "anti-Conway's 1862".

In fact, on rereading it (I did it in a hurry, wanting to get out and go running), I wonder about a few things upself, but I'll explain my reasoning.

1. Union soldiers. The timeline starts with about 350,000 Union troops, which is roughly historical. A normal state OTL recruits 2,000 per month on average. Ohio, Illinois and NY considerably more (NY 5 times the norm!), about half of these would desert or be discharged within a month. Natural wastage (even with no combat) was around 1% per month. NY thus adds 5,000 men per month, the New England states around 3,000, the same for both Illinois and Ohio.

2. My main doubts are about the Montreal front. If Burnside does better and reaches the Beauharnois Canal then the British strategic situation is made much worse. It's the equivalent of the CS losing Mississippi. The British won't be able to dominate the Lakes, nor will the US.

Either way, if Burnside was to "go a-Viking", a Cavalry raid might reach the Beauharnois and blow a lock, which would slow the British, and once fixed force the British to disperse a screen over the area.

3. I did intend for no Shiloh, but the tactical conditions were similar enough I couldn't imagine Grant withdrawing. However, the New Orleans gunboats and the garrisons were freed up by the RN smashing the USN. This allowed the CS to effectively isolate Grant and cut him off. Grant had put himself in an incredibly precarious position OTL.

Once Grant was effectively destroyed, I realised Johnston was totally unfettered. He could march at will.

4. I had no idea what to do with the Army of the Potomac. The Peninsula Campaign was obviously untenable with no Fort Monroe. Defending Washington was McClellan's fetish, so I thought sending vast forces North unlikely, especially when the Army of Northern Virginia didn't suffer through the Seven Days, and is reinforced with forces freed up from containment operations along the Atlantic Coast. I had them hunkering down and digging in around Washington.

Lincoln OTL kept a large portion of the AoP back from McClellan, thus he only took 3 Corps to this Sharpsburg (what OTL he took to the Peninsula), plus Popes 2 Corps. He's thus a small Corps weaker than OTL, while Lee is a (double strength) Corps stronger than OTL, and has an organised Cavalry Corps (which the AoP still doesn't have). When I looked at the Antietam map, the CS gain two new options. A frontal assault, or sending Longstreet on a right flanking envelopement, cutting off McClellans line of retreat and communication to Washington.

I now think McClellan probably shouldn't have fought here if he'd been cautious, but the lure of a Sharpsburg was a strong lure....

5. California wasn't that strongly in the US camp. They provided no support for the war effort (the California Regiments were raised in Masschutetts so that every state was a contributer). There was a short lived Californian Republic (25 days) proclaimed by 33 US Citizens living in Sonoma (with backing from the then Captain Fremont), the 33 members of which declared themselves annexed at the start of the Mexican-American War. With the war over Mexico conceeded the territory at the negotiating table. The inhabitants are still Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_and_the_Civil_War
Question: Just how are the Confederates going to get gun boats on the Tennessee? At the time of Shiloh the mouth of the river is firmly in Union hands and ifthey can get them to Pittsburg Landing Grant would already have retreated to the Cumberland at Nashville or up into KY.
 
Alratan said:
Far too many, you're right.


So taking say, from 43 N in Michigan would be best, as that would leave Lake Huron entirely British, and I think wouldn't be pushing things too far. As of 1860 81,646 out of Michigan's 734,507 inhabitants live north of the 43 N line, which means it is quite possible for Canada to absorb it. This means you could get Huron, Ontario and Superior entirely British, leaving Eerie contested, and with Northern Wisconsin in British hands, say down to the 44,30, then half of the Lake Michigan shoreline is British.


They could try, but I don't see this going through.


As I say above, there were relatively few Americans north of 43 in Michigan.


That seems like something the British would be very happy with, and even better, it can just be given straight to the natives without having to worry about administering it.

As a side note, the British governement would be very grateful to the US for poducing a useful census a couple of years earlier to let it know exactly how many settlers and the like it was taking on per annexed county :D

Whow!:cool::eek: I was thinking that after a hard war against an obstinate US there might be some useful gains for Canada but didn't realise how thinly settled the western regions were. Agree that Britain wouldn't want to be too close politically to the CSA and a greater Californian Republic in the west coupled with regaining what's now Washington State would keep the Pacific clear but didn't think there were so much empty land there. Tend to forget just how new the US was at that time. You could see the kingdom of Canada becoming the dominant power in N America in the 20thC given something similar to OTL population movements modified by the circumstances.

Steve
 
Top