Could the South have won the Civil War without taking DC

Could the South win the Civil War without taking DC?

  • Yes

    Votes: 57 51.8%
  • No

    Votes: 20 18.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 20 18.2%
  • Only with the aid of General Thande.

    Votes: 13 11.8%

  • Total voters
    110
Just walk? 250 miles from Albany (the northernmost depot) to Montreal.

A months hard marching.

Requiring (if "just walking") 100,440 wagons to supply 100,000 men at that distance.

"Just walking" isn't an option.

Chicago is around by this time, so is Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cinncinatti and a host of other cities, ALL connected by rail. It is 1860 not 1820 so there is a lot of US cities around with lots of railroads. The US has plenty of experience building them and can add to it easily. By 1860, any time the US wants Canada it gets it. There are far too few Canadians to defend it and GB is too far away.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Chicago is around by this time, so is Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cinncinatti and a host of other cities, ALL connected by rail. It is 1860 not 1820 so there is a lot of US cities around with lots of railroads. The US has plenty of experience building them and can add to it easily. By 1860, any time the US wants Canada it gets it. There are far too few Canadians to defend it and GB is too far away.

Chicago = useless for a Canadian campaign. Nearly a thousand miles sailing from Montreal

Cincinnatti = a mere 500 miles from Toronto

Pittsburgh = a scant 320 miles from Toronto
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Not to mention the Union, even with the Civil War going on, has a MUCH larger manpower pool and army than the British do and historically speaking with the exception of the Napoleonic Wars the British Army since the English Civil War largely stayed a smaller, elite rapid response force meant for holding down colonies or quick interventions. Even during WWI British troops were still a fairly small minority of the forces on the Western Front. A small, nimble force that would have been effective for 1861 when the US Army was still pretty lackluster would have by 1862 or 1863 been simply not enough against a Union Army that is much more battle-hardened with huge numbers they can easily mobilize.

The British Army in 1862 had a mobilisation strength of 530,000 by calling the reserves to the Colours, which is a little less than twice the effective force the Union had in 1862. It was one of the most militarised states in Europe (indeed, in 1805 it was the most militarised state in the world, and in modern history).

The British Isles had a population 50% larger than the Union.

The British and Canadians can field around 200,000 (possibly 300,000) for the defence of Canada and the Maritimes. The Union can field around 350,000 for the defence of the Union (100,000 to man the coastal defences alone), the suppression of the Confederacy and the invasion of Canada. I fail to see any great Union manpower advantage.
 
Allow me to express my delight that 67th Tigers serving as a lurking menace has avoided any more of the accursed flooble-flooble nonsense in the thread!:)

Until we both go to sleep or some such.:rolleyes:




Let me also state that the CSA doesn't need to take anything. If come the 1864 election the Union effort has not enjoyed sufficient success to convince the voters then the CSA could win without taking a thing beyond the eleven states or even with losing some of their own territory.
 
Last edited:
The British Army in 1862 had a mobilisation strength of 530,000 by calling the reserves to the Colours, which is a little less than twice the effective force the Union had in 1862. It was one of the most militarised states in Europe (indeed, in 1805 it was the most militarised state in the world, and in modern history).

The British Isles had a population 50% larger than the Union.

The British and Canadians can field around 200,000 (possibly 300,000) for the defence of Canada and the Maritimes. The Union can field around 350,000 for the defence of the Union (100,000 to man the coastal defences alone), the suppression of the Confederacy and the invasion of Canada. I fail to see any great Union manpower advantage.

How expensive will it be to field such an army when its supply lines are 3,000 miles away or are we going to hand-wave it? Is any other European country going to take advantage of the situation of the UK fighting a war thousands of miles away against an industrial power in its backyard (There are too few Canadians to really matter much)? Is the British foreign office going to trust the rest of Europe not taking advantage while its main armies are fighting a major war?
 
I don't see how it's possible to argue that the CSA HAD to take DC to win. The USA could always just move the capital if it was that bad.

The CSA only need have won a few major battles. "Winning" in the case of the CSA means achieving independence. "Winning" for the USA was much, much more difficult, because it involved forcibly reintegrating the CSA.

Taking DC would certainly have helped enormously, though. It would be difficult, but could have probably been achieved early on with a few more things going right.
 
Johnrankins, Canada alone can field something on the order of 50,000 men in short order and better trained than the average US militia and the British supply lines will be mostly water with the greatest navy and greatest merchant marine in the world to supply them.

Or you could look up the deployment and supply of powerful British forces in the Crimea or the Indian Mutiny only a few years earlier. I don't recall the British ever facing defeat due to logistic issues.

A major campaign against Canada has one certain result. Lincoln is thrown out of office in 1864 because the forces required for Canada and coastal defenses ensure that the American voter will accept the loss of the CSA. Assuming the war doesn't end with a decisive battle that forces the US to sue for peace, quite possible as the now outnumbered Union forces are fighting numerous enemies on different fronts. An assault by Lee on DC may now be quite plausible.

And what European power is going to take advantage of the UK? Russia will be years recovering from the Crimean disaster, the last thing Prussia wants is to antagonize the UK, France would be delighted to join with the UK against the US...and the Royal Navy is still superior to any three countries in the world.
 
Johnrankins, Canada alone can field something on the order of 50,000 men in short order and better trained than the average US militia and the British supply lines will be mostly water with the greatest navy and greatest merchant marine in the world to supply them.

Or you could look up the deployment and supply of powerful British forces in the Crimea or the Indian Mutiny only a few years earlier. I don't recall the British ever facing defeat due to logistic issues.

A major campaign against Canada has one certain result. Lincoln is thrown out of office in 1864 because the forces required for Canada and coastal defenses ensure that the American voter will accept the loss of the CSA. Assuming the war doesn't end with a decisive battle that forces the US to sue for peace, quite possible as the now outnumbered Union forces are fighting numerous enemies on different fronts. An assault by Lee on DC may now be quite plausible.

And what European power is going to take advantage of the UK? Russia will be years recovering from the Crimean disaster, the last thing Prussia wants is to antagonize the UK, France would be delighted to join with the UK against the US...and the Royal Navy is still superior to any three countries in the world.

It is hundreds of miles between Montreal, Quebec and Toronto and the ocean. I doubt the 50,000 Canada might raise would be any better than US militia, they would be just as green. Crimea is tiny in comparison and India was, even compared with the US, a backwater.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
How expensive will it be to field such an army when its supply lines are 3,000 miles away or are we going to hand-wave it? Is any other European country going to take advantage of the situation of the UK fighting a war thousands of miles away against an industrial power in its backyard (There are too few Canadians to really matter much)? Is the British foreign office going to trust the rest of Europe not taking advantage while its main armies are fighting a major war?

Too few Canadians to matter? All 3 million of them? Were there too few Virginians to matter?

There is no need to hand wave. Using steamers the British can land and supply a force in America cheaper and easier than the US could sustain an army in northern Virginia. That is why in the ACW the river systems dominated movements, they are ten times more efficient than rail.

It is hundreds of miles between Montreal, Quebec and Toronto and the ocean. I doubt the 50,000 Canada might raise would be any better than US militia, they would be just as green. Crimea is tiny in comparison and India was, even compared with the US, a backwater.

India was a backwater? Oh dear.

Canada (meaning the Province of Canada, not including the Maritimes) had around 65,000 men with the Colours on Christmas Day 1861, and growing. They had equipment for a field force of 105,000 men, and then reserves on top of that and could easily expect to issue it all. They could shoot straight at least (which the Americans generally couldn't) due to regular shooting practice and had experienced regular cadres of instructors to draw upon.

Remember, the US fought the entire civil war using linear tactics, which the British and other Europeans had long abandoned for heavy skirmish lines and storm columns....
 
Arming slaves, and promising them freedom in return for their military service, would also have helped reduce the North's numerical superiority. But this, too, was a step the Confederacy couldn't bring itself to take, even as a last resort. It was as unthinkable to them as the idea of arming Southern women and sending them into battle would have been. They were just too scrupulous, at least in this regard, although they did other distasteful things without seeming to be bothered.

Well actually they did do it as a last resort, but it was very limited in scale and the black regiments weren't fully trained or deployed until the war was already over.
 
The US government was running primarily off tariffs through the Civil War, and a lot of the rest was coming from California in the form of gold. The British navy could easily crush the Union navy and entirely cut off both.

It honestly doesn't matter what the Americans do in Canada. I'd be surprised if they do more than take the Ontario Peninsula and a huge amount of prairie, but it would not matter. The Union is forced to deploy troops to defend its coasts, occupy parts of Canada, and set up fronts with the rest. It has to pass enormous taxes while the economy is collapsing in the face of the British blockade. Mass riots, and Lincoln would be out with the next election. The war might be over sooner.

AND NOW ACTUALLY ON TOPIC: No. You don't need to take Washington to beat the US, although if the war's to end before 1864 that'd be a big help. All the South needs to do is hold on until the northern electorate decides it's not worth it or impossible to conquer the Confederacy. There are a lot of ways that could happen.
 
Top