Franco British Russian intervention in the ACW

[67th Tigers]

How eager are Britain, France, and even Russia, to fight another war? France had her Mexican adventure, but eventually gave up on that.

Regarding Russian support for the USA, perhaps Russia saw the USA as a counterweight to Britain and France? Or, having a weaker USA could mean a stronger France and Britain? Were there times where the USA was considered to have an effect on the European balance of power?

Britain is very reluctant to spend money on wars in this period. She is still paying off the accumulated debt of the Revolutionary Wars (American and French) and the Napoleonic Wars. They're focused entirely on peripheral colonial wars (which includes the Crimean, in no sense did the British actually shift over to a war economy for that conflict). A lot of this is the elite not wanting to make the necessary concessions to the hoi poloi that such large mobilisations require.

France is under Napoleon III, and he's a glory hunter. They're very eager for a war.

Russia was smashed by the Crimean War to an extreme degree. She won't recover until the late 1870's. Her policy is one of avoiding war at virtually any cost, but that doesn't include giving up Poland. In 1863 she has quite fearful (with very good reason) that the French and the British would intervene in Polish affairs to establish an independent nation of Poland, and that's what those Russian ships were doing abroad, taking up ice-free ports so they could reach their war stations if required. America was an economic rival, selling prettymuch the same produce on the world market. A weakened America = a stronger Russia.

 

[fhaessig]

France is under Napoleon III, and he's a glory hunter. They're very eager for a war.

Only as long as he doesn't risk a major defeat or angering UK. He was an oportunistic vulture who tried to get something out of evry conflict without risking anything major. The one exeption was when he was pushed by public opinion and convinced he had agreater chance to lose his throne if he didn't start the war than to lose the war.

 

[Faeelin]

America was an economic rival, selling prettymuch the same produce on the world market. A weakened America = a stronger Russia.

What, will the terms of a treaty require sowing salt in the fields of Illinois?

 

[Lord Malikai]

I think I’ve figured out a way for the US to win the war without ASB action after the British declare war on the US over the Trent Affair:
There were only about 20,000 British regulars in Canada in December 1861 and the British generally agreed they wouldn’t be able to make any move against the US until spring 1862. This provides the US with a 3 to 6 month window in which it can act without British intervention.

So, knowing this, and realizing the British must be defeated before they can make their weight felt, Lincoln and the Union generals decide on a Washington-esque plan. 40,000 Union soldiers are gathered, either spit off from the Army of the Potomac or grabbed in penny packets from wherever they can be found, and formed into the Army of the St. Lawrence under the command of some skilled general like Reynolds or Grant (probably neither of these two but someone of their caliber). After a daring winter march, inspired by the Battle of Trenton, the Army of the St. Lawrence attacks the British army in Canada with a 2:1 advantage in regulars. The mass of Canadian militiamen only serves to disorganize the British/Canadian army and the Army of the St. Lawrence wins a decisive victory over the British in February, effectively taking over Canada (American control of Canada is certainly not absolute, but the US will trumpet its control for propaganda purposes).
Simultaneously every American naval and merchant ship with a pop-gun hits every British merchantman it can find, with a possible shelling of the British Isles just for the psychological effect.

At this point, Charles Francis Adams, the American ambassador in London, suggests a white peace to the British government. Nearly 1/10 of the regular British army has already been killed or captured in Canada, and Britain while not hemorrhaging trade are certainly losing a decent amount. Adams states in no uncertain terms that the British are fighting a war in defense of slavery, and the British government realizing that it is currently losing an already unpopular war from which it has little to gain agrees to a truce. The Adams-Palmerston Treaty is signed in April 1862, and officially ratified by the US Senate in May. The British are now out of the war, which the US might, if it’s lucky, win even faster now that the CSA has no hope of British intervention.

I would like to point out, because someone is going to criticize this, especially the Army of the St. Lawrence’s march part, that it is actually fairly logical and justified by a bona fide American legend: Washington Crossing the Delaware. The campaign’s logic is also fairly similar to the German’s in 1918. The British, no offense to them, did not have the best generalship so being beaten while outnumbered 2:1 against a fairly well-trained army is also not that unlikely. The majority of the Canadian militiamen were badly trained and would probably disrupt the British army and add to the casualty count. The British Navy would also be unable to win a decisive victory over the US Navy since the USN would operate completely un-concentrated like it did in 1812. Faced with, as I said, an unpopular losing war with nothing to gain, the British probably would bail out if the US offered a white peace, scapegoat some minor generals and on the whole pass it off as a minor colonial disaster like the later Battle of Isandlwana.

 

[lothaw]

You know, I've never understood the logic of the US somehow simotaniously beating Britain and the South quicker.

Suddenly the North is going to have to pull at least a 3rd of it's troops north to check the Canadian front. Bragg would probably still find a way to foul things up, even with the odds in his favor(see OTL Chickamauga), but Lee would definitely pounce. Especially when he's reinforced with troops from the coastline that are suddenly freed up when the British break the blockade.

To say nothing of British having plans and designs of their own.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Simultaneously every American naval and merchant ship with a pop-gun hits every British merchantman it can find, with a possible shelling of the British Isles just for the psychological effect.

I'll grant you Canada ...maaaybe... but the 3-6 month window is the time between the DOW and the point Royal Marines start raping the Potomac, not the point the Home Fleet wakes up. The Royal Navy is good to go from D-Day on.

I would like to point out, because someone is going to criticize this, especially the Army of the St. Lawrence’s march part, that it is actually fairly logical and justified by a bona fide American legend: Washington Crossing the Delaware. The campaign’s logic is also fairly similar to the German’s in 1918. The British, no offense to them, did not have the best generalship so being beaten while outnumbered 2:1 against a fairly well-trained army is also not that unlikely.

Compared to the Union army's sterling example?

The British Navy would also be unable to win a decisive victory over the US Navy since the USN would operate completely un-concentrated like it did in 1812.

No, instead they'll merely be able to decisively crush the USN wherever they meet, up to and including the Potomac, Hudson, Cape Cod Bay, and wherever else they choose.

Faced with, as I said, an unpopular losing war with nothing to gain, the British probably would bail out if the US offered a white peace, scapegoat some minor generals and on the whole pass it off as a minor colonial disaster like the later Battle of Isandlwana.

You do realize what happened within six months of Isandlwana, right? (I'll give you a hint: it involves the phrase "horrendous crushing victory and destruction of the nation".) The British are not cheese-eating surrender monkeys. They fight wars to win no less than the United States does, with the sole difference that the British are better-equipped to win.

 

[67th Tigers]

I think I’ve figured out a way for the US to win the war without ASB action after the British declare war on the US over the Trent Affair:
There were only about 20,000 British regulars in Canada in December 1861 and the British generally agreed they wouldn’t be able to make any move against the US until spring 1862. This provides the US with a 3 to 6 month window in which it can act without British intervention.

No, there are about 5,000 regulars in the Province of Canada, they were reinforced to ca. 20,000 during the 3 weeks the British were actually preparing for war. By no means had the reinforcements stopped flowing. 75,000 regulars were set in motion on 7th December 1861. The frozen St Lawrence River meant that the speed they could reach PC was limited, but nothing could stop this force reaching Halifax or Bermuda as a staging ground.

Attacking Canada in January is a bit like attacking Russia in the depth of winter. The country will eat armies.

So, knowing this, and realizing the British must be defeated before they can make their weight felt, Lincoln and the Union generals decide on a Washington-esque plan. 40,000 Union soldiers are gathered, either spit off from the Army of the Potomac or grabbed in penny packets from wherever they can be found, and formed into the Army of the St. Lawrence under the command of some skilled general like Reynolds or Grant (probably neither of these two but someone of their caliber).

Banks and Burnside have the seniority and are commanding the departments facing Canada. They will command any invasion force down the Hudson Valley route.

40,000 Federal soldiers is a lot for January 1861. It's more than half the Army of the Potomac's disposable force (152,000 present, 32,000 sick, 50,000 required for the defence of Washington = 70,000), and larger than any other Army fielded by the Union (few of which top 20,000).

After a daring winter march, inspired by the Battle of Trenton, the Army of the St. Lawrence attacks the British army in Canada with a 2:1 advantage in regulars.

Regulars? How is a civilian volunteer with a few months in service and very little actual training, which is entirely confined to pseudo-Prussian drill, and an old smoothbore (possibly still a flintlock at this stage) constitute a regular?

In fact the Federal Army is essentially a mobilised militia, with all the problems entailed. They're not likely to perform better than the Canadian militia (who have rifle-muskets and British instructors on how to use them properly). Throwing 40,000 Federal volunteers against 20,000 British regulars and 100,000 Canadian volunteers doesn't sound like a good idea. Especially in mid-winter, when the troops will freeze and you have no supply lines.

The mass of Canadian militiamen only serves to disorganize the British/Canadian army

The Canadian volunteers were trained much harder than the pre-war US volunteer militia, with modern weapons. Clumsy as they're likely to be, they certainly no worse than the Federals.

Simultaneously every American naval and merchant ship with a pop-gun hits every British merchantman it can find, with a possible shelling of the British Isles just for the psychological effect.

You do know most British Atlantic steamers were "fitted for but not with" some quite heavy guns. Sure, but a couple of 12 pdrs on a schooner, but see how well they'll fare against a mail packet with 6x 68 pdrs.

I would like to point out, because someone is going to criticize this, especially the Army of the St. Lawrence’s march part, that it is actually fairly logical and justified by a bona fide American legend: Washington Crossing the Delaware. The campaign’s logic is also fairly similar to the German’s in 1918. The British, no offense to them, did not have the best generalship so being beaten while outnumbered 2:1 against a fairly well-trained army is also not that unlikely.

You do know the British actually won the Kaiserschlatt?

The majority of the Canadian militiamen were badly trained and would probably disrupt the British army and add to the casualty count.

but better trained, armed, equipped and led than the Federal army.

The British Navy would also be unable to win a decisive victory over the US Navy since the USN would operate completely un-concentrated like it did in 1812.

You do know the US ships in this period are much, much weaker than their RN equivalents? The US just doesn't have the heavy engineering expertise of the UK.

Faced with, as I said, an unpopular losing war with nothing to gain, the British probably would bail out if the US offered a white peace, scapegoat some minor generals and on the whole pass it off as a minor colonial disaster like the later Battle of Isandlwana.

That was a minor engagement (essentially a single battalion), and Britain's vengeance was the destruction of a nation.