How would the ACW play out without the Union Blockade? (Need Help)

I have a group of friends that play out an ATL together and we're stuck on a certain point. Internal discussion has gotten pretty heated and fruitless so we thought to seek an outside perspective for some fresh ideas.

It's early 1862 in our scenario, UK and US are in a ceasefire with trade resumed after a brief Anglo-American war while a formal peace treaty is being negotiated. The US navy has been pretty much wiped out by an Anglo-French effort. The other relevant stuff is mostly as OTL.

We agree that even without the blockade the Union would eventually prevail over the Confederacy because of the industrial and populational advantage. Where we differ is in the transition of point A to point B.

So here is where help would be appreciated: In your opinion, how would the American Civil War play out without an Union Blockade?

Thanks in advance!
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Why would the USN suicidally sail out into the Atlantic

I have a group of friends that play out an ATL together and we're stuck on a certain point. Internal discussion has gotten pretty heated and fruitless so we thought to seek an outside perspective for some fresh ideas. It's early 1862 in our scenario, UK and US are in a ceasefire with trade resumed after a brief Anglo-American war while a formal peace treaty is being negotiated. The US navy has been pretty much wiped out by an Anglo-French effort. The other relevant stuff is mostly as OTL. We agree that even without the blockade the Union would eventually prevail over the Confederacy because of the industrial and populational advantage. Where we differ is in the transition of point A to point B. So here is where help would be appreciated: In your opinion, how would the American Civil War play out without an Union Blockade? Thanks in advance!

Why would the USN suicidally sail out into the Atlantic to challenge the British? Much less the French, who were a little busy at the time with their own failed war in the Western Hemisphere?

The USN certainly did not do so in 1812-15, and the Continental and state navies did not do so in 1775-83.

The US, of course, historically had the USN, the USRCS, the merchant marine (oceanic, coastal, lacustrine, and riverine), and a large and healthy shipbuilding industry with a maritime tradition going back to the earliest years of settlement.

The rebels had very little in comparison.

The US could always outbuild and out-man the rebels at sea, even with the handicap of losing the Norfolk and Pensacola yards; anything beyond that is rather ASBish...

If the USN's blockade was less effective for any reason, the rebels still would have lost.

Three or four to one odds, depending on how one counts it up, remain 3-1 or 4-1 odds.

Best,
 
Badly, I imagine, though maybe taking longer to resolve.

Even if the Americans oblige the Franco-British navies by making themselves vulnerable instead of holing up in their own harbours, they can rebuild enough to cause the rebels problems. The longer the war goes on the more likely that becomes. I'm also sure that if the Union really needs ships desperately and their own shipyards cannot cover it, they could contract it out or buy some. Pretty much all foreign governments with serious ship-building capabilities were sympathetic to them and wouldn't block such a purchase even if they were trading with the South at the same time.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
One thing in the favour of the Union is that a lot of their blockade ships OTL were new built (though not so many of the main combatants).

Aside from that... if the British are conciliatory, they'll just respect the paper blockade like OTL and the effect will be similar. If they're not, then the blockade will leak like a sieve for years and the Confederacy might be able to win independence by exhaustion.
 
This perspective may be too fresh, but I will offer the idea that the historical Union blockade was a failure. Most American Civil War historians seem to think they have to give the efforts of the US Navy their due and don't at least put this so bluntly.

The CSA imported a huge amount of what they needed to fight against the world's biggest industrial power. Other posters will have the exact details, but it was entire classes of some supplies.

The thing is, they kept armies in the field right up to April 1865, with a big offensive (Nashville) the previous winter. They folded right around the time they lost their last ports, Wilmington and Mobile (not counting the Texan ports).

Now you can make an argument that the fall of Wilmington and Mobile was what provided the final blow, and this is fair enough. The thing is that granted this, the CSA turned out to only need blockade runners, plus one port on the Atlantic and one port on the Gulf to stay in business. Running patrols was not sufficient to shut them off, USA federal forces literally had to occupy every major port in the rebellious states, some of them taken by armies operating overland. And it took them four years to do this. By this time the army had taken nearly all its key objectives anyway.

Union strategists (essentially Lincoln, Halleck, and Stanton) had a tendency to send considerable numbers of troops to descend on the CSA coast somewhere, and they had a tendency to get stranded where they landed without taking more than their original objectives. The Union usually had two corps operating in the South Atlantic and two corps on the Gulf. I think they should have just taken New Orleans and Norfolk/ Hampton Roads and just left it at that. But maybe the corps or two saved would have just been wasted somewhere else.

My answer to your question is that it depends on if the USA has to evacuate or forgo taking New Orleans. If they do, its harder to take the Mississippi Valley and the CSA can use New Orleans to manufacture war material for their western armies. Otherwise, if the Union can somehow hold on to New Orleans, they probably win the war quicker.
 
If the USN's blockade was less effective for any reason, the rebels still would have lost.

That's the part relevant to this thread; we agree with the outcome just not on the "how". Does it change the field strategies significantly? Does it increase the war's ultimate casualty numbers? If so, do the changes impact the election in 64? Those are the questions we can't agree on.

Badly, I imagine, though maybe taking longer to resolve.
How much longer are we taking about? A year or two or stretching into the 1870's?

Aside from that... if the British are conciliatory, they'll just respect the paper blockade like OTL and the effect will be similar. If they're not, then the blockade will leak like a sieve for years and the Confederacy might be able to win independence by exhaustion.

A blockade of any sorts wouldn't happen in this ATL, at least until the US Navy is capable of enforcing a true blockade and the Europeans lose interest in the American war, which in our scenario could only happen in 1864 at the earliest. Still at least 2 years of war without a blockade.

My answer to your question is that it depends on if the USA has to evacuate or forgo taking New Orleans. If they do, its harder to take the Mississippi Valley and the CSA can use New Orleans to manufacture war material for their western armies. Otherwise, if the Union can somehow hold on to New Orleans, they probably win the war quicker.

That's interesting, but I'm not sure I'm getting it. In your opinion what is making the Union skip New Orleans? A better equipped/stronger economy/higher morale Confederacy? And if that's the case how would keeping New Orleans as in OTL end the war faster?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The biggest issue for the rebellion were its internal logistics;

That's the part relevant to this thread; we agree with the outcome just not on the "how". Does it change the field strategies significantly? Does it increase the war's ultimate casualty numbers? If so, do the changes impact the election in 64? Those are the questions we can't agree on.

The biggest issue for the rebellion were its internal logistics routes, or lack thereof; the railroad network was poor and just got worse over the course of the war, the rebels had very limited resources in terms of coastal shipping even if the USN hadn't been blockading the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, they were vastly overmatched in terms of using riverine shipping, and the canal network in the rebel states was very limited in comparison to the north. Very little of those realities were (or could have been) alleviated by not being blockaded.

There's also the reality that 1861 was largely mobilization, militarily and economic, for the US and the rebels, and the rebels had most of a year to import whatever was available on the open market and that they could pay for as it was, before the blockade even became of reasonable effectiveness in 1862, which realistically required the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana expeditions by Burnside, Sherman, Butler, etc - which, obviously, took time to organize and execute, much less take the enclaves seized and turn them into effective advanced naval bases to sustain the blockading squadrons.

So given that historically, even with that, the eastern theater was in stalemate from 1861-62 and the US was on the offensive across the western theater from the earliest days of 1862, and sustained that offensive in the west all the way through to 1865, realistically?

Myabe the rebels get another year, if that, which is not enough to tip the scales.

Best,
 
Last edited:
"That's interesting, but I'm not sure I'm getting it. In your opinion what is making the Union skip New Orleans? A better equipped/stronger economy/higher morale Confederacy? And if that's the case how would keeping New Orleans as in OTL end the war faster?"

New Orleans fell to a seaborne invasion in 1862. After that the "Army of the Gulf" occupying the city was supplied by sea.

What I'm not getting from your scenario is whether the Royal Navy either prevents the invasion, or keeps the Union from supplying its forces there by sea. It could certainly do either.

To get New Orleans in this instance, the Union would have had to take it before the brief war, and then the war would have been settled before the forces in New Orleans are either evacuated, or have to surrender due to their supply lines being cut. I can't tell from the information provided if this is the case.
 

Thanks!

What I'm not getting from your scenario is whether the Royal Navy either prevents the invasion, or keeps the Union from supplying its forces there by sea. It could certainly do either.

My bad, there's our misunderstanding. In our scenario the RN does neither. Once the ceasefire is established the British go back to strict neutrality, even allowing American merchant ships to go in and out of British controlled ports. Outside of attempting to blockade Southern ports the US Navy can attack Confederate warships, merchants and privateers in the open sea or in this case, support an invasion of New Orleans.
 
Top