If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)

[Saphroneth]

1 June

The first of Eads' coastal ironclads, the Pennsylvania, is launched upriver of Baltimore. As yet uncased, she floats well and seems to be essentially to spec - good news after the Casco debacle.
Part of Eads' design for the ironclads is that they feature a 'modular' armament design - the Pennsylvania, for example, is to mount two 15" guns as her primary armament while the New York (next to launch) is intended to carry sleeved 11" Dahlgren guns rebored to 10" rifles as hers.
Obstacles sunk in the river are intended to keep the shipyard free from British intervention, and there is also a clampdown on news relating to the Eads ironclads.

At about the same time, Confederate agents purchase the Ville de Nantes in Brest. The deal includes a lump sum and several payments to be made later, and the ship is formally renamed the Charleston - she will be sailed to Norfolk Virginia where she will be fitted with armour (and possibly undergo the process of being transformed into a Razee so as to free up displacement for the armour).


2 June
Lee requests the services of Cleburne for his Army of Northern Virginia. This request will take a day or so to be confirmed, with Lee's clout at Richmond ultimately proving successful.


3 June

Cairo, Carondelet and Pittsburgh engage several ships of the Confederate River Defence Flotilla. The ironclad vessels cause significant damage to the Confederate squadron, sinking four gunboats and causing another to strike, and take relatively little damage in return.
When news comes of the CSS Louisiana approaching, the City-class boats retreat upriver - they have not yet obtained the heavier guns judged necessary to pierce the Confederate ironclad.




4 June
Richard Gatling trials his shell-firing Gatling Gun. Results are poor, with the mechanism unable to endure the repeated shock of firing and the gun only manages to fire about a dozen shells.
At about the same time, Dahlgren trials sleeved 11" Dahlgren guns rifled down to 10", 9" and 8" against his Warrior target. The results are somewhat odd as far as his estimation is concerned - the key point is that the 8" gun is able to endure the largest powder charge in absolute terms (though it is still made to rupture when firing the charge which burst the original 11" gun) and as such with more power focused into a smaller area the 8" version has the best penetrating power.
As it seems superior to the Parrott rifle in terms of endurance, though also considerably heavier, the sleeved 8" gun is recommended for adoption (thus meaning a change to the design of ships like the New York). One concern is the number of 11" guns available to use, though a reasonable number have been produced since March.

 

[diestormlie]

Gatling is slightly deluded if he thinks more efficient guns will lead to the same amount of shells being put up, just by fewer guns. Really, I can't even fathom the mindset.

 

[Saphroneth]

Gatling is slightly deluded if he thinks more efficient guns will lead to the same amount of shells being put up, just by fewer guns. Really, I can't even fathom the mindset.

It's based on the idea that the small-shell guns of the RN were (apparently) more efficient at attacking wooden ships than the small numbers of monster guns carried by the typical American ship. And, well, it's not impossible someone could think it would work:

Seems like the idea would work great against wodden ships as the small shells will still do damage when they detonate, so the cumulative affect will be significant.

Remember that OTL Gatling considered his gun a way to reduce casualties from war because armies would be smaller, and therefore disease would be lessened...

 

[diestormlie]

I just don't see how a man could think that more efficient weapons leads to smaller armies?

 

[Saphroneth]

I just don't see how a man could think that more efficient weapons leads to smaller armies?

Perhaps so, but it's OTL. Truth is stranger than AH. (Unless it involves the Frisian islands, I mean...)

 

[galveston bay]

I think Dathi's allowing for the way the Union's been pushed back generally in Kentucky and Virginia in this TL. (West Virginia is something I'm not sure will even exist as an actual administrative boundary TTL).

Anyway, do you have those objections I was asking for?

nope, been busy with other things (RL has been hectic), I haven't even gotten much done on my own two timelines, so the ACW has been put on the back burner for me until things are less stress inducing in RL

 

[Saphroneth]

nope, been busy with other things (RL has been hectic), I haven't even gotten much done on my own two timelines, so the ACW has been put on the back burner for me until things are less stress inducing in RL

While I'm sure it is, and I'm willing to wait, I must admit I'm surprised you don't have them already to hand - if I were asked to name objectionable things about Stars and Stripes my main problem would be picking the top ones, I can rattle several of them off from the top of my head...



Anyway, here's something else I was thinking about, for a more general audience:

Spoiler

Assuming a Union defeat at Alt-Antietam (which is looking likely) and the situation much as it is in May otherwise, what would the Union's original negotiating position be?
I'm half tempted for it to be "Status Quo Ante plus reparations from Britain" which would be seen by everyone else as comical - especially as one interpretation of "status quo ante" is that the CSA rejoins the USA!
(The original CSA negotiating position would basically be "Every slave state plus southern California and territories between", and the original British negotiating position would be "both banks of the St Lawrence, payment of reparations for the ships illegally taken by the Mississippi commerce raiding, northern Maine, Michigan, the Niagara frontier and the British version of the Oregon Territory". Of these, one is a maximum possible wish list to be whittled down by the back and forth of diplomacy, one is deadly serious...)

 

[galveston bay]

While I'm sure it is, and I'm willing to wait, I must admit I'm surprised you don't have them already to hand - if I were asked to name objectionable things about Stars and Stripes my main problem would be picking the top ones, I can rattle several of them off from the top of my head...
]

I also said I wouldn't clutter up your story thread arguing and debating, so don't expect them here. There will be plenty of other occasions and threads

Write your story

I do give you props for doing so... I challenged you to write one, you have, so props to you for that. I doubt I had influence of your doing so, but be creative and write your story and don't fish for debates. Let your work stand on its merits. Or as we say in California, go for it dude.

 

[Saphroneth]

I also said I wouldn't clutter up your story thread arguing and debating, so don't expect them here. There will be plenty of other occasions and threads

Write your story

I do give you props for doing so... I challenged you to write one, you have, so props to you for that. I doubt I had influence of your doing so, but be creative and write your story and don't fish for debates. Let your work stand on its merits. Or as we say in California, go for it dude.

No, I asked. If I have problems I would like to hear about them - or, specifically, if this story has problems large enough you were willing to compare it to Stars and Stripes even for a moment then I'd like to hear what the worst ones are.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Spoiler

Assuming a Union defeat at Alt-Antietam (which is looking likely) and the situation much as it is in May otherwise, what would the Union's original negotiating position be?
I'm half tempted for it to be "Status Quo Ante plus reparations from Britain" which would be seen by everyone else as comical - especially as one interpretation of "status quo ante" is that the CSA rejoins the USA!

Spoiler

Other than the reparations bit, Palmerston might not have laughed it out of court:
'We should also say that if the Union is to be restored it would be essential in our view, that after what has taken place all the slaves should be emancipated, compensation being granted by Congress at the rate at which Great Britain emancipated her slaves in 1833.' (Palmerston MS. Nov. 3, 1862)
And that's with more fighting than TTL.

 

[Saphroneth]

Spoiler

Other than the reparations bit, Palmerston might not have laughed it out of court:
'We should also say that if the Union is to be restored it would be essential in our view, that after what has taken place all the slaves should be emancipated, compensation being granted by Congress at the rate at which Great Britain emancipated her slaves in 1833.' (Palmerston MS. Nov. 3, 1862)
And that's with more fighting than TTL.

Interesting.
On the matter of compensated emancipation:

Spoiler

Okay, let's see... 800,000 slaves freed for £20,000,000.

That means that it's very roughly a compensatory rate of £25 per slave - or, in contemporary US dollars, between $125 and $250 depending on the point in the ACW. (Here as the US is not doing well it would be closer to the latter figure - we'll assumme $200 per slave.)

The US had 3,950,000 slaves in the 1860 census - this means that based on our above calculation we can roughly estimate the dollar cost at $800,000,000.

Total US federal government revenue in FY1860 was $64.6 million, and total counting state and local was about $165 million.
In other words, compensated emancipation of the slaves would entail taking on a debt that would take total US government revenue about a decade to pay off once you account for the basic need to handle the normal business of government.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Spoiler

based on our above calculation we can roughly estimate the dollar cost at $800,000,000.

Total US federal government revenue in FY1860 was $64.6 million, and total counting state and local was about $165 million.
In other words, compensated emancipation of the slaves would entail taking on a debt that would take total US government revenue about a decade to pay off once you account for the basic need to handle the normal business of government.

Spoiler

Though they could pay $500 per slave and they'd still better off than they were historically.

Government debt as of 1 July:
1860- $64,769,703
1861- $90,867,829
1862- $514,211,372
1863- $1,098,793,181
1864- $1,840,690,489
1865- $2,682,593,027
1866- $2,783,425,879

if this story has problems large enough you were willing to compare it to Stars and Stripes even for a moment then I'd like to hear what the worst ones are.

If they want unrealistic projections, they should have a look at contemporary American newspapers. Though judging by some of the things that have been posted, I'm not sure they haven't been...

‘Between Vermont and Minnesota we could pour a hundred and fifty thousand troops into Canada in a week, and overrun the province in three weeks more. It would take a longer time to capture the citadel of Quebec, but still time would do the work. In this invasion, we should be aided by a large portion of the inhabitants, two-thirds of whom are in favour of annexation to the United States… In a very short time we could, if required, bring a million of men into the field to secure the conquest. And what resistance out of Quebec could the British government offer to the tide of invasion?... Her army in all of North America is insignificant, her fortifications few and far between, and her frontier totally unguarded. Canada would therefore be at our mercy from the day of our crossing the boundary line.’ (New York Herald, 17 December 1861)

'We trust that the Northwestern States will all of them take such measures for the organisation and arming of our militia that the Federal Government will only need to provide the war material to enable them to raise a little corps of, say 300,000 men, to act as special constables, if our neighbours over the river should attempt to break the peace. There is nothing like moral suasion applied at the butt of a Springfield rifle, with a sabre bayonet to point the argument‘ (Grand Haven News, 8 January 1862)

 

[Saphroneth]

Good lord, those guys were kinda ridiculous... I'd like to see the US arm 300,000 men in a trifle given how much trouble they had putting together the Army of the Potomac for the Peninsular Campaign. And a hundred and fifty thousand troops in a week with a million in "a very short time"! If the US was capable of that they'd have beaten the CSA in the space of about a month.

 

[Ryan]

would negotiations with Britain and the confederacy be done separately or would they be done together as America thinks they're allies?

 

[Saphroneth]

would negotiations with Britain and the confederacy be done separately or would they be done together as America thinks they're allies?

I believe that in a situation like this there would be a peace conference, singular. (Probably in a small neutral country with joint hosting by France and Russia, or similar - the key point there is that as Russia is a historical friend of the US it would lend credence to the negotiations.)

 

[cerebropetrologist]

I believe that in a situation like this there would be a peace conference, singular.

I strongly suspect there'd be separate peace conferences, because it would be in the interests of both Britain and the Union to settle their war in isolation. Britain is making solid headway against the Union, and will want to crystallise those gains as soon as possible. It wants to avoid the war dragging on and losing momentum, and it certainly doesn't want to trade off its own gains for the benefit of the Confederacy. The Union probably wants to cut its losses as soon as possible so it can focus on the existential threat to the South- and at the end of the day, this was a war they didn't really need to fight in the first place.

Even with formal alliances, you still got separate peaces (e.g. the Seven Years War). Despite all the factors binding them together, the nations of the Seventh Coalition still thought it worth building into the treaty that there would be no separate peace ('The High Contracting Parties reciprocally engage not to lay down their arms but by common consent, nor before the object of the War, designated in the first Article of the present Treaty, shall have been attained; nor until Bonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to create disturbance'). This doesn't rule out a later offer of mediation on the part of Britain and the European powers, but it might well be the Russians who instigate it with the aim of minimising Union losses.

Good lord, those guys were kinda ridiculous...

Unfortunately, they're representative of a much wider section of American society which firmly believed (and apparently still does) that the Union had vast untapped resources only waiting for Britain to declare war. Still, it was worth digging through that nonsense to find out that the Sedentary Militia were already preparing for war:

'The first drill of the officers of the Third Battalion Toronto Militia (sedentary) took place on Saturday afternoon at their drill room on the corner of King and York streets. Twenty-one officers, including the Lieutenant Colonel, W.R. Jarvis, Esq., were in attendance... Colour Sergeant Banns, of the Thirtieth regiment, was present as drill instructor… The officers of the Fifth battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford commanding, met on Saturday at three o’clock, for the purpose of taking steps to perfect themselves in drill... The officers of the Sixth battalion met in the evening in the vacant building adjoining the store of Messrs. Bryson Bees, Yonge street… A proposition was made and unanimously adopted that the officers should meet regularly for drill at least once a week. Major Capreol liberally offered for the purpose the building in which they were assembled… The officers of most of the other battalions in this city – seven in number altogether – are agitating the question of drill and meetings of all of them will doubtless be held this week…' (New York Herald, 13 December 1861, from the Toronto Leader of 9 December)

'We understand it is the intention of Col. McWatt to call on the officers of his battalion to meet with as little delay as possible, in order to take steps to learn the drill, so as to qualify themselves for the responsible position they occupy should the militia be embodied. The necessary complement of arms are to be forwarded immediately for the use of the militia in this division. On the arrival of which it is probable that an order will be given for the enrolment of the flank companies of the battalion under Col. McWatt, when the men will be put through a regular course of instruction.' (New York Herald, 24 December 1861, from the Toronto Globe of 9 December)

'The order from Colonel de Salaberry, calling on the commanding officers of the different battalions for a company of seventy-five men each, has already been responded to. Lieutenant Colonel Jarvis had his bills out on the walls last night… and Colonel Duggan has already appointed the officers of the company from the First battalion... The company is to be formed at once' (New York Herald, 24 December 1861)

 

[Not Henry G.]

Spoiler

‘Between Vermont and Minnesota we could pour a hundred and fifty thousand troops into Canada in a week, and overrun the province in three weeks more. It would take a longer time to capture the citadel of Quebec, but still time would do the work. In this invasion, we should be aided by a large portion of the inhabitants, two-thirds of whom are in favour of annexation to the United States… In a very short time we could, if required, bring a million of men into the field to secure the conquest. And what resistance out of Quebec could the British government offer to the tide of invasion?... Her army in all of North America is insignificant, her fortifications few and far between, and her frontier totally unguarded. Canada would therefore be at our mercy from the day of our crossing the boundary line.’ (New York Herald, 17 December 1861)

'We trust that the Northwestern States will all of them take such measures for the organisation and arming of our militia that the Federal Government will only need to provide the war material to enable them to raise a little corps of, say 300,000 men, to act as special constables, if our neighbours over the river should attempt to break the peace. There is nothing like moral suasion applied at the butt of a Springfield rifle, with a sabre bayonet to point the argument‘ (Grand Haven News, 8 January 1862)

Is that where Robert Conroy got his research for 1862 ? (I'm just kidding, Mr. Conroy, you were my favorite AH author. RIP)

 

[Saphroneth]

Something I'll admit I'm not sure of is how much the RN might accelerate the production of their ships like the Prince Consort class or the Hector class due to the war situation - they were quite leisurely OTL, but then again it's not as if the war situation here is particularly resulting in an urgent need for armoured ships (and they've got the Zodiac class for any inshore engagement that might come up).

I'm also not sure if the British Army would be adopting breechloader small arms. Perhaps I should put in an involved trial at Hythe where they decide the conclusion of the tests is to do more tests!

I also said I wouldn't clutter up your story thread arguing and debating, so don't expect them here. There will be plenty of other occasions and threads

Just wanting to check whether you're going to be willing to actually provide that reason or reasons I asked for. You should be aware that I've specifically taken you off ignore to see if you had a valid point.

If you consider this thread's TL to be in any way whatsoever comparable to Stars and Stripes, or even to just be bad or have research/portrayal errors, then I want to know about them so I can see if I need to change my approach.

But if you don't, then I'd really rather like an apology.

Absent either of those, then I'll put you back on ignore and that'll be pretty much it.

 

[galveston bay]

Something I'll admit I'm not sure of is how much the RN might accelerate the production of their ships like the Prince Consort class or the Hector class due to the war situation - they were quite leisurely OTL, but then again it's not as if the war situation here is particularly resulting in an urgent need for armoured ships (and they've got the Zodiac class for any inshore engagement that might come up).

I'm also not sure if the British Army would be adopting breechloader small arms. Perhaps I should put in an involved trial at Hythe where they decide the conclusion of the tests is to do more tests!



Just wanting to check whether you're going to be willing to actually provide that reason or reasons I asked for. You should be aware that I've specifically taken you off ignore to see if you had a valid point.

If you consider this thread's TL to be in any way whatsoever comparable to Stars and Stripes, or even to just be bad or have research/portrayal errors, then I want to know about them so I can see if I need to change my approach.

But if you don't, then I'd really rather like an apology.

Absent either of those, then I'll put you back on ignore and that'll be pretty much it.

there are literally dozens of posts in this forum where I have debated you at length, replied to your assertions, indicated why I do not believe the situation as you have laid out in this story is likely or probable, and all of them are within the last 18-24 months. I see no reason to rehash them here. Others have done so as well and indeed there is an entire story that is in direct counterpoint to yours, as well as one that seems to follow the middle ground and frankly I find more plausible. As Calbear basically indicated, enough arguing. Tell your story, support it as best you can, and we will let readers decide.

 

[Saphroneth]

there are literally dozens of posts in this forum where I have debated you at length, replied to your assertions, indicated why I do not believe the situation as you have laid out in this story is likely or probable, and all of them are within the last 18-24 months. I see no reason to rehash them here. Others have done so as well and indeed there is an entire story that is in direct counterpoint to yours, as well as one that seems to follow the middle ground and frankly I find more plausible. As Calbear basically indicated, enough arguing. Tell your story, support it as best you can, and we will let readers decide.

Perhaps you're not aware of this but you've been on ignore for me for most of the past year. I've not seen most of your replies. (Nevertheless, this TL has a lot of research into it, including some I've done in the last few months and a keynote article which details how the Union simply could not respond on land any better than I have them doing here - the one showing how poor the Union was in long arms.)

It's why I invite you now to give your single best argument.
(Rifle ranges discounted because I'm aware of our difference on that topic, but it's not actually a fundamental point of the TL here.)


If you really don't want to give anything, then I'll take that as an admission that you feel you can't back up your criticism of this TL. (And yes, you're criticising it right here, saying that the middle-ground story is "more plausible" than this one.)

When I criticize a TL I use evidence, data, clearly stated arguments. I don't invite people to just search out something that was written a year or two ago - if need be I'll restate my argument multiple times to make sure it's clear.



Of course, if you do state an argument, then it gives me a chance to respond. Taking your two major points from up-thread, you mentioned the matter of how American guns can cause spalling and hence damage British ironclads even if they don't penetrate; while spalling does happen, the teak backing of British ironclads (though not including the Terror class, as addressed before you mentioned it) results in reduced incidence of spall as the teak absorbs the blow. (Indeed, I mention spalling a lot in the various ironclad battles on page 1.)
You also mentioned that American ironclads can cause damage to British ones by doing things like hitting exposed funnels and people on deck even if they don't penetrate. In the first case the Warrior (and ships like her) had two redundant funnels; in the second place it was clearly not a major thing because Monitor was not quickly rendered hors d' combat by Virginia; in the third place British ironclads did not tend to have their decks exposed to the fire of American ironclads as they were built to deal with forts or ships of the line - that is, ships considerably higher and carrying their guns higher than those of the American ironclads - and in the fourth place, I've tended to have the better ironclad win the battle anyway. That I'm not detailing the minor damage line by line should not be taken to mean I think it's not happening; just that I don't think it would reverse or significantly affect the outcome of the battle. If you think there's a battle where I've done otherwise, indicate it and I'll examine it in more detail.


As to your argument about how nor'easters would cripple the British blockade, in many cases the British blockaders have had the ability to withdraw well into the harbour as they've neutralized the guns. The blockaders in the Chesapeake Bay can shelter in the lee of the Delmarva peninsula; the blockaders in the Delaware can hide in Delaware Bay; Long Island shields the blockaders of New York and Long Island Sound; there's several places in New England it's possible to hide. Supporting the idea this is not a major problem is that none of the Union Navy's steam sloops or frigates possessed as of 1861 was lost in a storm during the Civil War, despite heavy blockade use, and that the Royal Navy sustained an effective blockade of the US in the War of 1812 despite having sailing ships rather than steam.