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

[galveston bay]

If people have been confused, it's because there are two ways to argue that non-penetrating hits could disable an ironclad.
The logical way: cite a case where non-penetrating hits disabled an ironclad in action.
The illogical way: cite a test where a gun not yet brought into service penetrated an ironclad in a test.

Anybody's welcome to make the case that non-penetrating hits would disable an ironclad, of course. However, it seems unlikely that they'd also be able to prove it'd affect the larger, better protected British ironclads more than the extemporised Union ones- particularly with that 65:1 shot ratio.

Worth understanding all this in the light of the fact that this isn't the first time this particular individual has made these kind of objections to this timeline. The effort to pour oil on troubled waters is much appreciated, though.

it seems clear to me that you didn't read the source material. All of the tests showed that the bolts holding the armor to the backing were fatally weakened or failed catastrophically when hit by all of the ordinance tested. In short, repeated hits are going to result in complete structural failure

In other words, as demonstrated at Charleston, you hammer away at an ironclad with either sufficient numbers of medium to large caliber guns or for a lengthy period of time (sufficient to gain multiple hits) and like steel ships in the World Wars, they will be rendered a mission kill or sunk.

That doesn't require guns that weren't deployed. It merely requires the guns that were deployed

The CSS Virginia suffered sufficient damage (to name an example) fighting the Cumberland to impair its fighting ability when fighting the Monitor the next day. (it left the battle each day with leaks, a smokestack that had been riddled and then destroyed and a damaged pilothouse)(of course the Monitor left the battle with a damaged pilothouse too)

We don't know the actual performance of British ironclads against a major fort system or sea battle because it didn't occur. But those tests from that source and actual historical results show us that a reasonable inference can be made of what would actually happen.

As to Colorado.... Saph apologize if I was wrong on the geography of this timelines Confederate Colorado. As there is in 1861 a US Territory of Colorado (that is before the ACW begins) it does seem odd that a second Colorado would be created (you might want to consider the desert it is in instead... like New Sonora, Mojave or even South Colorado). The map is a bit vague and you had mentioned you were behind in terms of where things were on a map.

By the way, a British or American Wank does not require, nor should it infer, complete fantasy. It means, at least in what I have seen in terms regularly used in this forum, that the writers hand is weighing in favor of a particular side (British/Confedrate). I will not apologize for calling this a wank, because to me it clearly is.

As to the rest of you who decide to dogpile, your opinion is duly noted and will be given the respect it deserves. For those who where kind enough to stick up for me, thanks.

Saph, I note that the scales of this timeline are tilted from the beginning... the actual chain of events was that Lyons let Seward see the note early unofficially, waited until December 20 to deliver it, and the formal date it expires was December 30th according to the book "Lincoln and His Admirals" which also calls this event the "Cuban Missile Crisis of Lincolns Presidency" and states he went "eyeball to eyeball with the British and blinked" because it was in the national interest to do so.

In other words, Saph you change the personalities and how they handled events from the beginning, which makes the Americans look feckless, actually impugns the honor of Lyons (who was not prepared to leave until the ultimatum expired as he didn't want war either) and that is at the very beginning of your story

(that book also makes it pretty clear that Captain, later Commodore Wilkes may have been mentally unbalanced. He nearly triggered a war with the British not once, but twice... again in 1863 at Bermuda and it could well have come to shooting!). His later court martial was long overdue

 

[Aber]

it seems clear to me that you didn't read the source material. All of the tests showed that the bolts holding the armor to the backing were fatally weakened or failed catastrophically when hit by all of the ordinance tested. In short, repeated hits are going to result in complete structural failure

In other words, as demonstrated at Charleston, you hammer away at an ironclad with either sufficient numbers of medium to large caliber guns or for a lengthy period of time (sufficient to gain multiple hits) and like steel ships in the World Wars, they will be rendered a mission kill or sunk.

That doesn't require guns that weren't deployed. It merely requires the guns that were deployed

The CSS Virginia suffered sufficient damage (to name an example) fighting the Cumberland to impair its fighting ability when fighting the Monitor the next day. (it left the battle each day with leaks, a smokestack that had been riddled and then destroyed and a damaged pilothouse)(of course the Monitor left the battle with a damaged pilothouse too)

We don't know the actual performance of British ironclads against a major fort system or sea battle because it didn't occur. But those tests from that source and actual historical results show us that a reasonable inference can be made of what would actually happen.

Nobody is disputing this. It is just that it seems irrelevant for a number of reasons; relative rate of fire means few hits on the British ships, most of them are not used on multiple occasions allowing time for repairs (even if they are field improvisations), and the author has factored in damage.

Just repeating a narrow but irrelevant point will just drown out any good points you might have.

 

[Saphroneth]

As to Colorado.... Saph apologize if I was wrong on the geography of this timelines Confederate Colorado. As there is in 1861 a US Territory of Colorado (that is before the ACW begins) it does seem odd that a second Colorado would be created (you might want to consider the desert it is in instead... like New Sonora, Mojave or even South Colorado). The map is a bit vague and you had mentioned you were behind in terms of where things were on a map.

It's the historical name given to the proposed state, so by definition it is historical.

In other words, as demonstrated at Charleston, you hammer away at an ironclad with either sufficient numbers of medium to large caliber guns or for a lengthy period of time (sufficient to gain multiple hits) and like steel ships in the World Wars, they will be rendered a mission kill or sunk.

Then please state an example of where this should have happened to a British ironclad in the battles I portray - either a case where an ironclad took hours of battering from effective weapons, or a case where the battle should have been longer than portrayed.

In other words, Saph you change the personalities and how they handled events from the beginning, which makes the Americans look feckless, actually impugns the honor of Lyons (who was not prepared to leave until the ultimatum expired as he didn't want war either) and that is at the very beginning of your story

I am aware that the political events are not necessarily especially likely, but part of the goal of this story (as I make extremely clear right from the beginning) is to see why the OTL political events happened as they did.
This is not a TL of "this would have happened without any divergence" (that would be OTL). This is a TL of "The divergence is that Lincoln and Seward reject the ultimatum".

Politically speaking, I take it as read that the war happens (via the agency of a lack of Union climbdown after Trent) and that it continues at least until June. Obviously if peace unexpectedly breaks out events will stall at that point, and I’ve not written a peace conference.

Part of the idea of this TL was to convey a very simple thing.
Why Lincoln backed down.

I happen to think it unlikely Trent would lead to a war, but that precisely because the prospect of being at war with Britain was frankly scary at that time.

I need a Trent War to write a Trent War TL, and the decision over whether it would be a Trent War lies with the Americans rather than the British - too often I've seen it said that the British would never go to war over the Trent seizure and that everything they said and did was a bluff.
This is what happens if the Americans decide it's a bluff.

If the major thrust of your objection is that the rejection of the ultimatum on December 27 rather than December 30 (or Lyons leaving Washington on December 28 rather than December 30) massively changes who would win the war, on the other hand, this seems to me to be unlikely (to say the least).


..."feckless"?
def: Lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.

If rejecting the ultimatum is irresponsible, then that sort of proves my entire point.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

most of them are not used on multiple occasions allowing time for repairs (even if they are field improvisations)

I mean, the Royal Navy has been thinking about this sort of thing for literally decades:

'1846. Experiments on the effect of shot upon a steamer's funnel

'There were three modes proposed for stopping the holes... The third plan was the most simple, effective, and most easily applied: it consisted of two spring catches on a plate of iron; the springs were pushed in through the hole which confined the plate to the funnel; and the stability of this plan was tested by two shot passing through the plates after they were fixed, without moving them. These experiments appear fully to establish the point, that it will be very difficult to destroy funnels in action, and that the holes may be readily stopped when the steam is not up. It therefore only remained to ascertain what the effect would be on the fires when these holes were made, and whether the heat coming through would be such as to prevent men getting at them for this purpose.

'In order to test the effect of holes in a funnel, the Echo, steam tug, had five cut in hers, to represent shot holes of large diameter... No inconvenience was experienced, nor any perceptible difference in the draught up the funnel, force of steam, or consumption of fuel, the rarified air within the funnel causing a powerful indraft... It having been thus shewn that it is very difficult to knock away a steamer's funnel, and that shot passing through do little or no injury, the effect of the total loss of the funnel from any cause was tried on board the Bee on a small scale...

'in the event of the funnel being shot away, full speed can be got on the vessel to run her out of fire, or the steam may be worked expansively, and the vessel kept under perfect command'

 

[Saphroneth]

12 July
After checking the Admiralty plans for attack on Charleston (and finding them very useful), Grey - the First Naval Lord - concurs that more troops will be required from the Army if the goal is to do more than bombard and capture the town itself.
Accordingly, he recommends the charter of a further half-dozen vessels - each to carry one battalion - and a spare for their artillery.
The Duke of Cambridge endeavours to ensure that the regiments sent are a mixture of those with the Snider and those with the Enfield, and to provide enough spare Enfields for all if the decision is made to revert mid-campaign.

Satsuma domain declares victory in the recent battle of Kagoshima, citing the way the British have withdrawn. Since half their batteries are destroyed and the (evacuated) town is on fire, this seems hard to believe - especially as the British have withdrawn with three captured Satsuma domain merchant ships.

14 July
A full review of US naval fortifications is recommended. In addition to a use of a variety of heavy weapons - with a focus on those which can pierce ironclads at range, as piercing is always considered superior to not piercing - it is also recommended to get hold of a British Armstrong rifle in whatever manner this may be done to find what materials are most resistant to it.
Mines are also recommended for fully-funded development, though the budget is still rather tight in many ways and some difficult prioritization decisions seem likely. The ideal is that defences should be designed for the specific harbour they are to be defending and to be informed by the events of the late war - for example, the fortification of New York must not include any angles not covered by the fort guns, and the mines to be emplaced in various positions must be capable of enduring at least three months submerged in a materially unimpaired condition.

At least one officer notes that the US forts would have been a far harder target if they had been fully armed, but for Fort Delaware alone this would involve approx. 130 heavy guns (to fill the second tier and barbette) or 190 (including the first tier). As the Army has only recieved the following numbers of coast-defence heavy guns since the start of the late war;
15" Rodman: 10
10" Rodman: 31
8" Rodman: 90
10" Parrott: 2
8" Parrott: 22
6.4" Parrott: 135
And some of the 15" guns and 8" rifles at least were sunk in extemporized ironclads, it is clear that years of effort would be required to provision forts with sufficient heavy guns - and that they may by that time be obsolete.

15 July
The Emperor of Japan reiterates that it would be foolish to fold to foreign pressure.

A shipment of Snider-Enfield rifles arrive in New Zealand. They are to rearm the 65th, 12th and 14th regiments, a welcome addition to the firepower of the British Army present in the colony.

16 July
The New York Herald includes an editorial suggesting that the current moment of distraction for the British would be the perfect opportunity to annex Canada.
On the same day, the Rush-Bagot agreement is reactivated by mutual agreement between the British Empire and the United States. Both sides bend the rules a little - the British ironclad Aetna is left in Quebec, from where sailing to the lakes would be easy, and at least one merchant ship in American use has a suspiciously small cargo hold for her displacement (along with mounting points for large slabs of iron along the side and a small room which currently holds spare coal but which would be an ideal powder magazine). It is good enough, however, and the Lakes return to being - technically - a demilitarized zone.


17 July
The fleet sails for Bermuda.
Although the Admiralty does not currently believe convoy is an appropriate use of ships, nevertheless the fleet headed for Bermuda has some of the dimensions of just such a convoy - the ships carrying troops or munitions are accompanied by plenty of ships, including the Superb, Great Eastern, Royal Oak and Pisces.
Many of the merchant ships are also towing gunboats, and the whole has a transit speed of some ten knots sustained with the generally good winds. They are expected to make Bermuda around the end of July.

Also on this date, the Alabama boards a slave ship by the name of St John just off the Alabama coast. The St John is captured and taken into port in Mobile, and the crew arrested.
The Confederate Navy makes much of this, publicizing it to show the world (successfully or not) that they do consider slave trading illegal and will police it themselves.




(n.b. the above list of guns is actually the historical number of guns delivered as of just after Gettysburg; a few days off but it seemed close enough.)

 

[Ryan]

The New York Herald includes an editorial suggesting that the current moment of distraction for the British would be the perfect opportunity to annex Canada.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Are the British planning on building a proper canal for St. Lawrence now that they've got both banks of the river?

 

[Saphroneth]

Are the British planning on building a proper canal for St. Lawrence now that they've got both banks of the river?

There'll probably be a general bringing-forward of most components of the St Lawrence Seaway projects.

Picard

The New York Herald has form for ridiculous opinions. Quite apart from being highly pro-slavery, it also suggested in 1861 that the Union should let the South go and replace it with Canada.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

The New York Herald has form for ridiculous opinions. Quite apart from being highly pro-slavery, it also suggested in 1861 that the Union should let the South go and replace it with Canada.

Hence this cartoon, with John Bull asking the Federal troops fleeing from Bull Run where they're going, and the response being 'to take Canada'. And a quote from the New York Herald underneath.

 

[Skallagrim]

They were pro-slavery... but wanted to let the south go. And then annex a lot of land in the north, which would presumably become... free states.

Even if we excuse them for believing Canada could be conquered and annexed, everything else about their position is also insane. I'm not really familiar with the history of American newspapers, but a quick look on Wikipedia tells me that by 1845 this New York Herald was the most popular and profitable daily newspaper in the United States. And in 1861, it circulated 84,000 copies and called itself "the most largely circulated journal in the world."

Didn't anyone notice that the writers and/or editors were stark raving mad?

 

[Saphroneth]

Didn't anyone notice that the writers and/or editors were stark raving mad?

This is why it's so important to keep an open mind about such things as what the people of the past thought.

Or, as the case may be, emoted.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Didn't anyone notice that the writers and/or editors were stark raving mad?

The National Inquirer anyone?

 

[Saphroneth]

The National Inquirer anyone?

I'm thinking more Daily Mail / Fox News / Trump TV / Insert Appropriate Comparison Here.

 

[FSB]

Wasn't the invasion of Canada kind of stock footage at the time? I mean, if you had to prove your tough guy credentials in internal politics, you picked the up the stick named "invade Canada" and waved it around a bit. Or waved it at the British a bit. But the people actually making decisions were aware that the whole thing was insane and did not actually do it.

 

[Saphroneth]

Wasn't the invasion of Canada kind of stock footage at the time? I mean, if you had to prove your tough guy credentials in internal politics, you picked the up the stick named "invade Canada" and waved it around a bit. Or waved it at the British a bit. But the people actually making decisions were aware that the whole thing was insane and did not actually do it.

It's a little hard to tell if the latter is actually the case, given that Seward (Republican frontrunner 1860) was pro-invade-Canada, given that the US repeatedly used it as a threat to the British when political disputes came up, and given that an actual filibustering expedition was launched in 1866.

 

[FSB]

... Oh, my bad. I need to brush up my cynicism a bit, it seems.

 

[Saphroneth]

... Oh, my bad. I need to brush up my cynicism a bit, it seems.

Via Robcraufurd:


"She [Canada] cannot refuse if you tender her annexation on just terms, with indemnity for the stuggle she may expect with Great Britain"- William H Seward, 31 January 1856

"On every prominent ledge you could see England's hands holding the Canadas, and I judged by the redness of her knuckles that she would soon have to let go." - Thoreau, "A Yankee in Canada," 1860

"Now that the confederacy is about to be shorn of more than half its strength in territory, and more than a third of its population, it is necessary to repair the loss, else we would sink to a third or forth-rate power. By peaceable means or force, therefore, Canada must be annexed... such is the decree of manifest destiny, and such the programme of William H Seward premier of the President Elect"- New York Herald, February 1861

"What, then, is the American Government to do with the immense fighting mass which will be left on its hands when the Southern war is over?... Cuba and Canada must be annexed at one blow to the United States." New York Herald, January 1862

"In two years from the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, the people of Canada themselves will apply for admission to the United States"- John Potter, Consul General for Canada, July 1865

"It is a comfort and a consolation to a very large portion of our people to reflect that we have grounds of complaint outstanding against England upon which we can go to war with her and conquer Canada, to say nothing of Ireland, whenever we 'feel so disposed'"- New York Times, April 1869

"Long ago the Continental Congress passed away, living only in its deeds... But the invitation survives not only in the archives of our history, but in all American hearts, constant and continuing as when first issued" - Charles Sumner, 22 September 1869

"the colonists will, we hope, begin to see that their interests strongly demand annexation"- Farmer's Cabinet (Amherst, New Hampshire), 26 January 1871

"'America', like 'Italy', shall cease to be a mere geographical denomination, and will comprehend, in a mighty and proud Republic, the whole combined British race of North America"- Caleb Cushing, "The Treaty of Washington" (1873)

 

[Skallagrim]

This is why it's so important to keep an open mind about such things as what the people of the past thought.

Or, as the case may be, emoted.

My astonishment stems not so much from the fact that there were major papers pushing a pro-slavery agenda, or pushing the annexation of Canada. Both those ideas were still very prominent at the time. It's the fact that a paper could actually support both, even though they were clearly mutually exclusive. The filibuster-loving southerners were dreaming more about the "golden circle" (that is: annexing Mexico, Cuba etc.) and generally turning the Caribbean into an American lake surrounded by slave states. The idea of conquering land up north, certain to become free soil, could only bring the end of slavery closer. Contrarily, Seward opposed any plans to annex land in the south, but was - as you have just pointed out - an ardent supporter of northern annexations. (And others, whom you have just quoted, shared that enthousiasm.)

So what baffles me is mainly that anyone would support both slavery and the conquest of Canada. Even when seen in the light of its day, the position just makes no sense at all. Obviously, they held it at the New York Herald, though. And their many, many readers apparently just bought it. That's... very depressing.

 

[Saphroneth]

My astonishment stems not so much from the fact that there were major papers pushing a pro-slavery agenda, or pushing the annexation of Canada. Both those ideas were still very prominent at the time. It's the fact that a paper could actually support both, even though they were clearly mutually exclusive. The filibuster-loving southerners were dreaming more about the "golden circle" (that is: annexing Mexico, Cuba etc.) and generally turning the Caribbean into an American lake surrounded by slave states. The idea of conquering land up north, certain to become free soil, could only bring the end of slavery closer. Contrarily, Seward opposed any plans to annex land in the south, but was - as you have just pointed out - an ardent supporter of northern annexations. (And others, whom you have just quoted, shared that enthousiasm.)

So what baffles me is mainly that anyone would support both slavery and the conquest of Canada. Even when seen in the light of its day, the position just makes no sense at all. Obviously, they held it at the New York Herald, though. And their many, many readers apparently just bought it. That's... very depressing.

I think it may be that their position was that the South would be a place where slavery could be slavery, and that the annexation of Canada would free a place for slaves to escape to, and that neither the CSA nor the USA would ever actually ban slavery. Why, that would take a constitutional amendment! (Note that in 1860-1 the main clash was between "slavery in new states" and "more land for white farmers", with outright abolition a minority issue though one which was growing in strength. Free Soil means just that - this land has no slaves.)

It's how at least one West Coast state was ardently free soil while also banning people of colour from the entire state. (Constitutionally, though without enabling legislation.)

 

[cerebropetrologist]

they were clearly mutually exclusive. The filibuster-loving southerners were dreaming more about the "golden circle" (that is: annexing Mexico, Cuba etc.) and generally turning the Caribbean into an American lake surrounded by slave states. The idea of conquering land up north, certain to become free soil, could only bring the end of slavery closer.

Why are they necessarily exclusive? If you admit four free states from Canada, it just means you have to admit more slave states to balance them out. And the New York Herald knows where to find them:

'the most superficial view of the annexation of Honduras will convince the intelligent reader that it is a question of more immediate and comprehensive importance than the Cuba question... the State lies in that exact geographical position which will enable us not only effectively to check the machinations of British, French, and Spanish emissaries, and to upset their schemes for the 'balance of power' upon this continent, but the suggested annexation will give us the nucleus around which we shall be able most rapidly to bring in, upon the same terms, the other States of Central America, to the west and the south, and of Mexico on the North." (New York Herald, 7 June 1854)

'the prevailing conviction of the American people is that sooner or later Cuba must be ours... their prevailing desire is the earliest practical movement of the government in this direction. The Kansas slavery agitation of the last four years has left the democratic and the opposition parties of the country in an unprecedented condition of disorder and disintegration. Upon the remaining fragments of their late slavery and anti-slavery party capital, we can expect nothing in 1860 but a loose, disorderly and riotous scrub race for the next Presidency, and a contest in the House of Representatives which may abruptly break up the general government and the Union. But with the general rally of the scattered elements of the old democracy upon this auspicious party movement for the acquisition of Cuba, all the existing lines between sections and factions will disappear, and the democracy, from the brink of destruction, like Napoleon in the critical moment at Marengo, will be enabled to charge back upon the enemy and win the field.' (New York Herald, 18 January 1859)

Bear this kind of thing in mind the next time people tell you 1860s Britain is an expansionist power.