amphibulous
Banned
Amphibulous,
I would have thought that given the number of ships and bases available to the English this would be self evident, but fair go, you tell me as clearly as possible what you think has to be demonstrated in order to make a convincing argument.
For the third time, the ability to enforce a blockade would have depended on ironclads - because the Union would have used such weapons to break the blockade. The British had two that they felt confident using in blue water against Monitor class or better opponents. The US demonstrated an ability to build competing ships with the New Ironsides and would have the advantage of being able to deploy ships designed for short range (but blue water operations) against vessels with trans-Atlantic range.
So, no, not self-evident.
In OTL Union industry was converting or already had converted to war production by early 1862. We know that they were experiencing a short fall of iron production
Bad logic. A shortfall is less than you want. Not less than you can get by with. The first limits operations, the second is required to end a war.
Opium was a British controlled trade too so it would reasonable to assume that there would be no analgesia of any sort for Union soldiers’ once domestic stocks ran out. There would also be a huge shortfall in arms production in 1862 but as that has been discussed several times on this site I won’t mention it further.
This is not something that ends wars in the C19th.
[quote[
The British don’t need Union grain there are two reasons for this. First Russian production and sales have recovered from the Crimean war and the Baltic trade is back up and running again. So the British traders can simply buy there instead.
[/quote]
This is the same Russia that is so pro-Union that it takes over the USN Pacific patrol duties for it, yes?
There is no single source for the information on nitrates, it is a synthesis of every thing I have picked up.
Well, you've obviously researched this seriously - but not quite completely. The use of synthetic nitrates was so routine that the trade for the "vital" Indian nitrate fields was rapidly dying in the 1860's - it declined even during the period when the US was buying for the war! So its pretty clear that the Indian nitrate was not essential - being deprived of it would have created difficulties, a hiatus in offensive operations, and extra costs subsequently. No more. See "The Financial Foundations Of The British Raj" at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=onepage&q=indian saltpetre civil war&f=false
I do not accept that the claim that a lack of gunpowder would have driven the Union to surrender is an extra-ordinary claim. The phenomena was seen in earlier wars.
Yes, but the points I made - even before the above - were specific to this one. Ignoring the above (which settles matters completely) if you were right then Washington would have had to be insane to provoke London in any way at all, and London pointlessly neurotic to worry about Canada!
In reality, both sets of statesmen pursued a realistic course. They each needed the other - just not absolutely.
The Province of Canada is at risk in any war with the USA. Chances are the whole of Canada West (modern Ontario) would fall to Union forces as the British simply do not have enough assets in position to defend the place.
But you've claimed the US couldn't conduct operations without Indian nitrates. This is not consistent!
In any case the occupation of parts of the Province of Canada is of relevance only to those that live there because once the British have destroyed the USA ‘s navy and coastal fortifications they can start on destroying naval yards, ports warehouses and heavy industry which all on the water front.
You're awfully confident that a few gun sloops - because a lot of targets will require bombarding from shallow water - will be a lot more effective than thousands of bombers over Germany in the 1940s. And that the US will be less resistant and ingenious than e.g. Octavian and Agrippa fighting Sextus Pompey (they built their warships in a lake to keep them safe and then dug a canal.) The British can't touch iron production significantly and new slipways can be built - Agrippa style if need be. (Although, once again, there were things called "mines" - well they called them "torpedoes".)
Lincoln isn’t Stalin or even Churchill; he does not have a command economy and the means to wage 20th century total war.
This meaningless rhetoric. Lincoln deploys a million men at arms. This effort has no precedent in British history. The resources to field 10 or 20 New Ironsides class ship against the RN are a minuscule fraction of this - they're comparable, in fact, to the almost whimsically motivated investment the US makes in over-producing Monitors!
So Mr Reality says, "No." The US can field a meaningful counter-blockade force for a modicum of effort by OTL standards. This isn't opinion justified with questionable analogies, it's fact. 50 Monitors convert quite nicely to 10 New Ironsides - and from there the only way is up.
The Union government will yield to the British before they destroy their country, they may be patriots but they are not fools.
Wait - the British can "destroy America"??? Using two (admittedly Godzilla like and completely awe inspiring) ironclads, a possible field force of 25,000 troops, and gun sloops??? Ok, they can build more ironclads, but the US has a relatively autarkal economy. The UK has a bigger navy, but she relies utterly on trade to stay alive. Union commerce raiding will be painful for her. (And please, no more "But there is a blockade!" - this didn't stop French commerce raiding in the Napoleonic Wars. Blockades are imperfect and stopping fast raiders that depart when conditions are optimal has a poor success rate.)
Realistically:
- The British are going to be able to a minute fraction of the damage that the Union to the CSA - especially considered pro rata to population
- You therefore either believe that Northerners are comparative cowards or that their will to fight the war is weak. Neither of these is sustainable when compared to Union casualty lists.
What would really happen (if the British had a reason to do something so contrary to their principals and interest) is:
- The British would have more firepower at sea
- The US would have a realistic chance of concentrating more firepower at a point and thus be able to create very severe pain for the RN on occasion.
- The US would be able to raid; the RN would have to convoy. This makes British exports less flexible and more expensive; business is lost.
- Northern offensive operations on land would stop for a year or so and then re-start at a lower tempo. Northern casualties would be higher.
- British land and sea forces throughout the Empire would be overstretched; grain prices in the UK would soar; depending on the Tsar's bunions there might be a real scarcity of bread in the UK. The UK can't count on getting grain from the Russians and, with no other source they can count on, will be extremely vulnerable to pressure from him. Why should they put themselves in this position?
Quite simply, the two sides would be in a contest to create each other pain until the war wasn't worth fighting for one of them anymore. And you can't say who that would be, because that worth depends on the motive for war - and the UK doesn't have one. In fact, it has a string of motives for avoiding one!
A lot of your logic seems to predicate that the US would fight a limited war against the UK, but that the UK would be fighting an unlimited one - i.e. one where it gave the Anti-Northern War priority over every need regardless of cost. This makes no sense at all - the UK has no motive for war, it goes against its interest and principals, and the US is defending itself - but the UK commits more than the US? This doesn't make any sense at all.