Robert Conroy's 1862

[Barry Curran]

I finished reading 1862 yesterday. I was not surprised that the North won. There have been a number of books similar to this one where Britain is soundly beaten, the reason being that the Americans in the Union do everything right and the British everything wrong and this is despite the fact that the British have a habit of winning wars.

One more thing. As a Scot, I was really angered by Conroy's lack of knowledge regarding Britain. Britain is a political entity which comprises of Scotland, England and Wales. You cannot, therefore, use England and Britain interchangeably;nor English and British. The fact that Conroy is unaware of this brings into question his grasp of British affairs and thus undermines the validity of his book.

 

[Faeelin]

One more thing. As a Scot, I was really angered by Conroy's lack of knowledge regarding Britain. Britain is a political entity which comprises of Scotland, England and Wales. You cannot, therefore, use England and Britain interchangeably;nor English and British. The fact that Conroy is unaware of this brings into question his grasp of British affairs and thus undermines the validity of his book.

People have been doing this for centuries, and it was even more comon in the 19th century than it is today.

 

[Barry Curran]

The fact is that Conroy is wrong to use Britain and England interchangeably, so betraying his lack of knowledge regarding Britain.And if he is wrong about such a fundamental as this , how much weight should be attached to his knowledge of how Britain would have fared in the scenario his book describes.

 

[joatsimeon@aol.com]

agreed

I finished reading 1862 yesterday. I was not surprised that the North won. There have been a number of books similar to this one where Britain is soundly beaten, the reason being that the Americans in the Union do everything right and the British everything wrong and this is despite the fact that the British have a habit of winning wars.

One more thing. As a Scot, I was really angered by Conroy's lack of knowledge regarding Britain. Britain is a political entity which comprises of Scotland, England and Wales. You cannot, therefore, use England and Britain interchangeably;nor English and British. The fact that Conroy is unaware of this brings into question his grasp of British affairs and thus undermines the validity of his book.

-- I agree with your take. Though to be fair, using "England" for "Britain" was common in Britain in the 19th century, and at times by Scots as well as Englishmen.

 

[Evil Opus]

I finished reading 1862 a couple days ago. I thought that it was much better then 1901, but had a few odd things in there. For instance, Attila Flynn's "Republic of New Ireland" in Ontario? WTF?! That makes no sense at all. I agree with Barry Curran, the US wins because the British screw up on everything. This was like Harry Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" series(incredibly unrealistic but not that bad)-both authors seem to ignore that Britain's army, thought stretched, was the most powerful in the world and it probably easily could have stood up to the North's army, which was bogged down in Virginia and Tennessee fighting Confederates. Even with all its military might and industrial capacity, not to mention bigger population, it took the North FOUR YEARS to finally defeat the Confederacy. An intervention by the Britsh wold not have been good.

 

[wkwillis]

I finished reading 1862 a couple days ago. I thought that it was much better then 1901, but had a few odd things in there. For instance, Attila Flynn's "Republic of New Ireland" in Ontario? WTF?! That makes no sense at all. I agree with Barry Curran, the US wins because the British screw up on everything. This was like Harry Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" series(incredibly unrealistic but not that bad)-both authors seem to ignore that Britain's army, thought stretched, was the most powerful in the world and it probably easily could have stood up to the North's army, which was bogged down in Virginia and Tennessee fighting Confederates. Even with all its military might and industrial capacity, not to mention bigger population, it took the North FOUR YEARS to finally defeat the Confederacy. An intervention by the Britsh wold not have been good.

Um, that's a joke, right? The Union in 1861 was a match for Britain, and by 1862 it was not remotely a contest. Britain had a navy that was second to none and an army that was second to half a dozen. The Union, the Confederacy, the French, the Russians, and possibly the Prussians and the Austrians. I don't know had many rifles or even muskets the Japanese had.

 

[MrP]

Um, that's a joke, right? The Union in 1861 was a match for Britain, and by 1862 it was not remotely a contest. Britain had a navy that was second to none and an army that was second to half a dozen. The Union, the Confederacy, the French, the Russians, and possibly the Prussians and the Austrians. I don't know had many rifles or even muskets the Japanese had.

Good Lord, man! You aren't suggesting that the British army of 1861 with artillery, rifles and so on, was inferior to the Japanese army, are you? 1861 is pre-Japanese social and military reforms, old boy! And second is such a vague term. Numerically? In training? In state of supply? In equipment?

That said, I do admire your patriotism. No matter that it sometimes leads you to questionable conclusions.

After all, Evil Opus merely said that British intervention wouldn't have been good. And one can hardly disagree with that - it would have forced the US onto a second front in Canada, for one. Thus reducing troops available for the real war. It would've opened Confederate ports to British supply ships, increasing the CSA's ability to fight the war.

None of this means this new ill-begotten alliance will succeed, but it wouldn't have been good.

 

[Faeelin]

The fact is that Conroy is wrong to use Britain and England interchangeably, so betraying his lack of knowledge regarding Britain.

But people at the time did this.

What was it Nelson said at Trafalgar? "England expects every man to do his duty."

 

[Michael B]

It seems to me that war against Perfidious Albion would be carried out with much more gusto and with a greater sense of patriotism (esp. from Irish immigrants) if Britain entered the war on the side of the CSA. While I do see the Union doing worse than the British, I will note (in disagreement with Mr. Stirling ) that it really is the war on land that will be the deciding point. If Atlanta and Richmond fall, what is the UK going to do?

Assuming that enough Irishmen are going to volunteer for a war that not soley against Britian, how are they going to get to the Union past the British blockade?

Furthermore, it seems unlikely to me that this would be a particularly popular war in England at all. Taking on a powerful industrial nation that considers you to be their nemesis, is one of your major trading partners, and which is going to cause you to have to abandon your other imperial commitments around the world doesn't seem to me like its going to be a winning proposition for Mr. Palmerston.

If Mr Palmerston reads his history books, he will be able to sell the war as anothe coalition effect by England. That is how Britain alway fought land wars for the previous two hundred years. The Royal Navy kept the sea lanes open so that a small force of redcoats could support a larger number of Europeans/sepoy subdue His/Her Majesty's enemies.

Given that on OTL Lincoln almost moved Heaven and Earth to keep Britain and France out of the war, if Britian did join in and start occupying California and Oregan and the CSA start winning, he would be savvy enough to negotiate some form of settlement that kept what was left intact. For a complete melt down either he needs to be shot earlier or Seward wins the Republican nomination for the 1860 election .

 

[wkwillis]

Good Lord, man! You aren't suggesting that the British army of 1861 with artillery, rifles and so on, was inferior to the Japanese army, are you? 1861 is pre-Japanese social and military reforms, old boy! And second is such a vague term. Numerically? In training? In state of supply? In equipment?

That said, I do admire your patriotism. No matter that it sometimes leads you to questionable conclusions.

After all, Evil Opus merely said that British intervention wouldn't have been good. And one can hardly disagree with that - it would have forced the US onto a second front in Canada, for one. Thus reducing troops available for the real war. It would've opened Confederate ports to British supply ships, increasing the CSA's ability to fight the war.

None of this means this new ill-begotten alliance will succeed, but it wouldn't have been good.

I was not aware that Britain had an army in meaningfull terms in 1861. I mean a mass army of several hundred divisions, like America had. I think the British army then might have had perhaps a hundred thousand all found, including native troops. Maybe.
Again, the British navy was the most powerfull in the world and surely would have done a better job of protecting it's merchant marine than the last two times it got involved with the US.
As for supplying the CSA, the British did a good enough job till the USA built a proper army and navy. By 1863 the British were beginning to notice that the USA navy was beginning to be a significant threat, and that was the reason that they accepted that the CSA was going to lose and stopped subsidizing them to the extent that they had earlier. Blockade runner construction started dropping off rapidly around then and soon ceased completely.
The British government was not run by idiots. They realised that their approach had cost them huge tariff increases for the US market, quadrupled the price of cotton, bankrupted most of their textile companies, had their CSA area debts defaulted on, and dramatically increased the cost of their navy by modernizing warship construction.
Jumpstarting steamship construction alone cost them heavily. It essentially wiped out the old, cheaper, sailing ship navy and forced them to build a new one a generation earlier than they otherwise would have had to.
They cut their losses as quickly as they could. Wise of them. Not as wise as not promising the CSA their support, of course, but the best that could be expected of those aristo amateurs running Whitehall.

 

[MrP]

I was not aware that Britain had an army in meaningfull terms in 1861. I mean a mass army of several hundred divisions, like America had. I think the British army then might have had perhaps a hundred thousand all found, including native troops. Maybe.

Surely there's some difference between that and this:

Um, that's a joke, right? The Union in 1861 was a match for Britain, and by 1862 it was not remotely a contest. Britain had a navy that was second to none and an army that was second to half a dozen. The Union, the Confederacy, the French, the Russians, and possibly the Prussians and the Austrians. I don't know had many rifles or even muskets the Japanese had.

I was taking issue with your suggestion that the British army of 1861 was inferior to the Japanese army of 1861. Being no expert (even an amateur one) on any of these armies, I can still imagine them all having armies larger than Britain's - I can even accept that they had armies better for fighting wars - in some ways.

I ran across an interesting something while looking for a size for the British Army in 1861. Beware, annoying jingly music.

Sadly, my aged Encyc Brit doesn't give me any numbers.

I have a recollection that the Trent incident led to the dispatch of either 10,000 or 20,000 men to Canada, and didn't someone mention 28,000 as the British deployment in the Maori Wars?

Of course, I look last where I ought to have looked first.
linky

The British colony of Canada felt directly threatened by the affair. The Canadian militia grew substantially as the Canadian and Maritime colonies were called on by the colonial Minister of Militia and Defence, John A. Macdonald (a future Father of Confederation and later the first Prime Minister of Canada), to double their active militia from 50,000 men to 100,000. The colony of Nova Scotia alone trained and armed 45,000 men.

Britain and the Southern states had close economic links because of their mutual involvement in the cotton trade (see cotton diplomacy). Many Britons, particularly of the aristocratic and ruling classes, were far more sympathetic to the Confederacy than to the Union. British military preparations were swift. Thirteen crew transports were chartered to carry British troops to the Americas, each capable of embarking over a thousand troops with a round-trip time of about six weeks. These would have made approximately three runs each by the time campaigning season started in March, and would thus have raised British regular fighting strength in the Americas to approximately 50,000 (there were approximately 100,000 troops available for deployment to the Americas). Both the U.S. and British governments estimated that the maximum number of Union troops available for service against Canada was 50,000. While the first wave of reinforcement troops were still at sea, the crisis was averted, and no further reinforcements were sent.

Anyway, getting back to the original point . . . I still think the British Army of 1861 was not inferior to the Japanese Army of that year. Though I'm happy to be shown up. Most of my thoughts on said army come from The Last Samurai.

 

[Evil Opus]

I don't know had many rifles or even muskets the Japanese had.

Umm, none. By this point in world history, the Americans had just brought the Japanese into the world 10 years ago. The Japanese were still using swords.

 

[Wozza]

Umm, none. By this point in world history, the Americans had just brought the Japanese into the world 10 years ago. The Japanese were still using swords.

the Portuguese brought the Japanese firearms in the sixteenth century.

 

[Tielhard]

MrP,

Peak British involvement in the Anglo-Maori wars over land in New Zealand was 18,000 Imperial line infantry, and support inc. gunners. Naval brigade, colonial troops and allied Maori were in addition to this. I THINK the peak came in 1862/3 but I am not sure.

 

[Tielhard]

"the Portuguese brought the Japanese firearms in the sixteenth century."

I thought Japanese firearms predated the arrival in Japan of the Portuguese?

 

[Tielhard]

Did anyone know that in a war arising from the Trent incident the British intended to ATTACK the Union from Canada rather than defend on the Canadian side of the border? Stones like an elephant.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Tielhard, really? That actually could have bought the Union some time. A little.

A few months to get the troops and supplies over, then launch the offensive, but with a contingent of only 28,000 the best you could expect is 20% or more of the British Army lost to no purpose, perhaps worse if Canada finds a good portion of the militia slaughtered needlessly.

Canada would NOT have been happy about such an affair.

 

[MrP]

Did anyone know that in a war arising from the Trent incident the British intended to ATTACK the Union from Canada rather than defend on the Canadian side of the border? Stones like an elephant.

Cheers for the numbers, old boy.

Attack? Good grief!

Ok, hang on, let's look again at the numbers. Initial intended dispatch is 50,000 men. Which is also what the USA and Britain thought the USA capable of diverting to the Canadian border. Given the intended Canadia militia total of 100,000 and the regulars contributing to defence, I can envisage - just about - a British offensive.

Still, given the era, the primacy of the defence, the limited opportunity for swift British reinforcement, and the potential for American militias to form comparable to the Canadians' (though probably weaker given that the best men are in the regulars), I think the British can expect a swift kick to the nadgers . . .

 

[Michael B]

Ok, hang on, let's look again at the numbers. Initial intended dispatch is 50,000 men. Which is also what the USA and Britain thought the USA capable of diverting to the Canadian border. Given the intended Canadia militia total of 100,000 and the regulars contributing to defence, I can envisage - just about - a British offensive.

Still, given the era, the primacy of the defence, the limited opportunity for swift British reinforcement, and the potential for American militias to form comparable to the Canadians' (though probably weaker given that the best men are in the regulars),

If the British got bogged down, they could put considerably more than 50,000 men in the field. In the Second Boer War forty years later, they put 250,000 men into South Africa. I would thus expect them to be able to pour in at least another 50,000 if not 100,000.

Obviously such numbers are going to take time to arrive, but if the war isn't over by Christmas, the additional manpower would be very welcome.

 

[Chris Oakley]

Personally, I'd like to see Conroy tackle a more recent era of history...say, the late 1930s or the post-Vietnam years.