So the Union looses a war with the British then what?
- Thread starter Tielhard
- Start date
I take it you believe me wrong? It matters little as the contribution they make is little.
Shiloh was April 1862, the 6th IIRC, so was this not before Trent would go balistic.
Copied from a site on wars.
Utah, which was settled by the Mormans (Latter-day Saints) in the mid-1840s, was declared a US territory in 1850, and Brigham Young (1801-77), a Mormon leader was appointed governor. Federal officials complained of Young's dictatorial ways and the power of the church, while others were shocked at the Mormons' practice of polygamy. The Mormans, for their part, did not want non-Mormans in their territory and resented the flow of emigrants across and into their lands. Matters worsened, and in 1857 the US president sent Colonel Albert S. Johnston (1803-62) and a force of 2,500 troops to Utah to install a new non-Morman governor to enforce federal authority. The Danites, a Mormon militia, slowed Johnston's progress across the plains by stampeding horses, destroying wagon trains, and burning grass, while Young called settlers from throughout the territory to come to Salt Lake City to defend the capital. Before a serious confrontation took place, a federal mediator was able to arrange a compromise. The new governor was recognized and allowed to enter Salt Lake City, while the troops camped outside and soon returned East. Although the "rebels" were pardoned by the president, friction between the Mormons and the government continued for another four decades. It was only after the Mormon Church abolished polygamy that Utah was admitted into the Union in 1896.
So giving them most of what they wanted might do the trick.
Last edited:
67th Tigers
Banned
The defence of New Orleans is tying down 20,000 CS Troops (the Union ISTR have taken some outlying islands as naval depots). With Dunlop sweeping through these can be redeployed north to face Hallecks "Army Group of the West", giving the CS numerical advantage.
cf the Hydrographer Report.
That's the limit of the Canadian Rail net (I do a similar indication for the Union), it's impossible to sustain major forces west of this.
The Union is at Kingston, I just drew the arrow a little south (in MS Paint!).
There's a good railway/roadway from St Johns to Portland. The US rail has to take a rather convoluted route to get to Portland (up to Burlington, which is threated by the British advance on Ft Montgomery, down to Boston and then up the coast).
Without domination of Lake Ontario (which I assume the British have), and occupation of Sackett's, if the British advance too far down the Hudson they'd risk a force moving to Ogdensburg to threaten their LoCs. For anything more than a spoiling attack into Plattsburg, Sackett's needs to go first.
In the NE theatre, the key would seem to be the Connecticut River. It's a wide, defensible river (from either side), and the first geographic anchor the British would meet.
We're asking him to do more, with less resources (I assume some troops and supplies will be stripped to go north) against better opposition (more troops and better equipped). Halleck's Army Group isn't going to get to NO.
Fair enough.
Ah, be interesting to see her tackle the Guardship (a razee Liner) and the Fortifications:
http://www.fsgfort.com/Fort/27/Art4/Fort27-4.htm
Tielhard
Banned
The Union will be asking him to do more, but not with less. If NO falls and the British provide river gunboats the Union is sunk. They have to hold both the Mississippi and the Tennessee and if they don't take and then hold NO they leave thier enemies with the best logistics and engineering base available. Foote will get more rams built at Carondalets (St. Louis) may be a couple of ironclads to replace his losses but he has to get down river quick and Grant has to keep up. I suspect that Grant will have more resources than you expect. I anticipate only one strike into Canada and holding actions everywhere else in order to free up troops for Grant. Maybe even trying to get the British to over extend themselves and thier lines of supply. Albany Arsenal would be a big temptation. Ditto Virginia the Union will be completely defensive and troops will be sent to Grant.
This is one of the big areas where our ideas part company. If the lake monster New Orleans gets onto the water and into the Thousand Islands even if she is under tow and armed only with 32lb guns how are the British going to get on to the lake. If she has Michigan and a half dozen merchant hulls maybe even a couple of rough ironed tugs with her the British cannot hope to match her. She is a monster asset, adequately defended at a choke point.
Even without New Orleans the Union have the advantage, it then becomes a roll of the dice but the way to bet is on the Union.
Tielhard
Banned
I remind you sir of the outstanding actions of that noble Scots seaman and wicked traitor John Paul Jones when fighting under the colours of the United States of America against his home land.
In unsupported single ship actions we may reasonably expect that on average regular Union navy Captains will perform better than most Royal Navy Captains. They are far more used to taking thier own decisions and being inadequately supplied a long way from home.
again, I have to ask: just what are the British aims in this scenario? Are they looking for an apology, or are they actually supporting an independent CSA?
For discussion purposes assume they accept; withdrawal from Canada, return of the Confederate commissioners, an indemnity in gold against Britain’s war costs, San Juan Island with Sackett’s Harbor and surroundings. If you feel that is too lenient then throw in Nantucket and Santa Catalina Islands too.
edit: went back and read the OP.. so... Sackett's Harbor? where is that exactly... the Brits are taking actual US territory, but not supporting the CSA? And apparently the war will continue after the Brits leave. The CSA has been given a few more years of life, while the US rebuilds it's fleet, but none of their original problems (not enough capital or population or railroads) have gone away. So, the CSA is still going down.
ANd when WW1 rolls around the US will either:
gleefully sell supplies to Britain and watch them bleed themselves to death in the trenches or
Take back those captured territories in exchange for supplies and US troops...
For discussion purposes assume they accept; withdrawal from Canada, return of the Confederate commissioners, an indemnity in gold against Britain’s war costs, San Juan Island with Sackett’s Harbor and surroundings. If you feel that is too lenient then throw in Nantucket and Santa Catalina Islands too.
edit: went back and read the OP.. so... Sackett's Harbor? where is that exactly... the Brits are taking actual US territory, but not supporting the CSA? And apparently the war will continue after the Brits leave. The CSA has been given a few more years of life, while the US rebuilds it's fleet, but none of their original problems (not enough capital or population or railroads) have gone away. So, the CSA is still going down.
ANd when WW1 rolls around the US will either:
gleefully sell supplies to Britain and watch them bleed themselves to death in the trenches or
Take back those captured territories in exchange for supplies and US troops...
Tielhard
Banned
British war aims:
1) Show the Federal Americans who is top dog. To put it another way 'avenge the insult to the British flag'.
2) Ensure the freedom of the high seas for the British merchant fleet*.
3) Uphold and be seen to uphold international law.
4) Recover the persons taken from RMS Trent and other British ships.
5) Obtain an apology from the USA's government.
6) Obtain reparations comensurate with the amount of disruption caused by the war.
*This does not mean that the British think they can ignore the blockade. If the blockade is enforced it is lawful and the Royal Navy and British Government respected it.
The British do not wish to support the independence of the CSA. They would no doubt recognise it if the rest of the Europeans do but they will not be the first to do so.
so... basically, a quick naval war that would take down a big chunk of the USN and ravage part of the east coast? I wonder if there would be time for the Brits to raid CA, with the short time frame we're working with here. You know, if it actually came down to it, I wonder if Lincoln wouldn't give in rather quickly to avoid the whole thing; release the diplomats and apologize, so no war at all...
Tielhard
Banned
Well yes Dave you have hit the nail on the head. However it is not impossible to dream up a scenario where without anybody being stupid things move inexorably towards war. Having Albert the Prince Consort pop his clogs two weeks early helps. Then there is the fact Nashville and USS Tusscarora are in Southampton. Tunis M. Craven commands Tusscarora and he is a one man diplomatic incident when things are going his way. It is easy to build a casus beli around him. Then that other British ship (forgot the name) is taken by the USN. Mexico is a mess. Lots of opportunities for trouble on the nothern and Maine boarders where crimpers are at work on the British troops.
The west end of Lake Ontario, around 44 N.
The CSA will be rolling in money once they can start exporting again, they will also be able to import better than OTL, the US on the other hand will not be able to get the arms from overseas, they will not be able to get foreign loans (US banks borrowed from foreign backs and then lent to the US government, nobody will take that risk here), getting loans form the populace is less likely with the hyperinflation problem and he lack of gold from California and import duties, import duties will be destroyed.
In short the US is going to have it's financial system crippled and will be forced to engage in moral destroying hyper inflation, meanwhile the CSA has a year where they will do a lot better than OTL (the troops invading Canada have to come from somewhere, not to mention the shortages in arms/powder, the freeing of CSA soldiers from garrison duty etc) and they will most likely get European recognition at any rate once the blockade is removed.
The CSA is by no means certain to go down.
Sigh, why do people feel the need for cosmic justice to be enacted on the US's part.
MrP
Banned
I think you're right, old boy. To be honest, my question was more of a wondering whether anyone could convince me that slavery was that important.
I think it will be important to sort this bit out - if only because it seems to be the prime area of strategic offensive movement ITTL.
Beats me. Apparently, America loves to fund projects using money neither she nor anyone else has, and then repeatedly fight or oppose Britain in such a way that America makes no or little money from it. It's frightfully kind of the Americans to ignore the principles of selfishness on which humanity is fnounded, and decide to dedicate themselves to revenge against Britain through military means, rather than simply making money.
I sometimes think that the example of Germany in WWII wanting revenge for WWI's injustices has made too much of an impression on some of us.
Darkling, why can't some people cope with basic reality that if the US was ripped in two by British action then US attitudes towards the UK would be changed for generations to come?
Which of the following do you dispute?
1) Following CSA independence, even ignoring attitudes towards the UK, the US would inevitably expand the military for reasons ranging from disputed territories with the CSA and Canada, to the issue of slaves fleeing north and possibly abolitionists smuggling weapons south, each side arming Native American groups convenient as proxies and so forth.
2) Canada would be forced to expand its military greatly and earlier than in OTL in response, especially if a few bits of the US were given to Canada.
3) This would eventually become a burden on British defense needs.
4) A quick British intervention as Tielhard describes would not change world history greatly and might not change the rise of Prussia at all in the 1860s through 1871 but would dramatically change the likelihood of the US going to war on the UK's behalf in the future. Not going to war against the UK, simply not getting involved at all.
5) Lack of US intervention in WWI would be fatal for the British, especially as the CSA and Canada are probably obliged to keep some substantial forces at home, not to mention the existing larger forces probably being expended in the first and clumsiest year of trench warfare.
6) The US would make a killing, pun not intended, by selling all that it could to whoever could send ships to US ports(the allies, natch).
7) This would leave a staggering debt for the UK.
8) The US might request minor, or not so minor, border adjustments in return for erasing most of the debt. Possibly the British might even make the offer if it seemed likely to be help them.
Which of the following do you dispute?
1) Following CSA independence, even ignoring attitudes towards the UK, the US would inevitably expand the military for reasons ranging from disputed territories with the CSA and Canada, to the issue of slaves fleeing north and possibly abolitionists smuggling weapons south, each side arming Native American groups convenient as proxies and so forth.
2) Canada would be forced to expand its military greatly and earlier than in OTL in response, especially if a few bits of the US were given to Canada.
3) This would eventually become a burden on British defense needs.
4) A quick British intervention as Tielhard describes would not change world history greatly and might not change the rise of Prussia at all in the 1860s through 1871 but would dramatically change the likelihood of the US going to war on the UK's behalf in the future. Not going to war against the UK, simply not getting involved at all.
5) Lack of US intervention in WWI would be fatal for the British, especially as the CSA and Canada are probably obliged to keep some substantial forces at home, not to mention the existing larger forces probably being expended in the first and clumsiest year of trench warfare.
6) The US would make a killing, pun not intended, by selling all that it could to whoever could send ships to US ports(the allies, natch).
7) This would leave a staggering debt for the UK.
8) The US might request minor, or not so minor, border adjustments in return for erasing most of the debt. Possibly the British might even make the offer if it seemed likely to be help them.
What makes the US so special it would hold a major grudge over such a minor defeat for all time?
Nations get beaten in wars all the time. Usually they then get over their differences and move on.
Considering the way the cultures of the two nations were/are so strongly linked I could well see friendly relations being restored quicker then normal: really nothing like the US stewing away wanting revenge.
Talk of WW1 is just silly here too.
In such a scenario France would likely win in Mexico- this would really help Napoleon III's position.
There may not be a Franco-Prussian war. If there is France may win.
Nations get beaten in wars all the time. Usually they then get over their differences and move on.
Considering the way the cultures of the two nations were/are so strongly linked I could well see friendly relations being restored quicker then normal: really nothing like the US stewing away wanting revenge.
Talk of WW1 is just silly here too.
In such a scenario France would likely win in Mexico- this would really help Napoleon III's position.
There may not be a Franco-Prussian war. If there is France may win.
Last edited:
Tielhard
Banned
Well Grimm since you asked
I dispute (1), possibly (3), the second bit of (4), possibly (5), possibly (7) and (8).
Basically between 1862 and 1914 is 52 years and even a short war has changed things substantially. I can see many, many time-lines where WWI does come along on schedule and in a lot of those the British do badly. I can see many time-lines where a more Germanic USA goes red in the 1880. I can se some where it just stagnates. I can see some where it wars continually with the CSA to its own detriment. The point I a trying to make is that I find it hard enough to work out from my scenario above what Anglo-USA-CSA relations will be like in 1867 never mind in another 47 years.
I dispute (1), possibly (3), the second bit of (4), possibly (5), possibly (7) and (8).
Basically between 1862 and 1914 is 52 years and even a short war has changed things substantially. I can see many, many time-lines where WWI does come along on schedule and in a lot of those the British do badly. I can see many time-lines where a more Germanic USA goes red in the 1880. I can se some where it just stagnates. I can see some where it wars continually with the CSA to its own detriment. The point I a trying to make is that I find it hard enough to work out from my scenario above what Anglo-USA-CSA relations will be like in 1867 never mind in another 47 years.
To much Irish,Scotish and Welsh in our ancestory. How long did the McDonalds and Campbells hold a grudge.
Some of us hold a grudge until it dies of old age then piss on its grave.