Have you actually read the Milne Papers? Or any of the other secondary sources talking about British discussions on a potential war with America or imposing a blockade? We know exactly what the British thought about the blockade and what they needed, we even know what Milne thought he needed. This quote has almost nothing to do with it.
(What Milne said in retrospect is more important then what he said talking about a hypothetical war. He knew more in 1862 then say 1860.)
According to Llyod's of London only 1,175, and the British recaptured 373, for a net loss of 802. Or maybe 7% of the British merchant marine was effected by American privateers, so essentially an annoyance. They're not likely to do much better in 1862. If they only use their engines to run, they won't really be able to use them to run down ships will they? That means they can't catch steamers, and they will be mildly ineffective.
The Lloyds list may not be complete, the Privateers had a better count, they got prize money, Lloyds was paying it out. A ship that can sail at 17 kts can catch just about any merchant ship, only another Clipper type ship can match that speed. Ships of this type ran the Union Blockade in the OTL, and made runs to China. They only need their engines if they have to run too close to the wind.
Even if your right losing 7% of your assets is bad. A merchant ship had a 99% chance of making a successfully crossing of the Atlantic in WWII, that didn't mean U-Boats were essentially an annoyance."
They'll use South American ports eh? Pray tell what will the Royal Navy's South East Coast of America Station have to say about it? They have a squadron there already, not great for potential raiders.
If they see them they get sea spray in the face. Trying to catch a blockade runner, where you know where he's trying to get to is one thing, trying to catch him running free in the ocean is another thing altogether.
You're just declaring the blockade would be porous without evidence so, whatever, unsupported assertion.
No I didn't say it, Admiral Milne said did.
They can, but not quickly. The British will already have numerous ocean going ironclads in service since they started building them pre-war, and they can build or convert new ones probably faster than the Union can even build them. The Americans launch one, the British can probably match it with two. American ironclads won't be a particularly big deal if the British already have their own on station.
The Americans would have an ironclad advantage at least into well into 1863. Ships like Warrior were harder to build then casement type ships, or monitors. British Ships have to be transatlantic ships. See HMS Captain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Captain_(1869)
What? I've literally just corrected your continuously incorrect assertion the British felt they couldn't hold Canada west of Montreal. And yeah, the deciding factor for any campaign in Canada West would be a fleet on Lake Ontario, much like 1812.
I'll have to find it from the research I found, and posted on an earlier thread. It was Montréal. Now your back to saying the Union Army can't take Toronto without controlling Lake Ontario?
No, my assessment is that the Anlgo-Canadians, fighting on their home ground, will be able to hold off attacks by larger American forces. My significant exception to that is they can't hold the Western province, and Toronto would doubtless fall.
What "Old Brains" thinks has a hell of a lot to do with it. The calculations on both side are pretty emphatically not different, and the British discussions say so, and simple geography does the rest, or did the geography of North America undergo substantial change between 1812 and 1862. In any event, "Old Brains" just happened to become General in Chief of the Union Army, so his opinion counts for a hell of a lot more than yours.
Old Brains wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army in 1862. Winfield Scott, and then George McClellan were.
Literally, what are you talking about?
You said the British needed a public apology to end the war. A statement of regret wasn't enough, so what would do the trick? I'd shed a lot more tears over the deaths of thousands of people, then over the Trent Affair where no one was killed, or even injured, and no property was damaged.