Trent Affair Goes Hot

[marathag]

Without gunpowder and rifles, the Americans aren't going anywhere.

Confederates never ran out of Gunpowder, even after the ports were blockaded. Why would the North be unable to duplicate the Confederate effort in local powder manufacture?

And obviously, the North couldn't build rifles, either, right?

 

[Sarthak]

Confederates never ran out of Gunpowder, even after the ports were blockaded. Why would the North be unable to duplicate the Confederate effort in local powder manufacture?

And obviously, the North couldn't build rifles, either, right?

They could, but unless you want the same devastating economic commitments, the confederates committed themselves to fund their armies, then the Union would just be digging their graves.

 

[marathag]

They could, but unless you want the same devastating economic commitments, the confederates committed themselves to fund their armies, then the Union would just be digging their graves.

Why do you think the North would resist invasion by the British any less than the Confederates resisted the Union troops?

While the recent Irish immigrants were less than happy to fight in the South, fighting the British would be another matter

 

[Sarthak]

Why do you think the North would resist invasion by the British any less than the Confederates resisted the Union troops?

While the recent Irish immigrants were less than happy to fight in the South, fighting the British would be another matter

On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs

Lead imports from Britain by year

1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs

From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. Take in note, this is not including civilian needs, or the needs of the Union Navy and Marine Corps.

Lead Production and imports from Britain and consumption.

To answer @marathag how the Confederates managed to supply their troops? Well this is how.

Both Union and Confederate infantry fought almost exclusively with rifles shooting Minié bullets. Estimates are that 90 per cent of the casualties came from such weapons. Fighting men commonly referred to the “hailstorm of lead” tearing into them on battlefields; often they advanced leaning forward as if walking into a driving rain. Prodigious stores of lead were required to conduct such engagements, but the Confederacy had only one large-scale lead mining and smelting facility within its borders— the Wythe County operations deep in the mountains of southwestern Virginia. Just a handful of sporadically active workings were present elsewhere, and no significant domestic lead deposits besides Wythe County existed. It would be the Southwest Virginia mines together with importation that supplied the majority of Confederate lead.

The Wythe County mines opened in the mid-1700s and served as the main source of lead balls for the muskets of the patriot armies during the Revolutionary War. The mines continued to operate into the first half of the 19th century, sending lead shot to markets throughout the Southern states. On March 8, 1860, with war clouds gathering, the Wythe County works were reorganized and incorporated as the Union Lead Mine Company, an ironic name for the foremost Confederate lead provider.

At the onset of fighting, the Richmond government demanded that the Union mines owners work the facilities to their maximum capacity or give them up for operation by the government. The company directors chose the former and round-the-clock activity commenced. The actual lead bullets were not made at the Wythe County site. Rather, the workmen dug out the ore, processed it in the smelters, cast the molten lead into ingots, and shipped the lead bars by rail to Richmond and Petersburg to be molded into ammunition. Production records are incomplete, but over three million pounds of lead, an estimated one-third of the total consumed by the Confederacy, are known to have come from the Union mines.

Still, even with this prolific output from Virginia, lead became increasingly scarce as the contest ground on. The government asked citizens for contributions of common household items containing lead, such as pipes, roofing materials, window weights, and eating utensils. In 1863, the city of Mobile ripped up unused lead water mains and shipped them off to the munitions plants. On occasion, officers directed soldiers back onto battlefields after the fighting ceased to scavenge for bullets to be recycled into fresh rounds.

If the Union wishes to take part in this scavenging of resources then they can do that, but again, it's not going to be really helpful in the long run.

It was also the British blockade runners that sustained the Confederates. What do you think will happen when Britain actually enters the war and doesn't need privateers to aid the Confederates?

Just go through this post, I don't like repeating hundred times over.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The British were in the wrong too, supporting an unrecognizable and rogue nation in rebellion against another recognized nation, a slave holding nation on top of that. That would make the virtuous Brits hypocrites.

First up, Britain wasn't supporting the Confederacy. Secondly, the Union was still a slave-owning nation at the time, and the official Union line was that the war was about preserving the Union, not about slavery.

 

[Belisarius II]

View attachment 582475
On hand in 1861: 1,302,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1862: 23,057,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1862: 18,920,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1863: 48,720,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1863: 31,139,000 lbs
Purchased to 30 June 1864: 12,740,000 lbs
Expended to 30 June 1864: 7,624,000 lbs

Lead imports from Britain by year

1861: 1,679,000 lbs
1862: 28,926,000 lbs
1863 5,777,000 lbs
1864 25,929,000 lbs

From June 30th of 1862 to June 30th of 1863, the Union Army alone expended 31 million pounds of lead; total production during that same space was only 28 million pounds. Take in note, this is not including civilian needs, or the needs of the Union Navy and Marine Corps.

Lead Production and imports from Britain and consumption.

To answer @marathag how the Confederates managed to supply their troops? Well this is how.

Both Union and Confederate infantry fought almost exclusively with rifles shooting Minié bullets. Estimates are that 90 per cent of the casualties came from such weapons. Fighting men commonly referred to the “hailstorm of lead” tearing into them on battlefields; often they advanced leaning forward as if walking into a driving rain. Prodigious stores of lead were required to conduct such engagements, but the Confederacy had only one large-scale lead mining and smelting facility within its borders— the Wythe County operations deep in the mountains of southwestern Virginia. Just a handful of sporadically active workings were present elsewhere, and no significant domestic lead deposits besides Wythe County existed. It would be the Southwest Virginia mines together with importation that supplied the majority of Confederate lead.

The Wythe County mines opened in the mid-1700s and served as the main source of lead balls for the muskets of the patriot armies during the Revolutionary War. The mines continued to operate into the first half of the 19th century, sending lead shot to markets throughout the Southern states. On March 8, 1860, with war clouds gathering, the Wythe County works were reorganized and incorporated as the Union Lead Mine Company, an ironic name for the foremost Confederate lead provider.

At the onset of fighting, the Richmond government demanded that the Union mines owners work the facilities to their maximum capacity or give them up for operation by the government. The company directors chose the former and round-the-clock activity commenced. The actual lead bullets were not made at the Wythe County site. Rather, the workmen dug out the ore, processed it in the smelters, cast the molten lead into ingots, and shipped the lead bars by rail to Richmond and Petersburg to be molded into ammunition. Production records are incomplete, but over three million pounds of lead, an estimated one-third of the total consumed by the Confederacy, are known to have come from the Union mines.

Still, even with this prolific output from Virginia, lead became increasingly scarce as the contest ground on. The government asked citizens for contributions of common household items containing lead, such as pipes, roofing materials, window weights, and eating utensils. In 1863, the city of Mobile ripped up unused lead water mains and shipped them off to the munitions plants. On occasion, officers directed soldiers back onto battlefields after the fighting ceased to scavenge for bullets to be recycled into fresh rounds.

If the Union wishes to take part in this scavenging of resources then they can do that, but again, it's not going to be really helpful in the long run.

It was also the British blockade runners that sustained the Confederates. What do you think will happen when Britain actually enters the war and doesn't need privateers to aid the Confederates?

Just go through this post, I don't like repeating hundred times over.

We've been over all this in other threads. It was shown the Union had other sources of lead, and nitrates. The assertion that 1,000 British Soldiers = 3,000 Union Troops is ridiculous. Just what is the supporting evidence of such a claim? Certainly not the performance of the British Army in the Crimean War. In the earlier thread I presented a report from a British General ordered to assess the defenses of Canada. His conclusion was that Canada West of Montreal was indefensible. The RN plan to attack NYC was based on arrogance, powered by hot air. In 1862 the USN would quickly gain an ironclad advantage, and would raid British Commerce. The economic damage to both sides would be serious.

The British Wank ideas are based on some one sided inputs. First the lose of British Imports would hurt the Union, but the lose of sales would have no impact on the British. The Lose of American Imports would cause no shortages, or price increases in Britain, or damage shippers. The risk to British Capital Investment in the Union would have no negative effect on British Capital Markets. That the cost of the war, and attendant tax increases would be cheerfully borne by the British upper classes, and the lower classes wouldn't object to increases in food prices. The British Government would have no trouble getting the public to embrace a draft, based on the slogan "Blood for Mason, and Slidell, down with Lincoln, up with Jefferson Davis."

When people realize the costs that such a war would entail enthusiasm would wane. People were angry because British Pride was hurt, but nobody was injured, and no property was damaged in the Trent Affair. An American Captain acceded his orders, and the U.S. Government disavowed the action, and the Confederate Diplomats were released. Going into a fully scale war costing thousands of lives, and hundreds of millions of pre inflationary Dollars would be a huge overreaction. Future Historians would find the event of a major war over the Trent Affair an anomaly, like the legend of Henry V going to war with France because they sent him Tennis Balls.

 

[Sarthak]

The assertion that 1,000 British Soldiers = 3,000 Union Troops is ridiculous

Show me where I supported this.

 

[Sarthak]

The British Wank ideas are based on some one sided inputs. First the lose of British Imports would hurt the Union, but the lose of sales would have no impact on the British. The Lose of American Imports would cause no shortages, or price increases in Britain, or damage shippers. The risk to British Capital Investment in the Union would have no negative effect on British Capital Markets. That the cost of the war, and attendant tax increases would be cheerfully borne by the British upper classes, and the lower classes wouldn't object to increases in food prices. The British Government would have no trouble getting the public to embrace a draft, based on the slogan "Blood for Mason, and Slidell, down with Lincoln, up with Jefferson Davis."

And, somehow, the very thing that all foreign reserves were held in pounds is lost on you? America's advantage over the CSA just went down the drain. Britain would have to fight against jacked up prices for wheat and cotton, however the simply fact of the matter is that Britain could afford it. With no imports, and their highest bond market suddenly hostile, I would certainly like to know how America can sustain the war on the long run.

It was shown the Union had other sources of lead, and nitrates.

Yet historical assertion provides enough data that nitrates and leads production of America was not enough to cover their entire military, paramilitary and civilian usage. No one has provided any counterfact on that. They have provided deposits, but carefully ignore the fact that most of these deposits did not become available until the 1890s and 1900s. I wonder why?

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0838/report.pdf

 

[Derek Jackson]

Britain would be divided. More so after the emancipation proclamation

 

[stevej713]

I think we need a collection of Trent Affair threads, similar to the collection of Sealion threads in the Post-1900 forum. There is literally nothing new to say on the topic.

 

[TRH]

I think we need a collection of Trent Affair threads, similar to the collection of Sealion threads in the Post-1900 forum. There is literally nothing new to say on the topic.

And while it might not be impossible as such, like Sealion is, there is still no reason for Lincoln to escalate things to the point of war (and there wouldn't be even if he lacked other concerns), and not much more for the British to do so.

 

[Captain Seafort]

And while it might not be impossible as such, like Sealion is, there is still no reason for Lincoln to escalate things to the point of war (and there wouldn't be even if he lacked other concerns), and not much more for the British to do so.

There's certainly good reason for the UK to do so if the US doesn't respond appropriately. The Royal Mail packets were the strategic command and control network of the Empire - the early Victorian internet if you will.

While Lincoln wasn't stupid enough to deliberately pick a fight, he might have been stupid or inexperienced enough to misunderstand a UK ultimatum as the opening round of negotiations, or feel boxed into a corner if the ultimatum were phrased sufficiently robustly.

 

[marathag]

If the Union wishes to take part in this scavenging of resources then they can do that, but again, it's not going to be really helpful in the long run.

Out of Lead, and don't feel like expanding production along the upper and mid Mississippi valley in Missouri and Illinois , zinc or copper can be used.
Again, even with the crumbling economy and occupation of the South, the major CSA armies never ran out of ammunition.
Per recent geological surveys, the USA has 85M tons in reserves, after the 92M tons extraction of the past 300 years. Only Oz, China and Russia have more reserves.

 

[Bullmoose713]

We've been over all this in other threads. It was shown the Union had other sources of lead, and nitrates. The assertion that 1,000 British Soldiers = 3,000 Union Troops is ridiculous. Just what is the supporting evidence of such a claim? Certainly not the performance of the British Army in the Crimean War. In the earlier thread I presented a report from a British General ordered to assess the defenses of Canada. His conclusion was that Canada West of Montreal was indefensible. The RN plan to attack NYC was based on arrogance, powered by hot air. In 1862 the USN would quickly gain an ironclad advantage, and would raid British Commerce. The economic damage to both sides would be serious.

The British Wank ideas are based on some one sided inputs. First the lose of British Imports would hurt the Union, but the lose of sales would have no impact on the British. The Lose of American Imports would cause no shortages, or price increases in Britain, or damage shippers. The risk to British Capital Investment in the Union would have no negative effect on British Capital Markets. That the cost of the war, and attendant tax increases would be cheerfully borne by the British upper classes, and the lower classes wouldn't object to increases in food prices. The British Government would have no trouble getting the public to embrace a draft, based on the slogan "Blood for Mason, and Slidell, down with Lincoln, up with Jefferson Davis."

When people realize the costs that such a war would entail enthusiasm would wane. People were angry because British Pride was hurt, but nobody was injured, and no property was damaged in the Trent Affair. An American Captain acceded his orders, and the U.S. Government disavowed the action, and the Confederate Diplomats were released. Going into a fully scale war costing thousands of lives, and hundreds of millions of pre inflationary Dollars would be a huge overreaction. Future Historians would find the event of a major war over the Trent Affair an anomaly, like the legend of Henry V going to war with France because they sent him Tennis Balls.

Good answer

 

[marathag]

but carefully ignore the fact that most of these deposits did not become available until the 1890s and 1900s

Lead mines in Missouri were producing long before the War, and are among the last producing mines in the USA, alng with a couple in Alaska.

Nitrate extraction wasn't really needed, due to access of cheaper imports. If that isn't available, yes, local efforts are done, as with the South from Nitre beds on up to the existing ACW era in Indiana and Kentucky, or that smart Chemists work on stabilizing nitrocellulose sooner
As i was, the DuPont Brandywine powder mill produced nearly one-third of the Union’s BP during the War, even with the explosion in 1863

 

[Belisarius II]

And, somehow, the very thing that all foreign reserves were held in pounds is lost on you? America's advantage over the CSA just went down the drain. Britain would have to fight against jacked up prices for wheat and cotton, however the simply fact of the matter is that Britain could afford it. With no imports, and their highest bond market suddenly hostile, I would certainly like to know how America can sustain the war on the long run.

Yet historical assertion provides enough data that nitrates and leads production of America was not enough to cover their entire military, paramilitary and civilian usage. No one has provided any counterfact on that. They have provided deposits, but carefully ignore the fact that most of these deposits did not become available until the 1890s and 1900s. I wonder why?

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0838/report.pdf

The United States fought the British to a draw in 2 1/2 years of fighting during the War of 1812. During that conflict the U.S. Economy kept growing, despite the lose of ocean trade, and there was little inflation. The U.S. at that time was much weaker then the Union was in 1862. Large scale lead mining was already under way in Illinois, and Missouri. Several people, including myself posted several sources to prove this in other threads. I also posted sources about the U.S. Economy in the War of 1812.

 

[Ficboy]

The United States fought the British to a draw in 2 1/2 years of fighting during the War of 1812. During that conflict the U.S. Economy kept growing, despite the lose of ocean trade, and there was little inflation. The U.S. at that time was much weaker then the Union was in 1862. Large scale lead mining was already under way in Illinois, and Missouri. Several people, including myself posted several sources to prove this in other threads. I also posted sources about the U.S. Economy in the War of 1812.

The political and technological climate was completely different, Britain was tied up with fighting France as much as they were with America. A Trent War in 1861-1862 is something different in terms of technology and conflict.

 

[Belisarius II]

The political and technological climate was completely different, Britain was tied up with fighting France as much as they were with America. A Trent War in 1861-1862 is something different in terms of technology and conflict.

True it was. Canada was more vulnerable, and Union Industrial Capacity was much closer to British Capacity then in 1812. The U.S. had more developed capital markets, and the the USN was much stronger then in 1812.

 

[Ficboy]

True it was. Canada was more vulnerable, and Union Industrial Capacity was much closer to British Capacity then in 1812. The U.S. had more developed capital markets, and the the USN was much stronger then in 1812.

Either way, a Trent War is going to end badly for the United States and benefit the Confederate States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

 

[marathag]

Either way, a Trent War is going to end badly for the United States and benefit the Confederate States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

No, everyone loses. The only winners are France, Germany, Russia and Italy.

Great Britain went nearly broke against Germany in WWI.
Fighting the USA would be even more expensive. Most of Canada is indefensible.

Landing 100,000 British Troops, say eight divisions worth in the CSA isn't an advantage, as they didn't have the logistics to support what they had, unless the UK is going to be doing a total revamp of the southern railnet

That's a mishmash of different gauges , upper South had the Northern Standard 4'8" while Lower South had more of the British 5' Broad gauge so you had a lot of interchange issues
during the Civil War, the Union was supporting a Roadnet of 21,000 miles, the CSA with 9000.
BTW, Great Britain had 10,000 miles

Compared to the Union the CSA had 1/3 of the Rolling Stock, 20% of the locomotives, 12% of rail production, 10% of the telegraph stations and 4% of the locomotive production . It's going to cost the British a lot to get that up to par.