Darth Revan
You say you're countering TLC's arguments? Most of it seems a repetition of points you and him have said, with no clear distinction between who said what or any actual points stated by you. I can only see a couple of actual arguments being made by you.
a) That Britain has only 80k regulars, I think in reference to the question of invading California. Not sure if the 80k figure is accurate as it sounds pretty low. Suspect it is only the active force in Britain? Apart from the point that it's more than the US army at the start of the civil war, i.e. new people can be recruited you seem to be missing the main point. For an attack on the west coast the obvious source would be from the
British army in India, which is definitely not included in that 80k limit as it was substantially larger. The force that has recently concluded the 2nd opium war, ended in 1860, had included both British and Indian forces from India and it would be fairly simple for the government to use such forces again. Their a lot nearer and sea travel is a lot quicker and easier than crossing N America without a railway.
b) What is insulting about suggesting that the population in California is not monolithically unionist? Given that the vast majority are recent immigrants there for the gold and many are not from the US. That while it had a republican governor that was for the same reason as the US had a republican president, i.e. the democrats had been split between two candidates who between them totalled more votes. That were were attempts by southern sympathisers to attempt to disrupt gold runs to the union. That California was a substantial source of revenue for the central government and in this scenario, after a long and costly war leaving the US deeply in debt it could well be used as a cash-cow by Washington. That in the event of an occupation Washington will have clearly failed to defend it. That we are also assuming a serious reduction in civil rights in the union, which
may be restored after the war, for it to continue the struggle that long. Under all those circumstances I don't think it at all impossible that the Californians could decide their better off severing their links with Washington.
c) TLC repeated that having been partially blockaded and and seriously threatened by the north the south may well decide it needs a stronger industrial base itself for future defence. That's perfectly logical. It doesn't mean, as you suggest, totally scrapping their entire current social system. By you're own logic because the US had a slave economy in the south before the war it couldn't have any industry. That's just being silly.
I will note you have not responded to queries directed at yourself so I will ask you one again. Given the loss of all funding sources almost immediately upon war breaking out with Britain, how is the union going to fund a larger and much more expensive war?
Steve
I will waste a full 10 seconds of my time to explain to you some of your most glaring contradictions or uncited rambling.
"USA which has possibly lost the west coast"
"The American military presence on the west coast is so weak that the Union cannot really oppose an attempt by the British to occupy the key populated areas, San Francisco, Sacramento, the Goldfields and the Willamette even in a scenario where they defeat the British. Neither would I completely discount a French occupation of lower Alta California as this would be an excellent way of putting pressure on the Republican Mexican rebels in a world where the British were at war with the Union although it is unlikely."
"10,000 or so troops in California is just a drop in the Ocean for the British.
"The British have only got 80,000 regulars"
"Expeditionary force to California and the west coast – say 30,000 (again would prefer more they could be stopped in the high passes by a very small emplaced British force)
Logistical support and security for California force – not less than 60,000"
You think that the whole heterodox population of California was pro-Union? The people in power with the Federal guns and the best armed vigilantes behind them were pro-Union. They are gone as soon as the British land (or even just lay off the city of San Francisco with tompions out and gunports open). The British don’t need to break the Californians away from the Union they can do that all for themselves.
This, unlike your other ramblings, is deliberately insulting and goes against all historical evidence.
"Lastly, I have not suggested that the CSA change either its economy or its way of life in order to better defend itself, simply that some degree of industry would be necessary and desirable."
??? Silly me, the South going from a slave, agricultural economy to an immigrant industrial based economy would not be a drastic change, all stemming from a single battle
Now, for one last point.
Me:"however, I would like to see some evidence to back up your claim that America's merchant fleets didn't recover until the 40's."
ME:" AGAIN I ask to provide some citation that this damage from 1812 lasted until the 40's"
You: "It took them around 30 years to get back to the state they were in at the beginning of the war of 1812 how can that be construed as prospering?"