What do you think the Confederacy did wrong?

[History Learner]

What in the......
The Monitor Class Ironclads were specifically designed for coastal command and were designed for shallow waters. There were around 50 of these by 1865 of which the majority were operating in inland rivers and lakes, mostly in the Mississippi.

Great Britain in 1862 had around 14 Ironclads, that were heavier, bulkier, stronger and most importantly, the Warrior Class, Defense Class, Hector Class, Achilles Class, Minotaur Class, Prince Consort Class, Lord Clyde Class, etc were all stronger than the USN's coastal ironclads by a severe margin. There was a good reason they were shunted off to reserve immediately after the Civil War ended.

Private British commerce raiders repeatedly broke the Union Blockade in the south, the USN was in no condition to take on the Royal Navy during this time period. The British would be able to simply lock down American trade to the world completely during this time period.

If one looks at the U.S. Navy and just the British North American Squadron in early 1862, you find that said squadron literally outmatches the entirety of the USN on its own with no reinforcements. Add into this that tests performed with the 11" Dahlgren found that, even with double charge, it could not pierce 4.5" forged plate backed by 20" of oak. Warrior, however, did not even use forged plate, but instead rolled plate, making its armor more effective than even the test target....

 

[Bomster]

Had slaves.

 

[Belisarius II]

With what? Bows and Arrows? Ask the people of Africa how well that worked out for them in the 19th Century or the Native Americans for a North American example.

Your statements get more overblown, and absurd with each post. I posted in reply to your claims of Union dependency on British Lead, and Nitrates, with Lead production in Illinois, and American Sources of nitrates, that could replace British Sources, but at higher cost. In the same post I quoted a contemporary British Military report on the indefensibility of Canada West of Montreal, and that Montreal was so close to American territory has to be very vulnerable. You said my post was hard to understand, you just had to read it. Others have posted similar data, yet you simply ignore them, and repeat the same claims.

In your own postings of British planning for intervention you ignore their own caution about the endeavor. The British Government was told mediation would likely led to war, and they wanted a broad European Coalition backing them before they did it. According to your own sources in late Summer 1862 they were talking about the RN being better able to act in the Spring of 1863, and by them the political, and military situation had changed to make mediation highly unlikely. This seems to be an obsessive idea of yours, and your not even reading, and absorbing data supporting counter arguments.

You also underestimate the domestic unpopularity of a war against the Union in Britain, France, and Canada. I also quoted for you sources that place Canadian volunteers for the Union Forces between 33-55,000 men. I didn't know that fact myself, until I looked it up doing research on this thread, Viva Canada. Why, or how you fixated on this idea that the Union was so weak, materially, and morally I don't know, but it's not supported by contemporary sources, or much later scholarship.

 

[History Learner]

Your statements get more overblown, and absurd with each post. I posted in reply to your claims of Union dependency on British Lead, and Nitrates, with Lead production in Illinois, and American Sources of nitrates, that could replace British Sources, but at higher cost. In the same post I quoted a contemporary British Military report on the indefensibility of Canada West of Montreal, and that Montreal was so close to American territory has to be very vulnerable. You said my post was hard to understand, you just had to read it. Others have posted similar data, yet you simply ignore them, and repeat the same claims.

I have seen absolutely no counter data posted; by all means, do show them.

In your own postings of British planning for intervention you ignore their own caution about the endeavor. The British Government was told mediation would likely led to war, and they wanted a broad European Coalition backing them before they did it. According to your own sources in late Summer 1862 they were talking about the RN being better able to act in the Spring of 1863, and by them the political, and military situation had changed to make mediation highly unlikely. This seems to be an obsessive idea of yours, and your not even reading, and absorbing data supporting counter arguments.

Which ignores the cause and effect entirely; Confederate defeat at Antietam was the cause of this as already cited.

You also underestimate the domestic unpopularity of a war against the Union in Britain, France, and Canada. I also quoted for you sources that place Canadian volunteers for the Union Forces between 33-55,000 men. I didn't know that fact myself, until I looked it up doing research on this thread, Viva Canada. Why, or how you fixated on this idea that the Union was so weak, materially, and morally I don't know, but it's not supported by contemporary sources, or much later scholarship.

By all means, show your sources.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Blue for the Republicans, Red for the Democrats; this is the standard convention for Dave Leip's Election Atlas and was the Pre-2000 formula in the U.S. at large.

Still wrong. Then you have him winning Indiana, where he lost by 7%. You have him winning Illinois, where he lost by 8.8%. You have him winning Oregon, where he lost by 7.8%.

Except we don't see this at all in the statistics:

I said they would increase domestic mining of lead if imports were cut off, and you said there was no increase, pointing to data in which there was no cut off of imports. If you want to know what lead production would be, you need to look at where the lead deposits are. There are huge lead deposits in the Mississipi Valley (note: that refers to the Mississippi River, which goes far north of the state). Wisconsin and northern Illinois (including a town called Galena, named after lead ore) had sizeable deposits. The surface ore was mostly exhausted and it became cheaper to import lead than to dig underground for it, but there are still sizable lead deposits there today. There were also major lead deposits in Kansas and Missouri.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

dnr.mo.gov

Galena

Galena, the official state mineral of Wisconsin, is the raw material used to produce lead. During the Wisconsin “lead rush” of the 1820s-40s, lead was more valuable than gold. That is because just about everybody, rich or poor, used objects made of lead in their daily lives – products that...

wi101.wisc.edu

Lead | Definition, Uses, Properties, & Facts

Lead, a soft, silvery white or grayish metal in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Lead is very malleable, ductile, and dense and is a poor conductor of electricity. Known in antiquity and believed by the alchemists to be the oldest of metals, lead is highly durable and resistant to corrosion.

www.britannica.com

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The US Geological Survey estimates deposits containing 100,000 metric tons of lead were discovered between 1848 and 1857. Deposits containing an estimated 4,500,000 metric tons of lead were discovered from 1858 to 1865.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The USA was more than capable of supplying itself with lead if imports were cut off.

What in the......
The Monitor Class Ironclads were specifically designed for coastal command and were designed for shallow waters. There were around 50 of these by 1865 of which the majority were operating in inland rivers and lakes, mostly in the Mississippi.

Great Britain in 1862 had around 14 Ironclads, that were heavier, bulkier, stronger and most importantly, the Warrior Class, Defense Class, Hector Class, Achilles Class, Minotaur Class, Prince Consort Class, Lord Clyde Class, etc were all stronger than the USN's coastal ironclads by a severe margin. There was a good reason they were shunted off to reserve immediately after the Civil War ended.

There's nothing much armors of 8" of the Monitor Class could do against the 68 pounder guns and 32 pounder guns. There wasn't much the 11 pounder guns of the Monitor class could do against 18" armor of the Royal Navy either.

Private British commerce raiders repeatedly broke the Union Blockade in the south, the USN was in no condition to take on the Royal Navy during this time period. The British would be able to simply lock down American trade to the world completely during this time period.

Oh they could blockade. Keep in mind at this point they'd have to blockade both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They could do so, but what would be the benefit to them? North America isn't exactly lacking in natural resources. Blockading a country that occupies a large part of a continent isn't like blockading an island, and unlike during the War of 1812, the interior of the country is pretty well settled. It would not be like blockading Germany in World War I, because Germany was dependent on food imports; the USA was not. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Indianapolis and Louisville? It would have to go up rivers pretty far to do so. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Kansas? (hint: Kansas is landlocked) Will the Royal Navy besiege Gettysburg? (Gettysburg is inland). Sure Britain could absolutely impose a blockade on the Union, but that won't nullify the land advantage the Union has. This would be bad for the Union, but it would not go well for Britain either.

 

[Belisarius II]

If one looks at the U.S. Navy and just the British North American Squadron in early 1862, you find that said squadron literally outmatches the entirety of the USN on its own with no reinforcements. Add into this that tests performed with the 11" Dahlgren found that, even with double charge, it could not pierce 4.5" forged plate backed by 20" of oak. Warrior, however, did not even use forged plate, but instead rolled plate, making its armor more effective than even the test target....

The North American Station included the West Indies. The Union Navy was still mobilizing in early 1862, and a different mix of ships wouldn't have been built, and reactivated for a war with Britain. You don't understand Ironclad battles, they don't need to pierce their armor to inflict damage on Warrior. Only about half of Warrior's hull was armored, only the gun deck. In late 1862 Union Monitors were mounting 1 or 2 15" Dahlgren's. The Union would've accelerated construction of improved armored ships, "Torpedoes", and Torpedo Spars. They weren't fighting a sea going fleet, so they acted accordingly, fighting the British would force them to change strategy, and devote more resources to the naval war. I believe I read the Union devoted 23% of it's war effort for the navy, and USMC, so now they would use 30%. It still doesn't save the CSA.

 

[History Learner]

The North American Station included the West Indies. The Union Navy was still mobilizing in early 1862, and a different mix of ships wouldn't have been built, and reactivated for a war with Britain. You don't understand Ironclad battles, they don't need to pierce their armor to inflict damage on Warrior. Only about half of Warrior's hull was armored, only the gun deck. In late 1862 Union Monitors were mounting 1 or 2 15" Dahlgren's. The Union would've accelerated construction of improved armored ships, "Torpedoes", and Torpedo Spars. They weren't fighting a sea going fleet, so they acted accordingly, fighting the British would force them to change strategy, and devote more resources to the naval war. I believe I read the Union devoted 23% of it's war effort for the navy, and USMC, so now they would use 30%. It still doesn't save the CSA.

Citations please.

 

[History Learner]

Still wrong. Then you have him winning Indiana, where he lost by 7%. You have him winning Illinois, where he lost by 8.8%. You have him winning Oregon, where he lost by 7.8%.

And he would win all of these with a 5% shift; If, for example, he does 4.4% better in Illinois, then Lincoln obviously also losses 4.4%. You cannot go past 100% in a fair election, after all.

I said they would increase domestic mining of lead if imports were cut off, and you said there was no increase, pointing to data in which there was no cut off of imports. If you want to know what lead production would be, you need to look at where the lead deposits are. There are huge lead deposits in the Mississipi Valley (note: that refers to the Mississippi River, which goes far north of the state). Wisconsin and northern Illinois (including a town called Galena, named after lead ore) had sizeable deposits. The surface ore was mostly exhausted and it became cheaper to import lead than to dig underground for it, but there are still sizable lead deposits there today. There were also major lead deposits in Kansas and Missouri.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

dnr.mo.gov

Galena

Galena, the official state mineral of Wisconsin, is the raw material used to produce lead. During the Wisconsin “lead rush” of the 1820s-40s, lead was more valuable than gold. That is because just about everybody, rich or poor, used objects made of lead in their daily lives – products that...

wi101.wisc.edu

Lead | Definition, Uses, Properties, & Facts

Lead, a soft, silvery white or grayish metal in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Lead is very malleable, ductile, and dense and is a poor conductor of electricity. Known in antiquity and believed by the alchemists to be the oldest of metals, lead is highly durable and resistant to corrosion.

www.britannica.com

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The US Geological Survey estimates deposits containing 100,000 metric tons of lead were discovered between 1848 and 1857. Deposits containing an estimated 4,500,000 metric tons of lead were discovered from 1858 to 1865.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The USA was more than capable of supplying itself with lead if imports were cut off.

Nothing here contradicts what I've said.

In 1861, the price per 100lbs is between $5-6 and by 1864 is $17 per 100lbs. Still, domestic production is completely unable to meet the demand. Imports have no effect on this; if the issue was a matter of cost, as you contend, then the U.S. should've been self-sufficient. Just saying the U.S. has deposits is a handwave with no merit; you need miners, investment, railways, time and a whole lot of other things to get production underway. As we see via the chart, it took from 1862-1864 just to get Union production high enough to support the needs of the Army in 1862.

Could the Union eventually remedy their situation? Sure, but that's a cold comfort with Confederates in Chicago and New York City in the meantime given the "eventually" of the Federal situation.

Oh they could blockade. Keep in mind at this point they'd have to blockade both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They could do so, but what would be the benefit to them? North America isn't exactly lacking in natural resources. Blockading a country that occupies a large part of a continent isn't like blockading an island, and unlike during the War of 1812, the interior of the country is pretty well settled. It would not be like blockading Germany in World War I, because Germany was dependent on food imports; the USA was not. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Indianapolis and Louisville? It would have to go up rivers pretty far to do so. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Kansas? (hint: Kansas is landlocked) Will the Royal Navy besiege Gettysburg? (Gettysburg is inland). Sure Britain could absolutely impose a blockade on the Union, but that won't nullify the land advantage the Union has. This would be bad for the Union, but it would not go well for Britain either.

When was the Trans-Continental Railway built?

 

[Belisarius II]

Still wrong. Then you have him winning Indiana, where he lost by 7%. You have him winning Illinois, where he lost by 8.8%. You have him winning Oregon, where he lost by 7.8%.
I said they would increase domestic mining of lead if imports were cut off, and you said there was no increase, pointing to data in which there was no cut off of imports. If you want to know what lead production would be, you need to look at where the lead deposits are. There are huge lead deposits in the Mississipi Valley (note: that refers to the Mississippi River, which goes far north of the state). Wisconsin and northern Illinois (including a town called Galena, named after lead ore) had sizeable deposits. The surface ore was mostly exhausted and it became cheaper to import lead than to dig underground for it, but there are still sizable lead deposits there today. There were also major lead deposits in Kansas and Missouri.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

dnr.mo.gov

Galena

Galena, the official state mineral of Wisconsin, is the raw material used to produce lead. During the Wisconsin “lead rush” of the 1820s-40s, lead was more valuable than gold. That is because just about everybody, rich or poor, used objects made of lead in their daily lives – products that...

wi101.wisc.edu

Lead | Definition, Uses, Properties, & Facts

Lead, a soft, silvery white or grayish metal in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Lead is very malleable, ductile, and dense and is a poor conductor of electricity. Known in antiquity and believed by the alchemists to be the oldest of metals, lead is highly durable and resistant to corrosion.

www.britannica.com

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The US Geological Survey estimates deposits containing 100,000 metric tons of lead were discovered between 1848 and 1857. Deposits containing an estimated 4,500,000 metric tons of lead were discovered from 1858 to 1865.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/0206a-b/pdf/of98-206a.pdf

The USA was more than capable of supplying itself with lead if imports were cut off.

Oh they could blockade. Keep in mind at this point they'd have to blockade both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They could do so, but what would be the benefit to them? North America isn't exactly lacking in natural resources. Blockading a country that occupies a large part of a continent isn't like blockading an island, and unlike during the War of 1812, the interior of the country is pretty well settled. It would not be like blockading Germany in World War I, because Germany was dependent on food imports; the USA was not. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Indianapolis and Louisville? It would have to go up rivers pretty far to do so. Will the Royal Navy be sailing into Kansas? (hint: Kansas is landlocked) Will the Royal Navy besiege Gettysburg? (Gettysburg is inland). Sure Britain could absolutely impose a blockade on the Union, but that won't nullify the land advantage the Union has. This would be bad for the Union, but it would not go well for Britain either.

I posted similar data, which History Learned can't remember reading. I only disagree with you about the naval war, I think it would be more evenly matched. Wooden RN Ships don't want to go anywhere Union Ironclads can sail. The Union can build improved versions of New Ironsides, and much better casement ironclads then the Confederates ever could. They didn't build them because they weren't needed, with Britain in the war they would be. I also trust that Erickson can come up with some new wonders.

 

[Sarthak]

https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/20121024-figure1.png

Even in 1865-1870, the peak of the American Navy, the USN only constituted around 40% to 45% of the Royal Navy; that's not even counting the fact that the Royal Navy classes were much better.

Read this book: Navies and Nations: Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America by Jan Glete. The Royal Navy basically outclassed every single USN class ships. Also, what is this bull of wooden ships in the Royal Navy. By 1863, only 40% of the Royal Navy was wooden, with around 60% of the USN being wooden.

That's not even counting the fact that the USN got it's naval supplies from Britain.

 

[Belisarius II]

Citations please.

Why? You wouldn't read them? I believe it was in James M. McPherson book "War on the Waters". It must be true because you think McPherson is a sage, at least in his estimates of Union Moral. You should E-mail him, and ask him if the Union would've pulled all their ships out of the water, and hauled up white flags, if the British intervened in the war.

 

[History Learner]

Why? You wouldn't read them? I believe it was in James M. McPherson book "War on the Waters". It must be true because you think McPherson is a sage, at least in his estimates of Union Moral. You should E-mail him, and ask him if the Union would've pulled all their ships out of the water, and hauled up white flags, if the British intervened in the war.

Page number please.

 

[Belisarius II]

https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/20121024-figure1.png

Even in 1865-1870, the peak of the American Navy, the USN only constituted around 40% to 45% of the Royal Navy; that's not even counting the fact that the Royal Navy classes were much better.

Read this book: Navies and Nations: Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America by Jan Glete. The Royal Navy basically outclassed every single USN class ships. Also, what is this bull of wooden ships in the Royal Navy. By 1863, only 40% of the Royal Navy was wooden, with around 60% of the USN being wooden.

That's not even counting the fact that the USN got it's naval supplies from Britain.

That's in tonnage, not numbers of ships. The Union built a fleet to blockade the South, not fight the RN. In 1863 the RN had about 10-12 floating armored batteries, and 4 seagoing ironclads, while they had hundreds of wooden ships. At the same time over 90% of the Union Navy's Ships were also wooden. That source is in bozo land. Unless your talking about ships under construction in 1863, the RN had stopped construction on new wooden ships of the line, but still had dozens still in commission. The Union was still building wooden ships for the blockade, not for fleet actions with the RN. And no they USN wasn't dependent on the British to build, and arm their ships.

 

[History Learner]

That's in tonnage, not numbers of ships. The Union built a fleet to blockade the South, not fight the RN. In 1863 the RN had about 10-12 floating armored batteries, and 4 seagoing ironclads, while they had hundreds of wooden ships. At the same time over 90% of the Union Navy's Ships were also wooden. That source is in bozo land. Unless your talking about ships under construction in 1863, the RN had stopped construction on new wooden ships of the line, but still had dozens still in commission. The Union was still building wooden ships for the blockade, not for fleet actions with the RN. And no they USN wasn't dependent on the British to build, and arm their ships.

If you go in ships, guns, or whatever other metric you want, the Royal Navy outclasses the USN to the extent it's simply not fun. In fact, in the 1860s you could take every other single Navy in the world and compare them to the Royal Navy....the Royal Navy would still have over 2,000 more guns.

As I find myself asking you repeatedly, let's see your citations.

 

[Mikestone8]

The thinking its okay to own a slave thing, for starters.

Though that view had been near-universal up to the late 18C. After that it started to go out of fashion, but this was a gradual process. So *somewhere* had to be the last place to give up on it.

 

[Belisarius II]

Page number please.

Sure I'll run to the Library first thing in the morning. Better yet why don't you come up with the correct figure from the inexhaustible source material you have at your fingertips. Does 23% sound right to you? Or would 25, or 21% be better? If I told you it was on page 225 would you look it up? I recall it was in the last 3 pages, or so, does that help?

When I went to collage I took a course in the History of Sea Power. My Professor who I took several classes with, and became friends with did a doctrinal thesis on this subject. He spent a couple of very happy years in England doing various research projects. We talked about this subject, and his love of England, but I never actually read it. His conclusion was that British War Plans to attack NYC would have failed, and the Union would've taken counter actions. Now this was over 30 years ago, and he's died since then so I can't tell you what page would prove my point, so if you want you can say I just made the whole story up. Now if you believe what I just told the Board is true it's still not proof that his Thesis reached the correct conclusion, because all what if's are subjective, so everyone is free to take what they want from my comments. I can only say the limited research I've done on this subject over the years supports his conclusion, at least in my mind.

 

[Belisarius II]

If you go in ships, guns, or whatever other metric you want, the Royal Navy outclasses the USN to the extent it's simply not fun. In fact, in the 1860s you could take every other single Navy in the world and compare them to the Royal Navy....the Royal Navy would still have over 2,000 more guns.

As I find myself asking you repeatedly, let's see your citations.

If you read what I wrote I didn't contradict what you just said, I put them into context. I never said the USN could match the RN world wide. I was talking about in American Waters. I stand by my comments that what you posted about ironclads is just completely incorrect. All but a little more then a dozen ships of the RN were ironclads in 1863, that's just a fact. Do you think the British replaced 60% of their wooden ships, with iron ones by 1863?

Merely a name list of the British navy's vessels in 1860 would be sufficient to make the point that their fleet was an overwhelming force. In specifics, the inventory included fifty-three steam ships of the line (60 to 131 guns and 2400 to 4200 tons), plus twenty-one on the ineffective list. (The United States had no steam liners.) There were 128 steam cruising vessels -- corvettes, sloops and frigates -- plus ten sailing ships of the line and an equal number of sailing frigates and sloops. Screw and paddle-wheel gunboats of 2 to 6 guns numbered 197.

During the years of the Civil War, twelve new ironclads were commissioned, totalling approximately 212 guns. These were oceangoing ships with broadside batteries. As will be seen, the American ironclads were almost exclusively coastal or river vessels.

Again do you think the British replaced 60% of that fleet in 3 years?

 

[History Learner]

Sure I'll run to the Library first thing in the morning. Better yet why don't you come up with the correct figure from the inexhaustible source material you have at your fingertips. Does 23% sound right to you? Or would 25, or 21% be better? If I told you it was on page 225 would you look it up? I recall it was in the last 3 pages, or so, does that help?

Yes, because if you're going to make claims I'm going to check them and call it out if it's false. If you have no actual interest in seriously debating, you're under no obligation to respond to my posts.

When I went to collage I took a course in the History of Sea Power. My Professor who I took several classes with, and became friends with did a doctrinal thesis on this subject. He spent a couple of very happy years in England doing various research projects. We talked about this subject, and his love of England, but I never actually read it. His conclusion was that British War Plans to attack NYC would have failed, and the Union would've taken counter actions. Now this was over 30 years ago, and he's died since then so I can't tell you what page would prove my point, so if you want you can say I just made the whole story up. Now if you believe what I just told the Board is true it's still not proof that his Thesis reached the correct conclusion, because all what if's are subjective, so everyone is free to take what they want from my comments. I can only say the limited research I've done on this subject over the years supports his conclusion, at least in my mind.

I fail to see how a British attack on New York Harbor would fail, given that a review of the same in late 1862 found they would be hard pressed to challenge even a wooden-ship based attack, nevermind an ironclad attack. Very few of the cannons mentioned are capable of actually dealing damage to an ironclad.

 

[History Learner]

If you read what I wrote I didn't contradict what you just said, I put them into context. I never said the USN could match the RN world wide. I was talking about in American Waters. I stand by my comments that what you posted about ironclads is just completely incorrect. All but a little more then a dozen ships of the RN were ironclads in 1863, that's just a fact. Do you think the British replaced 60% of their wooden ships, with iron ones by 1863?

Merely a name list of the British navy's vessels in 1860 would be sufficient to make the point that their fleet was an overwhelming force. In specifics, the inventory included fifty-three steam ships of the line (60 to 131 guns and 2400 to 4200 tons), plus twenty-one on the ineffective list. (The United States had no steam liners.) There were 128 steam cruising vessels -- corvettes, sloops and frigates -- plus ten sailing ships of the line and an equal number of sailing frigates and sloops. Screw and paddle-wheel gunboats of 2 to 6 guns numbered 197.

During the years of the Civil War, twelve new ironclads were commissioned, totalling approximately 212 guns. These were oceangoing ships with broadside batteries. As will be seen, the American ironclads were almost exclusively coastal or river vessels.

Again do you think the British replaced 60% of that fleet in 3 years?

Your original statement was "that's in tonnage not ships", which was the purpose of my post. If you want to narrow it down to American waters, then yes, even there the Royal Navy outclassed the U.S. Navy into 1862 and could thereafter do so handily in the event of war should it so desire. In terms of your "comments", are you referring to this post:

The North American Station included the West Indies. The Union Navy was still mobilizing in early 1862, and a different mix of ships wouldn't have been built, and reactivated for a war with Britain. You don't understand Ironclad battles, they don't need to pierce their armor to inflict damage on Warrior. Only about half of Warrior's hull was armored, only the gun deck. In late 1862 Union Monitors were mounting 1 or 2 15" Dahlgren's. The Union would've accelerated construction of improved armored ships, "Torpedoes", and Torpedo Spars. They weren't fighting a sea going fleet, so they acted accordingly, fighting the British would force them to change strategy, and devote more resources to the naval war. I believe I read the Union devoted 23% of it's war effort for the navy, and USMC, so now they would use 30%. It still doesn't save the CSA.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Defeating the Mexican Army at Puebla, and actually destroying it are two totally different things. The French might've forced the Mexicans to retreat, but trapping, and capturing the much larger Mexican Army would've been all but impossible. Interesting that you call the pro Republican Mexicans rebels. Juarez was the legally elected president of Mexico. Calling the Juarez Forces rebels is like the Confederates calling the Union Forces rebels.

Once the French had taken Mexico City in 1863, the war developed into a small border engagement in the northern regions of Mexico. The populated areas of central Mexico, including the important harbor of Veracruz, were very much under the control of the Imperial government. What stopped Maximilian from gaining complete control over his country was Juarez' ability to retreat his troops into American territory when necessary, and the end of the Civil War that forced France to withdraw his troops, leaving Maximilian to his own means whole fighting an armed insurrection supported by the US.

A quick look on a map shows that the Expédition du Mexique wasn't a hopeless operation doomed to fail, but a civil war between Mexican conservatives and liberals supported by two different foreign powers, with the side retaining international support winning in the end.