WI 1861 Trent affair lead to war

I] the Federal navy is not really that formidable compared to the RN

Maybe reading harrisons garbage novels a bit too much? ;)

I understand the US navy was under equipped, much smaller and outdated, but that doesn't mean that it would be completely destroyed. The US navy could still be annoying as hell to the Royal Navy and the Royal Navy would be at a disadvantage without being completely prepared at the time for war. The american's also have a home advantage and shipyards to build new ships. Within the War, the US Navy will be horribly marred, not questioning that, but it would still put up a fight.

What do you guys think US strategy would be in the north? They will have to withdraw troops from the south, so how will that affect fighting in Virginia?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Near the Coast wouldn't US ironclads destroy British wooden ships, even if they were steamships

In early 1862 the question is "what ironclads"?

One wag once observed that a British frigate doesn't need to fire on a US monitor since simply steaming past it at high speed will cause the monitor to flounder if the turret ring is unsealed for combat.
 
I know that the US won't have ironclads right away but it seems to me that there will be much more importance placed on them with British involvement in the war. Although this will take away from other projects and the US will never have enough ironclads to blockade the South or enough warships to defeat Britain (in this time period at least) the US can achieve naval dominance in certain regions with its available Ironclads once they ae produced.

BTW if Britain intervenes in US Civil War they better be planning on finding somewhere else to buy their food. Not that they can't find a replacement but Britain did rely more on Northern grain than Southern cotton
 

67th Tigers

Banned
BTW if Britain intervenes in US Civil War they better be planning on finding somewhere else to buy their food. Not that they can't find a replacement but Britain did rely more on Northern grain than Southern cotton

This is a myth invented by Radical Republics to counter "King Cotton". The UK eats 4.5 million tons of grain a year. It normally produced around 4 million tons a year, and in 1862 the poor harvests meant only around 3.7 million tons was produced. US exports skyrocketed from 0.05 million tons to around 0.25 million tons (excluding re-exports). Thus around 5% of the grain consumed on the UK home market is from the US. In terms of calories the US is supplying around 1-2% of the calories consumed (wheat accounts for around 55% of the weight of starch consumed, the remaining 45% being potatoes, the average Briton eating 1lb of wheat and 0.8 lbs of potatoes per day, plus a lot of meat and vegetables, wheat only accounts for around 30% of calories consumed).

In fact the grain market is far more globalised than these statistics show. Grain in different places comes into season at different times, and there was no refrigeration, so trade flowed in different directions at different times of the year. The loss of US imports would result in a price spike in July 1862 from 45 shillings to around 70 shillings, which is still cheaper than before the repeal of the corn laws. Such is the market elasticity. Higher prices would trigger exports from further away which would become profitable.

The idea that US grain was a gun to Britains head is totally baseless.
 
I understand the US navy was under equipped, much smaller and outdated, but that doesn't mean that it would be completely destroyed. The US navy could still be annoying as hell to the Royal Navy and the Royal Navy would be at a disadvantage without being completely prepared at the time for war. The american's also have a home advantage and shipyards to build new ships. Within the War, the US Navy will be horribly marred, not questioning that, but it would still put up a fight.

What do you guys think US strategy would be in the north? They will have to withdraw troops from the south, so how will that affect fighting in Virginia?

the royal navy outnumbers the us 10 to 1, thats gives lots of flexibility, the brits have shipyards too so thats not really a gamechanger.

this TL from 67th Tigers is just about this trent affair.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=85869
 
This is a myth invented by Radical Republics to counter "King Cotton". The UK eats 4.5 million tons of grain a year. It normally produced around 4 million tons a year, and in 1862 the poor harvests meant only around 3.7 million tons was produced. US exports skyrocketed from 0.05 million tons to around 0.25 million tons (excluding re-exports). Thus around 5% of the grain consumed on the UK home market is from the US. In terms of calories the US is supplying around 1-2% of the calories consumed (wheat accounts for around 55% of the weight of starch consumed, the remaining 45% being potatoes, the average Briton eating 1lb of wheat and 0.8 lbs of potatoes per day, plus a lot of meat and vegetables, wheat only accounts for around 30% of calories consumed).

In fact the grain market is far more globalised than these statistics show. Grain in different places comes into season at different times, and there was no refrigeration, so trade flowed in different directions at different times of the year. The loss of US imports would result in a price spike in July 1862 from 45 shillings to around 70 shillings, which is still cheaper than before the repeal of the corn laws. Such is the market elasticity. Higher prices would trigger exports from further away which would become profitable.

The idea that US grain was a gun to Britains head is totally baseless.

My bad apparently you are more knowledgeable on this subject than I am and I admit that. I didn't think that US grain was a gun to Britain's head (although I did overestimate its importance) but Britain would prefer to have access to US grain instead of looking for more expensive substitutes.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
My bad apparently you are more knowledgeable on this subject than I am and I admit that. I didn't think that US grain was a gun to Britain's head (although I did overestimate its importance) but Britain would prefer to have access to US grain instead of looking for more expensive substitutes.

Essentially yes. The grain merchants bought as cheap as possible because it made them the most money. Before the ACW US wheat was more expensive because it was sold to the southern states. The loss of this market caused the price of US wheat to drop whilst the bad harvest of 1862-3 increase the price of wheat in Europe. This led to an increase in trade.

US wheat had recently been heavily traded because the major global exporter was Russia, and Anglo-French military action in 1854-6 seriously dislocated the Russian market leading to increase grain prices and a major increase in US exports (which died away when trade was normalised and cheaper Russian grain returned to the market).

I've been round the block on this many times, but I recommend reading Lambert's article on UK grand strategy vs the US in the period.
 
This is a myth invented by Radical Republics to counter "King Cotton".

67ths likes to blame anything he disagrees with on Radical Republicans or Lost Causers. You'll note he hasn't provided any evidence that this originated with or was popularized by the Radical Republicans.

Karl Marx, Louis Bernard Schmidt, and Eli Ginzberg were not Radical Republicans. All concluded that wheat imports from the USA were far more important to Britain than CSA cotton imports.

[FONT=&quot]Ginzberg concluded about 25-30% of England's grain was imported and that 40% of those grain imports were coming from the US.[/FONT]
 
Top