WI: Great War of '63

So, Peter Tsouras wrote a trilogy in which war between the Union and British Empire breaks out in 1863 over some rams built by the British for the CSA. This series had been widely criticized for incorrect facts and for being quite biased. So I'm wondering, what do you guys think would actually be the result is a scenario like this happening? Would a World War break out with Russia and Prussia on the Union's side versus the CSA, Britain and France? Or would something else happen? What would the result be? Thanks guys.
 
Russia provided diplomatic support for the Union, but wasn't about to stretch that into going to war with Britain - instead they're going to take advantage of Britain being busy and make advances elsewhere. Constantinople, hoooo! Prussia, likewise, isn't about to shelve her dreams of unifying Germany to intervene in a conflict that doesn't concern them.

Outside of a (much) worse Trent Affair, the British Empire isn't going to be able to call in allies, either - France is busy and nobody else is leaning pro-Confederate. Depending on how fully the British commit, this could be anything from breaking the Union's blockade and imposing their own to actually landing troops to support the Confederates, but given a non-Trent PoD it'll be more toward the former than the latter; it's actually difficult to bring the British Empire into this fight. The British citizenry were tilted pro-Union, and food imports from the North were immensely important, so the former is as far as things are likely to devolve.
 
So, Peter Tsouras wrote a trilogy in which war between the Union and British Empire breaks out in 1863 over some rams built by the British for the CSA. This series had been widely criticized for incorrect facts and for being quite biased. So I'm wondering, what do you guys think would actually be the result is a scenario like this happening? Would a World War break out with Russia and Prussia on the Union's side versus the CSA, Britain and France? Or would something else happen? What would the result be? Thanks guys.

Of an 1863 War started by the Federals attacking British shipping? The Russo-Prussians do nothing and the Anglo-French promptly quit selling war materials to the Union, causing the collapse of their war effort in a matter of months at the most. They need not do a blockade or land a single soldier, due to the dependency of the Federals upon British imports. The Confederacy will then do the rest, and likely take the Border States for their troubles as well.
 
As per usual, @History Learner has a very key point here. America's diplomatic isolation from Europe is a big hinderance for her here, as its very clear to Russia and Prussia that not only would they be intervening for something they have no direct interest in, but they woulden't even be getting a geopolitically active ally's good graces that they could leverage as a favor in the future. Though, if your goal is to make the situation a Great War, the ONLY way I could see this happening (Unlikely as it is) is if you have a Anglo-French Schism over the matter of Mexico: if the UK is going to be insisting on having primacy of influence in the CSA, particularly in 63' when the French-Backed Conservatives are at the zenith of their power/influence in Mexico, Napoleon III might insist on Britain accepting that Mexcio is in her Sphere of Influence and "Informal Empire" in terms of commerce. If Britain decides to still reject French hegemony, you may, MAY see France decide that Britain isen't willing to share her position as Great Power on the global scale and decided its better to support The United States in hopes of getting a larger ally, concessions for their influence in Mexico (Even a joint Niceragua Canal project?) and to take Britain down a peg or two so she can't obstruct his attempts to build a New French Empire abroad like they did the LAST one.

Now, if this were post 66' than France definitely woulden't be in a position to do that, but Russia diplomatically supporting the Americans and seeing this as a chance to bite into influence in Germany if one of the German states defect to the British cause to bite at France (or even just the threat of it) would be enough to keep the war, in my opinion, from really flaring up past the Rhine. Unless the war causes a disruption in the joint Suez Canal construction project and the fate of that vital waterway falls to the question of who has influence over the political power on the ground there, in which case you COULD see France and Britain picking opposite sides to back in a new flareup of Ottoman-Egyptian violence.
 
Russia provided diplomatic support for the Union, but wasn't about to stretch that into going to war with Britain - instead they're going to take advantage of Britain being busy and make advances elsewhere. Constantinople, hoooo!

Not in 1860's: Russia was still recuperating from the Crimean War, passing through a series of the major reforms (emancipation of the serfs, legal reforms, military reform), starting a major railroads construction, etc. Not sure if at that time it could start a major war even against the Ottomans. As you said, diplomatic support was the main thing but not the only one: as a (rather symbolic, IMO) gesture it sent small naval squadrons to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts: "In September 1863, a Russian fleet of six warships headed to the East coast of North America and stayed there for seven months. Based in New York, they patrolled the surrounding area. A similar thing occurred in the West coast where a fleet of six warships was based in San Francisco." (https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...le-did-russia-play-in-the-us-civil-war_823252)
 
Of an 1863 War started by the Federals attacking British shipping? The Russo-Prussians do nothing and the Anglo-French promptly quit selling war materials to the Union, causing the collapse of their war effort in a matter of months at the most. They need not do a blockade or land a single soldier, due to the dependency of the Federals upon British imports. The Confederacy will then do the rest, and likely take the Border States for their troubles as well.

Well, this is easily said than done. US trade with Britain was falling in 1861 and there was an article in NYT providing some interesting numbers and saying "Such a reduction in our imports will naturally most effect the export trade of those countries whose industries coincide most closely with our own. The reduction in imports does not imply a corresponding reduction in consumption by our people, but increased domestic production. We shall continue importations, in the accustomed volume, of luxuries and articles that we do not produce, such as tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, and wines and distilled liquors. The experience of foreign countries fully proves that an increase in their price from impost or excise duties, does not materially check their consumption.... To meet the balance of trade which has existed against her [Britain], in consequence of the falling off of purchases, she has shipped to us the present year $40,000,000 in specie.... The war is already worth all it is likely to cost in the lessons it has taught. It has forever released us from the bondage to cotton, which for a generation has hung over us like a spell, destroying all freedom of commercial or political action, and rendering us slaves to the most absurd delusions. The war has proved to the world that cotton is no longer needed to maintain our commercial independence, as this was never so thoroughly established as since this article has been counted out of the list of our exports. We have $65,000,000 in gold in the country more than we had on the first day of January last." https://www.nytimes.com/1861/10/02/archives/our-civil-war-and-european-trade.html

In other words, it seems that even without a cotton Britain was buying noticeably more than it was selling and, with the possible exception of the "luxuries", shortage of the items routinely imported into the US was being compensated by increased domestic production. It also seems that by the start of the conflict industry of the North was strong enough to maintain growth of the military production and intensive construction of the railroads during the war.

OTOH, if in 1861 Britain had a trade deficit of $40M, establishing a blockade could create serious problems at home (impact on the British industries, growing prices, etc.).
 
In other words, it seems that even without a cotton Britain was buying noticeably more than it was selling and, with the possible exception of the "luxuries", shortage of the items routinely imported into the US was being compensated by increased domestic production. It also seems that by the start of the conflict industry of the North was strong enough to maintain growth of the military production and intensive construction of the railroads during the war.

Unfortunately, most of the Union's gunpowder and weaponry came from the UK, at least in the early and middle parts of the war, so a cessation of imports would seriously affect the Union's ability to continue fighting. (Putting the industrial sector on a war footing takes quite a while, and it's probable that the Union would use up its existing stock of materiel before its domestic industry is able to pick up the slack.)

As for the article you linked to, given that its predictions of economic ruin for the rest of the world never actually came true, I'd take its assessments with a pinch of salt.
 
Unfortunately, most of the Union's gunpowder and weaponry came from the UK, at least in the early and middle parts of the war, so a cessation of imports would seriously affect the Union's ability to continue fighting. (Putting the industrial sector on a war footing takes quite a while, and it's probable that the Union would use up its existing stock of materiel before its domestic industry is able to pick up the slack.)

As for the article you linked to, given that its predictions of economic ruin for the rest of the world never actually came true, I'd take its assessments with a pinch of salt.

Thankfully for the Union, this war would be breaking out in late 63' (Given policy changing lag times, periods of attempted negotiation, ect.) and if they're the ones preparing to raise tensions no doubt they'll at least start preparing for commercial backlash (at minimum) on the part of London before the shooting starts. The rise of domestic industrial capacity is already well underway by that point, and if the US has some time to start up additoional production they can almost certainly blunt the impact. By this point, Johnny Reb isent in a position to project power to exploit any slowdown in the offensive, and you can forget about the Copperheads getting political traction once you have forgein intervention. Nothing unites a population like a clear external enemy attacking them.

If this were 61 or 62, you'd have a strong point. But when the Confederacy can't exploit the gap and Total War policies are in full swing? Not good odds and too much of a gamble for GB.
 
Thankfully for the Union, this war would be breaking out in late 63' (Given policy changing lag times, periods of attempted negotiation, ect.) and if they're the ones preparing to raise tensions no doubt they'll at least start preparing for commercial backlash (at minimum) on the part of London before the shooting starts. The rise of domestic industrial capacity is already well underway by that point, and if the US has some time to start up additoional production they can almost certainly blunt the impact. By this point, Johnny Reb isent in a position to project power to exploit any slowdown in the offensive, and you can forget about the Copperheads getting political traction once you have forgein intervention. Nothing unites a population like a clear external enemy attacking them.

It's certainly true enough that the Union would be in a better shape by '63; though of course, if the US are the ones preparing to raise tensions, the US would presumably be the aggressor versus the UK, in which case you wouldn't get the same unifying effect of a foreign invasion. And I think you're being too pessimistic about the CSA's abilities here -- if war does break out between the US and UK, one of the first British actions would probably be to send a fleet to sweep the Union navy from the sea and put the US itself under blockade, meaning that the CSA can now both important war equipment and export cotton and other goods to raise money. Plus, IOTL a large number of Confederate troops (some 75,000, IIRC), were employed garrisoning coastal defences in case Union troops tried to make a landing; ITTL this would no longer be a threat, freeing up large numbers of rebel soldiers to go to other theatres, whilst the US would have to transfer troops to garrison its own coast and to defend the Canadian border against a possible land invasion. Given that IOTL there was still over a year to go before the Confederacy was defeated, I think it quite possible that they'd be able to do well enough ITTL to bring the Union to the table.
 
Unfortunately, most of the Union's gunpowder and weaponry came from the UK, at least in the early and middle parts of the war, so a cessation of imports would seriously affect the Union's ability to continue fighting. (Putting the industrial sector on a war footing takes quite a while, and it's probable that the Union would use up its existing stock of materiel before its domestic industry is able to pick up the slack.)

As for the article you linked to, given that its predictions of economic ruin for the rest of the world never actually came true, I'd take its assessments with a pinch of salt.

As far as I can tell, the doom and gloom conclusions were for the case when the exports/imports are stopped and mostly linked to Britain, not the whole world, so it is not a big surprise that they did not come true. But I don't see the reason of questioning the numbers related to the existing (by that time) imports and exports. Neither do I see the reason to doubt a conclusion that cessation of imports and exports hits both sides and probably more the side with a negative trade balance.

As for converting the industry, it was easier to do in the age of a low mechanization.

Judging by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifles_in_the_American_Civil_War#Background the Union started war with about 360,000 small arms and while at the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 both armies were armed predominantly with the old muskets (Model 1842 musket or percussion-converted Model 1816/1822) by early 1862, the first significant deliveries of Model 1861 Springfields began with over 1,000,000 being produced during the war by various firms in the Union (the number of Model 1861 muskets produced by the Springfield Armory was 265,129 between January 1, 1861 and December 31, 1863). So it does not look like without the British imports (there were also imports from Austria, Belgium and other countries) the Unions soldiers would be fighting with the sticks. Enfield 1853 was the 2nd most popular rifle of the ACW but it seems that it was more widely used by the Confederates then by the North.
 
It's certainly true enough that the Union would be in a better shape by '63; though of course, if the US are the ones preparing to raise tensions, the US would presumably be the aggressor versus the UK, in which case you wouldn't get the same unifying effect of a foreign invasion. And I think you're being too pessimistic about the CSA's abilities here -- if war does break out between the US and UK, one of the first British actions would probably be to send a fleet to sweep the Union navy from the sea and put the US itself under blockade, meaning that the CSA can now both important war equipment and export cotton and other goods to raise money. Plus, IOTL a large number of Confederate troops (some 75,000, IIRC), were employed garrisoning coastal defences in case Union troops tried to make a landing; ITTL this would no longer be a threat, freeing up large numbers of rebel soldiers to go to other theatres, whilst the US would have to transfer troops to garrison its own coast and to defend the Canadian border against a possible land invasion. Given that IOTL there was still over a year to go before the Confederacy was defeated, I think it quite possible that they'd be able to do well enough ITTL to bring the Union to the table.

I wasen't thinking the Union would be the ones pushing the issue to one of war, per say. Just that they're the ones starting to press on the issue of Britain building ships for the rebels and bracing for Britain to push back with a cut in its exports of war material once it becomes clear London is starting to push back. There's no way Lincoln is going to sign off on something that says "Stop everything or WAR!!!" immediately, especially if they know the war effort is highly dependent on British imports (as you claim) and bussiness interests on both sides want to disrupt the flow of normal commerce (Particularly the corn and wheat exports to England; the government is going to be wary about springing a sudden disruption on the less Stalwart states of the Old Northwest that might trigger resistance there, while the British won't want to risk a spike in food prices, especially since industrial workers were already hurting). Any direct breaking of the peace is going to have to come by an active shift in the Status Quo on the part of the British, at least from the frame that's going to be cast on it from the US and (likely) most of the international community. However, I'll readily concede that if we're seeing the result of some crisis blowing up quickly, than the US is on the back foot. Given time, though, they can pull the blockade back in (Since its a rational conclusion, according to you and I agree, that trying to hold it against a British expeditionary fleet is hopeless) and concentrate its sea power along the eastern coast to create a threatening fleet-in-being that will prevent the British from spreading out in a counter-blockade. There's also the assumption the Palmerson Government would survive trying to persecute the war if it looks like its going to strech out (And I, for one, think the Union's resolve is only going to be hardened by all of this; they aren't going to 'come to the table' on terms the South would be willing to accept in the foreseeable future, especially since they're still making plenty of gains), especially as the South's manpower pool continues to get ground down

However, I suppose this isen't really a "Great War", as the thread suggests, as it's really just a localized British intervention in the Civil War. So we're starting to wander a little off the context of the thread.
 
Is it implausible that if the French got involved as well as Britain (maybe to protect Mexico) Prussia would use it as an opportunity to attack Austria or Denmark and the Anglo-French get involved anyway? It seems unlikely but it’s the best way I can see this timeline happening.
 
Is it implausible that if the French got involved as well as Britain (maybe to protect Mexico) Prussia would use it as an opportunity to attack Austria or Denmark and the Anglo-French get involved anyway? It seems unlikely but it’s the best way I can see this timeline happening.

Prussia in 63' can't make an oppritunistic DOW on anybody. They're kind of in the middle of a funding crisis for the Army and are stuck in a pre-reformed state and would get smacked upside the head or at least stalled out long enough to attract a demand for mediation. Very expensive failure for the Crown and Court, and they know it.
 
Not in 1860's: Russia was still recuperating from the Crimean War, passing through a series of the major reforms (emancipation of the serfs, legal reforms, military reform), starting a major railroads construction, etc. Not sure if at that time it could start a major war even against the Ottomans. As you said, diplomatic support was the main thing but not the only one: as a (rather symbolic, IMO) gesture it sent small naval squadrons to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts: "In September 1863, a Russian fleet of six warships headed to the East coast of North America and stayed there for seven months. Based in New York, they patrolled the surrounding area. A similar thing occurred in the West coast where a fleet of six warships was based in San Francisco." (https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_s...le-did-russia-play-in-the-us-civil-war_823252)
Its odd that Russian Defensive precautions in case of an Anglo-French reaction to the Polish revolt seem to be taken by some as some sort of ringing endorsement of support for the Union.
The Russian Navy did not want its ships trapped, impotent and nothing more than a target, as happened in the Crimean Conflict. So in 1863 in sent anything seaworthy to the safest most distant harbours it could imagine.
 
Thank you all for your insights. I just wanted to make clear that the idea of a Great War isn't my own. I was basically asking about the plausibility of Tsouras's trilogy where this scenario happens and the Union ultimately wins out. I've always wondered about this scenario of an Anglo-Union war starting in '63. Its a bit different from a Trent War but I still think that the Union would lose imo.
 

I think you misunderstood; there is no doubt the Federalist cause has more than sufficient industry to fight a war. The problem, however, is that it lacks the raw materials to fight said conflict. In 1863-1864 the U.S. purchased 11,952,000 pounds of gunpowder from British India and had on hand 1,463,874 pounds on June 30th of 1863 according to War Department ordnance figures. From the aforementioned date to June 30th of 1864, they expended 7,544,044 pounds of powder. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the Federals run out of the means to fight in a matter of weeks or a few months at most.
 
If your goal is to cause the American Civil War to provoke a wider diplomatic crisis -- or, perhaps, even a wider war -- figuring out how to junction and combine it with the January Uprising is not a bad way to do it. I've brainstormed it as a plot device, and something like this is where I tend to end-up:
1) An alternative Pennsylvania campaign lets the Roebuck Motion escape Parliamentary purgatory and mediation is teed-up squarely before Palmerston's government;
2) Initial overtures are made to Austria, Prussia, and Russia about joining France and Britain in making such an overture; Austria and Prussia have no interest, but Russia is moved to do so primarily as a means of watering down the proposed terms of mediation.
3) An offer of Anglo-Franco-Russian mediation is made to the combatants in the ACW; the South obviously accepts and the Lincoln administration, after some internal thought, will accept mediation as soon as Russia submits the question of Polish sovereignty to international mediation, as the situation with the Confederacy is not different in its Big Picture substance.
4) Poison pill submitted, things should end, but for Otto von Bismarck being himself. Bismarck connives to alienate Austria from its (potential) allies in the West by trying to engineer a mediation of the Polish Question while remaining within the confines of the Alvensleben Convention by guaranteeing a united front with Russia in favor of a hard-line against the January Uprising. Being Otto von Bismarck and thus possessing a combination of skill and luck that borderlines on handwavery, he is able to convince the Russians to go along with this.
5) With the Russians on-board, Bismarck then connives to engineer an offer of mediation from Britain and Austria; the former because mediation checks off several of its strategic wants and the latter because the Austrians are the most likely to favor a hard line against the Poles (and because such will drive a serious wedge between Austria and France).
6) Bismarck's wheels-within-wheels machinations come to fruition and an Austro-British offer of mediation of the Polish Question is made, which is promptly accepted by Prussia and reluctantly by Russia.
7) The Lincoln administration, confronted by the supremely low probability event of the Russians actually submitting the January Uprising to mediation, must make a choice on the still-outstanding offer of Anglo-Franco-Russian mediation.
8) ???
9) Profit! (And maybe an independent Confederacy.)

But yeah, if your goal is to junction the two conflicts, good luck with that. It's going to be insanely detail-intensive and will, in any event, be insanely low-probability that relies heavily upon fortuitous strings of events and other almost-handwavery.
 
Its odd that Russian Defensive precautions in case of an Anglo-French reaction to the Polish revolt seem to be taken by some as some sort of ringing endorsement of support for the Union.

Russian government did endorse the Union officially. Who interpreted which actions in which way is a different story rather irrelevant as far as official position is involved.

The Russian Navy did not want its ships trapped, impotent and nothing more than a target, as happened in the Crimean Conflict. So in 1863 in sent anything seaworthy to the safest most distant harbours it could imagine.

This is an interesting interpretation to which I simply can't comment one way or another with any degree of credibility. However, taking into an account very limited numbers of ships involved (7 on Atlantic side and 6 on Pacific), I have certain doubts about validity of your theory.
 
I think you misunderstood; there is no doubt the Federalist cause has more than sufficient industry to fight a war. The problem, however, is that it lacks the raw materials to fight said conflict. In 1863-1864 the U.S. purchased 11,952,000 pounds of gunpowder from British India and had on hand 1,463,874 pounds on June 30th of 1863 according to War Department ordnance figures. From the aforementioned date to June 30th of 1864, they expended 7,544,044 pounds of powder. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the Federals run out of the means to fight in a matter of weeks or a few months at most.

Thanks for the numbers but, taking into an account that they are for 1863/4 and the war started in 1861, I have certain doubts about the Federals fighting out of a gunpowder within few months after beginning of the war.
 
Thanks for the numbers but, taking into an account that they are for 1863/4 and the war started in 1861, I have certain doubts about the Federals fighting out of a gunpowder within few months after beginning of the war.

The start date of the war is irrelevant to the facts outlined. If you have 1.5 million pounds on powder on hand, will use 7.5 million just for the Army over the next year and have been cut off from your import source of 11.9 Million pounds, the inescapable fact is you're going to run out of gunpowder. If you would like further proof:

Saltpeter imports
1860-1 from British India: 16,966,000 lb
1861-2 from British India: 14,874,000 lb
1862-3 from British India: 16,952,000 lb
1863-4 from British India: 11,952,000 lb
1864-5 from British India: 6,256,000 lb
1865-6 from British India: 12,692,000 lb

Another 6,378,000 lb was imported directly from Britain itself in 1862.
 
Top