WI: USA decides to keep large navy following the war?

It was able to get its debt under control IOTL because it shrank the military to virtually nothing. The OP asks what would happen if it did maintained an enormous navy, which means that it is not cutting spending to the same degree that it did IOTL. Ergo, the debt problem still applies.

And it never really was able to pay off its debt. The debt was $65 million in 1860 and was $2.76 billion in 1866. The debt has never shrunk below $900 million since then.

So? It also cut taxes OTL. If it doesn't cut them it has more money to do things with. A large reason that the debt never went under $900 million since then is that between inflation, population growth and economic growth $900 million became peanuts.
 
It makes it easier than it would be if they were not an industrialized economy, but that doesn't mean you can just snap your fingers and make a gargantuan amount of debt simply vanish.

The fact of the matter is that the United States would never have maintained a powerful navy after the Civil War because a) they didn't need it and b) it would have been far too expensive.

It doesn't need to just vanish. As stated, the US is nowhere near bankruptcy or crippling inflation, which means if the need arises, money can be raised even with "a gargantuan amount of debt".

Especially if taxes aren't cut down and similar things.

It's interesting on that note that the US national debt in 1898 is still nearly 1.8 billion - and yet the US's economic/industrial position is considerably stronger than 1860 or 1865.

Not sure its relevant to any questions for the late 1860s, but it's interesting in regards to what the US could do vs. what it actually did how the economy's growth supported doing that even without the debt reduced below 900 million.

AD: Since your question includes "the US realiz(ing) that it could be a major power on the world stage", that would require a bluewater navy. Not just maintaining what existed in 1865, much of which was far from first-class even in the context of a brownwater fleet.
 
Last edited:
Clarification: a lot of you seem to interpret the question as being "WI the US built a blue-water navy"? That's not what I'm asking. I'm just asking what would happen if the US kept it's current naval power, or highly limited decommissions. Basically, just preventing mass decommissions and the decline of the shore establishments is enough.

As alluded to earlier, the US Navy post-Rebellion, is really a glorified coast guard. There were tens of dozens of ships built with unseasoned (green) wood and they weren't fit for service within a few years. Everything the Union built was done as fast as possible and there were more than a few ships that had active service lifes of 2-3 years.

The Navy (or more particularly the Government) was seized by the 'Monitor craze' during the war and embarked upon the construction of several classes that weren't seaworthy. The two real blue water ironclads the Union produced, the USS New Ironsides and the USS Dunderberg, were one offs.

The US Navy, post-1865, was more quantity over quality, and the US Congress pretty much wasn't willing to pay for both concepts. There was alot of dead wood that would have had to be cut off. I haven't even bothered to consider how many of the ships were completed with underperforming engines.
 
Hmm maybe it does choose to annex the Dominican Republic but Spain refuses to simply back down so it has to maintain a strong coastal defense of Hispanola and other islands Spain might threaten.

A possible earlier discovery of the gold in Alaska shortly after buying it.

Would that be enough?
 
This is before the Panama Canal. You want to try taking those ships around Cape Horn? Seriously? :p
No I was hoping the extra gold influx would help pay for keeping the ships rather than cutting cost like OTL. The need would be filled by the Spanish aggression.
 
As alluded to earlier, the US Navy post-Rebellion, is really a glorified coast guard. There were tens of dozens of ships built with unseasoned (green) wood and they weren't fit for service within a few years. Everything the Union built was done as fast as possible and there were more than a few ships that had active service lifes of 2-3 years.

The Navy (or more particularly the Government) was seized by the 'Monitor craze' during the war and embarked upon the construction of several classes that weren't seaworthy. The two real blue water ironclads the Union produced, the USS New Ironsides and the USS Dunderberg, were one offs.

The US Navy, post-1865, was more quantity over quality, and the US Congress pretty much wasn't willing to pay for both concepts. There was alot of dead wood that would have had to be cut off. I haven't even bothered to consider how many of the ships were completed with underperforming engines.
this pretty much means that if the USN tried to stay at full strength after the war, ships would be decaying/sinking in droves. Hard to see any reason the USN would keep a bunch of blockade ships that weren't seaworthy in operation, when the CSA isn't around to be blockaded anymore...
 
this pretty much means that if the USN tried to stay at full strength after the war, ships would be decaying/sinking in droves. Hard to see any reason the USN would keep a bunch of blockade ships that weren't seaworthy in operation, when the CSA isn't around to be blockaded anymore...

Well, if there was a CSA the Union could have probably blocked a few harbors by sinking their decaying ships as blockships.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
The USN never possessed 671 warships. It possessed, ships of all types totalling 671. The total includes receiving ships, hulks, colliers and part built ships on the slipways. Most of the navy were converted merchant ships used to police the blockade of the CSA and a great many of them were small sailing schooners of less than 100 tonnes displacement, many more were converted tug boats. In total the USN had around 100 actual steam warships of which less than thirty were ocean going. Most of the civil war gunboats were made with green wood and were already deteriorating at the end of the war. Some of the larger steam sloops of war were in a similar condition. The double-ended gun boats were so fragile that a few rounds would destroy them. All of these warships having wooden hulls are effectively obsolete by 1865. The Union has one effective ironclad warship the USS New Ironsides, she is almost the equivalent of the British and French floating batteries built for the Crimean war. The monitors are a technological dead end, none of them can survive a sea battle not even the big ones, and they are frankly more dangerous to the crew than to a real warship.
It is actually hard to tell if the USN was the second largest in the world in 1865. It might have been, it might not. It is unquestionably smaller than the RN, that can be checked against the Navy lists but it is harder to tell if it was bigger than the French or Russian Navies because modern treatments of these navies do not tend to mention yard craft, receiving ships tugs, small schooners being used as tenders and so on as they are too small and insignificant to bother about being of no military value. Treatments of the USN tend to mention everything that floats no matter how small.
In terms of capability the USN is probably somewhere around 8th in the world in 1865. Clearly it is far behind Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy which has just come into being. It is also probably behind the Ottoman Empire and perhaps Prussia and Denmark. It does not slip behind the South Americans until the 1870s and even then not for very long.
So to answer the question the USN never had that much in the way of naval might after the ACW even though they had a large navy. They can keep the large navy if they want to by cycling out and replacing the ships that are falling to bits with newer merchant ships and few new constructions but why would they there is no one to blockade.
They can also if they wish build a completely new navy of high capability but they will be playing catch-up with the Europeans for at least 20 years and the British even longer. It will cost them so much money it will retard the development of the country.
They could do a little better than OTL. Get rid of everything but the serviceable real steam warships immediately including all the monitors and buy a new iron hulled ship every year and a real ironclad (not a monitor or battery) every three or four scrapping a steam warship of the old navy every time a new one is launched. They can afford that. It is probably about the most affordable way to a better navy but it is not going to be world class for years.
 
Where's the need as stated. IMO the principle reason for the pre ACW US Navy to have a blue water capability is the Anti Slavery Patrol on the West African Station and some commerce protection patrols in high risk areas (just what was the risk to shipping from pirates circa 1855?). IIRC the percentage of American hulls being used in world shipping pre 1860 is quite high. But the ACW was a disaster for the US merchant fleet. Some times I think the thought of "let the Brits carry the load" crossed more than a few minds.
 
Where's the need as stated. IMO the principle reason for the pre ACW US Navy to have a blue water capability is the Anti Slavery Patrol on the West African Station and some commerce protection patrols in high risk areas (just what was the risk to shipping from pirates circa 1855?). IIRC the percentage of American hulls being used in world shipping pre 1860 is quite high. But the ACW was a disaster for the US merchant fleet. Some times I think the thought of "let the Brits carry the load" crossed more than a few minds.

It also got used for a bunch of "show the flag" type exercises; the 19th century is full of minor punitive expeditions in places like Sumatra (2 expeditions in the 1830s) and Formosa (1867). Basically, random American merchant ship runs into trouble with the locals, so the US sends a ship or two to bombard them and maybe lands a detachment of Marines.

But these really only need a ship or two each. The US doesn't really need a major naval force until or unless they want to become a major imperialist power, and there isn't the stomach for that right after the ACW.
 
Top