Wrapped In Flames

[Grenadier]

I think you missed "with offensively stupid accents". It's not a proper Trent Affair timeline if the British commander doesn't sound like Dame Edith Evans.

Good point, I also missed bad teeth and no chins, got to have all the sterotypes

 

[galveston bay]

The Cost to Britain of a war with the United States

Grain prices immediately will sharply increase if not skyrocket. The British are already dependent on imported grain and Canadian grain will be cut off (as its west of the Great Lakes or dependent on Great Lakes shipping) while Argentine and Australian grain in quantity does not yet exist

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10761158&postcount=1486



The war at sea has been discussed a bit as well. Distance is not a friend for the British. There are very few repair yards on the North American side of the Atlantic that don't belong to the US, and early steamships break down a lot.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10786098&postcount=1517

There is also the issue of station keeping (because ships do need repairs and to refuel)
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10786138&postcount=1518

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=10786210&postcount=1519

in short, just how much money do the British really want to spend in a war that is obviously optional (a stern protest and seizing some American assets would do it, or a even a trade embargo of some kind would have been very painful to the US without requiring a massive military buildup)

In the War of 1812 several hundred American privateers took 802 British ships (according to Lloyds) while the British took 1400 American merchant ships (all in about an 18 month period late 1812 early 1814) before the blockade really shut down ports, but even then American ships were getting out while their ports were under close blockade. Close blockade is unlikely when the Americans can spring ironclads on a blockade force and lay minefields (called torpedoes then). While those ironclads are not ocean going, they are enough to force back a blockade line allowing for raiders to break out.

So we can expect British merchant shipping loses to climb pretty high even as American losses climb. I guess the Dutch will benefit.

 

[robcraufurd]

-snip-

I'm just going to quote this and call it a night.

EDIT: You know what, that single quote doesn't do the insanity justice. Let me lay the whole thing out so you can all see the horror without being infected.

Historically the US Navy expanded to 671 warships and 84,000 men by 1865, including 11 ocean going monitors, the New Ironsides, over 20 coastal and river monitors, several casemate river ironclads, around 40 steam sloops and frigates (which can be converted into chain clads OR used as cruisers) and of course lots of gunboats, about a third of which are capable of oceanic operations (the rest are coastal or riverine). We can safely assume the USN in this war will do at least that level of building, but likely more so as it faces a serious threat to its survival (note that even during the war US shipbuilders built sloops and frigates for foreign navies)

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy has the following problem... to keep one ship on station requires the ship on station, a ship en route to take up station, another ship leaving station, one ship refitting and ideally one ship working up in preparation to take station. Five ships to keep one of station. To match the US Navy in numbers, the Royal Navy needs between 2400 - 3000 warships of at least equal capability to the US Navy ships.

The Royal Navy has around 400 steamships including battleships, cruisers (sloops, corvettes and frigates) and gunboats (about half of the total number) in 1862. Yes, the US Navy was the largest navy in the world in 1865. So the British are going to have to build around 2000 - 2600 ships to match the potential US Navy buildup that happened historically

those are rough numbers by the way, without a huge amount of study. Optimistically, if they really push, the British can get by with about 1500 ships...a bare 2:1 superiority, but they still need a lot more steamships than are immediately available, and that means sacrifices elsewhere.. in the Med, in the Far East and in the Indian Ocean.

of those 200 big British ships... only a handful are armored. To fight Monitors, especially the 2nd and 3rd generation monitors and the ocean going versions, they are going to have to build big in order to deploy them across the Atlantic.... Simply to deal with the 12 heavy Union armored ships that were built historically is going to require 50-60 equally well armored British ships (same problems with station keeping as above).

 

[galveston bay]

I'm just going to quote this and call it a night.

note than in 1862 the British do not have 1500 steam ships.... they have 400 The US is already in an accelerated building campaign. Assuming the US builds as many steamships as they did in OTL (671, and no reason they wouldn't) they British need a minimum of 2:1 superiority to ensure sufficient blockaders to keep American ports locked down.

This war will cost the British taxpayer a fortune... and for what exactly?

 

[Saphroneth]

...King Grain as an idea is kind of refuted.
Besides, with no Embargo Act the Union's grain merchants can still sell grain - food is not contraband. The Union would have to shut off grain sales itself, which will cause domestic unrest.

The British have Halifax and Bermuda. Those are perfectly serviceable, as shown by the way the Union used Bermuda OTL.



Money wise - well, that question assumes the Union will never give up. The Union will, IMO, feel the pain first.

In the War of 1812 insurance rates peaked at 30% (20% in convoy) for British hulls. In the same war, Boston merchant ships had a 75% insurance rate.
And the Union doesn't have many steam raiders - whereas the British have many steam convoy ships.


As for ironclads... when is this going to happen? By winter 1862 (i.e. a year of war) the Union has


Monitor (Feb 1862)
New Ironsides (Aug 1862)
Galena (April 1862)
Passiac (November 1862)
Montauk (December 1862)
Nahant (December 1862)


This brings the US Navy up to just under 2/3 of what the RN can have... at the start of Trent:


Aetna (Armoured Battery, 16) - Guardship, Chatham
Erebus (Armoured Battery, 16) - Guardship, Portsmouth
Glatton (Armoured Battery, 14) - Portsmouth (Reserve?)
Terror (Armoured Battery, 16) - Bermuda
Thunder (Armoured Battery, 14) - Guardship, Sheerness
Thunderbolt (Armoured Battery, 16) – Guardship, Chatham
Trusty (Cupola Armoured Battery, 16) – Guardship, London

Warrior (Armoured Frigate, 40) - Channel Squadron
Black Prince (Armoured Frigate, 40) - Channel Squadron (trials)
Defence (Armoured Frigate, 22) – Channel Squadron
Resistance (Armoured Frigate, 22) – Channel Squadron (trials)

 

[galveston bay]

...King Grain as an idea is kind of refuted.

Besides, with no Embargo Act the Union's grain merchants can still sell grain - food is not contraband. The Union would have to shut off grain sales itself, which will cause domestic unrest.

The British have Halifax and Bermuda. Those are perfectly serviceable, as shown by the way the Union used Bermuda OTL.



Money wise - well, that question assumes the Union will never give up. The Union will, IMO, feel the pain first.

In the War of 1812 insurance rates peaked at 30% (20% in convoy) for British hulls. In the same war, Boston merchant ships had a 75% insurance rate.
And the Union doesn't have many steam raiders - whereas the British have many steam convoy ships.


As for ironclads... when is this going to happen? By winter 1862 (i.e. a year of war) the Union has


Monitor (Feb 1862)
New Ironsides (Aug 1862)
Galena (April 1862)
Passiac (November 1862)
Montauk (December 1862)
Nahant (December 1862)


This brings the US Navy up to just under 2/3 of what the RN can have... at the start of Trent:


Aetna (Armoured Battery, 16) - Guardship, Chatham
Erebus (Armoured Battery, 16) - Guardship, Portsmouth
Glatton (Armoured Battery, 14) - Portsmouth (Reserve?)
Terror (Armoured Battery, 16) - Bermuda
Thunder (Armoured Battery, 14) - Guardship, Sheerness
Thunderbolt (Armoured Battery, 16) – Guardship, Chatham
Trusty (Cupola Armoured Battery, 16) – Guardship, London

Warrior (Armoured Frigate, 40) - Channel Squadron
Black Prince (Armoured Frigate, 40) - Channel Squadron (trials)
Defence (Armoured Frigate, 22) – Channel Squadron
Resistance (Armoured Frigate, 22) – Channel Squadron (trials)

why would not selling grain to the British (who have attacked us in the 3rd time in 80 years) cause domestic unrest? Also interested to see who refuted the King Grain argument.

Halifax and Bermuda do not have much in the way of steam engine repair yard as of 1862. That can be fixed really quickly, but again it adds up on terms of money.

Note that pressure from British taxpayers and merchants was the chief political constraint that forced the British to accept peace in the American Revolution and War of 1812, in spite of being in a massively better financial situation (the US went broke both times).

In 1862 the Royal Navy has an edge, but that edge will require a lot of investment to be maintained Ships cannot stay on station forever, they generally rotate on a 1 on station, 1 heading for refit, 1refit, 1 preparing to go on station rotation, although if pressed that can for short periods be reduced 3:1 or even 2:1 before machinery wear and tear and the occasional storm damage causes trouble. Most ships need a full refit annually as well although if pressed you can extend this at the risk of suffering machinery failure, increased wear on the hull etc.

The Royal Navy is indeed the outstanding navy of the era.. It was in 1812 also and it still suffered some embarrassing losses to a relatively puny US Navy. Both navies remember that well, and the lessons learned from it.

 

[Saphroneth]

why would not selling grain to the British (who have attacked us in the 3rd time in 80 years) cause domestic unrest?

Halifax and Bermuda do not have much in the way of steam engine repair yard as of 1862. That can be fixed really quickly, but again it adds up on terms of money.

Note that pressure from British taxpayers and merchants was the chief political constraint that forced the British to accept peace in the American Revolution and War of 1812, in spite of being in a massively better financial situation (the US went broke both times).

In 1862 the Royal Navy has an edge, but that edge will require a lot of investment to be maintained Ships cannot stay on station forever, they generally rotate on a 1 on station, 1 heading for refit, 1refit, 1 preparing to go on station ration, although if pressed that can for short periods be reduced 3:1 or even 2:1 before machinery wear and tear and the occasional storm damage causes trouble. Most ships need a full refit annually as well although if pressed you can extend this at the risk of suffering machinery failure, increased wear on the hull etc.

The Royal Navy is indeed the outstanding navy of the era.. It was in 1812 also and it still suffered some embarrassing losses to a relatively puny US Navy. Both navies remember that well, and the lessons learned from it.

Because the merchants can't sell to anyone, or they can sell to the world market and then the British buy grain from Russia.

And yes, you keep mentioning that rotation, but it's completely illogical. By that metric, the RN's mediterranean squadron was impossible. Its pacific squadron was impossible. Its Americas squadron was impossible.

...but even if it was the case, the RN has five battleships for every USN battleship. It has over thirty.

 

[galveston bay]

Because the merchants can't sell to anyone, or they can sell to the world market and then the British buy grain from Russia.

And yes, you keep mentioning that rotation, but it's completely illogical. By that metric, the RN's mediterranean squadron was impossible. Its pacific squadron was impossible. Its Americas squadron was impossible.

...but even if it was the case, the RN has five battleships for every USN battleship. It has over thirty.

in peacetime most of those ships spend large periods of time in harbor, with occasional short cruises or longer cruises rotating home. Even so most of the ships on foreign station either rotate crew members or themselves are rotated periodically.

Also while grain merchants can sell to anyone, keep in mind that the Russians don't like the British very much (that whole Crimea thing) so why would they not take the opportunity to jack up prices as well? Also in 1862 there really isn't a global commodities market like we have today. Only a few nations have big surpluses of any commodities, and they generally lock in their sales years in advance whenever possible. Blockading the US will have the same effect that the blockade of the CSA did with cotton. It will cause some disruption.

All of these things add up. No one particular thing makes this war outrageously expense but all of them together do..

All this for an insult that diplomacy should have fixed

 

[Saphroneth]

in peacetime most of those ships spend large periods of time in harbor, with occasional short cruises or longer cruises rotating home. Even so most of the ships on foreign station either rotate crew members or themselves are rotated periodically.

Also while grain merchants can sell to anyone, keep in mind that the Russians don't like the British very much (that whole Crimea thing) so why would they not take the opportunity to jack up prices as well? Also in 1862 there really isn't a global commodities market like we have today. Only a few nations have big surpluses of any commodities, and they generally lock in their sales years in advance whenever possible. Blockading the US will have the same effect that the blockade of the CSA did with cotton. It will cause some disruption.

All of these things add up. No one particular thing makes this war outrageously expense but all of them together do..

All this for an insult that diplomacy should have fixed

...wait, are you imagining a blockade being permanently floating at sea just outside the target port?

It's done by cruising steamships, usually steam sloops, which catch the blockade breakers. The heavy ships are kept in reserve, usually just sailing past off the horizon ready to engage.


Incidentally, citation needed for the idea that a ship had to spend four days off station for every day on station. The RN conducted a blockade of the Confederation of the Rio Plate at this time, so you shouldn't have trouble finding one.


By the way - the British would buy grain from Prussia, the Prussians would buy grain from the US. There. It would mean prices go up - but it wouldn't mean the Brits go hungry.

Or it would be the French doing it.
Or similar.



But it really is interesting that when we're discussing the will to fight of the British, it's emphasized that it's a war over an insult diplomacy should have fixed - when not only was the British public opinion in favour of war in case of rejection of the ultimatum, but the PoD would be the US rejecting the ultimatum.
But when we're discussing the Union, we're blithely assured that the Union will simply soak up resources, throw extra hundreds of thousands of men into uniform armed with guns they've produced out of nowhere anyone can show and decided it's a war for national survival.


It's also interesting that the British economy would collapse (current status: Gladstone deliberately cut government income in 1860 because they're making too much money) and the US would just be fine (current status as of 30 Dec 1861: Banks have suspended specie payments simply because of the bank run from people worried about the war scare).

Of the two, the Union is the one closer to the brink. I don't understand how this doesn't seem obvious, given that Britain is capable of running a surplus just by going back to the peacetime tarriff levels of 1860 whereas the Union just lost the ability to back its legal tender with specie.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I honestly expect this war to be mostly a land war, not all of those British ships can be used as they have other priorities. And REMEMBER: the Americans are not just limited to the ships they have now. One of the things I expect them to do at this point is to commission a lot of new steamships and start try to figure out a way to protect new York.

True, there will be something of a building race going on.

The american control the great lakes as of now, so they have a far easier time attacking the st Lawrence valley then the British to defending it sailing upstream the valley, especially with the Quebecois about to riot.

They don't quite control the Lakes as of yet. The British squadron is still on Lake Ontario, and the British control Kingston and Prescott (the openings from Lake Ontario onto the St. Lawrence) and the openings onto the St. Lawrence from the Richelieu and Atlantic.

They'll be a few more updates on that situation come time though, but its worth noting the British still control the biggest manufacturing centers on the banks of the St. Lawrence.

Mind you the French are rather unlikely to riot I'm afraid.

The americans not having enough stuff NOW doesn't matter nearly as much when you realize that the great industrial gears are just starting up for full throttle in about a year. This also applies to guns, weapon factories should be being built right now.

True, something to be examined with time.

As far as the British public see it, the war is between the union and Canada, the Confederacy is a side thing.

Rather true, the British big wigs see the Confederacy as allies of convenience, the British are concerned with holding Canada and forcing an apology from the Union.

While segments of the population might support the Confederacy (as per OTL) and others might be rather willing to sell to them at a discount as a result, the success of the Confederacy is very much a secondary concern.

For the French Empire OTOH that might be different

 

[xt828]

For the French Empire OTOH that might be different

Are the French still heavily involved in Mexico here?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Also while grain merchants can sell to anyone, keep in mind that the Russians don't like the British very much (that whole Crimea thing) so why would they not take the opportunity to jack up prices as well? Also in 1862 there really isn't a global commodities market like we have today. Only a few nations have big surpluses of any commodities, and they generally lock in their sales years in advance whenever possible. Blockading the US will have the same effect that the blockade of the CSA did with cotton. It will cause some disruption.

It will cause disruption on food prices, but nothing greatly more than OTL where the British started diversifying their sources come 1862-63. I don't quite buy the 'King Wheat' thesis either. Member David T did an interesting post on this a while back which suggests that the movers of the time period didn't really worry about grain in this scenario as much as many others have thought. For instance OTL from the period of 1863-67 the British diversified their grain input and decreased their dependency on American grain.

Now of course there will be a very sudden and sharp cut in grain imports (minus whatever gets smuggled from the US anyways (it happened in 1812 I have no doubt it would happen here) which will mean the British will have been looking to diversify sources earlier than OTL but there is still a significant shortfall which will need to be made up come 1863.

This is interesting as while I have found many oblique references to the grain issue, I've yet to see sources linking to that reasoning beyond a sort of vague 'general knowledge' idea.

Mind you this disruption is also going to effect some regions of the US too. But I'll get to that when the time comes

All of these things add up. No one particular thing makes this war outrageously expense but all of them together do..

They do indeed! I've actually done a sort of guestimate on how much the war will cost and its a rather eye-opening figure, even for Britain in the period...

All this for an insult that diplomacy should have fixed

Undoubtedly true. Rather the opinion some later historians will share too

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Are the French still heavily involved in Mexico here?

Well the period we are discussing during the POD (October-January 1861-1862) saw the beginning of the intervention in Mexico, and Napoleon III seeing the only two powers who might be posed to stop him both thoroughly distracted is certainly not going to pass up the opportunity to do just as much as he did OTL.

I'll be covering the French position in the war and Mexico in a later chapter.

 

[galveston bay]

...wait, are you imagining a blockade being permanently floating at sea just outside the target port?

It's done by cruising steamships, usually steam sloops, which catch the blockade breakers. The heavy ships are kept in reserve, usually just sailing past off the horizon ready to engage.


Incidentally, citation needed for the idea that a ship had to spend four days off station for every day on station. The RN conducted a blockade of the Confederation of the Rio Plate at this time, so you shouldn't have trouble finding one.

don't have one handy (most of my library is in storage) but there a numerous excellent books on US and British Naval operations over the last 200 years. Wear and tear and rotating ships is a normal practice. Just think about it logically and that should be enough. Of course the blockaders don't sit anchored. They cruise, burning coal, which requires refueling, which is not done at sea, which requires a port, which means leaving station, which involves travel time, which means another ship is on station to cover while the first ship refuels.

Reasons why the US Navy spent a lot of the war taking harbors away from the Rebels in order to get bases closer to the action. Steam engines of the era are very unreliable, with breakdowns common. It is a major reason most steamships still have sails going into the war, along with the desire to save fuel by cruising using the wind.. But to catch a ship in a blockaded harbor, you must have steam up and be ready to add additional steam in order to go into pursuit. Otherwise there is no point. So yep, fuel economy is just not going to be an option..

Historically the US Navy solved this by taking bases close by. The Royal Navy in the South Atlantic was not having to blockade a nation with a capable fleet now was it?

As to economics.... I did not say the British economy would collapse.. I have said, repeatedly, and given good reasons for this as well, that the British taxpayer would be paying for a very expensive war that will get even more so very quickly. Twice before the British taxpayer had to do that, and in neither occasion was it able to defeat the Americans. It basically got a draw in 1814 and a draw again in 1783 (lost the 13 Colonies but made big gains elsewhere, so a draw basically) while spending vast sums.

The Americans I agree will have a harder time, but the US actually has gold and silver reserves this time (unlike the two previous wars) and while gold and silver shipments from California and Nevada will severely curtailed (overland is however a slow, expensive but possible option) it still has a lot more economic power than the two prior occasions.

So what are the British hoping for? Allowing the South to secede and thus giving birth to a slave holding nation that many British citizens find repugnant. "Humiliating the Yanks" for what purpose? For how long?

You don't think a fourth war would be inevitable? Don't you think the British officials could see that as almost a certainty as well? Really worth fighting a war with the Yankees for being characteristically clumsy and stupid in diplomatic terms as they so often are anyway (for that matter still are... but that is another topic).

What do the British think they will gain? Or have they blundered into a war and highly risky one at that?

 

[galveston bay]

It will cause disruption on food prices, but nothing greatly more than OTL where the British started diversifying their sources come 1862-63. I don't quite buy the 'King Wheat' thesis either. Member David T did an interesting post on this a while back which suggests that the movers of the time period didn't really worry about grain in this scenario as much as many others have thought. For instance OTL from the period of 1863-67 the British diversified their grain input and decreased their dependency on American grain.

Now of course there will be a very sudden and sharp cut in grain imports (minus whatever gets smuggled from the US anyways (it happened in 1812 I have no doubt it would happen here) which will mean the British will have been looking to diversify sources earlier than OTL but there is still a significant shortfall which will need to be made up come 1863.

This is interesting as while I have found many oblique references to the grain issue, I've yet to see sources linking to that reasoning beyond a sort of vague 'general knowledge' idea.

It took some digging, the best references I could find, online, I linked in the original post. I saw a reference to it in a one of the various books on the Civil War I was reading a while back (this one http://alternatehistoryweeklyupdate.../review-confederate-states-of-america-by.html


(as we had the 150th anniversary of its end recently) and did some digging from there to see if it was creditable.

 

[Saphroneth]

So what are the British hoping for? Allowing the South to secede and thus giving birth to a slave holding nation that many British citizens find repugnant. "Humiliating the Yanks" for what purpose? For how long?

You don't think a fourth war would be inevitable? Don't you think the British officials could see that as almost a certainty as well? Really worth fighting a war with the Yankees for being characteristically clumsy and stupid in diplomatic terms as they so often are anyway (for that matter still are... but that is another topic).

What do the British think they will gain? Or have they blundered into a war and highly risky one at that?

They're hoping for an apology.
That's about it, really. Remember, the Americans are claiming the right to board, search and confiscate anything or anyone from any ship in the world.

Expecting the British to tamely back down over this is like expecting the US to apologize for one of their ships being blown up by the Japanese in 1937. (If you're wondering, the Japanese apologized and paid compensation, and that was the end of it.)

Rob's explained this repeatedly. You don't seem to be engaging with his points.

The British want an apology. And the release of the prisoners. And what they will gain from this is a defence of the rights of neutrals - a very touchy topic.


Your argument seems to be a bizarre combination of "the war would cost Britain a lot" and "it's not much to go to war over", without considering that the Union has the same strategic calculus but it's even more urgent.

 

[galveston bay]

Well the period we are discussing during the POD (October-January 1861-1862) saw the beginning of the intervention in Mexico, and Napoleon III seeing the only two powers who might be posed to stop him both thoroughly distracted is certainly not going to pass up the opportunity to do just as much as he did OTL.

I'll be covering the French position in the war and Mexico in a later chapter.

looking forward to that... if at first you don't succeed, try try again. This will be the second French intervention in Mexico. The first one was called "The Pastry War" (which you have to just love) and involved Santa Anna who actually did reasonably well this time around although he lost his leg in the process.

 

[galveston bay]

They're hoping for an apology.
That's about it, really. Remember, the Americans are claiming the right to board, search and confiscate anything or anyone from any ship in the world.

Expecting the British to tamely back down over this is like expecting the US to apologize for one of their ships being blown up by the Japanese in 1937. (If you're wondering, the Japanese apologized and paid compensation, and that was the end of it.)

Rob's explained this repeatedly. You don't seem to be engaging with his points.

The British want an apology. And the release of the prisoners. And what they will gain from this is a defence of the rights of neutrals - a very touchy topic.


Your argument seems to be a bizarre combination of "the war would cost Britain a lot" and "it's not much to go to war over", without considering that the Union has the same strategic calculus but it's even more urgent.

I am ignoring his points because they are not germane to the timeline. This timeline is not just the Trent Affair. Neither is the other competing timeline from TFSmith121.

Both of of Englishcanuck and TFsmith121 realized that the Trent Affair is not sufficient reason to justify war. Which you do not seem to realize.

Why don't you create your own timeline? You write fiction, so by all means go for it.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It took some digging, the best references I could find, online, I linked in the original post. I saw a reference to it in a one of the various books on the Civil War I was reading a while back (this one http://alternatehistoryweeklyupdate.../review-confederate-states-of-america-by.html


(as we had the 150th anniversary of its end recently) and did some digging from there to see if it was creditable.

Thank you! I'll take a look at it. EDIT: Hey I've got that book! I've been using it as a source too! Have to do some re-reading it seems!

looking forward to that... if at first you don't succeed, try try again. This will be the second French intervention in Mexico. The first one was called "The Pastry War" (which you have to just love) and involved Santa Anna who actually did reasonably well this time around although he lost his leg in the process.

Been doing plenty of reading on that recently, much to the detriment of other parts of TTL actually the muse is wandering. Though I hope to have at least the next interlude up by next week.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

They're hoping for an apology.
That's about it, really. Remember, the Americans are claiming the right to board, search and confiscate anything or anyone from any ship in the world.

The British want an apology. And the release of the prisoners. And what they will gain from this is a defence of the rights of neutrals - a very touchy topic.

This war is a classic case of mission creep really. First its get an apology, then its defend Canada, to do so requires a blockade, to help the blockade you invade Maine, to defend Canada you send a field army...

Thankfully there's no aircraft carries for Palmerston to make a 'Mission Accomplished' speech from

Your argument seems to be a bizarre combination of "the war would cost Britain a lot" and "it's not much to go to war over", without considering that the Union has the same strategic calculus but it's even more urgent.

To be fair, it isn't enough to go to war over, but the British were going to defend their national honor (the build up from OTL's affair shows that) and the British had gone to war to satisfy honor before, but to be fair not quite on this scale.

It IMO could really only happen here if more level headed men (like Albert) aren't around to diffuse tensions, AND with contributing factors leading in.

If I thought it was utterly impossible though I wouldn't write TTL