On November 8th, 1861, two confederate diplomats bound for Great Britain and France were removed from the British ship RMS Trent by the Union Captain Charles Wilkes. The British are angry that their neutral rights are violated, and their natural pride has been insulted. Pressured by both the common people and the elite upper class, the spreading fear that the USA will invade Canada, and support from Napoleon III of France, Parliament makes plans to build up its army and navy in North America in preparation of invading the Union before they invade Canada. That is the Alternate history of the American Civil War.
In real life, the UK did build up troops in Canada and did make plans to invade the Maine. The invasion of the US didn't come about because the issue was resolved though diplomacy in January of 1862.
However, as the opening suggested, what if it didn't get resolved through diplomacy but through war?
We know that France and the UK can work together as they did during the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which the UK deployed roughly 250,000 troops and France deployed 400,000 troops in Crimea against Russia. We know that France fought in Mexico from 1861 to 1866 and they wished to use Mexico as a means to counter the USA, so I see the French entering to try and prevent the USA from becoming too big.
I'm interested in the details. If the UK and France were to go to war with the USA, when is the earliest that they could go to war with the USA?
My best guess as to when they could go to war against the US is in August of 1862 as I assume it would take that long to build up the same troop size that they had in the Crimean War and train troops.
In terms of skilled commanders that France and the UK can bring, I have no idea what generals France or the UK had that were skilled.
The overall battle plan for the Anglo-Franco alliance might involve swiping into the New England states, capturing them, and moving south to capture Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and then the capital.
The fall of the capital, I think, would bring the war to an end and, indirectly, end the American Civil War as the Union would not be able to fight the Confederacy efficiently.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt
What do you think the battle plan would be for the Anglo-Franco force?
I know that the Lincoln signed a bill after the Battle of Bull Run (July 21, 1861) to enlist 500,000 men into the army. I'm not entirely sure if the Union reached that number. I know that General Pope had roughly 75,000 men during the Northern Virginia Campaign (July 19 – September 1, 1862), General McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign campaign (March - July 1862) had roughly 121,500 men, and General Halleck assembled a force of roughly 120,000 men on the western front to take Corinth (Siege of Corinth April 29, 1862 – May 30, 1862). The numbers add up to 316,500 men, but I don't know how many men they had in reserve, they were training, and how many they used in other theaters or wars (Dakota War 1862).
During 1862, how many troops did the USA have and where?
Although the Union is usually remembered as having a ton of bad generals except a few, in reality, the Union actually had many good generals: Meade, Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Thomas, Rosecrans, Reynolds, Sheridan, Oliver Howard, Don Carlos Buell (An Officer), John C. Frémont, Winfield Scott Hancock and likely more. Sadly, many of these commanders would already be involved in either the western or eastern theaters. Only John C. Frémont, who was waiting in New York in 1862 would be the overall commander of any force in defense of the invasion.
How many other good commanders could the Union depend on in 1862?
Finally, I believe that the Union would likely use delaying tactics to slow down the combine Anglo-Franco army while the Union builds up their army. The Union would likely have to us the militia in the northern states to delay the force.
What do you think the battle plan would be for the Union force?
Overall, do you think that the Trent Affair could've result in an all out war with the Union? If so, could it have influenced the American Civil War either by drawing it out longer or ending in a Union lost? Or is this all implausible?
In real life, the UK did build up troops in Canada and did make plans to invade the Maine. The invasion of the US didn't come about because the issue was resolved though diplomacy in January of 1862.
However, as the opening suggested, what if it didn't get resolved through diplomacy but through war?
We know that France and the UK can work together as they did during the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which the UK deployed roughly 250,000 troops and France deployed 400,000 troops in Crimea against Russia. We know that France fought in Mexico from 1861 to 1866 and they wished to use Mexico as a means to counter the USA, so I see the French entering to try and prevent the USA from becoming too big.
I'm interested in the details. If the UK and France were to go to war with the USA, when is the earliest that they could go to war with the USA?
My best guess as to when they could go to war against the US is in August of 1862 as I assume it would take that long to build up the same troop size that they had in the Crimean War and train troops.
In terms of skilled commanders that France and the UK can bring, I have no idea what generals France or the UK had that were skilled.
The overall battle plan for the Anglo-Franco alliance might involve swiping into the New England states, capturing them, and moving south to capture Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and then the capital.
The fall of the capital, I think, would bring the war to an end and, indirectly, end the American Civil War as the Union would not be able to fight the Confederacy efficiently.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab09.txt
What do you think the battle plan would be for the Anglo-Franco force?
I know that the Lincoln signed a bill after the Battle of Bull Run (July 21, 1861) to enlist 500,000 men into the army. I'm not entirely sure if the Union reached that number. I know that General Pope had roughly 75,000 men during the Northern Virginia Campaign (July 19 – September 1, 1862), General McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign campaign (March - July 1862) had roughly 121,500 men, and General Halleck assembled a force of roughly 120,000 men on the western front to take Corinth (Siege of Corinth April 29, 1862 – May 30, 1862). The numbers add up to 316,500 men, but I don't know how many men they had in reserve, they were training, and how many they used in other theaters or wars (Dakota War 1862).
During 1862, how many troops did the USA have and where?
Although the Union is usually remembered as having a ton of bad generals except a few, in reality, the Union actually had many good generals: Meade, Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Thomas, Rosecrans, Reynolds, Sheridan, Oliver Howard, Don Carlos Buell (An Officer), John C. Frémont, Winfield Scott Hancock and likely more. Sadly, many of these commanders would already be involved in either the western or eastern theaters. Only John C. Frémont, who was waiting in New York in 1862 would be the overall commander of any force in defense of the invasion.
How many other good commanders could the Union depend on in 1862?
Finally, I believe that the Union would likely use delaying tactics to slow down the combine Anglo-Franco army while the Union builds up their army. The Union would likely have to us the militia in the northern states to delay the force.
What do you think the battle plan would be for the Union force?
Overall, do you think that the Trent Affair could've result in an all out war with the Union? If so, could it have influenced the American Civil War either by drawing it out longer or ending in a Union lost? Or is this all implausible?