AHC Britian and France join the ACW

[TFSmith121]

And yet the quotations remain entirely accurate.

You have avoided addressing the thrust of my post.

And yet the quotations remain entirely accurate, don't they?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Again, oddly enough, Somerset, Milne, and Washington

USS Nahant and USS Nantucket - two of the early US monitors - were built in Boston. The loss of Boston would essentially remove - by the looks of it - 1/5 of the US ability to build coastal monitors for service by 1863. And the US can not stop it. Most of the rest were built in NY or Philadelphia. I doubt they're both impenetrable...

Again, oddly enough, Somerset, Milne, and Washington all, apparently, disagreed with you - at least according to Bourne.

Perhaps you can cite something otherwise from the time?

Thanks

 

[frlmerrin]

As an aside, the Milne Papers Volume II (the one directly dealing with the outbreak of the Civil War and the Trent Affair) are available online. Not in their entirety unfortunately, but enough for us to get a good sense of what he was about and what his own plans were.

On January the 24th he makes a rather brief, but enlightening statement of his own ideas and probable strategy.

I brought a 2nd hand copy and it turned up on line a few months later. I have spent the last few months using it to build-up a spreadsheet of where the various British ships are at any given time.

 

[frlmerrin]

And yet the quotations remain, entirely accurate, don't they?

Best,

They remain as they always were cherry picked out of context.

Your responses continue to avoid issues of substance.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Direct quotes from British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862, Kenneth Bourne

frlmerrin here is the context you asked:

The British were not particularly impressed with the Monitor's first appearance in battle: 'We could have done the work of the Monitor and Merrimac together ', was The Times' comment.3

But while the American turret ships were not ocean-going vessels and the British ironclads were stronger ships, the British would still have met with some difficulties. Their ironclads had too deep a draught to use Bermuda or to operate in the shallow waters of the North American coast. The monitors might therefore have played havoc with any attempt by the older wooden frigates to maintain a close blockade.

The emphasis on Milne's squadron and particularly on its offensive qualities owed, of course, a good deal to the sense of frustration about Canada, but it was, too, based on a confident contempt for the stability of the American economy and morale, both already severly strained by the civil war.

Indeed for part at least of this belief they had support from Americans themselves, in particular one expert quoted by the Admiralty hydrographer, Captain Washington, in a paper entitled ' List of the Chief Ports of the Federal Coast of the United States . . . with an approximate Estimate of the Number of Vessels required to blockade the several Ports and Rivers '.1

It may be said of New York . .. that if an enemy succeeded in obtaining command of it, even temporarily, or, what would be nearly the same in its consequences, if he succeeded with his fleet in forcing the entrance to the harbour, and in bringing his guns to bear on the city, such a disaster would result in our buying him off upon any terms he might think it expedient to exact. Attacks upon other great seaport towns, such as Boston or Philadelphia, might indeed be attended with results highly disastrous, but they would tell comparatively little upon the issues of the war. The difference is that between striking a limb and striking the heart, for New York is the true heart of our commerce,-the centre of our maritime resources; to strike her would be to paralyse all the limbs.

Somerset eventually declared himself utterly opposed to attacking heavily defended places,2 probably because Washington had told him that the only hope of success lay in the rather unlikely event of surprising them. ' From the intricacy of the channels and the strength of the forts,' Washington believed, 'it is probable that Boston could not be attacked with any hope of success.' Nor was he much more optimistic about bombarding New York: ' This might have the effect of putting an end to the war, and if so it might be worth the risk.

But therisk would be too great if the intention transpired and time were allowed the enemy to make preparations.

 

[frlmerrin]

Can you provide an example of a successful attempt by the British to simply steam into a defended port in this era, because there aren't any.

I agree there aren't any adequately defended ports on the eastern coast of the Union in Q1 1862 if the Royal Navy know or discover this there will be many burning buildings and if they have any sense the Union cabinet would yield to terms very swiftly.

 

[Saphroneth]

Then I suddenly doubt the utility of that whole article. It completely neglects the seven remaining Crimean ironclads, including the one actually in Bermuda, which were built for attacking ports! (Any estimate it makes of British capabilities is likely to be an underestimate).


Incidentally, I can cite an example of a Union attempt to simply steam into a defended port. It's New Orleans.

 

[Saphroneth]

It's a funny thing, really, how easy it can be to pick quotes which seem to suggest something.

If we can trust Somerset on Royal Navy tactics and strategy, then we can trust Lincoln on the state of the Union.

“The people are impatient; Chase has no money, and he tells me he can raise no more; the General of the Armies has typhoid fever. The bottom is out of the tub. What shall I do?” (Abraham Lincoln, 9 January 1862)

Oh.
I guess the British win then, because that quote was made after the acceptance of the British ultimatum and hence when the risk of intervention was basically gone.

 

[TFSmith121]

May want to consider who wrote the US report

Direct quotes from British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862, Kenneth Bourne

frlmerrin here is the context you asked:

May want to consider who wrote the US report you're referring to, and when ... and why it was even available to the British in London in 1861.

Context, after all. Context.

Best,

 

[frlmerrin]

Direct quotes from British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862, Kenneth Bourne

frlmerrin here is the context you asked:

Many thanks for the kind quote Karolus Rex but I was well aware of the actual context. TFSmith121 has a habit of selecting the bits that say what he wants and using them out of context. I felt on this occasion it was worth highlighting this.

 

[Karolus Rex]

May want to consider who wrote the US report you're referring to, and when ... and why it was even available to the British in London in 1861.

Context, after all. Context.

Best,

Do you mean this?

I Admiralty confidential print, I5 Dec., Milne papers xo5/6 (the authorship is revealed in Washington to Milne, private, 4 Jan. i862, Milne papers io8); the quotation is from Major J. G. Barnard, Dangers and Defences of New York (New York, I 859).
2 Somerset to Granville, private, 2I Dec., Granville papers, P.R.O. 30/29/24, pt. ii; Somerset to Russell, private, 29 Dec., Russell papers, P.R.O. 30/22/24. 3 'List of the Chief Ports of the Federal Coast etc.', Milne p

PDF link to those that wish to read the 34 pages of the British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862, Kenneth Bourne

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjOj6TwvMHMAhVDiRoKHaxVAH0QFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternatehistory.com%2Fdiscussion%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D218273%26d%3D1385317715&usg=AFQjCNGUu-zOjjIzUXGZvoqJq2Pv-9MmNg&sig2=Iuv2cMX4DFWS9fcb-M5BLg

 

[Darth Revan]

Many thanks for the kind quote Karolus Rex but I was well aware of the actual context. TFSmith121 has a habit of selecting the bits that say what he wants and using them out of context. I felt on this occasion it was worth highlighting this.

By simply stating "it is out of context" instead of showing the relevant passage and explaining how it has been cherry picked? Making statements like that are not helpful, for the simple fact that the other person can simply say "it is in context"(and indeed that is what happen). If you are not going back up your statement what was the point in making them in the first place? I can assure you in an anonymous forum the vast majority of people are not going to simply take your word for it, especially when you have a history of making such grandiose statements such as

Why on earth do you think the Europeans would need 'a near total war mentality?' The Lion does not even need to get his teeth bloody nor Marrianne take her cap off to drive the eagle to the floor and sunder its wings.

Seriously - why?

 

[TFSmith121]

And most of New Orleans is, of course, as has been pointed out:

Then I suddenly doubt the utility of that whole article. It completely neglects the seven remaining Crimean ironclads, including the one actually in Bermuda, which were built for attacking ports! (Any estimate it makes of British capabilities is likely to be an underestimate). Incidentally, I can cite an example of a Union attempt to simply steam into a defended port. It's New Orleans.

And most of New Orleans is, of course (as has been pointed out) ... below the level of the Mississippi.



Hardly a defensible position.

The other difference, of course, is that while (historically) Forts Jackson and St. Philip existed in 1862, they were a) poorly garrisoned (troops and guns had been sent north to the upper Mississippi; and b) poorly supported by an ad hoc river defense force made up of elements from three different maritime forces; and c) built in the unique setting of he Mississppi River Delta and surrounded by swamps.

Please point out where the same situations would be found at any US port, whether Portland, Portsmouth, Boston, eastern New York, southern New York, Philadelphia, etc.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Major John G. Barnard, author of a report in 1859...

Do you mean this?

PDF link to those that wish to read the 34 pages of the British Preparations for War with the North, 1861-1862, Kenneth Bourne

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...XGZvoqJq2Pv-9MmNg&sig2=Iuv2cMX4DFWS9fcb-M5BLg

Major John G. Barnard, author of a report in 1859...

Now, what happened between 1859 and the winter of 1862?

Best,

 

[frlmerrin]

Darth Revan,

Do you have something of substance you want me to address?

 

[Karolus Rex]

Major John G. Barnard, author of a report in 1859...

Now, what happened between 1859 and the winter of 1862?

Best,

Mate is your source, I made a direct quote from your source.

If you are now implying that a passage of your source is incorrect, or out of context, then why did you used it in the first place?

 

[TFSmith121]

Page 34, and as of April of 1861

It's also worth noting, when bringing up British Preparations for War, that no such document exists for the Union. To all appearances the Union moved only a few companies of troops and made no other preparations for war.

Anyway, here's the Boston defences:

That was it. They have nothing worth a good goddamn. One gun facing seawards total, in fact, and one fort is unarmed. (Most of the ~20 guns in Ft. Independence are pointed at Boston!)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xTkuAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22fort%20warren%22%20%22100%20pounder%22%20%2232%20pounder%22&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=%22fort%20warren%22&f=false

Page 34, and as of April of 1861.

Which is when the war BEGAN.

1861.

And not even in November or December, when the Trent Affair took place, much less anytime in the winter of 1862, which is when ANY possible conflict might have begun...

Especially because the same document goes into great detail - 32 separate mentions - of improvements to the defenses of Boston and their garrisons over the next four years of the war.

Context is rather important, don't you think?


Best,

 

[frlmerrin]

Major John G. Barnard, author of a report in 1859...

Now, what happened between 1859 and the winter of 1862?

Best,

I KNOW! I KNOW! I KNOW!

Huxley kicked seven bells out of Slippery Sam at the Natural History Museum in Oxford. Thus making the Wallace-Darwin theory of evolution an acceptable scientific theory! It may have been the greatest moment in High Victorian science.

or did you mean the serialisation of Great Expectations?

 

[TFSmith121]

Rather like suggesting the situation of Boston's harbor defenses

It's a funny thing, really, how easy it can be to pick quotes which seem to suggest something.

Rather like suggesting the situation of Boston's harbor defenses in April of 1861, before the Civil War even began, is illustrative of their situation in Noivember-December, 1861, at the time of the Trent Affair, much less into the winter of 1862, the earliest that any plausible Anglo-American conflict might actually break out?

Easy like that, you mean?

 

[TFSmith121]

BARNARD's report was written in 1859...

Mate is your source, I made a direct quote from your source. If you are now implying that a passage of your source is incorrect, or out of context, then why did you used it in the first place?

BARNARD's report was written in 1859... check the footnote.

Conservatively, that's 24 months and at least one entire war breaking out before the winter of 1862, is it not?

So if you're a G3 somewhere, should you really be relying on open source intelligence from two years ago?

Be rather unfortunate if something had changed to your detriment in the meantime, would it not?

Also suggests the interesting point that this, apparently, was among the most up to date intelligence the Admiralty had at the time of the Trent Affair.

Best,