British Reward after Civil War success?

[stevep]

Snake

The 1860s were not the 1940s. You're talking trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific naval raids on Union coastal cities, against the power that pretty much invented modern army-navy tactics, in support of a colony the British themselves were considering indefensible at that time, in support of a power most of the British masses loathed, a power which had no overwhelming bit of popular support even in the 11 Confederate states and that the British intervention in this scenario is decisive.

Yeeeahhhh......I don't buy it. The Royal Navy was not invincible.

Lets get a few facts straight:

a) The US had cities on the Pacific coast? They as you and other posters said, were small and unable to support themselves economically.

b) No one is talking about trans-ocean raids. [Or are you suggesting the US will sneak forces past the British blockade to assualt Liverpool say, using their inherent super-human status to avoid the problems of numbers, logistics, technology etc. Britain not only is the largest naval, industrial, financial and economic power of this period but also the largest empire remember? This includes bases from which it could operate against the US forces and positions.

c) Invented "modern army-navy tactics"? Any evidence for this? Examples? The US struggled against a heavily outclassed south for 4 years before it finally wore it down. Sheer weight of numbers against a poorly led and often rather shambolic nation.

d) I presume the colony you're referring to as indefensible is Canada? It would be difficult against a sneak attack, if the US somehow built up a large and properly equipped army without giving any warning. Against a reinforced Canada a US army still struggling to develop and already heavily engaged in the south it's a no contest.

e) The CSA wasn't liked by many in Britain. So? Soviet Russia, or the US for that matter in some cases, wasn't trusted by many Brits in WWII but we still allied with them. This presumes that the two powers end up in a formal alliance. May not occur at all. For some reason the US has decided on a path that gives war with Britain and the fact it's fighting someone else at the same time is pretty irrelevant. As you say nationalism is a powerful factor at the time but you should remember this applies to Britain as well as the US. A US attack on British interest will cause anger and especially if this is followed up by attacks on British Canada.

f) You're description of the CSA seems to be mainly driven by you're own desires. It was in many ways unpleasant, poorly led and heavily outclassed. However, despite all this you're super state took 4 years of bitter fighting to wear it down.

g) Nothing is invincible. That includes an arrogant upstart group that decides to fight outside it's weight bracket. Going up against an enemy it can't hurt while engaged in a civil war itself.

See the problem is that invading the USA is not a bigger version of the Boer Wars, it's an attempt to invade one of the largest military powers of the Western world even then when it's a lot more militarized across the whole of it than it was IOTL. Britain took a lot longer than it figured to defeat the Boers. The USA of 1860 and the UK of 1860 are very much closer in terms of full power than the Boers of the 1890s were to the British Empire of the 1890s. Unless you mean to tell me Britain is somehow wanked enough to conquer all 22 Union states here by a trans-atlantic voyage.

Apart from the fact the US is not one of the largest military powers at the time who the hell is talking of invading it? [By that I mean large scale occupations of vast populated areas].

All Britain needs to do is blockade, secure Canada, pick off isolated regions like the west coast, enable supplies to reach the south [it doesn't even need any formal recognition or support of the south, just ending the blockade]. Possibly if their determined enough send the ironclads in to stomp a few fortresses and threaten coastal settlements. Then just wait until the US population has had enough and gets rid of the idiots responsible for getting them into such a mess. It can invade as things fall apart if necessary but probably has no great need to.

Steve

 

[archaeogeek]

I love how 67th Tigers' appraisal is ignoring logistics...
Supplying a corps from Valparaiso, in Chile, against the californians who could probably raise as much. Or from Vancouver, where it would be 2 or 3 times the entire population of British Columbia. Are you planning to feed them tree bark?

Yes that's glorious.

Also yes, everything can be defeated. Everyone admits that Britain would have had the weight to wear down the US, but if you honestly want to go this way: everything can be defeated.

 

[King Gorilla]

I love how 67th Tigers' appraisal is ignoring logistics...
Supplying a corps from Valparaiso, in Chile, against the californians who could probably raise as much. Or from Vancouver, where it would be 2 or 3 times the entire population of British Columbia.

Well, he has previously argued that in the event of War Plan Red, British Strategic bombers would immediately destroy the industrial capacity of the Midwest while a simultaneous Japanese offensive would be able to land several hundred thousand men in California which would be able to successfully march to the Mississippi within a year

 

[Maur]

Putting it another way-why was the Union made up of both slave and free states but the Confederacy *only* of slave states? Surely the States Rights cause if that truly was the cause would have created two free and slave state blocs instead of one that is all slave and all free.

Why do you bring states' rights into this? Do you think that secession was because of states' rights or something? Surely not!

And is it obvious? The agricultural west was part of the coalition and was happy with homesteading and subsidies, the agricultural plantation south was going to be hit with tariffs and finance western subsidies. Why would Kentucky and Missouri secede if it was going to benefit from the tariffs?

So in short you think that the Vice President of the Confederate States of America did not in fact know the cause he was fighting for sufficiently to be honest about it? Yeah.......

Are you seriously trying to say that politicians are honest? Coupled with your straightforward buy of the Jenkins' ear i must say that you come as truly impressively unspoiled person. I envy the bubble you live in

Seriously, what i said. It wouldn't be first war where cited reasons have nothing to do with real ones. Hardly any war propaganda is honest about its causes. Oh, and i was stupid - the obvious reason why tariffs aren't mentioned as cause of secession is (also) because that would be blatantly unconstitutional. Tariffs were clearly federal prerogative.

Yes. The end goal was that, but given Lord Walpole was very much against getting in any war in the first place, the Jenkin's Ear incident was the trigger. And World War I was in fact caused by the death of the Archduke, as Austria-Hungary's ham-handed response to it by giving an unanswerable ultimatum Serbia answered on all but two points and Austria-Hungary chose war anyway, which brought Russia in and ultimately everyone else.

World War II was caused by Japanese expansionism in China, not the German staged incident on the Polish border.

Oh my. So the honourable British have gone to 8 years long war to avenge one guys ear. Truly impressive. I guess Spanish-American war happenned because certain ship blew up, too? Are you serious, because i find it hard to believe anyone would be so naive. And you don't make that impression in other threads, so i am inclined to believe you are in fact doing the same thing southerners (and everyone else): drumming up red herrings that happen to help pursue your real goals

I'm simply baffled by your description of causes of WW I

The answer to your question is in the colored text.

Hm. Sloppy wording on my part. I'll put it simpler. I claim that slavery was not the cause of secession.

People keep telling me that war was about slavery.

Non sequitor much?

(TBH, in the Union war goals slavery was side issue, not to mention actual emancipation of the blacks. Lincoln was racist, after all )

Bullshit, that a President could be elected solely by an electoral college victory in the free states meant the end of the slave states parastisizing off the system.

Heh. Abolitionist rhetoric aside, end of slavery in the south was not on the agenda of the president, the republicans, and vast majority of the northerners, and was not going to be in foreseeable future. Unless by privileges you mean the effective turning of the north into slave states with Dred Scott and FSA. That's very possible, but it's not like the south didn't give up everything related to slavery outside the south by seceding. Thus, it can't logically be the cause of secession.

Yes, the Battle of Fort Sumter was the South starting the war. For one thing, given that the Confederacy had been seven states, grew to 11, and the immediate border states were also slave states where control of them was a key strategic advantage, the reluctance of the Union to use slavery makes a certain kind of sense without regard to trying to make the Republicans more abolitionists than they were.

Heh. Two years, right? It took Lincoln two years to issue emancipation proclamation? Are you trying to tell me that he was still hoping in 1863 to win Virginia back pedacefully?

Seriously, lack of emancipation was more about making the war NOT about slavery, as it wasn't issue northerners wanted to fight for. (and the border states too, but Union ones and not Confederate)

Yes, I mean Southerners opposed to secession. Secession failed votes in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia. Voter intimidation and fraud both were rife in the Deep South. That left seeds of animosity that led right into civil wars within the civil war at the very first moments the Confederate armies suffered significant reverses.

You asked me why i think majority of unionist were in the southern slave-free areas. I answered that. I have no idea why you list where secession was late or that the decision to secede was far from popular and democratic (didn't i already state that it was the establishment that made the decision? )

So then why is it that you seem so reluctant to accept that slavery and its protection was in fact the key motivation for the planters given you here admit that the support for the Confederacy was proportional to the number of slaves in a region?

Because it was not key motivation.

It does not make any sense to secede to protect something that is not in danger (slavery). While it makes perfect sense to secede to protect something that was under imminent threat and seceding takes care of it (low tariffs).

Slavery is incidental to this. It is the economy structure that is underlying cause behind southerners desire for low tariffs, and not slavery.

South voted overhermingly pro-low tariffs after slavery was abolished, and tariffs votes continued to be the most sectional votes in USA history for next 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

In short, you confuse corellation with causation. Slavery and plantation economy positivey feedback each other, but it was the later that caused the sectional differences in tariff prefernces, not the earlier.

Had south, by some ASB grace, been using slaves mostly in industry there would be no secession (as we know it), there wouldn't be even any strife, and abolitionists would thought as un-american loonies in the north, too.

Like with Barack Obama Lincoln was more moderate than either his supporters or detractors were able to admit. They didn't need to abolish slavery to trigger secession. And nobody's claiming the Republicans were for racial equality, either. A very small subset of the white abolitionists and the majority of free black leaders were pushing for it, the overwhelming majority of whites did not in the least care for it.

True, as with Obama Lincoln was more moderate than small part of his supporters. And Obama was not going to push healthcare bill that the Democratic left would preferred, and Lincoln wasn't going to push abolition that the minority of his supporters cared about. Tariffs, on the other hand, was a thing that carried him to the white house, and was the thing he mentioned in every speech, and he made clear he was going to use federal troops if South Carolina was going to pull the same stunt as it tried 30 years ago. Clearly, tariffs were mere side issue

Anyway, so you admit that the slavery wasn't in danger, right? Do you think southern leaders were completely out of touch with reality, then?

Now you're the one who's being overly romantic. Abolitionists hated slavery but only a few white leaders, like John Brown, Thaddeus Stevens, and William Lloyd Garrison were willing at all to consider it. Most of them advocated colonization and were racists themselves. Opposition to slavery had more to do with support of capitalism than support of the idea that all men were in fact created equal.

I am afraid you are right, and the really decent people were even rarer.

Although i am afraid i do not agree completely. Abolitionism was strongest among puritans in New England, and not in the industrializing middle states.

Maur:So, to offer example again, how does secession helps southerners pursue fugitive slaves or travel to the north with their slaves? Still not able to answer that?

The Confederate army would have gained plenty of experience gunning down Confederate whites. In the peacetime scenario the CSA would have about as strict a border defense as the times would permit it, and soldiers would feel not in the least shame about gunning down defenseless slaves looking for liberty.

Thanks for adressing the question. Well, at least half of it.

I am afraid, though, that the claim that secession helps pursuing fugitive slaves because confederate army gets fighting experience is almost unreal. Nothing stopped southerners from organizing hunting parties already and enforcing the sort of border control that would be aimed at fugites? Shame about gunning fugitive slaves would be a factor in Massachussets - maybe - but not in Dixieland.

Ah well. The argument about fugitive slaves is interesting, but doesn't hold to scrutiny. First, fugitive slaves were economically insignificant number, and never real problem, second, why did the states where it would be biggest problem - border states - secede last?

ZOMG, people are arguing the Royal Navy of the 1860s was the one of the 1940s?

That would be ridiculous. In 1940s, Royal Navy was incomparably weaker than in 1860s.

 

[67th Tigers]

That would be ridiculous. In 1940s, Royal Navy was incomparably weaker than in 1860s.

As a proportion of global combat power, yes.

In 1940 the RN was arguably first amongst equals (or second). In 1860 it is an unchallenged superpower that has more major combatants than the rest of the world combined, and then the same again.

 

[stevep]

A minor regional power that provided half the grain to the British Isles in the first two years of the US Civil War. A minor regional power that also proved able to fight and maintain a protracted industrial war without the crippling debt burdens the British get themselves into every time they fight one.

Snake

Are you a total idiot or just unable to accept reality? The US got itself deeply in debt in OTL in 1861-65, against a power that was totally outclassed by it. Now it's taking on one that outclasses it at least as much as it outclasses the south.

How is the US going to fund the mega-war its seeking to wage? Especially since it's just lost two main sources of revenue at the same point that it needs to spend a hell of a lot more. It might get some foreign investment, if it's very lucky, but going to be at a huge rate of interest. It can raise taxes on what's still in it's control, but how willing will people be to accept the massive rises in taxes that are required. It can print money but will very quickly find that it can only use that worthless currency to buy goods at gunpoint.

In terms of food there are plenty of other places looking to sell it. Where will those farmers in the US sell their goods? Or are you going to solve that by conscripting most of them to form the massive armies you're planning to defeat you're enemies. Such a pity then you won't be able to feed those armies any more than you can train them, cloth them or arm them.

Britain has a long history of paying for long expensive wars. Despite a ultimately disastrous change in policy in ~1850 when a fanatical delusion about laisse-faire it managed this without any difficult until the collapse of the Russian state in 1917/18. The limited conflict that will be required to defeat the US in this time period will not strain it.

I take it from you're comments that you're one of those people, in answer to Grimm's question, who would willingly spend several years grinding the US into the dust trying to wage a war they can't win. Then probably introduce the sort of policies that would destroy any chances of recovery.

Steve

 

[archaeogeek]

As a proportion of global combat power, yes.

In 1940 the RN was arguably first amongst equals (or second). In 1860 it is an unchallenged superpower that has more major combatants than the rest of the world combined, and then the same again.

Actually no, the policy was "enough to fight the number two and three naval powers and hope to beat them".

 

[stevep]

Dilvish

Why would any country fight when it's attacked? Britain won't have started this conflict but you can be pretty certain it will end it.

It terms of condition after a long war, if the US decides on that approach you can say some things about Britain.
a) It won't be blockaded and starved of supplies or funds. Have seen it's merchant fleet and foreign and coastal trade destroyed

b) It won't have had any of it's settlements or industrial regions ravaged by war.

c) It won't have seen mass armies of poorly trained militia, often with minimal weaponry thrown against well equipped regular forces.

d) It won't have seen its government overthrown by the population in desperate to end a war that benefits no one and has destroyed the country.

Steve

I want to ask a stupid question. Why would Great Britain mobilize 100,000 and more soldiers plus most of its navy, and apparently all of its most modern ships, and mobilize how much of its economy? End its trade with the USA and bring on a real threat to the British merchant marine? Engage in a long and expensive war that will cover an entire continent (a continent much bigger than Europe by the way)? All this for what? The Trent Affair and the rights of Southerners to own slaves? How many lives are the British people willing to expend?

Even if Great Britain and her CSA ally win this war (I'll go along and say they most likely do), what shape is Great Britain in for the next war? Or the war after that?

 

[stevep]

67th Tigers...the royal navy wasn't a death star capable of shelling cities to oblivion. It also lacked infinite transport, and lift capacity. For that matter, the royal army couldn't be mobilized in a manor of minutes, and transported in perfect fighting form before anyone had the chance to respond. Such things would take a lot of time, and while the US would lose such a war, it would sue for peace long before your masturbatory Gotterdamerung occurred.

King Gorilla

I agree that, barring total insanity, the US would make peace before things got that bad. However try and persuade archaeogeek or Snake of that.

Steve

 

[Maur]

According to this you're wrong: http://www.amazon.co.uk/influence-cotton-Anglo-American-relations-during/dp/B00089EVG2

Now, you have at no point provided any citations to refute any of this, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have none.

Use the search function for God's sake. I've little interest in repeating our long established findings with a neo-Radical.

Could you two provide some real backup for your claims? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[stevep]

.

EDIT: The Yanks concede British victory, just not 67's presumed overwhelming British enthusiasm for such a war.

usertron2020

I'll agree Tiger's goes over the top but so are other posters here. I think you will find that several yanks on this thread disagree with you on the above, which is the problem.

Steve

 

[xchen08]

Then just wait until the US population has had enough and gets rid of the idiots responsible for getting them into such a mess. It can invade as things fall apart if necessary but probably has no great need to.

You know, I'm certainly not going to contest that the USA is going to quickly lose any sort of war against Britain while also fighting the Civil War, but I love how this is the exact same frame of thought that characterized our debate on the Venezuela crisis thread. Somehow, the war must be entirely the fault of the U.S., and that would be obvious to both Britain's politicians and populace, as well as the American leadership and people. And therefore the British population would support any escalation of force necessary until those foolish Americans acknowledge that yes they were completely in the wrong, and yes, Britain was entirely on the side of angels, and that Britain deserves to take a bunch of land for taking the trouble to point this out. And of course no one in Britain would have any trouble with fighting alongside the Slave Power to devastate a major capital destination, trading partner, and food source. And of course, the American people will take this lesson so close to heart that they will abandon any thought of revenge, and instead fall apart as they seek out those among themselves on which all the blame lies.

 

[archaeogeek]

King Gorilla

I agree that, barring total insanity, the US would make peace before things got that bad. However try and persuade archaeogeek or Snake of that.

Steve

Have you read a single word of what I wrote...

 

[67th Tigers]

Supplying a corps from Valparaiso, in Chile,

What of it? Food is cheap, and shipping is plentiful.

against the californians who could probably raise as much.

5 understrength regiments of infantry and 2 of cavalry. Barely 1,000 effectives after desertion, sickness and detachment. Oregon raised a battalion of about 200 cavalry. There were no extra arms for more. Californian arsenals contained no field artillery.

In January 1862 the Pacific Dept had 4,758 aggregate present (inc. regulars) of whom 1,076 were sick. This number would rapidly dwindle by desertion to less than 2,000 aggregate (about 1,600 not in hospital) in a few months. This is prettymuch the limit of their capacity.

California is a military minnow.

 

[Father Maryland]

usertron2020

I'll agree Tiger's goes over the top but so are other posters here. I think you will find that several yanks on this thread disagree with you on the above, which is the problem.

Steve

I concede the Brits would probably win in a all out war more likely then not but the political feasibility of actually getting all out war is virtually impossible. As such my comment regarding Lincoln thrusting sweatily into the rotting remnants of Prince Albert.

And if a All Out war was declared I believe the British would not win everywhere necessarily. They would wear down the US through disruption of trade and naval might not actually attempt to march a couple corps to Buffalo.

 

[stevep]

I was wrong on USS Monitor; I'll admit - you do realize that they also had ships like USS New Ironsides, right? Also the monitors in Europe are still unlikely to leave it unless Britain is so angry it's willing to leave a vital flank exposed.

archaeogeek

Some may be kept back but at this point the only other powerful naval state, France, is on good terms with Britain. Also it's, butterflies permitting, also rather distracted by events in Mexico so it has no incentive to pick a fight with Britain and reason to be unfriendly to the US. It might even be the 1st nation to formally recognise the CSA, on the principle of winning brownie points with them and getting a leg up in trade now their ports are open for business again.

New Ironside is probably the best of the US designs of the period. On a naval site I'm a member of this subject has been discussed a few times and, despite some weaknesses in technology, the opinion was it would probably win a fight with one of the old Crimean War batteries. However it would probably take a fair bit of damage in the process. Against something like the warrior, which is nearly 3 times it's size and has heavier guns and thicker and more advanced armour it would almost certainly lose.

The USN would supply some tough resistance I have no doubt and could probably give some unpleasnt surprised but at this time period it is no match for Britain, in terms of ships in service, capacity to launch new ships or ability to fund a rapid naval expansion.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Actually no, the policy was "enough to fight the number two and three naval powers and hope to beat them".

archaeogeek

I could be wrong but I think you will find the two Power standard was only introduced in ~1880 as other powers became more industrialised and were able to compete more. Think I remember a quote in one of Kennedy's books that shortly before this Britain did indeed have more BBs than the rest of the world put together.

It's a bit of a moot point at this stage as purpose built ironclads with mixed steam and sail propulsion are replacing and totally outclassing earlier ships. Hence to a degree all old ships are outclassed by the new designs. Fortunately for Britain, even more so than in 1904, it has the capacity in the shipyards to out-build any opponent. Hence if a naval race occurs it will quickly extend it's lead.

Steve

 

[archaeogeek]

archaeogeek

I could be wrong but I think you will find the two Power standard was only introduced in ~1880 as other powers became more industrialised and were able to compete more. Think I remember a quote in one of Kennedy's books that shortly before this Britain did indeed have more BBs than the rest of the world put together.

It's a bit of a moot point at this stage as purpose built ironclads with mixed steam and sail propulsion are replacing and totally outclassing earlier ships. Hence to a degree all old ships are outclassed by the new designs. Fortunately for Britain, even more so than in 1904, it has the capacity in the shipyards to out-build any opponent. Hence if a naval race occurs it will quickly extend it's lead.

Steve

Are you just busy burning villages of strawmen or what, I already said earlier that Britain's naval position in 1860 was not one of overwhelming dominance technology wise but one where it was in a position to outbuild most powers long-term.

 

[67th Tigers]

archaeogeek

Some may be kept back but at this point the only other powerful naval state, France, is on good terms with Britain. Also it's, butterflies permitting, also rather distracted by events in Mexico so it has no incentive to pick a fight with Britain and reason to be unfriendly to the US. It might even be the 1st nation to formally recognise the CSA, on the principle of winning brownie points with them and getting a leg up in trade now their ports are open for business again.

New Ironside is probably the best of the US designs of the period. On a naval site I'm a member of this subject has been discussed a few times and, despite some weaknesses in technology, the opinion was it would probably win a fight with one of the old Crimean War batteries. However it would probably take a fair bit of damage in the process. Against something like the warrior, which is nearly 3 times it's size and has heavier guns and thicker and more advanced armour it would almost certainly lose.

The USN would supply some tough resistance I have no doubt and could probably give some unpleasnt surprised but at this time period it is no match for Britain, in terms of ships in service, capacity to launch new ships or ability to fund a rapid naval expansion.

Steve

New Ironsides' real problem is that she's extremely unwieldy. She was an attempt to make a Lave/ Meteor type vessel and had a flat bottom and undersized rudder. Combined with machinery that never delivered the designed HP it was found best to use her as a floating battery. That is they'd anchor her in position and use her as a static shore bombardment platform. She never fought whilst moving.

Remember, her armour was such poor quality that standard naval artillery (i.e. nothing bigger than an 8" Columbiad) pierced her less armoured ends at ranges of a mile at Charleston. She remained totally fightable though (like Galena at Drewry's Bluff).

Galena is very underrated. She fought all her actions well, but was cursed by the stigma of not being "shotproof", despite never have a gun knocked out by a penetration. For outside of the littoral she's the best ironclad the US Commissioned during the war.

However, for all their faults, it was the Passiacs that were the backbone of the USN armoured force: http://67thtigers.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-ironclads-in-service-and-passaic.html

 

[stevep]

xchen08

You're missing one key point. Both sides will probably dispute who is initially responsible, although if it's triggered by a Trent type incident the US is legally in the wrong. However the Us can therefore end the conflict by admitting it. Hence, if there is a long war, including attacks on Canada and other British territory and interests it will be seen as American responsibility. Similarly, if once the writing is on the wall the US government continues with a pointless conflict I don't think it will be just opinion in Britain that will blame them for the suffering and destruction caused.

What I said was probably badly phased. In part it was because some posters were saying that the US would fight on regardless of the impact and I was trying to point out that sooner or later even the most fanatical government would find it had to stop simply because the population says so. I will also point out that those same posters have presumed fanatical devotion to the cause if the US gets into a war with Britain so was basically seeking to point out the end result of such a stance.

As I've said elsewhere I think if war came it would end fairly quickly, because the US would make concessions and the UK wouldn't push them too far because it doesn't want an avoidable clash. However if you get someone fanatically intent on conflict and convinced they can win no matter what the circumstances - mentioning no names - then the US will go down hard until there is a change in government. Furthermore such a stance is likely to both cause a lot more damage to the US and mean a markedly harsher peace.

Steve

You know, I'm certainly not going to contest that the USA is going to quickly lose any sort of war against Britain while also fighting the Civil War, but I love how this is the exact same frame of thought that characterized our debate on the Venezuela crisis thread. Somehow, the war must be entirely the fault of the U.S., and that would be obvious to both Britain's politicians and populace, as well as the American leadership and people. And therefore the British population would support any escalation of force necessary until those foolish Americans acknowledge that yes they were completely in the wrong, and yes, Britain was entirely on the side of angels, and that Britain deserves to take a bunch of land for taking the trouble to point this out. And of course no one in Britain would have any trouble with fighting alongside the Slave Power to devastate a major capital destination, trading partner, and food source. And of course, the American people will take this lesson so close to heart that they will abandon any thought of revenge, and instead fall apart as they seek out those among themselves on which all the blame lies.