More powerful military in the 1860s: CSA vs. Great Britain

[robcraufurd]

Infantry weapons are very similar, identical in around 3/4 of the cases.

"According to General Alexander, the Confederates had started the war with only 10 per cent of their men armed with modern rifle muskets, while many of the recruits could be given no weapons at all... Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was apparently able to equip all its men with good modern rifles after the Gettysburg campaign, but the Confederates in the West were not so lucky. Although they had certainly risen above shotguns and the other early expedients by 1863, they still remained heavily dependent upon smoothbores and second-rate rifles." (Griffith, Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, p. 77)
And, of course, even when the Confederate troops have rifled muskets, the only unit trained to use them to anywhere near the level of efficiency of the British is Cleburne's division.

although the Armstrong 12 pdr was a much more advanced technical weapon it was also noticeably more difficult to maintain in the field

"As regards the care of the gun I find no difficulty in keeping it in perfect order in all weathers and all circumstances" (Major Govan, RA)
"On one occasion his guns had very rough work indeed. They were sent out with a division of the army over a swamp, the very worst ground possible for artillery. The guns were in fact almost swallowed up, and were covered with mud when brought into action, but no impediment occurred." (Major Govan, RA)
"On two occasions vent-pieces were blown away; on the last occasion I happened to come up to the gun almost immediately after it had occurred... The traversing screw was jammed, but the gun was not otherwise injured, and with another vent-piece was again serviceable." (Major Hay, RA)
"As a preliminary measure, a new 12-pounder gun, No. 8, was left exposed to the weather without any protection, and untouched, ... [for] 45 days. It rained very constantly during this period... At the expiration of it, it was taken to the marshes, and fired without being cleaned or sponged." (Report from the Select Committee on Ordnance, 23 July 1863)

based on the limited amount I have read on the weapon, it was not a 100% issue to all formations.

Incorrect. By 1863 all batteries at home had Armstrong guns: 25 field batteries of 12pdrs, and 10 horse batteries of either 9pdr or 12pdr. See Maj.-Gen. Sir Charles Callwell and Maj.-Gen. Sir John Headlam's History of the Royal Artillery, vol. 1 appendix C.

after testing the British Army returned to MLR guns in 9 & 16 pdr in 1871

The British adopted a MLR on the shunt system: both the Armstrong and the shunt offered a similar level of performance, but the shunt was cheaper. Both weapons were more effective than the smoothbore Napoleons and 3in Ordnance weapons used by the Army of Northern Virginia, and the much more motley collection used by the armies further west.

European armies maintained Lancer units well into the late 1800s and used single shot carbines as their primarly firearm.

Sensible move: lances seem to have been more effective in meeting or making a charge, though less effective in any subsequent melee, and more effective in hunting down scattered infantry. Germany didn't equip almost all its cavalry with lances in 1914 just because it looked pretty.

As for British sidearms, although some units used single-shot carbines, the 18th Hussars have Terry carbines and five regiments carried Sharps rifles in India (1st, 2nd, 6th Dragoon Guards; 7th and 8th Hussars). Ironically enough, Britain owned more Sharps rifles than the Union until some point in mid-1862. Considering the Confederates struggled to arm their forces with even single-shot carbines- many carry double-barrelled shotguns, pistols, fowling pieces or smoothbore infantry muskets until they can loot something better- and factoring in poorer quality horseflesh and training, it doesn't seem particularly fair to give them the edge as freely as you do.

 

[Fiver]

Which entity had a more powerful military in the 1860s: the CSA or the British?

The British - they had a navy and force projection capabilities. The Confederacy failed at every attempt they made to invade and seize territory.

 

[Anaxagoras]

And, of course, even when the Confederate troops have rifled muskets, the only unit trained to use them to anywhere near the level of efficiency of the British is Cleburne's division.

I know from the research I did in writing Shattered Nation that Granbury's Texas Brigade (part of Cleburne's division) was equipped with Austrian-made Lorenz rifled muskets at the beginning of the Atlanta Campaign. The men did not like them at all. After smashing a larger Union force at the Battle of Pickett's Mill, Granbury's men were able to capture enough Enfield rifles muskets from the enemy to reequip the entire brigade, making them much happier with their armament.

 

[CalBear]

"According to General Alexander, the Confederates had started the war with only 10 per cent of their men armed with modern rifle muskets, while many of the recruits could be given no weapons at all... Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was apparently able to equip all its men with good modern rifles after the Gettysburg campaign, but the Confederates in the West were not so lucky. Although they had certainly risen above shotguns and the other early expedients by 1863, they still remained heavily dependent upon smoothbores and second-rate rifles." (Griffith, Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, p. 77)
And, of course, even when the Confederate troops have rifled muskets, the only unit trained to use them to anywhere near the level of efficiency of the British is Cleburne's division.


"As regards the care of the gun I find no difficulty in keeping it in perfect order in all weathers and all circumstances" (Major Govan, RA)
"On one occasion his guns had very rough work indeed. They were sent out with a division of the army over a swamp, the very worst ground possible for artillery. The guns were in fact almost swallowed up, and were covered with mud when brought into action, but no impediment occurred." (Major Govan, RA)
"On two occasions vent-pieces were blown away; on the last occasion I happened to come up to the gun almost immediately after it had occurred... The traversing screw was jammed, but the gun was not otherwise injured, and with another vent-piece was again serviceable." (Major Hay, RA)
"As a preliminary measure, a new 12-pounder gun, No. 8, was left exposed to the weather without any protection, and untouched, ... [for] 45 days. It rained very constantly during this period... At the expiration of it, it was taken to the marshes, and fired without being cleaned or sponged." (Report from the Select Committee on Ordnance, 23 July 1863)


Incorrect. By 1863 all batteries at home had Armstrong guns: 25 field batteries of 12pdrs, and 10 horse batteries of either 9pdr or 12pdr. See Maj.-Gen. Sir Charles Callwell and Maj.-Gen. Sir John Headlam's History of the Royal Artillery, vol. 1 appendix C.


The British adopted a MLR on the shunt system: both the Armstrong and the shunt offered a similar level of performance, but the shunt was cheaper. Both weapons were more effective than the smoothbore Napoleons and 3in Ordnance weapons used by the Army of Northern Virginia, and the much more motley collection used by the armies further west.


Sensible move: lances seem to have been more effective in meeting or making a charge, though less effective in any subsequent melee, and more effective in hunting down scattered infantry. Germany didn't equip almost all its cavalry with lances in 1914 just because it looked pretty.

As for British sidearms, although some units used single-shot carbines, the 18th Hussars have Terry carbines and five regiments carried Sharps rifles in India (1st, 2nd, 6th Dragoon Guards; 7th and 8th Hussars). Ironically enough, Britain owned more Sharps rifles than the Union until some point in mid-1862. Considering the Confederates struggled to arm their forces with even single-shot carbines- many carry double-barrelled shotguns, pistols, fowling pieces or smoothbore infantry muskets until they can loot something better- and factoring in poorer quality horseflesh and training, it doesn't seem particularly fair to give them the edge as freely as you do.

Interesting regarding the Armstrong. The couple of source i looked at indicated that a number of units were not so equipped (that's what i get for trusting an Osprey Press book).

The 75% figure I used for Enfields or other rifled muskets (although the Enfield was dominant for the CSA, especially in the Eastern Theater, there were other rifles including the Austrian Lorenz and of course the Springfield 1861) is based on British Army surveys taken during later stages of the war in the Western Theater where 70% of the troops were so equipped (the Confederacy's poor cousin when it came to supply)

Regarding cavalry, I noted that made an interesting potential match, not that either side was necessarily better. I would still maintain that is the case. Lancers are an interesting concept in a Minnie ball dominated battlefield, however so are cavalry troops with a carbine and as many revolvers as they could buy (many Confederate cavalry being "gentlemen", they frequently equipped themselves far better than Richmond could provide). I am utterly ignorant when it comes to the quality of horses, so I will accept whatever you say on the subject.

 

[Kevin in Indy]

I agree with the consensus. In a war, the British Empire wins - no questions asked. The Royal Navy could give a clinic to the Union on blockading and interdicting a nation. If the time came for an invasion, the invading army would be large enough and equipped enough to win.

In a "hypothetical" battle - say, put together your best commander and combined-arms unit of about a corps in size - the British still have an advantage, but it's not a sure thing. The officers are better-trained, and make very few mistakes on a battlefield. The ranks are better-disciplined, and that will usually win out.

For a small-unit action - skip it, they're no longer doing Deadliest Warrior.

I do not have as much background on comparative weaponry, so I'll defer to the others.

 

[TFSmith121]

Rhodes don't travel real well in the Age of Sail, however

Interesting regarding the Armstrong. The couple of source i looked at indicated that a number of units were not so equipped (that's what i get for trusting an Osprey Press book).

The 75% figure I used for Enfields or other rifled muskets (although the Enfield was dominant for the CSA, especially in the Eastern Theater, there were other rifles including the Austrian Lorenz and of course the Springfield 1861) is based on British Army surveys taken during later stages of the war in the Western Theater where 70% of the troops were so equipped (the Confederacy's poor cousin when it came to supply)

Regarding cavalry, I noted that made an interesting potential match, not that either side was necessarily better. I would still maintain that is the case. Lancers are an interesting concept in a Minnie ball dominated battlefield, however so are cavalry troops with a carbine and as many revolvers as they could buy (many Confederate cavalry being "gentlemen", they frequently equipped themselves far better than Richmond could provide). I am utterly ignorant when it comes to the quality of horses, so I will accept whatever you say on the subject.

Horses don't travel real well in the Age of Sail, however; they did better when steamships became widely available, but considering a single regiment of cavalry might number 600 mounts, that's a lot of steamers - especially across the North Atlantic.

Include officers horses in the infantry and staff, draft horses for artillery and quartermaster duty, messengers, scouts, ambulances, etc, and the numbers become astronomical...

Most mounts, certainly most remounts, will be acquired in theater, and even if remounts are shipped in, they still have to be broken and trained.

None of which is a simple or quick process, for any army in the age of horse cavalry, artillery,logistics, etc.

Best,

 

[robcraufurd]

Granbury's men were able to capture enough Enfield rifles muskets from the enemy to reequip the entire brigade, making them much happier with their armament.

Which really sums it up neatly- the best weapon available to the Confederacy, which they battle to get their hands on and issue to sharpshooters, is the standard weapon available to the British.

The 75% figure I used for Enfields or other rifled muskets… is based on British Army surveys taken during later stages of the war in the Western Theater

But this ignores the fact that through the overwhelming majority of the war, the average Confederate soldier was armed either with a smoothbore weapon or a substandard rifled musket (it also ignores the fact that most Confederate soldiers weren’t trained to get the best out of any rifled musket, but that’s by the by). The fact that three years into the war, foreign imports and war loot enabled the Confederacy to give a modern weapon to most of its dwindling armies shouldn’t be allowed to conceal the fundamental industrial poverty of the South. If we grant the hypothetical Confederate army the rifled small arms which they were theoretically supposed to possess, why did we ever question whether the 12pdr Armstrong was a universal issue?

Regarding cavalry, I noted that made an interesting potential match, not that either side was necessarily better.

90% of the time on these boards, the mention of the British having lancers is shorthand for “look how out-of-date these guys are, clearly they stand no chance”; if that wasn’t your intention, then I commend you.

Lancers are an interesting concept in a Minnie ball dominated battlefield

They are indeed- if the infantry unit defending against them can use their Minie rifles correctly to engage cavalry at the 900 yard-plus range, or is well disciplined enough to form square and hold it against a charge. But, as we’ve seen, neither side during the war does know how to use its weapons properly- let's leave aside the question of steadiness for the time being. The French won the 1859 war against Austria because their attack columns ran through the field of fire faster than the poorly-trained Austrian conscripts could judge the distance and reset their sights. When you consider that cavalry move much faster than infantry, and you read depictions of Civil War soldiers firing horrendously high against static targets, you start to realise that European-standard cavalry trained to charge home might have had a tremendous effect on the Civil War battlefield.

“At Drewey’s Bluff, Virginia (May 13, 1864), I. Hermann, a Confederate infantryman, noticed the execution Union bullets were inflicting on a tall pine just within the rebel breastworks. Though the two firing lines had been only a hundred yards apart, Hermann noticed bark, needles and cones being knocked down the entire height of the tree down to the top of the breastworks. Hermann concluded that even though thousands of shots were fired in a high parabolic trajectory into the upper regions of the tree, thousands more were fired even higher and escaped any sort of visual detection.” Brent Nosworthy, The Bloody Crucible of Courage, p. 581

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The RA did some trials on RML and RBL including the Krupp guns with Prussian crews. Basic finding was that the RML was much more reliable (Krupps had around a 30% unserviceability rate) and only a marginal increase in ROF. The issues being getting the gun back into battery, waiting for smoke to clear and overheating. Also much cheaper. Worth also noting that Armstrong guns are much more reliable than anything produced in north America in the ‘not exploding in your face’ stakes.

RobC underplays the issue of training. Cleburne’s brigade are the famous example there are other regiments but in North America they are the exception. In the British, or French armies for that matter that kind of firepower would be the norm. So looking at engagement ranges for the Europeans of between 400-600 yards vs 1-200 for the CSA unit. One French led Indiana regiment broke up a rebel divisional attack with volley fire at 600 yds, one volley scattering each brigade as it emerged from a tree line.

I think there are 4 lancer regiments in the British Army (of 25 rgt) and not that many in the indian army in the 1860’s so don’t obsess about lances per se. Actually late in the war the US cavalry in the east was using half its troops as sabre troops charging home with cold steel.

As to minie rifle vs charging cavalry – von Bredow’s death ride – 1000m charge vs 4x their numbers and a gun line disperses the French at a cost of half the brigade so hard but both tactically successful and certainly possible. That’s against the French trained to deal with it.

The Victorians had no real difficulty in transporting cavalry horses. There is a brief period of recovery after but its not a fundamental issue for cavalry mounts, just easier to locally source draft animals.

 

[TFSmith121]

The issues with horses - not Rhodes - are that

The RA did some trials on RML and RBL including the Krupp guns with Prussian crews. Basic finding was that the RML was much more reliable (Krupps had around a 30% unserviceability rate) and only a marginal increase in ROF. The issues being getting the gun back into battery, waiting for smoke to clear and overheating. Also much cheaper. Worth also noting that Armstrong guns are much more reliable than anything produced in north America in the ‘not exploding in your face’ stakes.

RobC underplays the issue of training. Cleburne’s brigade are the famous example there are other regiments but in North America they are the exception. In the British, or French armies for that matter that kind of firepower would be the norm. So looking at engagement ranges for the Europeans of between 400-600 yards vs 1-200 for the CSA unit. One French led Indiana regiment broke up a rebel divisional attack with volley fire at 600 yds, one volley scattering each brigade as it emerged from a tree line.

I think there are 4 lancer regiments in the British Army (of 25 rgt) and not that many in the indian army in the 1860’s so don’t obsess about lances per se. Actually late in the war the US cavalry in the east was using half its troops as sabre troops charging home with cold steel.

As to minie rifle vs charging cavalry – von Bredow’s death ride – 1000m charge vs 4x their numbers and a gun line disperses the French at a cost of half the brigade so hard but both tactically successful and certainly possible. That’s against the French trained to deal with it.

The Victorians had no real difficulty in transporting cavalry horses. There is a brief period of recovery after but its not a fundamental issue for cavalry mounts, just easier to locally source draft animals.

That in every conflict - even those where the depots are on the same continent as the conflict being waged - is they end up being treated like pieces of ordnance, because the wastage rates are high.

Transport in the age of steam was not easy; age of sail that much more difficult. Given the realities of the horseflesh present in the Americas in the Nineteenth Century, the likelihood of any European army being given a flow of remounts from Europe in the same period is vanishingly small. Economically and logistically, that level of transoceanic logistics was a product of the Twentieth Century, not the Nineteenth. Certainly the realities of history involving the question do not show this level of sustainment; the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all relied heavily on "local" resources during their various expeditions in the Western Hemisphere in the Nineteenth Century, not that it made much difference in the results.

Which, of course, is what brings the notion of the OP into question; it is a question without any context.

All in all, the record of the European armies in the field against peer competitors in the mid-Nineteenth Century is mixed, at best, as the results of the 1854-56 conflict between Russia, France, Turkey, Britain, and Sardinia makes clear, much less the record of the French in Mexico in the 1860s, the Spanish in the Dominican Republic in the 1860s, and the British in the First South African War. These were hardly unstoppable juggernauts against opponents who were at least speaking the same military language as the Europeans, and they all had problems at times with "native" forces that were barely comparable, as Adowa, Isandwala, and Gandamak make clear.

As far as lancers go, it is worth noting that the "local" armies in the Western Hemisphere where such a weapon was about as native as it gets in the Nineteenth Century - Mexico and what is now Venezuela and Colombia - quite eagerly laid them aside in favor of firearms in the middle of the century, only using such weapons as make shifts when weather or supply lines made such necessary.

Best,

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Well its time at sea not distance cavalry remounts to the peninsula regularly spend 3 months at sea and while not needed or desireable a steam assisted passage to North America is feasible for cavalry horses.

Not sure what your point is on decisions in war. In the Crimea ALL the battles are tactical successes for the anglo french as is the only siege of note. Quoting odd batallion sized actions fine but lets remember Little Big Horn, Red Cloud War etc and also a couple of Sikh wars the Mutiny, Burma wars, sacking Peking, Abyssinia, Egypt the whole of the Zulu war, ashante wars, Xhosa wars, conquests of Senegal Algeria, Morocco, cochinchina war, Mahdist wars, and I give up at around 1880.

Thing about the lance is A) only used by 4 british regiments, B) the western hemisphere people you use are primarily aping europeanfashions or the in the case of natives hunters using hunting weapons in war and firearms are better hunting weapons. The lance continues in popularity in the East but mainy - british and Indian service anyway as a ceremonial or picket weapon, or for pigsticking. Native Indian,Russian and Chinese troops use it.

The other issue is that late war the US cavalry using the sabre prove superior to confederate cavalry using pistols and shotguns according to both sides accounts.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Horses don't travel real well in the Age of Sail, however; they did better when steamships became widely available, but considering a single regiment of cavalry might number 600 mounts, that's a lot of steamers - especially across the North Atlantic.

Include officers horses in the infantry and staff, draft horses for artillery and quartermaster duty, messengers, scouts, ambulances, etc, and the numbers become astronomical...

Most mounts, certainly most remounts, will be acquired in theater, and even if remounts are shipped in, they still have to be broken and trained.

None of which is a simple or quick process, for any army in the age of horse cavalry, artillery,logistics, etc.

Best,

If we're already stacking the deck by making the Brits throw away their naval superiority and, essentially, use the only strategy that could give their opponents any hope of victory whatsoever, I think it's only fair to let the British at least keep their original horses. Otherwise the scenario starts to look a little biased.

 

[The True Eurasian_Ti]

brits had a larger army, better industry, ad could draft hunderneds of thusnads of troops , especially from its colonies.
the c.s.a had a great general, bad army. and non-superior industry

 

[DG Valdron]

To quote a great Dalek, "It is not war, it is pest control."

 

[robcraufurd]

Well its time at sea not distance cavalry remounts to the peninsula regularly spend 3 months at sea

Perhaps I should clarify what I originally meant: I was talking about the fact that the Confederate army doesn't have any organised remount service. If you want to be in the Confederate cavalry, you bring your own horse and guns; if it dies, you move to the infantry, hope your unit steals some horses fairly soon, or go home on furlough to buy another. Typically 50% of the Confederate cavalry is absent with or without leave on remount duty at any one time, and there were suggestions that those that were left were unwilling to risk losing their horses unnecessarily. The British used a version of this system in the silladar regiments of the Indian Army, but ditched it in 1914 when it failed under pressure.

while not needed or desireable a steam assisted passage to North America is feasible for cavalry horses.

Is there anybody actually arguing that the British wouldn't have had far less trouble transferring horses to Virginia than the Confederates would have had transferring horses to Devon? We're trying to ascertain who had the more powerful military, not whether one side was powerful enough to obliterate its opponent on their own turf.

EDIT: There are five people who've voted for the CSA, and I'm genuinely curious to find out why they think the way they do. If you don't want to debate the issue because you don't feel like you can do it justice, that's absolutely fine: I, and I'm sure everybody else in the thread, will respect your wishes. However, if you feel able to make a quick post just saying the top three reasons why you thought the CSA had the more powerful military then I would be very interested to read it.

 

[Dave Howery]

CSA forces never deployed a lancer unit, and while carbines were also part of the weapon load out, CSA cavalry was also extremely enamored with revolvers, with many troopers carrying two or more.

one reason why they loved revolvers so much... according to one book I have, the CSA raider cavalry used a tactic where they would charge infantry armed with single shot rifles/muskets, bull through one volley, and then use speed of horse to close in before the infantry could reload, and then use revolvers at close range to wreak havoc. Forrest and Quantrill did this over and over against rear echelon Union forces. Which is why I wonder sometimes why the north didn't equip those forces (the ones guarding supplies and railroads) with Spencer rifles... the multi-shot option would put paid to those raider tactics...

 

[EnglishCanuck]

one reason why they loved revolvers so much... according to one book I have, the CSA raider cavalry used a tactic where they would charge infantry armed with single shot rifles/muskets, bull through one volley, and then use speed of horse to close in before the infantry could reload, and then use revolvers at close range to wreak havoc. Forrest and Quantrill did this over and over against rear echelon Union forces. Which is why I wonder sometimes why the north didn't equip those forces (the ones guarding supplies and railroads) with Spencer rifles... the multi-shot option would put paid to those raider tactics...

My assumption would be that it is because front-line units had priority while rear echelon units had the short end of the stick, and what better place to dump all the weapons your changing out?

 

[Grey Wolf]

OK, what is the question meaning?

The British Empire had ultimate power projection and naval supremacy and anytime it ever fell behind it could crash build and update and be back ahead in a year or so

The CSA could presumably protect its own hinterland, generally

Ask, could the British defeat the CSA - largely, to all intents and purposes. They would blockade the hell out of it, seize the main coastal cities, forge alliances with its enemies and even if we don't see British armies marching on Birmingham, we would have a rump CSA interior

Could the CSA defeat Britain? Maybe ONLY if it tried to take Birmingham? It has very limited power projection and what it has will fail if it comes into contact with British forces on the high seas. It has very limited ability to make allies. Its economy will be on the verge of collapse.

In essence I would rate this CSA 5 - 95 Britain

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[TFSmith121]

It was more like if there is any chance for a conflict,

If we're already stacking the deck by making the Brits throw away their naval superiority and, essentially, use the only strategy that could give their opponents any hope of victory whatsoever, I think it's only fair to let the British at least keep their original horses. Otherwise the scenario starts to look a little biased.

It was more like if there is any chance for a conflict, it's going to have to be in the Western Hemisphere - I don't see Confederate Fenians (even under Pat Cleburne) landing in Ireland, for example.

The issue, of course, is that without ANY context, the question is pretty much like asking whether Manchester United will do better in a hockey game than the San Francisco Giants.

First off, the use of military power is not a sporting event; secondly, the two militaries were organized and equipped for vastly different missions. Third, in the equivalent to the above OP, the Giants will all retire half-way through the season.

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

May have been Harry Harrison:
"When the Civil War ended the combined armies of the North and the South contained hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers. Not only could this combined force have destroyed a British invasion, but they could have won in battle against the combined armies of Europe- not defeating them one by one but could very well have defeated them even if they had united all of their forces."


And experience isn't everything; delivering volleys at fifty paces won't teach you how to estimate range and set your sights correctly for a target at eight hundred yards, for instance, or change front on a flank company, or compensate for a lack of formal bayonet training. We also forget that these aren't units in a computer game, who automatically receive +1 to ranged fire after three battles, but real people who are forced to internalise extremely traumatic experiences- the deaths and mutilations of their friends, being forced to kill or be killed, knowing that it's only fickle fortune that keeps them alive from battle to battle. British troops in Normandy were undoubtedly more experienced than their American counterparts, but did that count for them- or against them?

It isn't a video game but real life people aren't stupid either, particularly ones that survive two years of a very bloody war. They know how to pick targets, how to move on the battlefield, how not to panic under fire, when to hold fire and when not to and by that time it is almost instinctive . The ones who don't are mostly DEAD. The twits, the unhealthy and the slow are mostly dead or maimed. The Brits had as many twits, slowpokes and sicklys as any other group. They, mostly, haven't been under fire, never shot a fire in anger, never came under fire and have to really think about when to fire or not. Training helps but it is no substitute for real life experience.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well why is the theoretical battle in America? Because the CSA couldn't possibly perform in another theatre, the British could.
You are presumably pitching the entire CSA army (which is the largest it could probably get as they were in a war for their existence) against a Britain in no such danger. If you allowed the full army of the empire against the CSA - there is no contest. (An unlikely scenario, but so is Britain bothering to land an army when it could just choke the CSA to death by blockading its ports.)

The only way the CSA wins is if the British are kept to an artificial set of circumstances which clearly favour the CSA.
But that is like me saying that the USA could be defeated by North Korea as they would be fighting a strictly ground war, with no nukes etc etc until you're left with the deck stacked favourably for the North Koreans.

In any war short of conquest you are correct but to actually conquer an area you need to put boots on the ground. Wars of conquest are not won by blockade alone.