What do you think the Confederacy did wrong?

Defeating the Mexican Army at Puebla, and actually destroying it are two totally different things. The French might've forced the Mexicans to retreat, but trapping, and capturing the much larger Mexican Army would've been all but impossible. Interesting that you call the pro Republican Mexicans rebels. Juarez was the legally elected president of Mexico. Calling the Juarez Forces rebels is like the Confederates calling the Union Forces rebels.
Once the French had taken Mexico City in 1863, the war developed into a small border engagement in the northern regions of Mexico. The populated areas of central Mexico, including the important harbor of Veracruz, were very much under the control of the Imperial government. What stopped Maximilian from gaining complete control over his country was Juarez' ability to retreat his troops into American territory when necessary, and the end of the Civil War that forced France to withdraw his troops, leaving Maximilian to his own means whole fighting an armed insurrection supported by the US.

A quick look on a map shows that the Expédition du Mexique wasn't a hopeless operation doomed to fail, but a civil war between Mexican conservatives and liberals supported by two different foreign powers, with the side retaining international support winning in the end.
 
Yes, because if you're going to make claims I'm going to check them and call it out if it's false. If you have no actual interest in seriously debating, you're under no obligation to respond to my posts.



I fail to see how a British attack on New York Harbor would fail, given that a review of the same in late 1862 found they would be hard pressed to challenge even a wooden-ship based attack, nevermind an ironclad attack. Very few of the cannons mentioned are capable of actually dealing damage to an ironclad.
Your understanding of ACW Naval Battles is very limited. Ironclads got the hell knocked out of them attacking forts. 9 Union Ironclads failed to reduce Fort Sumpter in 1863. New York was defended by batteries with heavier guns. Firing from an elevated position, at range can hit vertical surfaces, and again only half of Warrior's Hull is armored, with the deck armor much thinner then her main belt. The Union would mine the harbor, only leaving limited channels into NY Harbor. NY would've had a few Monitor's along with other Union ships. If Warrior tried to run the batteries at the Verrazano Narrows she'd be pounded to death. Your understanding of Ironclads, and what they can do, and take is very superficial. It's a lot more then just static calculations on an armor penetration chart vs a horizontal hit on the armor belt. "Oh you can't hurt us." "Yea come on baby."
 
To quote McPherson himself:-

1596966052711.png


Not only that, the British were the major investors of the American economy during the Civil War. America's internal economy would be hit extremely hard and that's not counting the trade blockade.

1596966994311.png


I need not tell how fast the Union Foreign Reserves will die out due to this and how fast the Confederate Foreign Reserves would grow due to absolute wreakage of the Anaconda Plan.


1596966248892.png


Also, the cost of the Civil War was $7 Billion, which is twice the GDP of America in 1864. With the entry of Britain, that cost balloons up, as nearly 70% of their bond marketers and the investors of the Americans suddenly vanishes. Economically, the Union would be very devastated.

Economically the simple entry of the British into the war would balloon the American Economy to very unsustainable levels. Compared to the fact that France was willing to go to war with the US as well if Britain came in, you can be sure Napoleon III would drag France against America as well. That would be the death nail to America's economy. Britain and France could not only subsidize the Confederate Economy, they would virtually destroy the Union's Economy. No bond sales, blockade, redistribution of industries, loss of 726,000 exports of Rifles to the Union, loss of gunpowder, etc would make a War Lost.

From Navies and Nations: Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America by Jan Glete :-

Canadian Fleet 1862:-

At Quebec: 2x line of battle and 1x ironclad battery

Operating between Quebec and Montreal: 2x ironclad battery, 2x corvettes (noting a maximum draught of 18 ft), 2 dispatch vessels and 7 gunboats

On Lake St. Francis: 4x gunboats

On Lake Ontario: 3x ironclad battery, 4x dispatch vessels, 16 gunboats

On Lake Erie: 3x ironclad Battery, 20x gunboats

On the Richelieu River: 6 gunboats

Total for the inland seas of Canada: 2 line-of-battle, 9 ironclad batteries, 2 corvettes, 6 dispatch vessels, 53 gunboats = 72 vessels

Western North Atlantic Squadron Ships that were mobilized during the Trent Affair in case of War with the Union:-

Penobscot Bay: 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Kennebec River: 1x sloop, 2x gunboats

Portland: 1x frigate, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Portsmouth, NH: 2x sloops (and notes the defences mean a mortar vessel can range on the navy yard without any return fire)

Salem and Marblehead: 1x sloop

Boston: 1x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Nantucket Island: 1x frigate

Narrgansett Bay: 3x sloops, 3x gunboat

Long Island Sound: 1x line of battle, 1x frigate, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

New York Harbor (South Entrance): 2x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats (much ink is spilled over how to attack New York)

Delaware River: 1x line of battle, 1x frigate or sloop, 2x gunboats

Chesapeake Bay: 2x line of battle, 2x frigates, 6x sloops, 6x gunboats

Port Royal, SC: 1x frigate, 1x sloop

Total blockade: 7x line of battle, 12x frigates, 25 sloops, 23x gunboats = 67 vessels

This is discounting the 25 warship strong West Indies Squadron, and the 18 Warships Squadron strong South Atlantic Squadron.

The RN outnumbered the USN by 3 times in American waters alone until early to mid 1863. A Foreign intervention on part of Britain was only seriously going to happen in 1861 during the Trent Affair. From the aforementioned book, the RN had keeled and started the construction of 60 warships already during the Trent Affair for fear of War within Canada and the West Indies. Combined with the sheer shipbuilding capacity of the British Empire, the British are not only going to outpace the American shipbuilding capacity, it's not even going to be a close contest. Despite no wars, the British constructed 73 wargoing ships during 1860-65:-

RN Construction (1860-65):

2 Warrior-class broadside ironclads
Completed: 21/10/61 and 12/9/62
Displacement: 9,137 and 9,250 t

2 Defence-class broadside ironclads
Completed: 2/12/61 and 2/7/62
Displacement: 6,150 t and 6,070 t

1 Hector-class broadside ironclad (2nd completed 15/9/68)
Completed: 22/2/64
Displacement: 6,710 t

1 Achilles-class broadside ironclad
Completed: 26/11/64
Displacement: 9,829 t

3 Prince-Consort-class wooden broadside ironclads
Completed: 1 in April, 1864, 2 in July, 1865
Displacement: 6,832 t

Royal Oak wooden broadside ironclad
Completed: April, '63
Displacement: 6,366 t

Royal Alfred wooden central battery ironclad
Completed: 23/3/67
Displacement: 6,707 t

Research wooden central battery ironclad
Completed: 6/4/64
Displacement: 1,743 t load, 1,900 full load

Enterprise composite central battery ironclad sloop
Completed: 3/6/64
Displacement: 1,350 t

Royal Sovereign coast defence turret ship
Completed: 20/8/64
Displacement: 5,080 t

Scorpion-class masted turret ships
Completed: both 10/10/65
Displacement: 2,751 t

HMS Orlando (last of 6 of Walker's large wooden screw frigates)
Completed: Dec, '61
Displacement: 5,643 t

2 Immortalité-class wooden screw frigates
Completed: Nov, '60 and Oct, '75 (2 others in '70 and '74, a fifth never completed)
Displacement: 3,984 t and 3,996 t

4 converted Fourth Rate sailing frigates (note these are not new builds, but conversions of older ships)
Undocked: 26/3/60, 11/4 and 9/8/61 and 15/4/62
Displacement: 3,826 t, 3,832 t, 3,708 t and 3,786 t

2 wooden screw frigates (not classed)
Completed: Dec, '60 and Nov, '63 (a third Sept, '66)
Displacement: 3,535 t and 3,498 t

6 Jason-class wooden screw corvettes (these ships each mounted a single 110pdr Armstrong pivot-mounted BL which was withdrawn in '64 following accidents)
Completed: Nov, '60, Sept & Oct, '61, Aug & Sept '62, and Apr, '64
Displacement: 2,431 t, 1,720 t (on trials and before being masted), 2,365 t, 2,431 t, 2,302 t, and 2,424 t

7 Rosario-class wooden screw sloops
Completed: 17/10, 10/11, & 29/11/60, 17/10 & 14/12/61, 2/4 & 14/2/62
Launched: 927, 849, 896, 811, 918, 858 & 913 t

7 Cameleon-class wooden screw sloops (ok, giving up on the individualised tonnages before my fingers do! I'll list the total tonnage for the class instead.)
Launched: 23/2, 26/3, 9/7 & 13/11/60, 9/2 & 21/8/61, 18/3/62, (an 8th 29/3/66)
Displacement: 9,297/7 (8th=1,365 t)

2 Amazon-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 23/5 & 16/11/65 (4 more in '66)
Displacement: 3,122/2 (6,339/4 for the post-war ones)

19 Philomel-class wooden gunvessels (launched 1859-62, a 20th in '67)
Displacement: 570 t each

8 Cormorant-class wooden gunvessels (launched 1860-7)
Displacement: 877 t each

The American Navy built 157 Warships from 1860 - 65 (discounting auxiliaries, and patrol ships, these are real warships):-

1 Screw Frigate (USS Franklin)
Launched: 1864
Displacement: 5,170 t

1 Screw Corvette (sloop) (USS Richmond)
Launched: 1860
Displacement: 2,604 t

New Ironsides broadside ironclad
Launched: 10/5/62
Commissioned: 21/8/62
Displacement: 4,120 t

Dunderberg broadside ironclad
Launched: 22/7/65
Commissioned: Not by USN - sold to France 1867, commissioned by her for a few weeks in 1870, stricken 1872
Displacement: 7,800 t

Monitor
Launched: 30/1/62
Commissioned: 25/2/62
Displacement: 987 t

10 Passaic-class Monitors
Launched: 30/8, 27/9, 7, 9 & 27/10, 5/11, 6 & 16/12/62, 17/1/63, & 14/11/64
Commissioned: 25/11/62 - 24/5/65 (details available on request)
Displacement: 1,875 t

Roanoke monitor
Date of Conversion: May, '62 - April, '63
Commissioned: 29/6/63
Displacement: 4,395 t

Onondaga monitor
Launched: 29/7/63
Commissioned: 24/3/64
Displacement: 2,551 t

4 Miantonomoh-class monitors
Launched: 19/3 & 15/8/63, 23/3 & 6/5/64
Commissioned: 5/5 & 18/9/65, 4/10/64 & 12/10/65
Displacement: 3,400 t

Dictator monitor
Launched: 26/12/63
Commissioned: 11/11/64
Displacement: 4,438 t

Puritan monitor
Launched: 2/7/64
Commissioned: Never completed, broken up '74-5
Displacement: 4,912 t

9 Canonicus-class monitors
Launched:1/8/63, 13/4/64, 17/5/64, 18/12/64, 14/10/63, 21/5/64, 16/12/63, 12/9/63, 22/12/64
Commissioned: 16/4/64, Never (completed 10/6/65), 22/9/64, 1/1/71 (completion 27/9/65), 6/6/64, Never (completion 10/6/65), 7/4/64, 19/4/64, ? (completion Dec, '65)
Displacement: 2,100 t

4 Kalamazoo-class monitors
Launched: Never. Laid down Between Nov, '63 and early '64
Commissioned: Never launched, broken up '74 (1) and '84 (3)
Displacement: 5,660 t

4 Milwaukee-class shallow draught monitors
Launched: 4/7/63, 4 & 10/2 & 12/3/64
Commissioned: 27/4, 27/8, 10/5 * 8/7/64
Displacement: 1,300 t

20 Casco-class shallow draught monitors
Launched: 5/5/64 - 21/12/65
Commissioned: only 9 completed, delivered and commissioned by end Dec, '65
Displacement: 1,175 t

Galena armoured ship
Launched: 14/2/62
Commissioned: 21/4/62
Displacement: 738 t

Keokuk armoured ship
Launched: 6/12/62
Commissioned: Mar, '63
Displacement: 677 t

Several USN vessels were laid down during the war but weren't commissioned for some years thereafter. For example, 5 Wampanoag-class wooden screw frigates were laid down in '63, but were launched only in '64-5, and had their trials '67-8. Displacement: 20,466 t/5. Other such vessels: USS Chattanooga (wooden screw frigate), 3,043 t; USS Idaho (wooden screw frigate), 3,241 t; 8 Java-class (wooden screw frigates), 3,953 t; 4 Contoocook-class (wooden screw frigates), 3,003 t; 1 Alaska-class (wooden screw sloop), 2,394 t; 4 Swatara-class (wooden screw sloops), 1,113-1,129 t;

4 Ossipee-class wooden screw sloops (includes the famous USS Housatonic)
Launched: 16 & 20/11/61, 22/2 & 20/3/62
Commissioned: 6/11 & 29/8/62, June, '62 & 4/12/62
Displacement: 1,934 t

4 Sacramento-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 28/3, 10/7, 28/4, & 8/12/62
Commissioned: 1/8/62, 15/1, 7/1 & 20/6/63
Displacement: 2,526 t

2 Ticonderoga-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 9/8 & 16/10/62
Commissioned: 8/1 & 12/5/63
Displacement: 2,526 t

4 Kearsarge-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 11/9, 20/11, 24/8 & 10/10/61
Commissioned: 24/1 & 28/2/62, 5/12/61, 3/3/62
Displacement: 1,457-1,488 t

23 Unadilla-class gunboats
Launched: Various times in 1861 from August
Commissioned: '61 - late Feb, '62
Displacement: 691 t

8 Kansas-class gunboats
Launched: June, '63-March, '64
Commissioned: Sept, '63 - Nov, '64
Displacement: 836 t

12 Octorara-class side-wheel gunboats (good for rivers and coastal service, but "much less satisfactory for sea service")
Launched: Jan, '61 - May, '62
Commissioned: Jan-Jul '62
Displacement: 981-1,210 t

27 Sassacus-class side-wheel gunboats (a 28th failed her trials)
Launched: Feb-Dec, '63
Commissioned: 2 in '63 (July and Oct), 2 never, remainder Mar-Dec, '64
Displacement: 1,173 t

4 Mohongo-class side-wheel gunboats (2 commissioned 1866)
Launched: various dates in 1864
Commissioned: Jan-Oct, '65
Displacement: 1,370 t

Spuyten Duyvil spar-torpedo vessel
Launched: 1864
Commissioned: Prob Nov, '64
Displacement: 207 t

Now you can add the other 50 or so ships the RN laid down during the Trent Affair which would not be converted ITTL, plus the other shipbuilding capability of the British Empire.

You can also read this book
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905
by Robert Gardiner to keep things at a perspective.

You can read this book as well: https://books.google.com.np/books?id=BkgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20&dq=lead+production+1860&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lead production 1860&f=false

The British economical effort to the Union was war-winning. You take that away, the Union would be incapacitated man walking. If Napoleon III got into the fun, then the Union was dead man walking (and if Britain intervenes, then 9/10 times, France is also going to intervene).

I'm sorry, but it's not a contest. I could bring the French as well, but that's useless. Economically, and Militarily, the Union has already lost the moment British enter the war. It could be a limited war of course in which the British regain their pride and get a hefty sum from the Union for it. That would be the best case scenario for the Union. If that fails.......well, I need not state how things will go should I?

However if Britain wins this war (really its like 9.5/10 that Britain will win), This is a huge detriment in the future. It makes the possibility of Germany winning in 1917-18 very likely; though it would probably be a pyrrhic victory.

Now really, I am open to counter-facts, but really if you fail to bring out the facts which support your statements , I am not even going to engage in Whataboutism, for there is no point. @History Learner and I have butted heads multiple times in past threads, and often they have been pretty petty and heated, however we stick to the facts to debate; provide proof and facts, there is no harm in debating, debating in whataboutism rather than solid facts is very baseless and grasping at straws.
 
Last edited:
How many times can the CSA roll 6's? Atlanta held as long as reason could hope. After delaying the inevitable for so long people keep saying if only they could hold Atlanta for a few more months. Just how do they do that?
They rolled sixes in the East, in the west they were snake bitten and not nearly as well led. The idea that Atlanta held as long as possible is absurd.

Lets face it, the worst desicion that either Lincoln or Davis made the entire war was replacing Johnston with Hood in the middle of the campaign. I'm not saying Johnston was a great general, but when both Sherman and Grant post war say say Johnston was the right track, they are in a position to know. There were points like Adairsville when portions of the Federal Army were isolated. Peachtree Creek could have been won.
Avoiding three disasters Peachtree Creek (as it happened) Atlanta, and Ezra Church would have drawn out the siege.
 
I still don't see the British intervening militarily unless the Union's leadership all collectively ends dinner one night with glasses of lead paint. Trent was a perfect excuse for a war by 19th century standards and yet the British didn't declare war. I'm personally of the opinion that Prince Albert's role, regardless of its inflation in posterity, was rather perfunctory.

Lincoln also wasn't stupid. he wanted to avoid war regardless of what a fool like Seward advised.
 
Your understanding of ACW Naval Battles is very limited. Ironclads got the hell knocked out of them attacking forts. 9 Union Ironclads failed to reduce Fort Sumpter in 1863. New York was defended by batteries with heavier guns. Firing from an elevated position, at range can hit vertical surfaces, and again only half of Warrior's Hull is armored, with the deck armor much thinner then her main belt. The Union would mine the harbor, only leaving limited channels into NY Harbor. NY would've had a few Monitor's along with other Union ships. If Warrior tried to run the batteries at the Verrazano Narrows she'd be pounded to death. Your understanding of Ironclads, and what they can do, and take is very superficial. It's a lot more then just static calculations on an armor penetration chart vs a horizontal hit on the armor belt. "Oh you can't hurt us." "Yea come on baby."
Okay, perhaps instead of insulting me, we should review whats actually the case?

Warrior's armour consisted of 4.5 inches (114 mm) of wrought iron backed by 18 inches (457 mm) of teak.[11] The iron armour was made up of 3-by-12-foot (0.91 by 3.66 m) plates that interlocked via the tongue and groove method. It was bolted through the teak to the iron hull. The teak consisted of two 9-inch-thick (229 mm) layers laid at right angles to each other; they strengthened the armour by damping the shock waves caused by the impact of shells that would otherwise break the bolts connecting the armour to the hull.[23] Unlike most later ship armour, Warrrior's armour was made via a process of hammering rather than rolling.[24] Based on tests at Shoeburyness in October 1861 when the Warrior was launched, it "was practically invulnerable to the ordnance at the time in use".[25]
The armour covered the middle 213 feet (64.9 m) of the ship and extended 16 feet (4.9 m) above the waterline and 6 feet (1.8 m) below it. The guns on the main deck were protected from raking fire by 4.5-inch transverse bulkheads. The ends of the ship were unprotected, but were subdivided into watertight compartments to minimise flooding. The lack of armour at the stern meant that the steering gear and rudder were vulnerable.[26]

So no, virtually all of the Warrior was armored, unless you're operating under there are gun ports six feet under water? Would make for a very short life expectancy for any ocean going vessel, I would think. Likewise, we here find the top deck was protected by armor as thick as that on the sides, albeit lacking the teak framing behind it.

As for the fortifications in question, their own report find them vulnerable to traditional wood ship bombardment and completely inadequate to deal with an ironclad; indeed, of all the guns listed, all but three are incapable of actually dealing damage to the Warrior or her sisters. When it comes to guns and armor, it very much is just a case of charts and penetrating power because the laws of physics don't suddenly go out the window. As for Monitors, where and why? They were all engaged in the blockade of the South, which means either the USN has already allowed itself to be confined to port or they've been destroyed in battle with the Royal Navy.

If you want to assume they're there, however, that ends very, very badly for any of them. The 15' Dahlgren can only fire once every six minutes on average, possibly less; USS Manhattan only managed two reloads during the Battle of Mobile Bay against the Tennessee. Warrior, however, can fire each of her 68-pounders once per minute, meaning that in the space of time its gets a Passaic-class to fire off one salvo, the Warrior will have fired off somewhere in the vicinity of +70 shots. Unlike the 11' Dahlgren, however, the 68 pound can pierce the armor of a Monitor if using steel shot...
 
Last edited:
To quote McPherson himself:-

View attachment 573660

Not only that, the British were the major investors of the American economy during the Civil War. America's internal economy would be hit extremely hard and that's not counting the trade blockade.

View attachment 573662

I need not tell how fast the Union Foreign Reserves will die out due to this and how fast the Confederate Foreign Reserves would grow due to absolute wreakage of the Anaconda Plan.


View attachment 573661

Also, the cost of the Civil War was $7 Billion, which is twice the GDP of America in 1864. With the entry of Britain, that cost balloons up, as nearly 70% of their bond marketers and the investors of the Americans suddenly vanishes. Economically, the Union would be very devastated.

Economically the simple entry of the British into the war would balloon the American Economy to very unsustainable levels. Compared to the fact that France was willing to go to war with the US as well if Britain came in, you can be sure Napoleon III would drag France against America as well. That would be the death nail to America's economy. Britain and France could not only subsidize the Confederate Economy, they would virtually destroy the Union's Economy. No bond sales, blockade, redistribution of industries, loss of 726,000 exports of Rifles to the Union, loss of gunpowder, etc would make a War Lost.

From Navies and Nations: Warships, Navies and State Building in Europe and America by Jan Glete :-

Canadian Fleet 1862:-

At Quebec: 2x line of battle and 1x ironclad battery

Operating between Quebec and Montreal: 2x ironclad battery, 2x corvettes (noting a maximum draught of 18 ft), 2 dispatch vessels and 7 gunboats

On Lake St. Francis: 4x gunboats

On Lake Ontario: 3x ironclad battery, 4x dispatch vessels, 16 gunboats

On Lake Erie: 3x ironclad Battery, 20x gunboats

On the Richelieu River: 6 gunboats

Total for the inland seas of Canada: 2 line-of-battle, 9 ironclad batteries, 2 corvettes, 6 dispatch vessels, 53 gunboats = 72 vessels

Western North Atlantic Squadron Ships that were mobilized during the Trent Affair in case of War with the Union:-

Penobscot Bay: 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Kennebec River: 1x sloop, 2x gunboats

Portland: 1x frigate, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Portsmouth, NH: 2x sloops (and notes the defences mean a mortar vessel can range on the navy yard without any return fire)

Salem and Marblehead: 1x sloop

Boston: 1x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

Nantucket Island: 1x frigate

Narrgansett Bay: 3x sloops, 3x gunboat

Long Island Sound: 1x line of battle, 1x frigate, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats

New York Harbor (South Entrance): 2x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats (much ink is spilled over how to attack New York)

Delaware River: 1x line of battle, 1x frigate or sloop, 2x gunboats

Chesapeake Bay: 2x line of battle, 2x frigates, 6x sloops, 6x gunboats

Port Royal, SC: 1x frigate, 1x sloop

Total blockade: 7x line of battle, 12x frigates, 25 sloops, 23x gunboats = 67 vessels

This is discounting the 25 warship strong West Indies Squadron, and the 18 Warships Squadron strong South Atlantic Squadron.

The RN outnumbered the USN by 3 times in American waters alone until early to mid 1863. A Foreign intervention on part of Britain was only seriously going to happen in 1861 during the Trent Affair. From the aforementioned book, the RN had keeled and started the construction of 60 warships already during the Trent Affair for fear of War within Canada and the West Indies. Combined with the sheer shipbuilding capacity of the British Empire, the British are not only going to outpace the American shipbuilding capacity, it's not even going to be a close contest. Despite no wars, the British constructed 73 wargoing ships during 1860-65:-

RN Construction (1860-65):

2 Warrior-class broadside ironclads
Completed: 21/10/61 and 12/9/62
Displacement: 9,137 and 9,250 t

2 Defence-class broadside ironclads
Completed: 2/12/61 and 2/7/62
Displacement: 6,150 t and 6,070 t

1 Hector-class broadside ironclad (2nd completed 15/9/68)
Completed: 22/2/64
Displacement: 6,710 t

1 Achilles-class broadside ironclad
Completed: 26/11/64
Displacement: 9,829 t

3 Prince-Consort-class wooden broadside ironclads
Completed: 1 in April, 1864, 2 in July, 1865
Displacement: 6,832 t

Royal Oak wooden broadside ironclad
Completed: April, '63
Displacement: 6,366 t

Royal Alfred wooden central battery ironclad
Completed: 23/3/67
Displacement: 6,707 t

Research wooden central battery ironclad
Completed: 6/4/64
Displacement: 1,743 t load, 1,900 full load

Enterprise composite central battery ironclad sloop
Completed: 3/6/64
Displacement: 1,350 t

Royal Sovereign coast defence turret ship
Completed: 20/8/64
Displacement: 5,080 t

Scorpion-class masted turret ships
Completed: both 10/10/65
Displacement: 2,751 t

HMS Orlando (last of 6 of Walker's large wooden screw frigates)
Completed: Dec, '61
Displacement: 5,643 t

2 Immortalité-class wooden screw frigates
Completed: Nov, '60 and Oct, '75 (2 others in '70 and '74, a fifth never completed)
Displacement: 3,984 t and 3,996 t

4 converted Fourth Rate sailing frigates (note these are not new builds, but conversions of older ships)
Undocked: 26/3/60, 11/4 and 9/8/61 and 15/4/62
Displacement: 3,826 t, 3,832 t, 3,708 t and 3,786 t

2 wooden screw frigates (not classed)
Completed: Dec, '60 and Nov, '63 (a third Sept, '66)
Displacement: 3,535 t and 3,498 t

6 Jason-class wooden screw corvettes (these ships each mounted a single 110pdr Armstrong pivot-mounted BL which was withdrawn in '64 following accidents)
Completed: Nov, '60, Sept & Oct, '61, Aug & Sept '62, and Apr, '64
Displacement: 2,431 t, 1,720 t (on trials and before being masted), 2,365 t, 2,431 t, 2,302 t, and 2,424 t

7 Rosario-class wooden screw sloops
Completed: 17/10, 10/11, & 29/11/60, 17/10 & 14/12/61, 2/4 & 14/2/62
Launched: 927, 849, 896, 811, 918, 858 & 913 t

7 Cameleon-class wooden screw sloops (ok, giving up on the individualised tonnages before my fingers do! I'll list the total tonnage for the class instead.)
Launched: 23/2, 26/3, 9/7 & 13/11/60, 9/2 & 21/8/61, 18/3/62, (an 8th 29/3/66)
Displacement: 9,297/7 (8th=1,365 t)

2 Amazon-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 23/5 & 16/11/65 (4 more in '66)
Displacement: 3,122/2 (6,339/4 for the post-war ones)

19 Philomel-class wooden gunvessels (launched 1859-62, a 20th in '67)
Displacement: 570 t each

8 Cormorant-class wooden gunvessels (launched 1860-7)
Displacement: 877 t each

The American Navy built 157 Warships from 1860 - 65 (discounting auxiliaries, and patrol ships, these are real warships):-

1 Screw Frigate (USS Franklin)
Launched: 1864
Displacement: 5,170 t

1 Screw Corvette (sloop) (USS Richmond)
Launched: 1860
Displacement: 2,604 t

New Ironsides broadside ironclad
Launched: 10/5/62
Commissioned: 21/8/62
Displacement: 4,120 t

Dunderberg broadside ironclad
Launched: 22/7/65
Commissioned: Not by USN - sold to France 1867, commissioned by her for a few weeks in 1870, stricken 1872
Displacement: 7,800 t

Monitor
Launched: 30/1/62
Commissioned: 25/2/62
Displacement: 987 t

10 Passaic-class Monitors
Launched: 30/8, 27/9, 7, 9 & 27/10, 5/11, 6 & 16/12/62, 17/1/63, & 14/11/64
Commissioned: 25/11/62 - 24/5/65 (details available on request)
Displacement: 1,875 t

Roanoke monitor
Date of Conversion: May, '62 - April, '63
Commissioned: 29/6/63
Displacement: 4,395 t

Onondaga monitor
Launched: 29/7/63
Commissioned: 24/3/64
Displacement: 2,551 t

4 Miantonomoh-class monitors
Launched: 19/3 & 15/8/63, 23/3 & 6/5/64
Commissioned: 5/5 & 18/9/65, 4/10/64 & 12/10/65
Displacement: 3,400 t

Dictator monitor
Launched: 26/12/63
Commissioned: 11/11/64
Displacement: 4,438 t

Puritan monitor
Launched: 2/7/64
Commissioned: Never completed, broken up '74-5
Displacement: 4,912 t

9 Canonicus-class monitors
Launched:1/8/63, 13/4/64, 17/5/64, 18/12/64, 14/10/63, 21/5/64, 16/12/63, 12/9/63, 22/12/64
Commissioned: 16/4/64, Never (completed 10/6/65), 22/9/64, 1/1/71 (completion 27/9/65), 6/6/64, Never (completion 10/6/65), 7/4/64, 19/4/64, ? (completion Dec, '65)
Displacement: 2,100 t

4 Kalamazoo-class monitors
Launched: Never. Laid down Between Nov, '63 and early '64
Commissioned: Never launched, broken up '74 (1) and '84 (3)
Displacement: 5,660 t

4 Milwaukee-class shallow draught monitors
Launched: 4/7/63, 4 & 10/2 & 12/3/64
Commissioned: 27/4, 27/8, 10/5 * 8/7/64
Displacement: 1,300 t

20 Casco-class shallow draught monitors
Launched: 5/5/64 - 21/12/65
Commissioned: only 9 completed, delivered and commissioned by end Dec, '65
Displacement: 1,175 t

Galena armoured ship
Launched: 14/2/62
Commissioned: 21/4/62
Displacement: 738 t

Keokuk armoured ship
Launched: 6/12/62
Commissioned: Mar, '63
Displacement: 677 t

Several USN vessels were laid down during the war but weren't commissioned for some years thereafter. For example, 5 Wampanoag-class wooden screw frigates were laid down in '63, but were launched only in '64-5, and had their trials '67-8. Displacement: 20,466 t/5. Other such vessels: USS Chattanooga (wooden screw frigate), 3,043 t; USS Idaho (wooden screw frigate), 3,241 t; 8 Java-class (wooden screw frigates), 3,953 t; 4 Contoocook-class (wooden screw frigates), 3,003 t; 1 Alaska-class (wooden screw sloop), 2,394 t; 4 Swatara-class (wooden screw sloops), 1,113-1,129 t;

4 Ossipee-class wooden screw sloops (includes the famous USS Housatonic)
Launched: 16 & 20/11/61, 22/2 & 20/3/62
Commissioned: 6/11 & 29/8/62, June, '62 & 4/12/62
Displacement: 1,934 t

4 Sacramento-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 28/3, 10/7, 28/4, & 8/12/62
Commissioned: 1/8/62, 15/1, 7/1 & 20/6/63
Displacement: 2,526 t

2 Ticonderoga-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 9/8 & 16/10/62
Commissioned: 8/1 & 12/5/63
Displacement: 2,526 t

4 Kearsarge-class wooden screw sloops
Launched: 11/9, 20/11, 24/8 & 10/10/61
Commissioned: 24/1 & 28/2/62, 5/12/61, 3/3/62
Displacement: 1,457-1,488 t

23 Unadilla-class gunboats
Launched: Various times in 1861 from August
Commissioned: '61 - late Feb, '62
Displacement: 691 t

8 Kansas-class gunboats
Launched: June, '63-March, '64
Commissioned: Sept, '63 - Nov, '64
Displacement: 836 t

12 Octorara-class side-wheel gunboats (good for rivers and coastal service, but "much less satisfactory for sea service")
Launched: Jan, '61 - May, '62
Commissioned: Jan-Jul '62
Displacement: 981-1,210 t

27 Sassacus-class side-wheel gunboats (a 28th failed her trials)
Launched: Feb-Dec, '63
Commissioned: 2 in '63 (July and Oct), 2 never, remainder Mar-Dec, '64
Displacement: 1,173 t

4 Mohongo-class side-wheel gunboats (2 commissioned 1866)
Launched: various dates in 1864
Commissioned: Jan-Oct, '65
Displacement: 1,370 t

Spuyten Duyvil spar-torpedo vessel
Launched: 1864
Commissioned: Prob Nov, '64
Displacement: 207 t

Now you can add the other 50 or so ships the RN laid down during the Trent Affair which would not be converted ITTL, plus the other shipbuilding capability of the British Empire.

You can also read this book
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860-1905
by Robert Gardiner to keep things at a perspective.

You can read this book as well: https://books.google.com.np/books?id=BkgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA20&dq=lead+production+1860&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lead production 1860&f=false

The British economical effort to the Union was war-winning. You take that away, the Union would be incapacitated man walking. If Napoleon III got into the fun, then the Union was dead man walking (and if Britain intervenes, then 9/10 times, France is also going to intervene).

I'm sorry, but it's not a contest. I could bring the French as well, but that's useless. Economically, and Militarily, the Union has already lost the moment British enter the war. It could be a limited war of course in which the British regain their pride and get a hefty sum from the Union for it. That would be the best case scenario for the Union. If that fails.......well, I need not state how things will go should I?

However if Britain wins this war (really its like 9.5/10 that Britain will win), This is a huge detriment in the future. It makes the possibility of Germany winning in 1917-18 very likely; though it would probably be a pyrrhic victory.

Now really, I am open to counter-facts, but really if you fail to bring out the facts which support your statements , I am not even going to engage in Whataboutism, for there is no point. @History Learner and I have butted heads multiple times in past threads, and often they have been pretty petty and heated, however we stick to the facts to debate; provide proof and facts, there is no harm in debating, debating in whataboutism rather than solid facts is very baseless and grasping at straws.
So from all this the United States surrendered at the start of the War of 1812? No wait your talking about 1861, so obviously the Union would immediately surrender like they did in 1812? No wait they didn't surrender in 1812. The Union is much stronger in every measure in 1861, then in 1812, and is facing an existential threat, so maybe they won't surrender after all. The British are so strong they'd win with ease, with virtually no losses, at sea, on land, or economically. So they just told the Union to let the South go, and the Union wept, and said "OK". But no, when the pathetically weak American Mouse told the mighty British Lion Mediation would lead to war the British backed off. When they told them delivering Ironclad Rams to the CSN would lead to war the mighty British Lion once again backed off. But that makes no sense, the British had nothing to fear from the Americans, they couldn't even fight back. Resistance was futile. Even with the French with them they backed off, they wanted to do it, and this was their chance, but chickened out. This must be one of those inexplicable none events of history, why didn't they just do it, it would've been so easy, with no losses, why?
 
I still don't see the British intervening militarily unless the Union's leadership all collectively ends dinner one night with glasses of lead paint. Trent was a perfect excuse for a war by 19th century standards and yet the British didn't declare war. I'm personally of the opinion that Prince Albert's role, regardless of its inflation in posterity, was rather perfunctory.

Lincoln also wasn't stupid. he wanted to avoid war regardless of what a fool like Seward advised.
It's less that the British wanted war, more that they thought the Union wanted one. In 1861-62 they were pretty sure that the Union was going to lose and so in order to compensate themselves the loss of Southern territory they would let the South go and declare war on Britain to invade and annex Canada. The government in London had precious little understanding of the Lincoln administration, and the only person they actually knew in it was Seward, who had an unfortunate history of whipping up popular sentiment against Britain and threatening to invade Canada.

Ironically though, Seward was the one counseling for letting the two guys Trent was seized over go right away. The only one in cabinet to do so in fact, and he had to talk Lincoln around to his way of thinking because Lincoln didn't realize what holding on to the two men would mean until news from Britain about war preparations and news from France that they supported the British position arrived.

It was an interesting inversion where Seward went against what he was known for. One of the moments which solidified Lincoln and Seward's relationship.
 
So from all this the United States surrendered at the start of the War of 1812? No wait your talking about 1861, so obviously the Union would immediately surrender like they did in 1812? No wait they didn't surrender in 1812. The Union is much stronger in every measure in 1861, then in 1812, and is facing an existential threat, so maybe they won't surrender after all. The British are so strong they'd win with ease, with virtually no losses, at sea, on land, or economically. So they just told the Union to let the South go, and the Union wept, and said "OK". But no, when the pathetically weak American Mouse told the mighty British Lion Mediation would lead to war the British backed off. When they told them delivering Ironclad Rams to the CSN would lead to war the mighty British Lion once again backed off. But that makes no sense, the British had nothing to fear from the Americans, they couldn't even fight back. Resistance was futile. Even with the French with them they backed off, they wanted to do it, and this was their chance, but chickened out. This must be one of those inexplicable none events of history, why didn't they just do it, it would've been so easy, with no losses, why?
If the U.S. was so strong, why didn't they just take Canada from the Brits? We can use whataboutism as much we like, but that doesn't really allow for the answering of anything beyond derailing the conversation, now does it?
 
It's less that the British wanted war, more that they thought the Union wanted one. In 1861-62 they were pretty sure that the Union was going to lose and so in order to compensate themselves the loss of Southern territory they would let the South go and declare war on Britain to invade and annex Canada. The government in London had precious little understanding of the Lincoln administration, and the only person they actually knew in it was Seward, who had an unfortunate history of whipping up popular sentiment against Britain and threatening to invade Canada.

Ironically though, Seward was the one counseling for letting the two guys Trent was seized over go right away. The only one in cabinet to do so in fact, and he had to talk Lincoln around to his way of thinking because Lincoln didn't realize what holding on to the two men would mean until news from Britain about war preparations and news from France that they supported the British position arrived.

It was an interesting inversion where Seward went against what he was known for. One of the moments which solidified Lincoln and Seward's relationship.
Oh? Well that's unexpected. I will admit I'm surprised it was Seward who counseled that.
 
Oh? Well that's unexpected. I will admit I'm surprised it was Seward who counseled that.
Believe me so was I! But he was apparently one of the few members in Cabinet who had traveled widely in Britain and tried to put an actual pulse on foreign opinion as Secretary of State. When he realized that they'd basically done what they had gone to war over in 1812 he spun pretty quick into gear to get the Union out of a diplomatic fiasco. He was a pretty good Secretary of State.
 
Not intending to toss an improperly-extinguished cigarette butt toward the powder keg here... but @Sarthak Bikram Panta , you're confusing me!
However if Britain wins this war (really its like 9.5/10 that Britain will win), This is a huge detriment in the future. It makes the possibility of Germany winning in 1917-18 very likely; though it would probably be a pyrrhic victory.
Just a few weeks ago, weren't you postulating (very thoroughly, I might add :)) that the Entente was something close to 95% likely to still pull off a win in WWI even without US military intervention? Not wanting to re-open THAT can of doom-worms, but how would a UK victory over the US in the mid-1860's, and an independent (but IMO probably weakly so) CSA resulting, increase the likelihood of CP victory in WWI? Without veering into the dark realms of Turtledove-ery, that is....
 
Not intending to toss an improperly-extinguished cigarette butt toward the powder keg here... but @Sarthak Bikram Panta , you're confusing me!

Just a few weeks ago, weren't you postulating (very thoroughly, I might add :)) that the Entente was something close to 95% likely to still pull off a win in WWI even without US military intervention? Not wanting to re-open THAT can of doom-worms, but how would a UK victory over the US in the mid-1860's, and an independent (but IMO probably weakly so) CSA resulting, increase the likelihood of CP victory in WWI? Without veering into the dark realms of Turtledove-ery, that is....
That thread was about pre-1917 where America stays neutral. Wherein they remained in a state of loaning and supplying the entente in return for Entente assets. If the Brits and America goes to war in recent memory, investment on both sides is going to be lost, and America is going to be massively apprehensive about funding the Entente with Britain in it. Britain would not have a friendly nation to take loans and supplies from ITTL unlike OTl. Britain wouldn't have the necessary functionality and by virtue the entente to get the American loans and supplies to remain afloat.
 
It's less that the British wanted war, more that they thought the Union wanted one. In 1861-62 they were pretty sure that the Union was going to lose and so in order to compensate themselves the loss of Southern territory they would let the South go and declare war on Britain to invade and annex Canada. The government in London had precious little understanding of the Lincoln administration, and the only person they actually knew in it was Seward, who had an unfortunate history of whipping up popular sentiment against Britain and threatening to invade Canada.

Ironically though, Seward was the one counseling for letting the two guys Trent was seized over go right away. The only one in cabinet to do so in fact, and he had to talk Lincoln around to his way of thinking because Lincoln didn't realize what holding on to the two men would mean until news from Britain about war preparations and news from France that they supported the British position arrived.

It was an interesting inversion where Seward went against what he was known for. One of the moments which solidified Lincoln and Seward's relationship.
Yeah, everything I've read says that Palmerston and Lord Lyons were afraid that the Trent affair was a pretext for war on the part of Seward, and wanted to respond as such by threatening war if the Union tried anything, Albert said something like "hold on guys, they're fighting off southern aggression right now, let's cool the jets just a bit" and by that point Seward was already trying to un-fuck the situation.

At no point was a war of aggression against the Union, with Trent as a justification, seriously considered by Palmerston or Lyons, to my knowledge.
 
Yeah, everything I've read says that Palmerston and Lord Lyons were afraid that the Trent affair was a pretext for war on the part of Seward, and wanted to respond as such by threatening war if the Union tried anything, Albert said something like "hold on guys, they're fighting off southern aggression right now, let's cool the jets just a bit" and by that point Seward was already trying to un-fuck the situation.

At no point was a war of aggression against the Union, with Trent as a justification, seriously considered by Palmerston or Lyons, to my knowledge.
Basically this. The government in London sincerely believed Trent would be used by Washington as a pretext for war, so they thought they were going to be reacting preemptively to an American attack. It was never their intention to start and war, and why Palmerston was always waiting on intervention or mediation until the victory of the Confederacy seemed assured.

He wasn't going to risk blood and treasure without good cause.
 
Basically this. The government in London sincerely believed Trent would be used by Washington as a pretext for war, so they thought they were going to be reacting preemptively to an American attack. It was never their intention to start and war, and why Palmerston was always waiting on intervention or mediation until the victory of the Confederacy seemed assured.

He wasn't going to risk blood and treasure without good cause.
Call it what you will but Palmerston was a big fan of only picking easily winnable fights.
 
I did read once though that if Palmerston had been PM when the Oregon Treaty was up for renewal, we might would've seen a British Columbia extending as far south as the Columbia River....
 
That thread was about pre-1917 where America stays neutral. Wherein they remained in a state of loaning and supplying the entente in return for Entente assets. If the Brits and America goes to war in recent memory, investment on both sides is going to be lost, and America is going to be massively apprehensive about funding the Entente with Britain in it. Britain would not have a friendly nation to take loans and supplies from ITTL unlike OTl. Britain wouldn't have the necessary functionality and by virtue the entente to get the American loans and supplies to remain afloat.
Eh, fifty years is a long time... Lots of time for fences to be mended, bridges to built/rebuilt.... or conversely to be blown further to smithereens :)

I personally think that the cultural ties between the UK and the US (and social ties, particularly among the American elite), would make holding a grudge for 50 years unlikely, even if the UK did the very unlikely thing of assisting the CSA in gaining independence.
Of course, the same thing could've fairly been said about the cultural and social ties between the UK and the German Empire prior to 1900 or so... and the UK and Germany had never fought a war against each other...
 
Top