"How the British Nearly Supported the Confederacy picture " Topic

Was it a civil war twice over? Not only did the "war between the states" divide the American people, it sundered the larger English-speaking community stretching across the Atlantic. The conflict was followed with consuming interest by the British, it affected them directly, many of them fought in it — and it split them into two camps, just as it did the Americans.

link

Naw ,the Brits were simply manufacturers and resource providers.

Ya – I saw that at Borders today ..interesting .. link

Great justifications for "what if" type scenarios.

A British invasion from Canada.

War at sea.

British support of the North or South leads Mexico under Maximillian to enter the civil war.

I doubt that. Napoleon Sillybeard wanted to intervene on the side of the South, but held back until he could get British support.

HOWEVER, as the excuse for a gaming campaign, why not?

And don't forget the Tsar:

link

U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union
by Webster G. Tarpley

April 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Civil War, which began when Confederate forces opened fire upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The following essay by Webster Tarpley, tells about the largely untold alliance between President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II, which by many accounts was key to the North winning the U.S. Civil War, sealing the defeat of the British strategic design.

40,000 Canadians served in the ACW, mostly for the Union but a number for the South. The war was widely followed in Canada in the papers. I have a neighbour whose Great Grand Dad served in a Maine Regiment, I read a number of his letters which have never been pubblished. Interesting stuff, soldiering is same regardless of how many centuries removed.

A subject that has been fairly extensively written about previously. The British public, from the top down, was strongly anti-slavery… but Lincoln's insistence that the war was about the secession issue, not slavery, created a level of ambiguity that allowed some British politicians to flirt with the idea of recognizing the south. Their primary motivation was that the U.S. split in two would benefit British imperial interests in a variety of ways by weakening our hegemony in the Western hemisphere. The British working class (which didn't yet have the vote) was vigorously supportive of the Union (never doubting that ultimately the war WAS about slavery), and the middle class (which by then did have the vote) seems to have been pretty strongly pro-US/Union as well. As were Victoria and Albert. There was never much chance Britain would recognize the Confederacy, and that slim chance disappeared completely once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Interestingly, in the British debate about expanding the franchise in the years running up to the ACW, one of the most effective arguments against moving to a more inclusive democratic system was the mess the U.S. was turning into. They are the world's great democracy, and they are tearing themselves apart… why would we want to follow their example?? But after the ACW many British politicians, impressed with how calm the British working had been during the war and the depression it caused in Britain, were more open to the idea of expanding the franchise to working men.

I always thought the threat of france in mexico was more of a concern than Britian??

Ironwolf, I believe so. While many British Politicians debated the possibly of a intervention of some sort, the general consensus was the end result would be the USA taking Canada and Russia (as the North's ally) causing havoc in eastern Europe. France was more of a direct concern as they were directly challenging the Monroe doctrine.

Thanks EJ, I remember reading this some where but could not remember the details.

I mus object to the idea that Russia was somehow the Federal States' "Ally". They were not.

The entire idea is based upon a supposed conversation between Adm. Lessovsky, commanding the squadron that overwintered at NY, and Thurlow Weed. Weed reported Lessovsky drunkenly told him he had secret sealed orders to attack the British in support of the Union.

Now, there are a number of problems with this. Firstly, when access to the records was opened in the 1920's a large number of academics scoured the records for any evidence of these sealed orders. There was no evidence and all concluded it was a myth.

Secondly, the idea that a senior Russian commander confides in a newspaperman major strategic decisions is ludicrous. Indeed, the Russians wanted the Americans to fail (they were commercial rivals for the lucrative grain market). However, the Polish Rising of 1863 had raised the spectre of the Franco-British intervening to strip Russia of their Polish territories. Indeed the British public were supportive of Polish independence. The Russian ships were forward deploying to ice-free ports to operate against Franco-British trade in event of war over Poland.

The best explanation is that Thurlow Weed simply lied. Had Russia supported the Union they would have acted in 1861-2 when there was a real threat of British intervention. They stayed out.

A lot of British fought in that war….so yes it was supported.

"I mus object to the idea that Russia was somehow the Federal States' "Ally". They were not."

You might want to explain this to the Russian Navy.

link

While I might agree that the Russian admiral didn't have orders to attack Great Britain. Probably an unwise move to say the least. I would think it is an overstatement in the opposite direction to say they didn't have some common policies and potential enemies, i.e. an alliance of convenience. Also, the Lincoln administration gave the Russians the plans to their most fearsome weapon, Passaic class Monitors. So, America was the one who ended Russia's fear of British intervention. From the Russian side Tsar Alexander II saw himself as a European counterpart of Lincoln as he freed the serfs and started to reform the Russian system.

"Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War" got a favorable review in the Washington Post on Sunday. Looks like another trip to Amazon is in my future.

I like all the back-and-forth above regarding the possibilities of what if scenarios. Frankly, plausibility has never been a prime factor is my group coming up with what ifs. What holds us back is no one wants to remount their Brits for Fire & Fury.

IIRC, the "Trent Affair" caused some friction between the UK and the Union. Lincoln was very keen to avoid a "two front" war and possibly a counter-blockade. Given an ill Prince Albert personally intervened in the cause of peace suggests where the UK's feelings lay.

This topic has been done to death here. The closest Britain and the USA came to hostilities was the Trent Affair. Britain sent a few thousand troops to Canada, hoping in the case of war to just to hold onto Canada.

The Union war time economy was booming. Factories and all kinds of industry where doing quite well, because of government contracts. This was happening just when new methods of production were being introduced. Patents were being filed on all kinds of farm machinery and manufacturing tools. The North not only turned out the objects of war but also consumer goods, guns and butter.

"King Cotton Diplomacy" was a failure for the south. The early self-imposed embargo was a mistake, but Southern leaders did not realize it until it was too late. For a relatively short time there was some unemployment. But Britain soon developed other sources of cotton in Egypt and India. The rank and file workers were largely anti-slavery so any hope of wide spread rioting and looting never took place.

Union wheat, corn, barley and other food commodities, trumped cotton. The Union was recording record crops in the Midwest and East. Not only were they able to feed all the Union Armies but exports actually grew.

Union manpower was vast. The Union never did fully mobilize its man power potential. Enrollments in colleges and universities were at an all time high. There were plenty of men left over to man heavy industry. Immigration was as strong as ever. They were signing them up for the Army as they came off the boat.

Immigration in the South was practically zero because most immigrants wanted to live in non-slave states and the Union blockade made it difficult to even reach the South. You could actually pay some one to take your place in the draft. The Union manpower pool dwarfed the South or almost any European power, save Russia. Congress passed the "Homestead Act" in 1863, opening up the west for settlement.

The United States Navy was no push over and industry could easily start churning out man of wars. But they built the boats and ships appropriate to their needs but IMHO, could turn on a dime and build up a large seagoing fleet.

It is doubtful that European intervention would probably have taken the form of a military intervention. The CSA was really looking for formal recognition as a nation. From there you have a greater chance of intervention in the form of mediation. The Lincoln Administration and Congress would reject it. Then you might have a situation for an attempt to break the Union blockade. But first the CSA had to be formally recognized.

In the late summer of 1862 the British cabinet discussed recognizing the CSA and offering mediation. But word of Lee's advance into Maryland had arrived and the subject was tabled to await events. It never came up again. Once Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it would be impossible for the British to support A CSA with the institution of Slavery. It was a brilliant and moral move on Lincoln's part. It changed the entire war.

If you want to add British troops to your ACW campaign, then just do it and quite trying to find some historical reason for it. Just do it. Don't let history get in the way of your history gaming.

"The United States Navy was no push over and industry could easily start churning out man of wars. But they built the boats and ships appropriate to their needs but IMHO, could turn on a dime and build up a large seagoing fleet."

I doubt it very much. When the US did try to build "modern" seagoing warships, post-war, they weren't very successful. The US didn't haver the technology to build armour plate; the armour on US ships was composite, built from 1" plates bolted together, which isn't as effective as solid case hardened armour. Most US armoured warships either weren't seaworthy at all, or could float at sea, but couldn't use their guns through an inadequate freeboard. Eith the IFN or the RN, by themselves could have both blockaded the US coast and "taken, sunk or destroyed" any ships of the USN and the US Merchant Marine at sea.
Even if the US could have developed the capacity to build effective warships, they couldn't have manned them as ther pool of seamen simply wasn't sufficient to do so. A significant number of US Merchant vessels had European or lascar crews because of the US shortage of seamen.

Yes, I said the Union built the Navy they needed to fight a costal and river war. But I don't doubt that the US could produce seagoing warships rapidly just as they did almost a century later. I Did not say they would be seagoing "iron clads" or "armoured warships". Not that many of them needed to be.

While ironclads were the latest technology and gets all the press. Wooden hull Main of Wars still was the primary ship in most navies. Yes everyone was trying to build ironclads as quickly as possible. But you only have to look no further than the Kersarge and the Alabama or Farragut's fleet to see that wooden hull ships of the line was the mainstay of most navies in the 1860s. Most ironclads were just that, wooden hulls with iron cladding over them. Armoured ships was a new and relativly untested technology for the open ocean.

Most sea going armored ships at the time (1860s) were not at their best on the open ocean. The Union fleet would not necessarily be fighting the British in the middle of the Atlantic but they would have to cross the open ocean and fight battles on Union controlled waters. The RN would be trying to attack a specific part of the blockade to open up a port. I bet most of those ships would be wooden hulled or ironclads over wooden hulls just like the USN. The RN would be fighting ships design to fight in shallow waters, inlets and rivers.

As I said earlier manpower for either the Army or Navy was not a problem. Not even worth the time to discuss. I don't know the numbers but I think it is safe to say that the USA had a bigger man pool than Britain.

Amazing how little love the Union Navy gets on TMP.

Hi

Rallynow, the subtext is that the American Revolution followed by the no-war, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the ACW all came "that" close to being total failures that would have changed world history for the better!

Well, except of the Mexican war which is alternately presented as a unique form of evil imperialism where the US destroyed the good of Mexico and stole the good parts.

(sarcasm icon)

Rocky

See your point. I hate to admit it but what-ifs can be fun to speculate on. Now I am wondering how to wargame a fleet action between the RN and USN in 1862. Absolute fantasy, would not, did not happen. But more probable than a confrontation on land. I know, don't encourage them.

Rallynow,

Several points:

During the Trent Affair the British despatched 25,000 regulars and equipment for 100,000 Canadian militia to prevent the loss of the St Lawrence. A striking force of 50,000 was being prepared at home to transit the St. Lawrence to Montreal in late April/ early May. At the same time the British ordered recruitment to war establishment which meant a more than doubling of the regular army by pulling in reservists and new recruits.

The Union economy was not "booming". It was riding an inflationary bubble and was actually shrinking. Consumption in the northern states returned to 1860 levels in the mid-1870's. From that PoV the war set the expansion of the northern states economy back about 15 years.

Wheat was vital for the north, not for Britain. The northern states lost much of their grain "exports" because they went to the southern states. The northern states then dumped the wheat on the international market far below the market price and, of course, it was sold. It drove grain prices in Europe down, even during a poor harvest. American grain accounts for around 1.5% of UK calorific consumption. I'll quote myself:

"The UK eats 4.5 million tons of grain a year. It normally produced around 4 million tons a year, and in 1862 the poor harvests meant only around 3.7 million tons was produced. US exports skyrocketed from 0.05 million tons to around 0.25 million tons (excluding re-exports). Thus around 5% of the grain consumed on the UK home market is from the US. In terms of calories the US is supplying around 1-2% of the calories consumed (wheat accounts for around 55% of the weight of starch consumed, the remaining 45% being potatoes, the average Briton eating 1lb of wheat and 0.8 lbs of potatoes per day, plus a lot of meat and vegetables, wheat only accounts for around 30% of calories consumed).

In fact the grain market is far more globalised than these statistics show. Grain in different places comes into season at different times, and there was no refrigeration, so trade flowed in different directions at different times of the year. The loss of US imports would result in a price spike in July 1862 from 45 shillings to around 70 shillings, which is still cheaper than before the repeal of the corn laws. Such is the market elasticity. Higher prices would trigger exports from further away which would become profitable.

The idea that US grain was a gun to Britains head is totally baseless, although popular in some circles."

British "ironclads" were generally iron-hulled. Warrior was for example. The British, French, Italians, Spanish, Austrians etc. built full fledged armoured oceanic warships. In, say, September 1862 (intervention over the Emancipation Proclamation) the British can put the followed armoured ships off the US coast:

Thunder, Glatton, Trusty, Aetna, Erebus, Thunderbolt, Terror, Warrior, Black Prince, Defence, Resistance, Hector (after 3 months fitting out), Royal Oak, Prince Consort (requires fitting out), Caledonia (requires fitting out) and Ocean (requires fitting out). Royal Sovereign is essentially complete but won't be sent.

The US has Monitor, Galena and New Ironsides (just fitting out) to meet them.

Rallynow,

There is also an untold stories. Yes the UK managed to find replacement cotton during the war years, but it paid a much higher price for it. After the war UK purchases tended to shift back to the US and prices dropped.

Immigration during the war proved to be a huge help to the U.S. war effort, but most of that immigration, and a great deal of the foreign trade and loans to the U.S. from foreign sources, would probably have been cut off if the British had gone to war with the U.S.

The forces sent by the UK to Canada during the Trent Affair were fairly small compared to forces that the U.S. could dispose. However I don't think the British intent was to place an army in Canada large enough to win a war with the U.S. Instead I think their goal was to get enough troops into Canada before winter to allow the British, with the assistance of Canadian militia, to hold onto Canada until larger British forces arrived. Shipping an army large enough to wage an aggressive war would have been financially expensive and diplomatically provocotive.

OTOH I think we tend to forget that the British Empire had financial interests on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. A Confederate victory which left the U.S. alienated from the U.K. could have ended up worse for the British than a U.S. victory.

Hi

Well, there are so many problems with the fantasy. I have no problem with wargemer thinking on this as a fun aspect to the hobby. But treating some of these ideas as "proof" of something gives me pause.

I did like, above, the presentation that Warrior 's emblematic of the british fleet, and here I thought it was THE first of its type. Some years ago, I was trying to start a fictional campaign in the south pacific, mostly because I am fascinated with the 1870s era gun boats. One issue was establishing what bases were out there and what the Station Fleets looked like for various powers. Of course, they did not consist of "Warrior" in multitudes.

My real problem with gaming it is this: I have not been satisfied with any of the rules I have seen or written as "good simulations" with which to TEST these ideas. And, of course, the real issue is that the British, as always, has THE world fleet, but also responsibilities to match.

Reclaiming "the colonies" has a resonance among some, but I don't think the british saw it as practical when their "jewel" was elsewhere.

Rocky

bill
all you need to know about 67thtigers, is that thinks that 8 brits can conquer maine in the middle of the winter in time for tea :)

And here I don't have any good Maine jokes.

Wargaming this scenario would certainly present some challenges. My guess is that most of us wouldn't get past the rules dispute. ;-)

If you just want a fantasy matchup I've always suggested something like simply lifting the Crimean expeditionary force (changing equipment and organisation to match 1862) and placing them up against the 8 divisions of McClellan's original Peninsula force.

So:

British have 3 Corps: 6 infantry divisions of 6-7,000 and a cavalry division of 4,500 plus, 18 batteries of 6 guns total

Americans have 3 Corps: 8 infantry divisions of ca. 9,000, a small cavalry brigade and 36 batteries.

deep down, i can't think of a way that the brits, and brits alone fight the Union, so the what if i used was the french.

the french deciding after chancellorsville that maybe they can use the confederacy to help there empire claims. so the french force ends showing up instead of longstreet at chickamauga.

Hi

Some years ago, I set up a fantasy campaign for "Counter earth". My reason was that we had a lot of guys with ACW and post ACW armies who were short of ways to actually game. No real "match ups".

SO…everyone discovers a "counter earth" and with their "flyers" have a limited ability to transport a small army to explore and conquer. A simple set up for a battle generator. Space 1889 stuff.

It was sort of inspired by the real events to re-establish the confederacy and slavery in south american jungles and the various movies I had seen like "Undefeated". But the purpose was simple "your guys and his guys duke it out".

Rocky

Rallynow, the RN didn't need to seize any US ports. All they needed to do was blockade them. The USN wasn't strong enough to challenge the RN at sea. For every "Kearsage" you quote, the RN could reply with half a dozen "Arethusa"s, each one with more and bigger guns. That's apart from the armoured vessels. Once the USN has sheltered in the Chesapeake, or wherever, the RN has won. US maritime trade is dead and the economy collapses. Even apart from the ships needed to blockade the US, the RN would have enough smaller vessels to seize the US merchant fleet wherever it is.

Hi

They, the british, could "reply" with 5 to one because as wargamers they didn't need to worry about logistics at sea, resupply or landing troops. Even better, of course, their traditional enemies would then say:"now that the cats away, we won't play"..for all those prizes out there we could steal.

Mocking icon inserted here.

The best you could hope for in this alternate universe is a World war as the British expend all these assets to use the confederacy to kill the hated US, and then scrambles as the rest of the world leaps in for the freebies.

If is was as simple as "the fleet" then the British won the American Revolution, there was no non-war with France, no War of 1812 because the advantage on the British side was massively better in 1776 than it was in 1865.

Rocky

They, the British, could reply with five to one (or greater) because they had more than half the *worlds* oceanic tonnage (to be about 3/4ths when US flagged ships reflag to the UK as they did OTL). They sustained an expeditionary force of 275,000 (which includes French and other nationalities, but the lions share of the tonnage was British) twice the distance from their centre of power as New York is a few years earlier.

The French were eager to intervene, but it was cogent on British intervention. The French planned to extract support for their planned annexation of Syria in return for a military commitment in support of the British if it came to that.

I've no idea about this "reclaiming the colonies" notion. The British had no intentions to do such a thing, and this seems to be American paranoia.

"If is was as simple as "the fleet" then the British won the American Revolution, there was no non-war with France, no War of 1812 because the advantage on the British side was massively better in 1776 than it was in 1865.

Rocky"

It was indeed as simple as "the fleet". In 1781-2 the French Navy ruled the Atlantic, thus preventing British resupply and reinforcements. The War of Independence was won by the Comte de Grasse when he consolidated the French Navy's supremacy at the Chesapeake.

The Brits wouldn't have needed to land troops on a hostile coast, just re-inforce Canada. The Navy had plenty of bases for logistical support, Bermuda, St.Johns, Halifax, the Caribbean bases.

The only Navy in the world that could, at that time, try and sieze British prizes was the French, who would, in this scenario, be British allies. In any case, the Navy was easily big enough to convoy Merchant Shipping, should that be needed.

Hi

Wow, news to me that the French ruled the atlantic during the wars of Naploeon. I was under the impression that the british did.

Just why would the French be a british ally in the invasion of the US?

67th tigers, American paranoia? Read the above posts about the various "the US should have lost because…" that keep getting posted and explain to me just what is being discussed.

Rocky

1781-2 = American War of Independence. Yes, Chouan is right that the RN position was quite weak at the time. Without DeGrasse's force in the Chesapeake the French expeditionry force and their Whig allies would never have been able to invest Yorktown.

Hi

67th, I always refer to Wellington's observation that the problem with the british war in the Americas was that there was on recognizable winning condition.

But you dodged the basic point, you accused me of paranoia, and I simply asked this: if it is only paranoia, why is it a common point made in every thread involving America about how they should have lost? We keep getting these posts that the US was always vulnerable to not only who they were fighting but the invasions of France and Britain.

Remember a while ago where some postulated transporting Hindi troops to the Americas in Mexico so that Mexico could not only win, but the British could then reclaim their American colonies?

Rocky

Other good books on the topic:

Canadians in the Civil War by Claire Hoy2004

This review is from back cover:

Hoy pulls together all of the small strands of the Canadian activities in the Civil War -- the enlistment of tens of thousands of Canadians, the Canadian-based Confederate espionage system, the raids on St. Albans and Johnston Island -- and explains, in clear and elegant writing, the war's impact on both Canada and the United States. It's the best book on the subject and it fills a gap in the book collection of any Civil War specialist.

Mark Bourrie
Ph. D. (Cand)
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada

The Civil War Years: Canada and the United States by Robin W. Winks 1960/1999

Product Discription:

While the Yankees and the Confederates fought a ruthless civil war in the United States, Britain and the northern states waged a war in anticipation, as British North America waited and wondered whether the federal army of the United States would invade. Robin Winks' study provides an examination of the impact of the American Civil War on Canada, especially on the movement towards confederation. This second edition also includes an overview of Civil War studies since the book's original publication in 1960.

These could add to the 'What if' scenarios…

Bill

Some people take these things much to serious :)

The 'common point made in every thread' tends to be a wistful wish that Britain had intervened so the Yanks could whip them again 'just like in 1812'. It seems to be assumed that any intervention would have the goal of reconquest,which makes no sense at all, but seems to feed some need to puff out the chest and shout a lot.

OK, if the British HAD gotten into the war, what kind(s) of uniforms would their troops have worn in the field? Say, on the Canadian front?

Osprey have a good book on that: link

Could a British tactic have been, instead of reinforcing Canada with regulars, to reinforce the ANV and to ensure that the ANV was properly equipped? If you have a well supplied ANV plus 2-3 corps of British regulars advancing into Pennsylvania would there be any need to worry about Canada?

Hi

So, lets see if I understand your point:The british send a few brigades of regulars from somewhere in the empire, sweeping aside the pitiful union navy and landing them unopposed on the Peninsula then integrated tactically and operationally with Bobby Lee?

Wow.

Rocky

"A few brigades". Mobilisation plans were based around 5-6 Infantry Corps with units mostly drawn from home. To quote myself from elsewhere:

In 1862 there were 65 regular infantry battalions at home or in theatre (minus some for home defence duties already counted below, and excluding the Royal Canadian Regt), 13 in the Mediterranean garrisons, and 2 of the 5 in South Africa can be withdrawn. That equates to 80 infantry battalions, far more than HMG proposed using (although several of these will be on rotations and so not really available). On peace establishment the British Army only held logistics for the deployment of 5 Army Corps (60 infantry battalions, 15 cavalry regiments, 30 artillery batteries, 10 horse artillery batteries &c.) at home. A Corps had a peacetime establishment of 16,000 R&F, so 5 Corps = 80,000 which is precisely the number HMG committed to Canada.

There are another 74 battalions (57 in the Eastern colonies, 3 in China, 3 in South Africa, 6 in New Zealand and 4 Guards battalions needed at home, excluding 9 European battalions of the HEIC which were formally incorporated into the Army in Feb '62) that would not be sent to Canada (although ca. 8 battalions would be pulled from India as the British component of an expeditionary Corps against California).

The artillery at home, the Med and in theatre has 10 horse batteries (60x 9 pdr Armstrong rifled guns), 40 field batteries (240x 12 pdr Armstrong rifled guns) and 80 garrison batteries, which may provide siege batteries (4x 40 pdr Armstrong guns) for a battering train and man fortifications. There are 20 horse, 39 field and 31 garrison batteries in India (largely still with smoothbore ordnance). To provide a 5 Corps army would take all the horse and 3/4ths the field artillery available.

The cavalry has 20 regiments at home and 11 in India. It would take 3/4ths the available regiments to provide 5 cavalry brigades for 5 Army Corps.

There are 6 Corps logistics units (Military Train battalions). 1 is deployed to the East (in 1860 supporting the expeditionary Corps to China, by 1862 they've partially redeployed to NZ). 5 are at home to support a 5 Corps overseas expeditionary force.

Of the 36 RE field companies, 32 are available at home, in the Med, SA or in theatre. 15 are required to make up the engineer complement of the expeditionary force. There is only one Corps bridging train on fixed establishment, but plans were to simply equip another 4 by converting 4 field companies.

I would suggest that no invasion would have been necessary to bring the North to terms. Blockade, and the easy supply of military necessities to the Confederacy through the open ports of the South, in exchange for the freely exported Southern cotton, combined with the crippling of the North's international trade, and the re-inforcement of Canada would have been enough. Oregon and California would have been wide open to invasion, if invasion were deemed necessary.

We keep getting these posts that the US was always vulnerable to not only who they were fighting but the invasions of France and Britain.

Rocky,

That was precisely what Lincoln's administration thought. And it was careful to avoid provocking an European intervention in the war, or even recognition of a independent South (they recognised her status as belligerant, though, and just that provoked a angry protest from the part of the Federal government).

So we can guess with some amount of certainty that an European intervention would have jeopardized US war effort, and her probabilities of victory. Even without that intervention, it was a close run thing.

Best regards

Hi

So, yes, we all know that the sun never set on the empire and they had all those assets.

Consider the issue of grabbing "two from" each area and transporting and landing it somewhere in a co-ordinated fashion. Wargamers making area movement on maps have no idea how difficult these concepts are.

With modern ships and dedicated landing craft and artificial harbors, it took the allies YEARS to set up an invasion of a few miles of France without an enemy navy to deal with.

Again, as I said, there seems to be a running set of comments all over TMP that conclusively proves on a regular basis that the history of the US rests on the British and the French for some reason not seeing what is obvious to some gamers.

Same folks prove conclusively that the UK could not be invaded by the French or Germans or anyone.

R

Hi Rocky

Remember that the British didn't need to actually invade the US in order to win. Just forcing the US Navy to lift the blockade of Southern ports and supplying the Confederate forces would have been more than enough, even without going as far as declaring war on the United States.

That doesn't mean to disparage US power. It's only a realistic assesment of the relative forces of both countries in the 1860s, and of the problems that both faced.

Best

Lifting the blockade without declaring war? hmm sounds hard.

but i don't think that would be enough for the south to win. They needed active support from somebody. IMHO

If the North's economy was collapsing through naval blockade, and the South's economy was booming and able to import materiel through it's open ports, then the South wouldn't need active support.