"US blockade how strong was it." Topic

So I don't remember were I read or heard it, but it what it was, was that if the British came in on the side of the south, the american blockade would have been raised in a short time.

Is this true, was the Royal navy at the time of the civil war really so much better/bigger then all other navies at the time, including the US?

So basicly US navy 100 times bigger and better then Conferdrate navy

Royal Navy 100 times better and bigger then US Navy?

The British wouldn't have liked tangling with Ironclads while in or near Southern ports. So getting in would be possible. But getting back out may have been more of a problem.

Thanks,

John

The British had the largest navy in the world at that time. The blockade off most ports was strong enough to stop transports, but not a squadron of warships. So yes, the British could have lifted the blockade and gotten into the Southern ports. But at what price? The Royal Navy was still composed of wooden sailing ships. Large calibre canon firing explosive shell would wreak havoc on a wooden ship while being almost invulnerable to return fire of solid shot. Once inside a harbor, with limited maneuverability, a traditional first rate would have been quickly destroyed by a steam powered ironclad. After the Monitor vs Merrimack duel, one British admiral admitted their entire navy was now obsolete.

The royal navy wasn't completly wooden

link

I don't think those pesky iron clads had much of a chance against a iron hulled monster ship.

No, the Royal Navy wasn't all wooden. But then the British had all of 2 ironclads, the Warrior and the Black Prince, and they were needed to match the new French Glorie class. She would have needed her wooden fleet to lift a blockade of the Confederacy.

We also had the Black Prince as well. Plus Resistance and Defence. Minatour appeared in 1863. In 1865, Agincourt, 1866 Northumberland. These were all iron ships as opposed to ironclads. We also had some ironclads as well. The first British turret ship appears to be the Royal Sovereign of 1864. The fact is that the British, if we're talking about the sea rather than rivers, would have cleared the blockade quite quickly. Rivers, a bit different – US monitors were designed for rivers and didn't survive very well at sea. As Monitor herself found out.

Incidentally, it wasn't the fact that the monitors were ironclads that got the comment mentioned by CS, it was the fact that they were turret ships – 'Away with the present ironclads! Convert ewvery Navy vesel into a turret-ship. If the little Monitor, with her two guns, could effect so much, what is the use of our steam frigates and broadside-firing vessels?'

By 1864 it wouldn't have mattered. The Confederacy was done by that time. It is doubtful that the British would have sent anything but wooden ships. Like I said, they could have gotten through. Getting out once the Union Ironclads arrived would have been a very different matter. It would have been Pyrrhic on England's part at best.

Thanks,

John

So you had 5 ironclad ships by 63
ps your iron came from the North

The diffence is that the Royal Navy vessels were sea boats not coastal/riverine monitors.

Which, in most cases, would've had a hard time closing with the US monitors since they drew so much.

But would the Royal Navy had to chase the United States ironclads into the rivers and harbours to break the blockade of Southern harbours not yet in Union hands? I think not. A serious counter measure would've been an overland invasion by the Northern forces to occupy Halifax, the major British port on the Eastern seaboard.

The only port open late 63 or 64 was Wilmington, NC IIRC. There you had to go up the river to unload. The other ports had been captured. Plus, Manpower was becoming the issue for the South by 63 and 64. British intervention of the blockade would not have made any impact on that. IMO, the ONLY way it has an impact is by late 61 or early 62. It simply wasn't possible then so remains a moot point.

Thanks,

John

The Royal Navy would not have to chase the US up the rivers. They could lift the blockade at their port of choice by weight of numbers and firepower. The majority of the blockade ships were intended to oppose transports, not warships. Early in the war, most were converted civilian ships.

The US also had an ocean-going navy in 1861. Following the War of 1812, the US policy was to maintain a navy large enough to raise a blockade of our coast. Those wooden ships mounted shell firing guns. 44 ships were at sea when the rebellion began and more were laid up. 4 of the laid up ships like the Merrimack and the massive USS Pennsylvania were lost or destroyed when the Confederates captured the Norfolk Navy Yard, but there were enough left to give the Royal Navy a hard fight. The British also learned during our Revolution and the War of 1812 that the US Navy would quickly carry another war into British waters. Where would those 2-4 British iron ships be kept if a couple of American ships showed up in the Channel and shelled a port or 2?

Yeah, the RN really was that strong.

The US ironclads were slow as snails, they were pretty much not a factor against blockade runners. Most of the serious blockading was done by wooden ships, which RN wooden ships could have fought just fine. I'm sure the Rn would have lost ships in the effort, but the USN was not about to be able to keep a serious blockade up in the face of British intervention. I expect we'd have lost more ships than they did.

OTOH, not really much chance of British intervention IRL.
-Kle.

Very interesting discussion. The Royal Navy had ocean going ironclads, but the U.S. Navy knew that. They built a target made of 4" iron backed by teak to prove that U.S. Naval artillery would easily penetrate Warrior's armor.
The Royal Navy was certainly larger, but the U.S. Navy was operating far closer to home. There are a few examples of 19th Century ironclad battles (Lissa, South America), but nothing that matches what would have gone on, say, in an attempt to break the blockade of Charleston.
I suppose someone could take the statistics of all the ships, think up a set of rules that takes most of the conditions of battle into account and fight a mock battle with miniatures on a map of Charleston harbor.
Oh wait, I forgot, that's not conflict simulation, it's just playing with toys.

That was the problem, warrior was a monster, a static monster. The us ships would have free range to fire on the ship with their turrets & position themselves so they had free hits. I think again static thinking by the British the US ships would win most battles.

'So you had 5 ironclad ships by 63'

No, 5 iron ships – actually I missed out the Hector. They also had lots of Ironclads – ie: iron backed by teak.

Actually, the armour of ones like Warrior was also backed by teak, but there was a distinction made at the time. Warrior had 4.5" armour backed by 18" of teak.

As for static monster, Warrior could do 14.5 knots. The Monitors could do about 6-9 knots depending on the class.

It always comes down to why. What on earth could England gain fighting the US and supporting a slave system they hated?

On fighting, a British fleet could obviously win any single engagement against a force that didn't know where the strike was coming. Then, what? Despite bravery, the confederacy was just too weak to survive. How would the Brits maintain any victory without coal? The confederacy couldn't supply it's own meager navy. Then, of course, Canada would be in danger and the great Royal navy could do little to stop it.

On availability. I don't see much of the powerful British Ironclads coming to America. While capable of oceanic travel under sail, they were not doing much long distance travel in the period.. In addition, the navy was much more concerned with European rivals. France. Also, the rise of Austria and Russia.

Finally, would the common rebel soldier really have suffered "help" from Britain? It was bad enough many southerners were against the rebellion, The wounds of 1812 and 76 were still quite fresh for many.

OK guys take a breath and lets not get into our traditional Yanks V Brits posturing.

At the beginning of the War, the North couldn't have enforced a Blockade on Central Park Lake, they just didn't have the ships.

The Federal government, with the exception of Secretary of State Seward, who was not a fan of the British, were scared stupid of possible British and/or French intervention as the blockade itself was highly debatable in terms of International Maritime Law, under the Declaration of Paris (1856).

This was due to two factors.

Firstly, Blockade was only held valid between two Nations in time of war. The argument being that this was a state of rebellion, not a war, as the Confederacy was not (and never became) a Nation recognized by the international community.

Secondly, To be valid the blockade had to be effective.

The US had never formally signed the Declaration of Paris but the Federal government declared it would be bound by its conditions at the start of hostilities.

Once the Confederates got shipping organised and had proper Blockade Runners commissioned the blockade had more holes than a lace handkerchief. Even before that, in the first six months of the war, over 600 vessels passed through.

Concerns reached peaks on several occasions not least of which as a result of the "Trent" incident, which saw Britain and the US come with in two weeks of a formal declaration of war. Also every Confederate victory caused concerns that Britain and France would come out for Recognition.

Its worth noting that we are talking Britain and France here, this wasn't the War of Independence or 1812, if the Blockade were to be forced and/or the Confederacy recognized it would have been two nations (three if you count the South)the Federal government would have been in conflict with.

After 1st Bull Run there was a run on the Banks and international money left the North like it was on fire. The US Treasury gold reserves were non existent and for while the whole deal was on the brink.

This isn't a wargamers question of my boats bigger than your boat we are talking here, its matters of international politics and commerce. A combined British and French fleet turning up one morning any time in the first two years of the war would have been the end of it and a lot of subsequent history would never have happened.

There was no intervention and events on land changed the game until such time as the North's superior strength over the South won out as it would.

However, its not a question of if were '61, '62, '63, '64 or '65 this mythical US, Franco/British conflict might of happened but rather that after the events of 1863 the political dimension changed to make it redundant.

May I recommend "A World on Fire" by Amanda Foreman, as a very accessible read to US/British relations during the war that covers all aspects of this discussion in a very clear manner.

Agree totally with that – can't see any way that the British would get involved once America said it would abolish slavery. But what if they hadn't?

Agree totally with that – can't see any way that the British would get involved once America said it would abolish slavery. But what if they hadn't?

Depends on trade as much as anything. The South banked on holding Britain and France to ransom over cotton. Once Britain woke up to the fact it was a better deal to exploit India – Hell they owned the place! That vanished.

There was large anti slavery support in Britain and Europe in general, which always made recognition of the South unlikely. Its equally unlikely that anyone would have fought a war with the North for failing to abolish, as that would have meant supporting the South who were slavers!

Wooden steam ships were not made obsolete by the shell. In the Crimean wooden screw battleships were hit with dozens of heavy shells and remained in action. In the civil war shell had little effect at Hampton Roads. At Lissa Kaiser was hit by multiple 300 pdr shells and remained in action.

Even at Sinope the shells were not effective. All the ships that caught fire/ blew up were blown up by their own crews to prevent them being taken as prizes.

What could be devastating was hot shot, and by 1860 the Martin shell made a hotshot that wooden ships could use safely. This was a hollow ball charged with molten iron. It was utterly devastating.

Wooden ships continued to remain generally effective in the 1860's until combinations of new technologies made them obsolete in the 1880's.

The RN also had a much more significant armoured force than is supposed (see below), and had plans for major expansion in the event of war by building new armoured batteries for the littoral (with 90 day build times) and razeeing a number of steam battleships to turret ships for home defence.

The USN never had more ironclads in service then the RN, and this excludes ships in the reserve (of which the US had none and the UK many). The backbone of the USN armoured force was the Passiac, which were problematic ships: link

Coal was not a problem. Coaliers could bring it in. Indeed the blockade runners all ran off Welsh Anthracite which was shipped to the West Indies….

The Channel Ports were fortified to a level that the US had never seen. Good luck shelling them….

The RN has (date of completion listed, usually a warship is usable 6-8 weeks after launch if needed. The RN was so strong that it kept ships in reserve for years after completion).

Broadside/ Central Battery Ships
Meteor (1855)
Thunder (1855)
Glatton (1855)
Trusty (1855) – converted to a Turret ship in 1860
Aetna (1856)
Erebus (1856)
Thunderbolt (1856)
Terror (1856)
Warrior (1860)
Black Prince (1861)
Defence (1861)
Resistance (1861)
Prince Consort (1862)
Caledonia (1862)
Ocean (1863)
Royal Oak (1862)
Hector (1862)
Valiant (1862)
Achilles (1863)
Minotaur (1863)
Agincourt (1865)
Northumberland (1866)
Lord Clyde (1864)
Lord Warden (1865)
Zealous (1864)
Royal Alfred (1865)
Bellerophon (1865)
Hercules (1868)
Repulse (1868)
Audacious (1869)
Invincible (1869)
Vanguard (1870)
Iron Duke (1870)
Sultan (1870)
Swiftsure (1870)
Triumph (1870)

Turret Ships (Cupola Ships or Shield Ships in the nomenclature of the time)
Royal Sovereign (1864, after a considerable testing period)
Scorpion (1863)
Wivern (1863)
Prince Albert (1864)
Monarch (1868)
Cerebus (1868)
Magdala (1870)
Captain (1869)
Abyssinia (1869)
Hotspur (1870)

Smaller Ironclads
Research (1863)
Enterprize (1863)
Favourite (1865)
Pallas (1866)
Penelope (1868)
Vixen (1865)
Viper (1866)
Water Witch (1867)

They were getting blockade runners in right up to the very end of the war even without British intervention, right ? So, if the British came in on the side of the South for all practical purposes the blockade would've been kaput.

One thing you have overlooked gentlemen would be the effect of commerce raiding on British trade.

Whilst the Confederate navy was small it had a disproportionate effect on Union commerce and the US shipping industry took decades to recover from the war.

Granted that the US failed to ratify the Declaration of Paris and was keen to maintain the use of privateers – whom the British would correctly in the 1860s have treated as pirates – would also exacerbate the situation. The vision of ‘Merkin pirates being hung would not have done Anglo-American relations much good. The effect of US pirates (or privateers if you prefer) operating against British shipping and the subsequent claims under international law, with the US as a ‘rouge state' by the standards of the mid 19th Century, would also be interesting.

Then, of course, Canada would be in danger and the great Royal navy could do little to stop it.

Of course, every time we've invaded Canada, we've had our butts kicked. We sure had a big army at the time, but it was pretty busy.
-Kle.

IIRC, Britain was pursuing a "balance of power" policy in Europe at that time. Any large engagement of military forces with the US at that time would have tipped the delicate balance of power in Europe. Even so, there were some smaller wars in Europe during the time of the ACW, which demanded British attention. Also, who knows what expansionist dreams the confederacy might have pursued regarding European holdings in the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes it's better to deal with the devil you know.

Response to 67thtigers

"The USN never had more ironclads in service then the RN, and this excludes ships in the reserve (of which the US had none and the UK many). The backbone of the USN armoured force was the Passiac, which were problematic ships: link"

There are a mistake in the linked article. A Passaic class ship could aim there guns. While the 15" did not fit thru the turret, it could be aimed from directly above in the pilot house that sat on top of the turret. You simply chalk mark the angle there. A chart with elevation and powder charges gives you the range (same as any other ship of the period). No accuracy problems were reported in the bombardment of Wagner and Sumter or at Mobile. (In fact, only Monitor, with only 11" guns had accuracy problems. This was because the turret could not be aimed. They would just spin the turret continuously like a top and fired when the enemy came into view.) The problem was having only 2 guns. Therefore, you could fire less weight of shell/shot in a given time frame. All turret ships, all sides faced this problem.

The list of RN ships has some problems. 1) of 53 ships listed, 22 were not even launched, much less completed during the war period. Of the launched, many were not actually completed until later (HMS Caledonia link for example) Maybe they could speed quite a few up. However, to be fair you have to calculate what the US navy would likely produce/speed up in this later decade if they had to assume such an enemy. 2) Like many US ships, many Brit ships were not seaworthy enough to cross the Atlantic safely. While the US navy would not be assumed to make the crossing to attack, all British ships involved would. 3) some of the 55 and 56 builds were in very poor condition by 62 and would be unavailable. 4) While pointing out potential problems of 1 class of American IC, you are not taking into account that almost all British broadside ICs didn't have any armor at the front and rear (much like USS Ironsides). A dangerous flaw, I would assume.

Frankly, contrary to popular opinion, it really isn't the British Ironclad I think I would fear. The non armored steam ship of the line which the Americans had no equal would be the real danger. 1) the lower/older technology would be far easier to maintain in American waters. 2) The shear number of guns could throw so many shots/shells that they might overwhelm and wear out the American Monitor crews much like what happened at Charleston with the shore batteries. Death by a thousand pinpricks. 3) They could wipe out the non armored US ships.

Overall, however, I would go back to why would Britain want to make the effort or take the risk involved?

A few months ago in the Britsh version of history Mag. There was an article about the same topic. The Magazine said that a test of American Guns and britsh armour showed the Guns could go thru britsh armour. Also If Englad went to war with US then American ships could attack britsh trade ships and disrupt Trade. That was the real danger that war with USA would destroy Britsh shipping.

As I said, Passiac couldn't aim.

Caledonia was a viable fighting unit about a month after she was launched. "Completed" happens when the naval constructor responsible signs the ship off as needing no further work. In the case of HMS Black Prince, for example, this occurred several months *after* she Commissioned as flagship, Portsmouth Division. In the case of Caledonia she went straight into 1st class Steam Reserve on launching. She was armed, provisioned and a skeleton engineering crew assigned to keep her in fighting trim (under Charles Icely).

Since I have the June '63 Navy List to hand, the status of all armoured ships on that date was:

Achilles – building at Chatham
Agincourt – building at Birkenhead
Black Prince in Commission under Capt James Wainwright (Channel Squadron)
Caledonia – 1st class steam reserve at Woolwich
Defence – in Commission under Capt Augustus Phillimore
Enterprize – building at Deptford
Erebus – 2nd class steam reserve at Portsmouth
Favorite – building at Deptford
Minotaur – building at Blackwall
Northumberland – building at Millwall
Ocean – 1st class steam reserve at Devonport (assigned to 1st class 23 Mar 63, 4 days after launch)
Prince Albert – building at Millwall
Prince Consort – 1st class steam reserve at Pembroke (Master John Clements)
Research – building at Pembroke
Resistance – in Commission under Capt William Chamberlain (Channel Squadron)
Royal Albert – 1st class steam reserve at Devonport
Royal Alfred – building at Portsmouth
Royal Oak – in Commission under Capt Frederick Campbell (Channel Squadron)
Royal Sovereign – 1st class steam reserve at Portsmouth
Terror – in Commission under Capt Frederick Glasse at Bermuda
Thunder – 2nd class steam reserve at Sheerness
Thunderbolt – 2nd class steam reserve on the River Thames
Trusty – 2nd class steam reserve at Woolwich
Valiant – building at Millwall
Warrior – in Commission under Capt the Hon Arthur Cochrane (Channel Squadron)
Zealous – building at Pembroke

An interesting date, because the UK was on the verge of recognising the Confederacy. A squadron of five armoured frigates were concentrated at were in fact at Lisbon in Portugal, linked by cable awaiting the order to cross the Atlantic and reinforce Milne (along with Queen and some other heavy ships).

Milne had:

Battleships Nile and Aboukir (the latter downgraded as receiving ship)
Frigates Ariadne, Galatea, Immortalite, Phaeton and Shannon
Screw corvettes Jason and Pylades
Screw sloops Desperate, Greyhound, Peretel, Rinadlo and Rosario
Paddle sloops Barracouta, Buzzard, Medea, Styx and Vesuvius
Gunvessels Cygnet, Landrail, Lily, Nimble, Plover, Steady

The RN in American waters prettymuch matched USN warships, not including gunboats 1 for 1.

I still don`t think that you could rile the Americans much more than send British boats to the States & think they could do any better than any time before.
1 Where would the British have a base
2 A few confederate ironclads were sunk by small bands of union soldiers.
3 The Warriors 14.5 knots dosn`t rate much, the more nimble
U.S ship would still inflict too much damage. Operating fairly close to shore can`t see that big lump doing very much. Big is easier to hit.
BTW I`m a Brit.

The ironclads are immaterial.
They were all too slow for effective blockade work – you sink the fast blockaders, and ignore the ironclads.

1 Where would the British have a base

Really!?

How about Bermuda? How about the entire Caribbean? How about Canada? The Bahamas?

In the 1860s, most of the world was a British naval base…
-Kle.

Even so, there were some smaller wars in Europe during the time of the ACW, which demanded British attention

Don't think so. The only war in Europe between 1861 & 1865 was the 2nd Schleswig-Holstein War between Prussia/Austria and Denmark.

It only lasted six months and outside of the combatants no one gave a damn.

Then, of course, Canada would be in danger and the great Royal navy could do little to stop it

One of the reasons the War of 1812 came to an end was the US was bankrupt. Did some good things on the battlefield and enough to make the British more than happy to settle but the Royal Navy by 1814 had things done up like a cork in a bottle.

OK smaller area to patrol maybe but it was done with a fraction of the resources available in 1861.

As I said earlier at the start of the Civil War the US Navy was in the same position as it had been in 1812 and Britain could deploy the Royal Navy without having to fear upsetting anyone in Europe or being involved in a war anywhere else – unlike 1812.

I think there is also another matter to consider.

Assuming the war with the South continued during the British blockade busting people are hypothesizing are about.

It is matter of extreme doubt that North would have had the capacity to both fight the British and most likely the French at sea, while at the same time building the dozens of Ironclads and Monitors needed to win the River Wars that were such a part of beating the Confederacy.

Like I said before, this isn't a wargame we are looking at here there is no edge to the table!

Interesting how easy and without cost many people believed the enterprise to crush the US to be, yet the British found enough excuses not to try it. Were they cowards, then?

Not at all.

In 1860 they already made 25% of all the manufactured goods in the purchased in the entire world and had the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

Having drifted into two wars in America, with out getting anything out of it worth having, there really didn't seem much point in doing it a third time. Why fight people you can make money out of?

At that time the US posed no threat to trade or industry and if the South won it would have just opened up another market opportunity.

During the Trent affair, Britain was so obviously terrified of having to fight that laden troopships were already on route to Canada when the US released the Confederate diplomats rather than get into a shooting war.

This thread is not about why Britain didn't get involved, it's a 'what if' they did. So any arguments about why they shouldn't or didn't are not really relevant.

Some points worth considering:

How many ports did the South have that were on the coast rather than a river? The RN could easily defend access to these against a riverine ironclad force.

How would any British effort distract Union activities – here I'm thinking about the resources the US would have had to divert from fighting the Confederates both in military and commercial terms. Every vessel now facing the British is no longer facing the Confederates, every soldier having to defend American ports is no longer in the field.

What happens, for example, to California if a British fleet starts bombarding the coasttline or dropping off troops – does the US try and reinforce them? Or do they secede themselves?

What happens if British ironclads are used for shore bombardment in the East? The US had a big coastline to defend – how many troops/guns woulkd be needed to defend it?

The operating bases question is an obvious nonsense already answered, even without including using Confederate harbours.

Incidentally, the original topic was breaking the US blockade, not setting up a British one. Ironclads would probably be of limited use in breaking the blockade, there main use would be in sitting offshore and acting as a blockading force. The US would then need sea-going ironclads to match – which would take resources away from the rivers, plus the monitor design would be next to useless.

Oh, while I'm thinking about – American commerce raiders might have problems. During the AWI and Napoleonic Wars the US was not looked on as a major theatre, plus the French Navy was a major concern. In the ACW, France would most likely side with Britain and there were really no other major Naval powers able to help.

"How many ports did the South have that were on the coast rather than a river? The RN could easily defend access to these against a riverine ironclad force."

This would not be as cut and dry as it seems. The south was notorious for the shallow access to many of their ports. Deep draft British warships would be limited to bigger ports. Even entering Charleston was treacherous to deep draft ships because of the moving sand bars off Sumter and the barrier Islands that strangle the southern coast. Riverine types are better adapted to these areas. In fact, many of the successes of the runners was that they could dare to go in close or over the bars, where deeper draft Yankee blockaders could not.

Trajanus 26 Feb 2012 9:07 a.m. PST

…..Don't think so. The only war in Europe between 1861 & 1865 was the 2nd Schleswig-Holstein War between Prussia/Austria and Denmark.

It only lasted six months and outside of the combatants no one gave a damn.

*NJH: You're quite right and I apologize for my poor communication. I would note that the 1864 war affected more folks than the belligerants, but that's another thread. I should have said, "Even so there were some smaller wars involving European countries during the times of the ACW, which demanded British attention." My apologies for not paying attention to what I was writing.
As in the following:

1858-1862 Cochinchina Campaign *France, Spain
1859-1859 second Italian War of Independence *France
1859-1860 Moroccan War *Spain
1860-1861 First Taranaki War *Britain
1861-1867 French Intervention in Mexico initially supported by Austria, Spain, Belgium, Britain
1863-1865 Dominican Restoration War *Spain
1863-1864 Bombardments of Shimonoseki *USA, Netherlands Britain French
1863-1863 Bombardment of Kagoshima *Britain
1863-1864 Invasion of Waikato *Britain
1863-1864 Second Anglo-Ashanti War *Britain
1863-1866 Second Taranaki War *Britain
1864-1864 Second Schleswig War *Austria, Prussia, Denmark
1864-1864 Tauranga Campaign *Britain
1864-1865 Bhutan War *Britain
1864-1865 Russo-Kokandian War *Russia
1865-1865 Morant Bay Rebellion *Britain
1865-1868 Basuto-Boer War *Britain
1865-1868 East Cape War *Britain
1865-1865 Hyogo naval expeditaion *Britain

Like some folks, I also consider the ACW to have started in 1859, but I do note that others may not. Now I also note that the above conflicts were fairly small affairs involving small numbers of troops and ships. However, they may not have been successfully waged in conjunction with the need for a blockade fleet of America, and lots of ground troops for a land invasion of the USA. Also, the industrial might of the USA was not located in a few spots on the Eastern seaboard, but much further inland. Also, with the killing of Englishmen so easy, the Irish Brigade could have easily swelled to the Irish Corps. The same for Germans and the opportunity to kill Frenchmen. There were a lot of immigrants who would have been eager to kill the enemies of their blood.

With the English fleet and front line combat troops tied down in the Western Hemisphere India, Egypt and other colonies might have decided it was time for another shot at freedom. The Iron Chancellor himself would have welcomed the sight of British and French troops/fleets sailing into the West away from his political domain.

When looking into the what-ifs, we can't just compare military forces out of the context from the political/economic/social aspects of the time.

Cheers

To answer the question, somewhat: the blockade became increasingly effective as the war went on, as more ships were built or converted to blockaders, and especially as bases were established for the squadrons along the Southern coast, and as ports were captured from the sea or from the land side.

Also, Union control of the Mississippi River cut off the major parts of the Confederacy from the Mexican ports.

In terms of blockade, the USN had very few seagoing ships that could challenge the RN. The USN monitors etc could have defended US ports, but couldn't have maintained a blockade of the South when threatened by RN seagoing armoured ships. The other USN vessels blockading the south wouldn't have lasted very long against proper warships. The RN could easily have established a blockade of Northern ports, and the commerce destroyers that might have been employed by the USN would have found supplies of coal very limited in the rest of the world, dominated by British trade. The USN couldn't have done much about a world-wide steam coal embargo placed on the USN, not with British consuls and agents in most of the world's ports. That is if they'd even been able to get out of port in the first place. British naval bases in Bermuda, Canada and the W.Indies complete with repair yards, could have kept an RN blockade of the North in place indefinitely. Once the USN blockade was broken, the Confederate ports could serve as supply bases for the RN, even without naval yards.
To conclude, the RN easily had the strength to remove the USN's blockade from Southern ports, and easily had the strength to establish and maintain a blockade of the Northern ports. As I've indicated elsewhere in this forum, and has been indicated in other posts here, the USN's armoured vessels were coast defence, even harbour defence, only, and couldn't have taken on the RN to defend their blockade of the south, and running inshore to escape the RN's vessels would have brought them onto the Confederate shore defences, or aground. Even if they could have been supplied with coal, the supply of which the RN could easily have interdicted.
Egypt was an independent state in 1861, and Bismarck had no territorial ambitions that could have threatened the UK, so neither could have been an issue.
Britain wouldn't have had to invade the US , so wouldn't have needed to deploy many troops, apart from some, probably, to reinforce Canada.
None of the wars listed by DJCoaltrain that involved Britain needed significant RN involvement. Even the Japanese adventures mentioned only needed a few screw frigates and sloops, out of the hundreds that the RN could deploy. Sorting out a few Maoris, or tribesmen in Bhutan, or Kaffirs in S.Africa wouldn't require much more than local forces, certainly not the use of significant naval assets.

Also, Union control of the Mississippi River cut off the major parts of the Confederacy from the Mexican ports

Very important point.

By early 1863 nearly 200 ships a month were calling at Matamoros on the south bank of the Rio Grande, bringing in supplies to the South and taking out cotton via Brownsville, Texas.

As the river formed a neutral boarder the blockade could not be applied to ships calling there.

The danger to the British (and French) was not that the USN would take out the British navy, but rather that, like in the War of 1812, northern privateers would be turned loose to devastate British trade. A handful of Confederate raiders from a region which could barely support them were doing a pretty good number on northern shipping. What would a well financed privateer fleet do to British shipping? You can't protect everywhere, and Yankee raiders literally could be everywhere.

Once again, this was not the war of 1812.

The British navy committed very little of its resources to that war – it was occupied elsewhere.

If there was an effective blockade of Northern ports (which was achieved in later stages of 1812/14) then the privateers would have to had operated from elsewhere.

Besides two can play at privateers and I don't think we need a head count to know who had more ships available.

No, Flicking Wargamer, they couldn't. The Confederate cruisers were able to get good quality steam coal everywhere they went, coal that was supplied by Britain. If US cruisers tried that, whilst they were under blockade from the RN, they wouldn't have any coal available to them, and, as sailing ships, wouldn't last long against the RN screw frigates and screw sloops that were hunting them down. A good reason why the French didn't attempt a blockade of Germany/Prussia in 1870 is that Britain wouldn't allow them to access British coal. It is a moot point, however, as it assumes that US cruisers would be able to break through the RN blockade in the first place.

Could I point out to The Grey ghost that Britain had a pretty effective iron and steel industry in the 19th century, with little reason to import either iron or iron ore. I'd be interested to see your evidence for your assertion that Britain's iron came from the North, I assume that you mean the North of the USA, rather than the north of England?

One thing you have overlooked gentlemen would be the effect of commerce raiding on British trade

Although all the items in this thread are interesting, I find 138SquadronRAF'S commerce raiding comments especially intriguing. Given the damage to Federal shipping caused by the hand full of Confederate commence raiders, it is interesting to speculate how much more damage could have been done to British commence by the significantly higher number of commerce raiders the Federal government could build and put into action.

It seems reasonable to assume some, perhaps a significant number of existing British ships (At least the frigate-sized ships. I'm not suggesting that the ocean-going ironclads and other SOTL would have been assigned to such inappropriate duty) would have had to be pulled off fighting Federal naval forces and assigned to protecting British shipping. I also believe a certain significant portion of British ship-building would have had to be reassigned to building ship more suitable to deal with the number of commerce raiders the Federal government could devote to the task.

However, here is also the matter of Federal ocean-going commerce. While Washington is merrily raiding British shipping, wouldn't London be just as eagerly doing the same thing to Federal shipping? And with far more sea-going resources better located to devote to the task? Add to that the existing Confederate raiders (Remember them?) Britain could easily increase the number of Confederate raiders by simply removing the restrictions to building/finishing the 8? 10? Confederate ships already contracted for in British shipyards.

There's little question in my mind that Washington would lose this shipping war and with it its whaling, fishing. Asian trade. Etc. Its merchant ships would be swept from the oceans.

Oh, by the way, Abe. Kiss the west coast goodbye. British Pacific navy forces would soon overwhelm the few Federal ships in the area and control the coast from Seattle to San Diego.

Chouan 27 Feb 2012 9:12 a.m. PST
………. Egypt was an independent state in 1861,

*NJH: Quite right, my mistake. I was over zealous in presenting my case.

and Bismarck had no territorial ambitions that could have threatened the UK, so neither could have been an issue.

*NJH: Bismarck's ambitions threatened the balance of power in Europe, which was always a concern of Britain.

Britain wouldn't have had to invade the US , so wouldn't have needed to deploy many troops, apart from some, probably, to reinforce Canada.

*NJH: By 1862 the South already had a serious manpower problem. If Britain wanted to assure the Independence of the South, then a couple hundred thousand Brits were going to be needed. Was Britain really going to put her fleet and that many soldiers in the meat grinder to assure the continuation of slavery in the South?

None of the wars listed by DJCoaltrain that involved Britain needed significant RN involvement. Even the Japanese adventures mentioned only needed a few screw frigates and sloops, out of the hundreds that the RN could deploy. Sorting out a few Maoris, or tribesmen in Bhutan, or Kaffirs in S.Africa wouldn't require much more than local forces, certainly not the use of significant naval assets.

*NJH: Assets used elsewhere are not available for deployment to the US. Also, "Kaffir" is a seriously offensive racial slur.

mosby65 27 Feb 2012 1:27 p.m. PST

Oh, by the way, Abe. Kiss the west coast goodbye. British Pacific navy forces would soon overwhelm the few Federal ships in the area and control the coast from Seattle to San Diego.

*NJH: Well, that's a lot of coast line to watch with very few developed harbors North of San Francisco in 1862. BTW – Where's the coal on the West Coast of the America's in 1862?