alan L | 05 Aug 2015 3:15 a.m. PST |
Anyone gaming European intervention in the ACW? British/Canadian forces would have had been engaged on the Canadian border so that is perhaps straightforward enough, apart from the numbers actually engaged. Do you think the French would have fought alongside the Confederates or as a separate army? At what point might the French and Confederates start falling out over French land-grab? What about naval involvement such as French ironclads attacking Union blockade ships in the Gulf of Mexico or intervening in Mobile Bay? There are lots of what-ifs which could be interesting, on both land and sea. I read a first article in Wargames Illustrated about British intervention: can anyone recall if the other parts have been published yet? |
Broglie | 05 Aug 2015 5:05 a.m. PST |
French participation would have been technically possible in view of the 'Mexican Adventure' but would you assume that they would automatically support the Confederates? I could not see a French land grab anywhere inside the United States. What would they want it for or do with it so far across the Atlantic. Would you see a British land grab up north or is Canada big enough for them? A fictional account of that would be more believable but in reality why would Britain want more land there? It is an interesting 'what if' though. |
Frederick | 05 Aug 2015 5:46 a.m. PST |
We played it a while ago – British intervention force joining the Army of Northern Virginia – good game; we gave the British good troops but not so good divisional command This would not be a land grab by the Brits (although they might not be adverse to expanding their Pacific holdings) but rather a response to things like the Trent affair For the French, they could send an intervention force to help the Confederates but as noted by Broglie this would almost certainly be tied to a non-intervention – or even an assistance – plan for Maximillian's Empire; the US provided a lot of help to the Mexican rebels; by 1866 essentially the entire Mexican Army of the North was equipped and even uniformed by the US Lots of gaming potential here |
49mountain | 05 Aug 2015 9:43 a.m. PST |
The British in Canada is an interesting subject. When the possibility of conflict arose within the British Government it was realized that there were very few troops available in Canada and that they had no plan of defense. The British did consider sending reinforcements and a fleet to Canada, but recognized that any force they could land in Canada would be overwhelmed by the shear number of Union troops available to attack them. Not to mention the number of Irish volunteers that the Union could raise for an attack upon the British. Upon this fact the British Government thought it would be far better to use diplomatic means to solve the problems they had with the North. Also, while the British Government only represented the upper-class and aristocracy in Britain, the vast majority of the common (and disenfranchised) people of Britain favored the North and had many meetings throughout the country demonstrating that support. This made the Government very uncomfortable, especially as the question of universal suffrage was also being brought up throughout the country and in Parliament. The feelings of the common people had their champions even in parliament. This did a lot to curtail the Southern leanings of the Government. The British Government walked a fine line between the North and the South during the war. I doubt that any intervention would have been possible without the French and British acting together to force the issue. Probably having a mixed force of both attacking New Orleans would be the most believable scenario. At any other point along the Southern coast, they would have had to force a landing after a general naval engagement, which was not necessarily a sure thing. Once the troops had landed, they would have had to make their way to the front over a poor transportation system. Hard to say where they would have gone. If they attacked through Canada it would have probably been along the Saint Lawrence River, which was well populated on the U.S. side. I think they would have had a hard time getting into the Great Lakes. IMHO. |
67thtigers | 05 Aug 2015 10:40 a.m. PST |
If interested, a Volley and Bayonet orbat for the British regulars in North America during an intervention: link |
EJNashIII | 05 Aug 2015 5:07 p.m. PST |
"Do you think the French would have fought alongside the Confederates or as a separate army?" No, they had no real reason to and were already heavily engaged in Mexico. "What about naval involvement such as French ironclads attacking Union blockade ships in the Gulf of Mexico or intervening in Mobile Bay?" No, France and England were involved in an intense arms race during this time period. They really couldn't spare enough ships to lift the blockade without inviting England to take advantage of the situation somewhere else. "British/Canadian forces would have had been engaged on the Canadian border so that is perhaps straightforward enough, apart from the numbers actually engaged." Yes and no. Fighting from Canada with a large enough force would be difficult for the British. During this period, it would be difficult to supply or reinforce a large army in the winter months once the St Lawrence froze. In 1812 you had armies in the range of a few thousand men. In 1860s you are talking the need to supply 50,000 to 150,000. When the Brits did reinforce Canada after the Trent affair, a sizable percentage of the supplies came in thru US territory. Also, the same arms race was hampering Britain. They didn't dare pull too much military hardware away from Europe. All during this period there was a great fear in England that France might try a sneak attack across the English channel. Another issue that might be interesting for wargaming is that Lincoln did have a understanding with Russia that in the case of English intervention Russia would come into the war on the Union side. Lincoln provided the Czar with detailed plans for building Monitors. By 1864 Russia had 10 and was a real threat to everyone. In addition, their wooden fleet was already per-positioned in New York and San Francisco. Russia wanted a chance to get even for the Crimean war. Austria, Denmark and Prussia are wild cards. With England bogged down in the American war and France in Mexico, who know what mischief they might get into. |
StoneMtnMinis | 05 Aug 2015 11:27 p.m. PST |
As touched on briefly, it would have been a logistical nightmare for the British. They would have had to maintain a supply line across the Atlantic as the South lacked the ability to supply additional armies effectively. Most Southern units were supplied by their parent States. Plus, with all the other issues covered already it was a "no go" from the start. |
67thtigers | 06 Aug 2015 4:00 a.m. PST |
"No, France and England were involved in an intense arms race during this time period. They really couldn't spare enough ships to lift the blockade without inviting England to take advantage of the situation somewhere else. " Franco-British relations were very close at this time, and France had no problem dispatching a fleet of 16 screw battleships and the armoured frigate Normandie to Mexico in 1862. During the Trent Affair every single RN armoured frigate was under orders for the American station, and no doubt the French would do likewise. "Yes and no. Fighting from Canada with a large enough force would be difficult for the British. During this period, it would be difficult to supply or reinforce a large army in the winter months once the St Lawrence froze. In 1812 you had armies in the range of a few thousand men. In 1860s you are talking the need to supply 50,000 to 150,000. When the Brits did reinforce Canada after the Trent affair, a sizable percentage of the supplies came in thru US territory. " No supplies came via the US. They were landed at Halifax and carried on sleds to the railroad at Riviere-du-loup. "Another issue that might be interesting for wargaming is that Lincoln did have a understanding with Russia that in the case of English intervention Russia would come into the war on the Union side. Lincoln provided the Czar with detailed plans for building Monitors. By 1864 Russia had 10 and was a real threat to everyone. In addition, their wooden fleet was already per-positioned in New York and San Francisco. Russia wanted a chance to get even for the Crimean war. Austria, Denmark and Prussia are wild cards. With England bogged down in the American war and France in Mexico, who know what mischief they might get into." This is in no sense correct. It's a complete misreading of Russian intentions. The Russians in 1863 were dealing with the Polish uprising and wanted to get some raiders out of their ports before winter came on. There were no "sealed orders" and Russia had no desire to help her primary trade rival. |
67thtigers | 06 Aug 2015 4:01 a.m. PST |
"As touched on briefly, it would have been a logistical nightmare for the British. They would have had to maintain a supply line across the Atlantic as the South lacked the ability to supply additional armies effectively. Most Southern units were supplied by their parent States." Canada is closer to the UK than the Crimea, and is friendly territory. Logistics is simply not an issue, the UK can ship vast quantities of material across the Atlantic at the drop of a hat. |
rmaker | 06 Aug 2015 9:40 p.m. PST |
British intervention was unlikely for internal political reasons. Yes, Palmerstone hated Americans (of all stripes), and offered hole-and-corner support to the Confederates to cause difficulty for the Union. But any attempt to even so much as recognize the Confederacy, much less send troops to its aid, would have required an Act of Parliament. And for any Whig government to offer such an act would have been suicidal. The Tories, of course, would vote against it, but so would the sizable Radical wing of the Whigs because of the slavery issue. And failure of the measure would have led to a vote of No Confidence, probably bringing down the Government. Add the fact that Her Majesty (under the guidance of Prince Albert) was opposed to recognition of the Confederacy and no politician as seasoned as Palmerstone would even consider it. |
uglyfatbloke | 16 Aug 2015 3:24 a.m. PST |
There was – as rmaker says – no real prospect of British intervention for both military and political reasons. There was even less of a chance that England would become involved …the terms 'English' and 'British' do not mean the same thing in the same way that 'United States' and 'New York' do not mean the same thing. |
Bill N | 16 Aug 2015 10:52 a.m. PST |
Britain was going to act in Britain's interests. If events reached the point where a Confederate victory appeared probable, regardless of the slavery issue and Albert's sentiments, no British government was going to sit on the sidelines and risk losing the Confederacy as a trading partner. If Britain got involved, Napoleon III would have as well. The likely course of events would have been an offer of mediation, coupled with the threat of military intervention to break the blockade. If we assume events progressed beyond that stage to a land war, then it is my guess French land forces are either serving along side of the British in Canada or are providing contingents to serve with the Confederate army. Until the French secure Mexico they don't have an independent base to operate against the United States on land. As for a French land grab, that would almost certainly have to be done in conjunction with the British. |
Nick Stern | 16 Aug 2015 12:23 p.m. PST |
IMO, France and Britain acting together during the ACW is not out of the question. The two powers joined forces as recently as the 2nd Opium War in 1860 to fight the Imperial Chinese. And the British joined the French and Spanish in sending armed forces (in the British case, Royal Marines) to Vera Cruz in 1861 to try and secure payment of interest on the Juarez government's international debts. Also, I think a hypothetical invasion of the north eastern US via Canada is missing the fact that the US and Britain had almost gone to war in the San Juan Islands off Washington State during the "Pig War" of 1859. You can still see the military outposts of both sides on San Juan Island. During the Crimean War, the French and British only nibbled at Russian Territory, in the Crimea and the Baltic, so there's no reason to suppose that some limited action, for example, attacking a small outpost of the US, like the San Juan Islands or even a city on the coast of Washington or Oregon could not have been chosen in order to "teach the US a lesson". My favorite "What If?" is the combined British and French Pacific fleets attacking San Francisco in order to capture the gold and silver from the California and Nevada mines. The threat seemed so real to the US that they built the masonry fort at Fort Point, completed in 1861, which still stands under the Golden Gate Bridge. |
Charlie 12 | 16 Aug 2015 3:52 p.m. PST |
"Canada is closer to the UK than the Crimea, and is friendly territory. Logistics is simply not an issue, the UK can ship vast quantities of material across the Atlantic at the drop of a hat." And the US Navy could send a handful of cruisers to interdict those supplies. Wouldn't take much to send the investors at Lloyd's screaming to Whitehall. No matter the counterfactual rumblings (some bordering on fantasy) to the contrary, there is no real possibility of a British intervention. It just doesn't make sense politically, economically or militarily. As for Anglo/Franco cooperation in Mexico; the moment the UK and Spain discovered Napoleon III's plan to conqueror Mexico, they left the coalition (wanting nothing to do with France's imperial folly). And yes, the French sent a large naval force to Mexico in 1862… where it promptly got laid out by yellow fever (Tampico and Veracruz can be brutal in summer). And never recovered until it was withdrawn to France. As for France's sending an army north to aid the CSA; by 1863 France had more than enough war on its hands in Mexico and was sending no one north of the border (through Republican controlled areas). All this said, from a wargaming standpoint, there really is nothing to stop adding the 42nd Highlanders to Pickett's division at Gettysburg, or The Guards to Hood's division at Antietam. And it might even be fun. But don't try to convince me with some hand waving, pseudo-historical reasoning that it could actually happen. 'Cuz it ain't so…. |
Charlie 12 | 16 Aug 2015 4:14 p.m. PST |
"Also, I think a hypothetical invasion of the north eastern US via Canada is missing the fact that the US and Britain had almost gone to war in the San Juan Islands off Washington State during the "Pig War" of 1859. " There was no chance of the US and UK going to war over the "Pig War". When the matter came to the attention of both London and Washington, the response was to diffuse the situation as quickly as possible. In fact, when the British governor of Vancouver requested the local British RN commander to land marines and push the US troops out of San Juan, he refused stating "two great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig" was foolish. |
badger22 | 16 Aug 2015 6:37 p.m. PST |
And good old George Picket was there for that one. I have done a gome for the Pig war, by pushing it a lot, i managed to get a company a side on the board. Fun, but as castal2 says, Fatasy. owen |
Mac1638 | 17 Aug 2015 5:14 a.m. PST |
Sorry Uglyfatbloke, the use of England and Britain have been used and interchanged to mean England, Britain or even Great Britain from the start, you will find it used in news papers, books of fiction and nonfiction throughout the 18th,19th and most of the 20th centuries. I am not saying it is right, it get on my nerves as well, It can be confusing when reading first hand accounts and reports. |
uglyfatbloke | 18 Aug 2015 3:15 a.m. PST |
You're quite right Mac; the terms have been used interchangeably since the Treaty of 1707 by those that don't know better, but it's still wrong in the same way that an armoured car is not a tank. If we're going to discuss history we might as well get the terms right; it does n't cost anything. |