historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

JIMF RE:Trent-dummnutzer 6/9/2005 6:26:29 PM

Yes, Prince Albert's intervention at a time when his health was eroding may have saved the U.S. In 1862 the Army of Northern Virginia generally had somewhere in the general vicinity of 50-60,000 troops. McClellan and his intelligence aide Pinkerton frequently put the number at 200,000 or more. Lincoln said that if he gave McClellan half a million men, he would claim Lee had a million and ask him for more. Two of the "less than impressive" Northern Generals, Burnside and Hooker ended up as observers with the Prussian Army in the 1870 War with France. During the seige of Paris they advised their Prussian hosts not to have any moral qualms about bombarding populated areas. Since Prussia won the war I doubt if they took much, if any advice from their American guests.

Quote Reply

JIMF RE:historical: Moral Angle-Correction 6/9/2005 6:49:38 PM

When I said strong pro-union sentiment I meant that significant percentages of the population in most southern states opposed secession. There were Southerners who served in the Union Army, Winfield Scott for example. There were also Northerners who served with the Confederacy.

Quote Reply

Cato RE:Trent 6/9/2005 6:59:08 PM

If things had gotten hot following the Trent Affair, it would have been dicey. However, a couple of things... Britain and France had just finished a couple of wars apiece in the years preceeding the American Civil War, and neither looked like World Cup quality teams. The Crimean War proved a hollow victory for the British, who displayed enormous courage, but total incompetance at the top. 25,000 casualties all told, and this was in Britian's back yard. This was also the time of the Indian Mutiny, a particularly brutal affair that led to the dissolution of the East Indian Company, and the direct garrisoning of India by British Army regular troops. The French fought in the Crimea, but also in the Franco Austrian War, where the Battle of Solferino cost the French and Sardinians 17,000 casualties. Following this one battle, Napoleon called the whole thing off. Hardly the type of leader who would subject his troops to what even early in the war was a meatgrinder battlefield. British Imperial commitments precluded the mustering of a serious expeditionary force, especially in the face of (1)another series of insurrections in Ireland (the French did it during the Revolution)and(2) Russian demonstration in Afghanistan (everybody's favorite Great Game). What the hell, we're talking what if, right? Shelby Foote (no Yankee lover himself) always maintained the North fought with one hand behind its back being reluctant to impose conscription, and when finally doing so, in a half @ssed way (purchased deferments). This, by the way was the source of most of the discontent that manifested itself in the Draft Riots in 1863: rich whites could buy their way out, blacks were not draftable, and the poor Micks wound up catching it. This combined with the political general officer appointmens early in the war made for catastrophe. In the face of a hostile Britain, the other hand would come out. In the scenario you describe, I don't see how the Union could be knocked out in the first year of the war, and in that year the cream would have risen to the top (i.e. the nobody generals, Grant Sherman Sherridan) that much more quickly. As for a British blocade, sure. I think that it would have come to Warrior and her sister ships slugging it out off Hampton roads with the Monitor. I agree that the Union fleet would have been broken early on, but wouldn't that very fact have banished resistance to the Ironclad? Britain simply had too many commitments to contemplate fighting a total war in North America, especially fighting an aroused American public. Remember, we beat the British in New Orleans after the damn war had ended. And they even burned down our capital. Cato

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Cato: Dont get me started on Ferguson... 6/9/2005 7:46:31 PM

Cato: In all fairness, for their deeds at Amritsar our deeds at Calcutta hardly makes any contrast to a whitewash... its accepted that both are human beings. But what is still not accepted is that around the time of Calcutta and Ramghar we at least knew our man on the spot (Siraj ud Dhaula and Warren Hastings respectively)... but by Amritsar, the man had faded into the grey mist more so than ever. I dont remember an Edmund Burke holding Dyer to justice... without a Burke for that situation Britain failed. Did having had an empire for so long make Britain fail? I think so. Britain didnt lose its democracy (it was never a republic), but it not produce anything new either as it once did. We are in Afghanistan to put Osman bin Laden, alQueda and their Taliban buddies out of commission... if Afghanistan wins something out of it by helping us, thats their lucky day. Same holds true for Iraq: we are there to make a statement of purpose. After boiling all other fat from the stew, we are left with the basic bones of the matter. Its that American version of face is not the jihadist bearded version - we can pick up our problems when we wish, and as we wish... starting the war in beginning of summer was the best part of the power projection. But unfortunately not disarming the Iraqi populace a la Japan circa 1946 was the major mistake IMO... but thats for another day, another time. IT has already been discussed, and no American seems to agree to that oversight for some reason.

Quote Reply

paul1970 RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/10/2005 9:35:28 AM

RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/9/2005 1:55:31 PM I'm not sure a blocade would have been all that successful. I don't know how the oaken ships and the iron men of the Royal navy would have fared against the iron hulled, steam driven, turreted Union monitors firing explosive shell. Would have given the R.N. real problems, at least in the littoral. Cato but Britain built ironclads before the Union... France built the first (Gloire) in 1859 and UK had the Warrior in 1861. these were not poxy monitors either. these were ocean going vessels. if they come across for the blockade then it is a bockade the Union could not break. There were also more of them and they were quiet heavily armed.

Quote Reply

paul1970 RE:Trent 6/10/2005 9:45:11 AM

didn't get up to someones else mentioning the Brit ironclads till now.... as with all hypothetical scenarios we have to take the situation with pinches of salt. the Union still wins if the British don't commit in any great way but... here comes the salt.... for whatever reason (big trade deals, other of terriories back to the crown as part of greater canada, hindsight that if something is not done about USA then Britain loses its state as biggest superpower, prime minister just does a nut job) Britain commits to support the Confederacy by force of arms with the intention of defeating the Union and breaking up a united country. ie the standard old British way of making sure nobody becomes as big as them.

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about. 6/10/2005 12:28:42 PM

given how seaworthy those monitors were i'd have to wonder just how big a threat they would have been had the blockading ships simply moved further out to sea. a close blockade of a port is more effective but once away from the coast i expect it would have been a replay pretty much of the naval war in 1812 with the american merchant fleet pretty much wiped out in a year or two.

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:historical: ACW eith Europe sniffing about._Population 6/10/2005 12:33:14 PM

remember the british could draw on the population of india for troops as well and there is/was nothing wrong with the quality of british trained indian troops. they might not have liked the weather in the northern US at times though.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:Tons of interesting stuff going on here.... 6/10/2005 12:37:14 PM

ACW historical: If you saw the ealier posts about population correlations (23m UK Pop, 22m US pop), then its easy to see that intervention in the civil war would have been dicey for the UK, even with Confederate support (9m pop), and the availability of the Irish Regiments. I can't see it taking less than a full mobilisation plus marshalling all of our industrial production to military output, and then you have to deploy the troops 3000 miles to Canada etc. Maybe we would have won, but the effort would have been enormous. In any case, it's not the way we work - I can't think of a major war that the UK has fought alone against similar sized powers for centuries. We always operate in coalitions - the last time I can think of was c.1660 seige of Boudeux. I'm not sure that the war we fought against the French in Canada counts as both sides were far from home, although someone might disagree. Can someone think of a later period? Moral angle of war: Peregrine Pike, I hear what you are saying about the reasons for intervention in Afghanistan, but don't ignore the power of hearts and minds. The Afghan people can be tough opponents as the Soviet Union found. I would suggest to you that by helping them, you will help yourselves, especially as the Taliban are still around. World opinion also counts for a lot if only because you can tap up other countries for peacekeeping troops. Also you have to consider the impact of the international media; for instance an unemployed 18 year old kid from Hebron with no hope and a bellyfull of frustrastion and hate can get on a plane with a vial of anthrax at seeing supposed "atrocities" (not a good example maybe but you know what I mean). An essential part of keeping all these people on your side is surely wrapped up in treating the local people justly. Prof Niall Ferguson: He's well known in the UK for being an imperial apologist. Although he's got a high profile, most people retain a more balanced view - we're well aware that the Empire involved both good (the creation of democracy in India) and bad (concentration camps in South Africa). My own view is that Empire as a concept can never be moral, even if you materially help the people you are ruling. This is because you are limiting their inalienable right to make their own decisions. The only exception would be self defence, in which case the threat should be removed with as little "collateral damage" as possible.

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:historical: Moral Angle 6/10/2005 12:38:08 PM

cato the english had their own civil war which was altogether a nastier affair. read somewhere they lost about 5x as many dead per capita as the acw caused. its funny now the acw is thought to be about freeing the slaves when that was actually an afterthought really.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT