British side with Confederacy in 1862

Great Debates
21

The Confederacy would very likely have done better. The British would have broken the Union blockade and let them purchase arms. It might have subsidized the Confederate cause as well.

But the end result probably would have been the same. The United States had more people and more industry than the Confederate States - the North was always going to win in the end if it was willing to keep fighting long enough. And foreign intervention would have been a major push in keeping the war alive.

And the southern states came from much of the same background as the northern ones. They also has a large amount of anglophobia (it’s worth noting how much they invoked the American Revolution). Finding themselves fighting as a proxy for the British Empire would have raised some domestic unrest. Encounters between common soldiers from the two armies might have caused comparisons to be made between the governments in Richmond and London - ruling elites sending the common people off to fight for privileges they didn’t get a share of.

22

Westboro Baptist… uh… Trans-Sexuals…
Warner Brothers… Teh Suxx0rs…

I give up. :confused:

23

The union had industrial capacity to match Britain, and would have given them a run for their money if they attempted to blockade northern ports. British ships would have been put to better use patroling confederate waters and preventing the union blockade. There’s absolutely no way the British could have made a significant impact on land, either. The most the confederacy could hope for would be a longer grind before being ultimately defeated by a bigger economy, more soldiers, better industrialization, and moral superiority.

All the confederacy would have gotten from English and French support would be a temporarily weakened blockade, at extreme, enormous expense. Maintaining a major naval presence half a world away (and surely suffering military casualties!) for several years in support of a rebel faction that offered no real economic or political advantage to support just wasn’t something the British could realistically do. And even if they could, the confederacy would still eventually grind to a halt economically.

24

War Between the States is my guess.

25

Ah. :o You know, in the meantime, I also thought of, er, ‘Win Back The South’.

26

I can think of many ways that the war could have been prolonged by the South. I think that if Davis had accepted Braxton Bragg’s resignation at Chattanooga on one of the several occasions when he offered it and replaced him with somebody remotely competent (or at least sane) who would have taken back Chattanooga and made a much hotter firewall between mountains and Atlanta, that alone would have added months or even years to the war. However, and I’ve studied the matter for years and from many different angles, I honestly cannot imagine any situation by which the South ever possibly could have won militarily- none. (By victory, I’m talking "forced a complete withdrawal of Union troops and formal recognition of the CSA by the USA as an independent and autonomous state- that would have lasted more than 3 weeks; for one thing, the only way to have done that would have been to massacre Union troops, and yet that would only have made the North [who was still a thousand times better equipped to fight a war] all the more resolved to keep fighting and bring out more cannons/more men/more everything that they had and the Confederacy didn’t.)

Even if England had aided the CSA, there’s no way they could have spared the troops and expense to invade the north. The most they probably would have done would have been money, and perhaps a few military advisors (passed off as rogues). There’s simply no way they would have sent any type of serious invasion force; they didn’t want a war with the USA anymore than D.C. wanted one with them as it would have cost billions and been almost unwinnable on both sides. (The USA population was 32 million and spread from coast to coast; the worst the UK could have done would have been to harass the coasts, and I can’t even see them doing that.
The best case scenario for a British alliance would have been for the UK to sacrifice a merchant vessel (or two or three) to the Union blockade, and then raise 9 kinds of hell and use it as justification to open fire on some blockades. However, even if the entire Union blockade was lifted, once again I really can’t see the South winning once the Union decided to fight. (Running the blockade certainly wasn’t a cakewalk, but it also wasn’t as difficult as its reputation; in some areas more than half of ships got through almost until the end of the war.)

The only way a CSA victory of any kind could have been achieved would have been diplomatically, which would have meant both Davis and Lincoln would have to die. Davis wasn’t going to budge on the issues of slavery or self-determination, and Lincoln wasn’t going to budge on the issue of a state’s right (or lack of) to dissolve the Union. Perhaps England could have brokered a truce, but that’s about the extent of their possible assistance.

27

People like to forget that the UK did aid the CSA- they were flogging them guns (particularly Enfield 1853 rifled muskets) and buying pretty much anything that could be smuggled past the Union Blockade; much of which was being run by British ships because there was the 19th Century equivalent of “Phat Cash” to be made by doing so.

28

The HMS Victoria was an example of what I called a “Line of Battle Ship”.

Wooden ship with steam power for auxiliary propulsion. No armored citidel. That came with HMS Warrior.

29

What has to happen is, Lincoln has to lose the '64 election. McClellan might have said he wanted to reunite the country, but he’d be up against giant pressure by peace Democrats to let the Confederacy go.

30

Right…but Warrior and Black Prince (Prince of Wales?) WERE armored battleships with rifled cannon and they pretty much outclassed anything in the world at that time. Plus I think most of the unarmored British steam powered ships of the line outclassed similar US steam and sail powered ships, at least at what would have been the start of the war. I don’t think the US navy even had any armored frigates at the start of the war…just some unarmored steam sloops and such. Monitor hadn’t been built yet afaik, and even when it was it was mainly designed for river and port defense…not blue water operations (which is why it eventually sunk…no freeboard and a storm hit it while it was being towed, again IIRC).

-XT

31

That was the presumption in another Harrison series, the Stars and Stripes Trilogy.

The Royal Navy tries to go head to head with the Monitor with their own ironclad HMS Warrior. The Monitor simply destroys its rudder then circles the ship pounding its iron cladding to pieces. Is that a realistic proposition for a battle between the two ships?

32

There’s an upcoming book on this subject, *Britannia’s Fist: From Civil War to World War: An Alternate History * by Peter G. Tsouras, that’s due for release this summer.

33

Actually, the British were somewhat alarmed with the growing size and power of the U.S. steam frigates. (If you need a cite, I can get one out of my books in about 8 hours, or so. :slight_smile: )

The U.S.S. Merrimack, for example: USS Merrimack (1855) - Wikipedia

Granted, the HMS Warrior was built in direct response to the growing threat of the French navy. But the British were also keeping an eye on the USN.

By the way, the original rifled breechloaders that the Warrior was equipped with proved to be of poor design and effectiveness, and were replaced with an older, but more reliable and effective (in terms of penetration power) muzzle loader, the 68 pounder, in the later half of the 60’s. My book is back at home, but I think that the breechloader (of a different model) was not reintroduced until sometime in the 70’s…

34

What about the dominoes that would fall if the war widened beyond the USA/CSA?

The first casualty would be the Monroe Doctrine.

Out of sheer numbers, the British might have had to send its Indian Army across the Pacific. As noted above, this army was a shambles following the Sepoy Mutiny, but plenty of senior officers would argue that a nice little expedition would be the best medicine.

When the Mexicans defaulted on their loans, not just the French but also the British and the Spanish sent warships. Only the French stayed, but in our scenario, the British would not have left as they did, with the expectation that the US would assert the Monroe Doctrine and send the French back home; relieving England of her traditional chore of thwarting France (plus, Victoria personally liked Louis Napoleon).

So the Indian Army would land alongside the French at Monterrey and move north to assist the Confederates. This would take the pressure off Canadian troops on the other border.

Still, Canada is hard-pressed, and the Red River Rebellion burst out and is either successful, splitting Canada, or is quelled even more brutally than it actually was, making Canada a nastier place than it’s become

The Russians could get pulled in (in fact, their fleet did make an extended port call in NYC), looking to reverse their losses from the Crimean War, and seeing India wide open.

Faced with the prospect of World War One in the 1860’s, Prussia steps in to play the “Honest Broker.” This is great, because Bismarck is in charge of Germany as it steps to the forefront of international affairs, instead of Wilhelm II. Prestige instead of war attracts the small German states into its empire, leaving no need for wars with Denmark, Austria, France and then 1914.

(OK, that last one was a stretch, but consider this):

The actual WWI was prolonged by the money and material flowing in from a strong USA, as well as setting the stage for WWII by the meddling of (Virginia-born) Woodrow Wilson. In a divided USA/CSA, Wilson would have had the same authority in Europe as the President of Argentina.

If all that fell into place, then the world would have been a better place today if the British had declared war on the USA in the 1860’s

35

I like “what if” battles. :slight_smile:

Warrior is steam powered, capable of reaching 13-14 knots. Capable of sailing in heavier seas than the Monitor due to higher freeboard. Armed with 68 pounders. Dunno if those can penetrate Monitor’s turret, which was 8 to 9 inches of iron. (The Monitor was very low in the water, the majority of the hull below the water line. The guns of the Warrior would probably never hit the Monitor’s hull.)

Monitor is capable of only 8 knots, and needed smoother water than Warrior. 11inch Dahlgrens in a turret, which would help if the ship gets out-maneuvered by an enemy.

If Warrior attempted to engage Monitor in shallow water of the eastern US seaboard, where she may not have the freedom to maneuver, it could be an even match. (Especially if Monitor is defending, and backed up by, a nearby U.S. fort.)

If Warrior caught the Monitor in transit on the open ocean, I think Monitor is in serious trouble. (Warrior had a reinforced bow. She might have had to resort to ramming the Monitor to actually sink it, due to the low profile of the US ship.)

36

Just finished the last book of the Gettysburg,Grant Comes East, Never Call Retreat trilogy by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen. Damn fine books. I know many here are tolerent of those with differing view points and will not dismiss the books because of the name of the first author. Both authors are Ph.D historians and Forstchen is a very good writer. The books are very well researched and quite moving. It does show a Republican president in a good light if you can handle that. It’s Lincoln.

The first book:

Shows a plausible way for Lee to win at Gettysburg and then explores how the campaign would play out after. As for the OP the books show the South hoping for help from Europe but not expecting it from England due to slavery. After taking Baltimore they do hope to get support from France but feel they will not offer much help, maybe ships to New Orleans since France was busy with Mexico at the time. Not enough to change things much.

37

I can’t see how they could be alarmed…concerned, perhaps, but alarmed? The RN was many times larger than the Union navy, with more modern ships. I don’t know how the US Navy crews stacked up to the RN crews (my guess is they were probably trained less well and led less well but were probably better over all anyway, but that’s just a guess), but certainly the RN had a lot more and bigger ships.

That is exactly what I think the Brits would have done. Anyone looking at the Monitor could see that it had precious little freeboard. Hell, Warrior wouldn’t have been out sailing by herself for that matter (while Monitor may have been out alone)…were I the British senior officer I would have ordered Warrior to stand off and pound Monitor with it’s big guns while I brought in one of my other steam ships (preferably a Frigate) to basically side swipe Monitor…nearly anything would have tipped the ship over and sent her to the bottom.

What were the size of the guns used against Monitor in it’s few engagements in the real universe? Did anyone ever hit her with guns the size of Warrior?

-XT

38

The Monitor was only the first and least of the Ironclads. Later models rapidly improved. And few guns then in use aboard ship could puncture her armor, except maybe her own custom weapons.

39

Still, Britain had to guard a worldwide Empire. This would have spread those numbers out some.

CSS Virginia hit Monitor in their famous battle (the Battle of Hampton Roads). Almost all shots clanged off the turret. The Virginia had a mixture of 6, 7, and 9 inch smoothbores. Ranges were very short at times.

I can’t find out much more, but this page http://www.monitorcenter.org/history/chronology/chronology2.php states:

From here: Battle of Hampton Roads - Wikipedia

Note: Minnesota was the name of a USN steam frigate present at the Battle of Hampton Roads. USS Minnesota (1855) - Wikipedia

I wonder if it was a case of “friendly fire”…

40

Now what would have really changed history would have been if the Confederacy had aligned with Captain Nemo. The blockade would have taken about 10 minutes to clear, and then you could move on D.C…