Poll: Could the CSA Have Won?

[usertron2020]

I have no doubt the RN would defeat the USN in an open sea battle, should the USN be so foolish as to offer one. Close to North America, though, I think the ironclads would be a nasty surprise to the RN. Not enough to stop them the RN, mind you, but a nasty surprise nonetheless.

So then the Brits land their 10,000 emergency troops in Canada. Tough, veterens of the Imperial Colonial wars, and with the avid support of the Canadian populace. And outnumbered about 8 to 1 by the US Army of the St. Lawrence (or whatever). The US Army would be blooded, led my experienced (if not overwhelmingly skilled) officers, and have lots of firepower. A small British Army used to brush wars against natives in the Empire would get slaughtered.

Yes, Britain could raise larger armies. Yes, Britain was strong. But how long is Britain prepared for Shiloh-like casualties to support slavery? How long until the USN did iron seagoing warships? How long until Britain's carefully maintained concert of Europe began to falter?

After a while, the British would find this war expensive and with very little return. They would look for a way out. And, there would be a price associated with that way out.

Mike Turcotte

Actually, this is not true. The British have plenty of experience in modern warfare from fighting in the Crimean War. And awesome manpower reserves to call upon. Plus, the RN had it's own ironclads. A lot bigger, and far more seaworthy.

 

[mowque]

Actually, this is not true. The British have plenty of experience in modern warfare from fighting in the Crimean War. And awesome manpower reserves to call upon. Plus, the RN had it's own ironclads. A lot bigger, and far more seaworthy.

The French had them too, if I recall? Not the mention the British can REALLY turn the screws fiscally on the USA.

 

[MrP]

I have no doubt the RN would defeat the USN in an open sea battle, should the USN be so foolish as to offer one. Close to North America, though, I think the ironclads would be a nasty surprise to the RN. Not enough to stop them the RN, mind you, but a nasty surprise nonetheless.

So then the Brits land their 10,000 emergency troops in Canada. Tough, veterens of the Imperial Colonial wars, and with the avid support of the Canadian populace. And outnumbered about 8 to 1 by the US Army of the St. Lawrence (or whatever). The US Army would be blooded, led my experienced (if not overwhelmingly skilled) officers, and have lots of firepower. A small British Army used to brush wars against natives in the Empire would get slaughtered.

Yes, Britain could raise larger armies. Yes, Britain was strong. But how long is Britain prepared for Shiloh-like casualties to support slavery? How long until the USN did iron seagoing warships? How long until Britain's carefully maintained concert of Europe began to falter?

After a while, the British would find this war expensive and with very little return. They would look for a way out. And, there would be a price associated with that way out.

Mike Turcotte

I incline myself to the position that this war is too expensive both for the Union and for the British Empire. It does not matter what occurs militarily, since the financial (and gunpowder-based) repercussions on the Union outweigh such events to a remarkable degree - at least, if one accepts previous analyses on this site (and elsewhere) of a possible Trent War. Lincoln and Seward accepted such likelihoods themselves IOTL. So I do not believe a war is at all probable. In the unlikely event that one does occur, then one must delicately, deliberately and painfully curve one's arm around the financial column in order to compose the scripts for naval and military affairs.

 

[Xen]

Its quite possible the Confederates could win a major battle (Antietam) in 1862 and go on to occupy a northern city like in TL-191, although Baltimore makes more strategic sense than Philadelphia. This severs the national capital from the rest of the country and with an election coming up in November then the Copperhead Democrats could theoretically take a commanding control over Congress. Old Uncle Abe will have likely be impeached on trumped up charges or even one of his war measures. The Copperheads could make the Union Army fight the war on a shoestring budget too until they take control of the White House and end the conflict. President Hamlin being all the wise to this decides instead to negotiate a peace far more suitable to the United States.

People seem to forget about the mid-terms

 

[Orry]

I voted 2.

3 is 'possible' but it would have taken a whole host of POD's many very minor but in total amounting to something that was ASB.

As I see it the main problem that the confederates have is that the Union can replace almost any loss of equipment whilst the confederates are always struggling against supply issues - even if they had had an efficient supply service (which they did not)

IF there is a British intervention it would be better to be 'just' a breach of the blockade of the South. NOT a declaration of war but escorting British merchant ships loaded with munitions etc into southern ports - forcing the Union navy to be the aggressor if they are going to stop them. Such limited action would make it 'difficult' for the Union to justify land action against Canada and any such action would again lead to the Union as being seen by world oppinion to be the aggressor.

A well supplied confederate army would not have had to fight at Gettysburg for example and might have been able to hold on long enough for war weariness to becomae a factor in the North.

I am sure that others will now seek to show that everything I have writen is totally ASB but hey - I am talking more about the confederacy not losing rather than winning. They 'win' by still being in existance when the North gets fed up of playing the game.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

I have no doubt the RN would defeat the USN in an open sea battle, should the USN be so foolish as to offer one. Close to North America, though, I think the ironclads would be a nasty surprise to the RN. Not enough to stop them the RN, mind you, but a nasty surprise nonetheless.

So then the Brits land their 10,000 emergency troops in Canada. Tough, veterens of the Imperial Colonial wars, and with the avid support of the Canadian populace. And outnumbered about 8 to 1 by the US Army of the St. Lawrence (or whatever). The US Army would be blooded, led my experienced (if not overwhelmingly skilled) officers, and have lots of firepower. A small British Army used to brush wars against natives in the Empire would get slaughtered.

Yes, Britain could raise larger armies. Yes, Britain was strong. But how long is Britain prepared for Shiloh-like casualties to support slavery? How long until the USN did iron seagoing warships? How long until Britain's carefully maintained concert of Europe began to falter?

After a while, the British would find this war expensive and with very little return. They would look for a way out. And, there would be a price associated with that way out.

Mike Turcotte

As has been said above the British and France had their own ironclads and much better navies etc. Also the British do have well trained and experienced troops/generals.

Don't forget that while the Union may have quite a few troops, but the British will set up a counter-blockade of the Union (possibly) and also the Union will be fighting two fronts while focussing on the Confederacy.

It's not supporting slavery so much, more keeping the Yorkshire textile industry going. Though I understand your argument.

With the Union becoming highly isolated, and likely under its own mini-blockade I can't see this war being anywhere near as bloody or long as OTL.

 

[Iguana]

No. The Confederacy was doomed.

Not to belabor all the obvious reasons given in the this thread and other threads, but another reason I don't remember seeing:

In the book "Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky, he detailed how the South's primary source of mined salt was in a valley in what became West Virginia. The Confederacy put a half-hearted effort in retaking the region, but withdrew.

If the Confederacy cannot be bothered to take more than token attempts to retain such a vital resource, and waste time, blood and treasure on adventures such as invading Kentucky, how can it possibly have the strategic savvy to win a war for independence?

 

[Mikestone8]

Its quite possible the Confederates could win a major battle (Antietam) in 1862 and go on to occupy a northern city like in TL-191, although Baltimore makes more strategic sense than Philadelphia. This severs the national capital from the rest of the country and with an election coming up in November then the Copperhead Democrats could theoretically take a commanding control over Congress. Old Uncle Abe will have likely be impeached on trumped up charges or even one of his war measures. The Copperheads could make the Union Army fight the war on a shoestring budget too until they take control of the White House and end the conflict. President Hamlin being all the wise to this decides instead to negotiate a peace far more suitable to the United States.

People seem to forget about the mid-terms

The Democrats (Copperhead or otherwise) may take the House but have no prayer of taking the Senate. That was chosen by State Legislatures which had themselves been elected months before or even the previous year - and which were overwhelmingly Republican. Hence the Senate chosen at mid-term contained 42 Republicans to only 12 Democrats. Fat chance of them convicting Lincoln even if a Democratic House impeaches him.

Also, of course, even the new House doesn't meet until December 1863, So Lincoln has a whole year in which to retrieve the military situation.

 

[jkay]

There is a way, IMHO, for the rebs to've won - the more so since it was an era of the defensive advantage. One big key is that the Union had better leadership. Lincoln chose his generals by wins, while the mediocre Davis let seniority rule. So, we ended up with the great Grant and Sherman in charge, while their Forrest and Jackson and Longstreet only had limited commands. Thanks, Davis!

So, you could slow the war alot or even have the south surviving with different presidential choices. There's a good TL that does exactly that - "Go South, Young Abe".

Now, while that's certainly not ASB, it is unlikely, because oligarchic cultures choose leaders generally worse than democratic ones.

 

[papermario]

THE TRENT AFFAIR

Does anyone else remember this? It seems common consensus that Britain and France are needed to support the C.S.A., that France wanted to join in, and that France needed Britain's support to do it. The British weren't for the war, but their opinions definitely started shifting during the Affair. Simply have the Affair go south (get it?) and you've got Britain and France beating the crap out of America.

I didn't think about ironclads-but can they work well in the open ocean? If not, then I'm willing to bet New England would want to end the war ASAP with the Brits both pouring in from Canada and razing Boston, New York, Baltimore, and every other port. Not to mention that considering how close the fighting was to Washington, you could surround the capital with an ocean invasion through Baltimore (an ironic take on the Revolutionary War and its American victory through the French fleet?)

 

[Saladan]

Personally I feel that the only chance the CSA had at winning the war was to get british and French support (something which as others have said is borderline if not outright ASB).

It's population and industry were far too small to realistically win. Even if the south wins more battles it still can't replace those men and if I recall correctly the south won every battle in the first year.

Plus theres the fact the the Confederate government couldn't even manage things well enough to make use of whatever resources they had. Consider that during the war several governors refused to send reinforcements out of fear that the national government was trying to take away the states power during their own damn war of independence.

 

[Saladan]

THE TRENT AFFAIR

Does anyone else remember this? It seems common consensus that Britain and France are needed to support the C.S.A., that France wanted to join in, and that France needed Britain's support to do it. The British weren't for the war, but their opinions definitely started shifting during the Affair. Simply have the Affair go south (get it?) and you've got Britain and France beating the crap out of America.

I didn't think about ironclads-but can they work well in the open ocean? If not, then I'm willing to bet New England would want to end the war ASAP with the Brits both pouring in from Canada and razing Boston, New York, Baltimore, and every other port. Not to mention that considering how close the fighting was to Washington, you could surround the capital with an ocean invasion through Baltimore (an ironic take on the Revolutionary War and its American victory through the French fleet?)

The problem with all that is that both the French and British populations were vehemently anti slavery and very much pro union. And so was Canada's population and government. As others have already said if the British and French governments are stupid enough to actually support the confederacy then they can expect serious backlash from their own populations.

And while I'm not sure about the accuracy of this info I've heard occasionally that the Canadian government told London that they would refuse to support any war against the US largely because of how important US trade was to Canada's economy.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

The Union would win pertty much no matter what, barring no ASBs. Foreign intervention is extremely unlikely, as despite Napoleon's and Palmseton's undoubted willingness to involve themselves in other countries' affairs; they would lack support at home and wouldn't have the abuility to project power in a sufficient manner to deal with the USA.

You can argue that Britain's economy was far larger than America's at the time-all true. However, if you have a gallon of water and pour it through a tiny little spout, it won't fill a basin in short order. Britain may have advanced industry, but it wouldn';t dedicated itself to a fully industrial war. If that was so, the Crimean War would have been very different indeed. Britain didn't have the stomach for inter-state, industrial war, but rather limited wars of gunboat diplomacy that wouldn't cost much and which would colour bits of the map pink.

Furthermore, even if the British and French did join in, they'd not be able to do much. Canada would hardly be overrun by American troops, but a pre-emptive attack would severaly inhibit British logistics, especially if the St Lawrence weer blockaded. Plus, Britain and France would never intervene on the same side. They spent the entire time in a state of mutual hatred and mistrust-look at the Fashoda Incident. Not exactly 1962, but still scary. In 1890 people thought the Great War would be between Britain and France, they hated each other so much. So if Britani joined the CSA, France would probably back the USA and that wouldn't be good for anyone-probably something the British and French considerd and decided that a war wasn't worth it and that they could get cotton from Egypt (which they were colonising) or India (which Britain had secured fully after the Mutiny).

 

[MrP]

The problem with all that is that both the French and British populations were vehemently anti slavery and very much pro union. And so was Canada's population and government. As others have already said if the British and French governments are stupid enough to actually support the confederacy then they can expect serious backlash from their own populations.

And while I'm not sure about the accuracy of this info I've heard occasionally that the Canadian government told London that they would refuse to support any war against the US largely because of how important US trade was to Canada's economy.

Conversely, I have heard that the anger of Britons over an unresolved Trent Affair would have given Palmerston carte blanche for Milne to smash the blockade. I think it would be wonderful if someone could correlate all the information from this side of the Atlantic and from the other to render as accurate a picture as possible of both the sensibilities and the capabilities of the various factions involved. I am not volunteering to do so myself, mind.

 

[MrP]

So if Britain joined the CSA, France would probably back the USA and that wouldn't be good for anyone-probably something the British and French considered and decided that a war wasn't worth it and that they could get cotton from Egypt (which they were colonising) or India (which Britain had secured fully after the Mutiny).

From what little I have read, I was under the impression that the then-Napoleon was rather keen on staying on the good side of us Rosbifs.

 

[MNP]

Can someone explain to me why Britain's navy is considered an auto-win here?

The only book I've read on it was the Dreadnought book and the impression I got from that of the RN at mid century was decidedly unflattering.

 

[RaptorX]

I think the CSA could have won, but it would have needed help for that to happen. I mean, they never could have taken DC. They barely could invade the north.

 

[Torn but Flying]

THE TRENT AFFAIR

Does anyone else remember this? It seems common consensus that Britain and France are needed to support the C.S.A., that France wanted to join in, and that France needed Britain's support to do it. The British weren't for the war, but their opinions definitely started shifting during the Affair. Simply have the Affair go south (get it?) and you've got Britain and France beating the crap out of America.

I didn't think about ironclads-but can they work well in the open ocean? If not, then I'm willing to bet New England would want to end the war ASAP with the Brits both pouring in from Canada and razing Boston, New York, Baltimore, and every other port. Not to mention that considering how close the fighting was to Washington, you could surround the capital with an ocean invasion through Baltimore (an ironic take on the Revolutionary War and its American victory through the French fleet?)

The fact that even Palmerston - the man who once ordered the blockading and attacking of Greece because a British national had his shop burnt down in Athens* - didn't use the Trent Affair as an excuse to launch an intervention demonstrates how impossible it was to get Britain involved. This man was the embodiment of gunboat-backed prestige diplomacy, and even he turned the other cheek. You'd basically need the Union to directly attack Canada to force a reaction.

Here's another example - the Lancashire cotton mill workers, the people who suffered as a result of the lack of Southern cotton, protested massively against the idea of Britain joining the war on the side of the Confederacy.

It annoys me that most Southern-victory TLs rely on the intervention of Britain, because this would not have happened. Sure there were a few exceptions, like Colonel Fremantle, but the overwhelming majority, for pragmatic and ideological reasons, were 100% against intervention.

* The Don Pacifico Affair

 

[67th Tigers]

The fact that even Palmerston - the man who once ordered the blockading and attacking of Greece because a British national had his shop burnt down in Athens* - didn't use the Trent Affair as an excuse to launch an intervention demonstrates how impossible it was to get Britain involved. This man was the embodiment of gunboat-backed prestige diplomacy, and even he turned the other cheek. You'd basically need the Union to directly attack Canada to force a reaction.

No, war orders had been issued. Lord Lyons was to simply give the "go signal" to Milne etc. if the US refused terms. London had decided to go to war.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

I agree that the main bulk of people were against British/French intervention in the Civil War, but I do think if a couple of things were changed we'd see a slightly more positive response to such an action by the people. For example, if the United States had in fact started the war then they could be perceived as more of a threat to Canada. Or at least the South may be romanticized slightly as a state that wishes to throw of the shackles of an oppressive government/US (ironic with slavery).