The Britsh Supporting the confederates

[harryRIEDL]

well i was wondering whether if their was British envovement would push the balance of the conflict towards the confederates as they wouldn't have to blockade run and would have be able to buy a lot more euro weapons.

i have very little knowledge on the ACW

[67th Tigers]

well i was wondering whether if their was British envovement would push the balance of the conflict towards the confederates as they wouldn't have to blockade run and would have be able to buy a lot more euro weapons.

i have very little knowledge on the ACW

 

Depends on nature of the involvement. The British (and Europe in general) sold vast quantities of arms and military stores to both sides. The blockade didn't have much of an effect until fairly late war as more and more Confederate ports fell.

 

Perhaps a more serious effect would be if the British embargoed the export of military goods to the Union. All of the Unions supply of powder, most of it's uniforms, blankets etc. either came from the UK or were manufactured from British supplied materials. If the British maintain the embargo placed on such goods placed in December 1861 then the Union would have to conceed in May 1862 as it would have nothing available to fight with.

 

If the British had declared war on the Union, the Union is quite frankly screwed. The only coastal fort armed and capable of resisting a couple of RN cruisers is Ft Monroe; NY, Boston, Portland, Portsmouth etc. were effectively undefended, and could be invaded pretty much at will, they might have some success against Canada if they manage to cut the Beauharnois Canal, which IMHO is probably likely, they might be able to dominate the Lakes, although in all probibility the British would have raided the undefended Sackett's Harbor, and seized/ destroyed all the USNs military stores on the Lakes, denying both sides the Lakes.

[67th Tigers]

Ever heard of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company? What did they get exclusively from the British? Charcoal, saltpeter, or sulfur?

 

Saltpetre, before summer 1863 that is. Du Pont solved the problem of being entirely dependent of this strategic material, and managed to convert guano to saltpetre, importing that from Chile.

 

Post-war, DuPont broke the British monopoly on saltpetre export (since in the rest of Europe, saltpetre production was entirely controlled by governments, dependent upon manure beds)

 

see Chandler; DuPont, Dahlgren and the Civil War Nitre Shortage; Military Affairs Vol 13 No 3 Pg 142-149 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962591/96p00243/0

[Grant Whitley]

We had a long, interesting thread on this about 6-12 months ago, but damned if I can find it. Might have gotten pruned.

[Guest aevans]

Saltpetre, before summer 1863 that is. Du Pont solved the problem of being entirely dependent of this strategic material, and managed to convert guano to saltpetre, importing that from Chile.

 

Post-war, DuPont broke the British monopoly on saltpetre export (since in the rest of Europe, saltpetre production was entirely controlled by governments, dependent upon manure beds)

 

see Chandler; DuPont, Dahlgren and the Civil War Nitre Shortage; Military Affairs Vol 13 No 3 Pg 142-149 at http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962591/96p00243/0

 

Even in the case of a British blockade, you can find saltpeter on any farm that has a horse...

[67th Tigers]

Even in the case of a British blockade, you can find saltpeter on any farm that has a horse...

 

Not much though, and it's already in use as fertiliser.

 

To put this in numbers:

 

The Union had slightly less than 1,800 tons of nitre stocks at the start of the war, this last 6 months before stocks started to dwindle by November 61. Dupont, on special orders, then bought all the available nitre in the UK, which was empounded during the Trent Crisis.

 

This was optimistically reckoned to be 3 years supply, but in July 62 Dahlgren sought to obtain a seperate USN stock, buying all the available nitre in Britain and India again (1,000 tons). Attempts to buy nitre elsewhere (from Japan mainly) failed.

 

Dupont then worked out that Gunao and Potash can be reacted to make Nitre, but there was only one plant in the country capable of manufacturing it in bulk was the New Haven co., manufacturing ca 50 tons of Nitre a month.

 

To compare it to the Confederate Nitre Department once it got going (late 1862) was producing 30 tons a month.

 

CS usage was ca. 2,000 tons pa, US usage is higher, averaging 2,650 tons pa (see http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa...amp;pagenum=582 )

[Guest aevans]

Not much though, and it's already in use as fertiliser.

 

Locally, until there is a market for it to be used in gunpowder production.

[67th Tigers]

Locally, until there is a market for it to be used in gunpowder production.

 

Not really, it's a very small quantity, requires over a year before showing any results, and will see the farming industry collapse. Chalk that up with Foote's idea of conscripting the entire population....

[Guest aevans]

Not really, it's a very small quantity, requires over a year before showing any results, and will see the farming industry collapse. Chalk that up with Foote's idea of conscripting the entire population....

 

You're talking like it's an all-or-nothing proposition. The market would balance the various applications, the time required to achieve a sufficient amount of production would be buffered by existing stocks and -- in the case of a blockade, the only case in which this becomes an important question -- blockade runners would receive hansome enough profits to make up the difference. (Just ask any of the real world figures on which the character of Rhett Butler was based.)

[67th Tigers]

You're talking like it's an all-or-nothing proposition. The market would balance the various applications, the time required to achieve a sufficient amount of production would be buffered by existing stocks and -- in the case of a blockade, the only case in which this becomes an important question -- blockade runners would receive hansome enough profits to make up the difference. (Just ask any of the real world figures on which the character of Rhett Butler was based.)

 

The point being, there is no nitre production from manure in 1862, maybe there could be some by 1863.

 

Blockade running into the north is far more difficult than into the south, since you can't dash in from Bermuda or St Thomas, forcing the use of large oceangoing vessels, and, unlike USN vessels, the RN have searchlights (a new technology used in the Crimean War)

[Guest aevans]

The point being, there is no nitre production from manure in 1862, maybe there could be some by 1863.

 

And? The South isn't going to win the war in that time.

 

Blockade running into the north is far more difficult than into the south, since you can't dash in from Bermuda or St Thomas, forcing the use of large oceangoing vessels, and, unlike USN vessels, the RN have searchlights (a new technology used in the Crimean War)

 

Bring imports into the West Coast. Even without a transcontinental railroad there are established wagon routes and with a war going on plenty of manpower to protect them and even pioneer alternates during the winter.

[JWB]

67th Tigers

The point being, there is no nitre production from manure in 1862, maybe there could be some by 1863.

 

There was no production because it wasn't needed. It had been known for centuries that saltpeter can be produced from human wastes mixed with potash and lime then rotted and boiled etc. I can assure there is no shortage of that stuff.

[67th Tigers]

And? The South isn't going to win the war in that time.

 

Staying at war in this situation means the destruction of the US economy and a CS win by default. In the event of a war with the UK the Union has:

 

*no way of securing loans to pay for the troops

*lost it's largest non-borrowing income stream (the tariff)

*lost it's only source of copper (from Canada)

*lost most of it's iron and steel (which were imported from the UK)

*lost most of it's coal (much of which was imported from Nova Scotia)

*lost most of it's Sulfur supplies (which were imported from the Mediterranian)

*lost all of it's nitre supplies (which were imported from Britain/ British India)

*lost the Gold from California (by five layers* of British blockade it'll have to travel through to reach the Atlantic coast)

*lost it's source of Guano from Chile, leading to a collapse in agricultural production

 

The CSA in the meanwhile, can raise large revenues and loans from Europe once the blockade is gone, and acquire all the goods (military and otherwise) it requires.

 

Then British military actions must be considered, including (assuming Milne's warplan goes into operation) the loss of all of the ports on the Atlantic coast by capture or burning (even New York is effectively undefended during the Trent crisis), the capture of Washington by forcing Forts Monroe and Washington (to be combined with a Confederate Offensive against Washington, perhaps the most ropey aspect of the warplan). Even the best case scenario for the US in Canada (they somehow defeat the British spoiling attacks and raids, secure the Beauharnois Canal and gain control of both Lakes Erie and Ontario), the fortifications at Toronto, Quebec, Montreal and Kingston are formidible (with higher firepower densities than the Washington defences for example), and not likely to crack without prolong sieges, while the British can still supply their forces via the St Lawrence and older canals the north side of the St Lawrence.

 

I'm afriad any attempt to conduct a war with Britain and the CS simultaneously would have lead to a total collapse of the US, perhaps not just in military terms, but perhaps as a functioning state.

 

 

Bring imports into the West Coast. Even without a transcontinental railroad there are established wagon routes and with a war going on plenty of manpower to protect them and even pioneer alternates during the winter.

 

These being the routes that killed 1 in 3 transiting them, and that even Gold wasn't valuable enough to transport this way? Especially with the Indian threat....

 

 

 

 

* British squadrons at San Francisco, west coast of Panama, east coast of Panama, off the Florida Keys/ West Indies and finally the Atlantic blockading squadron itself

[Guest aevans]

Whatever. The Union was, of course, totally helpless because the British were omnipotent and the resources of an entire continent couldn't possibly support a war effort against an enemy supported by GB. Ri-i-ight...

[67th Tigers]

Whatever. The Union was, of course, totally helpless because the British were omnipotent and the resources of an entire continent couldn't possibly support a war effort against an enemy supported by GB. Ri-i-ight...

 

Or, "I can't refute it, but I don't want to believe it"....

 

The Union was no industrial powerhouse, being still essentially an agrarian economy with some industry in New England. The orefields which will drive major industrial expansion are in Minnesota (not far from the Canadian border), and aren't discovered until 1866. In 1860, the major source of income was the sale of Cotton abroad....

Edited September 29, 2007 by 67th Tigers

[Guest aevans]

Or, "I can't refute it, but I don't want to believe it"....

 

The Union was no industrial powerhouse, being still essentially an agrarian economy with some industry in New England. The orefields which will drive major industrial expansion are in Minnesota (not far from the Canadian border), and aren't discovered until 1866. In 1860, the major source of income was the sale of Cotton abroad....

 

How about I don't have to refute it, because it's preposterous on its face. It would take a major commitment of RN -- certainly more than Whitehall was likely to sign off on, given Imperial commitments -- to blockade all of the North American coast available to the US. And the idea that British troops from Canada would invade the US is plain silly. There weren't than many there to begin with, and mustering and moving them into position would be another major Empire project not likely to be indulged in.

 

As for the use of wagon trails across the prairie, it wouldn't be the most practical way of moving supplies, but it wouldn't be exactly as bad as you make it out to be. Commitment of an army corps to keeping the routes open would both be possible and constructive to the project.

[DKTanker]

The Union was no industrial powerhouse, being still essentially an agrarian economy with some industry in New England. The orefields which will drive major industrial expansion are in Minnesota (not far from the Canadian border), and aren't discovered until 1866. In 1860, the major source of income was the sale of Cotton abroad....

Remind us again. From where did all the iron for weapons and ironclad come? And exactly which union states were growing all this cotton that was the Unions major source of income?

[Guest aevans]

Remind us again. From where did all the iron for weapons and ironclad come? And exactly which union states were growing all this cotton that was the Unions major source of income?

 

When I was a little bitty baby,

My momma used to rock me in the cradle

In them old cotton fields back home.

It was down in Iowa,

Just about a mile from Indianola

In them old cotton fields back home...

 

[67th Tigers]

Remind us again. From where did all the iron for weapons and ironclad come? And exactly which union states were growing all this cotton that was the Unions major source of income?

 

Britain mostly, and a small quantity from the Upper Michigan ore lode processed in New England (an industry which pre-war was declining due to the lowering of the Tariff in 1857).

 

As for Cotton, none obviously, but in 1860 Cotton accounted for half the US exports by value, the balance being Tobacco, Rice, Corn and Wheat, again much of these being southern crops.

[67th Tigers]

How about I don't have to refute it, because it's preposterous on its face. It would take a major commitment of RN -- certainly more than Whitehall was likely to sign off on, given Imperial commitments -- to blockade all of the North American coast available to the US. And the idea that British troops from Canada would invade the US is plain silly. There weren't than many there to begin with, and mustering and moving them into position would be another major Empire project not likely to be indulged in.

 

It would take 65 ships to blockade the US, plus another 15 in the Gulf and 3 in the Pacific, they (Milne) had assigned the blockading squadrons already.

 

As for Troops, 4 Corps de Armee (ca. 65,000 men) were under orders for British North America from the UK, to reinforce the Canadians (66,000 at the given date, with another 40,000 being raised) and the existing garrison (barely 10,000).

 

Meanwhile, the Union departments facing Canada had 11,689 all ranks ca 31 Dec 61, including AWOL, sick and under arrest. The entire Union Army at this point is ca 340,000 strong (excluding AWOL, sick and under arrest), and almost entirely concentrated in the Armies of the Potomac, Ohio and Missouri, which proved ridiculously brittle in the 1862 campaigns.

 

 

As for the use of wagon trails across the prairie, it wouldn't be the most practical way of moving supplies, but it wouldn't be exactly as bad as you make it out to be. Commitment of an army corps to keeping the routes open would both be possible and constructive to the project.

 

Nope, a wagon can carry enough material to support the drives and animals for 10-20 days, if it's entire cargo is used to feed them....

Edited September 30, 2007 by 67th Tigers

[DKTanker]

Britain mostly, and a small quantity from the Upper Michigan ore lode processed in New England (an industry which pre-war was declining due to the lowering of the Tariff in 1857).

 

As for Cotton, none obviously, but in 1860 Cotton accounted for half the US exports by value, the balance being Tobacco, Rice, Corn and Wheat, again much of these being southern crops.

Remind us again why the North was relatively rich while the south relatively poor. Everything you've presented, it's a wonder that the North didn't just concede defeat after Ft. Sumter was captured.

 

Let's recap, shall we? North had little industry (South had none to speak of but we'll ignore that for the moment) had no exports worth mentioning and basically was a land of wayward farmers. Yikes, it's a wonder, is it not, that Lincoln actually thought the North might win.

[KingSargent]

Depends on nature of the involvement. The British (and Europe in general) sold vast quantities of arms and military stores to both sides. The blockade didn't have much of an effect until fairly late war as more and more Confederate ports fell.

 

Perhaps a more serious effect would be if the British embargoed the export of military goods to the Union. All of the Unions supply of powder, most of it's uniforms, blankets etc. either came from the UK or were manufactured from British supplied materials.

Source please.

 

If the British maintain the embargo placed on such goods placed in December 1861 then the Union would have to conceed in May 1862 as it would have nothing available to fight with.

And just what munitions were used up in the ACW between December 1861 and May 1862?

And if the US retaliated by embargoing food to Britain, you'd starve.

 

If the British had declared war on the Union, the Union is quite frankly screwed. The only coastal fort armed and capable of resisting a couple of RN cruisers is Ft Monroe; NY, Boston, Portland, Portsmouth etc. were effectively undefended, and could be invaded pretty much at will,

Don't know much about US Coast Defenses, eh? Come back when you know something.

 

they might have some success against Canada if they manage to cut the Beauharnois Canal, which IMHO is probably likely, they might be able to dominate the Lakes, although in all probibility the British would have raided the undefended Sackett's Harbor, and seized/ destroyed all the USNs military stores on the Lakes, denying both sides the Lakes.

And just what British force is going to be doing this raiding?

[KingSargent]

It would take 65 ships to blockade the US, plus another 15 in the Gulf and 3 in the Pacific, they (Milne) had assigned the blockading squadrons already.

You are talking through your hat again. There were more RN ships than that blockading the US in 1814 and the blockade leaked like a sieve.

 

As for Troops, 4 Corps de Armee (ca. 65,000 men) were under orders for British North America from the UK, to reinforce the Canadians (66,000 at the given date, with another 40,000 being raised) and the existing garrison (barely 10,000).

Fantasy, fantasy. When did the British EVER field a force of that size in the 19th century? You are sending more than Wellington's Peninsular Army, and he told Whitehall that he could not maintain his army without American food.

If there were 66,000 Canadians under arms, who was feeding them?

 

Meanwhile, the Union departments facing Canada had 11,689 all ranks ca 31 Dec 61, including AWOL, sick and under arrest. The entire Union Army at this point is ca 340,000 strong (excluding AWOL, sick and under arrest), and almost entirely concentrated in the Armies of the Potomac, Ohio and Missouri, which proved ridiculously brittle in the 1862 campaigns.

Whoopee shit. And what were the Union rail systems like? How many troops could be moved to the Canadian frontier before your fantasy army unloads and gets there?

 

Nope, a wagon can carry enough material to support the drives and animals for 10-20 days, if it's entire cargo is used to feed them....

Wrong again. The figure is 40 days before there can be no payload.

[KingSargent]

* British squadrons at San Francisco, west coast of Panama, east coast of Panama, off the Florida Keys/ West Indies and finally the Atlantic blockading squadron itself

Excuse me? Where are these ships coming from? The British squadrons in the eastern Pacific were dependent on US coal. The FLAGSHIP of the British North Pacific station, a steam ironclad, spent her whole deployment without raising steam.

 

As for the ones in the Atlantic, where is their coal coming from? How are you going to keep squadrons operation in the Caribbean without losing 50% of the crews and troops (if you have any) to disease?

[ThirteenFox]

Britain mostly, and a small quantity from the Upper Michigan ore lode processed in New England (an industry which pre-war was declining due to the lowering of the Tariff in 1857).

 

While the US was not producing nearly as much iron as Britain, domestic production outpaced imports after 1840.

 

I did a little digging and found the following:

 

Year Domestic Production* Imports from Britain*

• 1855 700,000 404,000
  
• 1856 788,000 399,000
  
• 1857 712,000 385,000
  
• 1858 629,000 219,000
  
• 1859 750,000 279,000
  
• 1860 988,000 395,000
  

*combined totals of pig iron, hammered/rolled bar, and railroad iron in tons - taken from The Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 2, No. 3 (April, 1888). Excuse the formatting...

 

As far as the "small quantity from the Upper Michigan ore lode processed in New England" comment; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other cities in the Ohio valley had been producing substantial amounts of iron since the early part of the century. Pittsburgh was the "Iron City" long before it became the "Steel City." The counties in southern Ohio alone were producing over 100,000 tons of raw iron a year by 1860.

 

Pennsylvania and Ohio are a long way from New England.

Edited September 30, 2007 by ThirteenFox