The Britsh Supporting the confederates

[Grant Whitley]

That doesn't exclude the slave from economic calculations, it just changes where he figures in them. Take away slavery and you don't take away the people that were slaves.

 

The distorting thing about this is that you're ignoring a major area of investment.

 

You're kidding, right? Ever heard of the Fugitive Slave Law? Or all of the Southern statutes against servile rebellion and regulating the slave's status? In a civilized society, in order to hold other humans in bondage, you have to have laws that support and sanction the force it takes to do so.

 

Those laws did not sanction a property right that wouldn't normally have been deemed to exist; their purpose was to facilitate the ownership of this specific kind of property. I thought the contrast you were trying to draw was more fundamental. How did the FSA and the various state codes regulating slaves differ from other types of property law?

[Guest aevans]

The distorting thing about this is that you're ignoring a major area of investment.

 

Huh? That was kind of my point to begin with -- the problem with investing in slavery is that you have to rely on the law for your "property"'s market value. People aren't a commodity unless the law allows them to be. You can't say that about any othet thing or animal. Before you go there, yes, banning slavery doesn't totally eliminate human trafficiking, but it's just not the same as banning a product or type of livestock. A marijuana leaf or ferret can't know that it's in an illegal imprisonment and do something about it. Neither can take advantage of its presumed legal state to resist its fate. You may see that as only a technicality, but I don't think many people (that know what they're talking about -- I'm not trying to argue from popularity here) would agree.

 

Those laws did not sanction a property right that wouldn't normally have been deemed to exist; their purpose was to facilitate the ownership of this specific kind of property. I thought the contrast you were trying to draw was more fundamental. How did the FSA and the various state codes regulating slaves differ from other types of property law?

 

Uhhh...in that they were aimed at the behavior of the "property", not the rights and/or prerogatives of those who claimed ownership. That's my entire point -- laws that sanction slavery do so by way of directly regulating how the "property" acts, in its own mind. They implicitly recognize that humans can't really be chattels, because their economic options have to be addressed through legally sanctioned coercion, not by regulating them as enities that have no choice.

[swerve]

In post #31, you said:

 

"Move the slave from the "property" to the "people" column, and the South is a not very affluent place."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that slavery functioned on the same basis. There weren't laws specifically allowing it where it existed- to the contrary, it had to be specifically prohibited in the North(where it had previously existed), and ultimately by the 13th Amendment.

 

That was only because of the economically & politically powerful pro-slavery lobby in the USA. In other countries, slavery did not require specific prohibition. In both England & Scotland, for example, as soon as the courts in general* stopped favouring property rights established abroad over the personal liberties of persons brought into the country from abroad, slavery became legally insupportable.

 

In France, it took specific legislation in 1716 to permit colonial slaveholders to be permitted to take their slaves into the country without them becoming automatically free, & that was conditional upon the slave being registered on entry. It was also difficult to enforce, with slaves using the courts to get themselves freed for very minor infringements of the registration rules, or even (within some of Frances legal jurisdictions, including the largest, that of Paris) just because the royal decree had not been accepted by the courts. In other words, even specific legislation was not enough to secure the status of slavery within France. The colonies were another matter.

 

Same in the Netherlands. A proposal to establish a slave market in Zeeland in 1596 foundered on the lack of a legal basis for slavery. It had to be specifically legislated for in the colonies.

 

*Mansfield set a precedent only because it was followed. There were numerous cases in the previous 200 years in which slaves had gone to court, & obtained their freedom on the grounds of lack of positive legislation permitting slavery.

[KingSargent]

When slavery was taken away, the now free black population found themselves poorer, and subject to being killed almost at will.

 

As one African-American academic recently pointed out on BBC4's "Racism: A History"*, in a kind of perverse way the black population of the south were better off under the servile system. Most fo the attrocities attributed to the servile system appear to have been committed decades after the ACW

 

*http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6868982609514988707&q=%22racism%3A+a+history%22&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

Just what one would expect of the British Bullshit Corporation - although I have no doubt they got the footage from PBS and CNN.

 

Actually, slavery in the US was pretty benign compared to slavery in the Caribbean. There were lots more Africans shipped to the Caribbean than the US, too. The problem was not so much that atrocities occurred as that they COULD occur and nobody had to answer for it.

[JWB]

When slavery was taken away, the now free black population found themselves poorer, and subject to being killed almost at will.

That depends upon which state this emancipated individual lived.

As one African-American academic recently pointed out on BBC4's "Racism: A History"*, in a kind of perverse way the black population of the south were better off under the servile system. Most fo the attrocities attributed to the servile system appear to have been committed decades after the ACW

Again this depends on location.

*http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6868982609514988707&q=%22racism%3A+a+history%22&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

Well, I couldn't get that video to work. Something about denial of service so do please provide us with a name.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Guest aevans]

Plenty of things would lose all value if the law that underpins that value were to disappear. To start with the contents of your wallet.

 

Morals aside, I don't see the problem with assigning Slaves to the capital stock. Losses, whatever the cause, just increases their average operating cost.

 

There was and is no problem counting slaves as capital -- provided that the law allows you to do so. It's the volatility of the law that creates the problem.

 

As for legal tender, please note that technically it's not property at all; it's just an accounting system for goods and labor of real value. The fact that the accounting tokens we call "cash" are so vulnerable to misappropriation is driving us to remove such hard tokens from the system. Which leads to the other contents of my wallet, which have no value the second I realize they have been misappropriated and I inform the issuers of the fact.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[swerve]

But that same volatility is inbuilt in every system. Legal tender today could theoretically become worthless tomorrow by an act of law. It won't happen because of the cost of such a measure. The same for a slave system. Any economy where slaves play a major role will have an inbuilt bias to uphold it since the cost of changing the law would be ruinous to the economy and, more importantly, to those who actually make the decisions. Only force majeur in the form of an external diktat could realistically change such a system in the short term.

 

Not to the degree that it is true for slavery. No other system requires laws to regulate the behaviour of the property. No other system has has the possibility of conflict between the property rights of the property (& yes, many slave-holding societies have recognised the right of slaves to hold property of their own) & those of the owner of the property. No other system has to allow for the possibility of the property ceasing to be property & becoming a citizen.

 

You & Grant keep arguing that slaves are just property like any other, no different in kind from livestock, but that is not only not so, but has been explicitly recognised as not so by every society I know of which has ever had slavery. For example, no other property can claim in court that it is not property, & demand redress for being treated as property, & no other property requires the law to distinguish whether it is stolen with or without its consent, both being pretty standard legal provisions relating to slaves.

 

Like it or not, slavery was always different in kind from all other classes of property holding.

Edited October 6, 2007 by swerve

[Rich]

The distorting thing about this is that you're ignoring a major area of investment.

 

Er, that may be, but the original statement was

By PC GDP, the Southern states were richer, by a considerable margin.

 

Now, GDP is Gross Domestic Product. Which is "The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports." And in GDP calculations investment means spending that results in an increase in assets, which I don't think the static capital investment in slaves qualifies as? Although possibly part of the Virginian economic sector might qualify, since a large part of Virginia's business once the international slave trade was reduced, was essentially to be a breeding state for the domestic slave trade? Worse, I have yet to find any good data on consumer spending and government spending - prior to the outbreak of war - was tiny.

 

But if we do know what the total output of product was:

 

Total Value of Farm Output* in $ 144,185,100/101,239,900/27,785,500

Total Value of Manufacturering Output in $ 1,640,685,200/155,531,400/79,713,900

 

Which gives a combined output for the north of roughly $1.785-billion and of the south just under $257-million. In those terms per capita production in the north was about $90.40, while in the south it was about $41.45 (not including slaves).

 

Capital investment in the north in farms was roughly $2.49-billion and in manufacturing it was $1.764-billion, while in the south it was roughly $1.749-billion and $182.5-million. So per capita investment capital in the north was $134.93 and in the south it was $576.45. So in that sense we could say that the south was very rich indeed, it has been described as the "fourth richest country" in the world in 1860 - if it had been an independent country.

 

But what in fact it was is very unbalanced and inefficent economy in the south. If we add in the capital invested in slaves, something probably over $700 invested per capita was producing $41.45 in product, roughly 6 percent, while in the north $134.93 per capita was producing $90.40, roughly 67 percent, so eleven times as efficient as the south?

[Rich]

The US merchant marine consisted of (in 1859) 100,000 tons of steamers and 2.4 million tons of sail (plus 770,000 tons of river steamers and 1.33m tons of sail), hardly any of these were large, oceangoing steamers (in fact I know of none). The ACW caused half the merchant marine to reflag to the UK. The British oceangoing merchant fleet was 500,000 tons of steamers and 3.8m tons of sail

 

Hm, your figures appear a bit odd?

 

Merchant Marine sail/steam:

 

1859 - 4,375,285/768,753

1860 - 4,485,931/867,937

1861 - 4,662,609/877,204

1862 - 4,401,701/710,463

1863 - 4,579,937/575,549

1864 - 4,098,440/977,960

1865 - 2,816,838/699,950

1866 - 2,442,012/926,267

 

Note that they comprised the following breakdown in 1860:

 

Foreign Trade - 2,379,996

Coastal Trade - 2,644,867

Whale Fishing - 166,841

Cod Fishing - 129,637

Mackerel Fishing - 26,111

 

And that the average vessels built in 1860 (1,071) was 2,108 tons. Is that "small"?

 

Of course I suspect you will say that I am ignoring the "river only vessels" you enumerated, but I'm afraid that given only something around 25-30 percent were built for for the river and Great Lakes trade from 1855-1865 it makes me wonder how the proportions could have gotten so strangely reversed as you claim? Actually it appears it was something under half, the 2.6-million tons in the "coastal" trade included riverine and Great Lakes shipping.

 

Nor do I find that "half" reflagged to any nation, I'm not sure where that notion comes from? In fact, the reduced growth and then drop in steamship tonnage under merchant flag was due to government purchases and requisitions as naval vessels. But the drop in 1865 was at least in part caused by rising insurance prices, mostly due to the depradations of Alabama and Shenandoah. The idea that single-handedly killed the US Merchant Marine is not really true though, it was more market forces than anything. For one, the number of sailing vessels dropped sharply due to economic constraints and the growing superior performance of steamers, but the it was the opening of the Suez Canal, which began the decline of the American merchant fleet.

[KingSargent]

Not to the degree that it is true for slavery. No other system requires laws to regulate the behaviour of the property. No other system has has the possibility of conflict between the property rights of the property (& yes, many slave-holding societies have recognised the right of slaves to hold property of their own) & those of the owner of the property. No other system has to allow for the possibility of the property ceasing to be property & becoming a citizen.

Ever examined "Gun Control" laws? If private property is not taken away (which anti-gunners want), its use is severely restricted.

[67th Tigers]

Hm, your figures appear a bit odd?

 

Merchant Marine sail/steam:

 

1859 - 4,375,285/768,753

1860 - 4,485,931/867,937

1861 - 4,662,609/877,204

1862 - 4,401,701/710,463

1863 - 4,579,937/575,549

1864 - 4,098,440/977,960

1865 - 2,816,838/699,950

1866 - 2,442,012/926,267

 

Note that they comprised the following breakdown in 1860:

 

Foreign Trade - 2,379,996

Coastal Trade - 2,644,867

Whale Fishing - 166,841

Cod Fishing - 129,637

Mackerel Fishing - 26,111

 

And that the average vessels built in 1860 (1,071) was 2,108 tons. Is that "small"?

 

Of course I suspect you will say that I am ignoring the "river only vessels" you enumerated, but I'm afraid that given only something around 25-30 percent were built for for the river and Great Lakes trade from 1855-1865 it makes me wonder how the proportions could have gotten so strangely reversed as you claim? Actually it appears it was something under half, the 2.6-million tons in the "coastal" trade included riverine and Great Lakes shipping.

 

Nor do I find that "half" reflagged to any nation, I'm not sure where that notion comes from? In fact, the reduced growth and then drop in steamship tonnage under merchant flag was due to government purchases and requisitions as naval vessels. But the drop in 1865 was at least in part caused by rising insurance prices, mostly due to the depradations of Alabama and Shenandoah. The idea that single-handedly killed the US Merchant Marine is not really true though, it was more market forces than anything. For one, the number of sailing vessels dropped sharply due to economic constraints and the growing superior performance of steamers, but the it was the opening of the Suez Canal, which began the decline of the American merchant fleet.

 

http://www.jstor.org/view/09595341/di992625/99p0238v/

 

and

 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00028282/di957304/95p00602/

 

 

I'm not sure how you worked out that average size, since the average size of a Union vessel employed by the war dept was 302 tons (gross metric displacement), and the average vessel engaged on foreign trade was roughly 439 tons (same measure, taken from a limited dataset of 239 vessels captured/ destroyed by CSN cruisers).

 

As for "foreign trade", the combination fo the Tariff and Recipocity Treaty meant that a large amount of trade went via Canada, moved to a Canadian port on a non-oceanic vessel, and then moved via oceanic vessels from Canada to Europe. Thus you there have a considerable quantity of non-oceanic vessels engaged on foreign trade

[67th Tigers]

Er, that may be, but the original statement was

 

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

[swerve]

Ever examined "Gun Control" laws? If private property is not taken away (which anti-gunners want), its use is severely restricted.

 

Like Grant & Junior FO, you're missing the point. You're talking about laws which affect owners. Only slaves have to have laws which seek to control the property, rather than its owners, & which regulate how (for example), its evidence in courts should be considered, or what it can own in its own right, & what it may or may not consent to. Only with slavery do you have the possibility of property becoming citizens.

[Rich]

http://www.jstor.org/view/09595341/di992625/99p0238v/

 

and

 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00028282/di957304/95p00602/

 

Thanks for the references.

 

I'm not sure how you worked out that average size, since the average size of a Union vessel employed by the war dept was 302 tons (gross metric displacement), and the average vessel engaged on foreign trade was roughly 439 tons (same measure, taken from a limited dataset of 239 vessels captured/ destroyed by CSN cruisers).

Er, total tonnage divided by number of ships? But I suspect - until I see them - that your sources may be using "new tonnage" as opposed to "old tonnage"?

 

As for "foreign trade", the combination fo the Tariff and Recipocity Treaty meant that a large amount of trade went via Canada, moved to a Canadian port on a non-oceanic vessel, and then moved via oceanic vessels from Canada to Europe. Thus you there have a considerable quantity of non-oceanic vessels engaged on foreign trade

 

Really? That is somewhat at adds with the reality of the imports and exports balance that I can find? Which shows a positive flow to Canada throughout (less US exports v. more Canadian imports) during the period? And a fraction of the exports direct via the US to the UK and Ireland? Nor is there any drop of trade from US ports to other ports during the period? So where is this "large amount" you are speaking of and how much do you claim is large?

[67th Tigers]

Er, total tonnage divided by number of ships? But I suspect - until I see them - that your sources may be using "new tonnage" as opposed to "old tonnage"?

 

That's what I thought, which is why I queried it. Few ships were as large as 1,800 displacement tons (metric or imperial), really only fast steam packets or warships, of which quite a lot existed, but none were under the US flag. Let alone 1,800 BM tons (anout 2,500 displacement tons).

 

What large steamers the US had were entirely converted to warships (indeed, the large steam packets under the British flag were invariably "built for but not with" mounts for heavy naval guns, for use as warships if necessary. This is perhaps the one advantage the British have on the Lakes initially, as Magnet as her ilk can steam out as sloops of war as soon as the RN ships guns and carriages to them, not being forward thinking enough to have them in place already). Examples would include the James Adgar, which I mention as I was reading about her cruise off the UK during the Trent Crisis yesterday:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_James_Adger_(1851)

 

By any standards she's a large merchant (the equivalent of UK Royal Mail Steamers), but her type is rare under the US flag.

 

Perhaps this will shed some light on the numbers?

 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00220507/di975520/97p0436g/0

 

 

Really? That is somewhat at adds with the reality of the imports and exports balance that I can find? Which shows a positive flow to Canada throughout (less US exports v. more Canadian imports) during the period? And a fraction of the exports direct via the US to the UK and Ireland? Nor is there any drop of trade from US ports to other ports during the period? So where is this "large amount" you are speaking of and how much do you claim is large?

 

The numbers I've seen casually are fairly nebulous, but the logic is sound. Before 1857 any imports from the UK had a 24% tariff imposed, while those imported from Canada were Tariff free (in 1857 this dropped to 17%, with a resulting depression in the US manufacturing industry). The old NW found it cheaper if foreign goods were landed at a Canadian Great Lakes port, then reexported across the Lakes on the fairly large amount of US tonnage on the Lakes (I recently came across the tonnage on the Lakes but didn't save it, I'll have to look again).

 

As I say, I've no hard numbers and don't intend to press the issue.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[67th Tigers]

By Harper's Weekly, the following 13 were acquired by the USN for conversion to warships:

 

Alabama (1,261 ton sidewheeler, 13kts, 8x 32pdr)

Quaker City (1,428 ton sidewheeler, 13kts, 8x 32pdr and 1x 20pdr Parrott Rifle)

Santiago de Cuba (1,567 ton screw, 14kts, 8x32pdr, 2x 20pdr Parrott Rifles)

Mount Vernon (625 ton screw, 14kts, 1x 32pdr)

Massachusetts (1,515 ton iron hulled screw, 12kts, 4x 32pdr long, 1x 32pdr? short (pivot))

South Carolina (1,165 ton screw, 12kts, 4x 8" shell guns, 1x 32pdr)

Florida (1,261 ton screw, 13kts, 8x 32pdr and 1x 20pdr rifle)

De Soto (1,625 ton screw, 8 kts, 8x 32pdr and 1x 30pdr rifle)

Augusta (1,310 ton sidewheeler, 11 kts, 8x 32pdr, 1x 12pdr rifle (pivot))

James Adger (1,152 ton sidewheeler, 11kts, 8x 32pdr, 1x 20pdr Parrott Rifle)

Monticello (655 ton screw, 11.5kts, 1x 9" shell guns and 2x 32pdr)

Bienville (1,558 ton screw, 15kts, 8x 32pdr and 1x 20pdr Parrott Rifle)

R.R. Cuyler (1,200 ton screw, 14kts, 8x 32pdr, 2x rifles)

 

There was one more vessel identified as suitable, the Nashville, and she certainly was.... but for the other side.

[Rich]

There was one more vessel identified as suitable, the Nashville, and she certainly was.... but for the other side.

You missed a few, or rather they did, of the initial aquisitions. I included all the 2nd and 3rd rate sidewheel and screw combatants commissioned up to February 62 that were over about 370 tons B, and then all the 4th rates larger than 500 tons B. I also corrrected some of the other notes on those you found.

 

Sidewheelers:

Alabama (4X32pdr/57, 4X32pdr42, 1X20pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned 30 Sep 61)

Quaker City (2X32pdr, 2X12pdr MLR, commissioned 14 Dec 61)

Santiago de Cuba (er, no, she was a side-wheeler, commissioned 5 November 61)

Florida (commissioned 5 Oct 61)

De Soto (aquired 21 August 61, commissioned ?)

Augusta (commissioned 28 Sep 61)

James Adger (commissioned 20 September 61))

Bienville (4X32pdr/42, 4X32pdr/57, commissioned 23 October 61)

Plus:

Connecticut (1,725 tons B, 4x32-pdr/42 SB, 1X12pdr MLR, commissioned 23 August 61)

Hatteras (1,126 tons B, 4x32pdr/27, 1X20pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned October 61)

Keystone State (1,364 tons B, 4X12pdr, commissioned 19 Jul 61)

Rhode Island (1,517 tons B, 4X32pdr/42, commissioned 29 Jul 61)

State of Georgia (1,204 B, 6X8"/55 SB, 2X32pdr/57, 1X30pdr Parrot MLR)

Harriet Lane (750 tons B, 1X8"SBML, 1X30pdr Parrot MLR, 1X12pdr MLR, commissioned 30 Mar 61)

Clifton (892 tons B, 2X9"SBML, 4X32pdr/57, commissioned Jan 62)

Commodore Barney (512 tons B, 3X9" SBML, 1X100pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned Oct 61)

Commodore Perry (512 tons B, 2X9" SBML, 2X32pdr/47, 1X12pdr How, commissioned Oct 61)

Hunchback (517 tons B, 3X9" SBML, 1X100pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned 3 Jan 62)

John P. Jackson (750 tons B, 1X9" SBML, 4X32pdr/57, 1X6" MLR, commissioned 14 Feb 62)

Morse (513 tons B, 2X9" SBML, commissioned 9 Nov 61)

Southfield (751 tons B, 3X9" SBML, 1X100pdr Parrot MLR, commissioned Dec 61)

Westfield (891 tons B, 1X9" SBML, 1X100pdr Parrott MLR, 4X8"/55, commissioned Jan 62)

Screw:

Mount Vernon (1X32pdr/57, 2X32pdr/33, commissioned May 61)

Massachusetts (1,155 tons B, 1X32pdr/42, 4X8"/63, commissioned 24 May 61)

South Carolina (commissioned 22 May 61)

Monticello (1X10"SBML, 2X32pdr/33, 2X32pdr/42, commissioned May 61)

R.R. Cuyler (1,202 tons B, 2X32pdr/57, 6X32pdr/33, chartered originally May 61 then commissioned 23 May 62)

Plus:

Albatros (378 tons B, 4X32pdr/57, 1X12pdr MLR, commissioned 25 Jun 61)

Cambridge (858 tons B, 2X8"/55 SBML, 1X12pdr How, 1X6pdr MLR, commissioned 29 Aug 61)

Flag (938 B, 6X8"/55, 1X6pdr MLR, commissioned 28 May 1861)

Flambeau (791 tons B, 1X30pdr Parrott, 1X20pdr Parrott, 2X24pdr How, commissioned 27 Nov 61)

Huntsville (840 tons B, 1X64pdr/106, 2X32pdr/33, commissioned 9 May 610

Montgomery (787 tons B, 1X8", 4X32pdr/33, commissioned 27 May 61)

Mercedita (840 tons B, 8X32pdr/57, 1X20pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned 3 Dec 61)

Penguin (389 tons B, 1X12pdr MLR, 4X32pdr/57, commissioned 25 Jun 61)

Stars and Stripes (407 tons B, 4X8"/55, 1X20pdr Parrott MLR, 1X12pdr MLR, commissioned 19 Sep 61)

Varuna (1,246 tons B, 6X8"/63, 2X8"/55, 2X30pdr Parrott MLR, commissioned Feb 62)

Young Rover (418 tons B, 1X12pdr MLR, 4X32pdr/42, commissioned 10 Sep 61)

Daylight (682 tons B, 4X32pdr/57, commissioned 7 Jun 61)

[67th Tigers]

You missed a few, or rather they did, of the initial aquisitions. I included all the 2nd and 3rd rate sidewheel and screw combatants commissioned up to February 62 that were over about 370 tons B, and then all the 4th rates larger than 500 tons B. I also corrrected some of the other notes on those you found.

 

I didn't say it was an exhaustive list, but those ones were those capable of cruising, mainly as they had the speed and coal capacity to evade most warships I believe (although James Adger used all her coal to reach Cork). Most (although not all) of those outside the list were used as patrol ships in the blockade, or as transports (Rhode Island, Connecticut etc.)

[Guest aevans]

I see your point but wonder if it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If what you say happens on a large scale then slavery in practice ceases to exist because of the altered risk/reward calculation. However AFAIK slavery only stopped in this way in economies where slavery was marginal to begin with. In economies where slavery played a major part, the laws governing these issues were constructed or implemented in a way that made slavery economically viable.

 

Slavery was certainly viable in Rome -- it lasted in some form unto the end of the empire -- yet it was many times subject to slave insurrection and revolt, as well as requiring the formulation and implementation of laws that regulated the prerogatives of the owners WRT to the "property" and the rights of the slaves WRT the "owners". Take a close look at any society in which slavery was a key economic component and you'll find laws that apply as much to what slaves can do as to what owners are allowed to. Name us another class of "property" to which that has ever applied? (BTW, before you go there, in the case of livestock which might cause trouble if improperly managed, the applicable laws are still aimed at the owner's behavior, not that of the livestock.)

[Rich]

I didn't say it was an exhaustive list, but those ones were those capable of cruising, mainly as they had the speed and coal capacity to evade most warships I believe (although James Adger used all her coal to reach Cork). Most (although not all) of those outside the list were used as patrol ships in the blockade, or as transports (Rhode Island, Connecticut etc.)

 

No, you did not say it was an exhaustive list, but you also gave no parameters beyond "By Harper's Weekly, the following 13 were acquired by the USN for conversion to warships", not that these were "those capable of cruising, mainly as they had the speed and coal capacity to evade most warships I believe." BTW, it might help too if you started putting dates with some of these claims, or at least the date of the Harper's you are drawing your data from?

 

Which still leaves me confused? Haven't you been saying for some time now that the RN "don't need no stinkin coal", because it can sail? Doesn't that work both ways? And in any case, what defines "capable of cruising"? Speed? Albatros was capable of 11 knots? Rhode Island 13? And why do ships used historically as patrol ships not count (and I note that ships inside the list were used as patrol ships and for other roles too)l? So are they all going to maintain their patrol when the RN shows up? That seems rather odd?

 

BTW, Rhode Island was not a transport, she was used as a storeship for the Gulf Blockading Squadron in 1862 until recommissioned on 11 November 1862 as a 2nd rate sidewheeler, but again, that was because what she was required to do in the historical timeline is a bit different than would be required for your counterfactual. Connecticut was used as a transport in 1861 and early 1862 before joing the Gulf Squadron as a gunboat as well in late 1862. In any case considering that Rhode Island captured 7 vessels (including 4 while she was nominally a "supply ship") and Connecticut captured 11 (including at least two while she was nominally a "transport") I think their capabilities as a potential "cruiser" may be somewhat underrated by you?

 

Yet again, you seem to have developed a rule that appears strangely flexible in some cases - British - and strangely inflexible in other cases - American - and also one that appears to be based on somewhat shakey data?

[67th Tigers]

No, you did not say it was an exhaustive list, but you also gave no parameters beyond "By Harper's Weekly, the following 13 were acquired by the USN for conversion to warships", not that these were "those capable of cruising, mainly as they had the speed and coal capacity to evade most warships I believe." BTW, it might help too if you started putting dates with some of these claims, or at least the date of the Harper's you are drawing your data from?

 

No idea, I pulled the baseline data from the USN Historical Centre

 

Which still leaves me confused? Haven't you been saying for some time now that the RN "don't need no stinkin coal", because it can sail? Doesn't that work both ways? And in any case, what defines "capable of cruising"? Speed? Albatros was capable of 11 knots? Rhode Island 13? And why do ships used historically as patrol ships not count (and I note that ships inside the list were used as patrol ships and for other roles too)l? So are they all going to maintain their patrol when the RN shows up? That seems rather odd?

 

No, operating without steam was pretty rare, usually only undertaken on the China Station by this stage. As I've said, the practice was to keep a few boilers going (to keep the screw turning and avoid it getting barnacled to the hull), and use sail as an auxiliary.

 

What defines a cruiser, quite a lot of things (reliable engines, good range etc.) which don't make it into DANFS. In the absence of other evidence I tend to assume competent selection of ships to task on the USNs behalf.

 

BTW, Rhode Island was not a transport, she was used as a storeship for the Gulf Blockading Squadron in 1862 until recommissioned on 11 November 1862 as a 2nd rate sidewheeler, but again, that was because what she was required to do in the historical timeline is a bit different than would be required for your counterfactual. Connecticut was used as a transport in 1861 and early 1862 before joing the Gulf Squadron as a gunboat as well in late 1862. In any case considering that Rhode Island captured 7 vessels (including 4 while she was nominally a "supply ship") and Connecticut captured 11 (including at least two while she was nominally a "transport") I think their capabilities as a potential "cruiser" may be somewhat underrated by you?

Aye, but these were sailing schooners (by DANFS anyway).

 

Yet again, you seem to have developed a rule that appears strangely flexible in some cases - British - and strangely inflexible in other cases - American - and also one that appears to be based on somewhat shakey data?

 

Not really, as I've said, I assume competentance on the USNs behalf, which was incredibly pressed at the time.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO