Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
What, pray tell, is it that you think these newspaper articles mean?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The British were never going to join the war against us. If they were going to, they would have, but they didn't, as history has told. We all know this.. so tell me what the debate is about again? Who cares what they prepared to do. I have a box with first aid stuff and batteries and lanterns and such in case a tornado ever strikes my area. Its called preparedness it doesn't mean I'm planning on going somewhere where a tornado already struck.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
What, pray tell, is it that you think these newspaper articles mean?
Tim
Preparations.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Well, you started by saying: "In 1862 the British were making very serious preparations for war with the United States." Then you gave us references to things that were going on in 1861.
That these are "preparations" is I would say true. That they were "very serious" seems doubtful. The timeline of events makes it clear you are trying to pass actions related to the quickly-defused Trent Affair in 1861 off as any serious preparations for a British war with America in 1862. (Note that the Trans-Atlantic cable had been accidentally severed and all messages had to travel by ship, often meaning 12-14 days in transit and sometimes more.)
=====
Nov. 8: USS San Jacinto stops the British mail packet Trent and removed two Confederate diplomats, Mason and Slidell.
Nov. 15: USS San Jacinto reaches Hampton Roads in Virginia, wires news to Washington, ordered to Boston.
Nov. 16: News of capture hits the American papers. Enthusiastic reaction in North, while Union leaders question the legality and wisdom of the move.
Nov. 21: Nashville arrives in Britain; British government surprised to find Mason and Slidell are not aboard.
Nov. 27: News of the capture reaches London. Angry British reaction at being provoked that can only be considered well-justified by any impartial observer.
Nov. 29: Lord Russel meets with US diplomat Adams. Due to cable outage, Adams has not yet received message from Seward acknowledging capture was without orders.
Nov. 30: Lord Russell sends draft of response to Queen Victoria, who gives it to her husband, ill and dying, for review. He softens the belligerent language considerably. At emergency cabinet meeting, Ambassador Lyons recommenation for a show of force read.
Dec. 1: Instructions sent to Lyons in America. Private message from Lord Russell tells Lyons that Britain will “be rather easy about the apology” if Mason and Slidell are released. British must now wait for a US response. Uproar in British press and financial markets follows. British suspend their 1862 budget cuts.
Dec. 14: First article you linked to.
Dec. 15: First news of British reaction reaches the US.
Dec. 17: Adams receives Seward's Nov. 30 dispatch and immediately informs Russell that the capture was without orders. British do notrelease the dispatch to the press, allowing the tension to continue. In Washington, Lyons receives the dispatch from Dec. 1.
Dec. 19: Lyons meets with Seward and informs him of the British response to the incident. He gives him an "unofficial copy" and tells them his government will require a formal response within 7 days of the "official copy" being delivered.
Dec. 21: Lyons visits Seward again to deliver the "official copy", but decides not to do so, postponing action for 2 days. Seward and Lyons decide not to include the 7 day deadline in the "official copy" to be delivered.
Dec. 21: Second article you linked to.
Dec. 21-26: Lincoln, Seward, et al meeting daily. Official response from France arrives: France considers the seizure illegal but will remain neutral in any US-Britain war. Further messages from US diplomats in Britain arrive describing reaction.
Dec. 23: Lyons visits Seward again to deliver the "official copy".
Dec. 25: Message from French Foreign Minister arrives in Washington urging release of the prisoners.
Dec. 27: Seward meets with Lyons to deliver the US response. Despite the "spin" in the long document, the upshot is that Mason and Slidell are released.
Dec. 28: Third article you linked to.
Dec. 29: News of the Mason-Slidell release published in US papers. American reaction to resolution of crisis generally positive. HMS Rinaldo takes Mason and Slidell to St. Thomas.
Dec. 31: Reinforcements bring forces in Canada to 924 officers and 17,658 men. British estimates for an anticipated American invasion range from 50,000 to 200,000 troops.
Jan. 8: News of the release of the commissioners reaches Britain. British celebrate. Financial markets stabilize. The crisis is over.
Jan. 14: Mason and Slidell leave St. Thomas aboard La Plata, bound for Southampton.
=====
As for the Royal Navy intervening, military historian Russel Weigley had this to say: "The royal Navy retained the appearance of maritime supremacy principally because it existed in a naval vacuum, with no serious rivals except for halfhearted and sporadic challenges by the French. At that, the British Navy would have had a difficult time making itself felt on the North American coast. The coming of steam power had destroyed the ability of its best warships to cruise indefinitely in American waters as the blockading squadrons had done in 1812. Even with a major base at Halifax, or possible aid from Confederate ports, the British Navy would have found it a precarious venture to try to keep station on the U.S. Coast. No steam navy operated with success against any reasonably formidable enemy at the distances from its home ports that a trans-Atlantic war would have imposed on the British fleet until the U.S. Navy fought the Japanese in World War II."
Britain never wanted war, although they were willing to consider it when faced with insult. Wisely, the US backed down on this issue, since the war had little attraction for them as well.
In the wake of this, the British suspended their preparations and went back to their budget cuts.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Well, you started by saying: "In 1862 the British were making very serious preparations for war with the United States." Then you gave us references to things that were going on in 1861.
My error. I remembered the time period as being either late 1861 or early '62.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That these are "preparations" is I would say true. That they were "very serious" seems doubtful.
30,000 Enfield rifles on their way to Canada and another 25,000 ready to be shipped sounds serious to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The timeline of events...
....
Dec. 31: Reinforcements bring forces in Canada to 924 officers and 17,658 men. British estimates for an anticipated American invasion range from 50,000 to 200,000 troops.
The 55,000 rifles were for the Canadians who had a well organized militia of 30,000 which could be increased to 200,000 if needed (from the articles).
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
As for the Royal Navy intervening, military historian Russel Weigley had this to say:...."...the British Navy would have had a difficult time making itself felt on the North American coast. The coming of steam power had destroyed the ability of its best warships to cruise indefinitely in American waters as the blockading squadrons had done in 1812. Even with a major base at Halifax, or possible aid from Confederate ports, the British Navy would have found it a precarious venture to try to keep station on the U.S. Coast..."
Tim
A handful of Confederate Cruisers played havoc with Northern shipping during the war.
What would the British Navy do to it? Wipe it from the sea?
The US blockading squadrons would have to pull several ships from that duty to protect its commerce...and, of course, would make the blockade less effective.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
My error. I remembered the time period as being either late 1861 or early '62.
30,000 Enfield rifles on their way to Canada and another 25,000 ready to be shipped sounds serious to me.
The 55,000 rifles were for the Canadians who had a well organized militia of 30,000 which could be increased to 200,000 if needed (from the articles).
A handful of Confederate Cruisers played havoc with Northern shipping during the war.
What would the British Navy do to it? Wipe it from the sea?
The US blockading squadrons would have to pull several ships from that duty to protect its commerce...and, of course, would make the blockade less effective.
It seems to me gentlemen that this argument is being undertaken simply for the sake of undertaking an argument.
My error. I remembered the time period as being either late 1861 or early '62.
Glad that's cleared up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
30,000 Enfield rifles on their way to Canada and another 25,000 ready to be shipped sounds serious to me.
That's because you are trying to look at the number in a vacumn. It would have been a nice strengthening for Canada in normal circumstances, but wholly inadequate against the invasion force the British commanders anticipated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The 55,000 rifles were for the Canadians who had a well organized militia of 30,000 which could be increased to 200,000 if needed (from the articles).
You are reading puff pieces and accepting them as gospel. This sort of statement is based on what the British government wanted dispersed to 1) calm their own people and 2) impress the Americans. They are basically echoes of government press releases.
The truth: the Canadian Militia system was in sad shape, about the way the similar US system was in 1860 in most Northern states. Most men on the rolls never showed up for training and drill. It had two components: the Active and Sedentary Militia. The Active part got 1-2 weeks of training and drill per year. The Sedentary part got none at all. In June 1861, the Active Militia mustered 4,422 men; the Sedentary Militia theoretically had a little over 38,000 men between 16 and 50 on the rolls.
In 1862 -- well after the Trent Affair -- a bill to expand the volunteer militia for $500,000 (Canadian) caused an uproar in the public and a political crisis in Canada. The British were shocked; it appeared they were exerting themselves to defend men who would not fight for themselves.
After the Trent Affair, the British appointed a commission to study the needs for a defense against the US. They recommended the fortifications in 16 locations, at a cost of approximately £1.6 million ($8.5 million Canadian), with 65,000 soldiers and volunteers on active duty. They wanted to build a railway between Halifax and Montreal, which would tie the RR network in all the way to Windsor (opposite Detroit) with a matching telegraph network to be completed. That recommendation came in on September 2, 1862. Stunned by the cost and the Canadian refusal to contribute to the defense, the British scrapped the plan.
That's reality. You are trying to argue from newspaper articles presenting a rosy view instead of what was real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
A handful of Confederate Cruisers played havoc with Northern shipping during the war.
What would the British Navy do to it? Wipe it from the sea?
The US blockading squadrons would have to pull several ships from that duty to protect its commerce...and, of course, would make the blockade less effective.
Serious damage, I'm sure. The British understood they would be at a disadvantage off the North American coast and planned to stay out of shallow water as much as possible. But a few cruisers can cause damage out of proportion to their numbers and did, and the only merchant marine and fishing fleets more extensive and vulnerable than the American one was the British one. American raiders had proved in the American Revolution and the War of 1812 they knew how to strike hard at the British commerce. Any such war would mean a lot of damage ond bloodletting on both sides.
Which means that both sides would have to detach forces to guard their civilian commerce and chase raiders. By late 1861 the US fleet was much larger than it had been at the start (90 ships in January, about 25 unfit for sea), but the ships were not (on average) capable of fighting it out with British warships because so many of them were really converted merchantmen. OTOH, as the year 1862 went on, British wooden ships would have been highly vulnerable to the new Union ironclads in shallow water.
The British, of course, would have had to detach heavily to protect their own bases at places like Halifax. While US damaged ships might be relatively close to major repair facilities in the Northeast, some RN ships (such as Thunderer) would have to return to England for anything other than minor repairs.
It would have been interesting, it would have been horrible. It would not have been easy, and the RN might find it had bit off more than it could chew. Plus, in the British mind, what would Napoleon III be doing while they were fighting the US?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
We can debate theoretical wars between Britain and the North, tactics, how much damage etc. Certainly it would have increased the Confederacy's odds for survival greatly.
Tim, while the British made have grumped about defense costs in Canada, this shouldn't be interpreted as Canadian unwillingness to defend Canada, which they have successfully and enthusiastically throughout their history.
But military intervention by the British was not even a possibility after the Trent Affair. And to be fair, why would they?
It's not that they feared Napoleon III, after all, they fought the US during a major war with the "real" Napoleon. What's the compelling reason for fighting the North?
It is interesting that some think the grabbing of two men from a ship might be considered a valid act of war but firing on a fort was not... fascinating.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
