Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
67 Tigers,
Welcome to the forum!
You mention a plan by the British to fight the Union. Do you have any particulars?
In describing the military potential of Canada, you mention "volunteer militia" and "beat militia." What are beat militia? Was there a regulation about the militia's role in action outside of Canada(I might be confusing this with something else)?
My only comment on your posting is that you're describing potential, not existing military force. A potent force would have to be organized, trained and equipped, and I don't think the munitions and weapons stocks existed in Canada at that time.
Having said that, Canadian militia, backed by British regular troops, successfully defended Canada from several American invasions, from the Revolution to the Fenian raids of the 1860s.
The British planned to ship 100,000 modern rifles to supplement Canadian stock in 1861, but only 10,000 were shipped before the St Lawrence froze. Stocks were thus 23,000 modern rifles, 17,500 percussion smoothbores and an assortment of older weapons (and over a thousand older artillery pieces, mainly 6 and 9 pounder field plus some heavy guns). The first ship out during the Trent carried 30,000 rifles and 2.25 million bullets and charges. Ships were carrying loads of tens of thousands of weapons at a time.
The US largely abandoned the old mass levy militia in the 1830's, replacing them with volunteers. The British copied the practice in 1855 in Canada (and 1859 in the UK), creating a smaller but more usable militia force, but the old mass levy system was still in force until 1867. The mass militia of Canada was about 500 infantry Bns strong.
The British plans vis the navy are well known. Milne would hit the Atlantic blockading sqn, roll them up, impose a blockade of his own, while the Wst Indian Sqn cruised down past Florida heading towards Galveston, hitting the blockaders en route. Milne would then mount amphibious operations along the US coast (Parliament wanted him to hit NY and Boston, but he thought the defences too strong and instead intended to hit the much weaker defences of the Potomac).
In Canada, Williams (the CinC Canada) had a major problem, the Beauharnois canal. The St Lawrence seaway's locks are large enough that small warships can reach the Lakes (unlike the US system, any US warships need building on the Lakes). However, the Beauharnois canal is to the south of the St Lawrence, vulnerable to US attack.
To dislocate this, he planned a localised offensive towards Lake Champlain, trading space for time, until the RN can put forces on the Lakes. A similar offensive across the Welland canal was to take place. To accomplish this he had about 16,000 regulars and a similar number of Militia.
The west of Canada was to be largely abandoned to the US, again trading space for time.
The British need to hold the US for 2-3 months until the main force arrives. 50,000 regulars were prepared to ship to America once the St Lawrence thaws.
Glad you could put some actual figures on 1860's British Army strength. Welcome to the forum, I am new here myself. I would like to add something to your post on British regiments. Going from memory, only the first 24 regiments had more that one regular battalion. The remainder of the forces consisting of the militia units you pointed out. In the unlikely event of the British joining the land war, I feel sure that colonial troops would also have been used. In the Boer War, of approx 440,000 troops, around 1 in 10 was Australian or Canadian.
You have clearly researched this subject, so I was wondering if you have any details on French army strength during the period?
The regular infantry had 3 Guards Regiments (with 7 Bns), 110 Line Regiments (25 with 2 Bns (1-25) and 2 with 4 Bns (60th Rifles and Rifle Brigade), 4 West Indian Regiments and a couple of misc units (Ceylon Rifles etc.)
Lets keep in mind that Slavery was quite illegal in the Empire and the CS was a nation founded upon it's existance; that fact was not lost on the Brits. HOw likely were they, really, to undertake a war in North America in support of a Nation founded upon slavery?
Yes their Navy ruled the waves but they only had to look at their history to recall the merry hell the US Navy & prvateers played upon their shipping in both 1812 & in the Revolution. THey weren't about to pull troops from India so soon after the Mutiny there. THey also were quite aware of the rapidity with which many shallow draft vessals were effectively armed and a Brit ship of the line in a narrow waterway against "turtles" might be a touch uncomfortable. No, the negative issues outweigh the advantages of siding w/ the CS.
It's a What If... & frankly I'd put my $ on the US Army in any land enagegment as by 63 they were well armed, hardened veterans vs really well drilled band box soldiers and inexperianced militia. While British soldiers have always been brave and generally quite professional... a disasterous defeat at the hands of the Union Army... would have been a bad blow to morale as well as prestige of the Empire.
Russia had already shown tacit suppport for the Union... and Germany was going to take advantage of the French a few years later anyway. As a note, more than half of the arms carried by the French in the Franco Prussian War were US manufacture.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Lets keep in mind that Slavery was quite illegal in the Empire and the CS was a nation founded upon it's existance; that fact was not lost on the Brits.
Let's keep in mind that the North's war was founded on maintaining its power and wealth and had nothing to do with any moral stance against slavery. This fact was not lost on the Brits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
Yes their Navy ruled the waves but they only had to look at their history to recall the merry hell the US Navy & prvateers played upon their shipping in both 1812 & in the Revolution.
But the tables would be turned this time...
The United States Navy was busy maintaining a blockade.
British warships would have wreaked havoc on what was left of Northern commerce (what Confederate Cruisers had not destroyed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
It's a What If... & frankly I'd put my $ on the US Army in any land enagegment as by 63 they were well armed, hardened veterans vs really well drilled band box soldiers and inexperianced militia. While British soldiers have always been brave and generally quite professional... a disasterous defeat at the hands of the Union Army... would have been a bad blow to morale as well as prestige of the Empire.
The British army was armed as well as any in the world. There would be many veterans of the Crimean War involved...far from "band box" soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
Russia had already shown tacit suppport for the Union...
The Russian deal is much ballyhooed propaganda...nothing but a few ships seeking a warm weather port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
and Germany was going to take advantage of the French a few years later anyway.
That was Prussia...not Germany.
Germany as we know it today did not exist.
The British army was armed as well as any in the world. There would be many veterans of the Crimean War involved...far from "band box" soldiers.
Not just the Crimea, although it had a profound effect. The British had fought two major wars in the last decade (the second being the Mutiny, which was fought against large numbers of European trained Indians with modern rifles).
The more important effect of the Crimean is the weeding out of incompetants in higher command echelons. Cardigan is out on his ear. James Scarlett is Adjutant General. The CinC Canada is William Fenwick Williams ("The Hero of Kars") etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The Russian deal is much ballyhooed propaganda...nothing but a few ships seeking a warm weather port.
3 corvettes is nothing to be particularly scared off....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
That was Prussia...not Germany.
Germany as we know it today did not exist.
Prussia, although the other German nations supported Prussia against Denmark in the 2nd Schleswig War. Austria and Hanover are pretty pro-British and Bavaria and Westphalia pretty pro-France.
Let's keep in mind that the North's war was founded on maintaining its power and wealth and had nothing to do with any moral stance against slavery. This fact was not lost on the Brits.
Nor was the fact thatslavery was a fundamental portion of the CS govt, economy & even Constitution.
But the tables would be turned this time...
You seem so certain... the British apparently didn't see it as you dream as the reality is they did not interfere on the side of the CS. Who is to say the blockade would not have been abondoned to engage the Brits? THe USN would have had ample time to act prior to actions against the USN by the RN. Hate to tell you this, but the USN was not likely to sit idly by and get blasted to the bottom of the Atlantic. I rather suspect they might have fought back rather effectively. How succesfully is a "What If" w/ little or no bassis in reality.
The United States Navy was busy maintaining a blockade.
British warships would have wreaked havoc on what was left of Northern commerce (what Confederate Cruisers had not destroyed). What percentage of shipping was destroyed by CS commerce raiders? Considerably less than the U Boats a half century later and yet the US economy continued despite the CS Commerce Raiders. You know, it is quite telling to see how enthusiastic you are to fantasize US losses... and how certain about it you are. You really should understand that US soldiers have a tendency to shoot back. They are only incompetant mindless twits in fantasies & Hollywood.
The British army was armed as well as any in the world. There would be many veterans of the Crimean War involved...far from "band box" soldiers. THe Crimea was when? While many of the incompetants had been weeded out during the Crimea... they were soon back as new commisions were purchased. Take a minute to study the Zulu & Boer Wars if you wish to see a history of arrogant & incompetant upper echelon leadership; IMHO what held the Empire together was the cadre of a very professional NCO class. MOst if not all the disasters easily found in British military history are the fault of incompetant Colonels & Generals. Check your history books, many of those who were vets of the Crimea had moved on in life and were no longer active in the Army; w/ little or no interest in serving in another campaign as poorly managed as the Crimea again. Yes many patriotic souls might easily have re-enlisted quickly... but that takes time. How many would have been willing to enlist to fight beside an ally fighting to preserve slavery?
The Russian deal is much ballyhooed propaganda...nothing but a few ships seeking a warm weather port. A few ships not penned up in forzen baltic ports... which was their intention as there was some real tension between Russia & England. Russia was still stinging from a humiliation in the Crimea; itching at the chance to bite back. Frankly, I'd much rather have Russia as an ally than an enemy.
That was Prussia...not Germany. Prussia... a nation that would become Germany and quite thouroghly whip the Austro-Hungarians & French before 1875... Another nation more likely to side w/ the US than France & England.
Germany as we know it today did not exist.
Typical of this poster...
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Not just the Crimea, although it had a profound effect. The British had fought two major wars in the last decade (the second being the Mutiny, which was fought against large numbers of European trained Indians with modern rifles). Actually smoothbores at best.. the Brits never trusted the sepoys w/ modern arms the equivelant of the Regulars.
The more important effect of the Crimean is the weeding out of incompetants in higher command echelons. Cardigan is out on his ear. James Scarlett is Adjutant General. The CinC Canada is William Fenwick Williams ("The Hero of Kars") etc. Please don't forget the blinding incompetance shown just a few years later in the Zulu War, Boer War etc... what suggests that a war against the "Colonials" would be any different.
3 corvettes is nothing to be particularly scared off.... Czars Army is a touch different and played merry hell w/ the combined British & French Armies in the Crimea... though neither side showed stellar competance.
Prussia, although the other German nations supported Prussia against Denmark in the 2nd Schleswig War. Austria and Hanover are pretty pro-British and Bavaria and Westphalia pretty pro-France.
Good points all, no doubt it would have changed the naature of the War, I believe it would have begun the First World War but I still do not see a CS surviving; a a Brit vassl perhaps... slavery would have been abolished anyway & the fireeaters would have raised hell again and started up again.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
The only serious talk of British involvement was during the Trent affair. After that, the UK had the good sense to stay out of it. A victory, although possible, would be temporary (the sleeping giant). Meanwhile, they will be bloodied badly, the flow of cotton will not be soon opened, and highly profitable trade will be interrupted. Makes good sense to sit it out.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
