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!
Thanks for the Info... but I highlighted the troops I understand to have been hardened Veterans that seriously put that smack down upon the French in Spain and several would be present a few years later at Waterloo and be well and truly in that mix. W/ that exception I don't see much wrong w/ your analysis. Though I don't believe the Guards Brigade would have held a candle next to say... Hazens Brigade, Wilder's or worse still the "Iowa Brigade" to name just a few. Frankly I can't see many UK troops dealing favorably w/ the troops of the AoC or AoT (US). They could shoot straight and outmarch the finest troops in the world. They had a history of holding against long odds and were certainly among the finest the US had to offer. Just MHO.
That's odd, as ACW marksmanship was regarded as appauling over here. The most obvious example of the difference was when Maj Gen Cleburne, CSA, got hold of the British manual on musketry training and trained his soldiers to the British method, seeing a massive increase in accuracy.
Whether they could outmarch a British column I find questionable, especially given that around the same time a British formation in India had a 496 mile forced march in 17-18 days.
During the Revolutionary War, many British officers refused service in prosecuting the war.
It is possible that during the ACW, there may have been a similar reluctance in the Officer Corps (of the Army, at least; it being less professional than that of the RN) to lend their aid and support to a slave regime.
It could be, that the British Gov't would be forced to send their 'B' Team anyway, but, as a matter of necessity, rather than planning.
That's odd, as ACW marksmanship was regarded as appauling over here. The most obvious example of the difference was when Maj Gen Cleburne, CSA, got hold of the British manual on musketry training and trained his soldiers to the British method, seeing a massive increase in accuracy.
Whether they could outmarch a British column I find questionable, especially given that around the same time a British formation in India had a 496 mile forced march in 17-18 days.
There were a LOT of US & CS units w/ marches along the lines of 30+ miles per day. I can recall around twenty 30 odd mile per day marches endured w/out much complaint... and thay are almost all of the western armies (both US & CS). 3rd IA VI 118 miles in 3 days, 1st IA VI were initially called the "Greyhounds" because those good old farm boys could march circles around anything to include cav!
Cleburne was utilizing a fairly recent marksmanship manual IIRC published shortly after the Crimea... the CS AoT & US AoT were by and far generally the most proficient marksman of either army w/ IMHO the CS AoT edging out the US version largely due to Cleburne's efforts. Longstreets men learned that the hard way in front of Snodgrass Hill and units like the 4th AL discovered those Western Yanks could shoot considerably better than their eastern counterparts in the AoP.
I would put my $ on the veteran westerners from Iowa, Minnesota, Wi etc against most any Brit regulars... scratch that any. Give me the 2nd or 3rd IA, 2nd or 4th MN to name just a few and I just don't see any similarly sized unit on the continent being their equal anytime between 63-65.
Those Brit officers who were so contemptious of the Yankee Doughboys in 1917 watched them win the war. The RAF said the US pilots in their P-47's would be meat before the Luftwaffe Aces... they were proven very wrong when those boys cleared the sky of the Luftwaffe. Then there was Monty and his opinion of the US fighting man... but then again that was Monty.
US soldiers have consistanly been viewed w/ contempt by European armies... and they have consistantly proven that European experts were full of it.
__________________ 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
That's odd, as ACW marksmanship was regarded as appauling over here.
Pert near everything American was considered appalling over there.
There is a difference between musketry and marksmanship. Musketry is improving firepower with effective coordination. Marksmanship is an individual art.
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
The only reason there are any continuing discussions of British intervention on the part of the Confederacy, which never happened by the way, is the historians went a little light on Confederacy deficiencies- a little soft on the lads after their loss.
The Confederate founding fathers made tremendous errors in foreign policy. They overestimated the value of cotton in 1861, and its present need in Great Britain. They ignored the reasons why Britain would not want to go to war with the United States. The Confederate leadership ignored that Great Britain just ended a war in the Crimea and had a recent revolt in a major colony, India. The Confederate leadership ignored the fact that the British knew railroads, and clearly knew the advantage of the U.S., in any war on the North American continent.
One also has to ignore the papers of the British leadership during the time of the Civil War. These were available following WWI. At no time did British government leadership promote war, or did not seek to remain out of war with the U.S.
The British came to a fairly early conclusion that the Confederacy could not win a long war. That it lacked essential resources to win a war and defend its territory over the long haul.
If anyone knew clearly the deficiencies of the Confederate economy, it was the British. They knew the products the Southern states needed and did not produce. The British were experts on the products taxed by U.S. tariffs, sent from British manufacturing companies.
As a general comment on all such discussions, the Europeans had more than enough distractions in their own backyard to become interested in sending substantial forces to America.
1849 had seen the First Danish War between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein.
1853-56 had seen the Crimean War, with British/French/Turkish forces fighting the Russians.
1858 had seen the Second Danish War between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein.
1859 had seen the Austrians and the French at each other's throats in Italy.
Italian forces from the Piedmont fought in both the Crimean and 1859 wars, seeking foreign support for the unification of Italy.
1864 saw the Third Danish War (also known as "The Potato War" between Prussia and Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein. Austria supported the Prussians with an Army Corps and fleet units.
In 1864, the situation was so tense in Europe that it was feared a major conflict between the great powers would erupt, something not seen since the days of Napoleon. This would have dwarfed the Crimean War, bringing in the Austrians and Prussians in addition to the forces of that earlier war.
Russia, in response to this, decided to send her fleet to America in order to avoid being blockaded as they had been in the Crimean War. The modern units of the Baltic Fleet sailed for New York. The squadron in Vladivostok sailed for San Francisco. The first the Lincoln administration heard of this was when the Russians arrived at New York harbor, but they quickly put up a good front for it.
In 1866, the Austro-Prussian War broke out and Austria was broken. Napoleon III had planned to intervene but moved too slowly. Von Moltke's victory came too quickly.
From that point on, everyone knew the next war was coming, and in 1870 it did: the Franco-Prussian War, with disastrous results for Napoleon III (who should never have tried to emulate the great man before him).
In the midst of all that, in 1864, a two man official observation team arrived in New York from France (the first one sent by the French). They were here six months, but spent the first part kicking their heels up around New York. Finally the Lincoln government allowed them to come forward, and they spent three months or so down in Virginia with Grant. Parts of their report are apparently still classified in France, but apparently created a sensation in the influential Artillery Committee when presented.
By 1864, no British or French government with an ounce of sense would have desired a war with the Union. There would be far too much of a chance that war would erupt in Europe while they were bogged down in America. Also, the close US-Russia ties might have led any earlier intervention into an expansion of the war beyond all bounds, the Russians desiring help to avoid any repetition of the Crimean War.
Gentlemen:
The recent comments pretty well put the cap on the idea of British intervention. Things were a bit tense during the Mason/Slidell event, but that's about as close as it could have been. Lincoln quickly took back that slap and let the Brits off the hook. They had their own fleas to scratch and didn't need the cotton badly enough to go to war over.
The US involved in a fratricidal war on itself was still a formidable entity. A win for GB would have gained nothing but a bloody nose and another rebellion. It couldn't afford a loss. Decision? Let it slide. Good move.
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
The defence of Canada was a prime concern. In fact THE prime concern. There was a feeling the US was going north after the war no matter what, hence the constant consideration of war with the Union.
The problem with the Great Lakes as far as the US is concerned is that the links to the US river system are too small for any kind of warship, let alone something large like a Monitor. Although US shipbuilding capacity on the Lakes is larger.
Both sides need to improvise fleets on the Great Lakes (assuming the Brits don't succeed in keeping the Beauharnois Canal open, in which case dozens of RN warcraft are going to be on the Lakes).
Hitting Montreal would be interesting. It's defended by more men than are defending Washington with stronger works. It's the main staging area for the incoming regulars for example...
What thoughts do you have regarding the "Irish Invasion" of Canada after the Civil War - if anything more than amusement that is.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
