Could the USN prevent a foreign landing?

[MikeyB]

Let's pick a date, say Jan 1863.

If Britain decided to provide troops to the Confederacy, could the Union Navy have prevented this?

I understand how the USN ironclads would get outclassed on the open sea, but what about serving as littoral combat ships? Could they have gone toe to toe with the Royal Navy to prevent a landing of reinforcements?

 

[archieclement]

Would think no, regardless of comparative strength to whomever is adversary. USN is spread out implementing a blockade, of whom many blockaders are marginal warships only intended to interdict unarmed blockade runners.

Who ever doing the landing would had advantage of concentrating real warships at the time and place of their choosing.

Any real challenge wouldn't be the landing, but weeks/months later if USN tried to close the supply line to the landing.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Sir, in my opinion, no - please see...

Royal Navy Order of Battle 1861 | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

http://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1861.htm A Note on Sources by Graham Watson I have used the Navy List, dated 20 June 1861 to illustrate the strength and distribution of the Royal Navy on that date. In contrast to other lists, I have included two types of listings (1) ship types...

civilwartalk.com

Hypothetical: Farragut's Squadron vs. Royal Navy squadron in the Gulf | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

The will to fight seems to have been (apart from Palmerston and his supporters) an entirely US Cabinet thing. However if for example Farragut had beaten or driven off the RN Squadron of Mexico - not such a silly idea if you compare the two forces - The British Bulldog may well have woken up...

civilwartalk.com

Ironclads and blockade: Britain vs Union | Wartime Politics, & Debates

The idea of "Britain enter the war against Union/Union&Russia" seems to be one of the most interesting in realm of alternate history. Mainly because such alternative could have a serious historical basics, and was, actually, not very long from becoming a reality. In this small article, I'd like...

civilwartalk.com

Strength of US Navy ca. "The Trent Affair" | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

I've been looking at the Report of the Secretary of the Navy for 1861 and found the summary of US strength (here). Unfortunately the USN considered any vessel laid down as "on strength" and so of the "constructed vessels" 13 sloops, 12 screw gunboats, 12 paddle steamers and the 3 ironclads were...

civilwartalk.com

Monitor versus Merrimac and Armor Piercing shot | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

A little while back in an earlier thread on the monitor and the Virginia slugging it out I wrote and asked if anyone had any information on the Confederate Navy employing a steel shot to penetrate the iron armor of the Monitor. At the time that thread was up I wrote that I had heard or read...

civilwartalk.com

Smooth Bore against Ironclads | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

2/3/63 Genl Whiting states: "I prefer the 10 inch (Columbiad) smooth bore, to rifle guns as against ironclads. We can use the 120 lb bolt in them with effect." Found in National Archives, Letters of the Department of the Cape Fear, Chap. 2, Vol. 334. Thoughts about this choice?

civilwartalk.com

...and if the Brits are coming, do they bring the French?

HTHs,
USS ALASKA

 

[GwilymT]

No, good thing the idea of the Brits landing troops to aid the slaveholders in their rebellion in 1863 is as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

[Old Soldier]

They would not have done, as the Declaration of Neutrality was passed by Parliament and issued on 13 May 1861.

British proclamation of neutrality in the American Civil War - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Read it. (WARNING - very court- and legally-worded, read between the lines)

BTW - The owners of any British ships seized in blockade running were also liable for prosecution in Britain, so the Confederate government initially BOUGHT four ships as blockade-runners.

As a consequence, the US bought a claim for compensation in 1869 for any US merchant ships sunk by any CS commerce raiders - mainly the CSS Alabama - that were built in Britain, the Alabama Claims. After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million, as part of the Treaty of Washington. This help to mend relations between the two countries including Canada, torn since 1776.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

How big is the landing force escort? Where are they landing? How much notice does the Union Navy have?

 

[Old Soldier]

How big is the landing force escort? Where are they landing? How much notice does the Union Navy have?

How big = the Royal Navy. Britannia rules the waves.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

How big = the Royal Navy. Britannia rules the waves.

The Royal Navy had a global empire to defend. They would send a powerful squadron sure, but they would have a limited number of ships available.

 

[Old Soldier]

The Royal Navy had a global empire to defend. They would send a powerful squadron sure, but they would have a limited number of ships available.

Don't bet on it. 163 active steam warships plus 172 in reserve, against USN's 43 active and 48 in reserve (mostly sailing vessels).

 

[USS ALASKA]

One of the issues that might have distracted the British was the January Uprising but that was a land war issue without a huge naval obligation and the French army was there to assist. After 1856, the RN had a great deal of knowledge and potential to fight a naval littoral war.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

The owners of any British ships seized in blockade running were also liable for prosecution in Britain

Sir, do you know of any actual prosecutions that happened because of this?

Thanks for your help,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter by paying the United States $15.5 million, as part of the Treaty of Washington. This help to mend relations between the two countries including Canada, torn since 1776.

The Treaty of Washington which led to the settlement of the Alabama Claims began the road to the Great Rapprochement between the British Empire and the United States, which lasts to this day.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Old Soldier]

Sir, do you know of any actual prosecutions that happened because of this?

Thanks for your help,
USS ALASKA

There was the Trent Affair, in 1861 when the RMS (Royal Mail Ship) Trent was stopped and boarded by a USN ship and two CS envoys were arrested. This caused a lot of anti-North sentiment. There were some successful British blockade-runners initially, but few were known about, never mind investigated. There was little effort to find out. However, the most successful were the CSN blockade runners, commanded and manned by CS officers and crew.

I am researching this at the moment and have yet to find any proof of prosecutions.

 

[Waterloo50]

Sir, do you know of any actual prosecutions that happened because of this?

Thanks for your help,
USS ALASKA

The blockade runners were devious, often sailing from neutral ports under an assumed name, Historian John E. Clark described the British blockade running as "the aquatic equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh trail.

 

[Dead Parrott]

No, good thing the idea of the Brits landing troops to aid the slaveholders in their rebellion in 1863 is as ridiculous as it sounds.

True - this is part of the Redcoats On The Rappahannock fantasy. Never happening.

Best to treat it as a logistical thought experiment rather than racking one's brain about its unlikelihood.

 

[GwilymT]

True - this is part of the Redcoats On The Rappahannock fantasy. Never happening.

Best to treat it as a logistical thought experiment rather than racking one's brain about its unlikelihood.

Sorry, I didn't notice it's in a "what if" thread. Wait...

 

[Old Soldier]

The Treaty of Washington which led to the settlement of the Alabama Claims began the road to the Great Rapprochement between the British Empire and the United States, which lasts to this day.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

The 'international arbitration' was mainly Imperial Germany - the biggest military power in mainland Europe, fresh from its victory over the French, believe it or not.

 

[Old Soldier]

The blockade runners were devious, often sailing from neutral ports under an assumed name, Historian John E. Clark described the British blockade running as "the aquatic equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh trail.

It was a well organised system, but it wasn't 'British'. It was organised by the CSA with the vast majority of small ships blockade-running being Confederate vessels although many were bought from Britain. Any supplies for the Confederacy from Europe (France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Holland were also involved) were transported across the Atlantic in large cargo merchantmen, then landed in the Bahamas (a British territory) or Cuba (a Spanish territory) and thus 'neutral'. To accomodate these unexpected and unusual stores, large warehouses were built, mainly in Nassau and the small port of St George.
The actual blockade-runners were much smaller vessels with a shallow draught, both screw- and side-paddle steamers. Most were Confederate Navy or Confederate/privately-owned. The stores were landed sparodically through Wilmington NC until early 1865, although Galviston TX, Mobile AL and smaller Gulf ports were also used. It was supposed to be a two-way trade with cotton, as well as mail and 'funding' being exported on the return trip, but little cotton was exported in this way. The USN coastal blockade became very successful, however, and, after the fall of New Orleans in 1862, coupled with Bahama patrolling, only the fast screw-steamers managed to make it through.

 

[Borderruffian]

The Brits probably wouldn't have assaulted the Atlantic coast but rather would have chose landing beaches , ports in the Gulf, perhaps even Mexico and then conducted an overland advance to the est, northeast. You always look at defenses when planning an amphibious operation, and let's be realistic the Gulf Coast was not as well covered and Mexican ports weren't covered .

 

[Old Soldier]

The Brits probably wouldn't have assaulted the Atlantic coast but rather would have chose landing beaches , ports in the Gulf, perhaps even Mexico and then conducted an overland advance to the est, northeast. You always look at defenses when planning an amphibious operation, and let's be realistic the Gulf Coast was not as well covered and Mexican ports weren't covered .

Why do you think the War Office sent an extra 3,000 troops to Canada in 1861? Why bother with a coastal 'invasion' when there was the threat of a cross-border invasion - by the Union?