The Laird Rams Join the CSN

[rebelatsea]

Where we are all in the dark over is what the original purpose of the Rams was to be. I cannot see 4 ships of any type 'breaking the blockade' so late in the war. The four together could probably defend a Southern port, but which one? One idea mentioned was that they could hold a Northern port to ransom, which would be a better ploy, but then comes the next question - which ones were on the shortlist?
(An equivalent situation would be Idi Amin contemplating bombing London.)

When would they have been on active service? The Laird rams MAY have been active by the end of 1863, the French Rams possibly a little later. Armament is still only conjectural. They would still have to cross the Atlantic, so on station in early 1864 at the earliest. Bear in mind that there were US Navy vessels from the Mediterranean Squadron showing a 'diplomatic prescence' along the Atlantic shipping lanes by now, ready to intercept any possible raiders (or warships) from the Confederacy so their intention would be well signalled in advance..

** Why were the British government not aware of the building of these rams? The government had already seized a ship, the Alexandra, that was allegedly being built for the Confederates, but were defeated in court when sued by the shipyard owner and had to release it as it was the owners property ie not on contract and it was a merchant vessel. They may have been aware of the construction of Laird's ships, but it was not government policy at the time to interfere with the development of technology, with trade or production. The rather naïve assumption would have been that they were experimental designs to be sold on.

The Lincoln Administration had requested Laird to build armed ironclads for the Union in 1861 and the design of the rams was allegedly based on the plans presented for that. John Laird's family had a number of links to slavery and colonialism. The 'Egyptian Contract' was concocted and accepted without undue concern by both Britain and France, mainly bcause it was known the Egyptian government was looking at modernising their navy. It was not unusual in that many other developing nations also bought European ships - advanced for the time. The French Emperor Napoleon III did know about the French rams and who ordered them, but told the builders to 'keep it quiet'. It was a foreign commercial contract. There seems to have been no government involvement on the French side.

If the two US ambassadors did not have a rather good intelligence setup and aid from their British and French contacts, they would not have found out about the rams and once information was received by the US Government, there was talk of a US Navy raid on Birkenhead to ensure the construction would never be completed. There is no rumour about doing the same to the French Rams, however. When the information from the US Ambassadors was communicated, both countries acted quickly. The Brits, being stung already by the Alabama's exploits, acted quickly and seized the two ships. The French builders were, apparently, just told to be rid of them - to sell them on. There does not seem to have been the same diplomatic threats and arm-twisting as employed on the British. Laird then sued the British government for impeding his business because their construction did not violate the Foreign Enlistment Act 1819 nor British neutrality. This looked like it could be a repeat of the Alexandra case. This was sidelined by buying the ships for the Royal Navy and the action was withdrawn..

Nothing alledged about the Fox - Howard ironclads. They are in the Laird papers held by Liverpool Maritime Museum Library and in the Archive of the Danish Naval Museum in Copenhagen.

The Danish Naval Museum Archive is an absolute treasure trove of nautical information from all over the world as well as Danish and Scandinavian naval History, both commonly known and obscure.

 

[steve59p]

If the two US ambassadors did not have a rather good intelligence setup and aid from their British and French contacts, they would not have found out about the rams and once information was received by the US Government, there was talk of a US Navy raid on Birkenhead to ensure the construction would never be completed. There is no rumour about doing the same to the French Rams, however. When the information from the US Ambassadors was communicated, both countries acted quickly. The Brits, being stung already by the Alabama's exploits, acted quickly and seized the two ships. The French builders were, apparently, just told to be rid of them - to sell them on. There does not seem to have been the same diplomatic threats and arm-twisting as employed on the British. Laird then sued the British government for impeding his business because their construction did not violate the Foreign Enlistment Act 1819 nor British neutrality. This looked like it could be a repeat of the Alexandra case. This was sidelined by buying the ships for the Royal Navy and the action was withdrawn..

Who was the raving idiot who was suggesting that!! Or was it just bluster from someone who knew they were not being serious?

 

[Old Soldier]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, I think the Admiralty would have found ways and means to have placed trained RN personel in the crews of the turret ships, so that their performance in reality would be accurately evaluated.

It is quite possible - if rather ... underhanded. Any port in a storm.

Wrong, Britain was quite adept at using other peoples conflicts to gain knowledge and find if anything was to be learned. Late 19th Century paranoia and official secrets acts put paid to that and ushered in the era of the clandestine spy.

Quite right. If the Establishment didn't like the idea, or was hesitant, it was perfectly in order to sell abroad to see if it worked - provided you could convince the buyer. This is why the 'Egyptian Contract' was so easily accepted - it was common practice. This applied in all areas of developing technology in the steam era, not just military equipment although the Brits prided themselves on their ships. There was always a eye out for new developments elsewhere too, not all arms development was British - Minie was French, Snider was based in America, Martini was Swiss and Lee was American! Hotchkiss and Krupp also helped out at times. We just adopted what was necessary and developed it for what we needed.

 

[Old Soldier]

Who was the raving idiot who was suggesting that!! Or was it just bluster from someone who knew they were not being serious?

That was a suggestion raised in Lincoln's Cabinet Council but no one is named. I suspect it was as 'if all else fails' option amongst a number of other options.

“This Is War”: The Construction of the Laird Rams

By Hannah Christensen ‘17 By the spring of 1863, American ambassador to England Charles Francis Adams had a much bigger problem than the activities of British-built Confederate raiders on his hands…

gettysburgcompiler.org

 

[Saphroneth]

It is quite possible - if rather ... underhanded. Any port in a storm.

Presumably the British government would just point at all the illegal crimping going on in Canada and say that the US clearly has no problems with Britishmen being recruited to serve in the military of a belligerent.

That was a suggestion raised in Lincoln's Cabinet Council but no one is named. I suspect it was as 'if all else fails' option amongst a number of other options.

Lincoln was surprisingly hard to persuade out of a hard line on Britain at times, like Trent.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Wrong, Britain was quite adept at using other peoples conflicts to gain knowledge and find if anything was to be learned. Late 19th Century paranoia and official secrets acts put paid to that and ushered in the era of the clandestine spy.

Yes by simple observation of results. You did not have to sacrifice trained personnel.

 

[Old Soldier]

Presumably the British government would just point at all the illegal crimping going on in Canada and say that the US clearly has no problems with Britishmen being recruited to serve in the military of a belligerent.



Lincoln was surprisingly hard to persuade out of a hard line on Britain at times, like Trent.

1) That was what the original Foreign Enlistment Act 1819 was all about. To stop foreign contries taking British volunteers on board in foreign wars - aimed mainly at S America. The part about ships was an add-on - to keep us out of it! (Most of Alabama's crew was British - they were offered a way out but few took it - which is why I imagined the Rams would have British crews. )

2) Most US histories tend to make Lincoln far less 'hardline' than we do, often the one talking others of his cabinet out of hard line alternatives.

 

[Saphroneth]

2) Most US histories tend to make Lincoln far less 'hardline' than we do, often the one talking others of his cabinet out of hard line alternatives.

Which is why it's such a strange thing to see that during Trent it takes three days to persuade him out of trying for arbitration - which in the context would have meant war.

 

[Old Soldier]

Which is why it's such a strange thing to see that during Trent it takes three days to persuade him out of trying for arbitration - which in the context would have meant war.

A little out of context, but I just read up on the Trent Affair (again) and found it was Secretary of State Seward who had openly favored war with Britain - as a means of uniting the divided country! Lincoln kept out of it apparently due to lack of experience in foreign affairs.

 

[Saphroneth]

A little out of context, but I just read up on the Trent Affair (again) and found it was Secretary of State Seward who had openly favored war with Britain - as a means of uniting the divided country! Lincoln kept out of it apparently due to lack of experience in foreign affairs.

Seward actually did that, to my understanding, to neutralize the idea that you could take the middle path Lincoln wanted. He then switched to an anti-war position after spooking Lincoln.

 

[Old Soldier]

To get back on thread. I think the example of the Huascar battle where two unprotected small warships took on a turreted ironclad would serve as a good illustration of how the USN would have dealt with the rams - keep at a distance and put down effective fire on them, whether they resulted in significant damage or not.

The next question is harder to resolve - how the rams were going to be used. They were going to have a hard time in any of the East coast estuaries where the ports were and equally at any distance offshore at sea. Resupply appears to have been a major problem given their limited access to ports so any action would seem to be confined to either one major operation causing lasting damage to the Union or a longer restricting operation lasting perhaps 3 months. This will be taking place in 1864, probably starting in the Spring. They are remote from any central command and would have received orders after New Year concerning the situation around January or perhaps February. There would be little chance of receiving or planning any major changes once underway.

 

[edgeworthy]

That was a suggestion raised in Lincoln's Cabinet Council but no one is named. I suspect it was as 'if all else fails' option amongst a number of other options.

“This Is War”: The Construction of the Laird Rams

By Hannah Christensen ‘17 By the spring of 1863, American ambassador to England Charles Francis Adams had a much bigger problem than the activities of British-built Confederate raiders on his hands…

gettysburgcompiler.org

This would have been at best a problematic action given that the Guardship at Liverpool was the 80 Gun Steam Ship of the Line HMS Majestic and the Union Navy had precisely zero Steam Ships of the Line.

 

[Old Soldier]

This would have been at best a problematic action given that the Guardship at Liverpool was the 80 Gun Steam Ship of the Line HMS Majestic and the Union Navy had precisely zero Steam Ships of the Line.

Unless they landed at Wallasey and sent the Marines in overland.

 

[rebelatsea]

This would have been at best a problematic action given that the Guardship at Liverpool was the 80 Gun Steam Ship of the Line HMS Majestic and the Union Navy had precisely zero Steam Ships of the Line.

Unfortunately Majestic arrived in no condition to fight, having been victim to one of the Irish Sea's notorious "spats".

Having experienced a crossing in one of them on a 16.000 ton ferry which did not escape unscathed, I can appreciate what she must have gone through. I would not want to repeat the experience
We had vehicles torn from their shackles on the cargo deck, smashed windows ,portholes and damaged deck equipment. An RN Frigate came to us "just in case", followed by the RNLI.

 

[steve59p]

That was a suggestion raised in Lincoln's Cabinet Council but no one is named. I suspect it was as 'if all else fails' option amongst a number of other options.

“This Is War”: The Construction of the Laird Rams

By Hannah Christensen ‘17 By the spring of 1863, American ambassador to England Charles Francis Adams had a much bigger problem than the activities of British-built Confederate raiders on his hands…

gettysburgcompiler.org

OK thanks. That makes more sense. I initially read it as a plan before they tried diplomacy.

 

[Old Soldier]

Unfortunately Majestic arrived in no condition to fight, having been victim to one of the Irish Sea's notorious "spats".

Having experienced a crossing in one of them on a 16.000 ton ferry which did not escape unscathed, I can appreciate what she must have gone through. I would not want to repeat the experience
We had vehicles torn from their shackles on the cargo deck, smashed windows ,portholes and damaged deck equipment. An RN Frigate came to us "just in case", followed by the RNLI.

This is one of the things that some never realise, just what the sea can do to a ship. Having worked on the open deck of a marine seismic ship (overhead cover only) in the North Sea in Winter, I can sympathise. Storms arrive very quickly and, if the weather is overcast already, you cannot see them coming. They do not last long, but the sea never settles back to 'normal' afterwards.

We worked on the back deck of the ship - an old converted Hull stern trawler. You watched the horizon/waves dipping - the view changing from grey stormy sea too grey sky over and over again - the ship going up and down and, of course, side to side as well - and the clatter of water on the overhead cover as the spray (and mega-spray) from the bow hitting the next wave came over the bridge and fell on the stern. This is why it always makes me smile when others suggest that these rather rolly rams would have no difficulty in crossing the Atlantic. Good job I don't get seasick!

 

[Old Soldier]

OK thanks. That makes more sense. I initially read it as a plan before they tried diplomacy.

It is one of the things that few take into account in cabinet politics - the actual words spoken in the time between when the news arrives and when the decisions are made - and when the minutes are written.

 

[rebelatsea]

This is one of the things that some never realise, just what the sea can do to a ship. Having worked on the open deck of a marine seismic ship (overhead cover only) in the North Sea in Winter, I can sympathise. Storms arrive very quickly and, if the weather is overcast already, you cannot see them coming. They do not last long, but the sea never settles back to 'normal' afterwards.

We worked on the back deck of the ship - an old converted Hull stern trawler. You watched the horizon/waves dipping - the view changing from grey stormy sea too grey sky over and over again - the ship going up and down and, of course, side to side as well - and the clatter of water on the overhead cover as the spray (and mega-spray) from the bow hitting the next wave came over the bridge and fell on the stern. This is why it always makes me smile when others suggest that these rather rolly rams would have no difficulty in crossing the Atlantic. Good job I don't get seasick!

Most people don't know how vicious the weather can be in the North Sea, the Channel, St George's Channel and the Irish Sea or for that matter the Baltic and it's approaches. Like you I don't get seasick (oddly I did on the Hovercraft Ferry). That Irish Sea crossing was the second bad one for me, the first being a double crossing between Folkestone and Ostend - we hit the mole going into Ostend, and on return couldn't get into either Folkestone or Dover and spent the day being thrown about between Dungeness Point and Folkestone.

 

[67th Tigers]

At the time, the Mersey was defended by three fortifications.

At the mouth, at New Brighton, is Fort Perch Rock. It mounted 2x 7" Armstrong rifles, 8x 68 pdrs and 8x long 32 pdrs.

If you get past that, there are two forts on opposite sides of the river. On the Lancs side is the North Fort, with 10x long 32's and 4x 8" shell guns bearing on the channel, and on the Cheshire side is the Liscard Battery with 7x 10"shell guns.

Good luck with that!

 

[RodentRevolution]

It is funny all this talk about war and warlike actions when a more sensible and proportionate threat would have been simply to explain that due to the stress if the Laird Rams crossed to the Confederacy, US customs officials and harbourmasters would have to take an extra 24 hours over British vessels' paperwork.

Yes it hurts the US but less than going to war with the British, it does however ensure the British government is looking at greater revenue losses and more angry merchants and shippers than Laird Bros could muster up. As a threat that makes it more credible as well as proportionate.