The last shots of the American Civil War were fired in Russia

Or better yet- read the book on the Shenandoah's voyage by Lyn Schooler.

Scan0001.jpg
Scan0002.jpg
 
I hadn't thought about that but it's so, isn't it - Seward's ice-box deal hadn't been done yet. I was even more surprised to find a destroyer named USS Waddell...considering Waddell darn near destroyed both American and British whaling single-handedly!
 
Quite interesting. Must admit, never heard about such specific reaction from Tsar government.

Intriguing question. AFAIK the definition of territorial waters at that time only extended to the three-mile limit - based on the range of cannons - so however annoyed the Tsar might be, there would be little legal basis for complaint about Alaskan waters. A case might be made for the Sea of Okhotsk as Russian territory.

The "mad dash....the long way around" was actually the most direct route to Britain. Due to the prevailing westerly winds, it was easier and faster to go around Cape Horn. For the same reason, Shenandoah had gone via the Cape of Good Hope on the outbound voyage from Britain to the Pacific.

USS Waddell was not "the first [US Navy ship] to be named for an enemy captain who wreaked havoc on American shipping"; there was a Semmes in the massive WWI destroyer program, which served through WWII. A second Semmes was a sister to Waddell in the 1960s Charles F. Adams class, along with Buchanan (third of the name) and Tatnall.
 
...so however annoyed the Tsar might be, there would be little legal basis for complaint.

Even if there was, who would he engage with? The Brits and their empire for building her and taking her in in OZ? At most they might get an 'objection noted' comment given the relations between the two at the time.

By the time of the sinking in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Confederacy ceased to exist so can't send the demarche to them. Even if it happened before, the Russians did not recognize the Confederacy.

That leaves the USA - his current ally. That's not going to happen.

I'm not sure he has any options even if he did have cause.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Intriguing question. AFAIK the definition of territorial waters at that time only extended to the three-mile limit - based on the range of cannons - so however annoyed the Tsar might be, there would be little legal basis for complaint about Alaskan waters. A case might be made for the Sea of Okhotsk as Russian territory.

Well, considering that the Russian Empire did not recognize Confederacy as political entity, any russian warship, which met Shenandoah, would probably just attack her as pirate, without actually searching for a justification... Especially in 1864-1865, when any political backing from Britain and France, that Confederacy may have before, essentially evaporated.
 
@Dilandu - sir, given your expertise on the Russian Empire, if the Russians had taken a Confederate commerce raider, what would she have done with the crew?

Hung them? Imprisoned them? Turn them over to the Union as a show of good faith and political expediency?

And I would imagine this would be impacted by the '...where were they caught?' '...how they were caught?' and '...did they attack Russian interests?' issues.

Just wondering what your thoughts might be.

Thanks!
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
The last shots of the War of 1812 were also naval, but they were in the Indian Ocean when USS Peacock, of 22 guns, defeated The East India Company armed Brig Nautilus, of 14- guns, on June 30th, 1815. From wiki:

"On 30 June she captured the 16-gun brig Nautilus, which was under the command of Lieutenant Charles Boyce of the Bombay Marine of the British East India Company in the Straits of Sunda, in the final naval action of the war. Boyce informed [Captain Lewis] Warrington [commander of the USS Peacock] that the war had ended. Warrington suspected a ruse and ordered Boyce to surrender. When Boyce refused, Warrington opened fire, killing one seaman, two European invalids, and three lascars, wounding Boyce severely, as well as mortally wounding the first lieutenant, and also wounding five lascars. American casualties amounted to some four or five men wounded. When Boyce provided documents proving that the Treaty of Ghent ending the war had been ratified, Warrington released his victims, though at no point did he in any way inquire about the Boyce's condition or that of any of the injured on Nautilus.Peacock returned to New York on 30 October. A court of inquiry in Boston a year later exonerated Warrington of all blame. In his report on the incident, Warrington reported that the British casualties had only been lascars."
 
...which was under the command of Lieutenant Charles Boyce of the Bombay Marine of the British East India Company...

This brings up something I haven't thought of before. The EIC was a serious power. Sort of like the PMCs of today - and I know that is a horrible analogy, they were so much more. The EIC had influence across the entire DIME spectrum. She was a commercial enterprise that expanded into pseudo nation-state status under a British Empire umbrella.

Maybe this is a question for @rebelatsea or @67th Tigers (or anyone else who can help) - when the British Empire went to war in the EIC era, were EIC's forces incorporated into the wartime OOB and used to further tactical and operational objectives or was it enough for the company to just keep her trade flowing and protected thereby alleviating the RN and Army of the responsibility? The EIC had an army and with all her armed ships - her own navy. And this kinda impacts 'Trent' thread discussions...

Sorry - I know we are going askew from the OP. @AndyHall is going to castigate me and rightly so... :yellowcarded:

Dang it - now off to Amazon to look for books about this (anyone who can suggest some would be greatly appreciated!)

Thanks for the help,
USS ALASKA
 
Last edited:
when the British Empire went to war in the EIC era, were EIC's forces incorporated into the war plan and used to further tactical and operational objectives or was it enough for the company to just keep her trade flowing and protected thereby alleviating the RN and Army of the responsibility?
EIC forces were under British OpCon during events such as the Anglo-Sikh War, so it looks like it's the first option.

And this kinda impacts 'Trent' thread discussions...
It actually doesn't, as the last vestiges of the EIC as an independent military force was wound up in 1861-2. The 101st to 109th regiments were created out of ex-EIC troops over this period, but functionally they'd lost their authority in 1858.
 
I may have to castigate you, after I look up that word and find out what it means.

Oh great - you gave me a 'Like'!?! You sir are encouraging my disruptive and nonsensical off-topic behavior by giving me positive reinforcement! So...this is YOUR fault! I'm the victim here!

...thanks for the leeway... :wink:

Anywho - that is castigate - NOT castrate - but in this virtual context I'm not sure there is a difference...

Cheers to you for the thankless task you perform here keeping idiots like me in line!
USS ALASKA
 
The last shots of the War of 1812 were also naval, but they were in the Indian Ocean when USS Peacock, of 22 guns, defeated The East India Company armed Brig Nautilus, of 14- guns, on June 30th, 1815. From wiki:

"On 30 June she captured the 16-gun brig Nautilus, which was under the command of Lieutenant Charles Boyce of the Bombay Marine of the British East India Company in the Straits of Sunda, in the final naval action of the war. Boyce informed [Captain Lewis] Warrington [commander of the USS Peacock] that the war had ended. Warrington suspected a ruse and ordered Boyce to surrender. When Boyce refused, Warrington opened fire, killing one seaman, two European invalids, and three lascars, wounding Boyce severely, as well as mortally wounding the first lieutenant, and also wounding five lascars. American casualties amounted to some four or five men wounded. When Boyce provided documents proving that the Treaty of Ghent ending the war had been ratified, Warrington released his victims, though at no point did he in any way inquire about the Boyce's condition or that of any of the injured on Nautilus.Peacock returned to New York on 30 October. A court of inquiry in Boston a year later exonerated Warrington of all blame. In his report on the incident, Warrington reported that the British casualties had only been lascars."

Ironically, the first ship captured in the war was also a brig named Nautilus, but American.
 
EIC forces were under British OpCon during events such as the Anglo-Sikh War, so it looks like it's the first option.

Wah Wah Waaaayyyy off topic.... Did the British provide officers or did they allow these units to operate autonomously with just operational direction?

Thanks Again,
USS ALASKA
 
Back
Top