What if... foreign intervention?

[Mangudai]

Big topic.

1. If Britain and France recognized the Confederacy right away, what would happen to national morale in the North and South?

2. Is there any chance Britain and France might have intervened late in the war if the CSA appeared to be winning (like in our game)? How would this play out?

3. If the CSA managed to sell cotton and bonds while the North had trouble selling bonds, would the CSA be able to solve most of its domestic problems? How bad would the Northern economy suffer?

4. Could France or Russia have played a significant role?

5. Could US monitors whoop the British navy along our coasts?

6. Could the US navy severely hamper British trade throughout the world?

7. Which is more likely a Canadian invasion of the US, or a US invasion of Canada? Would either have permanent repercussions.

8. Could the US provoke uprisings and supply arms throughout the British empire, specially South Africa, Ireland, China (a revenue source if not a colony)?

9. Would it be practical for the British to reinforce the CSA directly? If so how and where? Maybe they could reinforce Taylor in Texas and retake New Orleans?

10. By 1865 how did US power compare to British?

[Comtedemeighan]

Well Britain may have intervened in the war because of tension with the North. Great Britain most likely would have lifted the Blockade of the CSA with its fleet its ground forces would have come in from Canada they had a war plan they would have cut the North in Two. I doubt the US could have provoked uprisings in other countries because they had alot on there hands fighting the CSA. Would other great powers have intervened? Well France probably would have joined Britain if they declared war on the North.

[FM WarB]

I believe that historically, the only chance for British and/or French intervention on the side of the Confederacy would have been had they freed the slaves. But, what were they fighting for?

[Mangudai]

I think GB could have broken through the Union blockade at will, but I'm not sure they could lift it completely (at least not late in the war). In this period wooden warships became obsolete, and the seemingly invincible British navy was far from invincible. The Brits had some good armored frigates, but it was not far ahead of the US. The monitors were a different beast entirely. I think 20 monitors could whoop anything and everything the Brits could bring.

The French expeditionary force was tapped in Mexico, so I don't think French ground troops could do much. On the high seas they would be moderately significant.

Don't forget Russia promised to go to war with France and Britain if they intervened. Russia would have reclaimed Crimea for sure. There is a small chance it could invade British Columbia. The Russian navy would certainly make the Baltic, Black, and South China seas treacherous for the Brits.

I think a concentrated British navy could go anywhere on the high seas. But, it could not be everywhere at once. The British economy was highly dependent on foreign trade, so it would have suffered badly.

The idea of US supported uprisings throughout the British empire is only an option late in the war. After the CSA is defeated or nearly so, the war between US and Britain could grind on for several more years. After 1865 the US could have given the Brits a real tough time.

[keith]

the british navy if it intervened early in the war would have been to much for the us, your assumption that it would have struggled is based on the fact that the us navy could develop historically as it did, but that would not happen had the royal navy stepped in early, indeed the british would have matched the us development step for step because they would have had too and also remember the british would have the advantage off only fighting a naval war, i dont see how the us could fight the south on the land and yet at the same time find the resources to fight the royal navy

[dublish]

the british navy if it intervened early in the war would have been to much for the us, your assumption that it would have struggled is based on the fact that the us navy could develop historically as it did, but that would not happen had the royal navy stepped in early, indeed the british would have matched the us development step for step because they would have had too and also remember the british would have the advantage off only fighting a naval war, i dont see how the us could fight the south on the land and yet at the same time find the resources to fight the royal navy

Absolutely wrong. Any British intervention would have been met with additional (or earlier) conscription efforts on the part of the US government in order to take Canada out of the war, both as part of the British Empire and as the most logical place to base fleets for use in blockading northern ports. Based on northern reactions to Fort Sumter, the Trent affair, and other aggressive actions the Union faced during the war, it's reasonable to say that such conscription would be (at least initially) highly successful. The British would then be faced with the problems of enforcing a blockade thousands of miles from any suitable base of operations (you can bet the Union navy would have shifted focus from southern ports to British Caribbean ports) and transporting notoriously unseaworthy ironclads across the notoriously choppy Atlantic to compete with US vessels in their home waters. It would have been a difficult operation even without Russian opposition, as Mangudai pointed out.

That leaves aside the question of how Britain would drum up popular support for a war with one of its biggest trading partners.

[Mangudai]

Absolutely wrong.

Hey this thread invites wild speculation. None of it is absolutely right or wrong.




It would take me while to look up sources to support this position, but according to my imperfect memory...

The Brits had about 2 armored frigates in 1860, and a small number of ships carrying 100 lbr or 10" guns. The 100 lbr's could penetrate the armor of armored frigates, but not monitors.

If Britain and US went to war in 1861, it would have begun similar to our war in 1812. The US would produce a modern armored frigate, send it out and sink a dozen obsolete ships.

The US would have to attack Halifax and Quebec immediately to deprive Canada of seaports. If it mobilized fast, the US could probably seize these objectives with 40,000 troops. Ontario is not an immediate threat unless the British had time to build up forces there. The far west is unimportant, but a few militia brigades from California and Oregon could take British Columbia without too much trouble.

[Comtedemeighan]

The British did send units to Canada at the Beginning of the Civil war and then sent even more because of the Trent Crisis which almost brought the USA and Great Britain to war. They were working on creating a more extensive militia system for Canada as well in case of war with the USA. Were the units enough to hold off a US invasion who knows? Its fun to speculate though

[Pocus]

The forces mobilized during the Trent affair were indeed rather impressive.

[soloswolf]

Absolutely wrong. Any British intervention would have been met with additional (or earlier) conscription efforts on the part of the US government in order to take Canada out of the war, both as part of the British Empire and as the most logical place to base fleets for use in blockading northern ports. Based on northern reactions to Fort Sumter, the Trent affair, and other aggressive actions the Union faced during the war, it's reasonable to say that such conscription would be (at least initially) highly successful. -snip-

Let's not be too optimistic... It's not exactly like the early Federal efforts won them the Civil War in a few months. Why would it win them two?

[Mangudai]

On the land, at the end of March 1861, the British had 2,100 regular troops in Nova Scotia, 2,200 in the rest of Canada, and scattered posts in British Columbia, Bermuda, and the West Indies. Lieutenant General Sir William Fenwick Williams, commander of all British forces in North America did what he could with his small forces, but he wrote repeatedly to the authorities back in England that he needed considerable reinforcements in order to adequately prepare his defenses.[81]

The current resources in Canada consisted of five thousand regular troops and about an equal number of “ill-trained” militia of which only one-fifth were organized. During December the British managed to send 11,000 troops using 18 transports and by the end of the month they were prepared to send an additional 28,400 men. By the end of December, as the crisis ended, reinforcements had raised the count to 924 officers and 17,658 men against an anticipated American invasion of from 50,000 to 200,000 troops. [89]

In Canada, General Williams had toured the available forts and fortifications in November and December. Historian Gordon Warren wrote that Williams found that, “forts were either decaying or nonexistent, and the amount of necessary remedial work was stupefying.”[90] On December 2, at Williams’ urging, the Canadian government agreed to raise its active volunteer force to 7,500. Canadian law provided for the Sedentary Militia, which consisted of all Canadian males between ages 16 and 50. Bourne said of the Sedentary Militia and the status of the Canadian militia:

In spite of its proud record – or perhaps because of it – the Canadian militia had been allowed to decline into a mere paper force. By law the entire male population between eighteen and sixty was liable for service but the vast majority of these, the sedentary militia, had no existence beyond enrolment. The only active force, the volunteers, received a mere six or twelve days’ annual training according to the arm of the service, and of the 5,000 authorized there were only some 4,422 in June 1861 – a “miserable small force! And many of them but ill-trained, unless greatly improved since last year”, was Newcastle’ comment.[91]

Williams, on December 20 began training one company of 75 men from each battalion of the Sedentary Militia, about 38,000 men in total. [92] Warren describes the Sedentary militia:

"Untrained and undisciplined, they showed up in all manner of dress, with belts of basswood bark and sprigs of green balsam in their hats, carrying an assortment of flintlocks, shotguns, rifles, and scythes. Their officers, prefacing orders with ‘please’, recoiled in horror as formations of the backwoodsmen zigzagged on command to wheel to the left.[92]"

It should be noted that the Times reported different numbers regarding Canadian military preparedness than that described above. Rather than 38,000 unprepared militia, it stated that there was a Militia Army of ca. 66,615 militiamen and volunteers "quite equal in all these respects to any force the United States can bring against them" [100] The Times also reported that by February 10, 1862 modern arms and equipment for 105,550 had arrived in Canada along with 20 million cartridges [101].

" From our Correspondent Montreal, Dec. 23. By the time this reaches you Canada will have fully 60,000 men in arms to resist the invasion of her soil... A month ago Canada was at the mercy of the enemy; a month hence it will stand armed to the teeth and capable of offering a firm defence against any force that is likely to be brought against it during the winter. [102]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair

Canada was tougher than I thought. It would be a great deal of fun to game this scenario.

[Redeemer]

France wanted to intervene, but could not convince Britain to do so. France would follow (and did) any decision Britain made on the matter. The major concern of Britain was that any war with the USA would have had a horrendous impact on an already weak economy. They were terrified of what would happen to their merchant marine based on experience from the war of 1812. Look what the CSA was able to do to the USA with very few commerce raiders. Imagine what the USA could have done to European commerce in 1861 and beyond.

[Le Ricain]

British Army Strength during the Trent War Counterfactual

Initial Strength

The British Regular Army is approximately 220,000 strong in 1861, spread out as follows:

UK, available for deployment to America: 40,000 Infantry, 12,000 Cavalry, 6,000 Gunners, 2,000 Engineers

UK, not available for immediate deployment: 5,000 Infantry (excluding those in depots, see below), 2,000 Cavalry, 4,000 Gunners

In the NA & WI Theatre: 25,000 Infantry (4,000 of which are West Indian), 2,000 Gunners, 500 Engineers, 1,000 Troops of the Military Train

In the Med Theatre: 12,000 Infantry (of which 6,000 are available for immediate deployment)

In India: 45,000 Infantry, 6,000 Cavalry, 8,000 Gunners, 1,500 Engineers (plus, 10,000 HEIC Infantry and 3,000 HEIC Cavalry absorbed later in that year)

In New Zealand: 5,000 Infantry, 500 troops of the Military Train

In South Africa: 5,000 Infantry

In China: 3,000 Infantry

In Australia: 120 Gunners (several other gunner batteries elsewhere)

Sources of Expansion

1. The Militia

The Militia and Yeomanry of the United Kingdom were a major source of recruiting in all of Britain’s wars. The Trent War would be no different. The Militia could be called out for service as a reserve army, and the normal practice was for their officers to “raise for rank”.

Since the 1840’s the Militia have been aligned with regular regiments, and on mobilisation they would send volunteers to their aligned regiments. During the Crimea 90,000 out of 160,000 militia volunteered to join the regulars, around 10,000 volunteered for overseas service, and the remainder served in the UK as home defence forces.

Due to the creation of the Volunteers in late 1850’s, Militia numbers declined to around 130,000 by 1862. We can thus estimate that 70,000 militia would volunteer for the regular army in 1862, and 10,000 would volunteer for other colonial service.

2. The Army Reserve

Around the time of the Crimean War, a new scheme was launched. Instead of full careers in the Army, a recruit could enlist for 6 years only, followed by a further 6 in the First Class Army Reserve, and another 12 or so in the Second Class Army Reserve.

The scheme was not a great success, and during this period only 5,000 or so reservists are available to be recalled to the colours.

3. The Yeomanry

The Yeomanry was around 14,000 cavalry, and had a very good record of responding to mobilisations, generally being integrated into existing cavalry regiments.

4. The Volunteers

There were 160,000 volunteers in 1862, including some very old established battalions (such as the HAC and Victoria Rifles), and many newly raised battalions. A small portion of these would volunteer for regular service. Maybe 30,000 volunteers would go regular.

5. Existing Depots

Around 30,000 troops were in the depots, which had been frequently mobilised as additional battalions.

6. New Recruits

New recruits from civilian life would be raised, but would take at least 6 months to train.

7. Foreign Legions

If desperate, the British could again raise Foreign Volunteers.

8. The Military Train

The Military Train was the logistics branch, which was only 3 Battalions strong, but had been raised from nothing to 15 Battalions in 1855. We can assume that since the Military Train was simply raised by militarising existing transport assets, so the new Battalions could be raised extremely quickly.

The Effect

Rather quickly, the British Infantry would expand by 135,000 men. This is essentially an extra battalion for extra regiment.

Forces available for North America, circa April 1862

Before major expansions get underway, the regular British Army could put the following in theatre:

182,000 Infantry

26,000 Cavalry

8,000 Gunners

7,000 Logistics

2,500 Engineers



Total: 225,500

The Canadians themselves already contributed:

5,000 Active Militia

15,000 Volunteer Militia

14,000 Sedentary Militia (out of 38,000 who responded) (1/3rd were called out, so another 28,000 or more could be called out. It was expected that many of those who failed to answer roles would appear if a real war started)

The Maritimes themselves contributed:

1,000 Active Militia (from Newfoundland)

5,000 Volunteer Militia

55,000 Sedentary Militia answered roles



For a total of 195,000 men.



Other Forces

In similar situations, Australia etc. had contributed small volunteer militias of 2-3,000 (in this period). The Indian Army and the British Forces in India could easily bud of a 30,000 man expeditionary force to California.

The Marines were fairly large, 133 Companies strong (140 men per Coy). Each Battleship carried a Coy, which would be organised into Battalions. 3 Marine Battalions would thus be present in NA&WI waters, organised as a Brigade (of 3,000 or so), supplemented by a naval brigade of about 2,000.

Conclusions

British Strength in North America in the event that the Trent War became a serious land war could quickly jump to around 500,000. This is larger in size to the entire Confederate Army.

It is however doubtful the British would commit to this extent unless pushed. However, it shows that the British had enough slack in the system to counter any major invasion. They could successfully “up the ante” no matter how many men the Union diverted from the South. No wonder Lincoln feared the British, their Navy and Economy aside.

http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/misc.htm

Here is another analysis of the situation.

[Mangudai]

Wow that is very impressive. So Britain has a very good chance of defending Canada. Does anyone think the Brits would/could invade the USA?

I agree with Redeemer that the war would devastate international commerce. The Union could do OK without trade. But, Britain was perhaps more dependent on trade than the CSA.

I think the Bond market is an extremely important factor as well.
For the Union inflation per annum was about 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% for the years 1861-1864, for a total of about 100% price increase over the course of the war. For the South the inflation was about 100%, 200%, 300%, oo. The weakness of Confederate currency was an extreme factor in the efficiency of domestic trade for food and salt.

With Britain and France at war the US would not have many buyers for it's bonds, while the CSA would find plenty of buyers. For the US government to spend at historic rates, it's inflation would be several multiples higher. For the CSA inflation could be kept under control. In practical terms the CSA is able to solve many of its domestic problems. Meanwhile the US is courting the threat of shortages and riots.

[Comtedemeighan]

Heres an excellent PDF that talks about the soldiers sent to Canada because of the Trent Crisis

[anarchyintheuk]

Hopefully, the British Army (and Navy) had overhauled their logistics system after the Crimean War. They had a hard enough time supplying 30k there.

[chilammx]

Another interesting What if, in the subject of the possible foreign intervention in the American civil war.
What if the CSA had colaborated more with the French intervention in Mexico?

Before, and after the civil war, Mexico was in his own long a bloddy civil war.

One side, the republicans or liberals, heavily supported by the USA.
The other side, the conservadores, die-hard catholics and proponents of a king or emperor, seeking ties with europe.

When the French invaded Mexico, it is wrongly assumed that all the mexicans fight the invaders. As a fact tens of thousands fight for the Mexican Empire cause. Until it was well known that in fact Maximilian of Habsbourg, the Austrian noble, brought by the French to be the mexican emperor, was a liberal himself. In the end with the french gone, the last troops that the emperor can gather where a few thousands of mexicans supporters, and 2 mexican generals where killed with him ultimatly.

Before the french invasion, the conservadores almost defeated the liberals, but thanks to the USA help, Juarez de liberal president was able to survive.
The cause of the conservadores was most popular among the iliterate, catholic fanatics that where the gross of the mexican population.

When the american civil war started, the french know that they can have their oportunity to put a strong feet in america a again. But the invasion in general was not well planned, specially with the selection of the emperor, Maximilian was not the kind of emperor de conservador faction expected, and was doomed since he disembarked in Veracruz.

Now, if the french understand that the clue to win in mexico was having the support of the faction that already was winning the civil war in Mexico, and taking in account that the other faction was not able to recieve important ammounts of help of their main sponsor, the USA, they could have succeded in impose a Francophile state just south of the border.

Was it possible to the CSA and the french expeditionary force to cooperate?
Supossing that the french where succesful to implant the pro-french government in Mexico, they already have 50,000 troops in the country, and they can easily muster another ammount of loyal conservadores. I suppose that if they plan to hold that project they need that the USA lost the civil war. Will they support directly the CSA?

Maybe the american civil war outcome could have been different. Maybe the unexpected political beliefes of an Austrian noble with a sad fate, were an important fact in the American Civil War.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I think I broached this idea earlier, but can't quite remember: It would be fun to have a game scenario created (1) that assumes foreign intervention has triggered, (2) wherein the player plays all the foreign forces, while (3) USA and CSA forces are under AI control. But I have no idea how hard/time-consuming it would be to create this.

[Rafiki]

Yeah, something like that sound like fun

[bschulte]

Interesting discussion. A good book looking at British and American relations during the Civil War is Caution and Cooperation: The American Civil War in British-American Relations.

I too would like to wargame this scenario. I think a hypothetical action of this type would have appeal to a broader audience than your typical Civil War game as well.

In the end, I think European Intervention would never have happened. Reading Caution and Cooperation, one gets the sense Lincoln AND Palmerston administrations would have done anything possible to avoid a war in this time period.

[Mangudai]

The dream situation for the CSA is to convince the USA to agree to a cease fire while they jointly enforce the Monroe doctrine (no European empires in the Western Hemisphere). In the process of "liberating" Mexico, the CSA would annex Chihuahua and Sonora.

If I recall correctly Foote discusses a plan along these lines. I think it was serious enough for discussion in Jefferson Davis' cabinet.