1864 "The South by a nose"

[MrP]

Having entered this discussion in a rather blase offhand way, I'm now baffled as to any set of circumstances that would see Britain waging war against America.

Maybe we could move the PoD earlier to the Trent Affair. The political mess doesn't lead to war, but the British Army does station 20,000 troops in Canada permanently, and Canadians form local militias. Tensions slowly rise, but still aren't great enough to spark war until 1864. Confederate agents, operating out of Canada, manage to burn down almost half of New York. The USA demands reparations, and 20,000 more British troops are deployed to Canada over the next few months as diplomacy continues. A border incident gets out of hand, and one side or the other ends up accused of a barbarous massacre that forces the other side to war. By the middle of the year diplomacy has failed, but the Anglo-Canadian forces are capable of strictly defensive operations on a limited frontage.

Meanwhile the RN has broken the blockade. The South has lost the war in the West without a doubt. However, fresh supplies of ammunition, clothing and food swell the spirits of the Army of Northern Virginia, letting her carry on fighting longer and more vigorously than OTL. Hardly Guns of the South territory, but . . .

A particularly nasty naval campaign goes on along the coast. With enhanced supplies from Britain the CSN is able to produce more ironclads to counter the USN - though I'm loath to give them more than 2 more! The British contribution to the war is more supplies than troops. There are some limited naval alndings - mainly on the West coast, where the USN is practically non-existent. British forces in fact concentrate all their attacks on this coast, since American armies are elsewhere.

France takes a minor role in the war because of Mexico. She does not declare war, but she is quite happy to sell supplies to the South.

I still don't know if we can pull a free rump South out of this. Any suggestions, guys?

 

[LDoc]

If with all the supplies in the world, the CSA simply lacks the manpower or the infustructure to transport said supplies to the front line. Also how are CSA agents goin to burn down half of NYC. Also 40,000+ british soldiers and militias would be swept aside by veteran US soldiers. The blockade will be broken, but that is of little importance this late in the game. It has already done it's job of cutting off the CSA during the critical early years. Furthermore there is no way the US would accept a peace with the CSA. Lincoln would certainly lose the election under those circumstances. And as many others have said, where are the troops/ships comming from? What is the Uk willing to sacrifice for CSA. any slack in colonial defences is just asking for a European backed uprising or even a native born one.

 

[Norman]

If with all the supplies in the world, the CSA simply lacks the manpower or the infustructure to transport said supplies to the front line. Also how are CSA agents goin to burn down half of NYC. Also 40,000+ british soldiers and militias would be swept aside by veteran US soldiers. The blockade will be broken, but that is of little importance this late in the game. It has already done it's job of cutting off the CSA during the critical early years. Furthermore there is no way the US would accept a peace with the CSA. Lincoln would certainly lose the election under those circumstances. And as many others have said, where are the troops/ships comming from? What is the Uk willing to sacrifice for CSA. any slack in colonial defences is just asking for a European backed uprising or even a native born one.

The only possible way would be something like:
1. Great Britain Breaks the Blockade
2. GB provides some supplies to CSA, permitting the CSA to fortify coastal cities,
3. Lincoln loses the election,
4. At some key moment GB provides some troops and offers a real politik solution for which the South will eventually have to pay,
5. The North accepts the offer, and keeps the west.

An interesting wildly improbable thought is that after the above GB lends the CSA all kinds of money, then some 25 years later attempts to collect its debt. The Rump South then turns to the US to protect it under the Monroe Doctrine.

 

[MrP]

The burning down half of NYC is not intended as a war winning thing - I merely lazily threw in something that'd make war a lot more likely. Anything better ye can think of, I'd be happy to accept I doubt that 40,000 troops and a large force of militia will be swept aside even at this stage. I merely want them to hold for a few months to permit anegotiated peace to achieve the ends of a rump CSA. Without ASBs it's pretty feasible. Overconfident US general or an underconfident US general will both permit a long war on the Canadian front - though I don't see ANY possibility of holding the whole frontier!

I didn't state it, but I intend to provide the troops by increasing the establishment of the Army by 30,000 to 40,000 during the period of the emergency. The new recruits will hold down existing possessions, while more experienced units from areas with a low risk of rebellion will send forces to Canada. Was the colonial empire of the UK really that precarious in 1864?

Ships? Well, I don't have a list of British merchant shipping for moving supplies - but I can well imagine the RN being capable of finding sufficient ships to break the RN blockade while retaining defensive forces everywhere. I'd rather not dig out Conway's again to list the possible hostile fleets if you've not got a particular one in mind. If memory serves the only potential threat is France - and she is neutral, but supportive of British actions.

Frankly, I'm finding it very difficult to put together a reason - but this is more an AH challenge than something I'd come up with myself. I'm not too keen on the CSA, to be honest That's kinda why I'm asking for constructive criticism.

 

[Hyperion]

If the Union has control of Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and eventually Alabama, that would leave the Confederacy with Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida.

Keep in mind that while the Union does not control those states, they do control the area around Charleston South Carolina, which is one of few big ports in the CSA. The Union has controls most of the North Carolina coast and some inland territory. Coastal areas of Virginia are under the control of the Union. The fort and river area leading inland to Savannah, Georgia are under the control of the Union, even if the city isn't. It also appears that Sherman is continuing as he did in OTL, pursuing the Army of Tennessee, advancing towards Atlanta, and destroying anything in his path and wake that his forces don't need or that could aid the enemy.

 

[LDoc]

The reason I think the 40,000 soldiers and militia wouldn't be to big an obstalce, is that the Canadian-US borderhas much more room for manuever. An Army twice the size, or even three times the size, of the British Defenders would easily be able to go around or serround most defences that the British would establish. Sure the British could retreat into the cities, but I doubt they would have sufficient artillery to hold out for long, esspeicaly if they try to defend more then one city. And don't forget that Russia i still in competition with the UK over central asian countries and France could easily instigate trouble all across the British Empire, simply because they are colonial rivals. Any European power would see the British entry int he Civil War as a major stratagetic blunder and would act accordingly. Also what kind of CSA would be left even if a peace treaty would be signed? With most, if not all, major cities in Union hands I can't see the new nation surviving very long.

 

[DMA]

That would depend on what you meant by defeat? If you mean defeating all of the Union armies then no of course not. If you meant defeating the Union in eastern Canada then the odds are against the British. If you mean digging in and holding the Union armies in Canada, I think that not unlikely. If you mean destroying US coastal cities with marines and the occupation of the Oregon I would say the British would win..

How on earth is the UK Army going to defeat the US Army on American albeit Canadian soil? In 1865 the Union has over 1 million men at arms. many are veterans from numerous campaigns. The USA will be employing current battle tested tactic & strategy. Futhermore their generals, like many of the troops are veterans. The USA equipment is far superior to anything in the UK army's arsenal save for artillery. But the US, not only is arming its troops with repeater rifles, but other weapons like the Gatling Gun is also being wildly used. Nope. It's no laughing matter. The British will get slaughtered. Now the Canadians may slow up the initial attacks, but that'll only last a week or so. Thereafter the US armies simply sweep all before them. Canada, for the most part, becomes American territory before the British can do anything about it.

Halifax station, West Indies station and on the Pacific; Vancouver and the South China station.

That's a Hell of a long distance from the Chesapeake. Remember Cornwallis?

In 1864 the British are the industrial superpower, the USA (both USA and CSA combined) will not surpass them in industrial production until almost the 1900s. If it came to a race the British can outstrip US production and development of ships..

You forget one fundamanetal point. The UK industry isn't geared up for war. The USA industry, on the other hand, is geared up for war. Four years of it so far. And I think you'll find that the USA industrial power is a lot closer the UKs than you think, thanks to the ACW.

Accepting you latter conceeded the point I suggest you look at some piccies of Warrior which was an 1860(?) ship and no longer state of the art. She is still around. Later RN vessels were much more formidable.

The latter RN ships might be more formable, that I don't doubt, but we're talking this naval clash in 1864 I gather? Well I'm not prepared at all to right-off the USN. The RN will have a fight on it's hands & it's not as clear cut as you think. I'd give the final verdict to the USN if only by a whisker.

What disadvantages? The USN carries most of them. They have to make a decision; allow the RN to raise the blockade and pillage her coasts piecemeal or meet in a fleet action they will almost certainly loose. No doubt they can scatter the smaller ships to raid commerce but the larger fleet elements will be lost one way or another.

Well the USN is operating close to home ports. The RN, by the very nature of the ships involved, have to have a refueling station as much as anything else. That means they can't remain on station for long, & resupplying at sea at this point in the game, doesn't happen yet. Furthermore, the USN can mass produce Monitors (don't forget the original Monitor only took 101 days to build) & other ironclad type vessels in short time & have them on station a few days later. The RN can't hope to compete in this regards. But just as importantly it can come down to morale. The USN is enjoying victory after victory in the ACW. The men's morale must be the highest that it has ever been & many of these victories are just as good & daring as anything the RN has pulled off - especially within the last 20 years. But there's more. The USN has admirals like Porter & Farragut who are superior IMHO to anything the RN had at the same time.

 

[MrP]

The reason I think the 40,000 soldiers and militia wouldn't be to big an obstalce, is that the Canadian-US borderhas much more room for manuever. An Army twice the size, or even three times the size, of the British Defenders would easily be able to go around or serround most defences that the British would establish. Sure the British could retreat into the cities, but I doubt they would have sufficient artillery to hold out for long, esspeicaly if they try to defend more then one city. And don't forget that Russia i still in competition with the UK over central asian countries and France could easily instigate trouble all across the British Empire, simply because they are colonial rivals. Any European power would see the British entry int he Civil War as a major stratagetic blunder and would act accordingly. Also what kind of CSA would be left even if a peace treaty would be signed? With most, if not all, major cities in Union hands I can't see the new nation surviving very long.

Look, LDoc, I'm trying to fulfil a challenge. I don't think it likely that the UK would go to war with the USA in 1864 in support of the CSA. IF they were to have done, however, I'm trying to envisage a scenario that makes at least some sense.

France could instigate trouble over the Empire - but in this scenario her feelings are pro-Confederate and pretty ambivalent toward Britain. The RN still has enough ships to prevent France doing aught dangerous, unless she wants to risk her fleet's safety. But let's bypass this - what I am trying to do, and I will type this slowly so it penetrates this time - is this: I am attempting to come up with a scenario that gives Britain reasons to enter the war in 1864 and a chance of at least a negotiated settlement that leaves a rump CSA in existence. There should be little or no chance of the Empire suffering awful territorial losses or casualties in this scenario.

The British in Canada will defend defensible locations, not the empty frontier. They are vulnerable to cavalry and mounted infantry forces. However, I'd like to leave them mostly marching to Atlanta. Strip them away and send them north and we slow the march to the sea.

If you can think of another way, with the PoD in 1861 or later to get more British troops into America without war before 1864, I would love to hear it.

 

[Jason Sleeman]

Just a couple of comments:

1
3) If Meade is replaced, why doesn't Hancock become GOC of the AoP?

Hancock may be another likely canidate, but I chose Sedgewick because Hancock was still suffering from the wound to the groin he suffered during Pickett's Charge. I just felt it might have been too much strain on him.

 

[Jason Sleeman]

The South by a Nose part II

So much speculation on this P.O.D and so many diverse thoughts, how cool !

Well It's seeming implausible already, nonetheless I will attempt to continue.

Part II

May 28 1864- Battle of Gordonsville... Union General John Sedgewick attempts to smash through Lee's Left commanded by A.P Hill's III Corps. Hancock's II Corps and Warren's V Corps are used as the assault force.

Lee is able to hold the union attacks off by shifting a reserve division under John B Gordon to shore up the line but only for that day. On The 29th A renewed assault in which the already famous 20th Maine Regiment leads the V Corps attack. The ANV withdraws under a Cavalry rearguard commanded by Jeb Stuart during the evening of the 29th towards Guiney's Station in the Wilderness

ANV 58,500

AoP 104,000

Casualties ANV 4,500

AoP 10,625

The Union has won an important though costly victory and has forced Lee to withdraw however the AoP suffers many important casualties.

W.S Hancock- shot in the right arm and taken out of action for the forseeable future. A.A Humphreys assumes command of II Corps

G. Warren -KIA V Corps command falls to George Meade

General Kilpatrick- KIA Command of Cavalry falls to George Custer

ANV Losses

Richard Ewell wounded II Corps command assumed by Jubal Early

Wade Hampton Captured


June 8 1864 - 3rd Winchester- CSA forces under John Breckinridge fight an indesisive battle around Winchester Va Union casualties are taken at a 3-1 rate from superior confederate defensive positions and Breckinridge withdraws to Stephen City, Va a few miles south


June 13 1864 Sherman attacks Johnston's position near Peachtree creek and is repulsed suffering nearly 7000 casualties to Johnstons 2,000.



End Part II
Thoughts?

Jason Sleeman

 

[Hyperion]

While I could see how the situation in Virginia changes of Grant is killed, nothing had been presented that would change the situation in the west.

 

[DMA]

A couple of points:

1) Considering the dates involved, Meade would already be in command of US V Corps.

2) As Hyperion pointed out, even if the Rebs can hold on in the east, nothing is going to stop Sherman's advance on Atlanta, followed by his March to the Sea. The rest of the Confederacy will be overrun even though Lee may hold onto Virginia...

 

[Jason Sleeman]

DMA reply on Meade

1) Considering the dates involved, Meade would already be in command of US V Corps.

Meade commanded Army of Potomac in May 1864. in this ATL he was replaced after the Wilderness by John Sedgwick who gave him command of V corps after General Gouvenor Warren, commander of V Corps went down at Gordonsville.

Jason Sleeman

 

[DMA]

Meade commanded Army of Potomac in May 1864. in this ATL he was replaced after the Wilderness by John Sedgwick who gave him command of V corps after General Gouvenor Warren, commander of V Corps went down at Gordonsville.

Jason Sleeman

Ah fair enough. I just assumed that Meade went back to his old job at V Corps after being replaced as GOC AoP.

 

[Jason Sleeman]

Part III

"1864 The South by a Nose" Part III

June 23rd 1864- Jubal Early arrives in the valley with II Corps with orders to defeat Union forces in the valley and if possible, invade the north. Early commands 17,000 troops.

June 28 1864- Battle of Martinsburg- Early attacks Sigel's Union forces in a surprise dawn assault as they are encamped in Martinsburg. Union Forces suffer a brigade captured. the remaining forces flee towards the Potomac at Shepherdstown WV and cross into Maryland.

*Late June 1864* Lee's ANV has fallen back to the North Anna River line. where a stalemate ensures although skirmishing will be continuous between the two armies.

July 1 1864 Early Arrives in Hagerstown Md. After refusing to pay the south a ransom Early burns the town.

July 3 1864- Confederate Raiders under John Mcausland burn Chambersburg Pa.

July 5 1864- Early recieves $200,000 ransom from the town of Frederick MD, the town is spared.

July 6 1864 Early routs two Federal brigades at Monocacy River.

July 6 1864 Sedgwick detaches the Union VI Corps to assist in the defense of Washington D.C

July 8 1864- Early's forces lead an attack against the Washington defenses at Ft Stevens. The rebels are repulsed as lead elements of the Union VI Corps arrive to shore up the defenses. Abraham Lincoln arrives to observe the battle. A union officer shouts at Lincoln who is peeking over a parapet. Get down you damned old fool. there is no response.....

End Part III

Thoughts
Jason Sleeman

 

[Hyperion]

So you killed off Lincoln. I think having their leader killed would actually work against the Confederacy in the long run. Now Lincoln is a martyr, and no matter what his critics and political opponents say, many people will probably be angry at the South.

While the Union may have suffered a few setbacks, I don't think this will mean an end to the war.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Consider, if GB sends ships with the proclaimed intent to bring this horrible war to an end, it will only need to send enough to break the blockade, not win a Naval War. The GB force only needs to break the Blockade at a certain point, and then sail into the relative safety of a CSA harbor.

The North is then faced with the choice, "Do we accept our gains or pursue the War against both the South and GB?

The Union is not crazy, they don't want a War against the greatest country of that century and the CSA, so if GB offers to negotiate a truce, and the offer is accompanied by a significant force, the North might be inclined to listen.

I think the Union might actually be brought to the negotiating table, but GB would have to offer something. Maybe something as outlined onthe attached ap.

Ok you can just put any thought of Britain ceding anything to the US. The BRits are not going to intervene only to have to cede some of their own terr. to get the peace that will preserve what....a bunch of slavers...please what are you people smoking? They will drop any support for the south like a hot potato first. Don't forget that just because there is no Canadian dominion yet... the thought of a nation sea to sea is already firmly on the thoughts of the BNA colonial governments... the first conference is already on the horizon. particularly in the Canadas....

 

[Hyperion]

Ok you can just put any thought of Britain ceding anything to the US. The BRits are not going to intervene only to have to cede some of their own terr. to get the peace that will preserve what....a bunch of slavers...please what are you people smoking? They will drop any support for the south like a hot potato first. Don't forget that just because there is no Canadian dominion yet... the thought of a nation sea to sea is already firmly on the thoughts of the BNA colonial governments... the first conference is already on the horizon. particularly in the Canadas....

I second the thought. Still, the the three parts of this current timeline that have been put up are interesting none the less. The only thing I don't see is what could happen that could stop Sherman.

 

[wkwillis]

In the same vein, have you ever seen picture of Fort Sumter after the Union Navy pounded it? The brick and stone fortifications are vulnerable to bombardment. Also the destructive capability of modern shells of the 1860s are greater than those of 1812. Another naval bombardment to keep in mind would be the British bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. So its fairly likely they won't be as effective as 1812.

It turns out that the brick construction is vulnerable to sustained artillary bombardment, but the men inside aren't. Ft. Sumter was hammered for months and still held out. Ft. Sumter has only fallen to starvation. One ship in to the harbor a month earlier and Ft. Sumter would still have been holding out in 1862. At least, that's how it worked out for the Confederates in Ft. Sumter.
This assumes that the ship has men as well as supplies. Say, another two hundred men to go with the two hundred and forty tons of supplies? One ton per man? The original fort was unmanned.
The fort is not that important, but the cannons came in usefull for the south.

 

[Jason Sleeman]

no clue yet

I second the thought. Still, the the three parts of this current timeline that have been put up are interesting none the less. The only thing I don't see is what could happen that could stop Sherman.

Thanks Hyperion, To be honest I have no idea how to stp Sherman yet either.

Jason Sleeman