Speculative fiction idea - a divided USA
- Thread starter Naomasa298
- Start date
Joined Aug 2020
2,833 Posts | 2,454+
Devon, England
Last edited:
That is the deployable regular army manpower in Britain, British Army in its entirety hovered at around 220,000 men full strength of which roughly 70,000 were in India, 40,000 in the rest of the Empire hence the plan to replace rough half of the latter with men from the Militia in the event of a major conflict. When we look at the size of a large Union army like the Army of the Potomac you will not find much more than 90,000 men and that later in the war but which Union Department do you want to see completely denuded of troops?
Blockading St Lawrence River is a major ask for the Union. The Royal Navy was the biggest in any kind of Richard's nickname measuring contest and by a large margin. Admiral Milne was confident that the forces assigned him at the time of the Trent Affair would suffice and he was a combat experienced officer. I would need to go dig for the exact numbers but the US tendency to talk of 600 vessels ignores that the vast majority of these were ex-merchantmen with a pair of guns and some of these were sailing ships while all Royal Navy ships barring a few in reserve had steam engines.
The much vaunted Monitor would not launch until March and was vulnerable to the British 68 pounder gun, the latter Pasaic class had more armour on its turret, some 11 plates of 1" thickness but this could also be penetrated by the 68 pounder when firing steel shot. It should be noted this was unlikely to be general issue at the start of any conflict though as it cost roughly twelve times as much as wrought iron shot.
The US do in the period have some impressive frigates but no steam powered ships of the line and only a very few sail only ships of the line which is a huge disadvantage in this period.
I would need to check but the British did have an ironclad battery at Bermuda at one point and she may have been there at the time of Trent. She was slow but she had 4"- 4.5" of armour of hammered iron plate so had more protection than the either the Monitor or the Virginia/Merrimack.
Now I would have to dig up mine and others research for more details of the period but a note on blockade.
A blockade is a formal notice to neutrals. The party wishing to enforce a blockade names a coast or port or similar defined area and yes the St Lawrence river will do for this purpose. It then informs neutrals that starting at a specified date their ships will be subject to inspection if they appear to be heading to the St Lawrence River. As long as it can keep at least 2 warships off the mouth of the river the blockade will be recognised is as being legal.
An inability to conduct a blockade does not invalidate the right to conduct commerce warfare against the flagged commerce of enemy powers by a belligerent, there is in fact a Treaty of Paris covering the rules of cruiser warfare, which every major power but the US is signed up to but the US wanted to be able to use privateers which were banned.
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Joined Jul 2012
3,994 Posts | 348+
It's an interesting idea, but there are significant differences between the two Constitutions. The biggest is that would affect this idea is probably:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible."
So Jefferson Davis would not be eligible for a second term. Nor would the Confederates be likely to change their Constitution to let him.
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
That's a minor point that's easily fixable in fiction. I can just make it another point of deviation from real life by saying they omitted the second part.
I know you've just started and haven't had the time yet to develop all of the ideas that will eventually come to you as you move through the writing process, but if the story is set in 1867 or '68 you could have Stephens elected as Davis' successor. That gets you away from having two accidental presidents via assassination. Stephens can still be weak - maybe he won the electoral vote but not the popular vote or maybe it was a repeat of 1824 where the second place candidate steals the election in the House of Representatives.
Have you given any thought to how the war can end with Vice President Johnson and an independent South?
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
I haven't yet no - I wanted Lincoln to be assassinated and I liked the idea of Johnson being complicit.
How about Lincoln being assassinated early, and Johnson and Stephens being pushed into armistice talks - with both sides intending to resume to war once they've had a chance to recover and rebuild? I think if the north had suffered some reversals in the last year, that would work politically.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Union Army strength by year by military organization:
Source:https://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/DOD_SelectedStats_FY97.pdf
Source:https://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/DOD_SelectedStats_FY97.pdf
| Year | Total | U.S.A. (B) | U.S.N. | U.S.M.C |
| 1861 | 217,112 | 186,845 | 27,881 | 2,386 |
| 1862 | 673,124 | 637,264 | 33,454 (Est) | 2,406 |
| 1863 | 960,061 | 918,354 | 38,707 | 3,000 |
| 1864 | 1,031,724 | 970,905 | 57,680 | 3,139 |
| 1865 | 1,062,848 | 1,000,692 | 58,296 | 3,860 |
I suggested Lincoln losing the election of 1864 as a way of getting an independent South, but that doesn't get you President Johnson. At least one other person in the thread suggested Confederate victory, or at least stalemate, in 1862, presumably after Confederate victories at Perryville and Antietam. You have a choice here of whether or not to have Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation. At the time of Antietam he was resolved to do so, but hadn't done so yet as he didn't want to issue it before a Union victory. Maybe Lincoln issues the EP after losing Antietam, and the North refuses to fight for emancipation? Britain and maybe France, too, recognize the Confederacy. Lincoln is forced to concede the war, but only grudgingly. A kind of cold war sets in with Lincoln resolved to restore the Union at some point even if he can't do it yet. Much of the North agrees with Lincoln - eventual reunion even if not yet. Lincoln is reelected in '64 but with Johnson, not Hamlin, as his vice president. Soon after Lincoln and Johnson are inaugurated on March 4, 1865, Lincoln is assassinated.
A couple of problems which are not insurmountable - Johnson is from Tennessee which is no longer part of the US in 1864. He would have to establish residency in the North somewhere, easy enough to do. Another problem - Grant is not the hero in 1862 that he became later. Maybe by 1867 he could have a successful Indian war or two under his belt. There were a couple of Indian wars during or immediately after the Civil War. Also, how could Lincoln be reelected after losing the Civil War? Difficult, not impossible. He was successful at implementing other parts of the Republican agenda (Homestead Act, Transcontinental RR Act, Morrill Tariff, Morrill Education Act). Maybe Lincoln has had some success in the cold war with the South so that by 1864 he looks like a winner again. Just what successes Lincoln could have in the cold war with the South, I don't know just off the top of my head. Ask me again in a few days.
A couple of problems which are not insurmountable - Johnson is from Tennessee which is no longer part of the US in 1864. He would have to establish residency in the North somewhere, easy enough to do. Another problem - Grant is not the hero in 1862 that he became later. Maybe by 1867 he could have a successful Indian war or two under his belt. There were a couple of Indian wars during or immediately after the Civil War. Also, how could Lincoln be reelected after losing the Civil War? Difficult, not impossible. He was successful at implementing other parts of the Republican agenda (Homestead Act, Transcontinental RR Act, Morrill Tariff, Morrill Education Act). Maybe Lincoln has had some success in the cold war with the South so that by 1864 he looks like a winner again. Just what successes Lincoln could have in the cold war with the South, I don't know just off the top of my head. Ask me again in a few days.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Better suggestion; Sherman doesn't succeed at Atlanta in time for the victory to assist the 1864 election. McClellan wins and sues for peace. This infuriates the Union Army, and a civil war begins between the peace Democrats and the Unionists within the north.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
I have a hard time envisioning the British public wanting to go to war against the Union over the Trent affair, take a look at public support for the government of Britain during the Revolutionary War. Now we are talking about at the very least 40,000 to 50,000 dead British and 100's of thousands of casualties over what; a ship being stopped and Confederate envoys being removed? To do so in support of slavery in the end? Very hard to explain to the British public.
In the end both parties were looking for a simple solution to British pride being bruised, and that is exactly what happened.
In the end both parties were looking for a simple solution to British pride being bruised, and that is exactly what happened.
It doesn't get us to President Johnson, unless Johnson runs as McClellan's vice president and then assassinates McClellan. You could then have Lincoln coming out of retirement to resolve the disputed tetrarchy just like Diocletian. This 1864 scenario does get us to Grant the hero. Also Lee, who not as big a hero in 1862 as he would later become.
Joined Aug 2020
2,833 Posts | 2,454+
Devon, England
The British would not have to:
In a lecture delivered during the present year at the United Service Institution in London, by Capt. PETRIE, of her Majesty's Fourteenth Regiment, employed on the topographical Staff, that officer gives the following as the present sum of the British forces, and the great carefulness and research with which it has evidently been prepared is a guarantee for its accuracy:
Men. Horses. Guns.
Regular troops, of all arms...218,971 30,073 366
British local & colonial troops. 18,249 -- 248
Foreign and colored troops,
chiefly in India..............218,043 -- 58
Military Police in India....... 79,264 -- --
Total......................534,527 30,073 672
Reserves available for the defense of the Kingdom, in case of war:
Pensioners..................... 14,768 -- --
Militia........................ 45,000 -- --
Yeomanry Cavalry............ 16,080 16,080 --
Irish Constabulary............. 12,392 -- --
Volunteers.....................140,000 -- --
Grand total................762,767 46,153 672
Of these there were, during the present year, in the United Kingdom:
Men. Guns.
Infantry -- Guards -- 7 battalions...... 6,297 -----
Infantry -- Line -- 85 battalions........ 33,105 -----
Cavalry -- Life and Horse Guards -- 3
regiments.......................... 1,311 -----
Cavalry -- Dragoons, &c., 16 reg'ts... 10,560 ------
Artillery -- Horse -- 6 batteries........ 1,200 36
Artillery -- Field -- 23 batteries........ 5,060 138
Artillery -- Garrison -- 39 batteries.... 4,680 ------
Engineers........................... 2,316 -----
Military train........................ 1,830 -----
Hospital corps....................... 609 -----
Commissariat Staff corps............ 300 -----
Totals...........................67,268 174
Besides, there were in the depot establish ments:
Men.
Infantry -- Line -- 126 depots.................... 24,770
Cavalry -- 9 depots............................. 396
Artillery...................................... 2,975
Total in depots............................28,141
SOURCE NEW YORK TIMES JAN 1862
If a foreign involvement scenario is sought the British do not need to draw on the troops stationed in India, they can find 90,000 regulars and if they match the 1837 turn out 100,000 Canadian Militia from resources at home and elsewhere in the Empire. There are even 16,000 men in the Royal Marines Light Infantry and Royal Marines Artillery though these would tend to be forming the core on any naval brigades deployed on land by the Royal Navy.
Tying down say 200,000 Union troops leaves by your own numbers the Union at parity with Confederates whose War Department reported 449,000 in the Army and State Militias in 1862. Even ignoring the supply problems caused by British embargoes without any blockade or commerce warfare efforts that sounds a recipe for a stalemate if that route is chosen. This would also ignore any French involvement which is more likely to bexperience sent as direct aid to the Confederates, the British being rather keen merely to defend the integrity of the Royal Mail Packet system at the time of Trentham rather than aid the rebellion.
The British intervention can certainly involve very mixed fortunes for the British if the author desires and the same for the French but as a route to stalmate all that is required is that it be not impossible for the purposes of the novel.
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
If we're still on the topic of how we can get President Johnson and have the South stalemate the North, I propose this:
The Overland Campaign goes worse than it did in real life. Grant already took high casualties and that shook the Union morale in real life. In this scenario, he does worse with the Union casualties being even higher and fails to make it to the James River, the Confederates push him back to the Rappahanock and take lower casualties than they historically did, but they are way too exhausted to push for an offensive themselves. Sherman captures Atlanta and Lincoln barely wins the election, but Lee's army is in better shape, the Army of the Potomac is mauled and hors de combat for the foreseeable future and the Confederate forces in the west are put to better use after the Fall of Atlanta. The Union morale is low and Lincoln is assassinated during the war, giving us president Johnson. The Confederates, however, are not in a position to win. The Union and Confederate armies in Virginia are ground down to a standstill on the Rappahanock with the Confederate offensive in Tennessee going better, but the Union is still able to hold its ground and reaches a stalemate in the west too with some of the forces there being sent back to reinforce the battered Army of the Potomac.
No one has the upper hand and, with the Union under new leadership and both sides getting exhausted, a peace agreement is reached in 1866 (doesn't matter when, but for our purposes let's say it's here) and the war ends with a compromise with the North and the South agreeing to the dual government system with the Confederate constitution being tweaked a bit so that Jefferson Davis can remain president.
Would this work? The period is not really my area of specialty, but just my opinion on the matter.
The Overland Campaign goes worse than it did in real life. Grant already took high casualties and that shook the Union morale in real life. In this scenario, he does worse with the Union casualties being even higher and fails to make it to the James River, the Confederates push him back to the Rappahanock and take lower casualties than they historically did, but they are way too exhausted to push for an offensive themselves. Sherman captures Atlanta and Lincoln barely wins the election, but Lee's army is in better shape, the Army of the Potomac is mauled and hors de combat for the foreseeable future and the Confederate forces in the west are put to better use after the Fall of Atlanta. The Union morale is low and Lincoln is assassinated during the war, giving us president Johnson. The Confederates, however, are not in a position to win. The Union and Confederate armies in Virginia are ground down to a standstill on the Rappahanock with the Confederate offensive in Tennessee going better, but the Union is still able to hold its ground and reaches a stalemate in the west too with some of the forces there being sent back to reinforce the battered Army of the Potomac.
No one has the upper hand and, with the Union under new leadership and both sides getting exhausted, a peace agreement is reached in 1866 (doesn't matter when, but for our purposes let's say it's here) and the war ends with a compromise with the North and the South agreeing to the dual government system with the Confederate constitution being tweaked a bit so that Jefferson Davis can remain president.
Would this work? The period is not really my area of specialty, but just my opinion on the matter.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
You know I've tried to not be mean about pointing out the problems that were obvious in the British Army at this time. It's not hard to look at the Crimean War and see all the ineptitude that was demonstrated in spades by the British Army, and the depths of the amount of change that was necessitated to make the British Army into something nearing something that would have been a considerable force in the ACW but there is this pointed view that somehow the inept British Army with a British Navy that was over extended somehow could have take on the Union Army and Navy at a point when from both experience, training and equipment the American Union exceeded the British forces, is all about exasperating.
We've not even begun to mention the fact that the carrying capacity of the British commercial fleet couldn't have handled the supporting of this vast imaginary armada to the American shores for extensive periods of time. But you know it's the British and be damned about something as inherently obvious as logistics. So go on with your imaginary chest thumping about how you are going to transport 100,000's of untrained troops to the United States and fight a war against experienced troops with no logistical issues. Tell us how the British Navy can manage what modern navies until the 1940's couldn't do .... Because it is the British Navy.
It's just silly bizarre behavior on your part.
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
Please don't turn this into another ''Britain vs America'' thread. It's an interesting discussion about an original alternate history scenario and we've been asked not to derail it with a ''mine is bigger than yours'' debate.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Let's just deal with a few basic issues, let's figure out what it takes per regiment per day to support it then figure out how many ships you need to support it. Every regiment needs 17.5 short tons of rations and supplies daily. Now multiply that by the size of the force, divide that by the carrying capacity of each ship, then multiply it by number of days, and calculate the number of ships you need coming into port per day. Then add in the distance of shipping, to calculate the redundancy of the shipments.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Last edited:
I'm not trying to, I'm trying to point out the ridiculousness of the entire argument about a European incursion into the ACW. It simply won't work. The Europeans couldn't even succeed in Mexico.
It is the rough equivalent of me suggesting the United States should have invaded Europe in the 1880's (for what reason I can't imagine, but obviously we are simply imagining so why not), it wouldn't work because the logistics of that time wouldn't have made such an incursion infeasible. Yet when I point out the same thing to Europeans it's like; "well we can magically make it so".
Part of the problem is the first mistake Europeans make is not understanding the magnitude of the distances involved, the distances are in 1,000 of miles (1600+KM+) whereas Europeans envision these things in 100KM distances.
More History Discussions
- Poll
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-