tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post410147478996092795..comments2024-03-11T06:48:32.094-05:00Comments on Alternate History Weekly Update: Musings on a Trent Affair WarMitrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12415640801753049329noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-34706511046586140902012-05-11T10:37:16.422-05:002012-05-11T10:37:16.422-05:00True, but there are several countervailing points ...True, but there are several countervailing points to your counterpoints.<br /><br />The Royal Navy didn't actually have that many enemies in the 1860s. France wasn't going to be a problem and no one else really had the power to be more than a minor headache – apart from the US, which is the target in this scenario. <br /><br />Both sides had weaknesses in their ironclads – IIRC, Harrison’s scenario would have had the British ground themselves before the US gunners managed to get into range. We might end up with both sides doing little more than fist-shaking as they can't get at each other. <br /><br />Palmstron wouldn’t want a war, but in this scenario he has little choice but to retaliate for the loss of the Trent’s crewmen. That's part of the problem with Harrison’s take on events – the UK wouldn’t really feel the urge to hit the US to make the point that the British flag is not to be trifled with. Of course, if things are more serious, Lincoln may see sense in surrendering Wilkes or trying him in the US.<br /><br />I am not competent to respond to the other two points, but incompetent as it was the South held out for four years before being ground down. What would have happened if the US had suddenly faced a war on four fronts?<br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-31855418201077153002012-05-10T22:40:17.281-05:002012-05-10T22:40:17.281-05:00Nice, but a couple of problematic spots:
1) Cotto...Nice, but a couple of problematic spots:<br /><br />1) Cotton. The South had all-but-glutted the market through the 1850s; Britain had stockpiles to last through '61 and '62. Moreover, when the stocks ran low, Britain turned to India for cotton. Historically, attempts by the South to trade cotton for arms were hampered by this -- the South never got as much stuff as it wanted, or needed, for a bale of cotton.<br /><br />2) The Royal Navy. Yes, the RN had the most ships -- but it also had the largest amount of territory to cover, and the greatest number of prospective opponents to face; so while it had many ships, they were scattered to the four winds (please pardon the pun).<br /><br />The vaunted ironclads, moreover, had a serious Achilles' Heel: The armor only covered the center section of the hull, where the cannon were. It did not cover the rear, where the steering and drive gear were; nor were the ends of the armored area armored, so raking fire would have bypassed the armor altogether. Since most sailing-ship duels of the period featured ships sailing in large circles attempting to stern-rake each other (witness _Kearsarge_ v. _Alabama_), combat would have focused on the main weakness of the ironclads. Now given how few in number the British ironclads were, witness what happened at Mobile Bay '64 to see what happens when a single powerful ship is inundated by many weaker foes.<br /><br />Finally: Wooden ships, while vulnerable, were not completely without defenses against modern weaponry; look up "chain armor".<br /><br />So, ironclads are effective, but not a guaranteed war-winner.<br /><br />3) Social Issues. While Palmerston governs, Britain is not getting involved, end of discussion. He and his gov't wanted nothing to do with the ACW, and esp. not with the South, and took every possible action to remained removed therefrom. Gladstone *might* have gotten Britain involved, but only so Britain (and by extension he and his cronies) could dominate North America once more -- with US and CS separated, and upset with each other, Britain serves as middleman, taking cuts in both directions.<br /><br />4) Conduct of the War. If the US needs to defend itself, it need only stop paying attention to the sheeplike bleatings of the "On To Richmond" imbeciles (who seem to remember the way the burning of DC destroyed the US in 1814, or the capturings of the various locations of the Continental Congress brought the Revolution down...), and divert McClellan's bodyguard to where it's actually needed. Couple this to firing James Ripley, the man singlehandedly responsible for delaying the successful prosecution of the war by at least two years by insisting on producing muzzleloaders when that same new production could have as easily been put to building repeaters, and the British -- and their muzzle-loading Enfields -- will be in for a shock the first time they set foot across the border (smallpox will *not* be saving Canada this time).<br /><br />Heck, with Britain on their doorsteps, the media hacks in NYC might stop paying attention to other theatres; thus letting the generals fight, and win, and report those victories to the people.<br /><br />5) The South Itself. Southern governance was hopelessly incompetent; even with British assistance, they could not have prevented the supply failures, or the appointment of incompetents like Polk to generalships. If anything, the South might well end up a British colony again, as Britain finds itself having to take control of ever-increasing segments of the Southern gov't.<br /><br />The simple fact is: The South was never going to win the war; the only question was "would the North manage to win enough major victories such that not even the traitors running the Northern press could cover it up".C. Frenchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-33178392633344827962012-05-09T11:20:55.572-05:002012-05-09T11:20:55.572-05:00Wonderful article and a great critique of Harris&#...Wonderful article and a great critique of Harris's delusions printed in that book. I appreciate how you give multiple examples of the possible endgame for the war.<br /><br />A great read.Stienberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16186576710561312616noreply@blogger.com