US verse UK in 1860's???

[bridav58]

I've debated a few times on other boards about this possibility. What are your thoughts? I've seen several, posters state the UK would crush the US HOWEVER the British themsleves concluded in the early 1870's, when both the USN & US Army were almost jokes , that they couldn't really win or stop the loss of Canada. Now in say in the 1860's (even with a civil war going on) when the USN & US Army weren't such jokes, could a logical person say that ? In other words if British planners were convinced in 1870 they couldn't really win when the US Army only had about 25,000 men and the USN was in very bad shape then how nervous would they have been in the mid-1860's?
I know the UK had something like 19% of the world's manufactoring capability compared to the US's 7-8% BUT that's not always a fair comparison when you look at what Germany was up against in WW1 & WW2 AND the Japanese in WW2.

[Campy]

As I recall, when the British were building ironclads for the Confederacy, they were having a dispute with Russia. The U.S. kindly harbored a squadron of Russian cruisers. The U.S. also threatened the British over the issue. The history books say the British were going to cancel the contracts anyway. But I sometimes wonder. What if they hadn't? After the war, we had the most powerful navy in the world.

Frank

[Ed Rotondaro]

As I recall, when the British were building ironclads for the Confederacy, they were having a dispute with Russia. The U.S. kindly harbored a squadron of Russian cruisers. The U.S. also threatened the British over the issue. The history books say the British were going to cancel the contracts anyway. But I sometimes wonder. What if they hadn't? After the war, we had the most powerful navy in the world.

Frank

Campy:

But the bulk of it was a coastal defense navy, not an ocean going fleet.

[Citadelvette]

Campy:

But the bulk of it was a coastal defense navy, not an ocean going fleet.

But if you move on Canada and use the defensive navy defensively and raid with the rest you would stand a chance.

[asnrobert]

As I recall, when the British were building ironclads for the Confederacy, they were having a dispute with Russia. The U.S. kindly harbored a squadron of Russian cruisers. The U.S. also threatened the British over the issue. The history books say the British were going to cancel the contracts anyway. But I sometimes wonder. What if they hadn't? After the war, we had the most powerful navy in the world.

Frank

The US government was not happy about England building ships for the Confederacy, and a couple of ships that were slated for the Confederacy were canceled after diplomatic pressure was placed. after the war, the US also sued Britain for shipping losses incurred by the Confederate raider Alabama (built in the UK) and won some money.

[Smiffy]

As I recall, when the British were building ironclads for the Confederacy, they were having a dispute with Russia. The U.S. kindly harbored a squadron of Russian cruisers. The U.S. also threatened the British over the issue. The history books say the British were going to cancel the contracts anyway. But I sometimes wonder. What if they hadn't? After the war, we had the most powerful navy in the world.

Frank

For "dispute with Russia" read Crimean War, which was over by 1856, then there was the Indian Mutiny in 1857. Although Britain came out on top in both conflicts, some serious problems with the army were exposed. These led to the Cardwell Reforms which began to be implemented in the late 1860s. I don't know if a major war at that time would have accelerated or delayed these much needed reforms.

The biggest problem for the British Army has always been that it is a small army, it would never have stood a chance of defeating the United States because of numbers alone. However, if a limited objective was set that would cause tremendous disruption to the American economy and prestige, such as capturing a major Atlantic port city, then the British Army was capable of that. The Crimean War had demonstrated that.

I suspect that the Royal Navy would have entered a war with great enthusiasm. The losses in the War of 1812 still hurt and this time the RN would not have the French to worry about at the same time. The main fleet could be deployed to the American Atlantic coast. Bases could be found in Canada and the West Indies. As a blue water navy the Victorian Royal Navy was an awesome force. American experience in coastal waters would make life difficult for the RN, but overall the RN would be at a great advantage.

Such a war would have been expensive and deadly to both sides and neither side could really win much from it. Britain did not have the manpower to capture and hold any significant portion of the United States and, at the same time, to defend Canada. In fact the loss of Canada would have been a distinct possibility.

An alliance between Britain and the Confederacy might have led to a different result. Certainly the Royal Navy could have blockaded the Union and kept the Southern ports open. However it is doubtful that such an alliance would have been very popular in the UK. It would have been impossible after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

I am always in two minds about "What if?" history. The historian in me tells me that it is a pointless exercise as you can never really tell what might, or might not, have happened, but the wargamer in me is often thinking about could have happened if the "Bismarck" had fought the "Yamato".

[old_pop2000]

I've debated a few times on other boards about this possibility. What are your thoughts? I've seen several, posters state the UK would crush the US HOWEVER the British themsleves concluded in the early 1870's, when both the USN & US Army were almost jokes , that they couldn't really win or stop the loss of Canada. Now in say in the 1860's (even with a civil war going on) when the USN & US Army weren't such jokes, could a logical person say that ? In other words if British planners were convinced in 1870 they couldn't really win when the US Army only had about 25,000 men and the USN was in very bad shape then how nervous would they have been in the mid-1860's?
I know the UK had something like 19% of the world's manufactoring capability compared to the US's 7-8% BUT that's not always a fair comparison when you look at what Germany was up against in WW1 & WW2 AND the Japanese in WW2.

I believe that the British were realist. They understood that an ocean going navy was of no value against a well developed, resource rich nation like the US at this juncture. Logistics would be the key to success. We had or could build a fleet big enough, quick enough to blockade Canadian ports, preventing British reinforcements from reaching Canada. We could move our forces across the Canadian frontier unimpeded, and reach strategic position faster. Our supply line were shorter and we had good interior lines of communications. A threat is only as good as the will and capability to carry it out, we would understand this. I would agree that even a small fleet and army, could carry out an action against Canada quickly. This is especially true if the British were already involved in another action in the world. We could simply wait, buy time and strike when they are involved other places.

I suspect Canada would be finlandized, rather than require invasion.

[bridav58]

another forum...Might be some good material there..

http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1179&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Smiffy]

So the United States Army is massing against any British landings on the Eastern seaboard and covering against an attack from Canada, at the same time preparing for its own thrust into Canada. The United States Navy is preparing to engage the British Atlantic Fleet.

Meanwhile the British Indian Army steams into San Francisco Bay, aboard ships taken up from trade, escorted by the British Far Eastern Fleet. A powerful British Squadron is based in the Falklands, with another cruising off Chile.

The Trans-Continental railroad isn't built yet.

You're move, Mr. Lincoln.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am always in two minds about "What if?" history. The historian in me tells me that it is a pointless exercise as you can never really tell what might, or might not, have happened, but the wargamer in me is often thinking about could have happened if the "Bismarck" had fought the "Yamato".

Smiffy:

Fire up a copy of NWS's WCDB and you can find out for yourself how Bismarck would fare against Yamato (shameless commerical plug by NWS team member).:D

[bridav58]

So the United States Army is massing against any British landings on the Eastern seaboard and covering against an attack from Canada, at the same time preparing for its own thrust into Canada. The United States Navy is preparing to engage the British Atlantic Fleet.

Meanwhile the British Indian Army steams into San Francisco Bay, aboard ships taken up from trade, escorted by the British Far Eastern Fleet. A powerful British Squadron is based in the Falklands, with another cruising off Chile.

The Trans-Continental railroad isn't built yet.

You're move, Mr. Lincoln.

troops for the ACW. Also if I'm not wrong California had a couple of armories for making weapons & even at that overland communications were maintained during the war. Further how long will it take for the UK to assemble the Indian Army, round up the necessary shipping(along with supplies necessary) and then sail across the Pacific? What may happen to Canada in the meantime? What if the lower part of British Columbia has already been siezed along with the only possible base for the RN on the Pacific Ocean side of things(Vancouver area) is out of the picture? When the UK sends all these forces eastward into the Pacific what happens in China(where the UK was deeply involved at this time) & also Afghanistan with Russian troops assmebling there(as per historical) ?

[Smiffy]

Following the Indian Mutiny the three large standing armies of the East India Company were taken over by the Crown. Indian troops did not have to serve outside of India, but they invariably volunteered when asked. The British merchant marine was far and away the largest in the world. If there was a shortage of shipping it would have been a simple matter to repeal the Navigation Acts and allow British trade to move in other countries' ships. China had no way to project power. Russia was a danger, but probably not capable of getting a large army over the Himalayas.

Now supposing the British made an alliance with Mexico?

But this is just a what if game, I cannot see any serious reason for the British to invade the USA at that time. There had been a few incidents, like the "Trent" affair, but nothing worth a war and nothing to motivate the British people to support an all out war.

[old_pop2000]

Following the Indian Mutiny the three large standing armies of the East India Company were taken over by the Crown. Indian troops did not have to serve outside of India, but they invariably volunteered when asked. The British merchant marine was far and away the largest in the world. If there was a shortage of shipping it would have been a simple matter to repeal the Navigation Acts and allow British trade to move in other countries' ships. China had no way to project power. Russia was a danger, but probably not capable of getting a large army over the Himalayas.

Now supposing the British made an alliance with Mexico?

But this is just a what if game, I cannot see any serious reason for the British to invade the USA at that time. There had been a few incidents, like the "Trent" affair, but nothing worth a war and nothing to motivate the British people to support an all out war.
Finally, reality has established itself again. Boring, but necessary:D

[bridav58]

Following the Indian Mutiny the three large standing armies of the East India Company were taken over by the Crown. Indian troops did not have to serve outside of India, but they invariably volunteered when asked. The British merchant marine was far and away the largest in the world. If there was a shortage of shipping it would have been a simple matter to repeal the Navigation Acts and allow British trade to move in other countries' ships. China had no way to project power. Russia was a danger, but probably not capable of getting a large army over the Himalayas.

Now supposing the British made an alliance with Mexico?

But this is just a what if game, I cannot see any serious reason for the British to invade the USA at that time. There had been a few incidents, like the "Trent" affair, but nothing worth a war and nothing to motivate the British people to support an all out war.


With Maximillion and France involved there? The last thing France wants is the CSA becoming independent even if it means the Union(USA) being weaker since the CSA will probably have even more designs on Mexican territory then the historical US. My point about shipping for the Indian armies getting to the US is that the US could very well have already overrun a good part of Canada by then which means the Union even if California gets invaded will have some bargaining power.
However as your last paragraph states the US & UK were well aware of the problems of going to war with each other. truth intrudes on fiction while history intrudes on n"what if".

[asnrobert]

With Maximillion and France involved there? The last thing France wants is the CSA becoming independent even if it means the Union(USA) being weaker since the CSA will probably have even more designs on Mexican territory then the historical US.

From what I've read, Emperor Napoleon III was sympathetic to the South and favored intervention, but he followed Britain's lead.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Following the Indian Mutiny the three large standing armies of the East India Company were taken over by the Crown. Indian troops did not have to serve outside of India, but they invariably volunteered when asked. The British merchant marine was far and away the largest in the world. If there was a shortage of shipping it would have been a simple matter to repeal the Navigation Acts and allow British trade to move in other countries' ships. China had no way to project power. Russia was a danger, but probably not capable of getting a large army over the Himalayas.

Now supposing the British made an alliance with Mexico?

But this is just a what if game, I cannot see any serious reason for the British to invade the USA at that time. There had been a few incidents, like the "Trent" affair, but nothing worth a war and nothing to motivate the British people to support an all out war.

Smiffy:

Britain would have found herself at odds with France if she tried to make an alliance with Mexico. France and Britain were both owed considered sums of money by Mexico and France used this as an excuse to invade and install a puppet emperor, Maximillan of Austria. This you may recall has been termed the Mexican Adventure. Cinqo de mayo celebrates a Mexican victory over French troops to this day. France was eventually worn down by several years of war and with the end of the American Civil War faced the prospect of a very pissed off US ready with 50,000 veteran soldiers under General Sheridan to invade and kick France's butt. End of North American history lesson.

[bridav58]

From what I've read, Emperor Napoleon III was sympathetic to the South and favored intervention, but he followed Britain's lead.

what I'm saying is that if the UK made an alliance with Mexico she would have found herself at odds with France which would help the Union . I think too that Napolean III realised that the CSA would be far more of a problem then the US would be in regards to further ambitions on Mexican territory.

[old_pop2000]

Just a few questions concerning this scenario:

1. What is the actual timeframe of this conflict? 1860's is too long to deal with, there are far too many variances from 1860 to 1869. The US was a different country before and after the Civil War. Our economy was stronger and so was the military after the Civil War.

2. What factors will spark this conflict? Economic, social or just plain greed. I can see some points of differences between our two nations, but not enough to go to war especially after the Civil War.

3. What about the logistical issues? Even if Britain manages to get substantial forces into Canada or Mexico, how do they support them? Armies had moved beyond living off of the land, they now were too sophisticated in their requirements and need adequate supply sources and bases to maintain forces in the field. The US has good interior lines of communications and industries are close at hand, especially after the Civil War.

4. What about the British Navy and it's logistical requirements? If they do launch some punitive expedition from Mexico City, how does the RN support that, since their lines of communications close on our borders? USN ships, stationed in Florida, New Orleans, Mobile Bay, Charleston have easy access to cut their LOC.

I can give you more, but this is detail that will be considered by the British General Staff in their recommendations to the British Parliament concerning any military action taken against the US.

[keschofield]

what I'm saying is that if the UK made an alliance with Mexico she would have found herself at odds with France which would help the Union . I think too that Napolean III realised that the CSA would be far more of a problem then the US would be in regards to further ambitions on Mexican territory.


The CSA was ready to "do a deal" with the French anytime the French were ready (and even more so with the British). Such a deal would likely have included recognition of the French position in Mexico as a condition of French recognition of the CSA. Richmond was so desparate for international recognition that they would do almost anything to get it (except emancipation of the slaves). They did offer to end slavery in 1864 or 1865 I believe, but by then it was too late.

The big problem that kept the above from happening was Napolean III's reluctance to do ANYTHING without it being done in concert with the UK. Lord Palmerston, while he wanted to weaken the US, knew that the British public would never stand for overt aid in support of a slave holding nation (those nations that still had legal slavery by 1861 were already international pariahs and had been so for several years). Also, Palmerston did not care about Mexico, he simply had no intention of giving Napolean III any international "cover" for more "adventures".

The best book on this whole topic is "King Cotton Diplomacy". Author's name escapes me at the moment.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just a few questions concerning this scenario:

1. What is the actual timeframe of this conflict? 1860's is too long to deal with, there are far too many variances from 1860 to 1869. The US was a different country before and after the Civil War. Our economy was stronger and so was the military after the Civil War.

2. What factors will spark this conflict? Economic, social or just plain greed. I can see some points of differences between our two nations, but not enough to go to war especially after the Civil War.

3. What about the logistical issues? Even if Britain manages to get substantial forces into Canada or Mexico, how do they support them? Armies had moved beyond living off of the land, they now were too sophisticated in their requirements and need adequate supply sources and bases to maintain forces in the field. The US has good interior lines of communications and industries are close at hand, especially after the Civil War.

4. What about the British Navy and it's logistical requirements? If they do launch some punitive expedition from Mexico City, how does the RN support that, since their lines of communications close on our borders? USN ships, stationed in Florida, New Orleans, Mobile Bay, Charleston have easy access to cut their LOC.

I can give you more, but this is detail that will be considered by the British General Staff in their recommendations to the British Parliament concerning any military action taken against the US.

Dennis:

Bingo! Logistics trumps all. The US would be fighting on its home ground with interior lines of communication and a superb railway system. You're not going to find that in Mexico or Canada. Also the US could threaten any bases the British would operate from and could more easily reinforce their front lines. Also you're talking about a battle hardened army with some of the best generals outside of Prussia versus an army that hadn't fought a major power since the Crimean war. Queen Victoria's little wars were colonial affairs.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The CSA was ready to "do a deal" with the French anytime the French were ready (and even more so with the British). Such a deal would likely have included recognition of the French position in Mexico as a condition of French recognition of the CSA. Richmond was so desparate for international recognition that they would do almost anything to get it (except emancipation of the slaves). They did offer to end slavery in 1864 or 1865 I believe, but by then it was too late.

The big problem that kept the above from happening was Napolean III's reluctance to do ANYTHING without it being done in concert with the UK. Lord Palmerston, while he wanted to weaken the US, knew that the British public would never stand for overt aid in support of a slave holding nation (those nations that still had legal slavery by 1861 were already international pariahs and had been so for several years). Also, Palmerston did not care about Mexico, he simply had no intention of giving Napolean III any international "cover" for more "adventures".

The best book on this whole topic is "King Cotton Diplomacy". Author's name escapes me at the moment.

Kurt:

I believe Brazil was the last major nation to abolish slavery and that was after the American Civil war. I remember reading how the Russians liked to compare the differences between their ending of serfdom and the US fighting a civil war to end slavery. Of course serfdom was a cut above slavery (although not much of one).

[Citadelvette]

Dennis:

Bingo! Logistics trumps all. The US would be fighting on its home ground with interior lines of communication and a superb railway system. You're not going to find that in Mexico or Canada. Also the US could threaten any bases the British would operate from and could more easily reinforce their front lines. Also you're talking about a battle hardened army with some of the best generals outside of Prussia versus an army that hadn't fought a major power since the Crimean war. Queen Victoria's little wars were colonial affairs.

The experience of American comanders in the ACW is going to be important. The war had weeded out most of the incompetant ones so most could be counted on to be capable if not brilliant. Their recent experience would mean alot considering the changes which occurred in warfare between 1860 and 65. Even Von Moltke the Elder used the American example in the 1866 war with Austria, he watched developments where other European generals discounted the conflict, especially in regards to army sizes which he worked to prepare his commnaders for in 1866 and 1871. Speaking of Prussia, if the US and UK get into a full scale war you can bet Bismark is going watching in case an opportunity to hasten the unification arises while Britannia's in a big fight thousands of miles away, and if if does he'll take it.

[old_pop2000]

The experience of American comanders in the ACW is going to be important. The war had weeded out most of the incompetant ones so most could be counted on to be capable if not brilliant. Their recent experience would mean alot considering the changes which occurred in warfare between 1860 and 65. Even Von Moltke the Elder used the American example in the 1866 war with Austria, he watched developments where other European generals discounted the conflict, especially in regards to army sizes which he worked to prepare his commnaders for in 1866 and 1871. Speaking of Prussia, if the US and UK get into a full scale war you can bet Bismark is going watching in case an opportunity to hasten the unification arises while Britannia's in a big fight thousands of miles away, and if if does he'll take it.

That is a point to consider, along with the economic factors such industrialization, improvement in railroads, waterways for supply movement etc. Also consider that by the end of Civil War, single shot, breechloading rifles, along with repeaters are starting to infiltrate into the military armament system.

The other countries in the world, currently at odds with the British Empire and countries that would like to get some of the British monopoly would just love to the British bankrupt themselves attempting maintain a 2500 mile or longer, supply line. Places like North Africa, India, the Far East, South America, all are sitting on the sidelines, hoping to break the British stranglehold on trade. Prussia, Spain, France, Prussia and even the Russians and Arabs are watching and waiting.

One item about the Canadians and the Mexicans. They realize at some point, the war between the US and Britain will end. The Brits go home, but the US is still here, next door. Maybe even stronger than before. They might consider it in their best interest, to stay out of this fracas, knowing that we can take revenge later, with no help from the Brits.

All these and more items, are thrown into the mix, and considered before entering into a war with a country like the US. One that has beaten them twice in the last 100 years, already.

[Smiffy]

It is a simple reality that the USA is just too big to conquer, it had already proven too big to hold on to. Britain would have to bite off as much as she could chew, as she did in the Crimea, which was only a few years before this scenario (1853-1856). In fact the Crimea had highlighted all kinds of problems within the British Army. They were not put right until the 1870s but they could have been implemented earlier, if there had been any urgent need. The Crimea had also been a modern war, with railroads, telegraphs and rifles. The British had used the Indian railways to great effect in the Indian Mutiny (1857-158), another "modern" conflict with large numbers of trained men and modern weapons.

In the "Britain joins the Civil War" Scenario there is no way that British public opinion would have stood for supporting a slave holding nation, although some influential British industrialists might have liked easier access to American cotton.

Britain's two biggest fears at the time were, the French, as usual, and a Russia looking for revenge, perhaps in India. However in this hypothetical situation I believe the American West coast to have been very vulnerable to large scale British raid, especially in the period before the Trans-Continental Railroad was completed.

[Smiffy]

I think it was the fact that India was starting to manufacture cotton good, rather than exporting the raw cotton, was also a major influence in the decline of the Lancashire cotton mills. I think Britain did the best thing that any neutral can do, she sold arms to both sides.

As I said before, once you start on the "what ifs" it's difficult to know when to stop. As soon as you say, "What if Britain intervened in the American Civil War?" you open the gates to all kinds of speculation. Suppose British intervention had been a disaster and, subsequently, Britain had been unable to buy Gatling Guns, several of Victoria's "Small Wars" could have had different outcomes. Suppose the RN had annihilated the USN, would that have set the development of the turret armed warship back 20 years? Suppose the USN had defeated the RN, would Germany's colonial ambitions been more successful? You can just go on forever.

I think, from an historical point of view, it is more constructive to look at "what ifs" that pose the question, "What if something had not happened?" For instance; What if the Americans had not won at Saratoga? Would France have still supported America?

[old_pop2000]

I think it was the fact that India was starting to manufacture cotton good, rather than exporting the raw cotton, was also a major influence in the decline of the Lancashire cotton mills. I think Britain did the best thing that any neutral can do, she sold arms to both sides.

As I said before, once you start on the "what ifs" it's difficult to know when to stop. As soon as you say, "What if Britain intervened in the American Civil War?" you open the gates to all kinds of speculation. Suppose British intervention had been a disaster and, subsequently, Britain had been unable to buy Gatling Guns, several of Victoria's "Small Wars" could have had different outcomes. Suppose the RN had annihilated the USN, would that have set the development of the turret armed warship back 20 years? Suppose the USN had defeated the RN, would Germany's colonial ambitions been more successful? You can just go on forever.

I think, from an historical point of view, it is more constructive to look at "what ifs" that pose the question, "What if something had not happened?" For instance; What if the Americans had not won at Saratoga? Would France have still supported America?

The issue of whether the lack of cotton would have caused the English government to recognize the South or intervene is not understood by most history books. The financial crisis of 1858 caused the British mills to over compensate and in 1860, they imported the largest share of the 3.5 million bales exported to Europe. This glut caused an overproduction of finished goods and when the ACW started, imports of raw cotton dropped from 84% to 7%. However, with the bumper crop of 1860, there was no shortage. Prices, based on the ACW, rose on the finished products and with the glut, produced great profits for the mills. At this time, there was a brief push to intervene, but the Palmerston government was against it. However in 1862, the effects of the blockage were finally felt and the great "cotton famine" occurred in Lancashire. This forced the shutdown of many mills and placed many on the government payrolls. Luckily, in advance of the possible ACW, a Cotton association was formed and imports were commenced from India, Brazil and Egypt. However, these were slow to take up the slack. It was during this period, that the greatest push by newspapers and the mill owners to intervene occurred. Finally, Seward sent a letter to the English government which basically stated that if Europe intervened, the North would incite "Servile Wars" of slaves against slave owners. This would place the English in a bad position, as they had always advocated against slavery. Now, if they recognized the South and the North started a Slave War, the English would be on the wrong side.

The saving grace for the English, was the loss at Gettysburg by the South. It wasn't helped by the poor diplomacy of the Davis government who claimed that King Cotton would rule the day. As the supply of cotton improved as the other nations increased shipments to England and the South appeared to be losing, it gave the government the excuse to stay out of the fight.

The whole history is interesting, especially if you examine and read articles in English newspapers and the Economist. The issue was hotly contest at certain times during the period. It came to a vote in Parliament a few times, IIRC, but was always defeated.

I think virtual history can be interesting and instructive if you take a timeline of events and simply modify one of the events. As an example:

What if there had been no glut of cotton in the 1860 cotton crop in the South before the war? What if there had been a blight or bad weather? Would the situation have gotten so bad in the mills that the British government would have been forced to intercede? Remember, people don't eat cotton. This was not a famine. No one starved due to a lack of cotton. In fact, other replacements were at hand such as flax, wool etc.

[Ed Rotondaro]

It is a simple reality that the USA is just too big to conquer, it had already proven too big to hold on to. Britain would have to bite off as much as she could chew, as she did in the Crimea, which was only a few years before this scenario (1853-1856). In fact the Crimea had highlighted all kinds of problems within the British Army. They were not put right until the 1870s but they could have been implemented earlier, if there had been any urgent need. The Crimea had also been a modern war, with railroads, telegraphs and rifles. The British had used the Indian railways to great effect in the Indian Mutiny (1857-158), another "modern" conflict with large numbers of trained men and modern weapons.

In the "Britain joins the Civil War" Scenario there is no way that British public opinion would have stood for supporting a slave holding nation, although some influential British industrialists might have liked easier access to American cotton.

Britain's two biggest fears at the time were, the French, as usual, and a Russia looking for revenge, perhaps in India. However in this hypothetical situation I believe the American West coast to have been very vulnerable to large scale British raid, especially in the period before the Trans-Continental Railroad was completed.

Smiffy:

What the entire time period from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until the beginning of the First World War shows us, is that Britain was the master of diplomacy. While French may have been the language of diplomacy, the British spoke it better than anyone. With a moat separating them from the Continent and the world's best navy to fend off invasion, they could exercise economic and politcal influence on other nations and maintain status quo. Being the richest nation in the world certainly didn't hurt. It is interesting to observe that Britain felt it could not defend Canada, but was willing to go to war in support of France and Bosnia in 1914. I would observe that that Britain maintained the peace thru diplomacy that was only approached by the Italian city states during the Renaissance (and even they failed after the end of the 15th century.) What do you expect, my name ends in a vowel.:D

[bridav58]

That is a point to consider, along with the economic factors such industrialization, improvement in railroads, waterways for supply movement etc. Also consider that by the end of Civil War, single shot, breechloading rifles, along with repeaters are starting to infiltrate into the military armament system.

The other countries in the world, currently at odds with the British Empire and countries that would like to get some of the British monopoly would just love to the British bankrupt themselves attempting maintain a 2500 mile or longer, supply line. Places like North Africa, India, the Far East, South America, all are sitting on the sidelines, hoping to break the British stranglehold on trade. Prussia, Spain, France, Prussia and even the Russians and Arabs are watching and waiting.

One item about the Canadians and the Mexicans. They realize at some point, the war between the US and Britain will end. The Brits go home, but the US is still here, next door. Maybe even stronger than before. They might consider it in their best interest, to stay out of this fracas, knowing that we can take revenge later, with no help from the Brits.

All these and more items, are thrown into the mix, and considered before entering into a war with a country like the US. One that has beaten them twice in the last 100 years, already.
some UK posters that Dennis. They bring up that Fort Monroe is nothing up aside Kinburn ,a fort the British reduced in the Crimean War . They bring up that the UK maintained armies in the Crimea so they will have absolutely no problem maintaing things logistically in North America. if you follow that link I provided earlier you'll see one gentleman predicting that Fort Monroe will fall in less then a day??????

[old_pop2000]

some UK posters that Dennis. They bring up that Fort Monroe is nothing up aside Kinburn ,a fort the British reduced in the Crimean War . They bring up that the UK maintained armies in the Crimea so they will have absolutely no problem maintaing things logistically in North America. if you follow that link I provided earlier you'll see one gentleman predicting that Fort Monroe will fall in less then a day??????

The first piece of advice is to quit trying to convince these people. If they can't understand the difference in logistical support for the Crimean War and a war against a major maritime sea power like the US, there is nothing that is going to convince them. Comparing the Russian maritime capability against the British, where the British had total control of the Med and had the friendly Turkish government guarding the entrances to the Black Sea, with the US naval ability, means someone has not done their homework. The British had a supply base established in the locality of Egypt and Palestine, with the Turks providing overland support along with railroads across to the Black Sea. This is nothing compared to moving men and material, across the North Atlantic in wooden steam ships to Canada or even worse, to Vera Cruz, Mexico. The difference is like day and night.

As for the issue of Fort Kilburn and Fortress Monroe, this is a red herring. They probably can't argue against the logistic's issue or the economic issues, so they drill down and deflect you to arguing that they can take Fortress Monroe in a day. Big deal, you take it in a day. After that you have to hold it. How long will they be able to do that?

Keep in mind that the British had the French and Turks to provide soldiers for the 60,000 man army, most of whom were already in Egypt. Without Allied help, how many men will the British need to assault the US, before we can take Ottawa, Montreal or anywhere else. Remember also, that Sebastopol was never taken, but Malakoff was. Once this occurred, the Russians abandoned the fort and the war ended. But remember that the force under Lord Raglan landed in 1854, on 20 September. The fort did not fall until 8 September 1855, almost one year later. And it didn't really fall, it was abandoned.

In point of fact, except for equipment advantages, the expedition to the "soft underbelly" of Russia was a failure. There was indignation in France and England over the losses and incompetance of the officers in charge of the forces.

The Crimean campaign and war cost the British one government under Lord Aberdeen, 76 Million dollars and 25,000 lives. It required the increase in income tax by the Palmerston government who had been attempting to abolish it. It is the direct cause of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 due to the blundering of the British forces. It did highlight the need for reforms, which came under Cardwell in the 1870's. It also caused the financial crises in 1857-1858, which caused an over purchase of cotton in 1860.

I would say that anyone who uses the Crimean War as an example of the competance and abilities of the British army and British government in that timeperiod, needs to go back to their history books and buy a map of the region.

Have fun, my friend.:D

[old_pop2000]

Some more notes taken from Raglan's information provided after the war. In the first year of the war, the British lost 3000 men per month. This was due mostly to Cholera and fever. They actually buried 21,000 men in the first two years of war.

It was determined that to maintain 20,000 men in the field require a first reserve of 20,000, second reserve of 20,000 in training. Further review shows that 20000 men did leave England to move east, to fill the ranks of the men in the east. This large number actually drained the English of soldiers at home. Officers were collected from South Africa, Sierra Leone and South Wales to provide an officer corps for the army.

It would seem that the British were not really ready for this operation, since they had not put an army into the field in some 30 years. I doubt they would be any better, six years later in 1860. What do you think?

[Smiffy]

You are assuming that the British didn't learn anything from the Crimea. The Crimea led to major changes in the organisation and command of the British Army. Admittedly they took until the 1870s to work their way through, but with the impetus of war it could have been done faster. You cannot compare the pre-Crimean British Army with the post (or late) Civil War American Army, you have to compare them both at the same moment in time.

Whenever you make the comparison the overwhelming fact is, the United States is very big and the British Army is very small. A full scale invasion would be suicidal. If it was politically necessary, or perhaps in defence of Canada, the British could, at best, cause the USA severe problems by large scale raids with limited objectives.

We could not beat you, but we could make your eyes water.

[bridav58]

You are assuming that the British didn't learn anything from the Crimea. The Crimea led to major changes in the organisation and command of the British Army. Admittedly they took until the 1870s to work their way through, but with the impetus of war it could have been done faster. You cannot compare the pre-Crimean British Army with the post (or late) Civil War American Army, you have to compare them both at the same moment in time.

Whenever you make the comparison the overwhelming fact is, the United States is very big and the British Army is very small. A full scale invasion would be suicidal. If it was politically necessary, or perhaps in defence of Canada, the British could, at best, cause the USA severe problems by large scale raids with limited objectives.

We could not beat you, but we could make your eyes water.

I think Dennis is pointing out that it may be more important to compare the opponents Britain faced .
1. The US is far superior industrially and economically to Russia. The US is more self sufficent and has far better infrastructure .In fact I don't think the Russians even had a railroad south of Moscow.
2. The US would be far less affected by a blockade in fact the US could produce it's own saltpeter something very,very few nations could do.
3. The US was far more of a maritime power then Russia
4.Yes Britain adapted and would adapt BUT the US under the impetus of war also showed great adaptation. For example the Union didn't make use of mines but if faced with a navy like the RN may make great use of them. Further the South was able to expand it's industry enormously and I don't see any reason why the Union wouldn't be as adaptive.
5. What most people don't realise is that the Union basically fought the ACW with one hand behind it's back comparatively speaking . The Union lost 1.7% of it's population in the ACW but more importantly the South lost 5% of it's population showing just how much resistance one would face invading or raiding the US.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The first piece of advice is to quit trying to convince these people. If they can't understand the difference in logistical support for the Crimean War and a war against a major maritime sea power like the US, there is nothing that is going to convince them. Comparing the Russian maritime capability against the British, where the British had total control of the Med and had the friendly Turkish government guarding the entrances to the Black Sea, with the US naval ability, means someone has not done their homework. The British had a supply base established in the locality of Egypt and Palestine, with the Turks providing overland support along with railroads across to the Black Sea. This is nothing compared to moving men and material, across the North Atlantic in wooden steam ships to Canada or even worse, to Vera Cruz, Mexico. The difference is like day and night.

As for the issue of Fort Kilburn and Fortress Monroe, this is a red herring. They probably can't argue against the logistic's issue or the economic issues, so they drill down and deflect you to arguing that they can take Fortress Monroe in a day. Big deal, you take it in a day. After that you have to hold it. How long will they be able to do that?

Keep in mind that the British had the French and Turks to provide soldiers for the 60,000 man army, most of whom were already in Egypt. Without Allied help, how many men will the British need to assault the US, before we can take Ottawa, Montreal or anywhere else. Remember also, that Sebastopol was never taken, but Malakoff was. Once this occurred, the Russians abandoned the fort and the war ended. But remember that the force under Lord Raglan landed in 1854, on 20 September. The fort did not fall until 8 September 1855, almost one year later. And it didn't really fall, it was abandoned.

In point of fact, except for equipment advantages, the expedition to the "soft underbelly" of Russia was a failure. There was indignation in France and England over the losses and incompetance of the officers in charge of the forces.

The Crimean campaign and war cost the British one government under Lord Aberdeen, 76 Million dollars and 25,000 lives. It required the increase in income tax by the Palmerston government who had been attempting to abolish it. It is the direct cause of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 due to the blundering of the British forces. It did highlight the need for reforms, which came under Cardwell in the 1870's. It also caused the financial crises in 1857-1858, which caused an over purchase of cotton in 1860.

I would say that anyone who uses the Crimean War as an example of the competance and abilities of the British army and British government in that timeperiod, needs to go back to their history books and buy a map of the region.

Have fun, my friend.:D

Dennis:

Good analysis. I have several Osprey books on Civil War fortifications and I can tell you that no seacoast fort fell easily. Many resisted to the end of the war (i.e. Fort Sumter).

I was peripheral to a similar discussion whereby Prussia would totally conquer the US in 1870. Of course no one explained how a nation with no real navy was going to cross the Atlantic and invade and maintain itself so far from home. The problem with these kinds of "what ifs" is that they never examine the entire issue, they focus on one aspect such as the skill of the Prussian army or its superior general staff. Wars don't happen in a vacuum. You have to examine everything from economics, politics, strategic situation, weapons, armies and navies and tactical doctrines.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Good analysis. I have several Osprey books on Civil War fortifications and I can tell you that no seacoast fort fell easily. Many resisted to the end of the war (i.e. Fort Sumter).

I was peripheral to a similar discussion whereby Prussia would totally conquer the US in 1870. Of course no one explained how a nation with no real navy was going to cross the Atlantic and invade and maintain itself so far from home. The problem with these kinds of "what ifs" is that they never examine the entire issue, they focus on one aspect such as the skill of the Prussian army or its superior general staff. Wars don't happen in a vacuum. You have to examine everything from economics, politics, strategic situation, weapons, armies and navies and tactical doctrines.
Thanks, that is precisely the point. To focus on whether the British navy and army could reduce Fortress Monroe, fails to perform an analysis of the underlying requirements to even get across the ocean to initiate such an operation. And why Fortress Monroe, why attempt to take it from the sea? To sail up the Chesapeake? Why? This isn't the war of 1812 and the US in that time period.

It is important to get a fair assessment of both sides. The US Army in 1860 might not be the formidable foe, it would be in 1863 or 1864. Same for the USN. The RN would always be a difficult foe, but not unbeatable. I just believe that we should "do diligence" when making our assessments of the capability of either combatant.

[old_pop2000]

You are assuming that the British didn't learn anything from the Crimea. The Crimea led to major changes in the organisation and command of the British Army. Admittedly they took until the 1870s to work their way through, but with the impetus of war it could have been done faster. You cannot compare the pre-Crimean British Army with the post (or late) Civil War American Army, you have to compare them both at the same moment in time.

Whenever you make the comparison the overwhelming fact is, the United States is very big and the British Army is very small. A full scale invasion would be suicidal. If it was politically necessary, or perhaps in defence of Canada, the British could, at best, cause the USA severe problems by large scale raids with limited objectives.

We could not beat you, but we could make your eyes water.
No, my friend, I am not assuming anything, I am simply pointing out with factual information, the state of the British Army after the debacle of the Crimean War. The Crimean War, based on what I've read, had a dramatic effect on both the military and the economy. It also might have had an effect on Parliament and the government and its willingness to enter another expedition against a foe, that it really does not have any real arguments with. Cotton is vital to British industries, but if you have alternate sources, why risk anything, especially if there is no overt aggressive act against your forces. You risk much, for so little.

[Smiffy]

No, my friend, I am not assuming anything, I am simply pointing out with factual information, the state of the British Army after the debacle of the Crimean War. The Crimean War, based on what I've read, had a dramatic effect on both the military and the economy. It also might have had an effect on Parliament and the government and its willingness to enter another expedition against a foe, that it really does not have any real arguments with. Cotton is vital to British industries, but if you have alternate sources, why risk anything, especially if there is no overt aggressive act against your forces. You risk much, for so little.

I agree with your economic assessment but the British Army recovered quickly from the Crimea and fought major engagements in India during the Mutiny in 1857-8, against well armed and well trained, highly motivated troops. (Highly motivated because capture meant a death sentence.)

There was no sensible reason for war between our countries at that, or any other time, but we must remember there was no "Special Relationship" back then and small disputes could so easily get out of hand. For example the "Pig War" on San Juan Island, I can't remember if you shot our pig, or we shot your pig, but it could have turned really nasty.

[Citadelvette]

In the Pig War a British settlers pig entered an American settlers field eating and damaging crops so he scarred it away, it returned a second time so he shot it. Each side ordered in a small military force, I don't recall the RN commader but the USA sent George Pickett and they were both hotheaded and it seemed fighting would break out, but fortunatley old Winfield Scott defused the situation.

[Smiffy]

In the Pig War a British settlers pig entered an American settlers field eating and damaging crops so he scarred it away, it returned a second time so he shot it. Each side ordered in a small military force, I don't recall the RN commader but the USA sent George Pickett and they were both hotheaded and it seemed fighting would break out, but fortunatley old Winfield Scott defused the situation.

I seem to remember that the first British officer to arrive was a Royal Marine lieutenant with orders not to fire first. I believe Pickett had similar orders. Both sides then started a war of shouted, and highly colourful, insults in an attempt to provoke a fire fight but quite quickly both sides had general officers on the scene and older and wiser heads prevailed.

[Campy]

While the Union had internal sources of saltpeter, it was in fact buying quantities of it in India. I think the English held up shipment at one point, perhaps during the Trent affair. On the other hand , Europe and England suffered a poor harvest, and in 1862 the Union shipped 40 million bushels of wheat and flour to them. A good reason for England not to go to war.

Frank

[Ed Rotondaro]

I agree with your economic assessment but the British Army recovered quickly from the Crimea and fought major engagements in India during the Mutiny in 1857-8, against well armed and well trained, highly motivated troops. (Highly motivated because capture meant a death sentence.)

There was no sensible reason for war between our countries at that, or any other time, but we must remember there was no "Special Relationship" back then and small disputes could so easily get out of hand. For example the "Pig War" on San Juan Island, I can't remember if you shot our pig, or we shot your pig, but it could have turned really nasty.

Smiffy:

I am not exactly sure how the thread began, but I was operating under the assumption that the US and Britain would be going to war with Britain siding with the Confederacy for whatever reasons. As we have seen, Britain really ahd no sympathy for the South and found a way to replace the cotton. Indeed she had more to lose with trade with the US than the CSA. Outside of that, I can't see the US and Britain fighting over anything. Unless the US had joined the race for overseas colonies, there would be no places were interests would conflict. We still the West to settle and exploit.

[bridav58]

While the Union had internal sources of saltpeter, it was in fact buying quantities of it in India. I think the English held up shipment at one point, perhaps during the Trent affair. On the other hand , Europe and England suffered a poor harvest, and in 1862 the Union shipped 40 million bushels of wheat and flour to them. A good reason for England not to go to war.

Frank
sources of saltpeter just in the Kentucky,Ohio, Indiana ,and Illinois areas to support all needs for the Civil War, Mexican War, War of 1812 , Revolutionary War, and Spanish-American for a period of 5-6 years. This doesn't include the far larger deposits of the South in Georgia, Alabama and on out west through Texas . There are also large deposits along the East Coast from North Carolina up through New Hampshire & Vermont further there are very large deposits out along the West Coast.
So the US if need be could be entirely self-sufficent in this regard.

[bridav58]

Smiffy:

I am not exactly sure how the thread began, but I was operating under the assumption that the US and Britain would be going to war with Britain siding with the Confederacy for whatever reasons. As we have seen, Britain really ahd no sympathy for the South and found a way to replace the cotton. Indeed she had more to lose with trade with the US than the CSA. Outside of that, I can't see the US and Britain fighting over anything. Unless the US had joined the race for overseas colonies, there would be no places were interests would conflict. We still the West to settle and exploit.


some Pro-UK people in other forums thinking the UK would run rough shod over the US though to be fair there are Pro-US people who think the US would do the same to the UK . I was trying to get some input from members of this board. Basically everybody here is telling me the same thing the war would be extremely rough on both sides.

[Smiffy]

Smiffy:

I am not exactly sure how the thread began, but I was operating under the assumption that the US and Britain would be going to war with Britain siding with the Confederacy for whatever reasons. As we have seen, Britain really ahd no sympathy for the South and found a way to replace the cotton. Indeed she had more to lose with trade with the US than the CSA. Outside of that, I can't see the US and Britain fighting over anything. Unless the US had joined the race for overseas colonies, there would be no places were interests would conflict. We still the West to settle and exploit.

I don't think any American colonial ventures in the 1860s and 1870s would have pleased the British Government, but by the time of the Spanish-American War Britain was quite happy to see it happen. I think we trusted you more than our fellow Europeans.

Neither of the wars that we have fought between us was ever a popular war over here. Of course we see the results differently. We won the Revolutionary War because we beat France and Spain, even if we did lose a few colonies along the way. The War of 1812 was a draw, your victory at New Orleans doesn't count because the war was already over. :D

[Smiffy]

some Pro-UK people in other forums thinking the UK would run rough shod over the US though to be fair there are Pro-US people who think the US would do the same to the UK . I was trying to get some input from members of this board. Basically everybody here is telling me the same thing the war would be extremely rough on both sides.

Trying to keep national bias out of it, I can sum up the way I see as, the British didn't want to fight the USA, but if they had to, they could inflict major damage on the USA but only at great cost to themselves and they could not seriously hope to win.

[old_pop2000]

Trying to keep national bias out of it, I can sum up the way I see as, the British didn't want to fight the USA, but if they had to, they could inflict major damage on the USA but only at great cost to themselves and they could not seriously hope to win.

I believe that this is a fair assessment of the situation. Both sides had financial issues due to war. The British, after the Crimean and Indian Mutiny of 1857, had to continue the income tax and change its composition to make it more fair. After the Indian Mutiny, they had to replace the East India Co as the government of India. Up to that time, East India Co. had controlled the government and oversight of India. This, of course, cost them more money and personnel.

The US was in a similar position after the ACW. Even during the ACW, there were economic issues within the Lincoln government.

But, more importantly, there just wasn't any real antagonism between the two countries. The North and Britain were both strong central governments, based on industrialization not agriculture. They were more alike than the South with its decentralized government and states rights.

Any conflict with the US was likely to be a blockade break attempt and less an overt military mission. I have serious doubts whether military intervention in the form of an expeditionary force was ever considered. It might be good political capital for the Davis government, but it was not seriously considered. After 1863, it was all just academic. The real period of possibility, from my reading, was during the Cotton famine of 1862. As stated, this was a period between the glut of 1860-1861 and the increase in imports from Brazil, Egypt and India.

I hope our discussions and ideas have been helpful. I've found it interesting to review some of this.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't think any American colonial ventures in the 1860s and 1870s would have pleased the British Government, but by the time of the Spanish-American War Britain was quite happy to see it happen. I think we trusted you more than our fellow Europeans.

Neither of the wars that we have fought between us was ever a popular war over here. Of course we see the results differently. We won the Revolutionary War because we beat France and Spain, even if we did lose a few colonies along the way. The War of 1812 was a draw, your victory at New Orleans doesn't count because the war was already over. :D

Smiffy:

I agree on the war of 1812 and actually consider it America's first imperialistic venture, albeit a failed one.

[asnrobert]

Smiffy:

I am not exactly sure how the thread began, but I was operating under the assumption that the US and Britain would be going to war with Britain siding with the Confederacy for whatever reasons. As we have seen, Britain really ahd no sympathy for the South and found a way to replace the cotton. Indeed she had more to lose with trade with the US than the CSA. Outside of that, I can't see the US and Britain fighting over anything. Unless the US had joined the race for overseas colonies, there would be no places were interests would conflict. We still the West to settle and exploit.

In the 1890's when the US and UK almost came to blows. In November 1894, a British fleet blockaded a Nicaraguan port in order to force that country's government to pay money England claimed was owed her, which outraged many Americans, believing that the Monroe Doctrine had been violated. In July of 1895 there was a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. The US government offered to mediate, but was rebuffed by the British. President Cleveland invoked the Monroe Doctrine and war might have broken out, but at that time the Jameson Raid occurred (It was an unsuccessful attempt to start an uprising in the Boer Republic). Kaiser Wilhelm sent a congratulatory message to the Boers on their successful repulse of the raid without having to "appeal to friendly powers," which was seen as implying that Germany would aid the Boer Republic. With this threat, the British became more conciliatory on the Venezuelan issue, and US and UK relation became decidedly warmer from that point forward.

[old_pop2000]

In the 1890's when the US and UK almost came to blows. In November 1894, a British fleet blockaded a Nicaraguan port in order to force that country's government to pay money England claimed was owed her, which outraged many Americans, believing that the Monroe Doctrine had been violated. In July of 1895 there was a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. The US government offered to mediate, but was rebuffed by the British. President Cleveland invoked the Monroe Doctrine and war might have broken out, but at that time the Jameson Raid occurred (It was an unsuccessful attempt to start an uprising in the Boer Republic). Kaiser Wilhelm sent a congratulatory message to the Boers on their successful repulse of the raid without having to "appeal to friendly powers," which was seen as implying that Germany would aid the Boer Republic. With this threat, the British became more conciliatory on the Venezuelan issue, and US and UK relation became decidedly warmer from that point forward.
Nation building has it imperialistic period, Britain had hers, we had ours. I might say that ours is still in progress, but that might start a political argument, so I won't say it.;):D

[old_pop2000]

In the 1890's when the US and UK almost came to blows. In November 1894, a British fleet blockaded a Nicaraguan port in order to force that country's government to pay money England claimed was owed her, which outraged many Americans, believing that the Monroe Doctrine had been violated. In July of 1895 there was a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. The US government offered to mediate, but was rebuffed by the British. President Cleveland invoked the Monroe Doctrine and war might have broken out, but at that time the Jameson Raid occurred (It was an unsuccessful attempt to start an uprising in the Boer Republic). Kaiser Wilhelm sent a congratulatory message to the Boers on their successful repulse of the raid without having to "appeal to friendly powers," which was seen as implying that Germany would aid the Boer Republic. With this threat, the British became more conciliatory on the Venezuelan issue, and US and UK relation became decidedly warmer from that point forward.
Just because we had strong bonds and commons beliefs, does not preclude a few disagreements in the family. Just don't attempt to get between us, that is really dangerous.

[Smiffy]

Following the Battle of Manila Bay warships from several European Nations were sent to Manila to protect national interests. The strong German squadron was actually supplying the besieged Spanish garrison and the German ships were provocatively anchored between the American squadron and the town. The senior "neutral" flag officer was the German admiral. When a British cruiser entered the bay the German admiral directed it to take station with his ships. The British sailed past the American squadron, saluting Admiral Dewey's flag and headed for the German anchorage. Then, passing close alongside the German ships the Royal Marine band struck up "The Star Spangled Banner" and she returned to drop anchor at the end of the American battle line.

I'm trying to remember the name of the cruiser, or at least which book I read it in.

[old_pop2000]

Following the Battle of Manila Bay warships from several European Nations were sent to Manila to protect national interests. The strong German squadron was actually supplying the besieged Spanish garrison and the German ships were provocatively anchored between the American squadron and the town. The senior "neutral" flag officer was the German admiral. When a British cruiser entered the bay the German admiral directed it to take station with his ships. The British sailed past the American squadron, saluting Admiral Dewey's flag and headed for the German anchorage. Then, passing close alongside the German ships the Royal Marine band struck up "The Star Spangled Banner" and she returned to drop anchor at the end of the American battle line.

I'm trying to remember the name of the cruiser, or at least which book I read it in.
You think maybe the British naval commander knew something the German naval commander didn't.

[keschofield]

Following the Battle of Manila Bay warships from several European Nations were sent to Manila to protect national interests. The strong German squadron was actually supplying the besieged Spanish garrison and the German ships were provocatively anchored between the American squadron and the town. The senior "neutral" flag officer was the German admiral. When a British cruiser entered the bay the German admiral directed it to take station with his ships. The British sailed past the American squadron, saluting Admiral Dewey's flag and headed for the German anchorage. Then, passing close alongside the German ships the Royal Marine band struck up "The Star Spangled Banner" and she returned to drop anchor at the end of the American battle line.

I'm trying to remember the name of the cruiser, or at least which book I read it in.

IIRC - Dewey was still in a fighting mood and was ready to go after the Germans. I just don't recall all the specifics.

[Ed Rotondaro]

IIRC - Dewey was still in a fighting mood and was ready to go after the Germans. I just don't recall all the specifics.

Kurt:

That's correct and he let them know it too. I think Britain and the US were beginning to realize that Imperial Germany was getting a little too provactive.

[old_pop2000]

After the battle on May 1st, seven ships of the German Asiatic Fleet out of eight arrived at Manila Bay, under the command of Vice Admiral Von Deiderich's. Since Germany, Austria and Portugal had delayed their avowed neutrality until the last minute, the arrival of this contingent of German ships caused some consternation. International law stated that more than one or two foreign ships, gathering at the site of a blockade was against international courtesy. It was believed that German interests in the area would require no more than one or two ships, especially with the strained relations with the British and Russians. It would seem that the best German policy would be leave as many ships at Kiau-Chow, their home base as possible. The German commander stated that the purpose was to show Manila, a trading partner some solidarity, or so it goes. The Spaniards considered the Germans their friends and were uplifted by the demonstration.

Admiral Dewey finally asked Von Deiderich's the reason for the size and presence of the German Asiatic fleet at this time. He also protested the German interference with the US blockade. One US ship had stopped a German ship, the Irene and boarded her to search for blockaded goods. This was done again to some of the German ships moving from the Maraviles to Manila Bay. The German commander protested to Dewey about this action and others. Dewey finally gave the German's an ultimatum which simply stated told them that if they were not enemies then they should act accordingly, in regards to the blockade. If they were enemies, Dewey would take the appropriate action.

Needless to say, the German commander and his attitude changed with harmony and peace ruling the blockade area again.