British involvement in ACW - historical evidence

[SeumasnaDearg]

I appreciate the inclusion of a Trent Affair scenario, but I found the British OB to be over-rated. I just don't see how an Empire that could barely manage deploying a corps to Crimea in the late 1850s and has no battle experience since could suddenly appear with several elite well equipped corps. I realize this is a fantasy scenario, but it's way outside the pragmatic possibilities.

However, I am a retired historical researcher and I have worked (as a sidebar to actual court cases) on British cross-border interventions during the Civil War period. I am surprised that the designers did not include the Dakota uprisings of 1861-62 in Minnesota (and Dakota Territory) in the standard game. Surely these were just as important a distraction to the Federals as were events in New Mexico? We presented evidence in Canadian court that Britain was providing arms, ammunition and military supplies to the Dakota insurgents via the Hudson's Bay Company posts (centred at Fort Garry which is on your game map.) So no change in the map is required to introduce the Dakota insurgency.

One or two Dakota "Indian units" would suffice, with possibly a special forces regiment to represent the Wahpekute (professional Dakota military class) who were in Iowa at the time.

During trial around 2010 the Canadian government did not refute this evidence (which was primarily HBC correspondence with the British Foreign Office), but did try to downplay the significance as not a political or constitutional treaty, but only a temporary military alliance which was terminated by 1863 (as the documents state.)

So it's been confirmed in a Canadian court (Dakota Nations of Manitoba vs. Canada) that there was military interference by Britain with the Dakota inside the United States in the early 1860s.

So why not include something that actually did happen in the game, instead of the fantasy Trent Affair scenario?

IF we do take the Trent Affair scenario as a good idea for a fantasy what-if scenario, then it could be made more realistic by reducing the British intervention to one corps plus assorted smaller units, and adding a number of small Canadian militia units across the available map. There was for example an understrength battalion of veteran well equipped rifleman at Fort Garry in 1861 (Royal Canadian Rifles)

During this time Canadian prime minister John A. MacDonald (only a co-premier of one province before 1867, but full prime minister of four provinces after) was asked by the British to undertake to raise a Canadian militia system of 300,000 on paper. Over the following years, through the American Civil War this figure was reduced on paper to 100,000 but probably only 30,000 ever wore a uniform or practiced a drill.

A more complete Canadian-based Trent Affair scenario should also include a Rideau Canal system to connect Ottawa to Lake Huron (served as backup commo link), and working transit arrows to allow sea or land movement between the Maritimes and the Canadas (Upper and Lower Canada respectively called Ontario and Quebec today.) Gunboat or river movement should be allowed between.

So add the Dakota rebellion, add a few countervailing Minnesota territorial militia, add a few Canadian units (I can provide OB info), and significantly reduce the cross-Atlantic British reinforcement by 2/3.

Since the Dakota rebellion actually happened, it should be included in the standard game.

Seumas na Dearg

[Platoonist]

However, I am a retired historical researcher and I have worked (as a sidebar to actual court cases) on British cross-border interventions during the Civil War period. I am surprised that the designers did not include the Dakota uprisings of 1861-62 in Minnesota (and Dakota Territory) in the standard game. Surely these were just as important a distraction to the Federals as were events in New Mexico? We presented evidence in Canadian court that Britain was providing arms, ammunition and military supplies to the Dakota insurgents via the Hudson's Bay Company posts (centred at Fort Garry which is on your game map.) So no change in the map is required to introduce the Dakota insurgency.

It sounds like an interesting addition to me. Putting down Chief Little Crow and the Dakota uprising and was the job General John Pope got after his defeat at Second Bull Run. With the whole state of Minnesota being on the map I was surprised it wasn't already included.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I did consider including the Dakota conflict, there's three main reasons that caused me to eventually decide against this.
First, the Confederacy had no part to play in the affair, and given the game assumes that the Confederate player takes the role of Jefferson Davis (at least pre-European entry, in which case they then also wear the hat of the top commander of their ally as well), it doesn't make sense that they'd then be controlling a Dakota unit. And the British don't have any MPPs to provide to the Dakota the way the game is currently set up.
Second, the Dakota conflict is simply too small a scale, and not important enough, relative to the scale of the game. Pope's detachment would be a single brigade on the map, and while the Indian units don't have a fixed size, the Dakota force only had 300 or so men. I agree that this is true to some degree for New Mexico as well, but in the case of New Mexico there were several objectives that would have had a tangible impact on the war if captured by the Confederacy - there's many gold, silver and copper mines in the area, plus the threat to California. Minnesota by contrast doesn't offer any objectives of comparable value (even if the entire state was overrun, which would be preposterous, it would still set the Union back only a few MPPs per turn).
Third, when designing the game I found the AI handled everything significantly better if the West isn't an active part of the broader war (hence places like Montana being "neutral" rather than Union territory).
None of these issues are insurmountable, but taken together I think there's reason enough to leave the Dakota conflict out of the game.

Trent is an interesting one. In a lot of ways it's like Operation Sealion in WW2 - an alternative possibility that commanders on both sides devoted a great amount of attention to, but there were so many practical reasons against it occurring to render it exceedingly improbable, if not outright impossible. No arguments there against it likely being a "fantasy" scenario.
However, European intervention was the sort of thing that Lincoln could not afford to ignore, far-fetched as it may have been, so it had to be included in the game in some capacity, and be a great enough chance to occur in the game that players won't just ignore it. Having the mechanic in the game, it's natural that players would then want to experience playing with it, and in the 1861 campaign the only way that's ever going to happen is right at the very end of the game. Including the Trent campaign gives the option of playing with Europe for the full length of a campaign rather than just a handful of turns at the end. Plus, outside of "General X wins the Battle of Y" scenarios, the British getting involved is probably the most discussed out of all ACW hypotheticals.
The strength of the British force in Canada is assumed to be 50,000 regulars plus a handful of Canadian brigades (the 30k you quote would be reasonably close to the units I've got already). Being a hypothetical (and one the British to my knowledge never prepared detailed plans for), it's impossible to say for sure how strong the regular force would be, however 50k is roughly in line with what the British fielded in Crimea, plus the British have the significant advantage of friendly ports and territory to operate from that they did not have in Crimea (plus Quebec and Montreal have greatly superior infrastructure to the likes of Balaclava).

- BNC

[Platoonist]

Sounds like it might at least warrant a partisan location in the area of Ft. Ridgely, Minnesota, but those already on the map seem to annoy everyone as it is. Plus, I'm guessing you can't code Confederate partisan locations in what is permanent Union territory.

[go_rascals]

Dakota uprisings could be covered by an event popup with a small loss of MPPs for the Union, similar to partisans.