What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: parusski
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."
Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: parusski
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."
Even though this is Shelby Foote, I would take issue with it. It wouldn't just be an issue of producing more force, it would also involve stomaching more losses - maybe a lot more.
Suppose the South got British intervention, including the RN. No more blockade means better economics within the South, means fewer desertions, means stronger Southern armies - and that means a lot more losses have to be suffered to get to Appomattox.
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?
I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal.The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.
Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda.the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?
Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865
And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.
ORIGINAL: Treale
I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?
I don't think that Britain would recognize the Confederacy because of slavery. It was outlawed in Britain, I think?
ORIGINAL: ckammp
Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.
ORIGINAL: Trugrit
You might find this lecture interesting.
Program is about 2 hours long.
The second lecture is about southern war strategy.
http://series.c-span.org/History/Events ... 7436630-1/
ORIGINAL: AbwehrX
I agree that the odds were against the idea but considering they were only militarily capable of holding maybe a third of their original territory then the very threat of handing over 2/3's of their states might have made the Yankees think twice about prosecuting the war. Their only real chance of an independent South was to reduce their front lines to a Fabian defense and reach out for powerful allies. They failed miserably to do so and they failed militarily so the diplomatic option was the only way to achieve a realistic goal.The Idea that the States of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia would have turned even a part of their State over to a foreign power is ludicrous, Last I checked Britain, France, Spain and Mexico had all outlawed slavery and would have simply replaced the US control for their own.
Not really. Most Southerners did not own slaves so most were not fighting for that. They just simply opposed what they considered a dictatorship of Yankees. The north however wasnt going to allow the Union to be divided regardless of the issues at hand because it disrupted their Manifest Destiny agenda.the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights
ORIGINAL: AbwehrX
the ENTIRE reason they left the Union was slavery and supposedly States rights
So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities.ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Remind me how many sea going Ironclads the British had?
Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865
And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.
Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]
ORIGINAL: ckammp
There was never any serious chance of European recognition of the Confederacy. The one slim chance was the Trent affair in late 1861, but the combination of Prince Albert's intervention and the result of the battle of Antietam ended that hope.
Militarily, the claim that the British navy would easily defeat the United States navy is false. By 1863, the US had a dozen ironclads, by war's end it had 50, three times as many as Britain.
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
So they had 4 ironclads in 61, how many did the North have? And of those Ironclads were they OCEAN vessels or not. By 63 when they got a couple more the North had how many? Further did they have coaling stations to get those ironclads to the US? The US would have eaten up the British Navy as they had the local cities and production facilities.ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Warrior 1861
Black Prince 1861
Defence 1861
Resistance 1861
Royal Oak 1863
Hector 1864
Valiant 1864
Royal Sovereign 1864
Prince Consort 1864
Caledonia 1864
Ocean 1864
Research 1864
Enterprise 1864
Achilles 1864
Scorpion 1865
Wivern 1865
And the blockade was manned by wooden warships. To conduct that blockade, the North needed naval supremacy - they wouldn't even have had parity.
Lol Twotribes.....rebuttal??? [:'(]
But it is moot since there is no way the South was going to trade States for foreign support and the British were not going to recognize a Slave owning Country as it was Illegal in Britain.
The USA was rather behind the times on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron