For the uninitiated among you, the Trent Affair was a Civil War diplomatic crisis between the United States and Great Britain in November 1861. This crisis was caused when a US Navy warship stopped a British vessel in international waters to capture two Confederate ambassadors sailing on her. The British were outraged at having one of their ships stopped and boarded by a foreign power in international waters. A war was nearly started between Great Britain and the United States, but was averted when the United States released the prisoners. The British government was seriously considering recognising the CSA and if it had happened, this could have led to wider political recognition, opening up the possibility of credits and, if the blockade was broken, trade.

The premise is that the South reached its high-water mark in late summer of 1862, having just defeated McClellan in the Peninsular Campaign, then before the North had a chance to regroup, the South beat the pants off them in the 2nd Battle of Bull Run. In the west, the North had over-extended itself and the South was launching a new move up into Kentucky. Lee was launching his own thrust up into Northern territory through the northern end of the Shenendoah Valley into Maryland. At this point, Britain and a few other European countries were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy. Until Lincoln headed them off with the EP, they were more than willing to compromise their anti-slavery principles for their pro-cotton economics. But what would have been the outcome if England sided with the Confederacy in a war against the US? I wonder whether there would have been fighting on the Canadian border and to what extent the Union forces would have been able to sustain a war on an additional front?

The British navy would have a much more difficult job of neutralizing the Federal blockade if that blockade was already in place. The Union was operating in their own backyard, while the British would be a couple of thousand miles from home. Although they could outfit and resupply in the Confederacy and in the Carribean, the British would have logistical problems that the Union would not have. To be most effective, the British would have to jump in early and do what it could to destroy the Union's relatively small navy before it had a chance to grow. However, The British may have then lost such possessions as Canada and Jamaica to this new Federal effort. The Americans had the industrial power and the motivation to outbuild Britian in a naval race and need only have built ships capable of operating in coastal waters, like monitors. British ships needed to be seaworthy in all conditions and capable of operating from Halifax, Bermuda and the West Indies

Had the British fleet sailed west it would have faced, depending upon the year 2-32 ironclad warships plus many hundreds of other warships and converted ships. We actually have a larger navy in the Civil war then Britain does by 1864! We outnumber her in ironclads 32 to 7 by 1865! Britain was so cautious of our naval power that in 1865 it refused to aid Louis Napoleon in his Mexican conquest because it had only "two warships equal to the American Ironclad fleet"! Had the British came in she would have risked a US-French alliance opening her home ports to attack by French Ironclads, the French had 7 to the British 2 by 1861. This would pin the Home Fleet in Britain and thus eliminate the Royal Naval threat in the Atlantic. British ironclads were also of an old design which was like the Ship of the Line, all her guns were in fixed batteries in broadsides, not turrets and British ironclads were not sea worthy in heavy seas like the North Atlantic.

The Confederacy was plagued by a less than desirable level of cooperation between the individual states and the central government. Throwing another nation's military forces into the mix would have wreaked havoc on the chain of command. While perhaps not a significant problem in a naval war, it definitely would have been evident if ground troops were involved. Most commissions in the British army were purchased, which placed a great many incompetents in positions of leadership. Many Europeans viewed the British army as "lions led by donkeys." The British army was still in a bad way and was extremely overextended. The British army was of superb quality but a small, long-service, professional army dedicated to the needs of empire building and maintenance.
There were good troops, but they were mainly in India and were not considered real soldiers by Sir Garnett and his cronies. In the Crimea the Brits made a perfect hash of things and were damned lucky to be fighting the even more incompetant Russians. And they only held on by the skin of their teeth during the Mutiny and thank God for the Sepoys who stayed loyal. They had put in a poor performance in the Crimea and had also recently been through the bloody shock of the Indian Mutiny. Not an army ready or capable of fighting against a modern nation in arms.

Britian wasn't strong enough to engage a fully aroused United States. Their involvement might well have led to a revitalization of the Federal war effort with crowds of zealously nationalistic young men at the crimpers. Nevermind the threat to British possessions, economically the British would lose out as well. The United States north of the Ohio and from the sea west to Iowa and Minnesota had the population, raw materials, agricultural output and latent industrial capacity to match Britain. Britain was in economic recession and still recovering from the exhaustion in her long wars in the Crimea, Africa and the huge effort in India. Note that within 40 years Britain would be eclipsed economically by both The United States and Germany. The Great War was Britian's downfall. War with The United States, and the fallout of that war in world events (do the Russians take advantage of Britain’s involvement in our war to push over the Hindu Kush?), might have started Britain’s downslide 50 years sooner. British intervention had the ability to shore up morale and bring legitimacy to the south, but it would not have been efficient enough to win the war.

Well, CSA nearly won in the early war, didn't they? If England had entered on their side at that time, US would be in dire straits.

Well, CSA nearly won in the early war, didn't they? If England had entered on their side at that time, US would be in dire straits.

@ Capo, the North would have bled itself dry to win the war. That or given up. And we had better resources (including railroads) and could have fought a crap-long time longer than the South could've if we wanted to (key phrase). If the South would not except peace with the North, we would have had to. There is no strategy that could have worked so long as the North was willing to fight. It was the Union’s war to lose, not the South's to win.

Sam Houston was right when he said,

“I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction...they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

northern ironclads were monitor types--not ocean going warships--many sank in storms. the north may of had more ships- but most were armed merchant, sloops,ect... perfect for the blockade, not a battle fleet

@ Capo, the North would have bled itself dry to win the war. That or given up. And we had better resources (including railroads) and could have fought a crap-long time longer than the South could've if we wanted to (key phrase). If the South would not except peace with the North, we would have had to. There is no strategy that could have worked so long as the North was willing to fight. It was the Union’s war to lose, not the South's to win.

Sam Houston was right when he said,

“I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction...they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

Yeah, I wish I had my sources here, but by the end of the war, the Union was actually in a stronger position to wage war against the South then it was in the years previous.

Its just startling how infastructure improved in the North during this war. Coal production, pork iron production, food production, population (immigration), railroad infastructure... the list goes on.

Thankgod too, I'd much rather have the Union preserved, even at the horrendous bloodshed cost, then have watched the South Balkanize in the Americas.

But what would have been the outcome if England sided with the Confederacy in a war against the US? I wonder whether there would have been fighting on the Canadian border and to what extent the Union forces would have been able to sustain a war on an additional front?

I have no idea what so ever, if England joined with the Confederacy then the French would of come in as well but with the Russian Tsar supporting the North i wonder if England would of risked war, hmmm but we had just beaten them in the Crimea. Obvioulsy there would of been fighting on the Canadian IIRC British Redcoats had disembarked in Canada by the time the two agents had been freed.


The British navy would have a much more difficult job of neutralizing the Federal blockade if that blockade was already in place. The Union was operating in their own backyard, while the British would be a couple of thousand miles from home. Although they could outfit and resupply in the Confederacy and in the Carribean, the British would have logistical problems that the Union would not have. To be most effective, the British would have to jump in early and do what it could to destroy the Union's relatively small navy before it had a chance to grow. However, The British may have then lost such possessions as Canada and Jamaica to this new Federal effort. The Americans had the industrial power and the motivation to outbuild Britian in a naval race and need only have built ships capable of operating in coastal waters, like monitors. British ships needed to be seaworthy in all conditions and capable of operating from Halifax, Bermuda and the West Indies

Why would the British Navy be at such a disadvantage? With her Carribean possessions she would not be thousands of miles from home. Although our previous actions against American fleets left a little to be desired. But the British Navy wouldn't of had to lift the whole blockade. The North had the problem that they had to cover every port and inlet possible, the British could just punch a whole in the Union blocklade in the gulf and then supplies and troops could be transported into Texas etc.....


Had the British came in she would have risked a US-French alliance opening her home ports to attack by French Ironclads, the French had 7 to the British 2 by 1861.
Why did you come to the conclusion of a US-French alliance? The French and British had just been allied in the Crimean war and the French supported the Confederacy.


Most commissions in the British army were purchased, which placed a great many incompetents in positions of leadership. Many Europeans viewed the British army as "lions led by donkeys." The British army was still in a bad way and was extremely overextended. The British army was of superb quality but a small, long-service, professional army dedicated to the needs of empire building and maintenance.
Your point being? The French Army was utter crap, when faced with Prussian and allied forces in the Franco-Prussian war they crumbled.
The purchase of commissions in the British Army ended in 1866 IIRC so if a new large war had started these reforms may have been bought in earlier. Also you have to remember that without the purchasing of commissions the Duke of Wellington would never of risen so qucikly in the ranks and god knows what would of happened without him.
The B.E.F was a small, proffessional army in WW1 but managed to hold back the Germans. Just because an Army is small doesn't mean it isn't useful.


There were good troops, but they were mainly in India and were not considered real soldiers by Sir Garnett and his cronies. In the Crimea the Brits made a perfect hash of things and were damned lucky to be fighting the even more incompetant Russians. And they only held on by the skin of their teeth during the Mutiny and thank God for the Sepoys who stayed loyal. They had put in a poor performance in the Crimea and had also recently been through the bloody shock of the Indian Mutiny. Not an army ready or capable of fighting against a modern nation in arms.
The Army wasn't mainly in India. In the Crimea the French, the Turks and the Russians all made a perfect hash of things. But the European experinces had helped form American warfare, the siege tactics and the use of railrods to move troops quickly.
You're describing the Union and Confederate armies of 1862 has modern armies. The Britsh where a professional force place these along side the Confederate armies that managed to trounce the union time after time in the East. Would McClellan (spelling) have won the election and then sued for peace?

The Great War was Britian's downfall. War with The United States, and the fallout of that war in world events (do the Russians take advantage of Britain’s involvement in our war to push over the Hindu Kush?), might have started Britain’s downslide 50 years sooner. British intervention had the ability to shore up morale and bring legitimacy to the south, but it would not have been efficient enough to win the war.

The reason why the Great War was Britains downfall was because one we lost so many millions of men and also the Great War prevented trade with our colonies and other nations so during the war the other nations found other trading partners and the colonies started to produce finished goods themselves. India used to send cotton to England, we would make it into shirts then sell them back to India. Why would the other nations swap back to us, and why would the colonies regress?
So are you saying the Union could impose a complete blockade on Britain and destroy our trade? You gave at the start of your post reasons why the Britsh navy would fail, do you seriously think an American force could blockade Britain?

A combined British, French and Confederate force couldn't win against the North?
But then you do need to take into account that the Russians might join in the war on the Norths side along with Prussia.

It's such a complex scenario :goodjob: i'll have to think about it more and do some damn reasearch for once.

The Americans had the industrial power and the motivation to outbuild Britian in a naval race and need only have built ships capable of operating in coastal waters, like monitors.


I'm afraid you drastically underestimate British Industrial might in the period. The UK in 1860 produced more steel and more coal than the entire rest of the world combined and accounted for 45% of the entire worlds modern industries. It would have had therefore minimal difficulty outproducing the United States (added together the USA and CSA only accounted for a mere 7.2% of world industrial output in 1860).


Had the British fleet sailed west it would have faced, depending upon the year 2-32 ironclad warships plus many hundreds of other warships and converted ships. We actually have a larger navy in the Civil war then Britain does by 1864! We outnumber her in ironclads 32 to 7 by 1865!


I'm afraid your figures are grossly misleading as they lump together all US Ironclads including coastal and riverine vessels but only count the very largest Royal Navy Ironclads. Actually the RN by 1864 had a large number of additional Ironclads which could have been bought to bare of the USN being more than capable of traversing the Atlantic.

As for numbers of warships the vast majority of non-Ironclad USN vessels were no match for those of Royal Navy either.


British ironclads were also of an old design which was like the Ship of the Line, all her guns were in fixed batteries in broadsides, not turrets and British ironclads were not sea worthy in heavy seas like the North Atlantic.


Where do you get your information?

Despite their classic lines British Sea-Going Ironclads like HMS Warrior would have pounded the best USN Vessels to scrap Iron before they could even get in range to fire back. They were faster, more heavily armoured and far more heavily armed.


The British army was of superb quality but a small, long-service, professional army dedicated to the needs of empire building and maintenance.

They had put in a poor performance in the Crimea and had also recently been through the bloody shock of the Indian Mutiny. Not an army ready or capable of fighting against a modern nation in arms.


The Crimean War was a testing ground for almost all of the weapons and tactics used a few years later in the American Civil War. The British Army had learned its lessons the hard way and was much better prepared for a modern war in the mid 1860's than they had been a decade earlier.


Britian wasn't strong enough to engage a fully aroused United States. Their involvement might well have led to a revitalization of the Federal war effort with crowds of zealously nationalistic young men at the crimpers. Nevermind the threat to British possessions, economically the British would lose out as well. The United States north of the Ohio and from the sea west to Iowa and Minnesota had the population, raw materials, agricultural output and latent industrial capacity to match Britain. Britain was in economic recession and still recovering from the exhaustion in her long wars in the Crimea, Africa and the huge effort in India.


Please back this up with facts. You won't be able to by the way as the early 1860's were were the UK reached the zenith of its power in relative terms.

The French Army was utter crap, when faced with Prussian and allied forces in the Franco-Prussian war they crumbled.
The purchase of commissions in the British Army ended in 1866 IIRC so if a new large war had started these reforms may have been bought in earlier. Also you have to remember that without the purchasing of commissions the Duke of Wellington would never of risen so qucikly in the ranks and god knows what would of happened without him.
The B.E.F was a small, proffessional army in WW1 but managed to hold back the Germans. Just because an Army is small doesn't mean it isn't useful.
"The useless French" is a popular idea among "les anglosaxons". The fact that the French army was quickly dispatched by the Prussinans and assorted allies in 1870 doesn't mean it was "crap", just that the Prussians did better. What was crap was the political will and leadership of the Second Empire. What crumbled wasn't the french army but the tottering political structure of the "Empire".
Von Moltke actually commented on this through the observation that more French troops were in arms against the Prussians when they pulled out in 1871, than there hade been in 1870. Had they stayed around it would have been a long, expensive and uncertain affair.

Which brings me to the British army. There just wasn't enough of it in the 1860's to be any bloody use to the CSA or anybody else. There would be until after Granett Wolseley's [sp?] reforms.

When Bismarck decided to "solve" the Schleswig-Holstein question by going to war against Denmark allied to Austria in 1864, lord Palmerston threatend him with war. Bismarck ignored him and Palmerston could do nothing. Why? Because Bismarck knew that a British expeditionary force would only number around 20.000. That was all there was. And Prussia alone mobilised 500.000 to take out Denmark.

20.000 certainly wouldn't have spooked the French either. What everybody feared was the RN and Britains financial strength. Bismarck could ignore it because the war would be a very short one. (As the Danish quip about it runs: "Jens var ikke bange, men de var for mange", i.e. "Jens [the archetypical dane] wasn't afraid, they was just too many.")
This British lack of manpower in 1866 seems to have been part of the reasons for reforming the army.

Britain could have sent ist 20.000 to the South, but that probabaly wouldn't have been enough to do a real difference. The real effect would have had to come from the effects of blockading the North and footing the bill for the South.

We do have the very same discussion in another thread here. What happened if the CSA survived. IF the British recognized the CSA it would be hard for the Union to win the war. With the support of British supply and even soldiers the CSA would have survived. France was a strong supporter also and it had a big army that was supposed to be the finest. Their fightings in Mexico and Italy were clearly advantaging him. Also what about some smaller nations like Denmark?
OTOH Germany (especially Prussia) and Russia supported the Union. Bismarck wouldn´t have want the war so early but if it was necessary, the war would have been ww1! Or Bismarck would have waited for another opportunity. Strengenthing Germany and then with Russian assistance bringing the North to reenter the war. Germany, Russia and the Union against the CSA, France and Britain. WW1. The Germans and Russians would have had good chances to win a war against France and Britain in Europe. In the meantime the industrial power of the North would have given the US the chance to win the war against the CSA and Canada. A totally different war result than 1919. This alliance Germany, Russia, US would have faced another strong one. Nevertheless the industrial power of the US and Germany together with masses of soldiers of Russia would have given the better odds to this Alliance in contrast to the Entente.

Adler

"The useless French" is a popular idea among "les anglosaxons". The fact that the French army was quickly dispatched by the Prussinans and assorted allies in 1870 doesn't mean it was "crap", just that the Prussians did better.
So not having any maps of your own country, only of German/Prussian lands isn't considered crap?

What was crap was the political will and leadership of the Second Empire. What crumbled wasn't the french army but the tottering political structure of the "Empire".
Oh, personally i thought it was the Army myself.
The logistics, the short training time, the system of mobilization (where when you were called up you went to where your regiment was based so a soldier in Paris would of been mobilized to say Marseilles) if that makes a good army i am the King of England.

Oh, personally i thought it was the Army myself.
The logistics, the short training time, the system of mobilization (where when you were called up you went to where your regiment was based so a soldier in Paris would of been mobilized to say Marseilles) if that makes a good army i am the King of England.

the regular army was about 300,00--lifetime soldiers, most had served in italy and crimea. it was the moblize-guarde that was crapp--most were revolutionaries who would love to see napoleon III fall

My way of thinking is that if the British had joined the war early, such as after 1st Manassas (Bull Run to you Yankees) then the Union would have been in a very bad situation as far as implementing the "Anaconda Plan" goes. Then again the US had already fought a couple of wars where the superior RN controlled the seas.

The Union cavalry and even some infantry regiments were armed with repeating arms such as the Sharps, Spencer, Henry carbines. The Spencer was able to fire 7 aimed shots in 30 seconds when the average muzzle loader of the day could only fire 2 or 3 in 60 seconds.

http://www.nps.gov/gett/soldierlife/webguns.htm

The Henry lever-rifle was even better. It held 16 .44 caliber shots in its magazine and fire these off in less than 10 seconds. Just under 2,000 of these were bought by the Union Army but 10,000 were made and ready for use if needed.

At Petersburg, 1864 the Union had tested the first practical machine guns. Capable of firing 600 rounds per minute and many were ready to be put to use in an emergency by the Army.http://www.civilwarhome.com/gatlinggun.htm

I don't think the British ever encountered anything like these on the Crimea.

I think a British land-war against the Union on the USA mainland anytime after late 1863 would have been disastrous for both the British EF and possibly even Canada whose forces would have been overwhelmed by battle-hardened Union troops numbering over 2 million (http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm) with nearly unlimited manpower.

The Union cavalry and even some infantry regiments were armed with repeating arms such as the Sharps, Spencer, Henry carbines. The Spencer was able to fire 7 aimed shots in 30 seconds when the average muzzle loader of the day could only fire 2 or 3 in 60 seconds.


Although some units were using advanced weapons it is also worth pointing out that large numbers of Federal Troops were still using smoothbore muskets!

At Gettysburg in 1863 26 of the Federal Regiments fought that battle using smoothbores. Even by 1864 around one in ten Federal Soldiers had yet to be equipped with a rifle.

Although you say some 10,000 Henry Repeaters had been produced this sum is tiny compared with the vast numbers using single-shot muzzle-loaders.

Another interesting fact is that because of an inadequate armaments production the USA was forced to purchase Enfield Rifles from the British some 500,000 were bought equipping a very large percentage of the Union Army. Safe to say these would have been unavailable if Britain was an enemy :p


Nb. As for "unlimited manpower" the United States in 1864 had the same population as Great Britain and lacked the entire British Empire as an additional source of manpower. Additionally although some 2,000,000 served in the Union Army over the course of the war at any one time it barely numbered half that.

Although some units were using advanced weapons it is also worth pointing out that large numbers of Federal Troops were still using smoothbore muskets!

Very true (At the start of the war some were given spears) But neither does that take away from the effectiveness of many modern regiments.

Although you say some 10,000 Henry Repeaters had been produced this sum is tiny compared with the vast numbers using single-shot muzzle-loaders.

True and again the Musket/Lever-rifle ratio does not effect this since the cavalry ONLY used repeating rifles. Yet just a few dozen Henry rifles were enough for Union skirmishing cavalry men to defeat infantry of much larger size on more than one occaison. But still that was just a cavalry weapon to begin with. There is not going to be as many made as infantry weapons.

I would be worrying about the 200,000 Spencer lever-guns sitting around in Federal arsenals.http://members.tripod.com/~ProlificPains/wpns.htm

Another interesting fact is that because of an inadequate armaments production the USA was forced to purchase Enfield Rifles from the British some 500,000 were bought equipping a very large percentage of the Union Army. Safe to say these would have been unavailable if Britain was an enemy

Correct.....except the Union cancelled ALL Enfield imports in 1863. ;)
http://www.civilwarguns.com/enfld11.html

MY QUOTE
I think a British land-war against the Union on the USA mainland anytime after late 1863 would have been disastrous for both the British EF and possibly even Canada whose forces would have been overwhelmed by battle-hardened Union troops numbering over 2 million with nearly unlimited manpower.

So the Enfield issue has little meaning to my theory (Except to say the Union now has 500,000 Brit rifles(the best muzzle loading rifles of the time))

Nb. As for "unlimited manpower" the United States in 1864 had the same population as Great Britain and lacked the entire British Empire as an additional source of manpower. Additionally although some 2,000,000 served in the Union Army over the course of the war at any one time it barely numbered half that.

How large an Army do you think the British could support in North America?

50,000 Canadians were already fighting for the Union.(Only 10,000 for the South)They were very much anti-slavery. :p

50,000 Canadians were already fighting for the Union.(Only 10,000 for the South)They were very much anti-slavery.

Care to give a source for that one? I have never heard about Canadians(Canada didnt even exist yet :p ) volunteering for the Union. True they were anti slavery but for the most part, Pro British.

Very true (At the start of the war some were given spears) But neither does that take away from the effectiveness of many modern regiments.


True but it does indicate that not all of the huge Union Armies were particularly well-equipped which takes away some of the image often portrayed that it was a logistical powerhouse.


True and again the Musket/Lever-rifle ratio does not effect this since the cavalry ONLY used repeating rifles. Yet just a few dozen Henry rifles were enough for Union skirmishing cavalry men to defeat infantry of much larger size on more than one occaison. But still that was just a cavalry weapon to begin with. There is not going to be as many made as infantry weapons.


Although in skirmish situations the Henry was a good weapon in open warfare it wasn't. It lacked the range and impact of the big minie ball rifles which is why the notion that it could have had a huge impact on the battlefield is somewhat overstated.


I would be worrying about the 200,000 Spencer lever-guns sitting around in Federal arsenals


Like the Henry the Spencer wasn't going to be an effective weapon in open battle because of a lack of range. It was useful for cavalry but in a normal battlefield situation the fact you can fire much faster is no help when the other guy with the muzzle-loader blows your head off at a distance.


Correct.....except the Union cancelled ALL Enfield imports in 1863. ;)


The Trent incident which was the initial staring point for this bit of alternate history was in 1861 though I was sticking to that date


How large an Army do you think the British could support in North America?


In the 1860's I couldn't say. The British managed to shift 30,000 troops to the Crimea half a decade earlier with minimal effort so that level of initial deployment would be relatively easy as a first stage.

In the event of all-out warfare Britain had the industrial power to put together a fairly large army pretty quickly. During the Boer War the British managed to train equip and deploy several hundred thousand men to South Africa. As to whether they would is another question.

The easiest way to fight the war from the British perspective would be to provide the Confederacy with a vast amount of logistics and let them do the fighting on the land instead.


50,000 Canadians were already fighting for the Union.(Only 10,000 for the South)They were very much anti-slavery. :p

I think if America and Britain came to blows in the 1860's the probable invasion of Canada would rapidly diminish pro-Union sentiment north of the border ;)

Care to give a source for that one? I have never heard about Canadians(Canada didnt even exist yet :p ) volunteering for the Union. True they were anti slavery but for the most part, Pro British.

Here,
http://members.tripod.com/PvtChurch/
Here,
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8558/canada/canuck1why.html
And.......Here
http://www.geocities.com/cancivwar/cancivwar.html
Oh and here are a couple of Canadian American Civil War Re-enactors' sites.
http://users.interlinks.net/rebel/civilwar/civilwar.htm
http://www.geocities.com/montrealcivilwar/

Fair enough.


I'd just never heard of that before. Thanks for the interseting read.

Like the Henry the Spencer wasn't going to be an effective weapon in open battle because of a lack of range. It was useful for cavalry but in a normal battlefield situation the fact you can fire much faster is no help when the other guy with the muzzle-loader blows your head off at a distance.

Well actually its effective range of the bullet was 500 yards. Pretty impressive for a carbine.

Interestingly enough the average Civil War soldier could not hit anything man-sized over 200 yards.

Well actually its effective range of the bullet was 500 yards. Pretty impressive for a carbine.


But still only less than half that of a Minie-Ball Rifle. An Enfield could blow a hole in four inches of wood at a thousand yards.


Interestingly enough the average Civil War soldier could not hit anything man-sized over 200 yards.

That's the problem with an army put together too fast, not enough training and too few experienced officers and NCO's. (bit of trivia just before the war started in 1860 the United States Armed Forces, then still including those who would join the Confederacy, only amounted to some 26,000).

For the most part though volley-fire gets over the accuracy issue however. Fire enough lead and you'll still get your target.

Interestingly the British Army in the Crimea using the same Rifle used in the American Civil War found they could actually take out Russian Artillerymen because the Enfield outranged their field guns! To say Russian Gunners were not happy about this would be a serious understatement :p

Even the threat of British entry was enough to harm the U.S Dollar significantly, had Britain entered, the American Government would had immediately faced severe financial problems. This would be in addition to American trade being made virtually non-existant as the ports of the British Empire and Europe would be closed to her.

Britain could have (especially had France and Spain joined in - which would have been very likely if Britain took the lead) cleared the US Navy and so lift the blockade of the South and supply all the materials that the South was lacking and so enhance the prospects of victory in 1863. This combined with the possibility of British landings anywhere on the Eastern Seaboard would have stretched the American forces thinner and may have given and well equiped and also jubilant army of North Virginia the chance they needed to win.

But the Trent affaire is more interesting still. The Union lacked saltpetre in sufficient quantities to fight the war and were buying it from Du Pont in British held India. As soon as the crisis broke, the British stopped the order and so the Union were in trouble as far as this vital war material was concerned.


Now on the flip side...Britain was anti-slavery, fought against slavery in Africa and many people would not fight to maintain it. Second, British leadership under Palmerstone was of the opinion "Those in others quarrels interpose, often get a bloody nose" did not want the blood or cost of war. But, most importantly, in 1861, the grain harvests were very poor in Europe so driving up the cost of corn. Were it not for corn from the Union, then Europe could have been in for a very rough time...Northerners gloated that King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton, which was certainly the case as mills in Europe had more cotton in store than demand for cloth, at least in those early years of the war.

Another factor was the war is good for business and Britain could do rather nicely supplying the combatants, later still due to commerce raiders American merchant ships were driven out of the Atlantic and most trade was done in British ships, thus increasing the interest Britain had in staying out of the war.


In the end, good sense prevailed and the Union backed down and the British took the climb-down with good grace. The Confederate diplomats failed to achieve anything in London, whilst due to the bellicose actions of one captain, they had almost caused war.

But, most importantly, in 1861, the grain harvests were very poor in Europe so driving up the cost of corn. Were it not for corn from the Union, then Europe could have been in for a very rough time...Northerners gloated that King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton, which was certainly the case as mills in Europe had more cotton in store than demand for cloth, at least in those early years of the war.


i believe both eygpt and india had bummer crops of cotton in 1861-1862 which hurt the souths position severely