The British intervene on the side of the Confederates in the ACW

[Vanoi]

Lets says at the end of 1862 the Confederates convince just the British to intervene on their side in the American Civil War. What do you think the outcome will be?

Thsi to me would be very hard to see.

First off, if they did, i don't think the Union would just give up and stop, and i don't think when the British did come over that they would just destory the Union and win easy. Confederates are winning in the East but they were boudnd to start losing in the West at the end of 1862. they are still under blockade and it is taking is toll. The British though have a navy to stop this, but i don't think their navy is powerful enough to bloackde the Union. So their navy is better than the Unions, but i don't believe its powerful enough to really cause the Union a serious amount of trouble here.

Then your going to have to compare the armies. On one side you have the Union, with plenty of numbers supplies and their armies are nicely expierenced and trained. Then you have British regulars, of which i have no idea how good they are in the 1860s, but i am assuimg they are pretty good soldiers, You also have the Confederacy but they still do not have the numbers, even with the British included,to match the Union, they however do have very talented generals and an expierenced fighting force, but it is poorly equipped compared to the British and Union armies.

This is a tricky one. The best case senario i can see for the Union is that, even with the British they still win the war. The worst case senario i see however is them losing terriotry to the Confederacy, such as Missouri. Also the Confederacy not being defeated. I do need input however on how effective the British fighting force would be against Union armies to see how the war would play out.

[Erebus Pasha]

The British would be hard pressed to send significant numbers of troops to defend Canada let alone intervene decisively in the South. Still would the British actually intervene on the same side as a combatant who still practised slavery? It wouldn't look good from a moral point of view.

[Cyclops]

...Still would the British actually intervene on the same side as a combatant who still practised slavery? It wouldn't look good from a moral point of view.

So somehow they settle this point: agree to phase our slavery or whatever.

Just as tricky a point is getting Britain into a war without triggering a domino trap of European powers wading in: in RL the French took the opportunity to tamper with Mexico, so there'd be plenty of scope for that sort of thing (French into Canada? Russia south from Alaska?). War in Europe is almost a given, Russian border disputes with Turkey in the 1850's nearly started WW1 60 decades early.

However the OP says it happened so lets deal from there.

My guess is the Empire enters the American Civil War = South succesfully secedes and its fragmented state structure is dependent on Britain for wealth. North is crippled and unable to grab the rest of the continent as swiftly as in RL, so grows more slowly before ultimately reconquering (or happily re-uniting with?) the South decades later.

The British would be hard pressed to send significant numbers of troops to defend Canada let alone intervene decisively in the South...

Yes but the blockade is over, with European money and supplies pouring into the South: in particular British railroad equipment. South gets even more men to more battles more quickly: can't see the North getting off square one as far as advancing South in these circumstances. British river vessels may keep Grant out of Vicksburg or off the river entirely, perhaps even allowing some mad Southern gentleman to do a Sherman Drive to the Great Lakes.

I suspect the Royal Navy would be untouchable, and small numbers of British specialists (eg arty, seiges arty) would be extremely telling in hitting at Washington and shutting down/limiting NY and New England ports.

Wikipaedia suggests the 1860's were the age of the gunboat, narrowly defined as a sort of naval seige platform and I think blowing up Wall Street would've ended the war very quickly indeed.

Canada does have along and often indefensible frontier but the Atlantic coast would've been similarly wide open. Pain all round but Canada was a fraction of the Empire, whereas the Atlantic Coast was where US wealth and production capacity was focussed.

Given that the Fall of Richmond cut the head off the (admittedly looser) CSA, the fall of Washington and New York would probably push the USA to allow succession.

[DarkArk]

The Royal Navy gets destroyed when they underestimate the North's ironclads. The monitors were the most advanced ship design in the world at the time, and were untouchable against anything the RN would be able to send over. The high seas are still British marginally, but the ports and coastal wars are dominated by the USN.

Also the North gets off its collective ass and actually behaves like a nation in a proper war. There would be mass anger at the British intervening in what was regarded as an American internal affair, and industrial output would no doubt have increased towards arms production.

If it goes on long enough Canada would be conquered, and the South would still lose. There's a reason the British didn't intervene in actual history.

[Darkhorse]

The Royal Navy gets destroyed when they underestimate the North's ironclads. The monitors were the most advanced ship design in the world at the time, and were untouchable against anything the RN would be able to send over. The high seas are still British marginally, but the ports and coastal wars are dominated by the USN.

Maybe, but I'm not sure, HMS Warrior and the Armstrong gun may have made a difference. Especially out to sea.

Why so some people think Canada would be lost because the British couldn't support the south military and defend Canada? This may well be true if the British operated in the South solely/partially, but there would have been no reason why the British could not have operated solely from Canada, they aren't splitting forces in two theatres that way, it gets the Union from two sides, its less risky for the British and easier to defend that position and any gains from it. Was the Union in the position to repel a sizeable campaign from the Canada, the Confederates in the South, and the British fleets at sea?

[Erebus Pasha]

You have to the remember that the British didn't have the large continental armies at their disposal like the French or the Austrians, because primarily they were a naval power. And even with the naval strength the British had, it would still be a huge logistical undertaking pulling manpower from all over the Empire to fight in North America. Certainly it would take time to get these resources in place to either intervene in the South or to advance from Canada. IIRC correctly the Canadian border wasn't that heavily defended and the fortresses were obsolescent. What I am pointing out is that in the time that the British are sending troops to North America, a Union attack across the frontier could press the limited Canadian defences.

But I suppose a counter to this would be an attack on the major North American cities on the East Coast from the sea, although even with the RN's strength it would still be difficult to implement a blockade and allocate resources to attack these targets at the same time.

[Azog 150]

If it goes on long enough Canada would be conquered, and the South would still lose. There's a reason the British didn't intervene in actual history.

I thought that was more down to the South still being a slave owning society, as well as the fact that Britain was largely dependent on Union grain imports.

[Poach]

The British and French nearly did intervene in the Civil War, and that's what turned it into a war over Slavery: the Emancipation Proclaimation was released to foil any British or French intervention as they'd lose any moral high ground.

Now, according to here, the UK had 87,000 men in Canada (20,000 regulars, 67,000 militia) and an a total of some 220,000 regular soldiers, with 100,000 based in the UK.

At the end of 1862 the Union Army had some 700,000 soldiers and the Confederates some 280,000. It should be noted that the Union Army loses some 80,000 over the next year fighting the Confederates alone.

According to this source, the USN numbered 90 ships of which only 20 were truly warships. It had some dozen Ironclads. The Royal Navy had some 9 Ironclad Warships, which were ofcourse much larger than Monitors.

So, how does all this come into play?

Well, the Royal Navy could easily maintain control of the High Seas and could effect a blockade of the Union in that manner: by concentrating warships along trade routes they could seriously impact Union imports and exports without having to dominate the coastline. If the RN Ironclads were deployed to North America they could feasibly engage the US Coastal Ironclades, whom they massively outgunned.

The British Army could reinforce Canada with relative ease due to their control of the seas, with 20,000 soldiers present already, which could be upped easily to some 60-80,000 using only reserves from the UK. Were the UK to enter a war footing to fight the war seriously, they could easily deploy a far greater number of soldiers (for example, 250,000 soldiers were deployed in the Crimean War of 1853-56, Canada is easier to access than the Crimea) to the region.

The Civil War went on a further 3 years before the Union was able to finally pacify the Confederacy. With Confederate ports largely or completely re-opened and the Union being forced to fight a second front in Canada against several hundred thousand British soldiers (ontop of the militia), the war would get much more difficult for them. The French would likely also join the war in aid of Britain and the Confederacy, as they, like Britain, had great tension with the Union.

I do think, eventually, the Union could have been overpowered by a two-front war and a naval-blockade, but I doubt it would come to that. If the British and French became involved and the Canadian front began to see the Confederate Front stall I expect the Union would concede and allow the Confederacy to exist.

[Azog 150]

What of Russia in all of this?

Weren't they still friendly with the Union, with post-Crimea tensions still high? I can't imagine they would simply sit back while Britain and possibly France went to work on the Union.

[Poach]

I can't imagine they could have much effect anyway, at most they'd just revoke the Treaty of Paris. Their Navy was in no position to contest the Atlantic and they couldn't attack either party by land.

[Vanoi]

The British and French nearly did intervene in the Civil War, and that's what turned it into a war over Slavery: the Emancipation Proclaimation was released to foil any British or French intervention as they'd lose any moral high ground.

Now, according to here, the UK had 87,000 men in Canada (20,000 regulars, 67,000 militia) and an a total of some 220,000 regular soldiers, with 100,000 based in the UK.

At the end of 1862 the Union Army had some 700,000 soldiers and the Confederates some 280,000. It should be noted that the Union Army loses some 80,000 over the next year fighting the Confederates alone.

According to this source, the USN numbered 90 ships of which only 20 were truly warships. It had some dozen Ironclads. The Royal Navy had some 9 Ironclad Warships, which were ofcourse much larger than Monitors.

So, how does all this come into play?

Well, the Royal Navy could easily maintain control of the High Seas and could effect a blockade of the Union in that manner: by concentrating warships along trade routes they could seriously impact Union imports and exports without having to dominate the coastline. If the RN Ironclads were deployed to North America they could feasibly engage the US Coastal Ironclades, whom they massively outgunned.

The British Army could reinforce Canada with relative ease due to their control of the seas, with 20,000 soldiers present already, which could be upped easily to some 60-80,000 using only reserves from the UK. Were the UK to enter a war footing to fight the war seriously, they could easily deploy a far greater number of soldiers (for example, 250,000 soldiers were deployed in the Crimean War of 1853-56, Canada is easier to access than the Crimea) to the region.

The Civil War went on a further 3 years before the Union was able to finally pacify the Confederacy. With Confederate ports largely or completely re-opened and the Union being forced to fight a second front in Canada against several hundred thousand British soldiers (ontop of the militia), the war would get much more difficult for them. The French would likely also join the war in aid of Britain and the Confederacy, as they, like Britain, had great tension with the Union.

I do think, eventually, the Union could have been overpowered by a two-front war and a naval-blockade, but I doubt it would come to that. If the British and French became involved and the Canadian front began to see the Confederate Front stall I expect the Union would concede and allow the Confederacy to exist.

The source on the Union Navy you provided was their numbers at the beginning of the Civil War. According this this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_blockade There were aorund 160 vessles in the Unino Navy in 1861. These were blocakding vessles, so i don't know how effective they were, but the point is the Uion Navy had alot more ships at the end of 1862. If you continue to read about the Union blockade, you will see we actually took many forts around major Confederate ports, such as Fort Jackson and St. Phillipes around New Orleanes. Now even if you did force the ships blockadeing the Confederate ports, they still could not be used until you took back the forts the Union took at many Confederate ports.

Now at the end of 1862 some 700,000 troops and the Confederates 280,000. You said that the Union would lose some 80,000 in the next year, but you need to remember that now the British have intervened, the timeline has chnaged a bit, so the loses could be more or even less. Then you would also have to count Confederate loses, which we big considering in 1863, they lost both the Siege of Vicksburg and The battle of Gettysburg, two significant battles that spelled the end of the Confederacy.

Also in 1862 the Confederacy was already drafting forces, they Union had not passed The Draft Act until 1863, and that would have provided hundreads of thousands of more soldiers to the Union.

According to your sources, the British had around 87,000 regulars and militia. that is alot of troops and would be a big threat to the New England states. Although i do not think they would be able to go on the offensive. They only had 20,000 regulars to match the training and equipment of the Union amry, and even then they did not have the 2 year expierence much of the Union forces had. If anything i could see the Union threatening Canada, but it would force the British to rush the 100,000 regulars in Britan to Canada, which will pose a massive problem in the North. Forcing us to send a good number of our forces, to protect New England.

British intervention though could hurt the Confederates. If they did intervene that would cause many people to get angry at this foreign intervention, and would make the confederate lose key allies in the border states, giving the Union more numbers and the Confederates less of an advantage.

[Fluttershy]

Can you imagine the up roar in the north if the British joined in?

"THE BRITISH ARE COMING!". Rather then fighting the south and trying to force them back into the union the North would be defending there homes from "the evil british returning" thats how we would spin it anyway and especially in areas like new england and NY, the morale boost of actually having a cause that the average joe could really fight for (defending there homes) would be huge.

not to mention this would likely push Russia into the war on the side of the union. They actually helped hunt down confederate ships in reality. I imagine we would get full russian support and even some token troops in the west. Theres just no way the russians would iidly sit back when there was a prime opportunity to stick it to the brits and french
The Brits simply didnt have a big enough army to really threaten the north, who as has been stated. Hadnt even begun to draft troops in 62.


and I find it very unlikely that either the french or British would risk going all out in this war, how are they going to sell the thousands to hundreds of thousand losses in the americas to protect a slave holding nation?

In the end I think the results would be the same, Union victory over the south and either a stalemate or parts of canada being annexed in the north.

[Mr. Scott]

The British would be hard pressed to send significant numbers of troops to defend Canada let alone intervene decisively in the South. Still would the British actually intervene on the same side as a combatant who still practiced slavery? It wouldn't look good from a moral point of view.

It wasn't until the emancipation proclamation that the war revolved around slavery.

Prior to that, the European powers could be free to help the CSA without making it seem as though they're supporting slavery.

The proclamation made it a moral war and the Europeans morally could not help the CSA.

[Sphere]

Still would the British actually intervene on the same side as a combatant who still practised slavery? It wouldn't look good from a moral point of view.

But as that guy once said, cheap cotton has a morality all its own.


Though it is interesting to consider what would have happened if the block-aid was broken. Certainly with better supplies the AoNV could have kept fighting for a longer period of time, however the shear manpower advantage the north had couldn't be easily negated, especially once the creme of union commanders had risen to the top and were on par with their southern counterparts.

[Poach]

The source on the Union Navy you provided was their numbers at the beginning of the Civil War. According this this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_blockade There were aorund 160 vessles in the Unino Navy in 1861. These were blocakding vessles, so i don't know how effective they were, but the point is the Uion Navy had alot more ships at the end of 1862. If you continue to read about the Union blockade, you will see we actually took many forts around major Confederate ports, such as Fort Jackson and St. Phillipes around New Orleanes. Now even if you did force the ships blockadeing the Confederate ports, they still could not be used until you took back the forts the Union took at many Confederate ports.

Following wikipedia to the sources it used, you are clearly told of the blockading ships:

By the end of 1861, 79 steamers had been purchased along with 58 sailing boats.... Only 160 vessels patrolled the blockade and only a small proportion of them were capable naval vessels.

In short, the Union Navy was composed almost entirely of policing ships whose role was to catch blockade runners, not Warships whose role was to fight pitched battles. The Royal Navy would annihilate the majority of the Union navy with ease.

The forts would be a more difficult task but if the Union managed to take them from the Confederacy than the Confederacy/British could take them from the Union. Plus, not every major port was closed by taking forts, many could remain open in the mean time.

Now at the end of 1862 some 700,000 troops and the Confederates 280,000. You said that the Union would lose some 80,000 in the next year, but you need to remember that now the British have intervened, the timeline has chnaged a bit, so the loses could be more or even less.

The opening of a second front and the loss of the economic blockade against your original enemy will only make losses go up.

Then you would also have to count Confederate loses, which we big considering in 1863, they lost both the Siege of Vicksburg and The battle of Gettysburg, two significant battles that spelled the end of the Confederacy.

In mid '63 the Confederate Army numbered around 200,000. My sources show this.

Also in 1862 the Confederacy was already drafting forces, they Union had not passed The Draft Act until 1863, and that would have provided hundreads of thousands of more soldiers to the Union.

If you'd even bothered to read my sources you'll see the Union Army never gets any larger than its 1st Jan 1863 high. So no, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands more troops, the troop numbers steadily decreased even with the passing of the draft act.

According to your sources, the British had around 87,000 regulars and militia. that is alot of troops and would be a big threat to the New England states. Although i do not think they would be able to go on the offensive.

Nor would they have to: it wouldn't be the British goal to conquer the States. Their goal would be to drain US manpower from the South and to force the US to the negociating table using the Royal Navy.

They only had 20,000 regulars to match the training and equipment of the Union amry, and even then they did not have the 2 year expierence much of the Union forces had.

I think you're forgetting the Crimean War, which finished only 8 years prior to the intervention date provided in the OP: the British Army had a lot more combat experience than the Union Army.

If anything i could see the Union threatening Canada, but it would force the British to rush the 100,000 regulars in Britan to Canada, which will pose a massive problem in the North. Forcing us to send a good number of our forces, to protect New England.

Assuming absolutely no French intervention that would still bring regular British forces up to around 100,000 men. It's foolish to assume the British wouldn't enter a war footing to fight this war, and as I've said they deployed 250,000 men to the Crimea which is both not a part of the Empire and much more difficult to reach.

The British Army could quite easily deploy some 200,000-300,000 men into Canada, which would be a massive drain on Union manpower to match: the Union would be forced onto the defensive on both fronts as there wouldn't be the spare manpower to mount any large scale offensives.

British intervention though could hurt the Confederates. If they did intervene that would cause many people to get angry at this foreign intervention, and would make the confederate lose key allies in the border states, giving the Union more numbers and the Confederates less of an advantage.

We're talking some few thousand at most, nothing worth making mention of in the strategic scale of things.

[Dr. Croccer]

We'd all be speaking English.

Oh wait.

I think the British would establish naval dominance and supply the Confederacy. I don't know too much about Union quality and that of the British in Canada at this time to make a good estimate on that. What would probably happen is that the Union would send some troops north to defend the border and maybe launch incursions into Canada proper. Much of the British troops in Canada were irregular so there could've been a guerilla campaign of raiding New England and harassing Union forces in the area.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The Union only had a population of 22 million. Assuming they correctly spun the British intervention as a foreign invasion and a threat to their very existence, what size could the Union army reach?

During WWII the British mobilized 6.2% of their population. Assuming the Union could do the same, that's 1,364,000. That's about 500,000 more than the maximum size of their army in the real war, would that make a difference?

Nazi Germany had over 18% of its population in its army...

[Vanoi]

Following wikipedia to the sources it used, you are clearly told of the blockading ships:



In short, the Union Navy was composed almost entirely of policing ships whose role was to catch blockade runners, not Warships whose role was to fight pitched battles. The Royal Navy would annihilate the majority of the Union navy with ease.

The forts would be a more difficult task but if the Union managed to take them from the Confederacy than the Confederacy/British could take them from the Union. Plus, not every major port was closed by taking forts, many could remain open in the mean time.

Until i am able to provide a soucre that show the number of real warships the Union had in 1863 i will say you have won part of this debate.

On the forts though. The Union didn't have a hard time taken those forts. Why? We had a navy to bomb their forts down with, they had no navy to defend it. The forces taking down the confederate forts were just not any regular Union army soldier, they were marines, way more trained and way more equipped than the Confederates. The Confederate soldiers guarding the forts also were not very good. They are not the same men who have been fighting the Union in the East and West, these are often green recruits, who are even less equiped than their armies were. Now taking back the forts that the Union took would be even harder. First off, the units guarding the forts would be well-equiped, but chances are they would be recruits, but still better off than the Confederates. The British would also have do be assaulting these forts without Confederate help, because the Confederates did not have the manpower and were not equipped enough to take on these forts.


Also many of the major ports were closed by taking forts around them. New Orleanes, the biggest port in the Confederacy, was taken down by taking 2 forts around it in 1862, but then we also captured the city itself, eliminating its use as a port. At Savannah Georgia, another large major port, we effectibly eliminated its use as a port when we took Fort Pulsaki. In South Carolina, the Union took Port Royal, which provided them with a nice naval base. By 1864, all major Confederate ports were shut down completely. By the beginning of 1863, the majority of Confederate ports were either captured, or shut down due to the Union taking forts around them.

In mid '63 the Confederate Army numbered around 200,000. My sources show this.

If you'd even bothered to read my sources you'll see the Union Army never gets any larger than its 1st Jan 1863 high. So no, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands more troops, the troop numbers steadily decreased even with the passing of the draft act.


Nor would they have to: it wouldn't be the British goal to conquer the States. Their goal would be to drain US manpower from the South and to force the US to the negociating table using the Royal Navy.


I think you're forgetting the Crimean War, which finished only 8 years prior to the intervention date provided in the OP: the British Army had a lot more combat experience than the Union Army.


Assuming absolutely no French intervention that would still bring regular British forces up to around 100,000 men. It's foolish to assume the British wouldn't enter a war footing to fight this war, and as I've said they deployed 250,000 men to the Crimea which is both not a part of the Empire and much more difficult to reach.

The British Army could quite easily deploy some 200,000-300,000 men into Canada, which would be a massive drain on Union manpower to match: the Union would be forced onto the defensive on both fronts as there wouldn't be the spare manpower to mount any large scale offensives.


We're talking some few thousand at most, nothing worth making mention of in the strategic scale of things.

Going to try to address these points 1 at a time.

First, your right it never gets higher than its Jan 1 of 1863. But it still remains in the 600,000 number during the the majority of the rest of the war, while the Confederates never reach higher than 250,000 and after that continue to lower and lower. Also about your claim that Union numbers continued to decrease even after the draft act, i can only see this once at the beginning of 1863-1864. After that, the numbers again increased while the Confederate numebrs continued to decrease. Infact at the beginning of 1862, the Union enjoyed a 2-1 advantage over the Confederacy that only kept getting bigger and bigger througt the war.


Second, your right, the British would drain manpower, but you do know that the Union could have very much threatened Canada with those troops forcing the British to send men to Canada, instead of the east where they were needed?

Third, i am not forgetting the Crimean War. Although as you said before, it was fought 8 years ago. I am sure not all of those who fought in the Crimean War are still in the army, and not all of the 250,000 who fought survived it. ( i know British losses in the Crimean war were low, i am just making a point.) Besides, the war was only three years long, i don't think that gives British forces alot more expierence than Union forces who had been fighting the Confederacy for 2 years. Ill give the British credit though, there troops were expierenced and would provide a formidible foe for the Union.

Fourth, you said that according to your sources, in the 1860s the British had avaliable around 220,000 men and i think 150,000 militia. Now you said that could easily deploy 200,000-300,000 men to Canada, but i was reading your source and not all of the troops are all in the same place. A good 60,000-70,000 were based in India. Now those would take a very long time to get to America, and i am assuming not all of them would be going. Then you had the 60,000-70,000 irregulars based in India too (need you to confirm these were British soldiers though? I have a feeling they were Indian irregulars.) Then you had 20,000 troops in the Mediterranian, and 10,000-20,000 based in South Africa. All i am saying is that it would not be easy to get 200,000 to 300,000 to Canada so easily and quickly. Though i do know the British would recruit more soldiers for this war. Also you would all be deploying them in Canada. Why? Sure you would be draining manpower, but we would still outnumebr them in the East, enough to do offensives. Most of the Confederate army wasn't even based in the East either, it was based in the West near Mississippi and they were not as expierenced or equipped as Robert E. Lee's army in the East were. If anything the British should split troops going to Canada, to take forts along the coasts, and to the East to help the Confederates ( i did not say the West on purpose because the Confederates were pretty much losing there by the end of 1862, and would lose even more in the following months.)

The Union only had a population of 22 million. Assuming they correctly spun the British intervention as a foreign invasion and a threat to their very existence, what size could the Union army reach?

During WWII the British mobilized 6.2% of their population. Assuming the Union could do the same, that's 1,364,000. That's about 500,000 more than the maximum size of their army in the real war, would that make a difference?

Nazi Germany had over 18% of its population in its army...

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

We had a total of something like 2,100,000 troops. So yes it would make a difference considering the Confederacy could barely muster half of what we could, and most of them were under-equipped compared to Union forces. Hell they couldn't even afford to have the same colored uniforms or weapons.

[Cyclops]

I think a small number of British regulars would have an effect out of all proportion to their numbers. USA and CSA forces seem to perform like militias, motivated on "home soil" and pretty crappy away. Leadership is patchy at best, the US generalship is mostly laugable.

If Britain went in to the North they'd be wiped but I speculate they would hold Canada (in 1812 was it 50,000 beaten off by 5000 men? something like that IIRC), and the drain on the USA in attacking North as well as South, losing massively on trade and maybe never dominating the Mississippi would lose Lincoln the election and send Seward (or whoever picked up the pieces) to the negotiation table.

I accept the Shelby Foote contention that the USA won the war with plenty in the tank materially, and if the South had fought harder or won more battles the North would've just "taken the other hand out from behind their backs". However they were fighting an offensive war and needed to take the South, all the South had to do was endure in place.

Srsly Britain was a world spanning empire with a monstrous navy and economic clout like no other political entity on earth at that time. If the British came in on the side of the USA instead of cheerfully profiteering then the war would've been done in five minutes, not five years. Full unhindered comittment to the South would've gotten the South to seccession, no doubt in my mind.

[Vanoi]

I think a small number of British regulars would have an effect out of all proportion to their numbers. USA and CSA forces seem to perform like militias, motivated on "home soil" and pretty crappy away. Leadership is patchy at best, the US generalship is mostly laugable.

What? Maybe the confederates opereated like militias (some did, the Army of Northern Virginia was way more professional), but not Union armies. And poor generalship? Its been said some of the best generals the US ever had fought in the Civil War. Take in account Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They were great generals who often fought battles out-numbered against the Union but though tatics and strategy still won them. The american military was completely different from was it was in the War of 1812. We learned many lessons since then and we were a very effective fighting force.