A different war in 1861

[Fellow Traveler]

What if there hadn’t been a war between the States instead a huge opponent from Europe such as France, England and Spain combined? (just for instance).
Who could have been the US commanders at the start?
Robert E. Lee Overall Command, (Winfield Scott Aide to Lincoln)
Army Commands: P.T. Beauregard, Sedgwick, T.J Jackson, Albert Sidney Johnston; Edwin Sumner; W.T. Sherman; Henry Halleck; Joseph E. Johnston; James McPherson, John Fremont. Opinions please?

 

[BazBear]

IIRC declaring war on a European nation (I can't remember which) was proposed by one of Lincoln's advisers or cabinet members, as a way to attempt to keep the southern states from seceding. Sort of a wag the dog thing. I can't recall all of the details, but that nation's gov't got wind of it and the US had to do a lot of diplomatic fancy dancing to calm them down. I can't find the details to refresh my memory right now, but I'll look again later.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't think France, England, and Spain COULD combine at the time.

If any one of them had invaded, or was even potentially a valid enemy of the USA, I think the most obvious thing would be to do what Germany did with Mexico in WWII: offer to give the South what they wanted in exchange for their support. Imagine the North fighting a two-front war, with the South on one side and the European power on the other. If it's France, Louisiana the Mississippi are a fantastic way to land troops wherever you want (as the North demonstrated in the Civil War). Plus a bunch of Native American tribes would have helped out. If it's England, Canada offers such an avenue of attack, and the idea of setting up a blockade--or even effectively keeping British troops off the shore--would be laughable. Spain had essentially all of South America.

The key issue is if you could keep the other nations out of it. If France was the enemy and England chose to side with the North (basically setting the USA up to become a larger version of Korea), most of the action would have taken place in the Atlantic and along the coast of Europe, with the battles in the USA being pretty minor to the actual events. Same goes with any other European power you care to name.

 

[Craig B]

Spain had essentially all of South America.

In 1861? Here's wiki on the Spanish Empire in the New World.

... after 17 years of independence, in 1861, Santo Domingo was again made a colony due to Haitian aggressions, yet by 1865 Santo Domingo again declared independence, making it the only territory which Spain recolonized. After 1865, then, only Cuba and Puerto Rico – and on the far side of the globe, the Philippines, Guam and nearby Pacific islands – remained in Spanish hands in the New World.

By then S America had been independent for decades.

 

[Dinwar]

In 1861? Here's wiki on the Spanish Empire in the New World. By then S America had been independent for decades.

Fair enough. Sorry about that--got my centuries wrong for that country.

So Spain is out. So we are talking England and Feance, with a few smaller powers scattered around, right? No chance they would join forces, and they would probably cancel each other out.

 

[ddt]

I don't think France, England, and Spain COULD combine at the time.

They did ally against Mexico at around the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico:

The second French intervention in Mexico (Spanish: Segunda intervención francesa en México), also known as the Maximilian Affair, Mexican Adventure, the War of the French Intervention, the Franco-Mexican War or the Second Franco-Mexican War, was an invasion of Mexico in late 1861 by the Second French Empire, supported in the beginning by the United Kingdom and Spain. It followed President Benito Juárez's suspension of interest payments to foreign countries on 17 July 1861, which angered these three major creditors of Mexico.

And we all now how well this ended for Maximilian of Habsburg.

And the previous decade, Britain and France had allied against Russia in the Crimean War.

 

[Hutch]

IIRC declaring war on a European nation (I can't remember which) was proposed by one of Lincoln's advisers or cabinet members, as a way to attempt to keep the southern states from seceding. Sort of a wag the dog thing. I can't recall all of the details, but that nation's gov't got wind of it and the US had to do a lot of diplomatic fancy dancing to calm them down. I can't find the details to refresh my memory right now, but I'll look again later.

You may be thinking of Seward (Secretary of State) and the Trent Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair. Seward thought a threat/war from Europe would bring the Southern states back into the Union. Lincoln, who highly respected Seward, was a bit smarter that he was (not to mention a way better politician) and was reported to have said "One war at a time."

 

[BazBear]

You may be thinking of Seward (Secretary of State) and the Trent Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair. Seward thought a threat/war from Europe would bring the Southern states back into the Union. Lincoln, who highly respected Seward, was a bit smarter that he was (not to mention a way better politician) and was reported to have said "One war at a time."

That's it, thanks!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A naval war with a European power would have been interesting. The USN expanded about ten times during the ACW, with over 600 ships at the end. And almost all of these were of the modern design. If all else were equal the USN's "physical assets" would have been rather overwhelming against navies that were, for some countries, leftovers from the Napoleonic Wars. (Sinking HMS Victory might have made the US and Britain permanent enemies.)

The rate of production of war materials by the North should have been a warning to countries like Japan and Germany, but I suspect that even if they were aware of the facts of the matter they would have decided US "splendid isolation" attitudes would work in their favor.

 

[catsmate]

You may be thinking of Seward (Secretary of State) and the Trent Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair. Seward thought a threat/war from Europe would bring the Southern states back into the Union. Lincoln, who highly respected Seward, was a bit smarter that he was (not to mention a way better politician) and was reported to have said "One war at a time."

I always felt the Trent Affair was a bit of a hackneyed option for sparking a US/UK war; the Chesapeake incident in December of 1863 seemed rather more plausible.

The incident began on 7 December when Confederate sympathizers operating from Canada captured the American steamship Chesapeake off the coast of Cape Cod, killing one of the US crew. The raiders had planned to refuel at Saint John in New Brunswick before travelling to Wilmington (North Carolina) where the ship would be used as a blockade runner. However difficulties at Saint John forced them to head further north and load coal in Halifax. After leaving port there was an attempt by US forces to arrest the men in Canadian water, a violation of British sovereignty. Following the earlier ‘Trent Affair’ the incident outraged Britain and threatened to bring Britain into the war against the Union until diplomatic manoeuvrings calmed the tensions.

 

[Tolls]

(Sinking HMS Victory might have made the US and Britain permanent enemies.)

Victory had been stuck in dock for 50 years by the time of the ACW, so a US navy would have had to steam into Portsmouth to sink her. By which point I suspect her sinking would have been the least of the Admiralty's worries.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Victory had been stuck in dock for 50 years by the time of the ACW, so a US navy would have had to steam into Portsmouth to sink her. By which point I suspect her sinking would have been the least of the Admiralty's worries.

If you're going to get bogged down in details.

 

[Tolls]

If you're going to get bogged down in details.

I know, picky picky picky, that's me...

But, Portsmouth aside, it would have been an interesting one. Essentially how quickly the US could construct a navy pretty much from scratch, vs how quickly the European fleets (the French and British essentially) could upgrade. The latter were already moving to armoured ships in 1861...just. I think the RN had decided to build the first 2 in that year. The French had only just launched Gloire.

 

[Dinwar]

I know, picky picky picky, that's me...

But, Portsmouth aside, it would have been an interesting one. Essentially how quickly the US could construct a navy pretty much from scratch, vs how quickly the European fleets (the French and British essentially) could upgrade. The latter were already moving to armoured ships in 1861...just. I think the RN had decided to build the first 2 in that year. The French had only just launched Gloire.

So it seems to me, best-case scenario for the USA would be for the two main European powers at the time to duke it out over naval superiority throughout the Atlantic, while the USA fought itself.

Worst-case scenario is that one of the two European powers gained real dominance, and came over to help the South. I can't imagine either side actually doing so (the South didn't have much to offer), but that's pretty much the only way the South had any hope of winning.

The question remains, could the Europeans land sufficient force on the North American continent to have any real effect? That was, in large part, what the blockade of the South was all about after all.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I know, picky picky picky, that's me...

But, Portsmouth aside, it would have been an interesting one. Essentially how quickly the US could construct a navy pretty much from scratch, vs how quickly the European fleets (the French and British essentially) could upgrade. The latter were already moving to armoured ships in 1861...just. I think the RN had decided to build the first 2 in that year. The French had only just launched Gloire.

A war with Europe would have changed the Anaconda Plan into the Protect Our Coasts Plan. Monitors for coastal and harbor defense, Alabamas for longer ranges. H.L. Hunley might have been a national hero.

The interesting aspect for me is the potential for a technological arms race. The South couldn't effect all the plans and suggestions made to the CSN. England, on the other hand, may have produced some amazing designs under pressure from the USN.

 

[Border Reiver]

The question remains, could the Europeans land sufficient force on the North American continent to have any real effect? That was, in large part, what the blockade of the South was all about after all.

For the British, yes, they could have brought sufficient forces to bear via Halifax and Quebec to counter any US invasions.

The French? Barring a significant change in their support for Maximillian, and them being able to control ports in Mexico, then no.

 

[Dinwar]

For the British, yes, they could have brought sufficient forces to bear via Halifax and Quebec to counter any US invasions.

The French? Barring a significant change in their support for Maximillian, and them being able to control ports in Mexico, then no.

Assuming the French don't get involved and establish an effective blockaid (I'm a Hornblower fan so find this concept dubious, but hey, it could happen). And assuming the North doesn't blockaid British ports (even less likely).

I just don't see much chance of the British joining with the South. Cotton was important, yeah, but the South didn't stand a chance absent European intervension, and once they won (assuming they did) you're left with an ally of no military strength right next to an enemy that's going to be building up for another war. England's only option would be to attempt to anex the North, and at that point why not just keep going south?

 

[Hans]

Related question on the senior officers of the full US army prior to the civil war is a list somewhere of who had seniority and would have likely been picked for such military commands.

Who were the top ten officers at that time in history?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Related question on the senior officers of the full US army prior to the civil war is a list somewhere of who had seniority and would have likely been picked for such military commands.

Who were the top ten officers at that time in history?

I think you want the Register of the United States Army, 1860.

 

[Hans]

Related question on the senior officers of the full US army prior to the civil war is a list somewhere of who had seniority and would have likely been picked for such military commands.

Who were the top ten officers at that time in history?

Found it wikipedia so cannot vouched for its accuracy:

Shows the 7 top line officers but these guys are ancient on age alone I suspect they would not have been given field commands same goes for the staff officers below

[/IMG]


And the highest ranking staff officers I would think that from these two groups you would have gotten the commander for any 'field armies" in support of the OP idea

http://[/IMG]

Some interesting trivia on the officers who served in the civil war

At the outbreak of the Civil War, 296 U.S. Army officers of various grades resigned. Of these, 239 joined the Confederate Army in 1861 and 31 joined after 1861. Of these Confederate officers from the U.S. Army, 184 were United States Military Academy graduates. The other active U.S. Army 809 officers, 640 of whom were West Point graduates, remained with the Union. Of the approximately 900 West Point graduates in civilian life at the beginning of the war, 114 returned to the Union Army and 99 joined the Confederate Army.[48] Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont furnished more officers to the war than any other military school except the United States Military Academy and Virginia Military Institute. The school contributed 523 officers to the Union Army and 34 to the Confederate Army.[49] Norwich was the only military college in the Northern states, other than West Point, which had a sizable number of military trained alumni who could provide a significant number of officers to the Union Army.

Of the 1,902 men who had ever attended Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 1,781 fought for the Confederacy. One-third of the field officers of Virginia regiments in 1861 were V.M.I. graduates.[50] The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina provided at least 6 general officers to the Confederate Army as well as 49 field grade officers, and 120 company grade officers.[51] Another alumnus of The Citadel, Colonel Charles C. Tew, was killed on the eve of his promotion to brigadier general.[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals