Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.

Originally posted by Jack Torrance Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.

The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812

See my earlier post: English troops landing in eastern Canada plus colonial troops landing in the west. Britain's ironclads could easily cross the Atlantic: Warrior was just one of many ocean-going battleships, together with Hercules, Penelope, Minotaur, Royal Oak, Lord Clyde, Defense, and Prince Consort.
You must also take into account Canada's terrain: mountains and forests ideal for ambushes. Resistance by the local militias and Indians would hold up the Yanks long enough for the main British force to arrive (remember the hard time the US army had fighting guerillas in Missouri and Kansas)

The colonial troops part doesn't seem very likely. They couldn't be supplied. The US never fought the "guerillas" in Kansas and Missouri. They fought each other. I live here I know Kansas history. The US need simply to take the strong points and large towns which with its superiority in men and cannon it can easily swamp Canada's much smaller manpower base. We aren't using armies of 6,000 men this time, Troops from Vritain wouldn't arrive in time to save Canada if the attacks were planned well and preparations made,

Originally posted by Kevinmeath Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?   What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.   During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).

The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Kevinmeath Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?   What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.   During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA). The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.

OK intersting something I did not know, three years after the civil war the Union armies have not demobilised.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Kevinmeath Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Kevinmeath Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?   What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.   During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA). The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs. OK intersting something I did not know, three years after the civil war the Union armies have not demobilised. Why? From what I've read a sort of garrison and Reconstruction building crew for the South. They also were fighting the Indians.

Racial violence some extremists. The majority were reconciled and most were fine with being in the Union.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Kevinmeath Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Kevinmeath During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.   They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.   Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope. If it was a fleet action with supply lines near Britain sure but its not. Its coastal fighting off thr American coast. GB has to detach ships to patrol and protect the homeland and colonies.  And the USA doesn't? and any why the RN is bigger by a power of at least 2 (inreality much more)   In the period American privateers would hurt Britain but so would British ones hurt America, why do you think they never fought each other despite nationalism in both countries and rivalries? A quick attack on Bermuda, Canada and the Carribean Islands would leave Britain with no base. America didn't have colonies and the fight will be in or near their homeland.

And against an enemy whose fleet could cut you off from the rest of the world

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma The majority of whose fleet was never located in one place. Anyway economic reasons mostly. They traded quite a bit. Anywayinsurance rates would soar on both sides. But we're going along with the idea they are fighting a war.

It made economic senseto stay apart -- why do you think the 'Pig war' remained a joke.