War of 1812

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Lancs comments about me annoying him is valid? Hah.

So he found you to be "annoying". Get over it. I know you've got thicker skin than that. Let's try to dazzle each other with our insights and not resort to name calling.

Move along everyone.

[syscom3]

He is annoying me

[Nonskimmer]

Fine, fine, now can we all please move along?

[syscom3]

I would presume this hypothetical war would unfold as following:

1) British reinforcements begin in earnest in Nov 1861

2) Naval hostilities would breakout in Dec 1861.

3) No land operations by the RA untill April 1862 at the earliest due to the spring muds and Union interceptions of some of the reinforcements.

4) No land operations by the Union untill May 1862 at the earliest, simply because Gen McClennan, commander of the Army of the Potomac was never ready to do anything. His plans to invade Richmond are put on hold and he shifts a good portion of his army northward into Pennsylvania and New York. He figures that if there were any confederate thrust northward, he can easily move troops southward via the rail system already in place.

5) The Army of the Cumberland in the west would continue operations to clear the Ohio river and Mississipi river. Battle of Shilo takes place as it does historically. The Union victory gives Lincoln the excuse to declare the emancipation proclamation, thus stopping the British govt from recognizing the Confederacy.

6) The Army of the Cumberland refits after the battle and consolidates its hold in Kentucky, western Tennessee and Missouri. This army would be available for use around July 1862.

7) Naval wise, the Union begins a crash program in Dec 1861 to build a fleet of iron clads to prevent a RN blockade or attack along the eastern seaboard. The Monitors were on the drawing board, so I wouldnt suspect them to be available in quantity for use untill late spring 1862.

8 ) Industry wise, the shortage of weapons is offset by a priority given to building arsenals for cannon and rifles. These would be online fairly quickly and the armies supplied well before the spring campaign season.

9) I am still thinking about the west coast. Will the Union attack and invade British Columbia?

[Nonskimmer]

If I may just make a quick FYI. "RA" refers to Royal Artillery, not Royal Army as such. The British Army as a whole has always been called just that: the British Army.

Sorry, it was bugging me a little.

[syscom3]

Ok, I will call them the "BA's"

[Glider]

Syscom.
I think you missed assumption of yours. That the USA will build warshps to catch up with the RN, but that the RN will do nothing to meet this threat.

[syscom3]

"The vast majority of the fighting took place on the East Coast, in Virginia, that's hardly a continental style conflict."

Ummmmm...... I dont think you have read a book about the civil war or even looked at a map of the campaigns.

Ever hear of Shilo, Stones River, Chickamauga, Stone River (Murfreesboro) Stone Mountain (Chattanooga), Atlanta, Nashville, Franklin, Vicksburg, New Orleans, Mobile Bay, Pea Ridge (and thousands of other smaller skirmish's and fights hardly mentioned in the history books)?

Ever hear of Gen Grants brilliant campaign leading up to the fight for Vicksburg? Ever hear of the Gen Shermans brilliantly executed march through Georgia? Ever read the accounts of the campaigns to clear out the Mississippi River valley?

I thought you didnt.

[pbfoot]

What would happen in the Great Lakes is anyones guess as above Niagra Falls, only small boats were built and manned.[/quote]
but large ships were on the great lakes including HMS St Lawrence which was 110 X 32lb mostly gun ship which was commissioned in 1814 on Lake Ontario

[syscom3]

I think the Great Lakes had been demilitarized after the War of 1812, where only small gunboats were allowed.

[plan_D]

It's not called the Royal Army because of Oliver Cromwell and the parliamentary victory in the English Civil War - which led the Parliamentarians to be the leading army in Britain, after defeating the Royal Army.

On point 5), sys, why assume that Britain wouldn't recognise the Confederates? If already at war with the Union, Britain would most likely join forces with the Confederacy - winning the war would be more important than politics. Plus, Britian still had strong trading with the south.
In reality, the emancipation proclamation changed the face of British foreign policy toward the American Civil War - but a state of war between Britain and the Union would change everything entirely.

Point 7), the Union Navy had no way of creating vessels on par with the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy wouldn't need a close blockade, this would make any coastal defence vessels pointless. The only ones that would be of any use would be those trying to blockade the south, and with the Royal Navy vessels being superior anyway - they'd smash their way through the blockade that only achieved an 18% block anyway!

Point , the Union would have to build more factories and train more people to build these weapons. This would take time, money and a lot more effort. The Union probably wouldn't have enough weapons to wage effective war until 1863. And all that ship space that went to supplying the Union, can be used to supply the British in Canada. Think of it as transport capacity, there's much surplus now Britain doesn't have to supply the Union armies.

I said the vast majority, syscom, I never took away any of the other battles. The most important conflicts took place in Virginia. Don't worry, I won't degrade this argument to "I've read this book, you haven't ..."

[James Pickering]

There are some interesting historical associations between the appended document, dated 1808, and the Model 1795 (contract of 180 US Musket. A fellow collector of memorabilia relating to the war of 1812 gave the document to me because it referenced Timothy Pickering -- my familial name -- and he thought I should have it. Timothy Pickering was an important figure during the American Revolutionary war and the following Federalist period. He was a Colonel -- Adjutant General and Quartermaster General -- in George Washington's Army and the Postmaster General and Secretary of war in his Administration. He was Secretary of State in John Adam's Administration and was subsequently United States Senator representing Massachusetts. As far as I can ascertain I am not related to him.

As can be seen by the document (28 pages) cover it was intoduced to the Massachusetts Senate by John Quincy Adams (US Senator from Massachusetts at the time) for debate and discussion. The letter is Timothy Pickering's summary of the dispute between the United States and Britain relating to Britain's maritime blockade, boarding of American ships in order to impress sailors of British nationality -- and coincidentally naturalized (and defacto) American citizens -- or seizing them on the high seas. Timothy Pickering advocates caution and restraint arguing that the incidents to date have been minor and of no great import -- he is a pacifist in this regard. John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams and future President of the United States) is more of a war hawk and, through a series of notes appended to the letter, urges the Massachusetts legislature to join those States pressing for a declaration of war against Britain because of these "outrages and violations of United States sovereignty".

As a collector of War of 1812 weaponry, the document has additional interest for me. The signature Israel Bartlett (a member of the Massachusetts Senate) at the top of the cover page indicates that this copy probably belonged to him. The Bartlett family was very prominent and influential in Massachusetts politics and commerce at this time. Two members of the family -- Asher & Pliny Bartlett -- formed a firearms manufacturing company in Springfield and secured a US Government contract in 1808 to manufacture model 1795 US Muskets. They continued to manufacture muskets throughout the war of 1812. The musket depicted here is from my collection -- it is a ship's musket (42" barrel) likely procured by US Navy Purchasing agent George Harrison under a contract dated 3 March 1814 -- it possibly could have seen service in the defences of Washington and Baltimore. It is marked Bartlett and 1813 on the lockplate (powder burn corrosion obliterated US Eagle).

Together, I think the document and musket make an interesting historical display.

.



Personal photos

[syscom3]

Thats an interesting piece of history you have there. Hope you take care of it.

[bf109 Emil]

The war of 1812 was fought between Canada and the USA...what's with all the British trying to take credit...did the King declare war on the USA and sail ships from Britian...America tried to take a fort and establish control...Canadians and native Americans defeat or fought to a standstill and burnt the White house in reprisal for burning a fort....without the French army to assist the American militia...they lost as opposed to Lafaettes army and a handfull of American Mitia defeating the British and claiming Independance...Albeit, the French got hooped when the alliance they signed with the newly formed states,,,fell on deaf ears for assistance at Trafalgar...as the President decided that the agression was started by the French, and therefore violated or nulled their agreement to aid or assist...as Napolean was hoping Nelson, if a threat was sailed from the continental USA, Ships deemed as a blocking manuveur would have had to be split to meet this threat...thus leaving Nelson with an inadequite force to prevent the French/Spanish armada from escaping and taking over Great Britian...when this failed, he decided on Russia..kimda like Hitler with the same results, and same starting date for invasion, only Hitler started a day later on June 22 as opposed to the 21st as the French did...

[plan_D]

...? Get a clue.