lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on May 5, 2017 22:23:52 GMT
What If: USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome (1862)
 While history records the encounter between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia at Hampton Roads as a tactical draw, could either of the two ironclad ships have sunk the other? Anticipating action against wooden Union ships, the Virginia carried only explosive shells, which lacked the penetrating power against the Monitor’s 8” inch turret armor. The Virginia struck the Monitor 22 times, including 9 against her turret. Shots fired from her four rifled Brooke guns made in some instances 4” indentations in the Monitor but failed to penetrate. The Monitor fired 43 times, striking the Virginia 20 times, but none at or below the Confederate’s vulnerable wooden waterline. More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 19, 2020 15:10:00 GMT
What If: USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome (1862)
While history records the encounter between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia at Hampton Roads as a tactical draw, could either of the two ironclad ships have sunk the other? Anticipating action against wooden Union ships, the Virginia carried only explosive shells, which lacked the penetrating power against the Monitor’s 8” inch turret armor. The Virginia struck the Monitor 22 times, including 9 against her turret. Shots fired from her four rifled Brooke guns made in some instances 4” indentations in the Monitor but failed to penetrate. The Monitor fired 43 times, striking the Virginia 20 times, but none at or below the Confederate’s vulnerable wooden waterline. More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges. As I recall, CSS Manassas was the first ironclad in combat in the war in September 1961. She was a turtle-back ram though, converted from a tug. I can only see Virginia winning by ramming Monitor; and Virginia had lost her ram bow when Cumberland went under. ( Cumberland nearly pulled her under, only the ram breaking off saved her). Without her ram bow, I'm not sure Virginia could hurt Monitor very much by ramming. Had Monitor used full charges for her 11in Dahlgrens or been equipped with the 15in guns Ericsson wanted for her turret, she would likely have wrecked Virginia during the 3-hour engagement. Their engagement cause the British and French to suspend wooden warship construction, and other powers soon followed. Had Virginia been wrecked, and/or sunk or captured, there likely would have been a surge in rifled naval artillery in European navies as well. That might mean more, earlier, rifled breach loaders for navies around the world... My thoughts, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2020 15:51:25 GMT
What If: USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome (1862)
While history records the encounter between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia at Hampton Roads as a tactical draw, could either of the two ironclad ships have sunk the other? Anticipating action against wooden Union ships, the Virginia carried only explosive shells, which lacked the penetrating power against the Monitor’s 8” inch turret armor. The Virginia struck the Monitor 22 times, including 9 against her turret. Shots fired from her four rifled Brooke guns made in some instances 4” indentations in the Monitor but failed to penetrate. The Monitor fired 43 times, striking the Virginia 20 times, but none at or below the Confederate’s vulnerable wooden waterline. More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges. As I recall, CSS Manassas was the first ironclad in combat in the war in September 1961. She was a turtle-back ram though, converted from a tug. I can only see Virginia winning by ramming Monitor; and Virginia had lost her ram bow when Cumberland went under. ( Cumberland nearly pulled her under, only the ram breaking off saved her). Without her ram bow, I'm not sure Virginia could hurt Monitor very much by ramming. Had Monitor used full charges for her 11in Dahlgrens or been equipped with the 15in guns Ericsson wanted for her turret, she would likely have wrecked Virginia during the 3-hour engagement. Their engagement cause the British and French to suspend wooden warship construction, and other powers soon followed. Had Virginia been wrecked, and/or sunk or captured, there likely would have been a surge in rifled naval artillery in European navies as well. That might mean more, earlier, rifled breach loaders for navies around the world... My thoughts, From CivilWar Talk where i also posted this thread: What If USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome came a answer from 67th Tigers which i find interesting: Lordroel said More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges. 67th Tigers reply: No 11" was ever fired in action with 30 lbs powder. They were only proofed to 25 lbs of common powder. The proofing of a 11" Dahlgren was 10 fires with 15 lb charges and a shell, and a single fire with a 25 lb charge and a shot. In 1862 there was only one issue charge, the 15 lb charge. Later (1864) a 20 lb charge was authorised for far or battering. It does seem that at this time most ships were issued the slow burning DuPont No. 7 powder instead of the faster burning and more stressful Common. The heaviest charge used in action was a 25 lb charge, and it was used twice, which brings me onto another story. At Hampton Roads the Monitor had aboard 10 wrought iron balls which had been especially made. In the hurry they had not been gauged and so it was not known whether it was safe to fire them. If any one of them had been 0.1" too wide then they would have burst the gun. They were not fired and were offloaded after Hampton Roads. Now, in 1864 Admiral Farragut read an article in "Scientific American" about recent Prussian experiments with steel shot. He asked for some steel shot for his guns, but the US had none and no capability to produce them. What they had was six of the 11" wrought iron shot made in 1862 and they sent them down to him. He issued them to USS Winnebago (2 rounds) and Chickasaw (4 rounds). They were used in action against the Tennessee. The Winnebago reports firing 52x 15 lb charges (for cast iron shot, shell, shrapnel and even grape!) and 2x 25 lb proof charges (with the wrought iron shot) during Mobile Bay in August '64, but doesn't break them down to those fired against Tennessee and those fired at the batteries. However of these only 14 are common shot, and we can assume she didn't try and fire shell at the Tennessee. The Chickasaw breaks down what she fired at what - she fired 52 times against Tennessee, all with 20 lb charges (the maximum authorised). Of these 48 were common shot and 4 wrought iron shot. None of the 11" were effective, even the wrought iron shot with proof charges. Now this is Tennessee, and she was armoured a bit differently. It appears the Shelby iron was of lower quality than Tredegar, but the Tennessee had an extra 1" layer on her side armour. Virginia I had 2x 2" layers, Tennessee 2x 2" layers plus an extra 1" layer on the sides and 2" forward, but in places had only 1x 2" and 1x 1" due to a lack of iron. I strongly doubt that even at proof the 11" of the Monitor could have made a penetration. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 19, 2020 16:45:11 GMT
From CivilWar Talk where i also posted this thread: What If USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome came a answer from 67th Tigers which i find interesting: Lordroel said More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges. 67th Tigers reply: No 11" was ever fired in action with 30 lbs powder. They were only proofed to 25 lbs of common powder. The proofing of a 11" Dahlgren was 10 fires with 15 lb charges and a shell, and a single fire with a 25 lb charge and a shot. In 1862 there was only one issue charge, the 15 lb charge. Later (1864) a 20 lb charge was authorised for far or battering. It does seem that at this time most ships were issued the slow burning DuPont No. 7 powder instead of the faster burning and more stressful Common. The heaviest charge used in action was a 25 lb charge, and it was used twice, which brings me onto another story. At Hampton Roads the Monitor had aboard 10 wrought iron balls which had been especially made. In the hurry they had not been gauged and so it was not known whether it was safe to fire them. If any one of them had been 0.1" too wide then they would have burst the gun. They were not fired and were offloaded after Hampton Roads. Now, in 1864 Admiral Farragut read an article in "Scientific American" about recent Prussian experiments with steel shot. He asked for some steel shot for his guns, but the US had none and no capability to produce them. What they had was six of the 11" wrought iron shot made in 1862 and they sent them down to him. He issued them to USS Winnebago (2 rounds) and Chickasaw (4 rounds). They were used in action against the Tennessee. The Winnebago reports firing 52x 15 lb charges (for cast iron shot, shell, shrapnel and even grape!) and 2x 25 lb proof charges (with the wrought iron shot) during Mobile Bay in August '64, but doesn't break them down to those fired against Tennessee and those fired at the batteries. However of these only 14 are common shot, and we can assume she didn't try and fire shell at the Tennessee. The Chickasaw breaks down what she fired at what - she fired 52 times against Tennessee, all with 20 lb charges (the maximum authorised). Of these 48 were common shot and 4 wrought iron shot. None of the 11" were effective, even the wrought iron shot with proof charges. Now this is Tennessee, and she was armoured a bit differently. It appears the Shelby iron was of lower quality than Tredegar, but the Tennessee had an extra 1" layer on her side armour. Virginia I had 2x 2" layers, Tennessee 2x 2" layers plus an extra 1" layer on the sides and 2" forward, but in places had only 1x 2" and 1x 1" due to a lack of iron. I strongly doubt that even at proof the 11" of the Monitor could have made a penetration. had armor backed by wood. Monitor does not need to penetrate to wreck her. See this account of Weehawken and Atlantawww.navalhistory.org/2016/01/11/the-soda-bottle-shaped-shell-gunsIn addition, Civil War Talk says that tests were conducted with Monitor's guns with 30 lbs. black powder charges after the battle civilwartalk.com/threads/monitors-xi-inch-dahlgren-shell-guns.166641/Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2020 17:36:34 GMT
From CivilWar Talk where i also posted this thread: What If USS Monitor and CSS Virginia alternate outcome came a answer from 67th Tigers which i find interesting: Lordroel said More telling perhaps was the fact that the Monitor was restricted by the Navy Department to using 15 pound explosive charges with her twin 11” Dahlgren guns, rather than the 30 pound double-charges later authorized. Lt. Greene of the Monitor later commented that had 30 pound charges been used, it was probable that the shots would have penetrated the Virginia’s casemate, this was latter conformed in a test conducted after the battle which showed that if the Monitor had used 25lb or 30lb gunpowder charges that its 11-inch guns would have punctured the Virginia’s hull with relative ease at close ranges. 67th Tigers reply: No 11" was ever fired in action with 30 lbs powder. They were only proofed to 25 lbs of common powder. The proofing of a 11" Dahlgren was 10 fires with 15 lb charges and a shell, and a single fire with a 25 lb charge and a shot. In 1862 there was only one issue charge, the 15 lb charge. Later (1864) a 20 lb charge was authorised for far or battering. It does seem that at this time most ships were issued the slow burning DuPont No. 7 powder instead of the faster burning and more stressful Common. The heaviest charge used in action was a 25 lb charge, and it was used twice, which brings me onto another story. At Hampton Roads the Monitor had aboard 10 wrought iron balls which had been especially made. In the hurry they had not been gauged and so it was not known whether it was safe to fire them. If any one of them had been 0.1" too wide then they would have burst the gun. They were not fired and were offloaded after Hampton Roads. Now, in 1864 Admiral Farragut read an article in "Scientific American" about recent Prussian experiments with steel shot. He asked for some steel shot for his guns, but the US had none and no capability to produce them. What they had was six of the 11" wrought iron shot made in 1862 and they sent them down to him. He issued them to USS Winnebago (2 rounds) and Chickasaw (4 rounds). They were used in action against the Tennessee. The Winnebago reports firing 52x 15 lb charges (for cast iron shot, shell, shrapnel and even grape!) and 2x 25 lb proof charges (with the wrought iron shot) during Mobile Bay in August '64, but doesn't break them down to those fired against Tennessee and those fired at the batteries. However of these only 14 are common shot, and we can assume she didn't try and fire shell at the Tennessee. The Chickasaw breaks down what she fired at what - she fired 52 times against Tennessee, all with 20 lb charges (the maximum authorised). Of these 48 were common shot and 4 wrought iron shot. None of the 11" were effective, even the wrought iron shot with proof charges. Now this is Tennessee, and she was armoured a bit differently. It appears the Shelby iron was of lower quality than Tredegar, but the Tennessee had an extra 1" layer on her side armour. Virginia I had 2x 2" layers, Tennessee 2x 2" layers plus an extra 1" layer on the sides and 2" forward, but in places had only 1x 2" and 1x 1" due to a lack of iron. I strongly doubt that even at proof the 11" of the Monitor could have made a penetration. had armor backed by wood. Monitor does not need to penetrate to wreck her. See this account of Weehawken and Atlantawww.navalhistory.org/2016/01/11/the-soda-bottle-shaped-shell-gunsIn addition, Civil War Talk says that tests were conducted with Monitor's guns with 30 lbs. black powder charges after the battle civilwartalk.com/threads/monitors-xi-inch-dahlgren-shell-guns.166641/Regards, I assume Monitor was a smaller target for Virginia to hit but Virginia could fire more rounds into Monitor, ore am i wrong. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 19, 2020 19:08:56 GMT
I assume Monitor was a smaller target for Virginia to hit but Virginia could fire more rounds into Monitor, ore am i wrong. was hit 22 times, including 9 hits on her turret and two on the pilot house. The last hit on the pilot house blinded her captain, James Worden temporarily and caused the action to be broken off.
Virginia had been hit 97 times. Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 19, 2020 19:25:23 GMT
I assume Monitor was a smaller target for Virginia to hit but Virginia could fire more rounds into Monitor, ore am i wrong. was hit 22 times, including 9 hits on her turret and two on the pilot house. The last hit on the pilot house blinded her captain, James Worden temporarily and caused the action to be broken off.
Virginia had been hit 97 times. Regards, Wait did they count the hits. Also proves my previous post, because Virginia had a larger structure she of course was hit more, and the number surprise me because Monitor only had two 2 × 11-inch (280 mm) smoothbore Dahlgren guns compared to Virginia 2 × 7-inch (178 mm) Brooke rifles, 2 × 6.4-inch (160 mm) Brooke rifles and 6 × 9-inch (229 mm) Dahlgren smoothbores. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Mar 1, 2020 8:24:28 GMT
Leaving aside the how, a decisive engagement win here could prove decisive for either side. For the Union, it opens the York and James River both for supply efforts, greatly helping McClellan's Peninsular Campaign. For the Confederacy, it makes the same untenable and thus likely forces McClellan to commit to an 1862 Overland Campaign, which is something the Union cannot win and will likely result in the Army of the Potomac being so bloodied that Anglo-French intervention happens.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jun 21, 2020 15:58:42 GMT
Leaving aside the how, a decisive engagement win here could prove decisive for either side. For the Union, it opens the York and James River both for supply efforts, greatly helping McClellan's Peninsular Campaign. For the Confederacy, it makes the same untenable and thus likely forces McClellan to commit to an 1862 Overland Campaign, which is something the Union cannot win and will likely result in the Army of the Potomac being so bloodied that Anglo-French intervention happens. I am no expert on the American Civil War but I am pretty well read on sea warfare and have an interest in early steam power applied to ships.
That said, I just can not see Queen Victoria's Great Britain allying itself with the CSA. The anti-slavery faction in the UK was just too strong and influential.
Not at all sure what would make Napoleon III commit his Navy and a material part of his Army to North America. No way he is going to get Canada back and the Louisiana purchases was mostly now Confederate states.
As to the outcome of the actual battle it could have gone as suggested IF the monitor's turret train mechanism was jammed.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 21, 2020 16:13:53 GMT
Leaving aside the how, a decisive engagement win here could prove decisive for either side. For the Union, it opens the York and James River both for supply efforts, greatly helping McClellan's Peninsular Campaign. For the Confederacy, it makes the same untenable and thus likely forces McClellan to commit to an 1862 Overland Campaign, which is something the Union cannot win and will likely result in the Army of the Potomac being so bloodied that Anglo-French intervention happens. I am no expert on the American Civil War but I am pretty well read on sea warfare and have a sick interest in early steam power applied to ships.
That said, I just can not see Queen Victoria's Great Britain allying itself with the CSA. The anti-slavery faction in the UK was just too strong and influential.
Not at all sure what would make Napoleon III commit his Navy and a material part of his Army to North America. No way he is going to get Canada back and the Louisiana purchases was mostly now Confederate states.
As to the outcome of the actual battle it could have gone as suggested IF the monitor's turret train mechanism was jammed.
Going bit of topic here, but i remember once on a different forum about a battle between USS Monitor and HMS Warrior, that would be something to see, if Monitor survives the trip across the Atlantic that is.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 22, 2020 10:50:32 GMT
I am no expert on the American Civil War but I am pretty well read on sea warfare and have a sick interest in early steam power applied to ships.
That said, I just can not see Queen Victoria's Great Britain allying itself with the CSA. The anti-slavery faction in the UK was just too strong and influential.
Not at all sure what would make Napoleon III commit his Navy and a material part of his Army to North America. No way he is going to get Canada back and the Louisiana purchases was mostly now Confederate states.
As to the outcome of the actual battle it could have gone as suggested IF the monitor's turret train mechanism was jammed.
Going bit of topic here, but i remember once on a different forum about a battle between USS Monitor and HMS Warrior, that would be something to see, if Monitor survives the trip across the Atlantic that is.
I think the only way would be if war came about, say because Lincoln doesn't back down over the Trent crisis. In that case its likely to be somewhere off the US coast, possibly an attempt to break a blockade of New York. [Or resist a RN attack on the port. Of course either event would almost certainly involve multiple ships on both sides and terrain would also be an important issue as well as defensive batteries in the latter situation.
In terms of a single ship duel its difficult to see the Monitor willing. Its got two slow firing guns that while they have large diamater are low velocity which reduces their chance to penetrate Warrior's armour. Also there seems, from what I've read on the civil war site a considerable technological advantage for Britain, which was at the height of its industrial might at this stage. For instance while the IK could roll iron armour up to 4" in thickness the US could only manage 1" at this time so Monitor's armour was laminated, made up of multiple 1" layers that are hence weaker. Also the solid shot fired by the 64lbers was in some cases at least steel and with a high velocity so the damage inflicted would be much higher. Its likely that if not penetrating initially hits would wrack Monitor's arnour, fracturing one or more layer. Also the sheer shock of the hits could upset the turret mechanism.
According to one source both sides had tested their weapons against what they thought the other had. However because of the technological differences the UK mock-up of the Monitor's armour was better than the actual and the US's of Warrior was weaker - for instance due to the limitations of the US iron industry at this point it was again 1" laminated. Even so the RN tests showed that the Warrior's guns could disable the Monitor+ whereas without massive overloads of powder - which risks exploding the gun - the US guns couldn't markedly affect the Warrior- armour they tested.
Steve
PS Most of the above comes from Saphroneth's AH TL "Trent War - possible timeline of events, battles, and outcome" which you may have seen. A hell of a lot of discuassion has gone on there and details of the factors in a possible Trent war.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 22, 2020 11:06:50 GMT
Leaving aside the how, a decisive engagement win here could prove decisive for either side. For the Union, it opens the York and James River both for supply efforts, greatly helping McClellan's Peninsular Campaign. For the Confederacy, it makes the same untenable and thus likely forces McClellan to commit to an 1862 Overland Campaign, which is something the Union cannot win and will likely result in the Army of the Potomac being so bloodied that Anglo-French intervention happens. I am no expert on the American Civil War but I am pretty well read on sea warfare and have a sick interest in early steam power applied to ships.
That said, I just can not see Queen Victoria's Great Britain allying itself with the CSA. The anti-slavery faction in the UK was just too strong and influential.
Not at all sure what would make Napoleon III commit his Navy and a material part of his Army to North America. No way he is going to get Canada back and the Louisiana purchases was mostly now Confederate states.
As to the outcome of the actual battle it could have gone as suggested IF the monitor's turret train mechanism was jammed.
I agree there was deep hostility towards slavery, although it should be said that at this stage both sides were slave states as Lincoln had yet to reject the institution and was offering guarantees to slave holders in the loyal slave states to maintain their loyalty. It has been suggested that in part Palmerston, a long time opponent of the slave trade favoured an independent south as it would be weaker and hence easier to pressurise. The argument being that although the US had formally banned the slave trade slaves were still being imported illegally. The problem was that the US refused to allow non-US ships on the anti-slaver trade patrols off W Africa to stop and search suspected slave traders. Hence such ships carrying the US flag couldn't be stopped except by one of the few US ships on such activities. There are reports that often RN ships, which made up the bulk of the patrol, had to let such ships sail by, unless there was a US ship nearby that they could call in.
As such there were arguments that there was no great issue in terms of the south gaining formal independence and it would end a war that was causing disruption to important elements of world trade. Especially of course cotton exports and imports to both the south and the US interior as the Mississippi was closed at this point.
The other issue is if Lincoln hadn't conceded the US was in the wrong on the Trent Incident. In that case Britain would have gone to war over the issue and would have been a de-facto co-belligerent alongside the south but not an ally.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jun 23, 2020 7:30:12 GMT
Leaving aside the how, a decisive engagement win here could prove decisive for either side. For the Union, it opens the York and James River both for supply efforts, greatly helping McClellan's Peninsular Campaign. For the Confederacy, it makes the same untenable and thus likely forces McClellan to commit to an 1862 Overland Campaign, which is something the Union cannot win and will likely result in the Army of the Potomac being so bloodied that Anglo-French intervention happens. I am no expert on the American Civil War but I am pretty well read on sea warfare and have a sick interest in early steam power applied to ships.
That said, I just can not see Queen Victoria's Great Britain allying itself with the CSA. The anti-slavery faction in the UK was just too strong and influential.
Not at all sure what would make Napoleon III commit his Navy and a material part of his Army to North America. No way he is going to get Canada back and the Louisiana purchases was mostly now Confederate states.
As to the outcome of the actual battle it could have gone as suggested IF the monitor's turret train mechanism was jammed.
The Anglo-French were actively considering intervention throughout 1862 and into 1863. |
|
