stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402 
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2021 15:18:22 GMT
If they have the funds. The CSA was able legally OTL to buy ships from private shipyards although the British government blocked a lot of this. Getting such a navy to Texas would also be an interesting issue assuming something like the OTL northern blockade. Unless the Texans are thinking of some sort of multiple CSS Alabama's.
A blockade of Texas with a West coast would be virtually impossible. Texas would also have a jump start on a navy.
Yes but a still undeveloped western region would have little economic use for Texas. There's not going to be a railway to it for instance so things like cotton exports are still going to have to leave by the Gulf of Mexico and would be vulnerable. Furthermore without closer bases ships built in Britain or France for them will not be able to reach the Pacific very easily and will have relatively few facilities for their maintenance there, or for that matter for attacks on US shipping.
Texas will have a navy yes but without a powerful economy to fund it and with other demands on the government, such as the Indians opposing its expansion its unlikely to be that large.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2021 15:28:17 GMT
California Gold Rush began in 1848 to 1855. If The Texas Republic bought Alta California prior to 1848 I contend it would be in a much better economic state than in the OTL. Money talks and despite laws to the contrary warships, like the Alabama, could be purchased "under the table". Old trick used by gun merchants of buying the right documentation for a legal sale and then turning over the product to another customer was well known in the 19th century.
As an independent nation, even if allied to the Confederacy, I'd think HM government would be much more likely not to oppose the sale. I am thinking of the Laird Rams.
WOULD you like to know more? 
The Laird rams were two ships secretly funded and constructed at Birkenhead by William Laird & Son, England on behalf of the Confederacy between 1862-1863. Iron-hulled from the keel up and fitted with two revolving turrets, these ships posed a grave threat to the sea-going force of the United States Navy and its blockade on Southern ports; strong diplomatic pressure led to their seizure by the British government and eventual commissioning into the Royal Navy.
William Laird & Sonconstructed and CSS Alabama for the Confederacy, which would be a thorn in the side of U.S.-British relations for many years. Two other vessels were on the stocks about the time Alabama was launched: El Monassir and El Tousson, apparently intended for Egypt, and advertised for all intents and purposes as "merchantmen".
The ships were unlike anything encountered in Naval warfare; capable of fighting in the shallows as well as the deep ocean. The guns were in a pair of revolving turrets. Portions of the hull's sides (gunwales) could be lowered to allow the turrets broadside firing, which was further augmented by tripod masts, eliminating much of the rigging which would have normally been in the way. Both were steam-powered with a single screw propeller, and carried a barque sail rig for use at sea. And mounted to the bows was a seven-foot ram made of cast iron.
If purchased by the Republic of Texas these two ironclads would pose an extremely dangerous threat to the Federal blockade and to the Northern seaboard, as both ironclads would have been more than a match for all but one of the United States Navy's seagoing warships.
That assumes that a California gained by Texas would see the same inflow of settlers else the discovery of gold might be delayed. If its not but occurs after the sale to Texas then there's going to be a large inflow of would be prospectors, very few of whom will be Texans. If Texas tries to rely on Californian gold too much for funds you could well see a Bear republic coming into existence for real and surviving as it would be in the interests of a lot of the settlers -who don't want Texas ruling them or opposing slavery say - and a number of other powers who sees chances for markets and/or interests in an independent California.
As an independent nation, that supports slavery and intervenes against the union in support by a pro-slavery revolt in the southern US it could well be seen as a trouble-maker who is further escalating the problems in the region. As such Britain might still be less than friendly to a Texan desire to buy a fleet, even assuming that Texas won't have the purchasing power the OTL CSA and that they could operate and maintain such a fleet. Its possible that British shipyards might still sell such ships, if Texas can find the money, but they are also might sell ships to the union, which has a lot more money. That would be one option available for London and Washington once Texas has opened the door.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 16, 2021 0:33:04 GMT
Steve, it's one thing not to sell to a insurrectionist group quite another to sell ships to a recognized nation state.
I don't think The Texas Republic would be purchasing an entire fleet just a few armored steamers to break blockades.
That would require a lot less of Texas than building an entire fleet.
Britain never had any problem selling advanced naval vessels to South American and Asian customers, so why not Texas?
The alternate source of cotton to supply British factories would put a lot of pressure on HM's government. Never forget "Money Talks"!
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2021 11:50:09 GMT
Steve, it's one thing not to sell to a insurrectionist group quite another to sell ships to a recognized nation state.
I don't think The Texas Republic would be purchasing an entire fleet just a few armored steamers to break blockades.
That would require a lot less of Texas than building an entire fleet.
Britain never had any problem selling advanced naval vessels to South American and Asian customers, so why not Texas?
The alternate source of cotton to supply British factories would put a lot of pressure on HM's government. Never forget "Money Talks"!
Yes but they do a hell of a lot of trade with the union as well, which would be deeply offended by such actions as OTL with the Alabama. Also during this period, although the US south continued to dominate the cotton trade after the war, there were efforts to develop alternatives in Egypt and India especially. British firms sold ships to countries but largely in peace-time. Its a totally different situation for the government to not oppose sells to one side in a fighting war, especially when the other side is a major export market.
As I also said if firms do sell to Texas and the government doesn't stop it then the north can in turn buy ships as well and they have far more money than Texas will have. The government may not allow the sale of something as powerful as Warrior say but easily allow ships at least as strong as anything sold to Texas. As such even if Texas does get a ship or two its only likely to be a brief interlude before the north again gains dominance, probably more overwhelming than before.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 16, 2021 13:35:43 GMT
Steve have you ever looked at what the union was using to enforce the blockade? The overwhelming blockaders were wooden hulled sail, screw and paddle wheel vessels. Most were merchies with a few guns. I submit a couple of real ironclads, given the extent of the Texas coast line, about 370 miles, would be quite effective. On the other hand a few more ironclads would not materially enhance the civil war USN. If I remember correctly the OTL USN blockade of Texas was very porous.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2021 15:43:15 GMT
Steve have you ever looked at what the union was using to enforce the blockade? The overwhelming blockaders were wooden hulled sail, screw and paddle wheel vessels. Most were merchies with a few guns. I submit a couple of real ironclads, given the extent of the Texas coast line, about 370 miles, would be quite effective. On the other hand a few more ironclads would not materially enhance the civil war USN. If I remember correctly the OTL USN blockade of Texas was very porous.
Yes it was initially. However they built up a number of ironclads, although the sea-worthiness of the monitors especially were somewhat deficient. However here, assuming such a deal with Texas goes ahead it also opens the way, and gives some incentive, for the north to also buy more capable ships from British yards. Thus even if the initial deal was to go ahead and not be blocked by either British government reluctance to allow it or Texan lack of funds its unlikely to give much of a breather.
How many ports are on that 370 miles of coastline, or roads connecting to them to allow movement of materials to and from the interior? As I understand it the main way Texas breached the blockade OTL was via Mexico, which was expensive both because of the poor infrastructure and because the Mexicans, having a captive market, paid a low price for Texan cotton and demanded a high one for stuff bought for Texas and brought into Mexican ports then carted overland.
I'm not saying its impossible I'm just doubting it would be as easy as your assuming and also pointing out that the union has a simple counter to such a move. Not to mention with the fact that such a construction is unlikely to stay that secret for long and the greater wealth and political influence of the union you shouldn't assume that the union doesn't wait to buy British until the Texan ships are actually in service.
I'm still unclear why Texas would risk upsetting its northern neighbour and supporting economic competitors by going to war with the US when it could easily make far more money by selling cotton while the south is initially refusing to then increasingly unable to because of the blockade.
Steve
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,557
|
Post by oscssw on Mar 10, 2021 15:27:57 GMT
I'm still unclear why Texas would risk upsetting its northern neighbour and supporting economic competitors by going to war with the US when it could easily make far more money by selling cotton while the south is initially refusing to then increasingly unable to because of the blockade.
Steve
Well you got me there Steve. I have a very hard time arguing against the proposition that "Money Talks".
IMO, based on 72 years of study and observation, is that the fundamental constant in human history is that economics is at the route of everything if you dig far enough.
I strongly suggest you take the time to read "How Christianity Created Capitalism"
by Michael Novak • July 20, 2010
|
|
