What if "The Pig War"(1859) would have escalated in a new war between the USA and UK?

bartieboy · Jul 11, 2013

zincwarrior said:
The best rifle however was American.
Springfield rifle and Sharps repeater superior, Enfield inferior.

The US had multiple foundries to produce artillery. Don't let the name (Napoleon) throw you.

Basic Facts Concerning Artillery

And the Germans made the best tanks of the second world war...
Don't let the name Napoleon fool you?
This says something on the development of the cannons...

‘At Vicksburg, Grant found that the 30,000 surrendered Confederates had been armed with new, excellent British Enfield Rifles. His own men were armed with European cast-offs or refashioned old US models, both far inferior to the British weapon. Grant had his regiments trade in their old weapons for the Enfields. At the Siege of Petersburg, Grant forwarded to Secretary of War Stanton a captured artillery ammunition box stamped “Royal Arsenal Woolwich”.

Kevinmeath · Jul 11, 2013

zincwarrior said:
Dude its just sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal.

In very large quantities, best place for saltpetre is India which is owned by?

Just before the war the Union bought huge quantities.

zincwarrior said:
Evidently calm heads prevailed over what was evidently just a small claims court case. Very prudent. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the US and UK had poor relations at this point. After all, weren't we acting as a safety valve siphoning off Irish at this time?

Calm heads did prevail , initially from the RN Captains on the scene, and when Washington found out that war had almost broken out they were not happy.

Relations with the UK were OK, they were commercial rivals but to suited both sides to avoid a war that ultimately no matter who won or lost would cost both a great deal.

Especially given the political situation in America.

The US was acting as a safety valve for all of Europe pretty much.

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

bartieboy said:
And the Germans made the best tanks of the second world war...
Don't let the name Napoleon fool you?
This says something on the development of the cannons...

Oh yes the CSA acquired many cannon, rifled muskets, and supplies from the British. Thats the CSA, however.

Undoubtedly grant's men had the the gambit of arms from inventories at the start of the war, many of which were even smoothbores.

Having shot an Enfield, a Sharps, and a Henry, I'd take the Henry or Sharps over any breechloader.

To quote True Grit: "The Sharps Carbine is a weapon of uncanny power and precision."

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

Kevinmeath said:
In very large quantities, best place for saltpetre is India which is owned by?

Just before the war the Union bought huge quantities.

Thats cool. They probably bought Southern cotton for uniforms too. During the war, they could produce their own.

Calm heads did prevail , initially from the RN Captains on the scene, and when Washington found out that war had almost broken out they were not happy.

Relations with the UK were OK, they were commercial rivals but to suited both sides to avoid a war that ultimately no matter who won or lost would cost both a great deal.

Especially given the political situation in America.

The US was acting as a safety valve for all of Europe pretty much.

Yes, one can be a commercial rival and not go to war.

Mike McClure · Jul 11, 2013

zincwarrior said:
Mmm....Brits are touchy this morning. Must have hit a nerve. Excellent.
Britain can't project power off continent sufficient to fight a similar force. Picking fights with the Chinese and Zulus is not the same as winning a war against an industrial power.

I forgot to mention:
7. Texas was now part of the US. One Texan is worth three Brits, or 1.1535765841 drunken Scots throwing fired up with a potent mixture of haggis and Scotch!
Now Britain might have a chance as Texans, like my old wiener dog, tend to get confused and attack Mexico out of old habit, but if pointed in the right direction...

Not if the South seceded

67th Tigers · Jul 11, 2013

zincwarrior said:
Oh yes the CSA acquired many cannon, rifled muskets, and supplies from the British. Thats the CSA, however.

Undoubtedly grant's men had the the gambit of arms from inventories at the start of the war, many of which were even smoothbores.

The northern states imported three quarters of a million rifles, with British Enfields being the most popular.

Having shot an Enfield, a Sharps, and a Henry, I'd take the Henry or Sharps over any breechloader.

To quote True Grit: "The Sharps Carbine is a weapon of uncanny power and precision."

Sharps is a breechloader.

The problem with the Sharps Carbine is it has a short barrel and a low powered round. Reb cavalry with Enfields shot them to pieces regularly before the Union cavalry learned to sling their carbines, draw their sabres and charge.

Harry · Jul 11, 2013

bartieboy said:
I'd say it shows more on how some people want to have a decent discussion with eachother and some people come passing trough making bold statements while not being able to defend them.
And I still have not heard a single argumen on how a blockaded USA is going to find the arms men and money to ovcupy a massive territory defended by the most powerfull nation in the world of those days.

I believe it's a mixture of both but there is no question that Britain was in the stronger position. The US simply was not prepared to fight a major war against the greatest imperial power of the day. Britain fought in an incredible number of wars as is evident on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_wars"]this list[/ame], and was, therefore, far more prepared to fight the US than the US was to fight Britain. Fortunately reason prevailed and ironically the weaker US ended up with the disputed territory.

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

67th Tigers said:
The northern states imported three quarters of a million rifles, with British Enfields being the most popular.

Sharps is a breechloader.

The problem with the Sharps Carbine is it has a short barrel and a low powered round. Reb cavalry with Enfields shot them to pieces regularly before the Union cavalry learned to sling their carbines, draw their sabres and charge.

Sorry I meant muzzleloader. As a colonial, reading and modesty are not my strong suit.

WE're just going to have to agree to disagree. But we're missing a much more important subquestion.

Who would win: Texas Rangers or The Light Brigade?
Rangers:
*Colt cap N ball revolvers. One or two each.
*motley crew of single shot muzzleloading rifles and shotguns.
*I'm sure somebody had a knife somewhere.
*Strong lack of personal hygiene.

Light Brigade:
What were they equipped with?

Fire_Raven · Jul 11, 2013

US ironclads in 1859 = 0
UK ironclads in 1859 = 8
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for these ironclads? I find reference to several hulls being laid down in 1859 that would eventually become RN ironclads with the first not being launched until late Dec. 1860.

Ignoring all the nationalistic chest thumping(and total ignorance of logistics) on both sides- Some serious questions.
1) The Crimean War, the Indian Mutiny, the Anglo-Persian war happened just prior to the incident and the Second Opium war was ongoing. What would the general public's response in the UK be to another conflict?

2) A little over a week later, the Toey-Wan(An chartered steamer under the employ of Commodore Tatnall USN) supported the Anglo-French forces in the Battle of Taku Forts including the evacuation of a failed landing party. How would of that counter-balanced anything short of a total disaster(or any atrocities such as massacring prisoners) if there was a skirmish between the forces present at San Juan Island. - In regards to the opinion of the British Admiralty that is.

ETA: Find it interesting that George Pickett (of Pickett's Charge fame) was the first US officer on the island.

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

Did he immediately want to charge the British Navy, from land?

Corbulo · Jul 11, 2013

Mike215 said:
The British would not go to war over this incident. They knew in 1859 that the Civil War was coming and their plan was to arm the South which they did. Let the Southerners do their dirty work for them. It is no secret that the British encouraged the South to leave the union by making promises of support once the war began.
At the end of the war the US was furious at the British for giving arms and warships to the South. They threatened to invade Canada unless the British agree to compensation, which they did because they knew they could not stop the half a million man Union army from taking Canada in weeks. But they were able to postpone any compensation for about six years until the Franco-Prussian War where Prussia beat France. Fearing the threat of the new Germany, they gave in and paid everything the US wanted and even gave Americans fishing rights off Canada. They even sided with the US over border disputes with Canada because they knew one day they would fight Germany and would need US support.

British manufacturers supplied arms to the Confederacy that was open and private fair trade !! The British goverment to my recollection did not supply Naval vessels to the Confederacy ?? These like the arms were private purchase and Merchant vessels converted. Although many Britons did have sympathy with the Southern cause. No British goverment would openly support the South !! It would be sheer hypocrisy ! 60 years of British anti-slavery legisaltion would have been held up as bogus.

Had Britain at the time openly aided the Confederacy say in the wake of the "Trent incident" then it would have been the Union who would have been under blockade not the South. Plus experienced British troops who had recently fought both in the Crimea and then the Indian mutiny would not have been something to smirk at in the early days of the Civil War ! Their experience and professionalism would have caused the Union army many problems and quite probably tipped the balance in 1860/61 in the Souths favour !!

In fact come to think of it ?? In the wake of "Bull Run" Imagine a British Expedtionary Force had landed just north of Washington as in 1812?? With Washington already in a panic after been soundly beaten by an amateur army what could she do against hardened professionals ?? It would be cheerio honest Abe ??

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

Interesting. At the start of the ACW there was only one major fortress near Washington. By 1865 it was one of the most heavily fortified areas on the globe but right then, I'm not sure how difficult it would be. Were there coastal forts on the approaches?

Having said that, burning Washington, again? boring! But kiss Canada goodbye (and case help in that WWI tiff awhile later good bye I'd imagine).

As noted though, this was effectively a small claims court issue. Not like its about queso or something important.

67th Tigers · Jul 11, 2013

Fire_Raven said:
US ironclads in 1859 = 0
UK ironclads in 1859 = 8

Do you have a cite for these ironclads? I find reference to several hulls being laid down in 1859 that would eventually become RN ironclads with the first not being launched until late Dec. 1860.
[/quote]

The Aetna and Erebus classes. The term "ironclad" isn't coined until 1860, and the first 17 ironclads built by the UK and France weren't called that.

HMS Terror was the only armored ship in American waters in 1861. USS Dacotah almost opened fire on her:

Corbulo · Jul 11, 2013

zincwarrior said:
Interesting. At the start of the ACW there was only one major fortress near Washington. By 1865 it was one of the most heavily fortified areas on the globe but right then, I'm not sure how difficult it would be. Were there coastal forts on the approaches?

Having said that, burning Washington, again? boring! But kiss Canada goodbye (and case help in that WWI tiff awhile later good bye I'd imagine).

As noted though, this was effectively a small claims court issue. Not like its about queso or something important.

Ha ha True ! But in the wake of Southern victory at Bull Run ?? The British could have landed a force on any part of the Eastern Seaboard in 1861 with virtually no opposition ! I am sure they could have skirted round the major defense points if need be !! With a triumphant and cocksure Southern force only miles away from Washington and a BEF to the north!! I am sure the Lincoln goverment would have had to flee the capital ?

Canada and WWI ?? Britain would have possibly a very pro-Britsh goverment in Washington by 1862 !! Canada would be secured !! Thank the God's however Britain on principle didnt ally herself with the South !

zincwarrior · Jul 11, 2013

Corbulo said:
True ! But in the wake of Southern victory at Bull Run ?? The British could have landed a force on any part of the Eastern Seaboard in 1861 with virtually no opposition ! I am sure they could have skirted round the major defense points if need be !! With a triumphant and cocksure Southern force only miles away from Washington and a BEF to the north!! I am sure the Lincoln goverment would have had to flee the capital ?

That is a potential event. However, I don't think the British had the forces to do such to be effective after Bull Run (assuming a Trent Affair timeline). A list of support being sent to Canada for the Canadian attack option is pretty meager. The window would have closed fast as substantial; formations came online shortly thereafter.

I'd think the option of counter blockade would have been more likely. The british did not seem eager to get into a major land war on the North American continent again.

EmperorTigerstar · Jul 11, 2013

Kevinmeath said:
Why would it be an American victory?

Well, I suppose it would be a hard victory, but Queen Victoria would not be interested in war with the US at the time. The Indian mutiny had just ended the year before and the first Tarnaki War would arise in 1860. I'm not saying American victory is guaranteed, it's just more likely.

RewardMe · Jul 11, 2013

EmperorTigerstar said:
Well, I suppose it would be a hard victory, but Queen Victoria would not be interested in war with the US at the time. The Indian mutiny had just ended the year before and the first Tarnaki War would arise in 1860. I'm not saying American victory is guaranteed, it's just more likely.

So sayeth the Americans.

redcoat · Jul 11, 2013

While classed as ironclads the RN warrior class weren't really an ironclad, They were made out of iron, they were iron hulled.
They was also the first major warship to be constructed with several watertight compartments.

Kevinmeath · Jul 11, 2013

EmperorTigerstar said:
Well, I suppose it would be a hard victory, but Queen Victoria would not be interested in war with the US at the time. The Indian mutiny had just ended the year before and the first Tarnaki War would arise in 1860. I'm not saying American victory is guaranteed, it's just more likely.

The British have lots of Imperial commitments so do not want a war (its nothing to do with Victoria by the way) but if forced to by American aggression they'll soon mobilise.

What is your rational for 'the most 'likely' outcome being an American Victory? in 1859 the US army is tiny and the Navy not much different.

If you mobilise State Militia many of these may well refuse to leave their State and especially refuse to invaded Canada.

Mike215 · Jul 11, 2013

The British government claimed to be neutral during the war, but sold several warships to the CSA despite US complaints. They became the famous raiders who destroyed the Union merchant fleet. The Alabama was the most successful. The British finally paid off the Alabama Claims n 1871.
During the war the Union expanded the navy from 42 ships in 1861 to 671 in 1865 including 84,415 sailors. Much of this new fleet was made of such ships like the Monitor class which was the most advanced in the world. If war took place between the US and Britain in 1865 when the US was talking about taking over Canada, the Royal Navy would be been I trouble.

Search

Search

What if "The Pig War"(1859) would have escalated in a new war between the USA and UK?

bartieboy

Kevinmeath

zincwarrior

zincwarrior

Mike McClure

67th Tigers

Harry

zincwarrior

Fire_Raven

zincwarrior

Corbulo

zincwarrior

67th Tigers

Corbulo

zincwarrior

EmperorTigerstar

RewardMe

redcoat

Kevinmeath

Mike215

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions