What if "The Pig War"(1859) would have escalated in a new war between the USA and UK?
- Thread starter Romanianboy2013
- Start date
-
- Tags
- escalated the pig war1859 usa war
Joined Jan 2010
12,635 Posts | 4,362+
UK
Built by a Swede and full of problems.
The thread is not set in this time period though. Just to elaborate more, during the 1860's it was a British officer that developed a more advanced and deadlier version of the monitor, known as the "......work" monitor, which had better superstructures and ability to operate in all weather. That was followed by the devastation class, which was even more advanced. The Royal Navy would not allow the Americans to outdo her in shipbuilding. It was Britains strict policy not to.
Joined Jan 2013
186 Posts | 0+
USA RI
I see this as being an American victory only because the British taxpayers would quickly get upset at the taxes and lives which were being spent on a pig. It seems likely in our imperial mood we had in the later 19th century we would be willing to spend and lose more to achieve victory than Victorian England.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
It was
Private contracts at private yards the British government did little, rightly or wrongly.
Which still makes it tiny compared to the British and anyway the war is before the ACW.
So in 1859 the 42 ships of the USN are going to take on the RN of how big?
The Monitor was just that, take it out to sea? not wise.
Well the war is in 1859 not 65, and no I do not think the RN is in trouble even if it was, why do you think it was? other than nationalistic bull **** that is.
Joined Dec 2010
6,617 Posts | 10+
The Netherlands
It´s hard to take some moral high ground here when you consider that the USA was supposed to be neutral in 1914-1916 and 1939-1941 when during these times it was also massively supporting the Entente and western allies.
Joined Oct 2010
449 Posts | 76+
Glasgow
Last edited:
All these ships were private purchase via merchant yards and converted from merchant craft to warships !!Do you have any real facts or figures for these naval ships ?? Or of suppossed British reparations after the Civil war ? or supposedly after the Franco -Prussian War ?? Why would a United Germany in 1870 seem a relevant threat to Britain ?? Britain had previously been allied with Prussia for most of the 18th and much of the 19th century!!... In 1870 Britain felt no threat from Prussia or a United Germany !! Quitely they were probably congradulating the Prussians for giving the French a good licking!!.. This was Prussia-Germany under Bismark and they had a respectful regard toward the British and likewise ..Bismark had no plans to try to rival Britain on the global stage!
As for the Monitor ?? Do you not think the worlds greatest naval power had not been developing likewise craft?? After all we had men like "Brunel" to pull on !! Not to mention ships such as the "Monitor" were novelties and could only sail close to the coast! They were like Triremes in ancient days powerful but coast bound !!
Yes the US Navy expanded during the war and obviously so did its army. However the period when possible British involvement or intervention would have occurred would have been 1861/62 then British intervention would have stopped this expansion in the bud. The ports would have been blockaded !! Britain had the largest fleet in the world at the time !! It made its business to do so !! ..We still had a bigger fleet probably more than double or even triple that of the US even in 1865. In 1865 Britain was at the zenith of its industrial and economic power, Britain had not only the machines but the men who knew how to run them. ...
If Britain had got involved in 1861 then then the army would have comprised of seasoned veterans from both the Crimea and the Indian Mutiny. Most likely under the command of Sir Colin Campbell!! A shrewd and experienced general. These men had fought modern war in the trenches of Sevastopol and would I am sure been more than a match for the militia forces of the union! If a British landing occured prior but even better after the battle of Bull-Run. Then a Anglo-Southern victory would have been assured !!
Joined Jul 2010
2,776 Posts | 3+
Oregon
THE GENEVA AWARD IN THE ?ALABAMA? CLAIMS (1872) | Public International Law
or if you prefer the short wiki version.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims]Alabama Claims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Joined Jun 2013
6,524 Posts | 140+
USA
I'd predict a short war followed by splitting the territory along something close to present-day lines, as neither side wanted this war or had much to gain, and would only be fueled in it by their own animosities. I don't think either the British Empire or United States would have accepted losing the entire territory and thus defeat, so the war would continue on until a treaty dividing it was agreed upon, which probably wouldn't take long.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
That is quite true however why do you assume that American tax payers and or merchants would be happy about all the money spent/lost over a pig and a pretty insignificant island?
In reality that's what happened 'Washington' were furious that there had been a confrontation and basically despite what 'hotheads on both sides wanted' decided to talk about it like 'adults.'
I heard that in the 1840s when the Oregon boundary was set, Polk had been all fiery toward the British, threatening to go to war if the territory wasn't divided along the 49th, and even claiming he wanted the 54th, but that in reality his administration was bluffing throughout and had no desire for an actual war with the British.
Joined Jul 2012
3,994 Posts | 348+
The UK had a population of 29 million. Canada had a population of 3 million. Combined that's 32 million as opposed to the US 31 million; which is not a massive advantage, especially since the UK forces have to cross an ocean.
There is, of course, the rest of the British Empire. Major sections of the empire, such as India, required continued British troop presence, and thus reduced the number of British troops that could be used for overseas actions.
The British had a blue water, not a brown water navy. While the majority of US industry was near water, much of the rivers and harbors lacked the necessary depth for British warships to sail into them, and sailing against the current with highly restricted maneuvering would not be done lightly. HMS Warrior, for example, had enough draft it could not use the British port of Bermuda.
I'm well aware that the US imported some iron and gunpowder from Britain. Britain also imported some grain from the US. That doesn't mean either was dependent on the other.
Steamships do not make logistics trivial, they add to the amount of logistics required. The US was connected to Canada by the Grand Trunk Railroad, which would greatly aid US logistics.
The Irish hated English intolerance worse, as after the Potato Famine the majority of Irish emmigrants went to the US, not England. The US arming Ireland is wildly unlikely, a far better use of US resources would be commerce raiding against British shipping.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Well commerce raiding works both ways.
However have you got a source for the 'majority' of Irish immigrants went to the US rather than the UK? because Irish immigration into the UK was (and is) huge and I have read many accounts of Irish immigration into the South Wales coalfield for instance.
It would also make geographical sense since the UK not only had a supply of work it was much closer (and therefore cheaper).
UK proper = 31.6 m in 1861
Nope
the navy list, corrected to the 20th december 1858 - Google Boeken
All the US's saltpetre was from British India - the very definition of dependence.
Nope 3/4ths settled in England.
Joined Nov 2011
8,940 Posts | 226+
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
You keep repeating this nonsense in your posts. Where on Earth were you taught this stuff? It is absolute twaddle.
U.S. annexs Canada/Puetro Rico and makes it U.S. states - Page 2 - Historum - History Forums
Joined Oct 2010
449 Posts | 76+
Glasgow
Last edited:
Fair doo's bro
That was a new one to me. Reading the text it seems that the level headed members of the British establishment went out of their way to stop further deliveries of such vessels to the Confderacy and stopped such exports well before the war had turned against the South. These were still private purchase and not built to goverment orders. On the other hand proves the British were already building Iron-clads !! ..Still you will have to furnish me of proof regards major reparations after the Franco-Prussian war? Sure the British would have felt intimidated by the growth of the Union Army with regards Canada by 1865, yet I am sure they would have also known that this size of army could not have been maintained during peace time and within a few years the Union or once again US Army proper would have been scoped down to its peace time compliment.
I still think if the British had got involved early in the war 1861/2 then it most certainally would have changed the course of the war. The Royal Navy as it was would have been invaluable to the Confederate cause. Not only providing the security for arms shipments but also blockading Union ports such as Boston and New York with ease. If British ground troops had aided then It would have been a major headache for Lincoln if not decisive esp in the early days of the war.
I used to be in a relationship with a cool lassie from Alabama I met at Uni !! We somehow got talkin about this stuff!! She swore that the British had sold out the Confederacy for Indian Cotton!!..............I said that Britain could never openly ally themselves with a Slave owning country no matter how close our ties were blood or otherwise ? British public opinion would never have stood for it! I think the majority of clear thinking Britons rightly believed neutrality was the best policy.
Joined Jul 2012
3,994 Posts | 348+
Last edited:
I'm curious how you round 29,334,788 to 31.6 million.
Providing a link to a complete ship list does not refute anything.
All? I'd like to see a source on that. And even if it were true, there were other possible sources.
After the Potato Famine, the vast majority of Irish emigrants did not settle in England.
Joined Jul 2012
3,994 Posts | 348+
Yeah, ca. 200 brown water gunboats and 8 ironclads doesn't contraindicate you in the slightest does it.
Yes, and not really. You've been around this enough that you must know this to be true.
So was "Ericcson's Floating Battery" and the "Floating Battery Merrimac". It's a generic term for early ironclads:
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-