A British California after Trent

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by kent

The Mormon Battalion (sorry I said Brigade before) was part of the Utah terrority effort to support the Union. Authorized by the Leadership of the Mormon Church, to show their loyalty to the Union, There was no Mormon Secesssion attempt. In the 1850's a small band of Mormon zelots staged a raid and massacre of a small wagon train, then tried to blame the Ute Indians. This force of zelots was in fact turned over on Order of Brigham Young. Your History knowledge of the Western United States
is just as bad as your lack of real knowledge of the Civil War. You still think that the Little Napoleon was a great military General who single handly saved the Union.

For those of us who are interested in this, how much would you say the Mormons would/could do in this situation (Britain attempting stuff in the American West)?

Mormons and other settlers.

There really aren't that many regular troops here, so it's up to the volunteers.

[Free Lancer]

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

It's interesting to note that moving from US to UK sovereignty involves moving from more or less universal white male suffrage at every level of government to a property limited franchise (albeit one a little bit better than before the 1830's). While the UK could, in theory give the Californian government enough autonomy to retain universal white male suffrage (fat chance, really, when you consider it's not entirely out of bounds for Californians to then elect a government hostile to British interests), they'd still have no say at all in Parliament.

A significant chunk of people WILL just switch flags and move on.

However, even just having five percent of the population out there under arms is thousands of guerrillas that is going to demand constant, on-going occupation. While the stream of volunteers from over the Rockies isn't going to be MASSIVE, you're still likely to see hundreds of men coming over every year. California's population grew at 5% or more annually in this period anyway. At least a fraction of this growth will now be armed American partisans looking to volunteer to fight the 'evil British Empire'.

That’s why I said a lot of history proves that sentence wrong, I won’t deny that some people will want to just get on with their lives regardless of what flag but that is usually done after some time has been spent living under a different flag for most people.

In regards to the amount of Volunteers coming from the Rockies I think the it will be more likely in the rage of one or two thousand for the first years considering that in this scenario there are going to be lot of enraged sections of soldiers and civilian men forming militias who will want in outlet for their range and the federal government will most likely funnel them into California.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by kent

The Mormon Battalion (sorry I said Brigade before) was part of the Utah terrority effort to support the Union. Authorized by the Leadership of the Mormon Church, to show their loyalty to the Union, There was no Mormon Secesssion attempt. In the 1850's a small band of Mormon zelots staged a raid and massacre of a small wagon train, then tried to blame the Ute Indians. This force of zelots was in fact turned over on Order of Brigham Young. Your History knowledge of the Western United States
is just as bad as your lack of real knowledge of the Civil War. You still think that the Little Napoleon was a great military General who single handly saved the Union.

Mormon battalion served in the Mexican War. 1847 =/= 1861, and the US was busy occupying Utah. The Mormons were not an asset, they were another secessionist group.

I'm also failing to see these two Indian uprisings in the NW during the Civil war. The "rebellion" of the Yakima was finished in 1858, and the "rebellion" of the Shoshone does not start until the US invades Nez Pearce in 1864 and was essentially fought entirely after the civil war ended.

For someone who can't tell the difference between the 1840's and 1860's to state "[y]our History knowledge of the [w]estern United States
is just as bad as your lack of real knowledge of the Civil War" is frankly laughable. Please, read up on a topic before you post on it.

[Elfwine]

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/c/CIVILWAR.html

No Utah units, but hardly an area boiling with secessionist sentiments, either.

[Darth Revan]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Mormon battalion served in the Mexican War. 1847 =/= 1861, and the US was busy occupying Utah. The Mormons were not an asset, they were another secessionist group.

I'm also failing to see these two Indian uprisings in the NW during the Civil war. The "rebellion" of the Yakima was finished in 1858, and the "rebellion" of the Shoshone does not start until the US invades Nez Pearce in 1864 and was essentially fought entirely after the civil war ended.

For someone who can't tell the difference between the 1840's and 1860's to state "[y]our History knowledge of the [w]estern United States
is just as bad as your lack of real knowledge of the Civil War" is frankly laughable. Please, read up on a topic before you post on it.

The troops sent to Utah spent the entire time fighting Indians, not Mormons, so no they are not just another secessionist group.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

I see. How do you explain 33,969 votes for Breckinridge and 9,111 for Bell? Seems at least 42,000 "Confederate" voters were in the state.

Using that kind of "logic" would mean there were 190,000 "Confederate" voters in Pennsylvania. The facts are that voting for either man did not make you pro-Confederate. In the end, it appears less than 100 Californians were willing to take up arms for the Confederacy.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

What Mormon brigade is that then? Show me a reference. I am aware that the US has just finished putting down a Mormon secession attempt.

I suggest you read what you link. The rebellion existed only in James Buchanan's mind, not battles were fought, and it was resolved peacefully in 1858.

He probably means the Navoo Legion, whose services were offered by Brigham Young and accepted by President Lincoln. The Legion spent the war tracking Indian raiders.

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

See http://orbat.com/site/history/volume...0th%201861.pdf

You're clutching at straws. A few infantry companies hundreds of miles east of the Rockies.

The order of battle you link lists 32 companies of infantry, 9 companies of artillery, and 8 companies of dragoons, all west of the Rockies.

(Corrected unit type)

[NovaCameron]

Ya... This is hilarious... But in other words, no the Brits couldn't pull it off. Just due to the size alone.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Fiver

The order of battle you link lists 32 regiments of infantry, 9 regiment of artillery, and 8 regiments of dragoons, all west of the Rockies.

Sigh. Company =/= regiment.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Sigh. Company =/= regiment.

That will teach me to post when suffering from insomnia.

Regardless, your source lists 49 companies, which is more than a few, and they are west, not east of the Rockies.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Fiver

That will teach me to post when suffering from insomnia.

Regardless, your source lists 49 companies, which is more than a few, and they are west, not east of the Rockies.

No dramas. The figures Warren gives in Fountain of Discontent (p172) are 1,200 men at the time of Trent (west of the Rockies), both regulars and volunteers.

[The Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by NovaCameron

Ya... This is hilarious... But in other words, no the Brits couldn't pull it off. Just due to the size alone.

Once you control the coastal cities, you've basically got the California of 1861.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

Once you control the coastal cities, you've basically got the California of 1861.

Only in the sense that taking Philadelphia and New York takes out "the most important cities in the colonies" in the American Revolution.

"And now what?" in other words.

[TheKnightIrish]

I have tried this in a number of games I've played. I always like to look at this from the point of view of the British commander on the ground. Now in order to look at some of the issues the British Theatre Commander would face I have got to make a couple of assumptions that I believe are realistic (which I know will infuriate the extremists on both sides but there we are):

Assumptions

1. That Britain, in the form of a Pacific Fleet with a reasonably sized division made up of troops formations from India, China and the Antipodes can and will take San Francisco from its “regular” garrison (the best and brightest of US soldiers and officers are certainly not in California at this time). There will be no “street to street” fighting which has been touted elsewhere in this thread (I know of no similar incidents in the civil war where an urban civilian population rose up en-masse to fight an invading force in urban warfare of this kind).
2. That the Californian Theatre is going to be a backwater for the British in the sense that the Canadian and Eastern Theatres are going to be the priority for both the army and navy respectively because that’s where the Union Forces are that can threaten British interests most.

So having settled my assumptions what issues would face a British Commander sat in occupied San Francisco:

1. What objectives do I have – what can I secure with the forces at my disposal? There will be a temptation to use the navy to subdue ports along the coast from the Columbia border to the Mexican border. Do we shell these ports into submission or do we land troops to secure and garrison them? And what inland objectives should I have if any – Sacramento? While Sacramento is the unoccupied state capital it is symbolic of the fact that American government still exists in California.
2. Supply? – how large a force can the British sustain in California? Is California/Oregon/Washington settled enough for forces or garrisons to live off the land? Where is British supply and ammunition coming from? Where are the nearest sources for supply for Britain – British Columbia? Australia? India?!
3. Will I face a hostile civilian population or guerrilla style action from civilians/disbursed regulars? I have no idea of the demographics of the population of California at this time but I would have thought it was significant to establish the size of the American-born (and perhaps Northern-born) population as these are likely to be the most hostile. I’ll talk about Southern-born people later. And what of the non-“American” population – European immigrants (English, Scots, Irish, Germans etc), Chinese immigrants and the former Mexican-Californians. I would have thought that some of these groups could be relied upon to be ambivalent or at best fully co-operative with a British occupation.
4. When can I expect a concerted attempt by Union forces to liberate California? Where are the inland garrisons in the West-of-the-Rockies? Where are the nearest large unit formations in the West? How long would it take for them to move into California? How would they supply themselves? What routes could they take? I will admit to having little or no idea how difficult it would be for the Union to move reasonably large unit formations into the West-of-the-Rockies and keep them supplied overland.
5. What do I do about the Native Americans if anything? Britain has armed and used Native American allies to its advantage in the Revolution and War of 1812. Is there an opportunity to do so now? Can I hamper any Union forces entering the West-of-the-Rockies by utilising Natives rather that initially risking British forces? Am I inviting a public relations disaster with the settlers in California by arming Injuns? If I am facing guerrilla warfare can I utilise the Natives to strike back or enhance my own counter-insurgency activities?
6. Am I going to have problems with the South/the Southerners? Initially I fear I might have as much difficulty with the Confederacy as the Union – assuming one of Britain’s war aims is to annex all or part of California/Oregon/Washington. How do I deal with formal or informal representatives of the Confederacy proclaiming authority over southern California? Am I going to seek the co-operation of Southern sympathisers with my administration of the occupied territory i.e. people likely to be very sympathetic to slavery? How will I deal with southerners who might bring their slaves into southern California? (That's one to be passed back up the chain of command for certain!).

Aside from all of these issues I also have a general query for the British side – is this going to be a “white man’s war”. At the turn of the 1800s the British had no issue with deploying West Indian regiments and Native American auxiliaries against America. By the end of the 1800s Britain refused to deploy African, West Indian or actual Indian regiments against the Boers. A British expedition against California that does not ultimately utilise troops from British India is going to be extremely manpower short as the bulk of Britain’s regulars are going to finish up in Canada or be stripped down to train up militias/yeomanry/volunteers for the same theatre. (I have always wondered about using Gordon’s veteran Ever Victorious Army as the core of a cheap British-Chinese force but that is considerably more unlikely than the other options we are discussing).

I am not suggesting I have answers for all these questions but the problems/issues become clearer when I ask them. I’d be interested in someone sitting in the US Theatre Commander’s shoes and asking his questions – by the way who was that anyway following the Trent crisis?

[Elfwine]

Some thoughts - as if I was the guy trying to ensure everything is covered at the planning - TKI:

On assumptions:

1) Would this necessarily apply here?

2) Nothing to add.

On issues:

1) This could get problematic. California is large and spread out. You don't want to spread your forces so thinly trying to hold everything that they hold nowhere, on the other hand, just holding a few big cities (in the context of California) might not be the best use of the army.

2) I would not bet on it. Not to the extent necessary for a full sized (10,000+ plus) force. Which raises the question: Where is Britain getting the shipping for that? Judging by how much trouble it would have in the Boer war with shipping large numbers of men long distances, this could be an immense issue in a way that the USA's power to influence is absolutely irrelevant.

And as a secondary theater, there's going to be given more orders than assistance anyway. This does not bode well if something for whatever reason goes wrong.

3) Stands on its own, no further comments needed.

4) The only thing I can think of is that the Nevada-Utah area isn't going to be good for moving troops or raising them, so the USA is in something of a pickle. Not "the island of California", but certainly it won't be easy for it either.

5) Not especially, at least in California.

6) Too bad aspirin hasn't been invented yet, you'll need it.


Not sure who the American equivalent is who or what his questions are, but there's a fair amount of overlap - both are in secondary theaters with finite manpower and long supply lines back to anywhere that can be relied on, and both have to wonder what the civilians are going to do - both Californians and the ones who will find anything short of success to be a sign the guy on the scene is doing badly, whatever the state of his resources.