'1859 Pig War' leads to an Actual War Between the British Empire and United States?
- Thread starter Iron_Lord
- Start date
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
Wars have been started over much dumber reasons. A pig at least can be used for food. Hell one war seemed to kick-off due to a mans ear. It was called the War of Jenkins's Ear from 1739-1742. Here is some history on the war.
-
During the 18th century, wars between Britain and Spain were common, however this particular war stands out from the others due to the unusual circumstances under which it started.
At that time, a treaty existed which guaranteed the right of British merchants to trade up to 500 tons of goods per year in Spanish colonies, as well as the right for British slavers to sell an unlimited number of slaves in the colonies. In return for these trading rights, Spanish forces would be allowed to stop and search British ships to ensure that no smuggling was taking place.
Spanish authorities had long believed that the British were not sticking to the agreement, and began boarding and seizing British ships involved in smuggling activities, and rumours about crews being tortured were rife. These events soured relations between the two countries, and tensions were running high.
The event that gave the war its name took place eight years earlier in 1731 during a Spanish inspection of a British merchant ship. The captain of the British ship was Robert Jenkins, who was a well known smuggler. The Spanish commander carrying out the inspection exacted swift retribution, unsheathing his sword and cutting off Jenkins left ear.
At the time, the incident passed relatively unnoticed, however years later Jenkins was called into parliament and ordered to testify. The story goes that he even produced the severed ear, showing it to outraged MP’s. The whole spectacle was part of a plan to fuel public outrage against Spain, and cause a war. Many in positions of power believed that a successful war against Spain might improve British trading opportunities in the Caribbean, with the side effect of making rich men even richer.
Coupled with other perceived slights and ill treatment of British subjects by the Spanish, the removal of Jenkins ear was considered reason enough for war, and on October 23rd 1739, war was officially declared. The series of operations that followed were largely uneventful and failed to accomplish much for either side, and the conflict later became part of, and overshadowed by, the war of the Austrian succession, which would engulf much of Europe.
-
So a war kicked off to the killing of a pig is far from the oddest thing to start a war.
On the other hand, if the US gets beaten in a war against Britain, that might embolden the South to secede. Heck, they might even take the war as an opportunity to do so, on the theory that the North will be unable to stop them if its already fighting a war in Canada.
Maybe a strip of land along the southern bank of the St. Lawrence, to improve the security of their communications with Upper Canada?
IIRC the territorial contention at the time was over the path of the border through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The original treaty was unclear, and there were two channels that could fit. The British favoured Rosario strait to the south. The US favoured Haro Strait to the North. If the war actually happens the British may just enforce their point and maybe take the opportunity to settle any other outstanding disputes. This would give them control of all shipping entering Strait of Georgia. Not a bad thing as that secures shipping to Victoria and Vancouver.
Some skirmishing before the forces are pulled back and everyone scrambles the diplomats. The US is on the verge of a civil war and the question of the ongoing tensions in the South is going to make them want to pull back, especially if the ugly question of what form any acquired territories will take place, slave or free.
Generally though, that was used more of an excuse to actual ongoing tensions for a war that being the true spark behind it. Saying you're fighting a war over a pig as opposed to defending liberty of a British subject is a bit more of a leap. Especially since this is a war neither side is going to want for various reasons.
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
I didn't say it was a strong motivator for a war that was not my intention when I made that post. All I was doing was saying that fighting over a pig is far from the stupidest reasons people have used for waging wars. With that said it was bad enough that US troops were stationed on the island and by the end of all this madness five UK ships were sent to ensure it didn't turn into something bigger.
-
So to turn this into a proper war just have somebody fire. Intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter just have somebody from one of those sides fire a shot and kicking off a response. The outcome should make it likely cooler heads fail to resolve the matter. It is in my eyes the only way I can see this becoming anything more then a standoff and an odd footnote in US history.
Last edited:
Ficboy
Banned
Not so sure since this is a war against Britain and the entirety of America (North and South) would be sending their best men to fight in a bizarre conflict. Even if there was Southern secession it would be more of a convenient distraction for the British and they might aid them against their rival.
Last edited:
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
Honestly with a declaration of war just before they would have seceded OTL I don't think that the South would secede anytime in the 1860s. The reason being is with war just before the 1860 presidential election I don't think the political landscape would be in favor of an Abraham Lincoln's presidency. So the fear of the end of their way of life should be such that they don't feel the need to leave. Besides that by the time the nation may be ready to wage a war again technological advancements should make the institution of slavery more or less obsolete. So the need for slaves just wouldn't exist.
Ficboy
Banned
Then again there was Bleeding Kansas and eventually John Brown's infamous raid on Harpers Ferry. As I said, Southern secession might not occur if the Pig War evolved into a serious conflict and if it did it would just be a convenient distraction.
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
One I could see the British using it to the full advantage. If they did I should think international recognition would be more or less guaranteed even if that recognition is as a mere puppet state. However, by the time they did the United States should be beaten enough to ensure the CSA lives. But as I said above I think the odds of the war between the states would be butterflied away. After a loss to the United Kingdom, I don't see the people wishing to wage a second war for a least ten years. So this puts this ITTL Civil War at around the 1870s.
Now I'll be the first man to tell you'll I'm not too knowledgeable about this decade but given that technological advancements were coming on like an F1 racecar I think that the institution would be basically obsolete by that point. It could happen but I think the 1860s was really just a mixture of coincidences and perceived slights. Without the things that led up to them leaving the Union I think the war can't happen here. Just my two cents.
Err, no, all of the nitrate issues the Union Army would have in the Trent scenario are eliminated here. It's legitimate to argue that Britain could win a Trent war scenario, but is considerably less so in a Pig War scenario, give recent and soon-to-emerge problems in the Empire, the deteriorating situation in Europe, and the stronger material and manpower situation for the United States.
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
I understand that the situation isn't the same but how can the United States be in a state to beat the United Kingdom? This war is set in 1859 and the Trent Affair is in 1861 what could have changed that makes it so they can win here but not just a few years later? Because I fail to see how the US is able to beat them here.
Again, the situation with men and material is much improved for the United States relative to Trent. .
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
How? We are talking a matter of three years tops. Did they have more troops in 1859 vs 1861-1862?
Were the British better prepared in 1862 than in 1869? The point isn't that the army was in the field, but that it could be put into the field.
Never underestimate the power of a contested pig:
en.m.wikipedia.org
Hatfield–McCoy feud - Wikipedia
SpaceOrbisGaming
Banned
This is the number of troops the US had at the time of the war.
-
-
So around 29,000 troops in 1859 vs around 217,000 in 1861. I can't see how a force that size can beat the UK which was why I asked how.
-
-
So around 29,000 troops in 1859 vs around 217,000 in 1861. I can't see how a force that size can beat the UK which was why I asked how.
So to be clear, what you're saying is that even though the Union at this time has less soldiers, sailors, and military equipment, than the Union in the midst of the Civil War, they're likely to beat the U.K.?
Grimbald
Monthly Donor
It is not the Union; it is the United States.
The ACW showed how quickly the US can mobilize. The UK wins big at sea and bombards NYC and several large cities. The US takes Canada. The white peace is either status quo anti or US gets western Canada and the UK gets money.
The ACW showed how quickly the US can mobilize. The UK wins big at sea and bombards NYC and several large cities. The US takes Canada. The white peace is either status quo anti or US gets western Canada and the UK gets money.