'1859 Pig War' leads to an Actual War Between the British Empire and United States?

Ficboy

Banned
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.
It took a lot of effort for them to mobilize. Look at the United States Army in 1860 where it had only 16.387 vs what it looked like at the end of the conflict in 1865 where it had 1,000,000. The United Kingdom possesses more territory, industry and manpower compared to the United States.
 

Ficboy

Banned
A better number would be the combined Union and Confederate armies in mid 1862 after 12 months of fighting
Well there's either scenario 1 where the United States (North and South) fights Britain and scenario 2 where the same occurs but the South/Confederacy secedes creating a distraction for the Americans.
 
It is not the Union; it is the United States.
That's nitpicky even for a pedant like me. Unless you're trying to claim the Union in the ACW wasn't 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
How does the US take Canada before the shelling and raids of the East Coast forces the US to peace? Canada hasn't exactly been left defenceless since 1814 afterall.
But back to my post I assume you were replying to: how is the U.S. in a better position to win BEFORE the ACW when it has less military and experience than after a couple years of fighting the ACW? How is it more prepared to take Canada then?
 
It's worth looking at where the US forces were in 1859:

Infantry Units

1st US Infantry: Texas
2nd: Missouri
3rd: New Mexico
4th: California
5th: Utah Expeditionary Force
6th: California
7th: Utah Expeditionary Force
8th Texas
9th: Washington Terr. and Oregon
10th: Utah Expeditionary Force
1st US Artillery (as infantry regiment): Texas
2nd: half in Kansas, half scattered along the coast as the garrisons
3rd: Oregon
4th: Dakota Terr. and Minnesota

Artillery with Guns (all 4 gun batteries)
Bty I, 1st US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty A, 2nd US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty M, 2nd US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty C, 3rd US: Utah Expeditionary Force

Mounted Units
Coy B, 4th US Artillery: Indian Terr.
1st US Dragoons: Oregon and Wash. Terr.
2nd US Dragoons: Utah Expeditionary Force
US Mounted Rifles: Utah Expeditionary Force
1st US Cavalry: Utah Expeditionary Force
2nd US Cavalry: Utah Expeditionary Force

A lot of the US Regulars in 1859 were tied up with the Utah Expedition then scattered about in what amounts to penny packets around whole of the Republic. Realistically the Union would probably only be able to move the 4th or 6th US Infantry from California immediately to reinforce the troops there. Any attempt to do anything else will require marching the Utah Expedition back overland to where it might be needed.

On the flip side, in Canada the British only have:

Royal Canadian Rifles
39th Regiment of Foot (Quebec)
1st Battalion 17th Regiment of Foot (Quebec)
The 26th Regiment of Foot is in Bermuda
This is alongside (IIRC) about five batteries of garrison artillery.

So neither side is really prepared to jump into war at the drop of a hat since they respectively need to ship more men and material from across the continent and the ocean respectively.
 

Ficboy

Banned
It's worth looking at where the US forces were in 1859:

Infantry Units

1st US Infantry: Texas
2nd: Missouri
3rd: New Mexico
4th: California
5th: Utah Expeditionary Force
6th: California
7th: Utah Expeditionary Force
8th Texas
9th: Washington Terr. and Oregon
10th: Utah Expeditionary Force
1st US Artillery (as infantry regiment): Texas
2nd: half in Kansas, half scattered along the coast as the garrisons
3rd: Oregon
4th: Dakota Terr. and Minnesota

Artillery with Guns (all 4 gun batteries)
Bty I, 1st US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty A, 2nd US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty M, 2nd US: Utah Expeditionary Force
Bty C, 3rd US: Utah Expeditionary Force

Mounted Units
Coy B, 4th US Artillery: Indian Terr.
1st US Dragoons: Oregon and Wash. Terr.
2nd US Dragoons: Utah Expeditionary Force
US Mounted Rifles: Utah Expeditionary Force
1st US Cavalry: Utah Expeditionary Force
2nd US Cavalry: Utah Expeditionary Force

A lot of the US Regulars in 1859 were tied up with the Utah Expedition then scattered about in what amounts to penny packets around whole of the Republic. Realistically the Union would probably only be able to move the 4th or 6th US Infantry from California immediately to reinforce the troops there. Any attempt to do anything else will require marching the Utah Expedition back overland to where it might be needed.

On the flip side, in Canada the British only have:

Royal Canadian Rifles
39th Regiment of Foot (Quebec)
1st Battalion 17th Regiment of Foot (Quebec)
The 26th Regiment of Foot is in Bermuda
This is alongside (IIRC) about five batteries of garrison artillery.

So neither side is really prepared to jump into war at the drop of a hat since they respectively need to ship more men and material from across the continent and the ocean respectively.
Plus there is the Civil War which might be delayed since the entirety of America on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line is fighting Britain or it might break out with the South seceding from the Union and becoming the Confederacy since sectional tensions are at an all time high with Bleeding Kansas which was occurring at the same time as the Pig War.
 
There are a lot of Trent affair threads on here. And many of them outline problems the US would have in a war against Britain beyond just the diversion of the Civil war. Assuming that the Pig war (somehow) becomes a full out slugging match, those would still be there. Things like a greater dependence on British trade than Britain has on its trade, a reliance on quite a few foreign arms to equip its army (though depending on how much of a slugfest this is, the army may be smaller and therefore less dependent) and a need for British inputs to create powder. The difficulties in attacking Canada also won’t be much different than in 1812. However, assuming the US is united they do have a much larger pool of men and resources to draw on.

IMO the outcome depends on the war goals. The British are not likely to want to conquer the US. most likely they are in it to show their resolve, possibly get a small territorial concession in Oregon/Columbia and get back to normal. Not sure what the US would be After. Canada maybe. My guess is, as long as the British war goals are not too extream, the war ends in a year or two with status antebellum and both sides claiming they got the better of the other, while trying to bring trade back to normal levels.
 
The answer comes down heavily to the mobilization and commitment. Does Washington go all in with a declared war and hundreds of thousands of young men being called up or do they keep it an undeclared war with a limited intervention in Canada?

In a big war that Washington commits to (as in accepting they will be at war for more then a year or two) they will win at least the land war of seizing the population heavy regions of Canada. The rally around the flag effect will mean that the extreme voices pushing America to war with itself are silenced at least for awhile. It allows the army officers opposed to secession to dominate the papers and Weekly Journals for awhile. The free states get a whole bunch of new territories/states added to the Union carved out of Eastern Canada.

If the US doesn't commit to the war then it probably ends with some valiant sea battles and a few land skirmishes, but nothing changing significantly.
 
Last edited:
Casus belli is kind of backwards in its traditional use. The presence of casus belli creates the desire for war far less often than the desire for war creates casus belli. Which is to say, casus belli happens all the damned time between major powers, and they generally only exploit it when they actually WANT to go to war. Trying right now to think of an example where casus belli lead to a war that neither side really wanted prior to it, and kind of coming up blank (WWI is the closest I can think of, and its possible a lesser casus might not have set off that powderkeg, but there was the desire for war and plenty of other inciting incidents had happened in that time period and probably would have continued to do so had the Archduke not gotten whacked).
 

Lexijag

Banned
Gb would win up in the orca islands , been to both camps. Neither side couldi win overall. GB could never get enough troops over and look at the forces the USA and Confederate states put together from 61 to 65. Add to this the enormous number of ironclads produced.

So GB would blockade, build up forces in Canada, and go after ny and Boston. USA would build up forces over the next three to five years that gb could not match over such a great distance. The cost to GB would be massive. As monitors come on scene GB blockade would be pretty worthless. So GB wins early rounds, and if smart settles for status quo, interesting might outlaw slavery

Good chance this butterfly's the civil war. Especially if the war requires USA sacrifice.
 
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.

Jenkins-
“What did you do?” he was asked. “I commended my soul to God and
my cause to my country”, was the answer put in his mouth by the
Opposition…. Whether it was indeed his own ear or whether he had lost
it in a seaport brawl remains uncertain, but the power of this shriveled
object was immense.
Winston Churchill: History of the English-Speaking People.

The then Prime Minister, Horace Walpole, opposed the war but was swept along by war fever, led by a group of fire-brands calling themselves the Patriots, including William Pitt (the Elder- he was younger at the time).
Walpole's comment on the beginning of the war: “They’re ringing the bells now, they’ll be wringing their hands soon enough”
 
Last edited:

Dolan

Banned
. So GB wins early rounds, and if smart settles for status quo, interesting might outlaw slavery
So basically:
1) Pig War Happened.
2) Britain, realizing long war with US will be disastrous, choose to quickly shelled US East Coast and basically destroyed the inferior US Navy.
3) Britain would've just used the weight of the quick victory to force the US to return to status quo ante bellum with minor border adjustment. But then some in British Parliament think that having a "Moral Clause" to force the US to adopt total abolitionism would be a nice addition.
4) The US is then "forced" to outlaw Slavery by Britain.
5) Cue no civil war except Southerners bitching about how Britain forced them to do this "humiliation", and Northerners bitching about how Britain basically shelled their cities. Cue both sides in the US ironically mending up their difference due to shared hatred of Britain.
6) Cue US waiting for Round Two, and when WW1 starts, they jumped into Central Power's side to avenge their humiliation.
 
So basically:
1) Pig War Happened.

2) Britain, realizing a long war with the US will be disastrous, choose to quickly shell US East Coast and basically destroyed the inferior US Navy.

3) Britain would've just used the weight of the quick victory to force the US to return to status quo ante bellum with minor border adjustment. But then some in British Parliament think that having a "Moral Clause" to force the US to adopt total abolitionism would be a nice addition.

4) The US is then "forced" to outlaw Slavery by Britain.

5) Cue no civil war except Southerners bitching about how Britain forced them to do this "humiliation", and Northerners bitching about how Britain basically shelled their cities. Cue both sides in the US ironically mending up their difference due to shared hatred of Britain.

6) Cue the US waiting for Round Two, and when WW1 starts, they jumped into Central Power's side to avenge their humiliation.

What are the odds that the Central Power's win the war with US help? Would we have World War 2 removed without the humiliation?
 
I'm leaning toward the US here. If I do some research or someone can offer me some research that the British response could devastate the American economy sufficiently, then I may change my mind.

Some members may have seen my previous posts backing the British in a Trent War, so may be wondering why I've adopted the opposing position here. Here are what I believe to be the key differences in this situation versus a Trent War:

1) The US is united here. If the US is not split in half fighting itself and doesn't need to commit the troops to fighting a secessionist entity, then I think they can muster more than enough troops to invade and occupy any or all of Canada. The US navy will also be larger, reducing any British naval superiority.

2) The effectiveness of any British blockade. Rather than only having to blockade the Union coastline, the British will have to find the ships to blockade all of the US coastline. This is significantly longer in a Trent War, as it includes the entirety of the East coast plus the Gulf coast.

I think the only way the British can hope to defeat the Americans is economically. However, that being said, if the British do manage to break the American economy, I think there may be a possibility that this could harden US resolve to walk away with something - namely border concessions - lest the American public begin to question why there was such an economically damaging war that gained the country nothing. Equally, the British public may also ask similar questions, though the British can at least say they were protecting Canada from invading American hordes.

I'm not sure on this one and will be reading to see if there's a convincing enough argument from anyone to sway me one way or the other.

Northstar
 
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.

Even if someone fires, it's unlikely to add up to more than a kerfuffle. Not only does no one want to fight a war over a pig, but internal US tensions are going to be a major hamper towards anyone pursuing a war from that end.
 
Even if someone fires, it's unlikely to add up to more than a kerfuffle. Not only does no one want to fight a war over a pig, but internal US tensions are going to be a major hamper towards anyone pursuing a war from that end.

Maybe not but I don't recall seeing anybody firing a shot in the video I posted about the whole thing. My reasoning being is that any increase in tensions no matter how insignificant it may appeal may be the catalyst that stops cooler heads from being able to stop this from escalating. History is filled with wars nobody would think could have happened but did. A pig is far from the dumbest reason for war.
 
...6) Cue US waiting for Round Two, and when WW1 starts, they jumped into Central Power's side to avenge their humiliation.

Assuming that we end up with the same WW1 at all, why would you assume that the UK would rush headlong into such a war knowing that a much larger, stronger America is poised to crush Canada and potentially devastate them in a prolonged naval conflict? British politicians might have mistakenly believed that the Great War would be a short one that would maintain British interests in OTL. If the US is allied to the Central Powers, the British will certainly be aware that the US is a much greater threat to its interests than Germany and will act accordingly.

The alliance system that grows in Europe could well look completely different since British foreign policy will be entirely changed by the result of an 1859 war, whatever the outcome. For that matter, a Canada that develops with a hostile and aggressive southern neighbour is going to be a lot different too.
 
Top