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

Ficboy

Banned
Honestly, I am not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, the initial battles will be fought in the border regions of the two countries, how the British will invade the 5 states you've listed with an active duty army of ~150,000 is very much stretching credibility. In geographic terms that's equivalent to invading northern France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands with about a corps assigned to each. What will these forces do? What key areas will they occupy? How will they avoid a defeat in detail? How will they maintain their supply lines? What strategic goals do they pursue that helps the war?



I'm going to echo the ending sentiment here. So far I have read that the British forces will pursue naval-based terror bombings of cities, and geographically dispersed, unfocused ground occupations. They will do this assuming the war will be short and the Americans will quickly fold. I ask, when have assumptions like this *ever* proven true?

In the Crimean War the British needed the in-theater alliance with the Ottomans and the French to provide the majority of the troops in order to get Russia, a much poorer and less technologically capable country than the U.S. to give up only Southern Bessarabia. If the British could only get that done a few years before this war, how would they take any land from the U.S. a much richer and more industrially modern country, when the U.K. has only Canada as an "ally" (they're kind of the same country, and I'm not trying to quibble about definitions) and is fighting at a much larger distance?
Maine, Michigan and upstate New York is where the majority of Anglo-Canadian forces would attack the Americans. At least some would go to Vermont and New Hampshire just not as much as the other three states. They would take or siege any nearby cities such as Detroit, Rochester and Augusta in the fighting. The Anglo-Canadians would attack New York City, Boston and other cities in a hypothetical blockade assuming if it is successful.
 
Last edited:
Maine, Michigan and upstate New York is where the majority of Anglo-Canadian forces would attack the Americans. At least some would go to Vermont and New Hampshire just not as much as the other three states. They would take or siege any nearby cities such as Detroit, Rochester and Augusta in the fighting. The Anglo-Canadians would attack New York City, Boston and other cities in a hypothetical blockade assuming if it is successful.

But what strategic aim are they pursuing? None of those cities are strategically so important as to knock the U.S. out of the war. None of the states those cities are in is even sufficient, and the British forces have no where near the manpower to even try to occupy those states. How does this get the U.S. to the negotiating table as opposed to just calling up more men over the winter and waiting to launch an offensive in the spring? An offensive that will very likely be able to defeat the British forces in detail given how spread out they are.
 

Ficboy

Banned
But what strategic aim are they pursuing? None of those cities are strategically so important as to knock the U.S. out of the war. None of the states those cities are in is even sufficient, and the British forces have no where near the manpower to even try to occupy those states. How does this get the U.S. to the negotiating table as opposed to just calling up more men over the winter and waiting to launch an offensive in the spring? An offensive that will very likely be able to defeat the British forces in detail given how spread out they are.
They're near the border with Canada plus there's also the naval blockade aspect.
 
Wendell said:
Given what the U.S. was able to organize in short order in OTL, yes.



Why would that make you chuckle? In July 1861 the combined Union, and Confederate armies deployed in the Virginia/Maryland Theater numbered about 88,000 men. Add to that the 11,000 men of the Pennsylvania Reserve Division which helped cover Washington, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, and you have nearly 100,000 troops mobilized in a 3 month period. Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.

Thousands of other Union, and Confederate troops were raised in the opening months of the ACW in Missouri, and Kentucky. They maneuvered, and fought several small, but important actions in the Western Theater. That combined army would've concentrated in Michigan, and Minnesota, to defend against any moves from Western Canada. It's clear that the United States could assemble very large land forces in a short period of time.
And that's not even touching the naval production and capability.
 

Ficboy

Banned
Riht, but either could flare up again, or someone else might decide the time is right to settle a score.
India just recently had a rebellion that ended in failure and was became the crown jewel of the British Empire. Persia didn't escalate into anything but a proxy conflict.
 
Maine, Michigan and upstate New York is where the majority of Anglo-Canadian forces would attack the Americans. At least some would go to Vermont and New Hampshire just not as much as the other three states. They would take or siege any nearby cities such as Detroit, Rochester and Augusta in the fighting. The Anglo-Canadians would attack New York City, Boston and other cities in a hypothetical blockade assuming if it is successful.

At the start of a war in 1859 The British only have about 7,000 soldiers in Canada, and the Canadians only have a standing militia of 10,000 men. Their not going to be attacking any major border cities, or launching deep invasions of U.S. territory. It's going to take months to ship major reinforcements to Quebec. In 1861 the British shipped 14,000 men to reinforce Canada, that's probable what they could ship in the fall of 1859. Within weeks the Anglo/Canadians are going to be outnumbered. Massachusetts mustered 5 well trained militia regiments within days of the attack on Fort Sumpter. The New England States always had the best trained, and equipped militias in the Union. Maine mustered 5 regiments in the first 2 months of the ACW. Maine, and the other NE States wouldn't have been any kind of easy mark.

In the Trent Affair the British army in Canada were ordered in the event of war to cross the NY Border, and secure the area were Lake Champlain empties into the Richelieu River. That was a pre-emptive move to block a U.S. offensive against Montreal. The British were using a strategy of active defense, not a strategic offensive, they lacked the resources for that. NY State mustered over 20 infantry regiments in the first 2 months of the ACW. The State was hardly defenseless, and nether was the State of Michigan.

The RN wasn't going to attack NYC, or Boston. Look at a map. Those cities are enclosed ports, they'd have to fight their way passed forts, and batteries, guarding narrow, and shallow channels. If they tried they'd suffer a bloody repulse. Blockading thousands of miles of American coast line would be no easy task. The USN wouldn't stand idly by, they had plans to raid British commerce, and already had an interest, and the capability to build Ironclads. Erikson was already drawing up plans for the Monitor, and Casement Ironclad Rams were a very viable option. If the CSA could build them the United States could build better versions. U.S. Shipyards built river ironclads, such as the Eads Ironclads in 4 months. Vessels of that type could be built on the Great Lakes very quickly.

The idea that the British could mass overwhelming force against the United States in 1859 is not supported by the evidence. Yes Britain had by far the most powerful navy in the world, the greatest industrial base, highest GDP, and greatest financial resources, but those factors do not translate into superior military power in the near to mid term time frame. It's not likely the British could muster against the Americans in 1859-60 forces much larger then they did against Russia in the Crimean War. In a land war in North America the United States would have much larger ground forces, and be able to protect it's port cities, against the RN. The USN had the technological, and material means to put up a formidable resistance to the RN.
 
Wendell said:
Given what the U.S. was able to organize in short order in OTL, yes.



Why would that make you chuckle? In July 1861 the combined Union, and Confederate armies deployed in the Virginia/Maryland Theater numbered about 88,000 men. Add to that the 11,000 men of the Pennsylvania Reserve Division which helped cover Washington, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, and you have nearly 100,000 troops mobilized in a 3 month period. Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.

Thousands of other Union, and Confederate troops were raised in the opening months of the ACW in Missouri, and Kentucky. They maneuvered, and fought several small, but important actions in the Western Theater. That combined army would've concentrated in Michigan, and Minnesota, to defend against any moves from Western Canada. It's clear that the United States could assemble very large land forces in a short period of time.
I chuckled because it's typical American exceptionalism: that the US is expected to do better hypothetically than it actually did some years later.
Now granted there's additional capacity from the southern states but this doesn't provide such a huge advantage that Canada is successfully invaded by inexperienced troops and untested logistics.
It's the assumption that the U.S. will do so much better from a standing start that it wins outright that gets me. Not that the U.S. would do better, that I expect, but that it does so much better that it unambiguously wins rather than a messy status quo ante draw.
 
Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.

With what weapons would they be fighting, exactly? The Union can't import arms from abroad as it did IOTL, due to the British blockade, and it can't even buy arms from British blockade runners like the South did. Unless they're planning on doing the old "Pick up the other guy's rifle when he gets shot" trick, the number of men the US can field is going to be severely limited by the amount of equipment available.

Again, has any industrial nation ever smashed another industrial nation without a massive disparity in industry, in-theater allies, or technology? A disparity which certainly does not exist in this case.

Being industrialised isn't magic. Industrial nations have an advantage because they can afford to raise and equip large, up-to-date armies. But, if a country's doesn't use its industrial power to raise such an army -- which the US didn't -- it's going to struggle to hold its own against an army that did.

There were vast stores of heavy cannon, and powder already stored in the forts, and federal arsenals.

Yeah, "vast stores" which are going to be unavailable for any fighting on the Canadian border.
 
Also, there seems to be a weird unspoken assumption going round that Britain is just going to sit back whilst the US raises army after army to overrun Canada with sheer weight of numbers. If America can raise new troops, Britain can as well. In fact, Britain can raise better troops more easily, because it has a much larger starting army, already produces more armaments, and can more easily import extra supplies from abroad to make up for any shortfall.
 
I chuckled because it's typical American exceptionalism: that the US is expected to do better hypothetically than it actually did some years later.
Now granted there's additional capacity from the southern states but this doesn't provide such a huge advantage that Canada is successfully invaded by inexperienced troops and untested logistics.
It's the assumption that the U.S. will do so much better from a standing start that it wins outright that gets me. Not that the U.S. would do better, that I expect, but that it does so much better that it unambiguously wins rather than a messy status quo ante draw.

I never suggested the U.S. would win easily, or from a standing start. I did suggest it could protect it's ports, and that the Anglo/Canadian forces wouldn't overrun Maine, Detroit, Northern New England, Rochester NY, or Albany for that matter. It seems if you don't concede that the British can burn any American city they want to the ground then your invoking American Exceptionalism.

When you say the U.S. is expected to do better hypothetically then it actually did some years later what do you mean? The event never happened. If the United States eventually sends 300,000 troops into Canada, which is half of what the Union used to conquer the CSA do you really think The British could stop them from taking half of Canada?

Since this thread gives no war adjectives for ether side, who declared war first, or who fired the first shot, just that they started fighting after a local silly incident, so it's a war that only serves war. Given that lack of information we don't know what terms would satisfy ether side. A status quo ante might be the result, but you could get there by not starting the war to begin with.
 
I never suggested the U.S. would win easily, or from a standing start.
And I never claimed you did. You weren't who I was chuckling at were you? Or are you trying to claim I'm claiming something I'm not in order to make your personal argument seem better?
It seems if you don't concede that the British can burn any American city they want to the ground then your invoking American Exceptionalism.
And when did I say that? That's a strawman argument you're making.
When you say the U.S. is expected to do better hypothetically then it actually did some years later what do you mean? The event never happened.
You sound like you've never come across AH before. It's all hypothetical, yes.
My point is that one can use actual events to help clarify hypothetical ones. If performance in those events doesn't realistically compare to a claimed performance in hypothetical ones then surely the claimed performance can be said not to be accurate?
If the United States eventually sends 300,000 troops into Canada, which is half of what the Union used to conquer the CSA do you really think The British could stop them from taking half of Canada?
Do you really think that defences would be left idle while these troops are raised?
Do you really think the British Army and Navy are sitting around while this happens?
Or that political figures don't change objectives in response to other events?
Since this thread gives no war adjectives for ether side, who declared war first, or who fired the first shot, just that they started fighting after a local silly incident, so it's a war that only serves war. Given that lack of information we don't know what terms would satisfy ether side. A status quo ante might be the result, but you could get there by not starting the war to begin with.
I'm unclear what your point is then.
 
Last edited:
With what weapons would they be fighting, exactly? The Union can't import arms from abroad as it did IOTL, due to the British blockade, and it can't even buy arms from British blockade runners like the South did. Unless they're planning on doing the old "Pick up the other guy's rifle when he gets shot" trick, the number of men the US can field is going to be severely limited by the amount of equipment available.



Being industrialised isn't magic. Industrial nations have an advantage because they can afford to raise and equip large, up-to-date armies. But, if a country's doesn't use its industrial power to raise such an army -- which the US didn't -- it's going to struggle to hold its own against an army that did.



Yeah, "vast stores" which are going to be unavailable for any fighting on the Canadian border.

In the first 6 months of the ACW both sides raised, and armed about 500,000 men. The vast majority of them were armed with American weapons. Going to war with Britain doesn't cause the whole American Warmachine to brake down, and go into reverse. The British lacked the ability in the mid Victorian Age to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops on any single front. That didn't happen till the 2nd Boer War 40 years later, and that was with the whole Empire behind them. The British effort would be much closer to the scale of what they mobilized for the Crimean War.
 
I chuckled because it's typical American exceptionalism: that the US is expected to do better hypothetically than it actually did some years later.
Now granted there's additional capacity from the southern states but this doesn't provide such a huge advantage that Canada is successfully invaded by inexperienced troops and untested logistics.
It's the assumption that the U.S. will do so much better from a standing start that it wins outright that gets me. Not that the U.S. would do better, that I expect, but that it does so much better that it unambiguously wins rather than a messy status quo ante draw.
It's no less laughable to pretend that the British Empire was invincible in this era, that it had the desire or even the ability to commit to a serious conflict in North America given everything else on London's plate in that era.
 
Add to that the 11,000 men of the Pennsylvania Reserve Division which helped cover Washington, after the Union defeat at Bull Run, and you have nearly 100,000 troops mobilized in a 3 month period.
Of such quality that "The first day’s march covered only five miles, as many straggled to pick blackberries or fill canteens."

Granted these were green troops, but with a war starting in say September of 1859 these troops could be trained during the winter, and be ready for offensive operations in Canada by the Spring of 1860.
The Union trained its troops over the winter of 1861-2, and when they attempted offensive operations in the spring of 1862, against an opponent that was by far its industrial and inferior even without any blockade, it led to the Valley Campaign, the Seven Days Battles, and Second Bull Run. However, as there's a 90 day limit on state militia serving under Federal orders, and as the Union historically tried to subdue the South within that time, talking about troops serving for six months or more to give them the benefit of training is either historical illiteracy or driven purely by hindsight.

The major port cities had large masonry, brick forts protecting them.
Did they have any guns in them?

There were vast stores of heavy cannon, and powder already stored in the forts, and federal arsenals.
Are you sure about that?

In the first 6 months of the ACW both sides raised, and armed about 500,000 men. The vast majority of them were armed with American weapons.
Yes, smoothbore American weapons, some of which were flintlocks dating from the 1820s. As of 10 February 1859, even the Regular army only has 100 M1855 Springfields. Raw Union volunteers broke quickly at Bull Run: how is their morale going to fare when they're being gunned down at ranges against which they can't even hope to return fire?

In 1861 the British shipped 14,000 men to reinforce Canada, that's probable what they could ship in the fall of 1859.
The British only shipped 14,000 men in 1861 because they stopped sending them when it became clear the US was going to back down. Why would they do the same here?

The British lacked the ability in the mid Victorian Age to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops on any single front. That didn't happen till the 2nd Boer War 40 years later, and that was with the whole Empire behind them. The British effort would be much closer to the scale of what they mobilized for the Crimean War.
Except the British went into the Crimean War without the British militia to relieve regular regiments in garrison overseas, the Rifle Volunteers to relieve regular regiments in garrisons in the UK, and couldn't call out the Canadian militia to bulk out its field force. As such, the British effort will be at least close to what they mobilised for the Crimean in regular regiments alone, plus c.100,000 Canadian militia.

The USN wouldn't stand idly by, they had plans to raid British commerce, and already had an interest, and the capability to build Ironclads.
The British actually have ironclads, though. Are you saying the United States could build new ironclads in the time it takes the British to sail theirs across the Atlantic?

It's no less laughable to pretend that the British Empire was invincible in this era, that it had the desire or even the ability to commit to a serious conflict in North America given everything else on London's plate in that era.
It seems that Washington has a lot more on its plate than London.
 
Last edited:
It's no less laughable to pretend that the British Empire was invincible in this era, that it had the desire or even the ability to commit to a serious conflict in North America given everything else on London's plate in that era.
And yet I haven't claimed the Empire was invincible so why pretend I have?
 
Top