'1859 Pig War' leads to an Actual War Between the British Empire and United States?
- Thread starter Iron_Lord
- Start date
I mean, most people might think that the smouldering guerrilla warfare between pro- and anti-slavery forces would call into question "the [US] desire or even the ability to commit to a serious conflict in North America given everything else on [their] plate" somewhat more than, say, a war with Persia where the peace treaty had been signed in 1857 or a rebellion in India where the last fighting had concluded six months ago and the British have already started disbanding regiments. They might even suspect that the Southern States would be somewhat unhappy about sending tens of thousands of their military-aged men north, along with the vast majority of their weapons, right after a northern-backed attempt to launch a slave rebellion in the South, in order to conquer territory in Canada and turn it into more free states. Given that it is probable that pro-and anti-slavery activists shooting one another in Kent rather than Kansas would be highlighted as a issue for London, it seems quite reasonable to flag this whole discrepancy up as American exceptionalism.
Last edited:
Why pretend I contended that U.S. victory would be certain and overwhelming?
You did claim it was certain in response to it being pointed out the US was less military prepared before the ACW than during it:
Edit: and before the inevitable "but I didn't say overwhelming". If someone else implies it is and you "attack" the poster criticising that, it's pretty clear you agree with that assessment. Especially if you've already claimed that large numbers of troops can be raised quickly for an invasion.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone has claimed that Britain "is just going to sit back," what I have implied is that I don't think the British have a way to seriously disrupt an American mobilization and once both sides mobilize you have a total-war between the two largest economies in the world. My refrain is that this war would be an endless quagmire to seemingly no useful end. Nothing posted has dissuaded me of this opinion.
No, it's not a magic wand, I'm not saying it is, but it is important. Historically, even in the Crimean War, the British had "interior lines" by virtue of naval superiority and the ease and speed of transport over water as opposed to land. In this case, the U.S. has the interior lines thanks to its robust system of railways and canals. Also, as shown in the Civil War, the U.S. can certainly leverage its industrial capacity over time. It's weird to me that argument comes down to a country with a small standing army (U.K.) absolutely trouncing a country with a miniscule standing army (U.S.A.) before either side has a chance to mobilize. No one has the forces to do much of anything before the first winter, and then we get into the both sides calling up militia and off to total war we go, a total war that becomes this huge pointless quagmire I keep bringing up.
Once again, the plan laid out by the pro-British posters in this thread is that British forces will launch a series of widely dispersed offensives across multiple states with minimal forces and mount naval raids against major coastal cities - raids that seem in all regards the 19th century equivalent of terror bombing. We know historically that terror bombing a peer industrial power serves only to piss off that power and harden their resolves (the Blitz is a good example of this). So that's likely going to make the war longer rather than shorter. Likewise the sort of rapid "shock-and-awe" style offensive against an opponent- an opponent with superior interior lines and ease of transport - is just asking for disaster, considering the distances required and massive logistical constraints.
The blockade will certainly be effective to an extent, but unless the entirety of the Royal Navy is committed, there's no way to lock down the whole of the U.S. east coast from Texas to Maine. That's roughly equivalent to the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts of Europe, from Copenhagen to Athens.
So, in summary, I don't think the British have the standing forces to win a continent sized war in less than 6 months. After that it's a total war between two massive economies, with guns, people, and natural resources to spare. I do not see a good argument to the contrary besides the sort of jingoistic attitude that "my country has the strongest, tallest most determined people and all other countries are run by spineless puddles of men."
An argument that applies equally well to the U.S.
So posters (not necessarily you btw) at the very least making out the U.S. wins quickly or easily are guilty of that jingoistic attitude.
My argument is based on umpteen previous threads outlining that the U.S. can't decisively beat the U.K. in a total war before 1890s at the earliest so the odds go to either the U.K. (maybe even pyrrhically) or to status quo ante bellum.
Bearing in mind that the 'small standing army' is approximately ten times the size of the US standing army in 1859: i.e., the reverse difference between the current US and the current UK, where I doubt anybody would argue that the US would struggle to demolish its opponent before it had time to mobilise. And that's before we take into account that the British have a substantial advantage in the training of both their regular forces and their reserve forces (i.e., the British reserve forces have had some).
There's no need to lock it down. For a start, as we all know from Civil War discussions, infrastructure in the South is terrible; the British will be more than happy to force traffic to sail all the way into the Gulf before being transported on overloaded and slow railways to get to its destination. This is all the more true because even an ineffective blockade will cause considerable problems for the US coasting trade - 2,600,000 tons of shipping, moving goods by sea from US city to US city - and will therefore force even more traffic onto the railways. And this is before we consider that in the year to 30 June 1860, 54% of US exports went to Britain and 38% of US imports came from Britain - none of which will be moving in the event of war between the two powers regardless of how effective the blockade is. Because Britain is so much less reliant on US trade (sending 26% of her exports to the US and taking 14% of her imports from there in the year to 31 December 1859, both less than half the US proportion), the effect of the cessation of trade on Britain will be far lower. Add on the fact that the US is also dependent on Britain for strategic supplies of commodities such as iron for forging gun barrels, files for finishing machined products, and saltpetre for producing gunpowder, and you start to appreciate that a total war will buckle the supposedly autarkical America far quicker than Britain.
There must not be a PIG GAP!!!
Slightly more seriously - going to war over a pig (not some sort of kerfuffle between forward deployed personnel at the ass end of nowhere, but an actual war) would be exceptionally unlikely. All it would take is one person, either in DC or London to say "Really?" and its over and done with.
Ficboy
Banned
There was the War of Jenkins Ear which started over a British sailor losing his ear and it lasted for four years from 1739 to 1742.
Which, even better, didn't start until eight years after the incident.
Of course it was actually about trade, especially about the slave trade and possible acquisition of Spanish colonial possessions and/or trade concessions in New Spain.
Still, the 300,000 pound of powder and 30,000 muskets that the Spanish provided during the ARW, in part due to the continued ill feelings between the two countries came in very handy.
So it had that going for it, which is nice.
In fairness, we have yet to discuss the strategic reserves of hogs hide available in this period so we may be unaware of the pig gap!
Ficboy
Banned
Any escalated Pig War would be very different if someone hotheaded enough either on the American or British side would move forward with firing the first shots and causing the conflict to evolve into a full-blown total war.
In the last year of his life, Isambard Brunel unveils H.M.S. Peppa, giving British newfound aerial supremacy.
As I mentioned, forward deployed forces a week's march past the end of "civilization" getting into a tiff is, by the mid 19th century, far less likely to cause an outright war, assuming that one or both sides at the most senior levels aren't already itching to have a go.
Your right, which is why I keep saying we need more information for this discussion. Who fired the first shots? Who declared war? What are each sides objectives? We keep debating who would win, but what would constitute victory? People are saying if one side does this, it would force the other to the negotiating table. Just what points of contention would be the subjects of negotiation? Some are saying the Status Quo would be the final terms, so why is ether side fighting? In 1812 the Americans declared war because they had grievances to resolve, what are their grievances in 1859? Apparently none. What grievances do the British have to settle with the Americans? Apparently none. They can't just be fighting for the sake of fighting.
Ficboy
Banned
Perhaps you can do the research and fill out the details of what the Pig War or the Anglo-American War in 1859-1861 would look like.
In the last year of his life, Isambard Brunel unveils H.M.S. Peppa, giving British newfound aerial supremacy.
If the British win do the Americans have to eat Canadian Bacon, and only put Maple Syrup on their pancakes?
You're right in that I think the U.S., right this minute, could conceivably defeat an army 1/10 it's size and occupy an area the size of Michigan in give or take 6 months (Side bar: I think it's clear from modern campaigns of occupation (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) that the U.S. logistically could only keep about 100,000-200,000 as an occupation force, and that this occupation force would in the long run be forced to withdraw short of "victory," again no idea what victory is in such a scenario). I don't think an army a third that size can occupy an area the size of about 30 Michigans in 6 months. There simply aren't enough people.
These economic arguments always devolve into fun ways to make your side seem cool with big numbers. No country has ever lost a war solely due to blockade. The U.S. is self-sufficient in food, so no one is starving to death. The U.S. is also self-sufficient in war-fighting natural resources. Yes, it was more economical for the U.S. to import some saltpeter and some iron than to mine it indigenously at the time. That does not suggest dependence, only convenience. If you so desire, I'm sure I can drag up some specific geological records that show the U.S. is more than well supplied in both iron and saltpeter. Bottom line: if the U.S. desires to fight this war, it can fight this war. There's no easy victory here.
I do not mean to come off as condescending, but I feel as though my point is not coming across. The United States is not equivalent to a European country geographically. It is equivalent to *the whole of Europe*. Just as it's borderline absurd to argue that *Europe* lacks in common minerals like iron or saltpeter, so to is it silly to argue the U.S. lacks them. Just as it is absurd that 150,000 men can occupy the whole of Europe, so to is it silly to argue they can occupy the whole of the U.S.
Will this war disrupt the United States and its economy? Certainly. Does that damage guarantee a British victory in the long run? Maybe. Will that victory take the complete commitment of the U.K. and do irreparable damage to the U.K.'s financial and imperial position? Almost certainly. As Calbear said, it's a stupid reason for a total war, and this argument seems more and more like an excuse for jingoistic posters to just argue how super cool their country is, rather than a sober look at how absolutely asinine and damaging a conflict like this would be for both sides.