A British California after Trent

[Indefatigable]

It would be positive change. Britain would commit further resources to the Pacific, likely more line of battle ships. Remember this squadron was in charge of the ENTIRE Pacific. Further vessels would be needed for an engagement in order to provide proper support and distribution of force.

Don't take me wrong though, I'm in support of your view. A 51 gun screw frigate would most defiantly have the upper hand.

And where are you getting these stats on the Royal Navy? I couldn't find such detailed info, and I would love to have a better understanding of the navy in this era. My primary focus is British Naval history between 1715 and 1815 so I don't have a very good understanding of the "modern" 19th century navy and its capabilities.

 

[theman from the ministery]

And what pray tell will happen to the poor English troops as they are shot from hiding by miners and others. Plus it was troops from Colorado not California that kicked Sibley's butt. You seem to have this blind spot that thinks everything would go 100 percent for England all the time. Maybe you should review just how poorly led the English army was. If as you always imply that England rules all then just why did they loose the Revolution?

thats why we let those tough Wleshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen in on the act.

also gents a lot of you are forgetting that a lot of British settlers (around half of the Brits in the USA were Irish at the start of the ACW) were just as anti the UK as most white Amercians

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

And what pray tell will happen to the poor English troops as they are shot from hiding by miners and others. Plus it was troops from Colorado not California that kicked Sibley's butt. You seem to have this blind spot that thinks everything would go 100 percent for England all the time. Maybe you should review just how poorly led the English army was. If as you always imply that England rules all then just why did they loose the Revolution?

First things first, the revolution was before England gave the french their final beat down imposing a Pax Brittania on the world. (without the french we would have never "won" the revolution.

Second, why did the US lose in Vietnam?
Because when your fighting guerrillas its nearly impossible to win.

Thirdly, look at the war of 1812; the British destroyed our infrastructure and even burned the white house to the ground.
We didn't win either, we just didn't lose.

In all honesty had we been fighting the British anywhere but our own land we would have got our asses handed to us.
Like we did by the sparsely populated Canada (which had little to no British support) during the war of 1812.

 

[67th Tigers]

It would be positive change. Britain would commit further resources to the Pacific, likely more line of battle ships. Remember this squadron was in charge of the ENTIRE Pacific. Further vessels would be needed for an engagement in order to provide proper support and distribution of force.

Don't take me wrong though, I'm in support of your view. A 51 gun screw frigate would most defiantly have the upper hand.

And where are you getting these stats on the Royal Navy? I couldn't find such detailed info, and I would love to have a better understanding of the navy in this era. My primary focus is British Naval history between 1715 and 1815 so I don't have a very good understanding of the "modern" 19th century navy and its capabilities.

Mike Walsh (username Tielhard, now banned) and I did a lot of research on the subject over the years.

The RN Pacific squadron had an area of the western coast of the Americas. The China Division of the East Indies and China Squadron had the western Pacific and the Australia squadron had the south.

Read this thread: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/wha...ir-the-british-empire-had-fought.17137/page-3 . Mike has advanced his research since then.

 

[MAlexMatt]

The British don't have to have men on every corner to effectively occupy California, They just had to control a few strategic towns.

They thought that in the 1770's, too.

 

[67th Tigers]

They thought that in the 1770's, too.

1770's: 3 million Americans with 50,000 government troops vs 35,000 Whig troops and 45,000 Whig militia with ~30,000 French troops and sailors

1860's California: 350,000, of whom the majority have no loyalty to the US with ~25,000 British troops vs 1,200 US troops and militiamen.

Comparison?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Other than the claim of most Californians having no loyalty to the United States in the 1860s?

 

[MAlexMatt]

1770's: 3 million Americans with 50,000 government troops vs 35,000 Whig troops and 45,000 Whig militia with ~30,000 French troops and sailors

1860's California: 350,000, of whom the majority have no loyalty to the US with ~25,000 British troops vs 1,200 US troops and militiamen.

Comparison?

California in this period was a very agricultural state with a vast interior that would be all but impossible to control from the coastal cities, just like the US in the 1770's.

The British could capture the coastal cities, without a doubt, but holding onto the state and annexing it are hilariously ASB propositions. Remember, California in the 1860's is a member state of the Union. The Federal government literally CANNOT politically abide letting a foreign nation annex a member state: That signals to all the other states that the Union is not a safe harbor so they better start looking for better patrons. The Fed is going to be doing every single thing within its powers and several things not to get California back.

A British/French intervention in the Civil War that secures Southern independence is going to leave the US wounded, emotionally and physically, and a little irritated, but relations will repair over the generations. A British/French intervention that leads to Britain annexing California (and fighting a nasty guerrilla war there over the next several years, at least) is going to lead to a US with a revanchist bone to pick against the UK that will look a little bit much like Alsace-Lorraine for Britain's comfort.

EDIT: I mean, does it occur to anyone concluding that a British annexation of California is anything but totally insane even realize that California is something like twice the land area of the modern UK? This is going to be the Boer Wars decades earlier, further away, and with a ready source of new recruits streaming over the Rockies.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

California in this period was a very agricultural state with a vast interior that would be all but impossible to control from the coastal cities, just like the US in the 1770's.

The British could capture the coastal cities, without a doubt, but holding onto the state and annexing it are hilariously ASB propositions. Remember, California in the 1860's is a member state of the Union. The Federal government literally CANNOT politically abide letting a foreign nation annex a member state: That signals to all the other states that the Union is not a safe harbor so they better start looking for better patrons. The Fed is going to be doing every single thing within its powers and several things not to get California back.

A British/French intervention in the Civil War that secures Southern independence is going to leave the US wounded, emotionally and physically, and a little irritated, but relations will repair over the generations. A British/French intervention that leads to Britain annexing California (and fighting a nasty guerrilla war there over the next several years, at least) is going to lead to a US with a revanchist bone to pick against the UK that will look a little bit much like Alsace-Lorraine for Britain's comfort.

EDIT: I mean, does it occur to anyone concluding that a British annexation of California is anything but totally insane even realize that California is something like twice the land area of the modern UK? This is going to be the Boer Wars decades earlier, further away, and with a ready source of new recruits streaming over the Rockies.

Define "steady stream" of recruits. I understand your notion of California being in the Union for ten years but the British would have a big advantage, the racial elements would play against the Americans, It is close enough to a Crown Colony that it could be reinforced and its as far away for the Americans as the British. No rail line (and likely there won't be one now) and miles of poor and in some cases hostile territory thinly populated by settlers. The British control the coast and many segments of the population would bear the British no ill will and in all likelihood they have just seen a US literally ripped in half, the opinion of the Federal Government will be none to high especially after they don't send help (which they won't. It wouldn't be practical).

In all honesty I have to agree that most people would rather switch the flag and just get on with their lives.

 

[Free Lancer]

The British annexing California is about as real as them taking the entire American West cost it will not happen.

The topic with the Federal government not letting it happen aside, California can and will become a endless abyss in record time with it swallowing thousands of the British military, supplies and money, and with its borders to the US that will result in a unrelenting supply of Volunteers and supplies.

And that will all but insure that little to no immigrate will be coming to a state that is locked in a series of constant guerilla warfare and not to mention in enraged US with a much bigger army and navy just sitting next door will not entice anybody to make a home there.

I say no, in the event of a successful British Trent war they will only focus on the silver and gold mines in California and Nevada.

 

[Free Lancer]

In all honesty I have to agree that most people would rather switch the flag and just get on with their lives.

A lot of history proves that sentence wrong.

 

[MAlexMatt]

A lot of history proves that sentence wrong.

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'.

 

[Fiver]

Invasion and occupation isn't a really issue. The British have two fully worked up 51's off the western coast of north america - either of which outguns the entire active US Pacific squadron twice. SF will fall as soon as the RN can gather itself together to strike it.

Do you have any examples of the Royal Navy seizing and holding a port without the support of the British Army?

"In the present state of the defences of this harbour [San Francisco] one-half of this force [The British Squadron at Esquimault] could command the city of San Francisco and take possession of this yard [Mare Island]." – Flag Officer Charles Bell

Actually, Bell probably meant the Pacific Station in Valaparaiso. Esquimalt only became an alternate station in 1865. Until 1887, the Esquimault Royal Naval Dockyard lacked the facilities to repair damaged hulls and had to be sent to American dockyards in Seattle for repair.

I'd be interested if Rear Admiral Thomas Maitland also thought capturing the yard in San Francisco would be easy.

With SF gone California is effectively severed from the Union, and the Union will suffer a massive economic depression

You are aware that San Francisco was not the only port in California? And that it was contiguous with the rest of the Union?

(the loss of one California Treasureship in, ISTR, 1860 caused half the businesses in NYC to go under).

I’d be interested in seeing your source.

The state of California is almost defenceless once SF is gone and has absolutely no possibility of arming itself. No help is going to be forthcoming from the "mainland" as there is no capability of it reaching California.

So California is an island in your time line? In ours, it’s contiguous with the rest of the Union. It also had troops, arms, and a population of nearly 400,000.

The loss of SF also undermines the US position in NM etc. - Sibley will likely be successful and "liberate" New Mexico territory.

Even with your rather optimistic timeline, Sibley will have lost the New Mexico Campaign before the Royal Navy appears off the coast of California.

Getting a Corps of British troops to SF for further operations takes considerable time. Orders to sail can be actioned rapidly out of London (who have a cable connection with India), but it's a good 6 weeks sailing with layover

Orders can be actioned rapidly out of London, but they won’t. Multiple elements of the British government are going to have to decide if they send an expeditionary force from India, what size it will be, and whether it will reinforce western Canada, invade California, or attempt both, and who will command. Once that is decided, which could easily take weeks, orders can be sent.

Transport will be needed for the expeditionary force, which will take time to assemble. Stores and munitions will need to be assembled, stored, and then loaded. That adds more weeks and even a rumor of the Indians getting restless will probably abort the expedition. Travel will be at the rate of the slowest transport or supply ship and both they and the gunboats will be in significant danger in a storm.

That gets them to Valaparaiso, where the needed naval elements may or may not be in port. If any cavalry was sent, they’re going to need time to recouperate from the sea voyage as well. Then, once the naval element is brought up to speed, they can begin the joint operation, with all the chances for friction that entails.

Meanwhile California, which is in telegraph communication with Washington DC, will have had several months to raise and train troops, as well as improve and expand fortifications. They may waste that time under the not unreasonable assumption that Britain wouldn't try to conquer California with 20,000 men.

 

[Elfwine]

Why would the people whose country has been invaded not bear the invading army a certain amount of ill will?

I wouldn't say California was DIEHARD FOR THE UNION, but it was certainly pro-Union (to the point of Californians going back east to fight - see the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry, mostly made up of men who had settled in California).

Britain might not have too hard a time occupying the place on its own (with a suitably large scale campaign - California is a big state, and if all Britain occupies is the coastal ports, it isn't making a dent on very much), but going from there to being able to demand it at the peace table - that's going to take some doing, which is a lot harder than overwhelming the drawn-down-because-there-isn't-a-British-threat garrison.

 

[MAlexMatt]

I’d be interested in seeing your source.

He's probably refering to Central America incident. Of course, interpreting the loss of the ship as the cause of the Panic of 1857 is hilarious from a multitude of perspectives. Besides the fact that the Panic was well under-way by the time the ship sank (the business slow-down probably tracks to late 1856), the 30,000 pounds on board represented a tiny little portion of US gold stocks at the time, and an even smaller portion of the over all money supply.

Pay no attention to this part of his argument. It's incredibly false.

 

[Rush Tarquin]

This may have been covered elsewhere, but what happens to the Mexican intervention in a Trent War? Do Britain and France cancel because they've got bigger fish to fry, are they even more committed because they see their aims in North America as a single theatre, does Britain divert its contribution to the US, or are British troops sent to the American theatre once Britain's had enough with the Mexican adventure?

 

[67th Tigers]

Actually, Bell probably meant the Pacific Station in Valaparaiso. Esquimalt only became an alternate station in 1865. Until 1887, the Esquimault Royal Naval Dockyard lacked the facilities to repair damaged hulls and had to be sent to American dockyards in Seattle for repair.

Balls. He means SF. You just don't like it.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...84&uid=26085&uid=67&uid=62&sid=47698797791927


[quote ]
You are aware that San Francisco was not the only port in California? And that it was contiguous with the rest of the Union?
[/quote]

I'm aware that in no practical sense was in joined to the eastern states except by ship.

Transport will be needed for the expeditionary force, which will take time to assemble. Stores and munitions will need to be assembled, stored, and then loaded. That adds more weeks and even a rumor of the Indians getting restless will probably abort the expedition. Travel will be at the rate of the slowest transport or supply ship and both they and the gunboats will be in significant danger in a storm.

No it won't. It's already there, leftover from the Arrow War.

Meanwhile California, which is in telegraph communication with Washington DC, will have had several months to raise and train troops, as well as improve and expand fortifications. They may waste that time under the not unreasonable assumption that Britain wouldn't try to conquer California with 20,000 men.

With what? There are no weapons in California, and muskets don't go down the (at this point inoperative) telegraph. Yes, when the floodwaters were higher than the telegraph poles the telegraph gets destroyed. At the time of the Trent there is no telegraphic link. News that the US is at war with the UK either comes from a steamer out of India, or one out of NY via Panama.

The Telegraph stopped working 9th December 1861, and service was restored 9th February for 3 weeks, it went down for another two etc.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

As much as I hate to support 67th Tigers)), trying to project any kind of serious military power across the width of the continent into California would be incredibly costly and difficult.

Seriously, in many ways California WAS an island - in terms of getting stuff there.

Now, there are a LOT of locals by now, and they are NOT going to be happy with British occupation, and I don't think the Brits would be stupid enough to try.

But militarily, if the Brits really wanted to take it, they could. They could probably hold it until Parliament got fed up with the bleeding sore of money and men.

 

[Fiver]

Balls. He means SF. You just don't like it.

So you're now claiming the British Pacific Station was based out of San Francisco? If you actually read my post, you'd see I was pointing out the British Pacific Station wasn't moved to Esquimalt until 1865.

No it won't. It's already there, leftover from the Arrow War.

It existing in the region doesn't change the fact that transport will be needed for the expeditionary force, which will take time to assemble. Stores and munitions will need to be assembled, stored, and then loaded. That adds more weeks and even a rumor of the Indians getting restless will probably abort the expedition. Travel will be at the rate of the slowest transport or supply ship and both they and the gunboats will be in significant danger in a storm.

With what? There are no weapons in California, and muskets don't go down the (at this point inoperative) telegraph.

It take it you're unfamiliar with the Benicia Arsenal? And even when the telegraph was cut off, the overland mail still made it through.

 

[67th Tigers]

It take it you're unfamiliar with the Benicia Arsenal? And even when the telegraph was cut off, the overland mail still made it through.

I take it your unfamiliar with the fact that due to the extreme pro-Confederate sympathies of the population all the weapons (not that many of them, most were shipped eastwards in 1861) were placed on Alcatraz Island to prevent their seizure by pro-Confederate militias?