US-Britain War, 1859

67th Tigers

Banned
c) Not sure if the northern MS losses were as heavy as you suggest or whether its simply a lot of ships were re-flagged. Especially considering the very small number of raiders the Confederates actually used. However in a war with Britain, provided it lasts any length of time, things will be a lot worse and such bolt-holes won't be available. Given that the north will be the main pro-war area and that the chief British bases are in the north I would expect that, as in 1812 Britain will start the blockage in the NE and expand it as ships become available.

US merchant losses were around 40 ships to privateers and 200 to CS warships. Most US ships reflagged (80% of tonnage). Tellingly, after the war ended they didn't switch back and the US merchant marine didn't recover it's position until 1942-3.
 

Eurofed

Banned
a) The blockage of the south was initially quite leaky, even with the early loss of New Orleans.

New Orleans was lost in early 1862, the CSA struggled up to 1862. The point is in favor of the USa struggling on vs. UK.

b) More importantly the the Confederates were fighting for their independence so they didn't have much choice but to struggle on. The northern blockage, especially as it tightened did a huge amount of damage, both in denying coastal trade and in preventing imports, especially of the military and industrial products the south couldn't produce itself. The north does have a lot more industrial capacity but it also has a number og shortcomings.

Notice that in this war, the South shall have an intact railway system (and some more can be crash-built if necessary) to move supplies around, so the effects of the blockade on Dixie shall be rather less severe. Also I have strong expectations that the RN shall be much less effective than the USN as it concerns coastal blockade, since their bases are much few and farther between than for the Union. As another poster said, three coaling stations (Halifax, Jamaica, and Bermuda, of which at least one is rather vulnerable to US raiding). Without an strong coastal blockade, the effects on US economy of a UK blockade is much less significant. The US CAN grit its teeth in patriotic committment and carry along a war for a few years without foreign trade, they did twice already when America was much weaker.

d) As Robert said the US is highly dependant on gold/silver from the west, which will definitely be targeted by the RN. I think, as a source of revenue, they depend even more on high tariffs on imports. When trade gets cut off that will go. As such, when the US is facing a huge increase in the demand for funds as it must massive expand its military its going to suffer a major cut in revenue. Also, going to war with Britain that will seriously cut the US's ability to raise money from foreign loans.

RN power projection on the West Coast is not actually that quick or reliable, and if need be, the USA can certainly try and crash-build an intercontinental railway, which would, by the way, make the West Coast unassailable forevermore.

As I say Britain doesn't need to break the US totally. It just needs to break the willingness of those in the US who want to wage war against Canada. That is a totally different matter.

Regardless of how it starts, this would be the third time that USA and UK go at war in a century. A patriotic mindset can easily soldify in the US public that this is proof it is imperative for the national security to expel the British from Canada. If this happens, I can easily see America remaining in the struggle for years at end, especially because, differently from 1812-14, as soon as the USA can get its army into shape, the British shall surely lose Canada. And I remain utterly convinced that the Americans would keep occupied Canada as easily as the did with the South in the Reconstruction. And they can counter British high-sea blockade with their own raiding of UK merchant shipping, as the CSA did, only much more effective. In the test of will between US and UK, once they have the prize (Canada), I don't see things going so bad for America. Remember, ITTL they have not yet spent a huge amount of energy in the ACW. If keeping Canada becomes a Monroe Doctrine issue in the American public, they can stay in the fight at least most of what they did in the ARW. Has Britain, just out of the Sepoy Rebellion, that kind of will for Canada ? I doubt it. If things go bad, London can just come to think "Heck, keeping a colony in North America is really too much trouble".
 
New Orleans was lost in early 1862, the CSA struggled up to 1862. The point is in favor of the USa struggling on vs. UK.

You think it is because you want it to be you mean.

Notice that in this war, the South shall have an intact railway system (and some more can be crash-built if necessary) to move supplies around, so the effects of the blockade on Dixie shall be rather less severe. Also I have strong expectations that the RN shall be much less effective than the USN as it concerns coastal blockade, since their bases are much few and farther between than for the Union. As another poster said, three coaling stations (Halifax, Jamaica, and Bermuda, of which at least one is rather vulnerable to US raiding). Without an strong coastal blockade, the effects on US economy of a UK blockade is much less significant. The US CAN grit its teeth in patriotic committment and carry along a war for a few years without foreign trade, they did twice already when America was much weaker.

They can endure but why would they. Just because you want the US to go on a conquest rampage is no reason they actually will. Its going to be very, very costly for them, in terms of blood, treasury and resources. Why should they begger themselves for a generation or more, seriously piss off their major trading partner and commitment themselves to a long and costly occupation - even presuming they could win Canada, just because some idiots in Washington want to.

Especially since if they get bloody-minded, Britain can always respond by changing the policy Robert mentioned and start burning coastal targets down.


RN power projection on the West Coast is not actually that quick or reliable, and if need be, the USA can certainly try and crash-build an intercontinental railway, which would, by the way, make the West Coast unassailable forevermore.

That is laughable. It took the US years, when at peace and with huge government support, to complete the railway. Your now suggesting they can do it quicker while engaged in a murderous war that is crippling their economy.

Regardless of how it starts, this would be the third time that USA and UK go at war in a century. A patriotic mindset can easily soldify in the US public that this is proof it is imperative for the national security to expel the British from Canada. If this happens, I can easily see America remaining in the struggle for years at end, especially because, differently from 1812-14, as soon as the USA can get its army into shape, the British shall surely lose Canada. And I remain utterly convinced that the Americans would keep occupied Canada as easily as the did with the South in the Reconstruction. And they can counter British high-sea blockade with their own raiding of UK merchant shipping, as the CSA did, only much more effective. In the test of will between US and UK, once they have the prize (Canada), I don't see things going so bad for America. Remember, ITTL they have not yet spent a huge amount of energy in the ACW. If keeping Canada becomes a Monroe Doctrine issue in the American public, they can stay in the fight at least most of what they did in the ARW. Has Britain, just out of the Sepoy Rebellion, that kind of will for Canada ? I doubt it. If things go bad, London can just come to think "Heck, keeping a colony in North America is really too much trouble".

Does Britain have the will-power to protect its most important settler colony from aggression and in the process secure its prestige world-wide? I would say the evidence from history is definitely.

Does the US have the will-power to moblise possibly a couple of million men and fight for up to a decade say to conquer a neighbour? Highly doubtful. Despite all the advantages they had OTL they nearly gave up on the south, which they had an historical claim on. Their facing a much more difficult war here, against a far more powerful opponent, while their homeland is possibly being destroyed around their ears.

Not to mention how likely is it that various areas with disputes with Washington will continue paying in blood and treasure for the ambitions of people in distant Washington? If the central government continues with an unpopular war of aggression then it will cause resentment amongst the many who suffer for no visible reason or gain. Your finding a good way of preventing a massive monolith dominating N America.;)

Again your putting your desires ahead of the facts.

Steve
 
What if this little escalation instead of actually evolving into a war instead just initiates a war scare before cooler heads in DC and London bring people to their senses?

I'm not sure there would be much difference in GB's side other than updating some war plans, sending over some additional supplies and troops temporarily to Canada/Caribbean, and maybe reviewing if their is enough funding lying around to improve the defenses of the coaling stations.

But a general war scare in the US would I think be far reaching, no?

A panic along the coast such as what happened during the Spanish-American War might see the populace demand increase spending on coastal defenses, etc. Maybe a congressional review of the state of the armories, and other war necessities. How woukd this affect the Civil War with say one to two years of increased coastal fortification and maybe some newer weapons on hand, assuming of course the war still occurs?
 
What if this little escalation instead of actually evolving into a war instead just initiates a war scare before cooler heads in DC and London bring people to their senses?

I'm not sure there would be much difference in GB's side other than updating some war plans, sending over some additional supplies and troops temporarily to Canada/Caribbean, and maybe reviewing if their is enough funding lying around to improve the defenses of the coaling stations.

But a general war scare in the US would I think be far reaching, no?

A panic along the coast such as what happened during the Spanish-American War might see the populace demand increase spending on coastal defenses, etc. Maybe a congressional review of the state of the armories, and other war necessities. How woukd this affect the Civil War with say one to two years of increased coastal fortification and maybe some newer weapons on hand, assuming of course the war still occurs?

That's an interesting idea. If the scare lasts just a year and a half (lots of talking, border skirmishes, nothing really happening), you could have those effects, and perhaps the Democrats would win in 1860, postponing the American Civil War by a few years.
 
The US is really quite screwed in this situation, the only factor is how much Britain wants to hurt them.
IOTL the Trent Affair a few years later sent the US stock market into quite a dive and that was just the threat of war. At this point intime the US was really quite part of the informal British empire, for it to be cut off from the UK...The US is at risk of losing the war before a shot is even fired.
And thats before we even consider factors like the US needing trade with India to make munitions, the UK blockade damaging US trade massively, etc...
And then we can finally get to fighting...In which case....well. Its not quite modern US vs modern UK by 1859 but the balance of power is still very very skewed.
 
That's an interesting idea. If the scare lasts just a year and a half (lots of talking, border skirmishes, nothing really happening), you could have those effects, and perhaps the Democrats would win in 1860, postponing the American Civil War by a few years.

I'd be surprised if it lasted that long, but you could run a TL as such.

The fight over the pig sees a guy on both sides wounded, not terribly so ands for shits and giggles let's say oh the American wounded guy actually just injured himself the incompetent moron that he is.

Word gets out and the initial reaction is cautious moving of some border militia on boths sides all-the-while in DC and London are scraching their heads going "who did what? Where? Over what?"

Unfortunately while that is going on one of those sometimes unreliable militia cross the border in their rush, say American on this one. An alert Canadian militia sentry who is sadly a young exciteable fellow shoots a round off at those hapless American militia as they attempt to quietly return across the border when they realize their mistake the next morning which gravely injures the American officer in charge. The US militia bolts as they are won't to do sometimes and quickly go tell their tale, to newspapers and whoever will listen, of evil Canadians crossing the border and shooting at them wounding their brave commander (they gloss over the fact he was drunk and got them lost across the border in Canada...let's say they are from upstate NY somewhere.

All-the-while the Canadians are celebrating having driven off the evil American horde with a few pints.

Panic at the news of a army from Canada coupled with sighting from fisherman off Penobscott Bay of a huge British fleet (it was actually a fleet of American whalers headed back home but it was dark and the fisherman were a little drunk) headed south instills panic across the Eastern Seaboard.

Cooler heads in DC though after lenghty discussions with the ambassador from the UK after a few weeks 'declare peace' between the two nations with a settlement of some trade issues thrown in to the mix to boot.

Both sides claim 'victory' but on the American side US coastal populations demand of their Congressmen betteer coastal protections from the ravaging RN cause they all know they were next to suffer the RN's deprivations.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
New Orleans was lost in early 1862, the CSA struggled up to 1862. The point is in favor of the USa struggling on vs. UK.

You don't understand why the blockade was so ineffective (only 1 in 6 captures in 1861-2, almost all exitting port, even in the last weeks, with one CS port open, the capture rate was only 1 in 2).

The ships which ran the blockade were not oceanic steamers, they were purpose built British steamers using smokeless coal running out of British ports at high speed during the night. Without an equivalent to Bermuda or St. Thomas running the blockade is a much more hazardous matter. The only real option is a high speed run to or out of Cuba, and hope the RN doesn't simply put a squadron off Cuba.
 
One thing, I think, that's missing from this conversation, is the political aspect of this ATL.

First off, any escalation of the Pig War is going to require someone other than James Buchanan in office. He simply doesn't have the mentality/personality to see this develop into a full blown conflict, no matter how much popular support there is. Perhaps the POD could be Buchanan's death just prior to the events of the Pig War. Would Breckenridge be more willing to risk war with the UK?

The second thing to keep in mind is that 1860 is an election year, and tensions are going to be running even higher than OTL with the war. I'd wager that the GOP would add an anti-war plank to their anti-slavery platform and probably win by a larger margin. The Democrats meanwhile, would likely renominate whomever's in office given the ongoing war with the UK.
 
Fearless Leader

Very true on the importance of the effects on the politics. Don't know enough about the internal US politics at the time. Must admit I mis-read what you said initially. However think your right that an anti-war platform could be very popular for the Republicans. 'do we really want to fight our biggest trading partner due to the incompetence of the current democrat government?' Especially when there's so many more important things to resolve. The Democrats might be split on the issue as well as slavery. Some thinking a war-scare bandwagon is good for uniting the country behind them while others realising how unpopular and destructive such a war could be. Unless the crisis triggers a desire in the party for unity.

However, as Shadow Knight says, unless the parties blunder into actual fighting on a sizeable scale, then its unlikely the crisis would last long. Probably more a case of a squabble between the two parties over how the issue was handled.

Steve

One thing, I think, that's missing from this conversation, is the political aspect of this ATL.

First off, any escalation of the Pig War is going to require someone other than James Buchanan in office. He simply doesn't have the mentality/personality to see this develop into a full blown conflict, no matter how much popular support there is. Perhaps the POD could be Buchanan's death just prior to the events of the Pig War. Would Breckenridge be more willing to risk war with the UK?

The second thing to keep in mind is that 1860 is an election year, and tensions are going to be running even higher than OTL with the war. I'd wager that the GOP would add an anti-war plank to their anti-slavery platform and probably win by a larger margin. The Democrats meanwhile, would likely renominate whomever's in office given the ongoing war with the UK.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Given that in the Civil War, over 1 million men where at arms in the US, the outcome is obvious.

Britain dominates the waves, and gets a bloodbath on land.
 

Hyperion

Banned
The return of 25th December 1814 shows 48,163 regulars, excluding ca. 4,000 select embodied militia and 3,000 Marines. This is the return for America Command, and excludes West Indies Command which has ISTR some 30-40,000.

On the Peninsula (Portugal Command and detachments of Mediterranean Command), 211,000 British rank and file served, exclusive of the Portuguese Army. Wellington's army (including it's detachment at Cadiz) had 65,037 British officers and present under arms in April 1814. Adding the detachments of Mediterranean Command (The Division at Gibraltar and the Corps operating in Eastern Spain), the Lisbon garrison and Marine forces ashore strength is around 90,000. He had some 50,000 Portuguese regulars incorporated into his forces (and paid for and supplied by the British), plus their reserves etc.



Britain sustained a major force (120,000 including mercernaries under British pay and supply) in the Crimean not a decade previously. In 1859 the British are prepared to immediately deploy 6 infantry divisons of 6,000 each.

At home (with outposts in the Med) were available for immediate combat deployment (reinforcing the Division stationed in Canada) 6 cavalry brigades and 6 infantry divisions with their supporting arms. This is short of the target (10 deployable divisions), but made up by the fact that the Militia is still partially embodied, 28 militia infantry regiments are on active service in February 1859.



There is no National Guard until the 20th Century. There is the militia, and it varies from state to state. The loyal and border states had an effective militia strength of 41,190, of whom nearly half (19,000) were from New York. The disloyal states would only add another 10,000 or so.



Men on paper is one thing, the effective strength of neither came up this quickly. For a start, the combined US simply doesn't have that many firearms, and had to buy them from the UK amongst others. The US had roughly 500,000 muskets in varying conditions (60% of them were of War of 1812 vintage and often unusable), virtually all smoothbore and some still flintlock and some 44,000 .54 "Mississippi" rifles. The M1855 Rifle-Musket had only recently gone into production and only a few thousand were kicking around. The US has around 150 field-pieces available for field duty, but they're all pretty old (only 4 working M1857 Napoleons exist for example), the bulk are old M1835 6 pounders and their associated howitzers, even the lighter M1841 6-pounder is fairly rare. They're totally outclassed by the modern British P1853 9-pounder, and even more by the newly adopted P1859 12 pounder breech-loading rifle.

From their standing start of some 50,000 militia the US might produce 100,000 militia in three to six months, which isn't enough even to man their coastal fortifications.

BTW Peak effective strength of both sides was in mid-1863, when the Union had around 350,000 actually in their armies (rather than on paper) and the Confederacy had around 275,000 actually with their armies.

67th Tigers

You are quite wrong in your statements, have established multiple confirmed dishonest statements, and are known for providing bogus information.

Please provide links relevant to the matter at hand.

War of 1812 information has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN THIS DISCUSSION.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Given that in the Civil War, over 1 million men where at arms in the US, the outcome is obvious.

Britain dominates the waves, and gets a bloodbath on land.

Okay, so where were they?

Show me 1 million men in the armies; not names on lists, actual men.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
67th Tigers

You are quite wrong in your statements, have established multiple confirmed dishonest statements, and are known for providing bogus information.

Please provide links relevant to the matter at hand.

War of 1812 information has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN THIS DISCUSSION.

Excuse me?

You provide a specific challenge and I'll answer it, right after you show me 1 million men PFD in the combined returns of the Federal Army.
 
Okay, so where were they?

Show me 1 million men in the armies; not names on lists, actual men.


That can't be done. All that remains of that era are lists, and graves. It is known that the Union and the Confederacy combined put around 620,000 soldiers in the ground, dead of bullets or disease.

I do know that less than half of the men under arms tend to die in wars, simply because if more than half died morale would be nonexistent and the soldiers simply wouldn't keep fighting.

Thus, either America had more than a million men under arms between the CSA and the Union during the Civil War, or both sides fielded super-men who were able to lose more than half of their number to battle and disease and keep on fighting.
 
That can't be done. All that remains of that era are lists, and graves. It is known that the Union and the Confederacy combined put around 620,000 soldiers in the ground, dead of bullets or disease.

I do know that less than half of the men under arms tend to die in wars, simply because if more than half died morale would be nonexistent and the soldiers simply wouldn't keep fighting.

Thus, either America had more than a million men under arms between the CSA and the Union during the Civil War, or both sides fielded super-men who were able to lose more than half of their number to battle and disease and keep on fighting.

And since we know there were 620,000 who died, even if the survivors were supermen, there would have only had to be 380,000 survivors to make a million. Interestingly, postwar, there were somewhere between 900,000 to 1.9 million Union veterans on the pension rolls of the Federal Government. And that does not include surviving Confederate veterans. It is likely that some of these men were frauds, as will occur in any such system. But given that the pension applications of the time generally required that other members of a military unit swear that the applicant had served in said unit, the vast majority of the pensioners were certainly genuine.

There just is no basis for saying the Northern States by themselves could not have raised a million men, and certainly the entire United States, including the South, could have done so. Whether they could have armed and equipped those men, of course, is another matter.
 
Last edited:
There just is no basis for saying the Northern States by themselves could not have raised a million men, and certainly the entire United States, including the South, could have done so. Whether they could have armed and equipped those men, of course, is another matter.

they couldn't. One year later saw both sides scrambling to find enough firearms to equip their new armies. The north had to ramp up production quickly, and in the meantime, they bought firearms from the UK and France to make up the difference. And of course, in this POD, buying arms from the UK isn't an option...
 
they couldn't. One year later saw both sides scrambling to find enough firearms to equip their new armies. The north had to ramp up production quickly, and in the meantime, they bought firearms from the UK and France to make up the difference. And of course, in this POD, buying arms from the UK isn't an option...

I quite agree. And, it should be mentioned, getting the arms they might manage to purchase elsewhere through the British blockade would not be exactly an easy task, either.
 
Top