British Reward after Civil War success?

[Snake Featherston]

I want to ask a stupid question. Why would Great Britain mobilize 100,000 and more soldiers plus most of its navy, and apparently all of its most modern ships, and mobilize how much of its economy? End its trade with the USA and bring on a real threat to the British merchant marine? Engage in a long and expensive war that will cover an entire continent (a continent much bigger than Europe by the way)? All this for what? The Trent Affair and the rights of Southerners to own slaves? How many lives are the British people willing to expend?

Even if Great Britain and her CSA ally win this war (I'll go along and say they most likely do), what shape is Great Britain in for the next war? Or the war after that?

Not to mention how are they going to afford what would be a lot more difficult war than they're anticipating?

 

[Maur]

To be fair the 1860s was an arms race which the french kickstarted by building the first ironclad warship in 59, the frigate La Gloire, essentially gaining the technological edge shortly, even without the numerical edge.

While a few battles were indeed won by superiority of leadership and numbers despite massive technological advantages (case in point, Lissa), 1860s naval conflicts would still be more complicated than merely looking at the paper sizes of respective forces.

Amusingly, at this point in time, I think Spain had as many ironclad cruisers in construction as Britain; of course Britain could keep the building longer and more constantly, it did have a vested interest in remaining the foremost naval power of Europe, which necessarily meant making sure France (or later Germany, but for most of the 19th century France and to some extent America were the only countries that could have credibly pushed the naval race that far) could never fully challenge british naval superiority in Europe for more than a year or two, even if the Empereur was arguably an anglophile. Britain would likely have won, but it was early enough in a new technology race for it to get a rather ugly nosebleed before it did.

Well, as every good Victoria player i know how game-changing ironclads were


Nah, seriously. It reminds me of the another revolution in naval warfare, with dreadnoughts, that made existing navies largely obsolete too. But it does not in any way mean other countries got advantage. It is still UK that has finances and shipbuilding capacity to remain in its position (more so in 1860 than in 1905), so appearance of ironclads does not change balance at sea.

I want to ask a stupid question. Why would Great Britain mobilize 100,000 and more soldiers plus most of its navy, and apparently all of its most modern ships, and mobilize how much of its economy? End its trade with the USA and bring on a real threat to the British merchant marine? Engage in a long and expensive war that will cover an entire continent (a continent much bigger than Europe by the way)? All this for what? The Trent Affair and the rights of Southerners to own slaves? How many lives are the British people willing to expend?

Even if Great Britain and her CSA ally win this war (I'll go along and say they most likely do), what shape is Great Britain in for the next war? Or the war after that?

Well, it was going to happen, unless USA does something monumentally stupid. Like invading Canada first or pressing British seamen in Union navy.

 

[67th Tigers]

A minor regional power that provided half the grain to the British Isles in the first two years of the US Civil War. A minor regional power that also proved able to fight and maintain a protracted industrial war without the crippling debt burdens the British get themselves into every time they fight one.

Russia?

Again with the fantasy. As important as US grain was it accounts for 2-3% of calories consumed by the British.

As to "protracted industrial war", British industrial production is as far ahead of the Union as the Union was ahead of the Confederacy. The British Empire accounts for 3/4ths of global industrial output.

Virtually all US war production except that at Pittsburgh is under the guns of the RN. All US gunpowder ultimately derives from the British Empire.

War? The US war effort would collapse in six months if the British simply ceased trading with them, let alone if they smashed all the war industries (and Pittsburgh is one days forced march from Canada).

However, I'm aware of your parochial attitude and know you're unlikely ever to accept anything that isn't a Yankwank.

 

[King Gorilla]

67th Tigers...the royal navy wasn't a death star capable of shelling cities to oblivion. It also lacked infinite transport, and lift capacity. For that matter, the royal army couldn't be mobilized in a manor of minutes, and transported in perfect fighting form before anyone had the chance to respond. Such things would take a lot of time, and while the US would lose such a war, it would sue for peace long before your masturbatory Gotterdamerung occurred.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Russia?

Again with the fantasy. As important as US grain was it accounts for 2-3% of calories consumed by the British.

As to "protracted industrial war", British industrial production is as far ahead of the Union as the Union was ahead of the Confederacy. The British Empire accounts for 3/4ths of global industrial output.

Virtually all US war production except that at Pittsburgh is under the guns of the RN. All US gunpowder ultimately derives from the British Empire.

War? The US war effort would collapse in six months if the British simply ceased trading with them, let alone if they smashed all the war industries (and Pittsburgh is one days forced march from Canada).

However, I'm aware of your parochial attitude and know you're unlikely ever to accept anything that isn't a Yankwank.

According to this you're wrong: http://www.amazon.co.uk/influence-cotton-Anglo-American-relations-during/dp/B00089EVG2

Now, you have at no point provided any citations to refute any of this, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have none.

And if the UK ceases trading with the USA the British masses starve and go out into a major revolt.

I'm going to have to ask for citations on Union manufacturing of gunpowder, given even under the blockade Josiah Gorgas managed to ensure that while Confederate armies starved they could at least have the ammunition needed for their rifles. And this was in a state where the economy collapsed by 1864.

 

[67th Tigers]

According to this you're wrong: http://www.amazon.co.uk/influence-cotton-Anglo-American-relations-during/dp/B00089EVG2

Now, you have at no point provided any citations to refute any of this, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have none.

And if the UK ceases trading with the USA the British masses starve and go out into a major revolt.

I'm going to have to ask for citations on Union manufacturing of gunpowder, given even under the blockade Josiah Gorgas managed to ensure that while Confederate armies starved they could at least have the ammunition needed for their rifles. And this was in a state where the economy collapsed by 1864.

Hahahaha

Use the search function for God's sake. I've little interest in repeating our long established findings with a neo-Radical.

 

[Spengler]

They're ships. Unless you're willing to concede Monitor was a floating battery (as she was entered on the Navy List).

The term "ironclad" isn't coined until 1860.

The first ironclad was Lave in 1855.

But early monitors wern't in anyway capable of crossing the ocean.

BTW The USA had the capability to build Ironclad Battleships as the Re Di Portagellos shows which I believe was built well the civil war was ongoing.

 

[xchen08]

Hahahaha

Use the search function for God's sake. I've little interest in repeating our long established findings with a neo-Radical.

You shouldn't ask that. A search would inevitably turn up all your ridiculous claims and obvious lies, and all the instances where you were caught red handed.

You'd be far better off actually presenting sources, either as scans or in online formats. With your history, you really can't expect anyone to accept what you say without them.

However, I'm aware of your parochial attitude and know you're unlikely ever to accept anything that isn't a Yankwank.

This has got to be about the funniest thing I've read in days coming from the king of Britwankers. Portaging cruisers onto the Great Lakes to wreck Detroit anyone?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Hahahaha

Use the search function for God's sake. I've little interest in repeating our long established findings with a neo-Radical.

No citations and name-calling. Tsk, tsk.

 

[usertron2020]

67th Tigers...the royal navy wasn't a death star capable of shelling cities to oblivion. It also lacked infinite transport, and lift capacity. For that matter, the royal army couldn't be mobilized in a manor of minutes, and transported in perfect fighting form before anyone had the chance to respond. Such things would take a lot of time, and while the US would lose such a war, it would sue for peace long before your masturbatory Gotterdamerung occurred.

It's not his data. It's how they are interpreted into a game of 19th Century Axis & Allies. (Sorry, no exposure to Victoria). Specifically, selective data, questionable facts from sources unnamed, and conclusions that are very self-gratifying. UberBritWank + UberConfedWank = annihilation of the Union, the Empire stands forever! A + B = C.

The big time Wanks here are not YankWanks.

EDIT: The Yanks concede British victory, just not 67's presumed overwhelming British enthusiasm for such a war.

 

[stevep]

Actually I would. It would most likely result in the British Navy first breaking the blockade, and forcing the American fleet to retreat inorder to protect its principal shipping ports. The Navy would insure the transport of military supplies to the south, while insuring that cotton would be traded normally. The British Army would be mobilized and troops would first be shipped for the home defense of Canada, while another expeditionary force would be sent to aid the south directly. Finally a pacific expeditionary force would most likely be assembled, albeit slowly given that the Sepoy Mutiny was recent history, and transported first to secure the defense of British Columbia and then harass America along the Pacific coast, eventually making moves to Capture American ports such as Seattle, Portland and San Francisco.

The size of these forces however will be constrained by limitations of sea transit, as logistics is the biggest concern for placing three different oversea armies in field. These efforts will also take time. The problem is, like Grimm previously mentioned, a British intervention is extremely likely to bring the Union to the peace table, especially after it breaks the blockade. I don't think the Union would win this war. I don't think it would be able to conquer Canada. I'm simply not buying that this war would amount to a North American Gotterdammerung

King Gorilla

OK, I can buy that. I've probably been influenced by TLs which have the US fighting to the bitter end, refusing to accept anything but a basically impossible victory. In that case then, other than the independence of the CSA, in whatever borders develop, there are highly unlikely to be any other border changes.

The other factor that makes for a quick end would probably be money. In the event of a clash with Britain the US government would quickly lose two of it's staples, tariffs on imports and gold from the west. At the same time as it's demands for revenue explode. Hence I think, barring something very extreme there would be a quick peace agreed.

It's only if there was somehow a long and bitter conflict that you might see major border changes and while not totally impossible it's pretty unlikely.

Steve

 

[stevep]

This would be the American fleet that managed rapidly to develop ironclads that were only experimental for the Royal Navy? Britain doesn't have the naval power for a real blockade of the North when it's on a war footing. Unlike the Confederacy the North developed a huge naval juggernaut.

You mean the ropey monitors that had trouble staying above water and could fairly easily be penetrated by the heavier British naval guns with their superior metallurgical capacities. Those same monitors that would have met real blue water ironclads such as Warrior.

Britain already had a naval juggernaut and the technological and financial resources to massively expand it. The USN can provide some opposition while resources last, which won't be long, but will fairly quickly be overwhelmed.

Where in the event of actual invasion there'd be a lot more volunteers, especially among the Irish Democrats who while not wanting to fight a war for blacks would be quite keen on dealing defeats to John Bull. Britain could support about 200,000 men where when the Irish Democrats start forming armies the USA would have several hundred thousand men who IOTL pretty much stopped serving after the Emancipation Proclamation.

In the event of a British invasion, which is highly unlikely to be necessary why would largely protestant Irish be rabidly hostile to Britain? I think you're been fooled by too much Irish fascist propaganda.

Britain could probably support about 200k Britons fairly conveniently, along with plenty more Canadians and other imperial forces as required. Those would largely be fully equipped and trained and with many veterans from the Crimean. The US now has to fight in the south and the north and defend it's entire eastern coastline. [It can't realistically defend it's western territories as it can't reach them].

If the UK forces that war the Union's manpower advantage gets a hell of a lot bigger. The Confederacy's domestic insurgency which IOTL also added a full 1/4 the Union's manpower would also get a shot in the arm.

More likely the population, a fair number of which have British connections, wonder why the idiots in Washington have decided to pick another fight, Especially one they can't win and is only likely to end in defeat for the US even if no single British force touches US territory east of the Rockies.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Monitor was small but it was not a coastal battery. Also a coastal battery is not a ship, period. It's a glorified gunboat.

archaeogeek

Isn't that what Monitor was? A slow cumbersome brown-water vessel that could pack a punch but couldn't match up to an oceanic ironclad.

The 6 Crimean ships are technically coastal batteries, just a bit more powerful that the Monitor. Also they do have experience of being towed long distances, whereas the original Monitor sank after a relatively short coastal tow.

The US is not going to be able to seriously challenge the RN and, with all the effects of the blockade blocking imports and disrupting revenue and coastal trade, let alone any other impacts of a war with Britain, is not going to be able to match it's OTL construction.

Steve

 

[archaeogeek]

archaeogeek

Isn't that what Monitor was? A slow cumbersome brown-water vessel that could pack a punch but couldn't match up to an oceanic ironclad.

The 6 Crimean ships are technically coastal batteries, just a bit more powerful that the Monitor. Also they do have experience of being towed long distances, whereas the original Monitor sank after a relatively short coastal tow.

The US is not going to be able to seriously challenge the RN and, with all the effects of the blockade blocking imports and disrupting revenue and coastal trade, let alone any other impacts of a war with Britain, is not going to be able to match it's OTL construction.

Steve

I was wrong on USS Monitor; I'll admit - you do realize that they also had ships like USS New Ironsides, right? Also the monitors in Europe are still unlikely to leave it unless Britain is so angry it's willing to leave a vital flank exposed.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Hahahaha

Use the search function for God's sake. I've little interest in repeating our long established findings with a neo-Radical.

Our? You and your tapeworm?

And Neo-Radical? I take great pleasure in that name from someone who seriously thinks that George B. McClellan was a better general than Ulysses S. Grant.

You mean the ropey monitors that had trouble staying above water and could fairly easily be penetrated by the heavier British naval guns with their superior metallurgical capacities. Those same monitors that would have met real blue water ironclads such as Warrior.

Britain already had a naval juggernaut and the technological and financial resources to massively expand it. The USN can provide some opposition while resources last, which won't be long, but will fairly quickly be overwhelmed.

Except that the USA is not a pre-modern society without industrial capacities like the British are used to dogpiling. Like WWI this is an entirely different war, and analogies with Imperial Russia are entirely flawed given that Imperial Russia was a super-CSA in terms of its army, not like the Union. The British are in for an unpleasant surprise in this case.

In the event of a British invasion, which is highly unlikely to be necessary why would largely protestant Irish be rabidly hostile to Britain? I think you're been fooled by too much Irish fascist propaganda.

Britain could probably support about 200k Britons fairly conveniently, along with plenty more Canadians and other imperial forces as required. Those would largely be fully equipped and trained and with many veterans from the Crimean. The US now has to fight in the south and the north and defend it's entire eastern coastline. [It can't realistically defend it's western territories as it can't reach them].

Er.....these were the Irish that happened to leave in the late 1840s. What possible event ocurrred around that time that forced so many of them to leave? How would this event leave them with good will for the English? Especially since most of the pre-war immigrants were CATHOLICS which triggered the KNOW-NOTHINGS.

Invading the USA is not the Opium Wars. The USA is a huge industrial power, not a declining agrarian society or a society still with a mostly medieval economy like Imperial Russia. The UK would win, but only with Confederate help. The Brits aren't used to fighting on the kind of playing field they'd be up against.

More likely the population, a fair number of which have British connections, wonder why the idiots in Washington have decided to pick another fight, Especially one they can't win and is only likely to end in defeat for the US even if no single British force touches US territory east of the Rockies.

Steve

More likely the USA would rally around the Lincoln Administration. This "they'll be hailed as liberators" mentality seriously underestimates the xenophobia in the USA left over from the Know-Nothings. In the event of a full-fledged invasion in a country aware that French troops are also in Mexico, the USA isn't going to experience a sudden burst of Anglophilia any more than the Soviet masses suddenly defected from Stalin in droves in 1941. And Britain is invading a huge industrial power, it is not in fact invading another Qing Empire or fighting Boer Guerrillas.

 

[Father Maryland]

How easily could the Brits have transported and supplied a expeditionary force of some thousands to California by the way? I mean I have heard several times that they would simply transport forces from India but what type of transport capacity was there? Would they be transporting white troops or Raj? If they do transport white troops aren't they afraid this might spark another revolt? If they ship Raj troops are they the least bit concerned over non whites defeating whites?

What was the British naval presence in the pacific like? What was the nearest British base to California? And how capable would these expeditionary troops be after a couple thousand mile boat trip from India to North America? I mean I know the couple thousand troops and reliable militia that the Union would likely be able to raise is not much but how much do you need to fight from prepared positions against sea sick and weak Sikhs?

 

[stevep]

usertron2020

I'm not disputing that. Just that border adjustments making Canada and the CSA more defensible was the idea, not outright conquest for the sake of conquest. Unless you want a run at Turtledove's abomination.

In terms of California becoming independent after a period of British 'occupation' during a long and bitter war in the east I have repeatedly mentioned that this is a possibility that could occur. Also that, after such a costly conflict Britain would find attractive the idea that the Us could be further weakened in this way as it would markedly reduce the future threat to Canada. [I am aware that some will argue any defeat will make the US rabidly determined to wage a new war but it will lack the resources for quite a while [aka at least a generation] and also the capacity to threaten much of Canada at all.

Under those circumstances, and those alone, I think it's both possible and would seem attractive to Britain, Canada and many Californians.

I think a problem here is the politics of a non-specific unwritten ATL. Without a specific story line, you can argue for an eternity the nature of the circumstances in terms of damage done industrial, financial, political, and psychological to the US.

That's why I have tried to detail what conditions would be required for the circumstances I mention.

[/QUOTE]All examples of peoples separated by language. Flemish/French for Belgium, Dutch for Holland. Czech for the Czech Republic, Slovakian for Slovakia. Norway and Sweden may have different languages officially, but I think I'll concede your point with them. And the former states of Czechoslovakia have only been democratic for twenty years. I wish them all the best, but my fingers are still crossed.[/QUOTE]

Then what example would you take? Nations, even established ones, do fall apart occasionally. It's easier for defeated states to lose fringe areas in which they have little influence or history.

Put it another way. Various posters are saying that California would never seek independence, under just about any circumstance, apparently just because their Americans. At the time we're talking about a sizeable number of Americans have just decided they want out and OTL many of them were to fight for ~4 years, in steadily worsening conditions, to preserve their decision.

I know about the politics of perception, which is what politics is all about. And the perceptions of Irish immigrants fleeing the Famine, whatever the facts were on the ground at the time, were inflexible and adamantine. This was an issue not limited to the minds of Irish immigrants, as with their unpopularity in the US, their circumstances made no secret of why they were suddenly arriving in such numbers (at least the reason they gave). It wasn't "fleeing imperialism", but "fleeing the Famine". Whatever a proud Englishman might have to say about that, the conclusion to be drawn by a third-party listener is obvious.

The conclusion is that they have a viewpoint. Whether it's accurate, rubbish or somewhere in between. Plus as you point out yourself, they weren't fleeing British rule but a natural disaster that any nation would have struggle to handle on that scale. Britain's response was handicapped by the dominant laisse-faire beliefs of the time/place but it still did more than probably most states would have done.

I'm afraid that too many people on this thread are looking at this with a 21st century prism. Personally, I see no problem with the idea of California being ruled by the UK. Provided, of course, that you are talking about the UK of 2010, not 1861/62. I personally very much approve of the parliamentary system vs. the republican one (except for the Independent US Judiciary). Has anyone forgotten that to the rest of the world (in the 19th century) the International Bogeyman #1 was the British Empire? The US would not pick up that torch until 1945. And they had to share it with the USSR until 1991. The Empire was not seen as a safe haven in the 19th century. Not if you, as a region, had serious resources (up for grabs?). Texas got it's independence in 1836 and waited only a dozen years before welcoming annexation by the US. Annexation by the Empire is seen as the same thing by Non-Americans, but I'm not seeing much hard historical evidence of 19th century American Toryism.

I suggest you read my posts! I am not talking about Britain ruling California but about a Californian republic.

Also while some, chiefly deeply conservative groups, felt hostile towards Britain, many more looked towards it as a friend and ally. Don't forget where the largest single group of those Irish fleeing the famine ended up.

BTW, yes, I'm of Irish extraction myself, and I'll consider that I may not know everything about the subject of Irish history. And you, dear sir?

I'm British. In reference to Ireland my feeling may well be coloured by events during my lifetime. What can only be described as Irish imperialists insisting they have a right to rule a part of my country, regardless of the feeling of the population of that region, and willing to murder all and sundry in 'support' of their aims. [I fully admit a fair number of the 'Loyalists' were every bit as evil as the IRA. Also that a lot of the violence is motivated as much by psychopaths and criminals out for personal gain as brutal fanatics]. When those same scum use often dodgy and inaccurate claims about ancient abuses to give an excuse for their behaviour. [Again I make clear. A lot of bad things were done during periods of British domination of Ireland, frequently by the British. However given standards and views at the time the Irish could have been treated a lot worse, with different overlords].

I think the whole problem with the use of the term US Exceptionalism is the pejorative nature of it versus the much more relatively balanced (though still uncomplimentary) term of US (Pro-Union) nationalism.

The problem is that I and I think other posters get frustrated by blanket statements that something could never happen, regardless of circumstances and ignoring reasons given why it could happen. Especially as I say, at this time another large proportion of Americans with far more links to the US than those in California, have decided they want to exit the country!

If you look at it as a question of nationalism? Imagine the hackles (outrage, really) raised if someone suggested that following a successful Napoleonic invasion of England she was divided into four separate English "kingdoms" of Bristol, Essex, the Midlands, and York. And that the English in these regions would have no problems with this, provided they were ruled benevolently. Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war! Actually, the idea that any of the English race would be happy with the situation (beyond the usual collaborators) is too silly for words.

Different circumstances. I think you're talking about a foreign military occupation, which as I repeat I'm not. Also Britain by Napoleonic times has a far longer history than the US as a coherent state. A more accurate comparison would be if Napoleon somehow defeated Britain and established an independent Canada - or in you're example one under French military occupation.

But too many posters here seem convinced Californians of the 1860s just weren't real Americans. To the point of handing themselves over to the POLITICALLY PERCEIVED (however unfairly, but she was) most greedy empire the world had ever seen since Ancient Rome (Yes, I know, the Mongols, Byzantines, Persians, etc, etc)?

Politically perceived by whom? Various groups with grudges to carry? A lot of people were happier and more secure under British rule than before, or unfortunately in many cases since. The key reason the empire spread so far and lasted so long was because most people found it preferable to alternatives. The empire, especially in this period, was maintained by relatively small military and bureaucratic resources, often with substantial local content. Britain was the biggest economic and industrial power of the period but while it had the capacity to be a military super-power it didn't need to. The Indian Raj was for instance dependant on mainly local troops and even during the height of the recent mutiny that was only defeated because most local forces stayed loyal!

Also, I ask you again to consider the situation I'm proposing, not the one you're talking about. I'm talking about an independent California not one under British rule.

No wonder American hackles are raised (outrage, really. Again). Hence the incessant charges of US Exceptionalism (Nationalism, people) by those who wish to counter those raised hackles (outrage). Like witchcraft, an easy charge to make, and in terms of evidence, impossible to disprove. And proof of innocence of the charge appears to be the standard here.

The reason the charge was raised, after several pages of 'discussion', was because various posters insisted that Californian independence was impossible, with no reason given other than that they were Americans! What other assumption can be made unless some reason is given?

Steve

 

[Grey Wolf]

I would just like to say I agree with Steve's last post completely

I do NOT understand why some posters get so worked up over the idea of an independent California - the major Californians of the time were capitalists, out for personal gain and glory, and whilst I do not disparage any humanitarian involvements they may have had, they were focused mainly on their own gain

If their home country has just been smashed, the CSA has become independent with a British alliance, and, I honestly think this would occur, New Mexico has gone Confederate because its not what Britain would decide to demand for their ally, but what their ally would ask to be included in the treaty and what the Union could not afford to reject...

...then why would not California's elite be looking to their finances?

Politically it would be great to be the ruling class, financiiallly it would make sense to take what works best

America as a coast-to-coast ideal has been dealt a shattering blow by the Confederate victory. Ignore OTL, and look to the alternatives. THAT is alternate history

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[archaeogeek]

I would just like to say I agree with Steve's last post completely

I do NOT understand why some posters get so worked up over the idea of an independent California - the major Californians of the time were capitalists, out for personal gain and glory, and whilst I do not disparage any humanitarian involvements they may have had, they were focused mainly on their own gain

If their home country has just been smashed, the CSA has become independent with a British alliance, and, I honestly think this would occur, New Mexico has gone Confederate because its not what Britain would decide to demand for their ally, but what their ally would ask to be included in the treaty and what the Union could not afford to reject...

...then why would not California's elite be looking to their finances?

Politically it would be great to be the ruling class, financiiallly it would make sense to take what works best

America as a coast-to-coast ideal has been dealt a shattering blow by the Confederate victory. Ignore OTL, and look to the alternatives. THAT is alternate history

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Okay, explain how independent California improves the finances of the ruling class in California IN 1865.

 

[67th Tigers]

How easily could the Brits have transported and supplied a expeditionary force of some thousands to California by the way? I mean I have heard several times that they would simply transport forces from India but what type of transport capacity was there?

One Army Corps, 30,000 men.

Would they be transporting white troops or Raj?

About 50/50 Europeans and Natives (mainly Sikhs and Gurkhas) was the norm.

If they do transport white troops aren't they afraid this might spark another revolt?

No, they'd still be more Europeans than there were in 1857 by a large margin in India.

If they ship Raj troops are they the least bit concerned over non whites defeating whites?

Not in the slightest.

What was the British naval presence in the pacific like?

Heavy, see https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2359839&postcount=30

What was the nearest British base to California?

Vancouver and Valpariso. Hawaii can be used.

And how capable would these expeditionary troops be after a couple thousand mile boat trip from India to North America? I mean I know the couple thousand troops and reliable militia that the Union would likely be able to raise is not much but how much do you need to fight from prepared positions against sea sick and weak Sikhs?

Should be fine.