The Pig War 1859

[Metro]

Reading about Michigans fight with Canada over the Upper Peninsula which someone here posted reminded me of this crisis between the US and UK. over the San Juan Islands which are located between the US state of Washington and Vancouver Island in Canada. The strange thing about this is that it involved a Pig.
Read info.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

So if a war had started there who would have won? This was pre US Civil War. Do you think the US Civil War not have occured since all would be at the Canadian border fighting the forces of the UK.?

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

You would need a little more than this to start a war, because in the end, it was just a stupid show of force to try and maintain honor and nobody would go to war over the small and insignificant islands. However, I suppose if Britian was unhappy with the Oregon treaty, and the USA was really aggresive over the issue, a war might start. I am not sure who would win. It is very difficult to resupply the battles there, because the US would have to cross the whole country, albiet with trains, and the British would have to sail around the world. The British could blockade American coasts, but the US could(try) to invade Canada. I think its a coin toss.

 

[LittleSpeer]

It was over a lot of western Canada. James Polk's slogan for office was 54'40 or fight. It was a major bluff but if he had really went thur with it then it meant that Canada would lose all of their major naval bases to the pacific from Canada. If there was war and we got a troops to the front, i think we would get a lot of western Canada but remember, theres that railroad problem so the real fighting would be in eastern Canada and would end in a stalemate. Smaller Canada, bigger America, and i wounder if this would affect the Russians selling Alaska to us? Would this have delayed the Civil War? This could also have made the English aid a certain rebellion in that war and make a play for the Canada we took.

 

[DAv]

It was over a lot of western Canada. James Polk's slogan for office was 54'40 or fight. It was a major bluff but if he had really went thur with it then it meant that Canada would lose all of their major naval bases to the pacific from Canada. If there was war and we got a troops to the front, i think we would get a lot of western Canada but remember, theres that railroad problem so the real fighting would be in eastern Canada and would end in a stalemate. Smaller Canada, bigger America, and i wounder if this would affect the Russians selling Alaska to us? Would this have delayed the Civil War? This could also have made the English aid a certain rebellion in that war and make a play for the Canada we took.

If the US could have won. Britain controlled the seas at this point and a good portion of the gunpowder supplies of the US. This won't be 1812 where Napoleon is a bigger problem to Britain, the States would have its undivided attention. Not a pleasant thing.

 

[Electric Monk]

It was over a lot of western Canada. James Polk's slogan for office was 54'40 or fight. It was a major bluff but if he had really went thur with it then it meant that Canada would lose all of their major naval bases to the pacific from Canada. If there was war and we got a troops to the front, i think we would get a lot of western Canada but remember, theres that railroad problem so the real fighting would be in eastern Canada and would end in a stalemate. Smaller Canada, bigger America, and i wounder if this would affect the Russians selling Alaska to us? Would this have delayed the Civil War? This could also have made the English aid a certain rebellion in that war and make a play for the Canada we took.

The Brits would just ship troops and take over California, Washington, Oregon, and recapture whatever tiny bits of Western Canada the Yanks managed to take plus burn down D.C. (again), and maybe some other fun.

The USA, in other words, would get curbstomped.

This is pre-Civil War. The US doesn't have an army, much of a navy, no ironclads, and is heavily dependent on British trade.

You can make an argument for the USA doing ok under a Trent incident (they'd still lose, but nothing much would change hands) but before the Civil War? Nah, the Brits win.

 

[Ssudukh]

I'm not so sure a war at this time would be a clear cut victory for the British. Their success in European wars has always been because they usually bankrolled allies on the continent to supply the land forces they needed to be effective. That would not be the case in this war.

Second, the United States was not the same power that it was in 1812. While it's army was still pitifully small, it's States troops had proven to be effective in the Mexican War. And all it would take, considering the size of the British Army, would be one significant defeat to pretty much finish them on land.

I do remember once doing a study of a "what if" based on the Trent affair. Everything I read indicated that if hostilities had broken out, the British were woefully unprepared to defend Canada. The garrison was insufficient and the Canadian militia was considered a joke.

I might add that the British Army did have other obligations around the world. They were expanding in the Far East, and had just finished the Crimean War and the Sepoy Rebelllion. It's not like they had no other areas of concern.

I think that the United States could win the war, if it broke out. The British naval ascendency might make itself felt over time, but I doubt that they would have it, and I doubt it would be any more effective than their blockade of Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[robertp6165]

You may find the discussion from here to be interesting.

 

[NomadicSky]

If the US had pushed the issue Vancouver Island could be divided along the 49th parallel like the rest of Western Canada.

I personally think that the treaty should have ended at land and not included the San Juan islands it'd look more logical on maps for them to be part of British Columbia.

 

[Wendell]

If the US had pushed the issue Vancouver Island could be divided along the 49th parallel like the rest of Western Canada.

I personally think that the treaty should have ended at land and not included the San Juan islands it'd look more logical on maps for them to be part of British Columbia.

I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I am sympathetic with regard to Point Roberts.