WI US / British War of 1837?

[Norman]

In 1837 the US was approached by the Texas Republic requesting annexation, following a vote by Texas in favor of annexation. I believe that GB, wanting to ensure its relationship with Mexico and a place at the table when 'nation building', sent warning signals to the US related to this, and annexation didn't occur for almost a decade.

At the same time we have the issues of the Aroostok Valley in Maine and (eventually) the issues of the Oregon Territory, causing problems in the relationship between these countries. In short, factors favoring war were quite high between 1837 and 1845.

Further, GB at the same time was beginning to have problems related to the Indian Subcontinent, and Europe was increasingly facing republican movements.

Given this, what if the Webster - Ashburton treaty process breaks down after the US accepted an earlier Texas Annexation? Would war be likely then, or as part of war with Mexico later?

[Beck Reilly]

Norman, a while ago, I suggested a war in this time period with a different POD.

I think if you'd like to have a GB vs US war in late 1830s to the early 1840s, the Caroline Affair is a better POD because the US and GB came closer to war than they did in 1837. The old post is, unsuprisingly, called "The Caroline Affair." Here's some info on it from Encarta:

"Caroline (vessel), privately owned American ship seized and destroyed by Canadian troops on the American side of the Niagara River off Grand Island, New York, on December 29, 1837. The incident, in which one American was killed, occurred during a rebellion in Upper Canada (now Ontario Province) and threatened to cause war between the United States and Britain (at the time, Canada was a British colony). The steamer had been used by American sympathizers to carry supplies to a party of Canadian rebels on Navy Island, above Niagara Falls. In 1840 Britain asserted that the destruction of the Caroline was a legitimate act of war. The U.S., however, repeatedly demanded redress on the grounds that the Canadians had invaded U.S. territory in time of peace. The matter came to a crisis during the same year when a Canadian deputy sheriff visiting the U.S. boasted of participating in the affair and was tried for murder in a New York State court. In spite of the demand of the British ministry for his release, the trial continued; war between the two nations was prevented only by his acquittal. Peaceful relations between Britain and the U.S. were finally restored in 1842 with the signing of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, in which Great Britain expressed regret for failing to make an immediate apology for the Caroline affair."

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Glen]

In 1837 the US was approached by the Texas Republic requesting annexation, following a vote by Texas in favor of annexation. I believe that GB, wanting to ensure its relationship with Mexico and a place at the table when 'nation building', sent warning signals to the US related to this, and annexation didn't occur for almost a decade.

At the same time we have the issues of the Aroostok Valley in Maine and (eventually) the issues of the Oregon Territory, causing problems in the relationship between these countries. In short, factors favoring war were quite high between 1837 and 1845.

Further, GB at the same time was beginning to have problems related to the Indian Subcontinent, and Europe was increasingly facing republican movements.

Given this, what if the Webster - Ashburton treaty process breaks down after the US accepted an earlier Texas Annexation? Would war be likely then, or as part of war with Mexico later?

Hmmm, and maybe the Canadian uprisings occur at the same time?

[Darkling]

Oregon and Maine (certainly a substantial portion thereof) are British, anything beyond that depends upon how quickly the US is ready to come to terms.

The Plains, Michigan’s upper Peninsula, Wisconsin and Minnesota will all probably be on the table, along with some restrictions on the US fortifications and ships on the great lakes without Britain having to reciprocate.

The possibility of chopping off New York at 44 degrees (with a tiny deviation to put Sacket’s harbour in British territory) thus putting all of the St Lawrence in British territory and giving the British a good grip on Lake Champlain to secure that avenue of attack.

The problem with this is it lands about 50,000 on the wrong side of the border, but that isn’t all that many for the strategic advantages.

[Tyr]

I'd imagine things would work out well for the native Americans in this too. Even the ones without historic friendship with Britain would use this opportunity of the US getting its arse kicked to regain some independance.

[DoleScum]

Oh lord, not another Anglo-American War scenario....

There are already loooadds of these kicking about on this thread, covering wars breaking out at just about ever conceivable point between 1815 and 1939.

Generally speaking the rule of thumb is before 1914 the US gets bent over and given a good spanking.

After 1914 the Empire takes it up the tail-pipe.

[Tyr]

Well...
I'd say before 1890 : USA gets its butt handed to it easily
1890-1918: Things are in Britain's favour but the US can put up a good fight
1918-1945: Things are in the US' favour but Britain can put up a good fight
1945-: Britain gets its butt handed to it easily

Of course thats just a abstract way of looking at things.

[Glen]

Oregon and Maine (certainly a substantial portion thereof) are British, anything beyond that depends upon how quickly the US is ready to come to terms.

The Plains, Michigan’s upper Peninsula, Wisconsin and Minnesota will all probably be on the table, along with some restrictions on the US fortifications and ships on the great lakes without Britain having to reciprocate.

The possibility of chopping off New York at 44 degrees (with a tiny deviation to put Sacket’s harbour in British territory) thus putting all of the St Lawrence in British territory and giving the British a good grip on Lake Champlain to secure that avenue of attack.

The problem with this is it lands about 50,000 on the wrong side of the border, but that isn’t all that many for the strategic advantages.

True. However, are the British land forces of 1837 really better than the 1837 American forces? I grant the Brits their naval superiority...

[Glen]

I'd imagine things would work out well for the native Americans in this too. Even the ones without historic friendship with Britain would use this opportunity of the US getting its arse kicked to regain some independance.

And be put down even harder thereafter.

The world sometimes is a cruel place....:(

[Glen]

Oh lord, not another Anglo-American War scenario....

Look at the date on the original post...this is one of earlier ones...


There are already loooadds of these kicking about on this thread, covering wars breaking out at just about ever conceivable point between 1815 and 1939.

Generally speaking the rule of thumb is before 1914 the US gets bent over and given a good spanking.

After 1914 the Empire takes it up the tail-pipe.

I disagree with those ranges...

[Glen]

Well...
I'd say before 1890 : USA gets its butt handed to it easily

I must have missed it when the British handed the US their butt easily in 1812...or are you going to blame that on Napoleon?:rolleyes:


1890-1918: Things are in Britain's favour but the US can put up a good fight

The British themselves felt that by the time of the Spanish-American War, the US had grown to world power status and the British would not be able to take them.


1918-1945: Things are in the US' favour but Britain can put up a good fight

Agreed.


1945-: Britain gets its butt handed to it easily

Agreed.


Of course that's just a abstract way of looking at things.

Agreed.

[Darkling]

True. However, are the British land forces of 1837 really better than the 1837 American forces? I grant the Brits their naval superiority...

The British had more regulars in Canada than the US had regulars.

The UK + Canada population is 160% that of the US.

However I suppose I can give my thoughts on the issue.

At this point in time BNA has one strategic point which is important.

Halifax.

As long as the British maintain control of Halifax then they can easily recover any US gains, so it becomes a question of whether Britain can maintain control of Halifax.

Halifax is located about 400 miles from the US railhead in 1861 (I imagine railways are even more primitive here), over some very inhospitable ground including a small neck of land which compromised of marshes (I’m lead to believe that even to this day only one road runs through it) at the end of this is a heavily fortified British naval base.

Long story short, a land invasion is impractical for a force big enough to get he job done (this is still true decades later) and a seaborne invasion can’t be done with the Royal navy in the way.

Conclusion: Halifax is safe.

Canada itself also has one important point, Quebec as long as the British hang onto Quebec they can easily bring in extra men and use their superiority in that regard to push the Americans back.

So the Americans need to get a force together get up to Quebec and defeat the forces Britain has there, unlikely but possible if the US is able to marshal a lot forces (of course that takes extra time).

Once Britain does reinforce Canada then they will want to capture Sackets harbour, the Niagara Peninsula and Detroit and then build up forces on the lakes (including building ship components in Britain, shipping them to Canada for assembly).

The Britain will want to deploy forces in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and support Indians in that area and the general Red river/Mississippi area in order to lay claims in that area to the Rockies.

Oregon can only be accessed from the pacific and since Britain obviously has control of the seas the British control the Oregon territory.

To further make this point the forts in the area are all run by Britain and the Indians all have deals with Britain, Oregon territory goes to Britain.

Maine would be invaded by sea as it was in 1814.
That just leaves Up State New York which can be invaded easily from Lake Ontario through Sackets and Oswego in addition to Lake Champlain.

Britain then just makes a nuisance of itself until the Americans come to the table.

[Darkling]

I must have missed it when the British handed the US their butt easily in 1812...or are you going to blame that on Napoleon?:rolleyes:

In 1813 Britain had 255,876 men in the army.

12,935 were in Canada and 4,189 In Nova Scotia.

How would you fancy the US's chances if they were up against more than 6.6% of Britain’s army?

The US got a draw because Britain had no interest in the conflict and used a rather small portion of its forces deployed against the US.

In short “blame Napoleon” however much it might impinge on the tale of the plucky little Republic that could.

[Tyr]

I must have missed it when the British handed the US their butt easily in 1812...or are you going to blame that on Napoleon?:rolleyes:

Well yes.
We easily beat the best the American's could throw at us with both hands tyed behind our back.


The British themselves felt that by the time of the Spanish-American War, the US had grown to world power status and the British would not be able to take them.

America had grown to world power status however Britain was still the super power. We could have taken them, it could have gone either way but it was leaning towards us.




Agreed.

Agreed.

:rolleyes:
pff American nationalists, try to be reasonable and they just puff up their chests.

[Ghost 88]

Well yes.
We easily beat the best the American's could throw at us with both hands tyed behind our back.


America had grown to world power status however Britain was still the super power. We could have taken them, it could have gone either way but it was leaning towards us.




:rolleyes:
pff American nationalists, try to be reasonable and they just puff up their chests.
I beg to differ with you. In the War of 1812 you beat our worst,when you came up against our best,Winfield Scott on July 5 1814 at the Chippawa River,and Andy Jackson at New Orleans you got your head handed to you.At the CR 515 British killed,at NO 828 killed 2468 wounded to 8 Americans killed 14 wounded,and these were veterns of the Peninsular led by Pakenham who was fairly highly rated. As for the Natives occuping Mich. that would be a neat trick as the last of them were moved west of the Mississippi after Black Hawks War in 1832.Also it was a lot harder for the UK to get forces to the west coast as they would have to go around "The Horn " while the US could use the Missouri River,.
Now the first few battles the UK regulars would most likely win as the US always relied on its Militia as opposed to Regulars. However once those Militia got used to being shot at the advantage goes to the US. Your average US citizen was a much better shooter than your avg.UK citizen. Add the suspect quality of your British Generals at this time,I'd refrain from being to optimistic on your chances of winning a land war. Yes Britannia Rules the Waves,but like in 1812 the US navy will most likely make thierselves a pain in the ass as raiders.

[Darkling]

I beg to differ with you. In the War of 1812 you beat our worst,when you came up against our best,Winfield Scott on July 5 1814 at the Chippawa River,and Andy Jackson at New Orleans you got your head handed to you.At the CR 515 British killed,

Ermm, no.

The British suffered 148 dead, 321 wounded and 46 missing.
The Americans 48 dead 227 wounded.

The British had 1,500 regulars and 300 militia/Indians.

The Americans had 3,500.

So the Americans with 2-1 odds managed to kill a few more British, hardly getting our heads handed to us.

at NO 828 killed 2468 wounded to 8 Americans killed 14 wounded,and these were veterns of the Peninsular led by Pakenham who was fairly highly rated.

One bad attack does not a pattern make.

And only half of the force came from the Penisula.

As for the Natives occuping Mich. that would be a neat trick as the last of them were moved west of the Mississippi after Black Hawks War in 1832.

South of the border, the Canadians weren't quite as efficient with their ethnic cleansing.

And it isn’t that far from the West of the Mississippi to Lake superior.

Also it was a lot harder for the UK to get forces to the west coast as they would have to go around "The Horn " while the US could use the Missouri River,.

Yes, a sea voyage is infinitely more logistically complicated than a 2600 mile journey through hostile Indian controlled territory to get to the coast.

After all it’s not like Britain was used to sending troops from Britain round the Cape and to India.

That is a 130 day trip, meaning this little expedition is going to need to take twice that plus however long they intend to stay for.

Good luck with that.

Now the first few battles the UK regulars would most likely win as the US always relied on its Militia as opposed to Regulars. However once those Militia got used to being shot at the advantage goes to the US.

Why?

A regular is still better than a militiaman and you also have that pesky problem of militiamen refusing to serve outside their state, with the UK raiding up and down the coast you are going to have most of the militia staying in their home state and not invading Canada.

Your average US citizen was a much better shooter than your avg.UK citizen.

There is more to being a soldier than shooting a gun.

Add the suspect quality of your British Generals at this time,

Got anything to back that up?

I'd refrain from being to optimistic on your chances of winning a land war.

Well when 3000 mile marches are possible I suppose anything is.

Yes Britannia Rules the Waves,but like in 1812 the US navy will most likely make thierselves a pain in the ass as raiders.

US privateering in the war of 1812 is over blown, they were managing about the same as the French had managed and we don’t hear about Napoleon almost bringing Britain to its knees with his fleet of privateers.

[Tyr]

What Darkling said.
Ghost's post...Ugh its just too ridden with cliches of the American school kid's view of history. Whatever next?

And the British were immensly stupid making their soldiers wear bright red uniforms

[Ghost 88]

Ermm, no.

The British suffered 148 dead, 321 wounded and 46 missing.
The Americans 48 dead 227 wounded.

The British had 1,500 regulars and 300 militia/Indians.

The Americans had 3,500.

So the Americans with 2-1 odds managed to kill a few more British, hardly getting our heads handed to us.



One bad attack does not a pattern make.

And only half of the force came from the Penisula.



South of the border, the Canadians weren't quite as efficient with their ethnic cleansing.

And it isn’t that far from the West of the Mississippi to Lake superior.



Yes, a sea voyage is infinitely more logistically complicated than a 2600 mile journey through hostile Indian controlled territory to get to the coast.

After all it’s not like Britain was used to sending troops from Britain round the Cape and to India.

That is a 130 day trip, meaning this little expedition is going to need to take twice that plus however long they intend to stay for.

Good luck with that.



Why?

A regular is still better than a militiaman and you also have that pesky problem of militiamen refusing to serve outside their state, with the UK raiding up and down the coast you are going to have most of the militia staying in their home state and not invading Canada.



There is more to being a soldier than shooting a gun.



Got anything to back that up?



Well when 3000 mile marches are possible I suppose anything is.



US privateering in the war of 1812 is over blown, they were managing about the same as the French had managed and we don’t hear about Napoleon almost bringing Britain to its knees with his fleet of privateers.
On the two battles I was responding to the statement that the UK had beaten the US best which was not the case almost without exception the US generals that were routed by the Brits were not worthy of the tittle General.
On the Navy never said it was decisive just said it was a pain in the ass.also I was talking about the Regular US Navy,and thier sometimes embarassing victories over the Royal Navy (Lake Erie,the USS Constitution) Grant aside from L Erie nothing more than moral boosts for the home front.
As for regulars always being better than Militia that is so much bull. NO was Militia beating Regulars,Scots campaign in Mexico was largely Militia beating Regulars,Viet Nam was militia vs.regulars, and the First Afghan war was Militia Massacreeing a Army of Regulars. Issandanwhana(sp) was Militia vs mostly Regulars. Cowpens and Kings mountian same. So no regulars are not automaticly better than millitia.
On leaving the state I'll grant you that could be a concern
thats why Abe Lincoln had to let the CSA go because none of the State Militias would leave home.
Marching thru hostile indian lands presumes that the tribes in question were hostile to the US. That the US could easily get Indian allies along these routes.
Ease of logistics, I was not complete in my statement on this.Yes the RN could get the troops there but keeping them feed would be difficult at this time there is sparse settlement and mostly substanance farming on the West Coast,this means suppling Vanncover by sea which the UK did not have to do in India.
Screw up officers. Might be ahead of my self on this one as the brilliant team of Raglin,Lucan,and Cardigan was 17 years in the future, had understood these three were the culmination of years of mediocraty in the Royal Army. Yes I'm aware Wellington is still around but was he capable of taking a field command.
What it boils down to is a Britian/US war is likely to have the same outcome as 1812 and the poloticians on both sides knew this thats why they compromised.

[Floid]

What would either side gain from a war? The potential losses surely would be far greater than any potential gain?

[Ghost 88]

What Darkling said.
Ghost's post...Ugh its just too ridden with cliches of the American school kid's view of history. Whatever next?
Child I am not a school kid and have spent Twice as long as you have been alive studying American military history. Those cliches are actually fact as I try to make a point of only using arguements base on facts. Now Darkling has argued using facts. You however use your biased bullshit.All you have contributed to any arguement for at least the last week is Anti US propaganda Backed by Bullshit. So do me a favor add me to your Kill file so I don't have to listen to your crap.

Ian sorry I am just feed up with this persons bullshit.

[Timmy811]

On leaving the state I'll grant you that could be a concern
thats why Abe Lincoln had to let the CSA go because none of the State Militias would leave home.

No kidding, many northern militias refused to leave their states in the war of 1812 because the war was unpopular there. This scenario has war breaking out over the annexation of Texas, which will rally the south behind the war and the border of Maine which will rally the north.

[Ghost 88]

No kidding, many northern militias refused to leave their states in the war of 1812 because the war was unpopular there. This scenario has war breaking out over the annexation of Texas, which will rally the south behind the war and the border of Maine which will rally the north.
Timmy didn't think of the NE holdout when I posted. Was pointing out that if militia always stayed home Lincoln could not have fought the ACW as it was almost 100% a militia war.

[Darkling]

On the Navy never said it was decisive just said it was a pain in the ass.also I was talking about the Regular US Navy,and thier sometimes embarassing victories over the Royal Navy (Lake Erie,the USS Constitution) Grant aside from L Erie nothing more than moral boosts for the home front.

The US victories on the open seas were the Su[per frigates against Regular frigates, they were grossly lopsided.

Lake Erie was also lopsided, the UK forces were using soldiers to crew the boats and using fort canons (with antiquated fuses) instead of proper guns, in other words this was also due to the small amount resources Britain spent on the conflict.

As for regulars always being better than Militia that is so much bull. NO was Militia beating Regulars,

Yes and on the initial cavalry recon they abandoned their posts and ran, if the British had followed up then they would have been defeated.

Militia sitting in a fortification shooting aren’t having their weaknesses n military discipline tested as they would be on the open battlefield.

Scots campaign in Mexico was largely Militia beating Regulars,

Scott had a volunteer and regular force which went up against Mexico soldiers which isn’t a fair comparison with a regular soldier from a proper military.

Viet Nam was militia vs.regulars,

The American regulars were militarily quite good in Vietnam, however what you are describing in a guerrilla campaign and that is quite a different affair.

and the First Afghan war was Militia Massacreeing a Army of Regulars.

An army of regulars on a march which had been cut off from supplies and was outnumbered.

You will note that the British forces we easily able to walk all over the Afghans twice (both before and after the Afghans rising).

Issandanwhana(sp) was Militia vs mostly Regulars.

Where the British were outnumbered 15 to 1 and it could be argued the Zulus weren’t militia given they got a lot of training.

Cowpens

700 militia and 300 regulars, used to perfection by Morgan (he had them fire and run because he knew that like all militia they couldn’t hold their ground, which sort of makes my point for me).

Tareleton on the other hand had a mixed force of regulars and provincials.

That battle was won because Morgan correctly understood that militia were unsteady and he used them as such.

and Kings mountian same.

Militia on militia and a bad choice of battlefield.

So no regulars are not automaticly better than millitia.

Yes they are, they just can’t magically outcome gross disparity in numbers or a large strategic/tactical handicap.

You can’t just give some country bumpkin a gun and expect him to be able to perform military formations and have courage under fire.

On leaving the state I'll grant you that could be a concern
thats why Abe Lincoln had to let the CSA go because none of the State Militias would leave home.

It also happened in the war of 1812.

Marching thru hostile indian lands presumes that the tribes in question were hostile to the US. That the US could easily get Indian allies along these routes.

Ah but as you have already pointed out the US had displaced tribes into this reason and their reputation would have spread, the British on the other hand had treated their native allies fairly (although things would change).

Ease of logistics, I was not complete in my statement on this.Yes the RN could get the troops there but keeping them feed would be difficult at this time there is sparse settlement and mostly substanance farming on the West Coast,this means suppling Vanncover by sea which the UK did not have to do in India.

True but Britain has a rather large merchant marine and already has several outposts in the area which were kept in supply.

Screw up officers. Might be ahead of my self on this one as the brilliant team of Raglin,Lucan,and Cardigan was 17 years in the future, had understood these three were the culmination of years of mediocraty in the Royal Army.

It’s not called the Royal Army (it is made up of both royal and non royal regiments).

Raglan’s incompetence its greatly exaggerated, he was a competent soldier who just had the misfortune of being too friendly with the French.
As for the charge of the light brigade, it was a miscommunication of the type that happens in war (on the plus side the men were eager to go again once they returned to their lines, although I’m not sure what that says about the IQ of your average cavalry member).

Yes I'm aware Wellington is still around but was he capable of taking a field command.

Well he 68 at this point

Raglan was 67 in the Crimea.

So it’s possible he could take the field but I’m not sure whether he would.

He would certainly keep a close eye on what was going on however.

What it boils down to is a Britian/US war is likely to have the same outcome as 1812 and the poloticians on both sides knew this thats why they compromised.

The war of 1812 had that outcome because Britain devoted virtually non of its forces to the war.

[Darkling]

Timmy didn't think of the NE holdout when I posted. Was pointing out that if militia always stayed home Lincoln could not have fought the ACW as it was almost 100% a militia war.

No it wasn't the US had a regular army in the hundred of thousands, Pennsylvania raised a militia when it was invaded and they made it quite clear they weren't leaving the state.

The above statement is so blatantly wrong I can't actually think you mean what you are saying.

[Darkling]

No kidding, many northern militias refused to leave their states in the war of 1812 because the war was unpopular there. This scenario has war breaking out over the annexation of Texas, which will rally the south behind the war and the border of Maine which will rally the north.
Britain invaded Maine during the war of 1812 and gave strong indications they were going to annex it, New England didn't how much interest.

This was one of main reason Maine became its own state, they were very annoyed that Massachusetts didn't send help.

On the issue of why war breaks out, I can't see how it can be both.

[67th Tigers]

A work in progress, British Dispositions 1/1/1838:

1838

Home: 18 Cavalry Regiments, 27 Infantry Battalions
Mediterranean: 17 Infantry Battalions
Canada: 2 Cavalry Regiments, 19 Infantry Battalions
North America (except Canada) 16 Infantry Battalions
India: 5 Cavalry Regiments, 25 Infantry Battalions
Africa: 5 Infantry Battalions
Australia: 5 Infantry Battalions


Household Brigade:
1st Life Guards (Windsor)
2nd Life Guards (Regents Park, London)
Royal Horse Guards (Hyde Park, London)

Heavy Cavalry Brigade (London):
4th Dragoon Guards (Islington)
5th Dragoon Guards (Clapham)
10th Hussars (Houndslow)

Light Cavalry Brigade (Dublin):
2nd Dragoons
8th Hussars
17th Lancers

Guards Division (London)
1/Grenadier Guards (St. Georges Barracks, London)
3/Grenadier Guards (Portman Barracks, London)
1/Coldstream Guards (Windsor)
1/Scotch Fusilier Guards (Wellington Barracks, London)

Infantry Division (Dublin)
7th, 38th, 42nd, 79th,



Regional

Ireland
Newbridge: 2nd Dragoon Guards
Ballincollig: 1st Dragoons
Cahir: 6th Dragoons
Fermoy: 10th
Kilkenny: 19th
Belfast: 22nd
Limerick: 25th
Athlone: 48th
Cork: 94th
Newry: 95th
Enniskillen: 96th
Birr: 97th
Templemore: 99th

England and Wales
Manchester: 3rd Dragoon Guards, 98th
Leeds: 9th Lancers
London: 20th (Tower)
Brighton: 12th Lancers
Birmingham: 14th Light Dragoons
Plymouth: 29th
Canterbury: 45th
Gosport: 84th
Bolton: 88th
Stockport: 86th

Scotland
Edinburgh: 7th Dragoon Guards, 1/1st
Glasgow: 15th Hussars, 78th


Mediterranean

Celephonia: 53rd (Depot at Dublin)
Corfu: 5th (Depot at Gosport), 1/60th and 2/60th (Depots at Hull and Jersey)
Gibraltar: 33rd (Depot at Carlisle), 46th (Kinsdale), 52nd (Newcastle), 81st (Carlisle), 82nd (Cork)
Malta: 47th (Depot at Portsmouth), 59th (Mullingar), 77th (Galway), 92nd (Nenagh), Royal Malta Fencibles
Mauritius: 12th (Depot at Tralee), 35th (Stirling Castle), 87th (Castlebar)


Canada

Cavalry Brigade:
1st Dragoon Guards (Depot at Coventry)
7th Hussars (Depot at Coventry)

Guards Brigade (Montreal)
2/Grenadier Guards
2/Coldstream Guards
2/Scotch Fusilier Guards

Infantry Brigade (Montreal)
2/1st (Depot at Devonport)
83rd (Chester)
85th (Devonport)

Infantry Brigade (Quebec)
15th (Depot at Spike Island)
66th (Depot at Yougal)

23rd (Depot at Armagh)
24th (Depot at Portsmouth)
34th (Depot at Fermoy)
71st (Depot at Cork)
Royal Newfoundland Veterans

London: 32nd (Depot at Devonport)

St. John’s: 43rd (Depot at Dover), 65th

Infantry Brigade (Halifax):
11th (Depot at Chs Fort)
73rd (Depot at Clare Castle)
93rd (Butevant)


North America

Bermuda: 30th (Depot at Sunderland)
Jamaica: 8th (Depot at Guernsey), 37th (Cork), 56th (Sheerness), 64th (Londonderry), 68th (Waterford)
Antigua: 14th (Depot at Brecon)
Barbadoes: 36th (Depot at Cork, order to Canada), 69th (Dover), 70th (Guernsey)
Guyana: 67th (Chatham)
St Vincents: 74th (Aberdeen)
Demerara: 76th (Drogheda)
Trinidad: 89th (Gosport)
St Helena: 91st (Dundee)
St Lucia: 1st West Indies
Bahamas: 2nd West Indies
Honduras: Det of 2nd West Indies

Africa

Cape: 27th, 72nd (Depot at Cork), 75th (Boyle), Cape Mounted Rifles

Sierra Leone: Royal African Colonials, det of 2nd West Indies



India (unless noted, depot is at Chatham)

Bengal:
3rd Dragoons (Depot at Maidstone)
11th Light Dragoons (Depot at Coventry)
16th Lancers (Depot at Maidstone)
3rd
9th
13th
16th
26th
31st
44th
49th




Bombay:
4th Dragoons (Depot at Maidstone)
2nd
6th
17th
40th

Madras:
13th Light Dragoons (Depot at Maidstone)
4th
39th
41st
54th
55th
57th
62nd
63rd


Ceylon:
18th (Depot at Newbridge)
58th
61st (Depot at Clonmel)
90th (Depot at Portsmouth)
Ceylon Rifles

Australasia

Van Dietman’s Land
21st

New South Wales
28th
50th
51st
80th

[Nicole]

Britain invaded Maine during the war of 1812 and gave strong indications they were going to annex it, New England didn't how much interest.

This was one of main reason Maine became its own state, they were very annoyed that Massachusetts didn't send help.

On the issue of why war breaks out, I can't see how it can be both.
Britain gave strong indications of annexing anything?

[67th Tigers]

Add 1st and 2nd Bns, Rifle Brigade (both in London, England)

[Ghost 88]

The US victories on the open seas were the Su[per frigates against Regular frigates, they were grossly lopsided.

Lake Erie was also lopsided, the UK forces were using soldiers to crew the boats and using fort canons (with antiquated fuses) instead of proper guns, in other words this was also due to the small amount resources Britain spent on the conflict.




Yes and on the initial cavalry recon they abandoned their posts and ran, if the British had followed up then they would have been defeated.

Militia sitting in a fortification shooting aren’t having their weaknesses n military discipline tested as they would be on the open battlefield.



Scott had a volunteer and regular force which went up against Mexico soldiers which isn’t a fair comparison with a regular soldier from a proper military.



The American regulars were militarily quite good in Vietnam, however what you are describing in a guerrilla campaign and that is quite a different affair.



An army of regulars on a march which had been cut off from supplies and was outnumbered.

You will note that the British forces we easily able to walk all over the Afghans twice (both before and after the Afghans rising).



Where the British were outnumbered 15 to 1 and it could be argued the Zulus weren’t militia given they got a lot of training.



700 militia and 300 regulars, used to perfection by Morgan (he had them fire and run because he knew that like all militia they couldn’t hold their ground, which sort of makes my point for me).

Tareleton on the other hand had a mixed force of regulars and provincials.

That battle was won because Morgan correctly understood that militia were unsteady and he used them as such.



Militia on militia and a bad choice of battlefield.



Yes they are, they just can’t magically outcome gross disparity in numbers or a large strategic/tactical handicap.

You can’t just give some country bumpkin a gun and expect him to be able to perform military formations and have courage under fire.



It also happened in the war of 1812.



Ah but as you have already pointed out the US had displaced tribes into this reason and their reputation would have spread, the British on the other hand had treated their native allies fairly (although things would change).



True but Britain has a rather large merchant marine and already has several outposts in the area which were kept in supply.



It’s not called the Royal Army (it is made up of both royal and non royal regiments).

Raglan’s incompetence its greatly exaggerated, he was a competent soldier who just had the misfortune of being too friendly with the French.
As for the charge of the light brigade, it was a miscommunication of the type that happens in war (on the plus side the men were eager to go again once they returned to their lines, although I’m not sure what that says about the IQ of your average cavalry member).



Well he 68 at this point

Raglan was 67 in the Crimea.

So it’s possible he could take the field but I’m not sure whether he would.

He would certainly keep a close eye on what was going on however.



The war of 1812 had that outcome because Britain devoted virtually non of its forces to the war.
Just one point yes the Zuls out numbered the Brits but the Brits had rapid fire rifles.
Also I thought Fergunson led regulars at KM if he didn't my bad, Its just two battles in the ARW that I knew US militia played a key factor.For what its worth calling any of the US troops in the ARW Regulars is a streach most of the Contenintals were originally colonial Militia.
Also thank you for saying the US troops in Nam did good I didn't think there were History Books out there that said anything but the US lost.

[67th Tigers]

http://www.warof1812.ca/redcoats.htm

[Darkling]

Britain gave strong indications of annexing anything?

They set up a military governor and customs agent, allowed free trade between Maine and other British territories and the people of Maine in return surrendered and agreed to abide by whatever was determined at the peace table.

[Darkling]

Just one point yes the Zuls out numbered the Brits but the Brits had rapid fire rifles.

Indeed they did but that would be outside militia vs. regulars.

Also I thought Fergunson led regulars at KM if he didn't my bad, Its just two battles in the ARW that I knew US militia played a key factor

His force was Loyalist militia with a small (> 10%) number of regulars.

For what its worth calling any of the US troops in the ARW Regulars is a streach most of the Contenintals were originally colonial Militia.

At the start certainly but they got training (eventually from Europeans) which transformed, as I pointed out Morgan knew there was a difference.

Also thank you for saying the US troops in Nam did good I didn't think there were History Books out there that said anything but the US lost.

True but they still hammered their enemies, it’s like Somalia were you hand kill ratios in the hundreds to one, but you still pulled out.

It was a loss for the US but on the battle field the US always won the stand up fights.

[Ghost 88]

No it wasn't the US had a regular army in the hundred of thousands, Pennsylvania raised a militia when it was invaded and they made it quite clear they weren't leaving the state.

The above statement is so blatantly wrong I can't actually think you mean what you are saying.
Sorry but the US regulars never achieved numbers like that. The bulk of the Union Army was Volunteer Militia. The Volunteers were never considered Regulars thier officers did not hold Regular commission. Example G.A,Custer was a Major General of Volunteers,at the end of the ACW he reverted to his Regular Army rank of LT.Colonel,and died 11 years later still an LC. The Bulk of the US fighting forces were always amatuers untill the Cold War.
As for a war against Britian at the time mentioned the US Army had very few regulars most of who were in the artillery.There was about 10,000 inf and IIRC no cavalry, at least the US had no cav.in 1832 during the Black Hawk War,In this case the local commander called on the Gov.of IL who called out the militia who mustered 2000 in a couple of days.
It would be militia that would fight in this war and as always happened as they fought more the better they would get .
By the way was the Mutiny at this time, if India was in one of her upheavels that would limit the Army's abillity.
Also how close was the Empire to going to war over the Belgian Independance or was that finished with.

[Darkling]

Sorry but the US regulars never achieved numbers like that.

Look at 67th Tigers homepage, he has the army rolls.

They reach 400,000.

These were enlistments not militia; hell the US instituted a draft.

The bulk of the Union Army was Volunteer Militia. The Volunteers were never considered Regulars thier officers did not hold Regular commission. Example G.A,Custer was a Major General of Volunteers,at the end of the ACW he reverted to his Regular Army rank of LT.Colonel,and died 11 years later still an LC. The Bulk of the US fighting forces were always amatuers untill the Cold War.

If you are enlisted you are regular, semantics aside.

If the army has you for 24/7 and can drill you and march you wherever they like then you are a regular, despite the handing out of officers positions based upon political whims (after all a British man could get his self a position as an officer if he raised a force during some wars).

As for a war against Britian at the time mentioned the US Army had very few regulars most of who were in the artillery.There was about 10,000 inf and IIRC no cavalry, at least the US had no cav.in 1832 during the Black Hawk War,In this case the local commander called on the Gov.of IL who called out the militia who mustered 2000 in a couple of days.

Which doesn’t bode well for the US in this war.

It would be militia that would fight in this war and as always happened as they fought more the better they would get .

Maybe initially (which is why things will go badly for the US) but they will expand their army with volunteers who would get training.

By the way was the Mutiny at this time, if India was in one of her upheavels that would limit the Army's abillity.

Ye sit was at this time in the same way that the Falklands war is at this time (i.e. two decades difference).

Also how close was the Empire to going to war over the Belgian Independance or was that finished with.
The Belgian revolution was de facto recognised in 1830 but not de jure until 1839, it won't make much difference here.

[Ghost 88]

Indeed they did but that would be outside militia vs. regulars.



His force was Loyalist militia with a small (> 10%) number of regulars.



At the start certainly but they got training (eventually from Europeans) which transformed, as I pointed out Morgan knew there was a difference.



True but they still hammered their enemies, it’s like Somalia were you hand kill ratios in the hundreds to one, but you still pulled out.

It was a loss for the US but on the battle field the US always won the stand up fights.
On Zulus they are almost the classic Militia work at home go fight when called up.
It seems we are getting crosswise on this subject perhaps due to misunderstanding of our use of the terms
To me:
Regulars = fulltime 24/7/365 soilders,serve in peacetime and in wartime
Militia= All that serve at most part time have jobs as civilians serve fulltime only during war time.
It seemed to me your scope of regulars included those that I would call Militia(National Guard ,Reserves, Territorials,ect.)
These "part time soilders" can be quite good.I doubt the Brits would have wanted to fight The Army of the Potomic in April of 1865,for that I doubt they want any part of the ANV just before Gettysburg, this is not a statement that the UK would lose said battle just that it would be under the heading of things to avoid if at all possible.

[Darkling]

It seems we are getting crosswise on this subject perhaps due to misunderstanding of our use of the terms
To me:
Regulars = fulltime 24/7/365 soilders,serve in peacetime and in wartime
Militia= All that serve at most part time have jobs as civilians serve fulltime only during war time.
It seemed to me your scope of regulars included those that I would call Militia(National Guard ,Reserves, Territorials,ect.)
These "part time soilders" can be quite good.I doubt the Brits would have wanted to fight The Army of the Potomic in April of 1865,for that I doubt they want any part of the ANV just before Gettysburg, this is not a statement that the UK would lose said battle just that it would be under the heading of things to avoid if at all possible.

What I define as militia are the guys who get called up at a moments notice, don't necessarily have any training (and probably not modern weaponry) and go home after the battle is over.

People who are enlisted or drafted aren’t militia, militia wasn’t fighting at the Somme and I can’t say I have heard anybody say they were.

[Ghost 88]

Darkling I see what you were getting at, I still can not change my viewpoint on this. To me a regular is a professional fulltime soilder who serves in peace and war, this can include draftees in peacetime. The Militia is all others. I know calling them militia is streaching the term, but it made my arguement sound better. For what its worth I get this from the US Army's own way of classifying troops prior to the use of Social Security Numbers for Identification. If you enlisted into the Regular Army your number started with RA , draftees with US short for Uniformed Selective Services i.e. the draft.

[Glen]

Seems like there is a lot of dispute over the relative changes in levels of ability between the US and Britain over the course of the 19th/early 20th centuries.

One of these days I'll have to dig up my own answers on that issue...

[Glen]

Seems like there is a lot of dispute over the relative changes in levels of ability between the US and Britain over the course of the 19th/early 20th centuries.

One of these days I'll have to dig up my own answers on that issue...

[Nicole]

This is how I'd put it...

ARW - ACW - Bet on Britain to win this, and they probably won't lose (could stalemate- see 1812) unless they're fighting literally everyone, and foreign troops are able to get to the Americas and break naval superiority (see ARW). Even then, Britain will not completely lose (see ARW and Canada)

ACW - Span-Am War - It becomes less certain. Still bet on Britain, but expect them to take very heavy losses in doing so. Foreign committments become an increasing issue, but Canada is a very important British colony so they will usually put in the effort to defend it absent something massive in Europe.

Span-Am War - WW1 - Don't bet. It's a toss-up, Britain or America could win. Depends on circumstances. Though, interestingly enough, the possibility of war with Britain becomes less and less, and by now America has important things overseas too.

WW1 - WW2 - America begins to gain the other hand. However, a war becomes less and less plausible as ties between the powers increase.

WW2 - Present - Absent massive PODs, a war is ASB, but would be an American walkover. We could probably defeat the UK even with massive otehr committments if we really put the effort into it, and America is not threatened. Britain has alot less to lose though- Canada fighting the US in such a scenario is even more ASB.

[Wendell]

The British may face multiple enemies. Suppose the French, or another power try something in the midst of an "Anglo-American War."

[King Gorilla]

While britain may be stronger, remember that the US is alot closer to the action when it comes to recruiting soldiers and supplying them. As large as the british navy is, it would have great difficulty in supplying and reinforcing a significant offensive/defensive force across the atlantic while simultanious blockage the US. Remember Mexico ended up beating the french and the power disparity between those two powers was alot great than that between america and the UK.

[Timmy811]

What was the population of Britain in 1838?

The US 1840 census is 17 million, so in 1838 it was just over 16 million.

England had a population of 14.86 million in 1841 but I can't find the population for the rest of the UK. So population of the UK and Canada in 1838 = 20 million?

Given that the British have commitments all over the world I don't think they would be able to signifigantly outnumber American forces.

[Timmy811]

Britain invaded Maine during the war of 1812 and gave strong indications they were going to annex it, New England didn't how much interest.

This was one of main reason Maine became its own state, they were very annoyed that Massachusetts didn't send help.

On the issue of why war breaks out, I can't see how it can be both.

They're not just going to be invading Maine. Fighting would also rage along the borders of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Michigan. Also the domestic political situation had changed greatly since 1812. Since the first post posits that war broke out over the cumulation of diplomatic breakdowns on multiple fronts including the annexation of Texas, the Maine border and the Oregon territory. The North would definitly be as much in the fight as the south.

[Johnnyreb]

I agree with the war-weariness expressed by some, about this continual fighting between UK/USA during the 19th Century. There's scarcely a year without their being at each others throats over some godforsaken stretch of territory or some outrage against a bunch of sailors.

I blame Canada myself. It seems to be a thorn in the side of many Americans, the idea of Canada still being a monarchy. Except it isn't, and what's so wonderful about a republic, anyway? There are lots of republics in the world and look at the state of many of them. But this is not a forum for the republic/constitutional monarchy debate, so perhaps its a question of tidiness from the American point of view. Canada is denying them their rightful access to the ice-floes of Baffin Bay.

There's a lot of talk about the military possibilities, with antique generals being wheeled out and so forth, but very little talk about peace negotiations. I suggest the Canadians voluntarily hand themselves over to the USA and become part of the state of California (so they get to be part of the biggest voting bloc, geddit?) so they become part of American culture. They'll enjoy this.

As for the Brits, I find certain people's anti-Americanism very tiresome. There seems to be a race memory of Americans being over in Britain with cigarettes, nylons, chewing-gum and chocolate, over-sexed and over here, but its got to be about two generations since that happened. They may be rash and brash, but they're also very friendly and hospitable. Heavens to Betsy, they're not socialist, but they are very, very democratic - they even elect their Chief Librarians. Besides, it's their country and they're entitled to be capitalist if they want.

Anyway, in this world and all others, you have to have allies. Allies by definition are not entirely trustworthy but some are more trustworthy than others. The only question you got to ask yourself is, do you trust the French?

Having got that off my chest, I get back to the question I got to ask myself about the Great War of 1837 ( from the American point of view) or the Small War of 1837 (from the British) - Do I have to go over the economics of UK/USA relations during the 19th Century yet again?

[Darkling]

What was the population of Britain in 1838?

The US 1840 census is 17 million, so in 1838 it was just over 16 million.

England had a population of 14.86 million in 1841 but I can't find the population for the rest of the UK. So population of the UK and Canada in 1838 = 20 million?

Given that the British have commitments all over the world I don't think they would be able to signifigantly outnumber American forces.

US population 1837: 15,843,000

Canadian population 1837: 1,423,000
Great Britain population 1837: 17,620,000
Ireland population: 8,020,000

British total :27,072,000

Britain has 170% of US population.

UK per capita industrialisation is double US, thus 340% of US total comparing countries.

Not only is the US not in the same league as Britain, they may not even be playing the same sport.

[Tyr]

Child I am not a school kid and have spent Twice as long as you have been alive studying American military history. Those cliches are actually fact as I try to make a point of only using arguements base on facts. Now Darkling has argued using facts. You however use your biased bullshit.All you have contributed to any arguement for at least the last week is Anti US propaganda Backed by Bullshit. So do me a favor add me to your Kill file so I don't have to listen to your crap.

Ian sorry I am just feed up with this persons bullshit.

err yeah you really sound mature there.
You have been rattling off the standard American propeganda about as Darkling put it 'the little republic that could'.
I am stating facts. The European powers were just on a completely different scale to the US in this time frame and Britain was one of the strongest of those.
What you are doing is taking examples of the US winning a few battles and somehow thinking that it determines the result of the war as a whole.
The US certainly was throwing its best at us and we did indeed have both hands tyed behind our back (as it was mentioned only 6% of our military strength was not only holding you at bay but even making a few offensives)

For me posting nothing but anti-american propeganda...WTF?
I have posted a few anti-American facts but its definatly not all I have posted. You may like to look the point where I mentioned that from 1890 on our advantage dropped.

[67th Tigers]

US population 1837: 15,843,000



Including Slaves and Indians. Whats the free white population?

[67th Tigers]

Re: Union Army

Before the ACW the Militia was divided into two classes. The "beat militia" was the old militia which technically included every white male of military age. They had no uniforms or weapons, and only officers were designated (although generally not trained, a retired Regular Captain would frequently be a Major General of militia, officers below Colonel are generally completely untrained). The idea being on mobilisation these would form a new army. Few states could really field any beat militia units (Pennsylvannia in the north being the obvious exception).

The "Volunteer Militia" or "Uniformed Militia" started as clubs, who bought their own uniforms and weapons, and actually did some military training, with varying degrees of support from their state. These were the real reserve of the state. There were around 100,000 VM in the US and CS, and they formed the basis of the initial armies (the 90 day militia of 61 was a simple mobilisation of the existing volunteer militia).

Problems with Militia meant that there were legal problems with using units of the Militia against the CS, so instead the US reenlisted everyone as "Volunteers". The existing Pennsylvannia Militia was reenlisted on Volunteer contracts, becoming the Pennsylvannia Reserve Division.

After sweeping the VM and existing Beat Militias, extensive recruiting occurred. Surprisingly, in excess of 10% of the 1862 Union Army are Canadian (mostly French speakers from the west), and extensive recruiting efforts happened that side of the border.

Britain had an effective Militia, based on lottery, but copied the US idea of Volunteer Militia in the 1850's, which evolved into the Territorial Army.

[Wozza]

On the two battles I was responding to the statement that the UK had beaten the US best which was not the case almost without exception the US generals that were routed by the Brits were not worthy of the tittle General..

I thought you said Britain had the suspect generals? You cannot have it both ways, Obviously individuals vary in quality and everyone makes mistakes, but a serious analysis of generalship surely needs to be more systemic?


As for regulars always being better than Militia that is so much bull. NO was Militia beating Regulars,Scots campaign in Mexico was largely Militia beating Regulars,Viet Nam was militia vs.regulars, and the First Afghan war was Militia Massacreeing a Army of Regulars. Issandanwhana(sp) was Militia vs mostly Regulars. Cowpens and Kings mountian same. So no regulars are not automaticly better than millitia.

I am not sure your shooting point is relevant - it only applied to light infantry really.
The issue of militia beating regulars is interesting, but many of your examples are suspect,
The North Vietnamese army fought in Vietnam,
the First Afghan war was fought by tribal fighters, professionals, they defeated one British batallion, not an army
Isandlwana again the numerical difference was so vast it mitigates any real comparison.

I confess to knowing less about the American examples you give. However ideas in English speaking countries about the effectiveness of citizens in uniform are quite common.

A good examples is from circa 1900 Britain, where there was a play about a German invasion of Britain, in which a British household is occupied, but complains that they are civilians and should be left alone.

Later in the play the man of the house is provoked, he picks up a rifle and points it at the Germans. An officer tries to calm him down "You are a civilian not a soldier"

to which the man replies "I don't have to be, I am an Englishman."
At which moment the theatre would erupt in massive cheering and applause.
Not dissimilar thoughts seem to be in the minds of modern Americans.

At the end of the day though, I would prefer trained soldiers every time.
(ps, the full details of the story about the play can be read in Robert K Massie's Dreadnought)


means suppling Vanncover by sea which the UK did not have to do in India.
Screw up officers. Might be ahead of my self on this one as the brilliant team of Raglin,Lucan,and Cardigan was 17 years in the future, had understood these three were the culmination of years of mediocraty in the Royal Army. Yes I'm aware Wellington is still around but was he capable of taking a field command.

The British do win that war, and indeed many,many others in the nineteenth century.

PS
For all posters - who are "we" and "you"???
None of use lived in the 1830s - well maybe Tielhard;)
Perhaps use of more objective language, "the British", "the Americans" might encourage a more objective approach?:rolleyes:

[Darkling]

Including Slaves and Indians. Whats the free white population?

In 1840 2,314,346 slaves were reported on the census, so about 15% of the total US population.

Slaves were a majority in South Carolina (55%) and Mississippi (51%).

Florida and Louisiana both had 47% slaves, Alabama 42%, Georgia 40% and Virginia 36%.

It doesn’t make happy reading for those worried about the British using coastal raiding to recruit slaves and fermenting trouble amongst them.

[Darkling]

WW2 - Present - Absent massive PODs, a war is ASB, but would be an American walkover. We could probably defeat the UK even with massive otehr committments if we really put the effort into it, and America is not threatened. Britain has alot less to lose though- Canada fighting the US in such a scenario is even more ASB.

Nukes make such a war a disaster for both nations, even if the US does destroy the UK they would be left with the economic and military might of Mexico (if that).

Even without nukes, the presence of air defences and the limitations of quantity and quality of aircraft that the carrier fleet can deploy also raise serious doubts about whether the US can overwhelm the UK.

It certainly wouldn’t be an American walk over (although there are points in that time period which would be far easier than others), if these wills till the days before air craft became so important the US advantage would be more telling but they aren’t and it isn’t.

[Darkling]

They're not just going to be invading Maine. Fighting would also rage along the borders of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Michigan.

War will only rage in Ohio is they British have control of the lakes and choose to fight there, the same goes from Michigan accept around Detroit.

Vermont and New Hampshire can't do a great deal of damage in their areas and I'm not sure the Americans will want to waste troops their.

New York will be the very north and the Niagara peninsula as I have already specified.

Also the domestic political situation had changed greatly since 1812. Since the first post posits that war broke out over the cumulation of diplomatic breakdowns on multiple fronts including the annexation of Texas, the Maine border and the Oregon territory. The North would definitly be as much in the fight as the south.

And as I have pointed out the North didn't seem to care all that much when Britain grabbed Maine in 1812 (well 1814).

I imagine the North won't be impressed with the war when the British blockade kicks in.

[Quiet_Man]

As for the Brits, I find certain people's anti-Americanism very tiresome. There seems to be a race memory of Americans being over in Britain with cigarettes, nylons, chewing-gum and chocolate, over-sexed and over here, but its got to be about two generations since that happened. They may be rash and brash, but they're also very friendly and hospitable. Heavens to Betsy, they're not socialist, but they are very, very democratic - they even elect their Chief Librarians. Besides, it's their country and they're entitled to be capitalist if they want.

That is so last generation :D

Anti-Americanism in Britain is limited to a few raving socialists and extremist muslims. Though to be honest it does appear to be an acceptable form of bigotry despite the ridiculous anti-racism prevalent in Britain as a whole.

As for a war in 1837 if the Brits took the gloves off, they'd win, however I suspect the U.S would survive, much chastened, possibly smaller and hopefully a little wiser. From Britains point of view the U.S wouldn't be worth the trouble of conquering, simply putting them back in their place would probably be enough.

[MerryPrankster]

At what point in British history do we stop getting excellent Napoleonic War generals like Wellington and monstrous imbeciles like Lord Cardigan?

If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.

Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?

[DoleScum]

Nukes make such a war a disaster for both nations, even if the US does destroy the UK they would be left with the economic and military might of Mexico (if that).

Even without nukes, the presence of air defences and the limitations of quantity and quality of aircraft that the carrier fleet can deploy also raise serious doubts about whether the US can overwhelm the UK.

Given that the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent is bought from, maintained by, and used in 'cooperation' with (ie with the permission of), the US the idea of a trident being dropped on Washington is laughable.

Given the unhealthy, sycophantic attitude of the present British Government, were the US to drop a few nukes on the UK, our response would probably be limited to posting a note to Washington with "Thank you sir may we have another" written on it.

[Darkling]

Given that the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent is bought from, maintained by, and used in 'cooperation' with (ie with the permission of), the US the idea of a trident being dropped on Washington is laughable.

So is the idea of the US nuking London but there we go, Britain will have the missiles and will keep them once war breaks out.

Given the unhealthy, sycophantic attitude of the present British Government, were the US to drop a few nukes on the UK, our response would probably be limited to posting a note to Washington with "Thank you sir may we have another" written on it.

Yeah really plausible.

[67th Tigers]

At what point in British history do we stop getting excellent Napoleonic War generals like Wellington and monstrous imbeciles like Lord Cardigan?

If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.

Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?

Cardigan's fault was that he'd been court martialled, and so never did anything without express orders, so as to avoid a repeat of the experience.

At Balaklava his major failing was not the charge of the Russian battery, but rather not charging in support of the Heavy Brigade earlier in the battle. Throwing in then could have smashed the Russian cavalry totally.

That said, the charge of the Russian battery was well conducted, and far more sensible than an attack on the actual battery ordered (which would have involved charging up a steep and rocky ridgeline, while enfiladed by the Russian grand battery).

Cardigan was a competant battlefield commander, just one who'd refuse to take initiative or question orders.

[MerryPrankster]

Given that the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent is bought from, maintained by, and used in 'cooperation' with (ie with the permission of), the US the idea of a trident being dropped on Washington is laughable.

Given the unhealthy, sycophantic attitude of the present British Government, were the US to drop a few nukes on the UK, our response would probably be limited to posting a note to Washington with "Thank you sir may we have another" written on it.

The control codes of the Tridents are in British hands, so if the Government wanted to fire a nuke at DC, there's nothing stopping them.

But why?

[Darkling]

If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.

Plenty of the Napoleonic generals were knocking about; I wouldn't be banking on the British officer class being worse than the US one, the British ones had actually been trained whilst the expanded American army is likely to have people picked based upon how friendly they are with the governor.

Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?

Doubtful, the US doesn't have the men to be able to pull it off without the British seeing it coming.

[67th Tigers]

Doubtful, the US doesn't have the men to be able to pull it off without the British seeing it coming.

Halifax and Quebec are the two most fortified positions in the Western hemisphere. Taking either is a major undertaking.

[DoleScum]

The control codes of the Tridents are in British hands, so if the Government wanted to fire a nuke at DC, there's nothing stopping them.

But why?

Says who?? The whole process of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation is tip-top secret, no-one knows exactely how it works.

Personally I find it doubtful that the US would simply hand nukes over to Britain without retaining some failsafe for preventing them being used against American targets.

Why would an Anglo-American war happen now? It probably wouldn't, our governments got its head so far up washington's jacksey that it would be as likely as the US dropping pork sausages on Tel Aviv.

[Darkling]

Halifax and Quebec are the two most fortified positions in the Western hemisphere. Taking either is a major undertaking.
Exactly, I think the British would notice when the US assembles its fleet, a fleet of transports and a force several times the size of its regular army.

[JLCook]

And compare Active, trained, SEASONED, US forces vs whatever Great Britain wishes to bring .

I don't think that anyone, worldwide, on that date would have had a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning.

It would take months to over a year for the RN to secure the Atlantic and by that time, they'd no longer have anything left on the American side of the Atlantic to secure!

[Tyr]

Nukes make such a war a disaster for both nations, even if the US does destroy the UK they would be left with the economic and military might of Mexico (if that).

Even without nukes, the presence of air defences and the limitations of quantity and quality of aircraft that the carrier fleet can deploy also raise serious doubts about whether the US can overwhelm the UK.

It certainly wouldn’t be an American walk over (although there are points in that time period which would be far easier than others), if these wills till the days before air craft became so important the US advantage would be more telling but they aren’t and it isn’t.
Truth but...meh its not really worth discussing as such a scenario is highly theoretical.

On Americans having British nuclear codes and all that- very dodgy situation but that just proves how utterly theoretical the scenario is, I think you could safely assume that the US president wouldn't wake up one day and go 'I know, lets invade the UK!' there would be a decline in relations first and as part of that Britain would make other nuclear arrangments.



For more on topic stuff...
British commitments around the world are vastly over-exagerated. I can see how it happens, the situation was pretty damn complex and if you try to equate modern US commitments too much to the 19th century situation...Well...
The parts of the empire usually ran themselves. There were only a few hundred Brits governing India most of the time with most of the work falling to loyal Indians.

[Darkling]

And compare Active, trained, SEASONED, US forces vs whatever Great Britain wishes to bring .

Yeah they would probably be about par, shame it would take years for the US to get them and the British can just place more troops in theatre (especially since the UK gets to chose).

I don't think that anyone, worldwide, on that date would have had a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning.

Evidently, the question is whether you have anything to factually support your position.

It would take months to over a year for the RN to secure the Atlantic

And your reason for believing the greatest maritime power of the age would require this long?

and by that time, they'd no longer have anything left on the American side of the Atlantic to secure!

Yes I imagine the Royal navy going AWOL for some reason would put a crimp in British planning, I don’t see it happening though.

[Timmy811]

US population 1837: 15,843,000

British total :27,072,000

Britain has 170% of US population.

UK per capita industrialisation is double US, thus 340% of US total comparing countries.

Not only is the US not in the same league as Britain, they may not even be playing the same sport.

Not enough given the logistics involved. The Union had four times the white population of the South as well as four times the industry and could supply their forces over land and look how long that war lasted. Britain has to supply it's troops over a 3,000 sea line because Canada won't be able to supply the forces needed by itself and it most keep substansial forces posted in Indian and other posts around the world.

[MerryPrankster]

Plenty of the Napoleonic generals were knocking about; I wouldn't be banking on the British officer class being worse than the US one, the British ones had actually been trained whilst the expanded American army is likely to have people picked based upon how friendly they are with the governor.

If the US military had lots of "friends of the governor," then I'm sure the British military had lots of aristocratic incompetents who bought their commissions (I read it took the Crimean War to put a stop to that).

[MerryPrankster]

Says who?? The whole process of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation is tip-top secret, no-one knows exactely how it works.

Personally I find it doubtful that the US would simply hand nukes over to Britain without retaining some failsafe for preventing them being used against American targets.


I was under the impression the Brits built their own bombs and the US supplied the missiles. Wikipedia agrees (and no, I didn't go change it to win the argument).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom

Thus, the US would not be able to prevent the Brits from using nuclear weapons (against the US or anyone else). The US could refuse to maintain the Tridents of course, but that won't really have any effect for awhile.

[Darkling]

If the US military had lots of "friends of the governor," then I'm sure the British military had lots of aristocratic incompetents who bought their commissions (I read it took the Crimean War to put a stop to that).

Doesn’t matter even those who bought their commissions had to have been trained first and the amount of commission purchasing is overblown.

In 1812 the army officer corps was made up of 60% who joined without purchasing their commission, 20% who were promoted from NCO's (based on merit) and 20% who were new officers who bought a commission.

Promoting within the ranks by purchasing was also becoming rare as only commissions which had been purchased could be sold and then only in seniority within the regiment.

[Darkling]

Not enough given the logistics involved. The Union had four times the white population of the South as well as four times the industry and could supply their forces over land and look how long that war lasted.

The US was trying to occupy the south (and the South crippled itself trying, if the US had offered the South a peace where they, the CSA, lost bits they had claims on, like Kentucky, the war would have been over far sooner because it isn't worth crippling your economy just to hang on to some lightly settled regions) Britain is going to be trying to conquer the US, just seize bits around the edges they want and then force the US to the table.

Anyway I see your civil war and raise you a war of 1812 where pitiful British forces (in quantity) were able to handle the US with ease.

Britain has to supply it's troops over a 3,000 sea line because Canada won't be able to supply the forces needed by itself and

Guess what you need to supply an army in a foreign country, Ports at home and abroad (Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Belfast, etc etc etc and Quebec, Halifax on the other side) and ships (now I think Britain might have some of those about but I could be round, does anybody recall whether Britain had any trading vessels about that they might be able to hire???).

it most keep substansial forces posted in Indian and other posts around the world.

How substantial?

And given that the UK starting available forces are bigger than the US and that the UK has a bigger population (and economy and industry) I would back them to be able to field the bigger army.

[King Gorilla]

Guess what you need to supply an army in a foreign country, Ports at home and abroad (Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Belfast, etc etc etc and Quebec, Halifax on the other side) and ships (now I think Britain might have some of those about but I could be round, does anybody recall whether Britain had any trading vessels about that they might be able to hire???).

Yes it has alot of ships but how many of those ships would be needed soley for the purpose of establishing supply lines and protecting them? Furthermore, how many ships will be needed to blockade the american coast? Now consider how many ships will be needed to conduct bombardment campaigns on american coastal cities (not that they would be terriably effective) There is no question Britain industrially and militarily out numbers the US at this point of time but can it translate those advantages over 3000 miles.

[Darkling]

Yes it has alot of ships but how many of those ships would be needed soley for the purpose of establishing supply lines and protecting them? Furthermore, how many ships will be needed to blockade the american coast? Now consider how many ships will be needed to conduct bombardment campaigns on american coastal cities (not that they would be terriably effective) There is no question Britain industrially and militarily out numbers the US at this point of time but can it translate those advantages over 3000 miles.

Britain blockaded the US during the war of 1812, supplied forces in Canada, and supplied forces in Spain and the Med, in addition to blockading Europe and keeping ships available to watch the French.

Anyway the concern expressed wasn't over warships available but civilian ships available to transport food, considering that about two and a half decades later Britain was importing enough wheat for 6 million people I doubt they will have that much trouble supplying food enough for a couple percent of that (at ridiculous high end 5 or 6%).

Especially given that Canada would have food available since they produced food as a central plank of their economy.

[Nicole]

Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?
Halifax is the RN's base in the region- why do they have to "get there" at all?

[Darkling]

Halifax is the RN's base in the region- why do they have to "get there" at all?

The question is whether the ships there could hold off the US fleet.

Anybody got an ORBAT for the US navy at this time?

[Darkling]

Looking at Wikipedia’s ship list, there appear to be nine US frigates at this time and seven ships of the line.

So the question becomes what is a Royal Navy ORBAT at this time?

[67th Tigers]

Quoted from US Senator Sumner

RN has: 88 Ships of the Line
109 Large Frigates
190 small frigates, corvettes, sloops and brigs
65 steamers (generally cruisers, in 1838 there were already steam warships in RN commission)
3 troopships

France has: 40 ships of the line
50 frigates
40 steamers
19 small craft

In fact, Sumner discusses the strength of the European powers circa 1837 in general: http://www.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/sumnervwar.htm

[Dave Howery]

as in all questions about a 19th century US/UK war, it comes down to 'when?' In 1837, the US just can't compete against the UK.... by the ACW, the US could compete on land, but not at sea.... after the ACW, it starts to become more of an even contest....

[Grimm Reaper]

Why all these assumptions that a war just happens? Far more likely is that one or both countries have been preparing and building up. Give the British an advance fleet in Halifax and the US will be very unhappy in short order.

[srv fan]

Haha, you have to love it when people start busting out the whole array of American mythology to explain how we could possibly beat GB in any way before the very late 1800's. But all Americans were wily outdoorsmen who could shoot better than trained professionals and they fought harder because they were fighting for their rights and...

I think Imajin and Dave Howery summed it up pretty well. Before ACW, GB wins. Post-ACW to 1898, 60/40 on GB. 1898-1918, 60/40 on the US. After that, walk in the park.

[Saladin]

If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.


IIRC, the OC Canada in 1837 was Sir Maurice Colborne, who had been commander of the 51st Light Infantry at Waterloo, and was really the bloke who saw the chance for a flank enfilade and basically caused the Old Guard to break ... so no, he wasn't incompetant

[Darkling]

IIRC, the OC Canada in 1837 was Sir Maurice Colborne, who had been commander of the 51st Light Infantry at Waterloo, and was really the bloke who saw the chance for a flank enfilade and basically caused the Old Guard to break ... so no, he wasn't incompetant

Sir John Colborne was his name.

[Saladin]

Sir John Colborne was his name.

Ah, thank you. I was doing that without recourse to the books I have available.

[Communist Wizard]

OK, stop. I think sane people will agree that Britain can win* the war easily.
*As in, get concessions, not annexing it back outright.
I see northern-most NY, and Niagara being chopped off, as with Detroit. Perhaps Maine, or bits of it. Also, maybe that part of Michigan which is cut off from the mainland.
The main thing here is post-war. British-American relations are soured indefinetly, and as such Germany will get more support in any Great War conflict. Also, Americans will try to be a little more imperialistic* maybe, trying to top the Brits. However, at the same time Mexico will get key British support, so the U.S.'s chances of winning the Mex-American War are lowered. The Oregon Territory probably won't fall into American hands until later, also hurting their chances in the Pacific. Russia, Japan will probably be more prevailent here.
*or they'll shrink inward
The Civil War, which may or may not happen, will probably see at least paltry British support, a thing the U.S.A won't like. Their influence over Canada will dimish.
Amazing how 5 pages went by and no one has gotten past the war.

[M79]

Does this push Canada into joining the US somehow? If so, this could be a veyr long war as Britain will have to push in from Quebec (Hey French! Fight with us Americans and gain independence, we'll even toss in Labrador!), Nova Scotia, or the Caribbean. They could start raiding plantations and liberating slaves to toss in a moral issue as a try to divide the Americans but if the North and South are united in their hatred of the UK it might not be enough. Interestingly Colt is getting ready to patent his first pistol and this might accelerate American firearms development. With the Cherokee still in control of northern Georgia/eastern Tennessee the UK might try to use them to an advantage as well.

My Overall Guess: Assuming it stays contained to UK/US our navy is largely destroyed or rendered ineffective by the UK but the land campaign takes too long, by 1840 we're in tough straits as British invasions claim several areas though encountering fierce guerilla resistance. Perhaps if Canada stays British, they take southernmost Florida, most of Maine, peninsular Michigan, and modern Washington State's coast, we lose Maine and perhaps peninsular Michigan but little else. We become much more militant and the Civil War is delayed by mutual hatred of the British and the thought of them manipulating one side or another. The war becomes unpopular in UK, this might work to our advantage especially if there's lots of bloodshed and we could get a reprieve and lose only Maine. Should Canada decides to rebel and join the US or form their own country (under Mackenzie?) things take much longer with potential status quo antebellum. I doubt we gain anything unless we buy it outright as part of the treaty or if the UK is rushed to settlement by discord at home, and then we don't gain much unless Canada joins us by their own accord.

[Wendell]

OK, stop. I think sane people will agree that Britain can win* the war easily.
*As in, get concessions, not annexing it back outright.
I see northern-most NY, and Niagara being chopped off, as with Detroit. Perhaps Maine, or bits of it. Also, maybe that part of Michigan which is cut off from the mainland.
The main thing here is post-war. British-American relations are soured indefinetly, and as such Germany will get more support in any Great War conflict. Also, Americans will try to be a little more imperialistic* maybe, trying to top the Brits. However, at the same time Mexico will get key British support, so the U.S.'s chances of winning the Mex-American War are lowered. The Oregon Territory probably won't fall into American hands until later, also hurting their chances in the Pacific. Russia, Japan will probably be more prevailent here.
*or they'll shrink inward
The Civil War, which may or may not happen, will probably see at least paltry British support, a thing the U.S.A won't like. Their influence over Canada will dimish.
Amazing how 5 pages went by and no one has gotten past the war.
Any concessions made by the U.S. to Britain will be in the West. My prediction is that the U.S. loses its istakess in the Oregon Country, as well as everything west of Lake Superior, and north of 45 degrees lattitude.

[67th Tigers]

How substantial?

And given that the UK starting available forces are bigger than the US and that the UK has a bigger population (and economy and industry) I would back them to be able to field the bigger army.


In 1838, the British Dispositions were

England and Scotland: 5 Infantry Brigades (15 Bns) and 4 Cavalry Brigades (12 Regiments)
Ireland: 5 Infantry Brigades (14 Bns) and 2 Cavalry Brigades (6 Regiments)

Canada and the Maritimes: 6 Infantry Brigades (18 Infantry Bns) and a Cavalry Brigade (2 Regiments)

Bermuda and the Caribean: 16 Infantry Bns (3 Brigade HQs)

Mediterranian: 5 Brigade HQs (16 Infantry Bns)

Cape Colony: 1 Infantry Brigade (3 Bns)

India
Bengal: 8 Infantry and 3 Cavalry
Bombay: 1 Infantry and 1 Cavalry
Madras: 8 Infantry and 1 Cavalry
Ceylon: 5 Infantry

Australia
New South Wales: 1 Brigade (4 Bns)
Van Dietmans Land: 1 Bn

http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/1838.htm

[M79]

Here's a 2006 political map showing what the US might lose a postwar situation around 1840, the UK takes two or all of the areas assuming Canada does not join the US in the war. If they do, it might be status quo antebellum w/ Canada potentially joining the US as States and the UK selling the Hudson's Bay area for a tidy sum.

[Darkling]

Seems far too lenient.

The British are going to take all of Oregon right off the bat, the Americans have no real claim and the area was jointly administered.

The Americans won't be able to win any battles there to make a claim so everything west of the Rockies is gone.

The border in Maine is more likely to follow the Penobscot rather than take the entire area.

The 49N boundary is also likely to come in for serious reconsideration, Minnesota is unsettled at this point as is everything west of Minnesota.

Wisconsin has 30,000 people in 1840 (so even less here) and Iowa has 43,000.

Wisconsin has only 5,000 people living above the Wisconsin river in 1840 and probably none at this point.

Iowa has nobody living above the 43N and only about 5,000 living above 42N.

The ideal border for the British here is to follow the green bay the the Wisconsin river then follow the Mississippi down to 42N and then Westwards until you hit the Mexican border.

The 43N also offer an idea because it is almost exactly where the Wisconsin river joins the Mississippi, this could be followed to Missouri (or the Great Sioux just above it) and followed down to the Platte and use that to go to the Mexican border.

The first border lands less than 10,000 on the wrong side and the second less than 5,000.

Both are easily justifiable, in fact taking all of Wisconsin only adds another 25,000.

[Tyr]

Why ever would Canada join the US?
This is post 1812 afterall.

[Fatstalin]

Why ever would Canada join the US?
This is post 1812 afterall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion

[M79]

Seems far too lenient.

The British are going to take all of Oregon right off the bat, the Americans have no real claim and the area was jointly administered.

The Americans won't be able to win any battles there to make a claim so everything west of the Rockies is gone.

The border in Maine is more likely to follow the Penobscot rather than take the entire area.

The 49N boundary is also likely to come in for serious reconsideration, Minnesota is unsettled at this point as is everything west of Minnesota.

Wisconsin has 30,000 people in 1840 (so even less here) and Iowa has 43,000.

Wisconsin has only 5,000 people living above the Wisconsin river in 1840 and probably none at this point.

Iowa has nobody living above the 43N and only about 5,000 living above 42N.

The ideal border for the British here is to follow the green bay the the Wisconsin river then follow the Mississippi down to 42N and then Westwards until you hit the Mexican border.

The 43N also offer an idea because it is almost exactly where the Wisconsin river joins the Mississippi, this could be followed to Missouri (or the Great Sioux just above it) and followed down to the Platte and use that to go to the Mexican border.

The first border lands less than 10,000 on the wrong side and the second less than 5,000.

Both are easily justifiable, in fact taking all of Wisconsin only adds another 25,000.

UK has other problems to deal with: Ireland, Chartist Movement/Riots, Opium War, Anti-Corn Law Riots, and debates over the use of the Dardanelles with France, Russia, etc. I figure a war with the US would only escalate these and prevent the UK from dominating the peace talks, especially if there are large numbers of casualties and the poor of Britain feel they're being marginalized. Never mind the potential for Irish troubles that could sap large numbers of troops in addition to domestic riots. The cabinet in 1837-1839 might also be able to come to the table if the Canadian secretary resigns and the US makes minor concessions, he wasn't particularly popular and blamed for heavyhandedness there during his tenure.

[brecarious]

Well with these troubles in Upper and Lower Canada might Great Britain not hold off on Declaring war on U.S. over the Texas question in the first place. Small as the armed conflicts in upper/lower Canada were according to the wiki it just seems more prudent.

Its not like them to not put their own house in order first irregardless of ambitions in Mexico.

As someone said earlier it is a lot more interesting what happens after the war. Which is eitheir going to result in minor territorial readjustments (Not that those areas arent important its just in the over all context of the landmass of Canada or the United States). But how it effects the relations between both nations as events progress outward from 1837.

I mean there were a few people in the Navy who were still upset about joining the Allies in WW1 because of the war of 1812.

Add another one in the 1840's and well assuming that the rough development of the involved area's are not butterflied away (Social and political pressures which lead to the Civil War are still likely to occur). International econoomic investment in the U.S. is still likely to occur (After all War's are the affair of prince's. As long as investing in U.S. industry is going to make a profit. Private investors in London will continue to do so dispite the political climate, as we have seen throughout the modern era).

Now the real question is wether the losing side of the conflict ever makes a play for a war of revenge in the late 1800's or early 1900's.

Now some have proposed that such a defeat in 1837 could lead to a sundering of the Entire West Coast etc. I respect your right to propose that but I just don't see it. Even if the area's are legally declared another country that makes about as much sense to me as if the British had invalidated the Lousiana Purchase would have stopped western migration. Indians still would have been pushed out (largely by the efforts squatters, Non-government armed bands etc). Certaintly the British Army could crush any of these that they wanted too. The thing is are the British going to want to pay for it? Redcoats cost money. Food supplies, forts, etc and if you are expelling settlers infavor of supporting the native tribes there your not going to be making any money on the enterprise.

The British Empire was many things altruistic was not one of them.

As for the outcome of the War of 1837 I feel it comes down too what kind of a war it is. Total War just USA against the British Empire? Long bloody and British Resources winout eventually. Limited War? depends on who's commanding the British Expeditionary. And if they attack down from Canada or fight from Mexico in a limited war its worse if they do both. (after all the issue of the war is Texas not Canada while Canada will likely be attacked in retaliation they can't say 'We're here to help you Mexico and then never set foot in Mexico').

Also in a Limited War they might just stick to fighting from Mexico. They are astute enough to know of the regional divisions between North and South in the U.S. if the war gets billed as a Southern war of Slavery that will hamstring the U.S. in fighting it. Also if they attack from Canada its just going to make that really long border hostile. Which longterm they know is going to be expensive to garrison as whiping the U.S. off the map is not part of their war agenda, Their goal is to prevent Texas annexation.

Now fighting from Mexico? Again depends who's commanding the expeditionary force. Britain's navy is going to rule the wave's. Raiders are going to annoy them but not hurt them. At the peace table Mexico definitely gets a better deal.

Now I keep saying from Mexico and your probably all like 'but Texas is independent already' Oh yeah....US and British Empire is at war and Mexico is NOT going to jump in. Dispite having a dispute over their border with Texas.

Them staying out is not going to happen.

As its been stated however the British Empire has its hands in a lot of pie's right now that quite frankly are more important. if the Expeditionary force it sends happens to have a less then stellar general. the U.S. is likely going to end up with most of their gains from Mexico per OTL.

If the British General is better the desire to end things quickly is going to leave Texas independent (dependent on Britain not the U.S.). A border readjustment infavor of Mexico against Texas and that will be the end of it. Maybe the Oregon adjustment but if the leaders in Oregon had decided to just sit it out and see what happened might be nothing there.

This leave's the least amount of room for a revenge war. Texas was not U.S. Territory so its not going to promote the level of hate of biting off other chunks of the U.S. would. Texas is still independent and a republic (Some idiot will likely claim it a draw with an obsurd idea that the British were going to appoint a Monarch but the U.S. would have fought on if they did).

Oh and why aren't I talking about the Canadian front? *shrugs* if you insist...ok some guy said it was a matter of marching really lame slapdash invasion of Canada and the Canadian/British fight it off. Cue indecisive skirmish's for the rest of the war.

[Darkling]

UK has other problems to deal with: Ireland, Chartist Movement/Riots, Opium War, Anti-Corn Law Riots, and debates over the use of the Dardanelles with France, Russia, etc. I figure a war with the US would only escalate these and prevent the UK from dominating the peace talks, especially if there are large numbers of casualties and the poor of Britain feel they're being marginalized. Never mind the potential for Irish troubles that could sap large numbers of troops in addition to domestic riots. The cabinet in 1837-1839 might also be able to come to the table if the Canadian secretary resigns and the US makes minor concessions, he wasn't particularly popular and blamed for heavyhandedness there during his tenure.

Yes and during the Napoleonic wars the luddites marauded about and the Irish had a full-scale uprising, it still didn't alter the fact that Britain won.

The US winning or even getting a pseudo draw in these situations always relies on Britain fighting with one hand tied behind it's back and I don't think they would.

It doesn't really matter if Britain wins battles enough to stake a claim to the Michigan Upper Peninsula they gain pretty much everything West of that point by default because it is unsettled and thus the Britsih have won the battle for possession of the area.

In any case you had they taking 1/2 million US citizens which seems a lot more difficult to negotiate than just taking some Indian filled unsettled land.

Your division of Oregon territory makes absolutely zero sense since it is quite clear that it is self contained area past the Rockies and the British gain control there by default.

[Darkling]

Now some have proposed that such a defeat in 1837 could lead to a sundering of the Entire West Coast etc. I respect your right to propose that but I just don't see it.

Well the West coats isn't really the US to surrender, it is jointly administered with the territory being filled with British factories and British allied Indians.

Anybody taking a look at the peace conference can't make a valid US claim to it.

Even if the area's are legally declared another country that makes about as much sense to me as if the British had invalidated the Lousiana Purchase would have stopped western migration.

I don't follow the argument, you say it is unlikely because something else unrelated was unlikely.

Could you please explain why the initial statement is unlikely.

Indians still would have been pushed out (largely by the efforts squatters, Non-government armed bands etc).

Why?

The British can arm the Indians and establish a fort on the edge of the territory to turn away settlers, those that continue in are left at the mercy of the British backed Indians.

They aren't going to have the protection of the cavalry here unless the British decide they want them in the territory and that means small groups can be delat with by the Indians piece meal.

However the British might just settle it with their won people or even just let Americans in, large parts of Canda sure American settlement and despite American hopes they didn't really seem to care what flag they lived under.

Certaintly the British Army could crush any of these that they wanted too. The thing is are the British going to want to pay for it? Redcoats cost money. Food supplies, forts, etc and if you are expelling settlers infavor of supporting the native tribes there your not going to be making any money on the enterprise.

The Hudson bay company was primarily interested in making money and they also favoured trade with the natives over settlement.

Limited War? depends on who's commanding the British Expeditionary. And if they attack down from Canada or fight from Mexico in a limited war its worse if they do both. (after all the issue of the war is Texas not Canada while Canada will likely be attacked in retaliation they can't say 'We're here to help you Mexico and then never set foot in Mexico').

Well what the war is about isn't exactly clear from the opening post, really the idea of Britain fighting a war to prevent Texas and the US unifying is bordering on ASB.

Also in a Limited War they might just stick to fighting from Mexico.

They can't because the US won't refrain from attacking Canada and because they already have a ready reserve of troops in Canada which will surge forward to gain territory that gives Canada a better defensive position.

Now I keep saying from Mexico and your probably all like 'but Texas is independent already' Oh yeah....US and British Empire is at war and Mexico is NOT going to jump in. Dispite having a dispute over their border with Texas.

Mexico will most likely jump in if the issue is Texas because their treaty with Texas forbade Texas form joining another nation.

As its been stated however the British Empire has its hands in a lot of pie's right now that quite frankly are more important. if the Expeditionary force it sends happens to have a less then stellar general. the U.S. is likely going to end up with most of their gains from Mexico per OTL.


Wildly implausible, in OTL they invade California and made their main effort against Texas by sea, that option is cut off from them.

If the British General is better the desire to end things quickly is going to leave Texas independent (dependent on Britain not the U.S.).

The problem there is that the British have essentially got to hold Texas down for the rest of eternity.

Maybe the Oregon adjustment but if the leaders in Oregon had decided to just sit it out and see what happened might be nothing there.

The joint administration would be terminated by the very act of declaring war, after that the company doesn't have to do much but tell the Indians to have some fun against the barely present Americans (I doubt even that would be necessary), hell the centre of American "power" in the area was Astor, a place that was staffed almost entirely by French Canadians.

Oh and why aren't I talking about the Canadian front? *shrugs* if you insist...ok some guy said it was a matter of marching really lame slapdash invasion of Canada and the Canadian/British fight it off. Cue indecisive skirmish's for the rest of the war.

The Britsih had more regulars in Canada than he Americans had regulars, such an "invasion" would be beaten off well within US territory.

[Tyr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion

That doesn't answer my question.

[Earling]

Why do British vs USA threads always fall into cliches.

It always starts with a quick going over of the various forces. The conclusion is always the same. RN invincible (give or take), military forces about equal but the British have far greater financial and industrial backing. This declines as the war moves closer to the 20th century.

So having decided Britain will probably win the war there is a quick run down of possibilities to ensure Britain cannot actually make any attempt to win the war. This varies from
A) The USA somehow blockades food shipments the world over and Britain collapses due to the price of grain (for the British) rising a bit. Sure the entire US economy dies (it will suffer anyway from the blockade) but they can somehow carry on regardless.
B) The British suffer rebellions the world over. The Irish! The Indians! Those pesky French suddenly rise up and attack Britain for some inexplicable reason! Again this doesn't appear very likely and almost no situation barring a full on European war is really going to really reduce British power in the Americas but no matter.
C) The British are all deeply opposed to a war which isn't really likely to effect the public more than the imperial expansion currently occuring the world over. Ofcourse the USA is all politically unified to a man despite any losses and every single one is willing to fight and die in the service of the flag. Not much needs to be said how unlikely this is.

Eventually the conclusion comes about that barring an extremely (un)fortunate and highly implausable expansion of the war to something unseen in the 19th century the British will have more than enough resources to win.

Which brings us to the final bit. Having decided that the British will win and in all likelyhood win big, people somehow feel compelled to let the USA off effectively scot free.
This occurs because either
A) The USA must under all circumstances spread from sea to shining sea. Anything less is considered to border on the implausable if not out and out ASB. Breaking out the Luther, justification by faith alone. Sure much of the continent is barely populated and the East Coast is effectively an island for most of this period but the British cannot possibly want any land.
This is obviously rubbish.. but its not quite as bad as

B) The British don't make permanent foes. Due to this any conclusion is to be near enough a white peace regardless of the actual result. The reason the British won't claim chunks of American held land is due to the extremely high costs in holding it and the fact that sooner or later the USA will almost certainly be in a position to reclaim areas of high population. This is not the case with the East Coast untill deep into the 19th century and with the Rockies offering a barrier to land invasions argueably not even then. You may have an issue with British industry failing in the latter 19th early 20th century, but this isn't predestined either and the USA may well have moved beyond wanting the East Coast by the time they actually have the capability to make an attempt to claim it. Perhaps the area may have reached a population density large enough to make attempts at out right annexation difficult. Who can say?

Regardless.. anything is better than
C) The British will not possibly make demands on the USA because its a well known fact in 19th century circles that at some point in the early 20th century the British will find themselves in a hard fought war with Germany (that geographical expression somewhere between France and Austria if your not sure) and with a hostile USA will surely be doomed. Even if this isn't offered as a direct reason, the assumption that such a war is an inevitable concequence wih a PoD somewhere the better part of a century earlier is simply madness.

There is obviously some occasional justification for these claims but by and large they come up every time and are dealt with the same every time. Its almost as predestined for the USA to go from coast to coast as it is for France to have A-L returned at some point post the Franco-Prussian war.

[Fatstalin]

That doesn't answer my question.

But such events could perhaps spark a pro-US aligned movement (provided these rebellions aren't immedeately stamped out).

[Darkling]

*Snip*

Great post, truly superb.


Even if this isn't offered as a direct reason, the assumption that such a war is an inevitable concequence wih a PoD somewhere the better part of a century earlier is simply madness.

The reason for this is that those posting in favour of the US believe that justice must be served, so if Britain does win (which any reasonable person has to admit they will, eventually after some cajoling and evidence) then the only possible conclusion is that America has the last laugh when the Germans cause trouble.

[M79]

Yes and during the Napoleonic wars the luddites marauded about and the Irish had a full-scale uprising, it still didn't alter the fact that Britain won.

The US winning or even getting a pseudo draw in these situations always relies on Britain fighting with one hand tied behind it's back and I don't think they would.

It doesn't really matter if Britain wins battles enough to stake a claim to the Michigan Upper Peninsula they gain pretty much everything West of that point by default because it is unsettled and thus the Britsih have won the battle for possession of the area.

In any case you had they taking 1/2 million US citizens which seems a lot more difficult to negotiate than just taking some Indian filled unsettled land.

Your division of Oregon territory makes absolutely zero sense since it is quite clear that it is self contained area past the Rockies and the British gain control there by default.

And the British took quite some time to defeat Napolean, I doubt this war would last >3 years *if* it stays contained to US/UK. My division of Oregon follows the Columbia River and stays along 49 degrees for the remainder of the border to the Great Lakes, it very nearly became the border in OTL. I also don't see the UK taking anything south of 46/47N (Duluth MN) unless the UK overruns us entirely, we'd not allow that except in total defeat. We also supply our own food, a war causes supply lines and likely higher prices for Britain which is already facing riots over the Corn Laws.

[Wendell]

Here's a 2006 political map showing what the US might lose a postwar situation around 1840, the UK takes two or all of the areas assuming Canada does not join the US in the war. If they do, it might be status quo antebellum w/ Canada potentially joining the US as States and the UK selling the Hudson's Bay area for a tidy sum.

Doubtful IMO. Maine won't be completely taken, and the U.S. will be forced to give up its stake in the Oregon Country entirely.

[M79]

Taking Maine entirely gives them much greater claim to the Grand Banks and a greater distance for an American army to march to hit Halifax. Peninsular Michigan is gone (I think this is fairly certain regardless), but the US will try to maintain its claims on the area north of 42 S and south of the Columbia for the sake of Pacific access. Again, I don't assume overwhelming British victory, but enough they can make *some* territorial concessions. The whole of Oregon will likely be seen as a pound of flesh, more likely they'd shift the border to 48 or 47N, stretch it to the Columbia, and follow it into the sea. We might then send settlers and filibuster Oregon at that point, either way look for a revenge war in two-three decades. Especially if the nation is pushed closer together and/or the British remove slavery as a means of regional infighting (and cutting us off from much of our cash crop income).

[Wendell]

Taking Maine entirely gives them much greater claim to the Grand Banks and a greater distance for an American army to march to hit Halifax. Peninsular Michigan is gone (I think this is fairly certain regardless), but the US will try to maintain its claims on the area north of 42 S and south of the Columbia for the sake of Pacific access. Again, I don't assume overwhelming British victory, but enough they can make *some* territorial concessions. The whole of Oregon will likely be seen as a pound of flesh, more likely they'd shift the border to 48 or 47N, stretch it to the Columbia, and follow it into the sea. We might then send settlers and filibuster Oregon at that point, either way look for a revenge war in two-three decades. Especially if the nation is pushed closer together and/or the British remove slavery as a means of regional infighting (and cutting us off from much of our cash crop income).

The U.S. agreeing to turn its back on a loyal state within the Union would spell the end of the U.S. in ANY form. The U.S. will give up land that has not yet been formed into states.

[Paul Spring]

Why do British vs USA threads always fall into cliches.

It always starts with a quick going over of the various forces. The conclusion is always the same. RN invincible (give or take), military forces about equal but the British have far greater financial and industrial backing. This declines as the war moves closer to the 20th century.

....

Regardless.. anything is better than
C) The British will not possibly make demands on the USA because its a well known fact in 19th century circles that at some point in the early 20th century the British will find themselves in a hard fought war with Germany (that geographical expression somewhere between France and Austria if your not sure) and with a hostile USA will surely be doomed. Even if this isn't offered as a direct reason, the assumption that such a war is an inevitable concequence wih a PoD somewhere the better part of a century earlier is simply madness.

There is obviously some occasional justification for these claims but by and large they come up every time and are dealt with the same every time. Its almost as predestined for the USA to go from coast to coast as it is for France to have A-L returned at some point post the Franco-Prussian war.

Let me guess, Earling, you're British aren't you?

I sense a certain ... reluctance on the part of people from the UK to admit that there was ever any chance that the US could have done well in a war against Britain. Apparently two wars in OTL were complete flukes. :rolleyes: :p

[Darkling]

And the British took quite some time to defeat Napolean, I doubt this war would last >3 years *if* it stays contained to US/UK. My division of Oregon follows the Columbia River and stays along 49 degrees for the remainder of the border to the Great Lakes, it very nearly became the border in OTL.

Yes because Britain was negotiating, not dictating the peace.

The delimiter n the area is clearly the Rockies.

I also don't see the UK taking anything south of 46/47N (Duluth MN) unless the UK overruns us entirely, we'd not allow that except in total
defeat.

Why?

Why is the US going to watch it's economy get ruined and it's people reduced to penury in order to hold some land they haven't even settled and is filled with Indians.

The fact of the matter is that a peace will be based upon the parties walking away with what they control, with adjustment made from there.

We also supply our own food, a war causes supply lines and likely higher prices for Britain which is already facing riots over the Corn Laws.

The corn laws actually help in this instance, the British price was already artificially elevated and thus an increase in the cost of imports won't make a difference until it bypasses the domestic level however if it was found the corn laws were having an effect they could simply be suspended for the course of the war.

It should also be pointed out that North America wasn't that important to Britain's imports at the time, by 1850 (when imports had increased due to the Corn laws being removed) Britain got 870,000 bushels from North America compared with 5,106 from Russia and 6,662 from Prussia.

As for the price of bread staying the same in the US, the problem here is transportation.
The Erie canal will be cut preventing the easy flow of materials from the great lake states and New York itself will be blockaded preventing the easy flow of northern grain to the South.

It seems quite likely that the bread cost could increase.

It should be noted that the price of wheat increased considerably during the civil war and it was only the US trade tariff that prevented Britain exporting large amounts to the US (the US did take over Canada's wheat exports almost entirely).

[Darkling]

Let me guess, Earling, you're British aren't you?

I sense a certain ... reluctance on the part of people from the UK to admit that there was ever any chance that the US could have done well in a war against Britain. Apparently two wars in OTL were complete flukes. :rolleyes: :p

That reminds me Earling, you forgot to include that old chestnut about the US (with the assistance of France et al, but that gets omitted) "beating" (never mind 1812 was a draw at best for the Americans) twice already and thus would again, never mind any differences in situations.

:D

[Reddog794]

The one point in history that it seems most of you forget was the Fenians raids. Irish Americans invading Canada, in order to free Ireland. The US government didn't offically back the raids, but went the British moved it's army to the border, they quickly arrested the raiders, and so on, in order to appease. What if the US government fully backed the Fenians, and began to mobalize. Tentions between the US/UK/Canada didn't really start to thaw until 1941 when the US was thrown into war by Japan, and Hitler (boob) declared war on them first. The US has invasion plans for Canada/UK in 1935. WI the US back the Fenians and moved to the Lakes region and set up for invasion.

As well nearing the end of the war of 1812, most of NewEngland was pretty pissed about the blockade, and Southern Land interests. The idea of succession from the Union was a serious possiblity, with strong leaning to the UK.

Just a history nerds 2 pence...