Anglo-American Wars of the 19th Century

There are several possibilities of a major war breaking out between the British Empire and the United States from 1815- 1899

All of these require major miscalculations to worsen and outright folly to break out into warfare, but history tells us the those things do indeed happen

a short list
Caroline Affair 1837 (Americans supporting a rebellion in Upper Canada), also toss in some British interest in supporting Texas as an independent nation state

border tensions with Canada over where the border was for Minnesota and Maine during this period as well

54-40 or Fight! tensions over dividing up Oregon Territory while at the same time the US and Mexico are about to go to war.

The Trent Affair (always a favorite)

Alabama Claims (not to mention British yards building Confederate raiders during the actual Civil War)

Support by Americans of various Fenian schemes and even an 'invasion' of Canada

Dispute over Venezuela in 1895

Plenty of options here

So that said, assuming any of these degenerate into shooting wars, what are the various war aims of the respective sides, do the respective sides have the means to achieve those aims, and can the participants of this forum keep their arguments civil?

I would encourage some of the usual suspects to stop cluttering up "Wrapped in Flames" and "Burnished Rows of Steel" with endless argument and instead move it to this new ground instead

Valiant effort, sir!

A valiant effort, sir!

I would suggest that before anyone starts down these paths, they make the effort to review the works published at the time under official cover that actually lay out what the various nations' strengths, organizations, and deployments looked like, rather than the typical vague handwaves. To start, some links on the British Army and Navy, and the Canadian Provincial Forces, in the 1860s:

1861 version of Hart's Army List:


https://archive.org/details/newannualarmylis1861hart


Here's the 1862 version:

https://archive.org/details/hartsannualarmy16hartgoog


Here's the 1861 Navy List:


https://archive.org/details/navylistcorrect00unkngoog


Here's the 1862 Navy List:


https://archive.org/details/navylist03admigoog


Here's Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain, 1863 (which covers 1862):


https://archive.org/details/organizationcom00petrgoog


Here's Annual Volunteer and Service Militia List of Canada, 1867 edition (kind of a significant date, after all):


https://archive.org/details/annualvolunteers00wilyuoft


A note on the last one; if one wishes to, one can go back through the acitivation and commissioning lists and work out exactly who was in command of what in 1861-62.


Best,

The important question in each of these situations are the war aims, as those define the mission.

for example, in the Trent War the war aim of the United States is restore the Union. All other war aims are secondary to that goal, be it attacking Canada or putting Jefferson Davis in prison. So in a war with the British Empire the goal is to get them out of the war as quickly as possible so that the principal war aim can be achieved.

The war aims of the British Canadian governments and Confederate government is to avoid conquest by the Union.

What exactly are the British hoping to get out of the Trent War? That is really the most important question as it defines the mission of the British -Canadian forces in Canada, any assistance provided to the Confederacy and whether French help is sought or kept at arms link.

You could make a case that if it simply to 'avenge the insult' the best strategy would be defend Canadian Border while shutting down Union trade with Europe and ensuring that any territory lost in Canada or elsewhere is made up by taking what American territory can be achieved.

Other wars, different aims. In the 54/40 or Fight scenario the US wants all of Oregon Territory, including what is now British Columbia as well as Texas (this crisis is happening at the same time as the countdown to war with Mexico). What are the British goals in this situation? Same as the Trent War, more expansive ones?

The 1895 situation again what are the goals.. ensure that the British government does not lose territory in British South America and Canada? What are the US goals other than to assert its supremacy in the Caribbean?

Before people start posting lists of ships and regiments the war aims of the periods in question are of fundamental importance. Because it determines how much determination there will be to achieve them.

True, but given that none of these incidents truly came close

galveston bay said:

The important question in each of these situations are the war aims, as those define the mission.

for example, in the Trent War the war aim of the United States is restore the Union. All other war aims are secondary to that goal, be it attacking Canada or putting Jefferson Davis in prison. So in a war with the British Empire the goal is to get them out of the war as quickly as possible so that the principal war aim can be achieved.

The war aims of the British Canadian governments and Confederate government is to gain independence.

What exactly are the British hoping to get out of the Trent War? That is really the most important question as it defines the mission of the British -Canadian forces in Canada, any assistance provided to the Confederacy and whether French help is sought or kept at arms link.

You could make a case that if it simply to 'avenge the insult' the best strategy would be defend Canadian Border while shutting down Union trade with Europe and ensuring that any territory lost in Canada or elsewhere is made up by taking what American territory can be achieved.

Other wars, different aims. In the 54/40 or Fight scenario the US wants all of Oregon Territory, including what is now British Columbia as well as Texas (this crisis is happening at the same time as the countdown to war with Mexico). What are the British goals in this situation? Same as the Trent War, more expansive ones?

The 1895 situation again what are the goals.. ensure that the British government does not lose territory in British South America and Canada? What are the US goals other than to assert its supremacy in the Caribbean?

Before people start posting lists of ships and regiments the war aims of the periods in question are of fundamental importance. Because it determines how much determination there will be to achieve them.

Click to expand...

True, but given that none of these incidents truly came close to open warfare historically, the "what if" OP presumably can and will offer up almost any reason they wish... outraged tents, for example.

But yes, some sort of realistic assesment of why the imaginary blood is going to flow, and what said bloodflow is supposed to accomplish, is helpful.

Best,

I suppose to weigh in on the forever contentious Trent affair, in simple terms the three sides of the conflict want the following aims to be met:

Britain: Suitable recompense for the insult to her flag to be delivered.

United States: To lose no territory, find peace with honor and to defeat the South.

The South: Independence.

Obviously for the three sides all these goals can be somewhat mutually exclusive.

Britain for instance is not beholden to the South since the South is only an ally of convenience and so can be thrown under the bus at a whim should the situation call for it. The US cannot afford to follow Seward's vision of Manifest Destiny north if it wishes to keep the South and so can only go for quite limited objectives when facing Britain that can largely be handled on the defensive, and thus has limited need to conduct any aggressive campaign. However, this purely defensive stance would be somewhat undercut if it doesn't lead Britain to the negotiating table (and it can be argued the voting public would not tolerate no offensive action either) so some sort of campaign would need to take place.

OTOH it does depend somewhat on the timeline one chooses to write, since whatever multiplier events lead to war may cause the various sides to weigh the pros and cons differently.

Old Tim MacGuire loved to play with fire

I wish you luck with this thread and I shall keep an eye on it to see if it turns up anything useful. However, other than to wish you luck I am keeping away from posting into what I think will probably be will either be a flame war or a bit of a squib.

I must admit to being particularly fascinated by the question of how a War between the United Kingdom and the United States (always a glum and hideous prospect) might have played out during the earlier part of the period between Mr Madison's War and the Trent Crisis: during the reign of George IV or William the Fourth, for instance.

I have to admit that I suspect a conflict at such a time would tend to favour the British sooner or later, since I'm not sure that the United States as yet had acquired the material strength to match the more-industrialised United Kingdom; whatever the case I seriously doubt that this would have been a popular war on either side of the Atlantic (except, perhaps, if the British could couch it in terms of a War against Slavery - which would probably whip up enthusiasm for the conflict amongst sections of the British population and a frenzy for blood in the US Slave States).

One suspects that such a conflict would have hit the old favourites on the US/Canadian border and possibly even along the Chesapeake (although I seriously doubt the British could match their achievement of incinerating the more significant portions of the American capital); I'd be willing to bet that the Louisiana territory along the Gulf of Mexico would see more action than was previously the case though.


Please forgive me for these hilariously-crude ideas (and please be aware that I am rather fishing for data that I can use to bolster my hopes of writing up an expansion of Mr Harry Turtledove's THE DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, so far warning: ideas posted here MAY appear elsewhere!).

Tiro said:

I must admit to being particularly fascinated by the question of how a War between the United Kingdom and the United States (always a glum and hideous prospect) might have played out during the earlier part of the period between Mr Madison's War and the Trent Crisis: during the reign of George IV or William the Fourth, for instance.

I have to admit that I suspect a conflict at such a time would tend to favour the British sooner or later, since I'm not sure that the United States as yet had acquired the material strength to match the more-industrialised United Kingdom; whatever the case I seriously doubt that this would have been a popular war on either side of the Atlantic (except, perhaps, if the British could couch it in terms of a War against Slavery - which would probably whip up enthusiasm for the conflict amongst sections of the British population and a frenzy for blood in the US Slave States).

One suspects that such a conflict would have hit the old favourites on the US/Canadian border and possibly even along the Chesapeake (although I seriously doubt the British could match their achievement of incinerating the more significant portions of the American capital); I'd be willing to bet that the Louisiana territory along the Gulf of Mexico would see more action than was previously the case though.


Please forgive me for these hilariously-crude ideas (and please be aware that I am rather fishing for data that I can use to bolster my hopes of writing up an expansion of Mr Harry Turtledove's THE DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, so far warning: ideas posted here MAY appear elsewhere!).

Click to expand...

the 54/40 or Fight situation is the perfect opportunity for inflicting serious damage to the United States. A lot of people were unhappy about going to war with Mexico, viewing it as an unjust war of expansion fought to benefit slavery (including men like Lincoln and Grant). The divide between the Slave South and the industrializing North was deepening.

If the British were to make as their war aim in this situation the goal of ending slavery in the United States or simply to halt its expansion, it would have an ally in Mexico, and if handled adroitly, might be able to separate New England and perhaps other portions of the Union from the pro-Slavery part.

On the other hand, the US Navy at this period (1830s-1840s) was the strongest it would be in comparison with the Royal Navy until the early 20th Century. The Naval war would be far tougher than 1814 because of the need for bases for steamships and explosive shells have already made the wooden hulled warship terribly vulnerable to destruction compared to previous periods while armor is not a thing yet. The US Army is very professional during this period as well and the state militias far more so than before. Railroads are pretty limited in mileage but steam boats for river transport are common.

A very interesting situation

I just had a thought, we could probably add the "Pig War" in here. I imagine we could call it "The War of Charles's Pig"

EnglishCanuck said:

I just had a thought, we could probably add the "Pig War" in here. I imagine we could call it "The War of Charles's Pig"

Click to expand...

that wasn't an impossible (in terms of creating a war). There were some in the American government who thought a good foreign war would ease the sectional issues between the North and South. Still unlikely, but not impossible.

The theory that a foreign war will unite the people and distract them from problems at home has a long history

I think that the best way to have a "Trent War" is an "All of the Above" regarding conflicts occurring before the US Civil War.

Basically, both the 1837 revolts and the Oregon issue going hot. Regardless of who wins either, things are gonna get ugly and leave lasting bitterness for both nations.

Having constant wars against the United States will definitely sour the Brits to them.

From the OP list of possible flashpoints you have to wonder at the result if they were with Mexico or American Indians instead of with Britain.

- So is there something 'exceptional' about Anglo-American relations or are there some other considerations which prevented conflict?

vizzer said:

From the OP list of possible flashpoints you have to wonder at the result if they were with Mexico or American Indians instead of with Britain.

- So is there something 'exceptional' about Anglo-American relations or are there some other considerations which prevented conflict?

Click to expand...

We both speak English, so it made it very easy for people with cooler heads to find each other and let the other side of the issue know that someone was willing to negotiate. A language barrier creates more walls than most people realize. After all, it is difficult to let the other side know that you don't really want to fight if the only voice the translators are willing to translate is the one calling for blood.

Combine this with the fact that the UK and USA actually managed to talk things through with most of the early flashpoints, and their wasn't enough bad blood during latter flashpoints to make a conflict worth it.

However, if negotiations failed during a crucial flashpoint, particularly during the American Civil War era, you would have enough bad blood for all later flashpoints to become major conflicts, creating more bad blood until we have a vicious cycle.

The Americans fought two conventional wars with the

vizzer said:

From the OP list of possible flashpoints you have to wonder at the result if they were with Mexico or American Indians instead of with Britain. - So is there something 'exceptional' about Anglo-American relations or are there some other considerations which prevented conflict?

Click to expand...

The Americans fought two conventional/inter-state wars/conflicts with the British, one (or 2.5 depending on how assesses the 1914-17 interventions) with Mexico, one (Quasi-War) with France, one (more or less bloodless) with Spain (Florida in 1819) and another that was more costly in 1898, etc. Obviously, going down the list, the conflicts with Britain were more costly than those with any of the other nations/powers.

So its unclear if the US/Americans and the British had a necessarily better or worse relationship in the period of US national consolidation than the US/Americans did with Spanish or Mexicans or whoever... certainly was bloodier.

As far as the conflicts with the various tribal societies, that's pretty much a given between the Europeans and their "daughter" societies and the indigenous peoples, no matter where in the Western Hemisphere; brutal reality, but also undeniable. Certainly the Canadians, Mexicans, Argentines, Chileans, Brazilians, etc. weren't exactly gentle with the "locals" when they were perceived to be in the way of nation-building post independence (or before, during the "imperial" eras of Spain, France, Portugal, and Britain.)

Best,

GohanLSSJ2 said:

I think that the best way to have a "Trent War" is an "All of the Above" regarding conflicts occurring before the US Civil War.

Basically, both the 1837 revolts and the Oregon issue going hot. Regardless of who wins either, things are gonna get ugly and leave lasting bitterness for both nations.

Having constant wars against the United States will definitely sour the Brits to them.

Click to expand...

1837 going hot would certainly contribute to a later conflict (or exacerbate existing difficulties on both side of the 49th P) but the Oregon one seems a little less likely since it would be concurrent with Mexico. I mean it could happen, but seems almost unfair.

But then again having a United States which has proved itself consistently hostile to Britain, would certainly change Britain's strategic perceptions in the later 19th century. They may even encourage other powers to stick their oars into things to get a balancing act going.

GohanLSSJ2 said:

I think that the best way to have a "Trent War" is an "All of the Above" regarding conflicts occurring before the US Civil War.

Basically, both the 1837 revolts and the Oregon issue going hot. Regardless of who wins either, things are gonna get ugly and leave lasting bitterness for both nations.

Having constant wars against the United States will definitely sour the Brits to them.

Click to expand...

I have the basics of a general plan for a timeline in mind for a more intense and hostile Anglo-American relationship in the 19th Century. But I won't be looking at that seriously until I finish the timeline I am working on now

Looking at two possible POD.... 1. Circumstances allow the British to do better in 1812 (certainly plausible enough)

2. American support for the rebellions in Canada in 1837 is sufficient to make them more serious and thus brings down the wrath of Britannia

Either or both in conjunction would lead to problems and hostility instead of rivalry

galveston bay said:

I have the basics of a general plan for a timeline in mind for a more intense and hostile Anglo-American relationship in the 19th Century. But I won't be looking at that seriously until I finish the timeline I am working on now

Looking at two possible POD.... 1. Circumstances allow the British to do better in 1812 (certainly plausible enough)

2. American support for the rebellions in Canada in 1837 is sufficient to make them more serious and thus brings down the wrath of Britannia

Either or both in conjunction would lead to problems and hostility instead of rivalry

Click to expand...

On 1. Have you read Redcoat's Revenge by Col David Fitz-Enz USA (Retd)?
http://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Revenge-Alternate-History-1812/dp/1574889877

Could be a plausible scenario to lead to 2.
There's a bit at the end that implies a possible sequel.

edgeworthy said:

On 1. Have you read Redcoat's Revenge by Col David Fitz-Enz USA (Retd)?
http://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Revenge-Alternate-History-1812/dp/1574889877

Could be a plausible scenario to lead to 2.
There's a bit at the end that implies a possible sequel.

Click to expand...

yes, but that isn't the direction I would go

The later the war, the more it will favor the Americans - not just because the USA is building up its industry, population, transport and military capacity, but the British will be increasingly pinned down by having a global empire to manage. Carving off bits of Canada is worth it to keep a firm grip on Africa or India.

A link and some thoughts...

As a Brit who watches a lot of these timelines get written but rarely comments on them I'd like to make a few constructive points.

Firstly, a link: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/
AH.com is very good at sourcing stats and army lists and orders of battle for timelines but often handwaves the motivation of the combatants. Hansard is a record of everything said in Parliament from 1803 onwards. You can search it by words, TRENT for example, and see how British politicians at the time felt.

Secondly, some related points:

1. Whilst I don't think a US-UK rivalry in the 19th and early 20th century is impossible by any means, you've got to think about the changing governments in both countries. Whilst grudges do develop they also dissolve very quickly on the international arena as the demands of a changing world affect changing Governments. Any good timeline can't simply rely on a "well they've hated each other since x" argument but needs to keep such a rivalry alive and kicking.

2. Britain was heavily invested in the US in this period, leading to substantial business lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic that would not be in favour of the disruption of war. If your plan is to butterfly these then you need to be aware of the serious knock-ons this will have. Particularly for American manufacturing.

3. Be aware of Britain's European focus. Remember that, OTL, British foreign policy was always more closely focused on the balance of power in Europe. The USA will never be their sole point of attention and a good timeline would need to cover events in Europe as well.

4. I've seen a lot of timelines get stuck on the idea that Britain would do well on the coast of the USA but would have limited success inland. I'm sure this would be a realistic assessment, but sometimes these threads seem to imply that Britain has no war aims at all beyond attacking seaboard cities in the vague hope America gives up. British military and political officials were well prepared in terms of planning - I'm not saying these plans would succeed but a good timeline would need to acknowledge they were there.

5. Finally, you need to think about why Britain would stay in the conflict. With an ocean between them and the most powerful fleet in the world, what is to stop Britain taking its ball and going home? Canada? As posters have pointed out, Britain never assumed it could hold onto Canada in a serious war with the USA so is unlikely to through everything into saving this colonial territory.