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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Leej

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]

Originally Posted by DoleScum

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]

Originally Posted by Leej

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Glen

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]

Originally Posted by Glen

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Glen

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?

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.

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

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Leej

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.





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]

Originally Posted by Ghost 88

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?

Originally Posted by that sort of oppinion

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

[Ghost 88]

Originally Posted by Darkling

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]

Originally Posted by Leej

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.