WI US / British War of 1837?
- Thread starter Norman
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Darkling said:
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.
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?
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?
Timmy811 said:
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.
Ghost 88 said:
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.
Last edited:
67th Tigers
Banned
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.
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.
Ghost 88 said:
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?
I am not sure your shooting point is relevant - it only applied to light infantry really.Ghost 88 said:
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)
The British do win that war, and indeed many,many others in the nineteenth century.Ghost 88 said:
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?
67th Tigers said:
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.
Imajin said:
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.
Timmy811 said:
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.
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.
Johnnyreb said:
That is so last generation
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.
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?
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?
Darkling said:
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.
67th Tigers
Banned
MerryPrankster said:
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.
DoleScum said:
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?
MerryPrankster said:
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.
Doubtful, the US doesn't have the men to be able to pull it off without the British seeing it coming.