How Would An 1840s Anglo-American War Go?

The 1840s saw a couple of problems arise between America and Britain- the Oregon Dispute, Paulet's expedition to Hawai'i, the Maine Dispute, and any other random problem on the border neither government might've cared enough to write down. So let's say that one of those disputes (probably Hawai'i, since it was a prime strategic area for either power,) blows up, and in 1843, the US declares war on the British Empire in order to 'liberate' the islands, no matter that London didn't authorize the invasion. How does the war go?

At this point, the US hasn't started the MexAm war yet, and it's not exactly renowned for its military power, but it does still massively outnumber Canada even this early on. but at the same time, this is like, the height of the Pax Britannica, the royal navy is untouchable, and London's not distracted by beating up a funny Italian man and his french empire anymore.

Despite where the war started, I suspect that the Caribbean will be the primary naval theater and that for a few years, the US economy is gonna be strangled by Britain. The question is- does the US have the means to build the navy to end it while at war? The country is certainly big enough to have those resources.

And army wise, would the US's invasion of Canada go any better than 1812? I can't really imagine it going too much worse since the front is a lot smaller without Tecumseh, but Canada (probably) wasn't run by idiots, and fortifications would have to at least be able to slow the states down, right?

In the event of an american victory, we know that the US would take the chance to get as much of Oregon, Maine, and Hawai'i (as a protectorate under the monarchy) as possible, but what about a British win? Would they push past the Columbia river in Oregon? What about hawai'i- they weren't happy about Paulet's attack on a sovereign monarchy they actually almost respected, but london would be stupid to give up that kind of position in the pacific
 
Perhaps in the long run, this would lead to historians viewing the the American Revolution as "The First Anglo-American War" with this one, regardless of outcome.
 
Last edited:
The 1840s saw a couple of problems arise between America and Britain- the Oregon Dispute, Paulet's expedition to Hawai'i, the Maine Dispute, and any other random problem on the border neither government might've cared enough to write down. So let's say that one of those disputes (probably Hawai'i, since it was a prime strategic area for either power,) blows up, and in 1843, the US declares war on the British Empire in order to 'liberate' the islands, no matter that London didn't authorize the invasion. How does the war go?

At this point, the US hasn't started the MexAm war yet, and it's not exactly renowned for its military power, but it does still massively outnumber Canada even this early on. but at the same time, this is like, the height of the Pax Britannica, the royal navy is untouchable, and London's not distracted by beating up a funny Italian man and his french empire anymore.

Despite where the war started, I suspect that the Caribbean will be the primary naval theater and that for a few years, the US economy is gonna be strangled by Britain. The question is- does the US have the means to build the navy to end it while at war? The country is certainly big enough to have those resources.

And army wise, would the US's invasion of Canada go any better than 1812? I can't really imagine it going too much worse since the front is a lot smaller without Tecumseh, but Canada (probably) wasn't run by idiots, and fortifications would have to at least be able to slow the states down, right?

In the event of an american victory, we know that the US would take the chance to get as much of Oregon, Maine, and Hawai'i (as a protectorate under the monarchy) as possible, but what about a British win? Would they push past the Columbia river in Oregon? What about hawai'i- they weren't happy about Paulet's attack on a sovereign monarchy they actually almost respected, but london would be stupid to give up that kind of position in the pacific
I agree where you say the main naval theater would probably be the Caribbean. And I suspect the Royal Navy would absolutely dominate. The problem for the UK as you say, is that Americans far outnumber Canadians.

American strategy would then probably be to try and use their navy sparingly and defensively, and to use the army to rush Canada before the British can get any reinforcements there.

Conversely, British strategy would be to use the Royal Navy to effectively blockade all major US ports, and strangle the country, maybe do naval bombardments of coastal cities, while playing defensively in Canada, until the able to raise a big army and sail it across the pond.

I suspect the UK would definitely have the advantage in this conflict. I don't think they would annex Hawaii, but it may become a protectorate, or be put under "British defence". The UK would almost certainly also take the entire Pacific Northwest.
 
The UK would almost certainly also take the entire Pacific Northwest.
this is the only bit i really disagree with, since AFAIK, Britain wasn't particularly expansionist in that region
310px-Oregoncountry.png

while the states were pushing for BC and Vancouver island, I'm pretty sure the brits only really wanted what's now western Washington
 
this is the only bit i really disagree with, since AFAIK, Britain wasn't particularly expansionist in that region
310px-Oregoncountry.png

while the states were pushing for BC and Vancouver island, I'm pretty sure the brits only really wanted what's now western Washington
Ah, fair enough, I didn't know that. It was my understanding that the entirety of the so called "Oregon Country" was under joint control of both countries.

Even if Britain was not expansionist in this area, depending on how decisive the British victory is, could they not take it, if only to deny it to the Americans?
 
Ah, fair enough, I didn't know that. It was my understanding that the entirety of the so called "Oregon Country" was under joint control of both countries.
I think the way it worked was the whole area was jointly occupied while the lesser disputes were worked out
Even if Britain was not expansionist in this area, depending on how decisive the British victory is, could they not take it, if only to deny it to the Americans?
that would be likely, though britain's settlers in the area were very limited compared to the yanks
 
I think the way it worked was the whole area was jointly occupied while the lesser disputes were worked out

that would be likely, though britain's settlers in the area were very limited compared to the yanks
Yeah that makes sense. In that case, I think probably Britain would take the territory, but may be unable to stop americans settling it down the line? Would the american population eventually be big enough to force the British to transfer the colony to Washingtons control?

If an Anglo-American war happens in the early 1840s, you could potentially also have France fighting Britain as well.
I don't think any major European power is going to be eager to start a great power conflict so recently after the Congress of Vienna and so early into the Concert of Europe.
Least of all France, who has basically no interest in the new world at this stage, and is at this point busy with Algeria.


One interesting thing to wonder though would be what would the effect of a crushing american defeat have on US-Mexico relations? I doubt the Americans would have an appetite for a war with Mexico a mere couple of years after this defeat? Or maybe they would be eager to start an "easy war" to boost morale and regain prestige?

Either way, if this UK/US War deprives the US of the Oregon Territory, and delays or even butterflies away the Mexican-American war, you may end up with a US unable to reach the Pacific- or at least, a US that takes significantly longer to reach the Pacific than OTL.
Regardless, even if the US is left humiliated and in shambles, I guess none of that would change Texas leaving Mexico, nor would it change the massive amount of american settlers in California.
 
Either way, if this UK/US War deprives the US of the Oregon Territory, and delays or even butterflies away the Mexican-American war, you may end up with a US unable to reach the Pacific- or at least, a US that takes significantly longer to reach the Pacific than OTL.
ultimately, unless Mexico had a very different government and economy, they would always struggle to push their actual control north, so i think they still loose it at some point soon enough. The only real question is when. add in the texas situation, American revanchism, and the expansionistic nature of american slavery (and the reaction to it that caused northern expansionism) and i think a war with Mexico is inevitable once texas does the thing.

That said, I do think that instead of Mex-Am War > 10 year > Civil War, it would go 3rd Ang-Am War > 10 years > MexAm War, and that the civil war, which would likely be inevitable due to how much land America would likely take (possibly including sanora after the losses in Oregon.) But because slavery would only have more and more of a distasteful image and reputation, the war would come sooner after the Mexican american war
 
The US versus Britain is always going to be slightly Lion vs. Whale but in this era that's especially true. At sea there effectively isn't going to be a war, the USN is a joke and the RN is absurdly dominant and has nothing to distract it. All overseas trade will end and the coast will be ravaged. Furthermore it takes a decade to build a navy and the US can't afford one that could match the RN.
On land the British Army is not an impressive force at this point, it's been really cut back, has had most of its combat experience age out and is only really fit for colonial policing at this point. That doesn't mean the US will just waltz into Canada but the opposition will be less intimidating then after the Crimean War. I think Britain will still be able to old onto Eastern and Central Canada though I suspect the Great Plains will fall to the US. The peace treaty will then be determined by just how much damage RN coastal raids can inflict.
 
ultimately, unless Mexico had a very different government and economy, they would always struggle to push their actual control north, so i think they still loose it at some point soon enough. The only real question is when. add in the texas situation, American revanchism, and the expansionistic nature of american slavery (and the reaction to it that caused northern expansionism) and i think a war with Mexico is inevitable once texas does the thing.

That said, I do think that instead of Mex-Am War > 10 year > Civil War, it would go 3rd Ang-Am War > 10 years > MexAm War, and that the civil war, which would likely be inevitable due to how much land America would likely take (possibly including sanora after the losses in Oregon.) But because slavery would only have more and more of a distasteful image and reputation, the war would come sooner after the Mexican american war
Yeah I think this makes sense. OP does not specify when exactly in the 40s this anglo american war takes place. Could it feasibly overlap with Mexican and Texan stuff? Would this change anything?
 
I did- in 1843, captain Paulette siezed Hawaii in the name of Britain. He lacked authorization, but America didn't know until several weeks had passed
So let's say that one of those disputes (probably Hawai'i, since it was a prime strategic area for either power,) blows up, and in 1843, the US declares war on the British Empire in order to 'liberate' the islands, no matter that London didn't authorize the invasion. How does the war go
 
Who are you envisioning supporting the war in the United States in terms of politicians, segments of the public, and regions?

The casus belli is British intrusion on US interests in Hawaii (with the Maine and Oregon disputes in the background). The American theory of victory pretty much can't be that they will successfully 'liberate' the islands directly but could at best win their freedom (and advantages on other border disputes) by taking, and then exchanging, Canadian hostages.

Who do you see as the President choosing to do this? Tyler, the southern Whig in name only who had ascended to the Presidency in OTL? Or is it a case of William Henry Harrison, elected in 1840, having lived through 1843 instead of dying at the beginning of his term? Or is it more likely in a TL where Martin Van Buren, the Democratic candidate, somehow won the election of 1840 instead? Or possibly some other candidate entirely?

Well, thinking optimistically, I suppose a war-supporting coalition could be gathered from New Englanders, whose shipping and missionary interests in the Pacific are engaged in Hawaiian affairs and support Maine's territorial claims. Old Northwesterners of the Great Lakes states, interested in expansion in the direction of Oregon Country, and eyeing possible gains of Canadian territory on the opposite shores of the Great Lakes. Democratic politician, former US Ambassador to France, and later Senate and Presidential candidate, Lewis Cass would probably favor a war of expansion. Southerners could possibly be raised to enthusiasm if the Hawaiian affair and other border issues are portrayed in the media as affronts to national honor.

But long-term, war is bad for business. War is especially bad for the south's cotton and tobacco export business, and New England shipping. Might it not take some southerners, like John Calhoun, very little time, to ask, what interest the south has in ruining its trade today to redeem New England special interests in the Pacific by fighting a war that in all probability, if victorious, would expand the nation's *northern* boundaries and increase the territory from which free states can be made?

If getting pressed on the Canadian front, as they likely would be, might British agents and propagandists press on this fissure, of "what's in it for the south" despite their own internal dislike of slavery?

Could this lead to a southern bloc of politicians forcing the US to quit the war short of victory or achievement of any diplomatic gains, or southern secession in the midst of war, and pragmatic, tactical British, southern alliance?

On France's stance - yes, under Guizot's influence, from 1843 to 1846, it would have been making nice with Britain, so not coming in on America's side. And Britain really wasn't having any acute crises with Russia at that point either. The Afghan War that ended in 1842 had been a sign of some suspicion, but Russia and Britain (and Austria and Prussia) had been on the same, pro-Ottoman, side in the last eastern crisis of 1840 when France had been on the opposing side of Muhammad Ali.

Britain was pretty enemy-less at this point.
 
It looks a lot the War of 1812, except both sides have advantages that didn't exist prior. For America, Detroit is a proper city and not well beyond the edge of the frontier. They also have the Erie canal to help move goods to that lake. Canada likewise has the Rideau and Welland canals so Britain can effectively move small warships from London right to the Great Lakes.

Cross border raids are likely, but British control of St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario make any offensives there difficult for America. America probably gains control of Lake Erie but it might be contested. The USN gets swept from the seas and America's overseas trade is shattered and choked off. Insurance rates rise in Britain from American privateers and raiders.

I'm mildly amused that guys like John E. Wool and Winfield Scott will be involved in two invasions of Canada in their lifetimes.
 
Despite where the war started, I suspect that the Caribbean will be the primary naval theater and that for a few years, the US economy is gonna be strangled by Britain. The question is- does the US have the means to build the navy to end it while at war? The country is certainly big enough to have those resources.
The problem with building a navy during wartime isn't so much resources, as training. If your coast is under blockade your seamen can't get proper sailing experience, your gunners can't practise in high seas conditions, your officers can't get experience leading their vessels on actual voyages, and so forth, meaning that your navy, when it finally comes out of port, is going to be hopelessly outmatched. That's why the French couldn't simply build a new navy and try again after Trafalgar, for example.

As for the war on land, I don't think the US will do much better here, either. The US army in this period is something like 16,000 total, and a lot of it was spread across the west defending settlers from Indian raids. The British army wasn't exactly the best in the world, but it's bigger and has more experience of large-scale manoeuvres than its American counterpart. And I don't think the US can count on a quick strike to take Canada while the British forces are still in transit, either, due to the aforementioned problem of its army being scattered in small groups across thousands of miles of frontier (unless there's a significant build-up time before war is actually declared, of course, but then the British will be able to reinforce their garrison in Canada as well).
 
Top