How Would An 1840s Anglo-American War Go?

Except it's not Canada, it's the British Empire -- you know, the biggest empire, with the biggest navy, and the biggest industrial base, of any nation in the world -- of which Canada is but a province.
Except that, apart from some small naval battles, and lots of privateers preying on British shipping, none of which are going to have an impact on the ground war, it really is Canada that will be the battleground in this fictional war. And before you waste more time trying to imply I am excluding help from Britain, their will be British ships attempting to blockade some US ports, their will be some Bombardments of coastal towns and cities, and likely some raids of a hit and run nature, but none of that will count for as much as having 10,000's of British regulars fighting alongside the Canadians in the ground war. The ground war is the single, decisive theater of this war, which renders the best weapon of the British Empire mostly irrelevant and impotent. The RN can no more decisively defeat the US in a notional 1843 war than it could win WW1 of WW2. All three of these wars will be decided on the land.

So no, the only fighting that concerns the US in this hypothetical war is the ground fighting in North America, not the rest of the British Empire, right? If some notional confederation or alliance of European nations invade the UK, because the UK/US are fighting a massive, all out ground war in North America, from 1843 to maybe 1851 or so, even that only matters in that if just speeds up the defeat Britain suffers.
Treating this as an America vs. Canada thing is like treating Pearl Harbour as Japan vs. the State of Hawaii. It's either completely disingenuous or literally insane, and either way it casts serious doubt on the cogency of your position.
I'm not really seeing your point of view nor perspective to be honest with the bolded part. It is you that seems to be trying to read between the lines, and ignoring history. My analogy is spot on with regard to misreading and underestimating the American people, which is what I was attempting to convey. You chose to read it as if I was saying that Canada would not be aided by the British Empire (something I most certainly did not intend, at least) and making such a statement ignores everything that this thread is about, even onto it's very title, so...???
War of 1812,
Wait, the USA is at fault for that?!?! The UK wasn't doing anything, and were just a poor, helpless victim of evil American aggression? I think not, both sides were at fault, and while the USA failed to take Canada, the UK equally (and for more importantly) failed to nullify the "Louisiana Purchase", which put an end to the British attempting to contain the USA to the 'East of the Mississippi', which had historically also failed to prevent the Independence of the USA in the first place, then failed to stop the US from settling the former parts of "Upper Canada" granted by the treaty of Paris in 1783, by arming and unitine native american tribes until the Jay Treaty of 1794 put a stop to that? And even before then, the Proclamation of 1763, you know, where the Mighty British Empire, how did you so cleverly put it "the British Empire -- you know, the biggest empire, with the biggest navy, and the biggest industrial base, of any nation in the world", which tried and failed to keep what would become the USA east of the Appalachian Mountains? Oh, yeah, those guys. :cool:
Mexican-American War,
Guilty as charged. We started that war without a 'proper army', didn't we.

And oh yeah, we also won that war, didn't we, and despite not having a large, professional standing army.
Erm, you do know that "Manifest Destiny" was just a slogan, right, and that America wasn't literally destined to achieve its present size come what may?
Well, if you believe that, honestly and truly, then that explains a great deal, does it not?

Allow me to present a few historical bits and pieces, in chronological order, shall we?

1763 = "You shall NOT pass"
1775 - 1783 = "NO, you shall not have your independence!"
1783 - 1794 = "We shall arm the natives against you"
1812-1815 = "You shall NOT pass"

And then, in this thread

1843 = "You shall not achieve your Manifest Destiny"

In the first four bits of historical fact, the British tried and failed to stop the (future) United States from westward expansion, up until this thread's premise of a last ditch effort to prevent the USA from getting it's Pacific coast.

History clearly shows us, that the British tried and failed for 80 years to stop the USA, and now folks are trying to come here and discuss how, maybe with only some minor war, the British could have prevented the USA, with a population skyrocketing far faster than that of Britain due to our immigration laws and the promise of no religious persecution, no elites owning all the land, and folks came in droves, with the promise of freedom from all that.

in 1843 the British still had more population than the USA, even though in 1783 they had had 4:1 population advantage.

some numbers:
1860 United States population United kingdom population
31.4 million 27.3 million
1900 United States population
76.3 million 44.5 million
1914 United States population
98.7 million 46 million
1999 United States population
272.6 million 59 million

Basically, once the USA got it's independence, it's population growth far outstripped that of the UK, and so the UK could never stop it's expansion westward.

1843 is just about the last time such a war could have been attempted, with anyone thinking that it was at all still possible to do this, which is why this thread is so entertaining.

Now, as to this statement "It's either completely disingenuous or literally insane, and either way it casts serious doubt on the cogency of your position." One could excuse anyone that is looking at historical facts, is going to have to conclude, this statement really belongs being applied to those that think that "Manifest Destiny" was nothing but a slogan, right?

For further reading, read up on former Presidents Andrew Jackson & James Polk, and see what they though about it.
 
Except that, apart from some small naval battles, and lots of privateers preying on British shipping, none of which are going to have an impact on the ground war, it really is Canada that will be the battleground in this fictional war. And before you waste more time trying to imply I am excluding help from Britain, their will be British ships attempting to blockade some US ports, their will be some Bombardments of coastal towns and cities, and likely some raids of a hit and run nature, but none of that will count for as much as having 10,000's of British regulars fighting alongside the Canadians in the ground war. The ground war is the single, decisive theater of this war, which renders the best weapon of the British Empire mostly irrelevant and impotent. The RN can no more decisively defeat the US in a notional 1843 war than it could win WW1 of WW2. All three of these wars will be decided on the land.

So no, the only fighting that concerns the US in this hypothetical war is the ground fighting in North America, not the rest of the British Empire, right? If some notional confederation or alliance of European nations invade the UK, because the UK/US are fighting a massive, all out ground war in North America, from 1843 to maybe 1851 or so, even that only matters in that if just speeds up the defeat Britain suffers.

I'm not really seeing your point of view nor perspective to be honest with the bolded part. It is you that seems to be trying to read between the lines, and ignoring history. My analogy is spot on with regard to misreading and underestimating the American people, which is what I was attempting to convey. You chose to read it as if I was saying that Canada would not be aided by the British Empire (something I most certainly did not intend, at least) and making such a statement ignores everything that this thread is about, even onto it's very title, so...???

Wait, the USA is at fault for that?!?! The UK wasn't doing anything, and were just a poor, helpless victim of evil American aggression? I think not, both sides were at fault, and while the USA failed to take Canada, the UK equally (and for more importantly) failed to nullify the "Louisiana Purchase", which put an end to the British attempting to contain the USA to the 'East of the Mississippi', which had historically also failed to prevent the Independence of the USA in the first place, then failed to stop the US from settling the former parts of "Upper Canada" granted by the treaty of Paris in 1783, by arming and unitine native american tribes until the Jay Treaty of 1794 put a stop to that? And even before then, the Proclamation of 1763, you know, where the Mighty British Empire, how did you so cleverly put it "the British Empire -- you know, the biggest empire, with the biggest navy, and the biggest industrial base, of any nation in the world", which tried and failed to keep what would become the USA east of the Appalachian Mountains? Oh, yeah, those guys. :cool:

Guilty as charged. We started that war without a 'proper army', didn't we.

And oh yeah, we also won that war, didn't we, and despite not having a large, professional standing army.

Well, if you believe that, honestly and truly, then that explains a great deal, does it not?

Allow me to present a few historical bits and pieces, in chronological order, shall we?

1763 = "You shall NOT pass"
1775 - 1783 = "NO, you shall not have your independence!"
1783 - 1794 = "We shall arm the natives against you"
1812-1815 = "You shall NOT pass"

And then, in this thread

1843 = "You shall not achieve your Manifest Destiny"

In the first four bits of historical fact, the British tried and failed to stop the (future) United States from westward expansion, up until this thread's premise of a last ditch effort to prevent the USA from getting it's Pacific coast.

History clearly shows us, that the British tried and failed for 80 years to stop the USA, and now folks are trying to come here and discuss how, maybe with only some minor war, the British could have prevented the USA, with a population skyrocketing far faster than that of Britain due to our immigration laws and the promise of no religious persecution, no elites owning all the land, and folks came in droves, with the promise of freedom from all that.

in 1843 the British still had more population than the USA, even though in 1783 they had had 4:1 population advantage.

some numbers:
1860 United States population United kingdom population
31.4 million 27.3 million
1900 United States population
76.3 million 44.5 million
1914 United States population
98.7 million 46 million
1999 United States population
272.6 million 59 million

Basically, once the USA got it's independence, it's population growth far outstripped that of the UK, and so the UK could never stop it's expansion westward.

1843 is just about the last time such a war could have been attempted, with anyone thinking that it was at all still possible to do this, which is why this thread is so entertaining.

Now, as to this statement "It's either completely disingenuous or literally insane, and either way it casts serious doubt on the cogency of your position." One could excuse anyone that is looking at historical facts, is going to have to conclude, this statement really belongs being applied to those that think that "Manifest Destiny" was nothing but a slogan, right?

For further reading, read up on former Presidents Andrew Jackson & James Polk, and see what they though about it.
Tbh, I've sort of tapped out but let's not forget that in both the revolution of 1812, the UK was also fighting France and Co. Not the case at this point, and this would be the first time that London could focus it's European and American holdings exclusively on the upstarts
 
The topic here is vague on when the hypothetical war takes place. At the beginning of the decade steam was still in its infancy in the British and all other navies. It wasn't until 1846 that the first British screw powered battleship (converted from sail) was completed. I believe there were only four by the end of the decade. Steam engines were heavy and consumed fuel inefficiently, so supplying a blockading fleet in the North Atlantic would be a challenge. The majority of any blockading force in the 1840's will still be sail, while small and short range steamships could come out from the blockaded ports and challenge it.

I would not be sanguine about forces based in Halifax and the West Indies trying to maintain a close blockade of the US seaboard during this decade. The coast of France was a lot easier to cover in the Napoleonic Wars. Things had already changed by the Crimean War and that was was fought on much more forgiving seas than the North Atlantic.
Wasn't Bermuda more important than Halifax by this time, or am I remembering this incorrectly?

Steam Engines eat fuel, and to move your ship under steam power, you have to maintain steam pressure, which means you cannot stop burning fuel, which means you start running out of fuel. Widespread use of steam makes an already impossible task even more impossible. The British government knew this in the 1870's.
Tbh, I've sort of tapped out but let's not forget that in both the revolution of 1812, the UK was also fighting France and Co. Not the case at this point, and this would be the first time that London could focus it's European and American holdings exclusively on the upstarts
While true, if we are open to an Anglo-American war taking place, we also have to consider the very real possibility of some other(s) deciding to get revenge on the British Empire for all the wars they have lost to them. The USA really doesn't have any histories of fighting wars and making enemies in Europe, while the same cannot be said of the British.
 
While true, if we are open to an Anglo-American war taking place, we also have to consider the very real possibility of some other(s) deciding to get revenge on the British Empire for all the wars they have lost to them. The USA really doesn't have any histories of fighting wars and making enemies in Europe, while the same cannot be said of the British.
No german power has any conflict with London at present, Spain and the Dutch are far too weak or unstable, Russia has only India (and there's a reason I said europe and American holdings.) That leaves France, which I don't think has an active dispute with Britain in 43
 
The British would mostly be fighting behind fixed defences, so strictly speaking it'd be more like 2:6.


Imagine that: the combination of West Point and Mexico looks really good in a war where the most experience any officer has is West Point and Mexico. Not only do we have no evidence for how American officers would perform in a war against other types of experience, but there are plenty of examples to show that West Point and Mexico did not always in fact prepare young officers to be senior leaders: Theophilus Holmes, George Pickett, Braxton Bragg, Irwin McDowell, John Pope, Edwin Sumner, Joseph Hooker, Samuel P. Heintzelman, Dixon Miles, and so on. Moreover, even American presidents overlook men with West Point and Mexico experience to appoint men like Banks, Butler, Polk...


The primary reason those defects don't arise in the Mexican-American War is because the United States is only raising a tiny force. When people suggest the US will raise a large force, we are absolutely right to look both back and forward to point out the problems that they will encounter in doing so.


You'll need to explain what you were trying to say here:
  • That the British didn't use emancipation as a weapon in 1775, 1779 and 1814
  • That Nat Turner's rebellion of 1830 doesn't represent a watershed moment for the South's anxiety about rebellions of enslaved people
  • That New England militia should have been sent to the Confederacy during the American Civil War
No statement makes much more sense than any of the others, but we may as well have clarity as to what you intended.


The enemy wasn't hypothetical ('Involving or of the nature of hypothesis; conjectural'); it was Britain. Your statements are mutually exclusive because you tell us that the British would find attacking ports extremely difficult, and then immediately afterwards tell us that the defences intended to protect against hypothetical British attacks were inadequate.


But that wasn't their job. Their job was to assess the situation based on realistic scenarios and propose realistic actions to mitigate those risks. Royal Navy planners in 1889 proposed the Two Power standard because there was a realistic scenario in which they went to war with France and Russia simultaneously. When the risk of war with France and Russia declined and the risk of war with Germany increased, they proposed a one power plus 60% standard. They didn't look at a "worst case scenario" in which Britain went to war with every European power because there was no point doing so.

In the same respect, the United States engineers took their most likely scenario of war with Britain; they looked at the wealth of publicly available information about Britain's strength (you don't seem to be able to find it, but I can and they could); they coupled it with their own knowledge and experience, and they asked the politicians to build the defences that would keep the country safe. As we've seen, however, the politicians then didn't build those defences, but instead starved the engineers of funds. What you ask us to do is to ignore the absence of the defences that the engineer officers you laud so highly said were essential to protect the country, and just assume that the British task is as difficult as it would be if those defences existed.


What they'd actually do is lose: history is full of officers who warned their superiors about pending disaster but were overlooked until it was too late. Officers like Robert E. Lee, who in 1842 was busy highlighting the gap in the defences of New York which meant 'the enemy might be able to pass his ships up the Narrows, undisturbed by the fortifications on the opposite side.'


Not really: you keep making big statements like 'The USN of the 1840's was a serious navy that knew it's job well' or 'In 1840 Boston would be defended by a lot more than 6 pounders' without providing any sort of evidence for your claims. Under these circumstances, that you couldn't find out (or chose not to check) something as simple as where Robert E. Lee was in 1840 - let alone that Lee highlighted gaps in the New York defences in 1842 - goes directly to the key question of competence. It's therefore worth pointing out, for the benefit of people who might be tempted to trust what you say.


Did the Union invasions of the South tie up more Union soldiers than Confederates? If not, why should British invasions of the South tie up more British soldiers than American ones, when the southern rail network is even less developed than it was in 1860?


Oh, of course it is! The last Irish rebellion was in 1803, and the next in 1848 was suppressed by 50 members of the Irish constabulary. In 1830 South Carolina envisaged taking military action against the federal government, and by 1861 the whole country was at war with itself. So naturally, the British can't move a soldier out of Ireland without the whole country erupting in flames, while the South will wholeheartedly and enthusiastically go into a war that threatens to add five free states to the currently equally-balanced union. Does anybody actually buy this line any more, or is it just something the American side feel they have to trot out every time the debate comes up?


I find it absolutely fascinating that you would talk about Ireland being "Irish Catholics" versus "the English" and in the same breath inform me that I don't understand the situation in Ireland.


None of it matters, though. The whole history of the invasion of Canada has been a struggle for key strategic points - Kingston, Montreal, Quebec - all of which, as you notice, the British have thoroughly fortified by the 1840s. If the United States wants to repeat its error of 1812-13, in which "for the sake of distracting the defence, they invaded, or attempted to invade, the frontier at too many points, with too many columns," I'm not sure why it should turn out any better for them this time round.


I'm somewhat unsurprised that you've failed to understand one of the fundamental strategic principles, which particularly applies in this case: the possession of interior lines gives the defender an advantage in concentration. As the US Army explains:

The British enjoyed the advantage of interior lines of movement, communications, and supply, facilitated by control of the waterways. They were thus able to shift their limited forces from one threatened theater to the next to defeat each of the unsynchronized American threats in turn.


No it isn't. The question of how recently-annexed Mexican territory would affect the balance of free and slave states was unclear, and it paralysed American politics for two years - revolvers drawn in Congress, fights and duels between representatives, Southern speakers contemplating secession - until a compromise was arrived at in which the possibility of admitting those territories as slave states was admitted. But there's no prospect of admitting the territories annexed as a result of a war with Britain as slave states; you can't grow cotton in Quebec. As we've seen, elements in the South feel themselves "bound to do all she can to stave off the acquisition of such a majority by the annexation of free territory... any encroachment upon her rights will be met by the thunders of war, and thousands of swords will leap from their scabbards, gleaming fiercely upon the field of her honor." How much clearer can they make it for you?


Really. When Lincoln raised 75,000 volunteers to conquer the South - a task you say was "a massive undertaking that under the best of circumstances would take 3 years to achieve" - how long did he call them out for?
I have to say I'm exhausted just reading that. Let me make this shorter. You put in so many distortions of what I previously wrote and put in so many half-truths that to respond in detail on each point would take pages. So, I'll take a shorter track and go back to the beginning of what we're debating.

Ok, it's February 18, 1843. Lord George Paulet captain of the HMS Carysfort decides to annex Hawaii, and ends up shelling the Hawaiian capital at Honolulu, and the USS Boston interposes itself between the HMS Carysfort and the town to stop the bombardment. Paulet continues to fire and hits Boston, causing casualties. Boston returns fire hitting Carysfort, so she concentrates fire on Boston causing severe damage, killing 10 men. Boston disengages, drawing away a distance to drop anchor and make repairs.

The situation in Hawaii further escalates in July when more RN & USN ships arrive and engage in combat. Word of the first battle arrives in Washington in early June, and in London in late June. Both Washington, and London order preparations for war, but send orders to find out what happened and to try to deescalate the situation. In November both Washington and London learn that in a battle between the razze HMS Dublin under Admiral Thomas along with paulet's Carysfort were defeated by USS United States, Constellation, and Boston under Commadore Kearny. Admiral Thomas was killed in the action. The British are outraged because Thomas had been bearing orders that the annexation was disavowed, but the Americans had attacked them anyway. No one other than those at the scene really knew what happened, but it was enough to declare a state of war now existed.

So, what happens now? I'll write up a quick scenario tomorrow that I think makes sense and ask you to do the same. I'm sure yours will end with Boston & New York as smoking ruins, and the American people in abject terror at their helplessness. The rest of the board can judge what scenario is more plausible, or at least sane. Do you accept the challenge? Take care.
 
Last edited:
Since you seem to know something about the Civil War you may recall that the Union Navy was able to capture New Orleans because there was no army to protect it. The Confederates had pulled almost everything out to join Albert Sidney Johnston's army to attack Grant at Shiloh up in Tennesse. In this situation if a British fleet ran past the forts there would be an army there. But even before that unless this war is a little later in the 1840's the RN has sailing ships and can't run past the forts because of the currents. If they drop off any troops, they have with them to first take the forts there'll be American field troops to back them up making it a much tougher job.

The idea that a British invasion of America would be a simple matter is just a sort of dreamlike mirage. The closer you get to it the further it seems away from you.

If the Americans have a reinforced garrison in New Orleans the British could attack anywhere else, the Americans don't have every inch of coast protected and their better troops are probably fighting in Canada. For example the British could land in St Louis Bay near New Orleans and attack from there or wait for the Americans to arrive. The problem for the US is that the British can attack anywhere, and even if the place where they attack is protected by forts they are no guarantee, forts can be defeated.
 
Tbh, I've sort of tapped out but let's not forget that in both the revolution of 1812, the UK was also fighting France and Co. Not the case at this point, and this would be the first time that London could focus it's European and American holdings exclusively on the upstarts
I understand the logic your using, but respectfully it's faulty. Wheather or not Britain is at war with France or not their focus will always be on Europe. What happens in NA is of minor importance to London. All they want is the preservation of Canada, and the islands in the Carribean. What interests them is first the European balance of power. Second the growth of her share in global trade. Third expansion in India. Fourth entering into the China market. Undergirding all of this is the supremacy of the Royal Navy, and a string of naval bases to support its global mission. Blocking American expansion or putting the Americans in their place is not any kind of national goal.

Finding quotes from British political leaders who hate the Americans, and their damned Democracy, or that they're going to be a threat someday don't really count for much, because their primary interest in the United States is trading with her and investing money there. All they know is fighting a war with her will be indecisive and cost a huge amount of money. Britain is a commercial and imperialist power, not a marshal nation like France. Britain is an Island nation that lives by ships, and what ships can do.

Ships carry trade, and influence. Being bogged down in land wars stops you from using the mobility of ships to move around freely from place to place. Fighting a regional land power like America bogs you down in one place so you can't be taking action in other places next to the sea that you want to spread your influence in. That's how Britain lived and thought, and that's what made the British Empire. It's all about ships, and open opportunities in decaying empires like India, and China. Any effort they waste on the Americans is something they could be doing to increase the wealth of Britain, while an American war only sinks wealth.
 
If the Americans have a reinforced garrison in New Orleans the British could attack anywhere else, the Americans don't have every inch of coast protected and their better troops are probably fighting in Canada. For example the British could land in St Louis Bay near New Orleans and attack from there or wait for the Americans to arrive. The problem for the US is that the British can attack anywhere, and even if the place where they attack is protected by forts they are no guarantee, forts can be defeated.
My friend I'm sure they could find a place to land but what do they do when they get there? They're not going to be going very far inland because they need to stay in contact with the fleet. If you mean St Louis Bay Mississippi, what do they do then. Go east, west, what? How big is this army? Now that it's on the ground how do you supply it? How long do you stay there? What is the mission? Just to attract an American army in the hopes of defeating it? What if you win but take heavy losses? What strategy does this advance.
 
If you read what I wrote I said the engineer, and artillery school grads were the only professionally trained officers, so what are you complaining about?
You seem to have missed the part about Sandhurst already producing Professionally Trained Officers, and the existence of a Staff College for the professional training of officers.

(And that the Engineers and Gunners were arguably better trained, and that their school was producing more of them.)
 
My friend I'm sure they could find a place to land but what do they do when they get there? They're not going to be going very far inland because they need to stay in contact with the fleet. If you mean St Louis Bay Mississippi, what do they do then. Go east, west, what? How big is this army? Now that it's on the ground how do you supply it? How long do you stay there? What is the mission? Just to attract an American army in the hopes of defeating it? What if you win but take heavy losses? What strategy does this advance.
That's all its meant to achieve. Britain doesn't need to occupy the whole of the United States to get what it wants, just like America doesn't need to physically occupy London. It's a limited war with limited goals. It's meant to tie down American resources, reduce bases for privateers, and raise the ire of voters. The same goes for privateers for the USA, they don't really do anything against Britain but give the merchants a headache (after which the merchants complain to the politicians).
 
So, all the British have to do is go back to fleet mobilization levels of the Napoleonic Wars. Start pressing men from the merchant fleet into the RN and build new paddle wheel warships as fast as shipyards can build them. That's so easy no one will have a problem with it.

It's a war against a Great Power, while I think the British Empire has the advantage this isn't going to be like beating up a some vastly technologically inferior future colonial subjects. They're going to have to mobilise and spend money, which is why they won't be eager to start a war. But if a Great Power starts a war with you then what choice do you have? Surrendering without even trying would be an enormous humiliation and politically impossible.

No. The British would never trust the French with naval superiority in the Channel no matter how good their temporary rations were with them. France was always the potential major enemy even when they were allies like in the Criema war, and nothing changed that until the 20th Century.

There are degrees and the difference between keeping a small fleet in the channel and keeping the majority of your fleet in home waters in key.

No one has unlimited resources.
No, just more.
France, and the rest of Europe are close to England which is both why it was more important, and easier to operate against. Eropean waters also have bottlenecks that can be controlled to make it easier to blockade. America is across the Atlantic and has fewer bottlenecks. A fleet needs bases near the scene of action which is why the RN was never able to have a close blockade of the U.S. in ether the ARW, or 1812.
During those wars they did mount large blockades. Of France because in both wars that was the primary enemy. Distance will make it harder to maintain a blockade but the RN has been doing at sea replenishment for half a century now and on the plus side unlike against France who had a large many requiring the individual blockading units has to be large and strong here the USN is very small, making things much easier.
It wasn't a hopeless fight in the Revolution or 1812 why would it be in 1840?
The naval aspect of both wars would have been hopeless but for the French. The land aspect wasn't/would not have been hopeless in all three. Lion Vs Whale.
Again, you make it sound so simple, and inexpensive in financial, and political costs. Just what are the British going to get out of this all-out war?
Not very much which is why they looked for compromises in OTL but the necessary POD for this entire discussion is both sides decide, against their best interests, to fight.
 
That's all its meant to achieve. Britain doesn't need to occupy the whole of the United States to get what it wants, just like America doesn't need to physically occupy London. It's a limited war with limited goals. It's meant to tie down American resources, reduce bases for privateers, and raise the ire of voters. The same goes for privateers for the USA, they don't really do anything against Britain but give the merchants a headache (after which the merchants complain to the politicians).
Ok, but everything has to be for some end. Do you think if 5,000 British troop land in St Louis Bay and sit there for weeks it will make the people of the South want to give up, whatever that may mean? Once they land and stay there, they can't threaten any place else. American troops, and State militias stationed in the South can't engage British forces unless they come to them, so you're coming to them. Yes, you're doing damage to them but now they have the opportunity to damage you. Remember the British Army is more casualty adverse than the Americans. If the Americans fight a battle and lose 2,000 men it's bad, if the British lose 2,000 men it's a disaster.

One thing it won't do is reduce the number of privateers. When you say American privateers only give headaches for British merchants, so they complain to politicians that's just the point. It puts pressure on the politicians to end the war. They don't care about the border of Maine, or what really happened in Hawaii, they just want to carry out trade with cheap insurance rates. Remember the House of Commons is largely representative of merchant classes. Manufactures at home want safe markets abroad, and war is bad for business. On the American side most of the people see the British attacking them, not that their government brought the rightful rath of the all-powerful British Empire down on them.
 
Ok, but everything has to be for some end. Do you think if 5,000 British troop land in St Louis Bay and sit there for weeks it will make the people of the South want to give up, whatever that may mean? Once they land and stay there, they can't threaten any place else. American troops, and State militias stationed in the South can't engage British forces unless they come to them, so you're coming to them. Yes, you're doing damage to them but now they have the opportunity to damage you.

By occupy nodal points you are causing economic and political disruption that make sending forces on a scale necessary to drive Britain out of Canada impossible. If after a year or two of war Canada remains in British hands, the naval blockade has caused a collapse in the South's cash crop exports while also damaging the North's trade and coastal cities have been burned and the British offer a (British favouring) compromise peace the US government will probably have to take it. They did in 1814.

Remember the British Army is more casualty adverse than the Americans. If the Americans fight a battle and lose 2,000 men it's bad, if the British lose 2,000 men it's a disaster.

Is it? Why, there are plenty of hungry Irishmen happy to take the King's Shilling.

One thing it won't do is reduce the number of privateers. When you say American privateers only give headaches for British merchants, so they complain to politicians that's just the point. It puts pressure on the politicians to end the war. They don't care about the border of Maine, or what really happened in Hawaii, they just want to carry out trade with cheap insurance rates. Remember the House of Commons is largely representative of merchant classes. Manufactures at home want safe markets abroad, and war is bad for business. On the American side most of the people see the British attacking them, not that their government brought the rightful rath of the all-powerful British Empire down on them.

The House of Commons is actually still dominated by the landed gentry at this point, it was the Second Reform Act that really changed the composition of Parliament but regardless if economic pain from American privateers is going to cause the British to come to the table presumably a much more disruptive British blockade will cause the Americans to come to the table first. Or is the US government less receptive to commercial interests than the British?

To be clear I don't think it will. The main impact of American privateers will be on tying up RN resources on things other than attacking the American seaboard. The main impact of the RN will be on forcing the US to divert troops and equipment (especially cannon) from the Canadian front to guarding ports will also damaging the US government's ability to pay for the war by collapsing trade and thus customs revenue and tax receipts. The latter will be more significant than the former because the RN is much bigger and more capable than the USN.
 
Last edited:
It's a war against a Great Power, while I think the British Empire has the advantage this isn't going to be like beating up a some vastly technologically inferior future colonial subjects. They're going to have to mobilise and spend money, which is why they won't be eager to start a war. But if a Great Power starts a war with you then what choice do you have? Surrendering without even trying would be an enormous humiliation and politically impossible.
Yes, it's a great power war, but the British don't think of the Americans as a great power, and they don't pose a threat to vital interests, so they will never make a commitment of the scale they would make against France. Britain is never sure when another major war will break out in Europe so would never commit the bulk of their land or naval forces to NA. They want to defend Canada with a limited commitment and protect Atlantic trade routes. Forming convoys makes shipping less efficient, and profitable which is why they don't do it in peacetime. Just the threat of commerce raiding costs money even before any ships are captured. But yes, you're right the British will feel obligated to beat the American up as much as they can.
There are degrees and the difference between keeping a small fleet in the channel and keeping the majority of your fleet in home waters in key.
Home waters are the Channel. Until the 20th Century the major RN bases were on the Channel coast. However big the Franch Atlantic fleet is the Channel fleet has to be bigger and have better ships. The RN has to have the strongest fleet in the Mediterranean to deal with potential crisis there.
No, just more.

During those wars they did mount large blockades. Of France because in both wars that was the primary enemy. Distance will make it harder to maintain a blockade but the RN has been doing at sea replenishment for half a century now and on the plus side unlike against France who had a large many requiring the individual blockading units has to be large and strong here the USN is very small, making things much easier.
Again, those blockades were closer to RN bases, and more strategically important. When you say replenishment at sea you mean sending revitiling, and water tenders to the blockading fleets to keep them on station. Those tenders have come from nearby bases, they won't have those off the U.S. coast.
The naval aspect of both wars would have been hopeless but for the French. The land aspect wasn't/would not have been hopeless in all three. Lion Vs Whale.
For the first 3 years of the ARW France & Spain were not in the fight, and the RN was unable to fully blockade the coast. Critical supplies, a degree of trade, and a flow of volunteers continued to stream to America. American raiders captured British supply ships carrying arms & powder and supplied them to Washington's army. The British were never able to stop hundreds of privateers from raiding British commerce. What France provided later in the war was a battlefleet. Spanish Florida provided another hole in the RN blockade.
Not very much which is why they looked for compromises in OTL but the necessary POD for this entire discussion is both sides decide, against their best interests, to fight.
And that's why this war would end in a compromise probably along what happened in the OTL anyway, making it a pointless war.
 
Yes, it's a great power war, but the British don't think of the Americans as a great power, and they don't pose a threat to vital interests, so they will never make a commitment of the scale they would make against France. Britain is never sure when another major war will break out in Europe so would never commit the bulk of their land or naval forces to NA. They want to defend Canada with a limited commitment and protect Atlantic trade routes. Forming convoys makes shipping less efficient, and profitable which is why they don't do it in peacetime. Just the threat of commerce raiding costs money even before any ships are captured. But yes, you're right the British will feel obligated to beat the American up as much as they can.

By the 1840's the USA was absolutely regarded as a Great Power by the European nations. As primus inter pares and the upholder and main beneficiary of the Pax Britannica they cannot afford to be humiliated. That means a full war mobilisation will occur if war breaks out on both sides, the British of course will have much more to mobilise.

Home waters are the Channel. Until the 20th Century the major RN bases were on the Channel coast. However big the Franch Atlantic fleet is the Channel fleet has to be bigger and have better ships. The RN has to have the strongest fleet in the Mediterranean to deal with potential crisis there.

There are degrees. Britain knows that a war with France isn't going to appear out of a nowhere and as long as relations are good and the French fleet is in it's peacetime routine they can and will reduce the number of ships in the Channel. Ships can sail back from off New England faster than the French can take their ships out of ordinary.

For the first 3 years of the ARW France & Spain were not in the fight, and the RN was unable to fully blockade the coast. Critical supplies, a degree of trade, and a flow of volunteers continued to stream to America. American raiders captured British supply ships carrying arms & powder and supplied them to Washington's army. The British were never able to stop hundreds of privateers from raiding British commerce. What France provided later in the war was a battlefleet. Spanish Florida provided another hole in the RN blockade.

For the first 3 years of the ARW the French and Spanish navies were very large and hostile and the RN needed to keep the vast bulk of their forces in Europe. That will not be the case here. The Spanish Navy essentially doesn't exist thanks to the Carlist Wars and the French once again are friendly.

And that's why this war would end in a compromise probably along what happened in the OTL anyway, making it a pointless war.

It would be a British favouring compromise because the British would be the "winner", though for Britain Hawaii and half of Washington State would not be worth the price they have paid to acquire them.
 
Sorry for the double post


Mexico is fighting against the Republic of Rio Grande and other rebellions, they can't really help with a diversionary attack against the US since there is the Republic of Rio Grande and the Republic of Texas in the. About the US being able to invade Mexico, if you take your time to research the logistics of the Mexican-American War you will see that most of the logistics were made by sea, since Britain controls the Sea the US would be obligated to send the Army and Supplies through land and that will limit the force of the invasion to no more than a couple thousand, also any force sent would be exposed to Britain cutting its supply routs by atacking any supply node in their rear. But, like I said it is past the point because Mexico will not enter the war before it solves its own problem of internal rebellions.
Fair point, didn't consider Mexico having its own internal problems around that time period.
I do still feel that Russia, which is determined to find some way to distract Britain and France elsewhere while it gets its way in regard to Turkey, would in all likelihood side with the US even if only as an alliance of convenience
 
Except that, apart from some small naval battles, and lots of privateers preying on British shipping, none of which are going to have an impact on the ground war, it really is Canada that will be the battleground in this fictional war. And before you waste more time trying to imply I am excluding help from Britain, their will be British ships attempting to blockade some US ports, their will be some Bombardments of coastal towns and cities, and likely some raids of a hit and run nature, but none of that will count for as much as having 10,000's of British regulars fighting alongside the Canadians in the ground war. The ground war is the single, decisive theater of this war, which renders the best weapon of the British Empire mostly irrelevant and impotent. The RN can no more decisively defeat the US in a notional 1843 war than it could win WW1 of WW2. All three of these wars will be decided on the land.
You said "Canada, with a population of 1.3 million, thinks they can 'win' a war with a USA that has 17+million people." If you do think Canada's going to get help from the rest of the British Empire, bringing up the Canadian population is a non sequitur.

Also, WW1 isn't really the best example, seeing as how the Allied naval blockade was one of the main factors in Germany's defeat.
Wait, the USA is at fault for that?!?! The UK wasn't doing anything, and were just a poor, helpless victim of evil American aggression?
Fault or not, the fact remains that the US went to war without a proper army.
Guilty as charged. We started that war without a 'proper army', didn't we.

And oh yeah, we also won that war, didn't we, and despite not having a large, professional standing army.
So now you're admitting that the US is in fact capable of starting wars without training a proper army beforehand? That's nice, although it does rather undermine your argument that of course any Anglo-American war would see America as the victim, since they didn't maintain a large military and hence obviously couldn't harbour aggressive intentions.

And, with all due respect to Mexico, they aren't exactly a top-tier power during this period, so the fact that the US was able to beat them doesn't tell us much about how they'd perform against a great power.
Well, if you believe that, honestly and truly, then that explains a great deal, does it not?
If you believe that the US is literally destined to expand to its OTL boundaries, I'm honestly not sure what you're doing on an alternate history site.
Allow me to present a few historical bits and pieces, in chronological order, shall we?

1763 = "You shall NOT pass"
1775 - 1783 = "NO, you shall not have your independence!"
1783 - 1794 = "We shall arm the natives against you"
1812-1815 = "You shall NOT pass"
1775: US attempts to conquer Canada, fails.
1812: US attempts to conquer Canada, fails.

Given the history of US attempts at northward expansion, I hope you'll pardon a little bit of scepticism as to the mighty American juggernaut's prospects of driving the British out of North America.
 
By occupy nodal points you are causing economic and political disruption that make sending forces on a scale necessary to drive Britain out of Canada impossible. If after a year or two of war Canada remains in British hands, the naval blockade has caused a collapse in the South's cash crop exports while also damaging the North's trade and coastal cities have been burned and the British offer a (British favouring) compromise peace the US government will probably have to take it. They did in 1814.
St Louis Bay is not a vital economic nodal and will not divert forces earmarked for Canada. Forces from Southern States would deal with any attacks on the Gulf Coast. What is being discussed in the defense of Canada is based on fortified key locations, Quebec, Montreal, Kingston. Even if they hold out under siege and the rest of upper Canada is in American hands Canada is lost. It can only be redeemed at the negotiation table. Major American coastal cities will not be burning. The Americans didn't take British terms in 1814. I find it strange that with all these analogies of Lion vs. Whale you think the British will win a land war.
Is it? Why, there are plenty of hungry Irishmen happy to take the King's Shilling.
So much for the idea of the British Army being a highly trained elite force. Up till WWI the British never had a reputation of using large numbers of men as cannon fodder.
The House of Commons is actually still dominated by the landed gentry at this point, it was the Second Reform Act that really changed the composition of Parliament but regardless if economic pain from American privateers is going to cause the British to come to the table presumably a much more disruptive British blockade will cause the Americans to come to the table first. Or is the US government less receptive to commercial interests than the British?
That's true as far as it goes. The Conservative block voted against Peel's abolition of the Corn Laws. A war with America will play havoc with his Free Trade agenda. What the House can agree on is their chief concern is the wealth of England, and all this war will do is sink wealth.
To be clear I don't think it will. The main impact of American privateers will be on tying up RN resources on things other than attacking the American seaboard. The main impact of the RN will be on forcing the US to divert troops and equipment (especially cannon) from the Canadian front to guarding ports will also damaging the US government's ability to pay for the war by collapsing trade and thus customs revenue and tax receipts. The latter will be more significant than the former because the RN is much bigger and more capable than the USN.
Privateers fight a war of attrition on the enemy's economy. Forts, and coastal batteries mount heavy guns. An army going into Canada will have mostly field guns no bigger than 12 pounders. The biggest economic mistake the Confederates made was withholding cotton. The Americans would be selling lots of cotton, and lots of blockade runners from Europe will get as much out as they can because it's worth the risk to bring it to a neutral port to sell it. The irony is that British traders will be in those ports buying that American cotton at high prices funding the American war effort.
 
Top