"54' 40" or Fight" or the War of 1848

Britain was also just beginning to payoff the debt of the Napoleonic wars, so it finances were in bad shape for a major war. The compromise was reached because it made a lot of sense for both sides. If for some odd reason the USA decided start a war instead of accepting the pretty good offer, it is not clear to me the UK would be willing to fight a major war. Crush the American Navy. Absolutely. Do some landing to apply pressure to the USA? Yes. Actually do a full mobilization? Much harder to see that happening, but possible. Who will be the winners of the war? Every major power in the world but the UK and the USA.

The National Debt for the UK was just over 100%, about the same as it was when fighting the ARW.

I would imagine that this senario would be similar to the Boer War some 50 years later, the Brits would put in just enough to win (after some bad defeats first if necessary), with the added advantage that every single major city in America is vunerable to attack from the Royal Navy.

The Brits wouldn't need to have mobilation, that was what the Indian Army was for.

Not sure about "every major power but UK and USA" either, as i) USA is not a major power for another 40/50 years and ii) only Russia was in conflict with UK at the time (over Afganistan and the North West frontiere).
 
This would be the same "War Machine" that ran out of steam in the Revolution, Ran out of Steam in the War of 1812 yes Washington was burned but Baltimore and New Orleans were solid American Victories, would have a mediocre to bad showing in the OTL Crimean War roughly a decade later (not that the french were much better). Will Washington burn again maybe/probably Will New Orleans or Baltimore, or Boston, or Norfolk or Charleston Fall Probably not. At the same time the USA wont get all of Canada either After two or three years of stale mate Britain will Run out of Steam like in its two previous American Wars. Because at the end of the day Americans are just too darn stubborn to quit when everyone else says we ought to.

Will the Royal Navy mop the floor with the USN yes but it will get stung in the process We American are if nothing else very creative when it comes to stop gap creativity, all you got to do is look forward to the South in the Civil war to see that.

While a Anglo American War of 1848 might lead to secession it would be in New England not in the South which were the hawks in Congress of this time period.

You need to look at the facts for those wars where you claim the Imperial War Machine ran out of steam. In the ARW Britain was beaten not because of the efforts of the nascent Americans but because of France, Spain and the Netherlands entering the war. Britain still held out for several years before suing for peace. And lets be clear here, Britain sued for peace because they were standing alone against several Great Powers, not because of the efforts of the American revolutionaries. When your home islands are threatened with invasion a few underdeveloped colonies are not worth continuing the fight for. Also it should be noted that this war occured before UK reached the height of it's power. In 1848 the UK was at the height of it's power.

In the war of 1812 the UK was fighting for it's very existence against Napolean and could spare little effort to fight the Americans. The UK put in the minimum effort necessary to defend Canada and that was it. Other theatres were far more important.

In other words, in both wars where you claim that the Americans ground down the British war machine it should be seen that the American fronts were low priority fronts compared to others where minimal effort was expended (the case in the ARW after european intervention). In the war postulated in the OP this wouldn't be the case. The US would be seen as the agrressor and it's unlikely that in a period of revolutions in Europe any Great Power would want to intervene on behalf of a minor power who is seen to promote dangerous democratic ideas, has explicitly told all European powers to keep their noses out of the Americas and who is the agressor. The US would be on her own against the undivided attentions of the British Empire at it's very height. This would not be pretty for the US
 
I think we've run into a clash of American Exceptionalism vs the political, military and economic realities of 1848...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The National Debt for the UK was just over 100%, about the same as it was when fighting the ARW.

I would imagine that this senario would be similar to the Boer War some 50 years later, the Brits would put in just enough to win (after some bad defeats first if necessary), with the added advantage that every single major city in America is vunerable to attack from the Royal Navy.

The Brits wouldn't need to have mobilation, that was what the Indian Army was for.

Not sure about "every major power but UK and USA" either, as i) USA is not a major power for another 40/50 years and ii) only Russia was in conflict with UK at the time (over Afganistan and the North West frontiere).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/british-debt-history/

It was easily 150%.

I can imagine the Boer war like scenario, but it is not likely.

I am amazed the UK fans always bring up the Indian army as the miracle machine, but in real wars, it never worked this way. If the UK removes the Indian Army, India rebels, and the empire collapses. Only some very, small fraction of the force was really available for overseas deployment. If the UK wanted to fight a war of conquest, conscription in England would be required. Otherwise it is a limited war aimed at negotiated peace.

You miss the point on everyone wins. If the UK fights another major war like the Napoleonic wars as you are calling for, then the debt of the UK soars, and everyone other power benefits because of the UK financial decline. Yes, the RN rules the sea. The UK can take a few cities, but if it wants to win a war, it will be at least 1 million man army need and take at least 2 years, and double those numbers is a lot closer to the mark. And the UK might lose.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
First: The RN could simply raid and shell American coastal cities, which would be disastrous.

And why would the British even think about conquest? You can win a war without occupying the entire nation.

Simple, the USA loves total warfare. I am not sure how it got into our mindset, but it did.

Yes, the USA would have cities burned. But here is the dilemma for the UK. What happens when the USA refuses to surrender? By the second or third year of the war, the USA will have a 1 million man Army, and be trying to take Canada. The UK is an island the USA can't take. But the USA is a large continental landmass that the UK can't take without a 1 million man + army and years of warfare.

IMO, both sides understood that an USA/UK war would greatly hurt both countries, and this is why the third UK/USA war did not happen.
 
one problem with this scenario (which has come up on here several times) is that '54-40 or fight!' was a big bluff... Polk had no intention of going to war over Oregon, and the slogan was mainly to prod the Brits to get off their butts and come up with a permanent solution. For some reason, the Brits got fussy about dividing the territory and Polk came up with the whole 54-40 thing to get them to the negotiating table. I don't think the Brits were ever really concerned about the threat all that much, but some other crisis prompted them to finally get serious about negotiations. I'd think that if Congress ever really got serious about declaring war, Polk would be pretty hasty to back down. If the Brits can't be brought to negotiations, then Polk's likeliest next move would be to shrug and keep flooding OR with immigrants... which is what mainly drove the Brits to agree to the proposed border; the Americans had boots on the ground in the current states of WA and OR in big numbers...
In the event of war, the USA is looking pretty sad... no navy to match the RN, no professional army to match the UK's forces, and obsolete weapons to boot...
 
Simple, the USA loves total warfare. I am not sure how it got into our mindset, but it did.

Yes, the USA would have cities burned. But here is the dilemma for the UK. What happens when the USA refuses to surrender? By the second or third year of the war, the USA will have a 1 million man Army, and be trying to take Canada. The UK is an island the USA can't take. But the USA is a large continental landmass that the UK can't take without a 1 million man + army and years of warfare.

IMO, both sides understood that an USA/UK war would greatly hurt both countries, and this is why the third UK/USA war did not happen.

How is the US of the 1840s raising and supplying and training a million men?

Britain at least can try doing that. The US? Seriously?
 
How is the US of the 1840s raising and supplying and training a million men?

Britain at least can try doing that. The US? Seriously?

I agree, given that Britain was by far the largest investor in the US at the time where is the money going to come from?

None of the European powers would buy the debt (as it would annoy the Brits), so the only option would be Russia, or face spiralling inflation as the US government tried to print money with no gold to back it up.
 
I agree, given that Britain was by far the largest investor in the US at the time where is the money going to come from?

None of the European powers would buy the debt (as it would annoy the Brits), so the only option would be Russia, or face spiralling inflation as the US government tried to print money with no gold to back it up.

Well, the US does have an economy of its own, but I don't see the point pushing this argument. Sufficient to say, it would end badly.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How is the US of the 1840s raising and supplying and training a million men?

Britain at least can try doing that. The US? Seriously?

In the 1860's, the combined CSA/USA army is much larger than 1 million, and this is only 12 years in the future. If the UK decides to fight a major war and to impose harsh terms, it is looking at fight a war much like American civil war. The UK is probably look at over 1 billion British pounds of expense, over 4 years of combat, and over 500,000 dead Brits. And the Brits might lose.

Now the USA can't really get an army over the Rockies, so the war makes no sense for the USA.

I am not saying it is impossible for the UK to win. I am saying that either side could win and the UK is not going to do a FULL WW1 style mobilization over some largely empty, tree covered land. And if the UK does, it will be greatly weakened, and other European powers will take advantage of this weakness.

I am always amazed when people argue that the USA can't reach mobilization levels actually achieve in history, combined with the UK will do a WW1 mobilization, when it did not even conscript until the second year of the Great War. And the India conscription is a bunch of garbage. If this was such an easy solution, the UK would have done it repeatedly. The troops in India were need to keep India from revolting, and British interest will be gravely harmed by sending several million trained soldiers with an Indian national pride back to India. Mobilizing India means India will be a free country within a decade or two. Raising a few volunteer regiments or corps sure. Raising a million man army, not going to happen.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I agree, given that Britain was by far the largest investor in the US at the time where is the money going to come from?

None of the European powers would buy the debt (as it would annoy the Brits), so the only option would be Russia, or face spiralling inflation as the US government tried to print money with no gold to back it up.

The first thing that happens in a war is the assets of the foreign power are seized. If the UK goes to war, it will lose all physical and financial assets in the USA, as will the USA lose any investments in the British empire. What matters in total war is what can be produced based on where physical assets are located at not who owns the paper title.

Well, the USA spent 4 billion dollars for the civil war and faced inflation, and recovered.
 
In the 1860's, the combined CSA/USA army is much larger than 1 million, and this is only 12 years in the future. If the UK decides to fight a major war and to impose harsh terms, it is looking at fight a war much like American civil war. The UK is probably look at over 1 billion British pounds of expense, over 4 years of combat, and over 500,000 dead Brits. And the Brits might lose.

12 years and 8 million people later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850_United_States_Census

Okay, so that's 1850, but assuming 1848, close enough.

But also a considerable amount of economic development. The US may have the raw numbers, but not the ability to support such armies.

I am always amazed when people argue that the USA can't reach mobilization levels actually achieve in history, combined with the UK will do a WW1 mobilization, when it did not even conscript until the second year of the Great War. And the India conscription is a bunch of garbage. If this was such an easy solution, the UK would have done it repeatedly. The troops in India were need to keep India from revolting, and British interest will be gravely harmed by sending several million trained soldiers with an Indian national pride back to India. Mobilizing India means India will be a free country within a decade or two. Raising a few volunteer regiments or corps sure. Raising a million man army, not going to happen.

The main problem is above, and the UK didn't need conscription to build up the initial armies it sent into the WWI meatgrinder.

I agree the UK hardly has infinite military resources, especially on land, but it does have the advantage here.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The UK is probably look at over 1 billion British pounds of expense, over 4 years of combat, and over 500,000 dead Brits. And the Brits might lose.

?

So how did they take down the much more powerful Russia with barely £100 m extra cost and 21,000 dead?

Any war with the UK will be primarily naval.
 
In the 1860's, the combined CSA/USA army is much larger than 1 million, and this is only 12 years in the future. If the UK decides to fight a major war and to impose harsh terms, it is looking at fight a war much like American civil war. The UK is probably look at over 1 billion British pounds of expense, over 4 years of combat, and over 500,000 dead Brits. And the Brits might lose.

Now the USA can't really get an army over the Rockies, so the war makes no sense for the USA.

I am not saying it is impossible for the UK to win. I am saying that either side could win and the UK is not going to do a FULL WW1 style mobilization over some largely empty, tree covered land. And if the UK does, it will be greatly weakened, and other European powers will take advantage of this weakness.

I am always amazed when people argue that the USA can't reach mobilization levels actually achieve in history, combined with the UK will do a WW1 mobilization, when it did not even conscript until the second year of the Great War. And the India conscription is a bunch of garbage. If this was such an easy solution, the UK would have done it repeatedly. The troops in India were need to keep India from revolting, and British interest will be gravely harmed by sending several million trained soldiers with an Indian national pride back to India. Mobilizing India means India will be a free country within a decade or two. Raising a few volunteer regiments or corps sure. Raising a million man army, not going to happen.

So an untested military with no experience in modern war, mobilization, tactics, logistics is going to go up against the premier power of the day and even cause a dent? Really!

The American military beat the Mexican's in this period that is no lie. 12 years later it went to war with itself. Both sides proved to be disastrously inept at first and completely unused to fighting a modern war. This was in the more developed and built up areas of the country as well. Even then much of the time both sides were poor at logistics until well in the war.

In any hypothetical war over Oregon some yuppy Americans face entrenched red coats who proceed to wipe the floor with them. It's as simple as that. The United States was not cut out to go to war with the British in this period. Could they take on poorly commanded Mexican consripts? Yes. Well led and trained British troops? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Plucky American exceptionalism does not make for experience in war.
 
?

So how did they take down the much more powerful Russia with barely £100 m extra cost and 21,000 dead?

Any war with the UK will be primarily naval.

French help. Not the same thing as doing it on its own.

Plucky American exceptionalism does not make for experience in war.

This is the problem. I can see ways that individual battles or even a campaign or two might be exceptions. But it would take fantastic American generalship or incredibly poor British generalship and probably both.
 
Last edited:
Honestly land battles would be the sideshow Britain would bombard the living hell out of the US coastal cities and blockade all traffic to and from said cities. New York and Boston will be none too happy about getting shelled on a regular basis and the South isn't going to put up with not being able to export its cotton for very long especially since its due to a war that's not going to be popular to start with. Add in the fact that Mexico may jump in once it comes out that they're next on the chopping block and things look pretty grim.
But all of this is pretty pointless Polk never intended to go to war with Britain it was simply BS his campaign put out to get votes nothing more. He quite correctly knew that a war with Britain would be disastrous long term even if the US managed to win the war. He was also aware that simply flooding the area with settlers would be far more effective way to get a border adjustment anyway.
 
Never thought about this before, it's intriguing as are the arguments.

1. Britain is a worldwide empire in 1848 which also means it's Navy and Army are needed all over the world pretty much where they are to hold down the grumpy natives all scattered months of sea travel apart from each other and the British Navy like any doesn't have an endless number of troop transport and cargo ships to move them around easily. England's comparatively small population, i.e. compared to India, South Africa, Sudan, Egypt, Malaysia, Hong Kong & China sites, it's Pacific Islands, British Guiana, it's Carribbean Islands-Jamaica, Bermuda, etc. is stretched very thinly. Massing ships or troops, let alone transport or building a massive new army, would be a much smaller available/transferrable number than seem to be posited here. 1848 is also the year of major rebellions all over Europe and Latin America, which makes keeping more troops close to home quite appealing.

2. I don't know what the U.S. Navy looks like in 1848. Smart commanders we see in the Civil War like Farragut and Porter would be mid-level officers or even ships' captains by this point and the American shipbuilding industry was in full swing in part from the demands of the American whaling fleet (who oddly would probably be a major resource coming from their Pacific hunts to Oregon, probably as privateers) so a longer war would allow building new American frigates with a large merchant marine to draw on along that same coast that's too long for the British Navy to fully blockade (assuming the British Navy isn't pulled from all over the world in entirety and left on the American coast.) Once again the Americans would issue privateer licenses to it's merchant ships, still an era of cutting some gunports in and making simple muzzle-loading cannons as we were able to in previous wars with far less of a metals industry than 1848. That'd draw off a lot of the British Navy away from coastline blockades.

3. Finance. Loss of the American cotton crop to British textile mills would be devastating and if this led to the British turning Egypt into a private cotton plantation 12 years sooner, that'd greatly decrease the economic power of the South when it rattled it's sabers about seceding. For both sides, the surprise costs of any level of open warfare would push hard towards a speedy peace, but hideously costly wars over very small issues are more common than reason would suggest.

4. American army: Winfield Scott, one of our ablest Generals ever, is in charge and had done well against British troops in the War of 1812. Many of the best commanders in the American Civil War are in the Army or recently at this point and freshly tested by the Mexican War along with years of Indian fighting (we were pretty much continually at war in many places across the continent...asymmetric guerrilla warfare that would be oddly useful training if applied to the British land forces. In 1848 the Sharps breechloading rifle has just been patented and derives substantially from John Hall's breechloading 1819- Army flintlock rifle in common use in the Mexican War, mfd. deep in Virginia at Harper's Ferry. Colt's revolvers and revolving rifles are back in production and in Army issue by this point which makes cavalry considerably more devastating with sets of revolvers as the Texas Rangers had just been figuring out...bad news for British lancers, dragoons, light cavalry, and artillerymen. A horse or mule-carried artillery piece, the mountain howitzer, is Army frontier issue by this point I think and would also be a nasty surprise. American soldiers to an even greater extent than the Civil War would be more like Confederate troops in mostly coming from farms with better health, more rugged constitutions, far greater familiarity with the outdoors as well as hunting, and more independent than the city and village dwellers English press gangs had found.

5. America has vast numbers of horses, wagons, riverboats/barges/canal boats, steamboats, a few railroad lines and locomotive works, and considerable industry by this point. The comment about all American cities being accessible to the Royal Navy's assaults leaves out Pittsburgh, Cincinnatti, Nashville, Memphis, St. Louis, Atlanta, and smaller inland towns and cities with millions of residents, major resources, and growing industry that would remain inaccessible to the British but logistically connected by rivers, canals, roads, and increasingly railroads (a surge in rail construction and upgrading bridges and major roads seems inevitable with interesting consequences too.) America already had more population than England by the time of the Revolutionary War (and has along with explosive natural population growth due to better nutrition and cleaner water, had considerable waves of Irish (potato famine 1840's, big surge 1790's) and German immigrants (to the point that inland often the language is German)...many of them veterans of European armies and not warmly stirred by the sight of the British flag.

6. It would have to be after the Mexican War to work as others have pointed out. Without that, the U.S. has no Pacific ports (no San Francisco, San Diego, etc.) to support an Oregon campaign logistically. The Gold Rush either hasn't started or is just commencing, Sutter's Mill's discovery is 1848, which drew several hundred thousand Americans there in the next couple of years...which would make a campaign for the rest of the Pacific Northwest vastly easier to do. Otherwise there's a few missionaries and early settlers in the Oregon Willamette Valley (far less than the Canadian community at Fort Vancouver then I think), even fewer fur trappers (too late), and the major waystations for resupply are fur trading posts serviced by Missouri steamboats/riverboats (Ft. Benton, Montana) or Fort John/Fort Laramie in South Central Wyoming's prairies, Bent's Fort, etc. a vast distance to Oregon.) The British with the Hudson's Bay Company fur trading empire across Canada would be vastly better positioned to enlist natives like the Blackfeet Indians again to retain and defend the region at very little cost. Moving American troops or more likely volunteer irregular units from St. Louis etc. might have them stumble across the placer gold fields in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and Oregon 10-20 years early (which could turn military expeditions of such into sudden gold camps abandoning their mission or at least delaying it by months or years.)

I suspect the British wouldn't readily give up the Pacific ports of Canada, that's a huge deal for a maritime power in the age when everything that could moved over water instead of land and the sun never set on the British Empire. Interesting idea.
 
2. I don't know what the U.S. Navy looks like in 1848. Smart commanders we see in the Civil War like Farragut and Porter would be mid-level officers or even ships' captains by this point and the American shipbuilding industry was in full swing in part from the demands of the American whaling fleet (who oddly would probably be a major resource coming from their Pacific hunts to Oregon, probably as privateers) so a longer war would allow building new American frigates with a large merchant marine to draw on along that same coast that's too long for the British Navy to fully blockade (assuming the British Navy isn't pulled from all over the world in entirety and left on the American coast.) Once again the Americans would issue privateer licenses to it's merchant ships, still an era of cutting some gunports in and making simple muzzle-loading cannons as we were able to in previous wars with far less of a metals industry than 1848. That'd draw off a lot of the British Navy away from coastline blockades.

The US navy at this point is a very distant . . . fourth? to the Royal Navy. It's impressive by the standards of earlier, but a joke compared to the power that rules the waves.

4. American army: Winfield Scott, one of our ablest Generals ever, is in charge and had done well against British troops in the War of 1812. Many of the best commanders in the American Civil War are in the Army or recently at this point and freshly tested by the Mexican War along with years of Indian fighting (we were pretty much continually at war in many places across the continent...asymmetric guerrilla warfare that would be oddly useful training if applied to the British land forces. In 1848 the Sharps breechloading rifle has just been patented and derives substantially from John Hall's breechloading 1819- Army flintlock rifle in common use in the Mexican War, mfd. deep in Virginia at Harper's Ferry. Colt's revolvers and revolving rifles are back in production and in Army issue by this point which makes cavalry considerably more devastating with sets of revolvers as the Texas Rangers had just been figuring out...bad news for British lancers, dragoons, light cavalry, and artillerymen. A horse or mule-carried artillery piece, the mountain howitzer, is Army frontier issue by this point I think and would also be a nasty surprise. American soldiers to an even greater extent than the Civil War would be more like Confederate troops in mostly coming from farms with better health, more rugged constitutions, far greater familiarity with the outdoors as well as hunting, and more independent than the city and village dwellers English press gangs had found.
I don't know what the British Army's equipment is in this day, but I wouldn't put it behind anything the US has unless otherwise indicated.

The idea that farm troops make the best troops is a myth. For starters, they got ravaged by disease in camp.
 
Top