54 40 or fight?

There are two big problems (one for each side in the war):

a) Britain needs to transport a hell of a lot of troops across the Atlantic, to fight the US in a decisive manner. That takes time (and $$$$). Then you have to support them in the field (and Canada wasn't a logistics, munitions, and ordnance powerhouse at the time).

and

b) The USA has a massive internal issue inherent in standing up a large Army. The militia system was, on any large scale, moribund (and always had been, our national propoganda notwithstanding).
The "citizen soldiers" who were supposed to form the bulk of the wartime field armies effectively did not exist. They didn't muster, drill, or train on any large scale. Officers were basically social creatures who occasionally wore a nice uniform to the cotillion, and were largely ignorant of military science. Discipline was......an issue.
The Mexican War pressed the militia system to the breaking point, just to fill out all the Volunteer Regiments. That was with militiamen volunteering....a general all-personnel muster and movement to the front would have been an utter disaster (desertion, poor coordination, etc).

The US Army was tiny and, while quite professional, didn't have the Staff or logistics capability to lead a large army (US Army + militias) in the field. In the Civil War, it took about 12-18 months for the Union and Confederacy to stand up field armies capable of European-scale operations and coordination.


Unless the War went on (and escalated) for a couple of years, I doubt the Land confrontation would have been decisive. Looks like a recipe for a Naval War, unless both sides are utterly intransigent.
 
Last edited:
Top