Anglo-American War of 1871

Yup.. 2 Seconds later the US declares bankruptcy... sorry, not buying it... :rolleyes:

Who said bankruptcy...I said financial panic...probably protracted very severe and a contraction of the economy in face of the closure of its Export markets and loss of revenues thus derived and the discontinuation of its major source of financial investment. That doesn't mean that no financing can be obtained...just that the likely sources for it are few...and almost certainly at a hefty financial premium. It will be extremely costly affair for the Americans. French or Belgian banks are probably the only source with sufficient capital reserves but it won't come cheap.

The federal gov't would have to depend increasingly on higher taxation.
 
I see why you think it would be such a large victory for Britain, but I think they wouldn't gain so much just because the war wouldn't last so long. Once it is obvious the British would win---in our scenario, say the USA fails to capture Canada----then the USA would probably start to feel the economic stranglehold pretty soon and seek terms. If the British reply to this with "Ok, we want to annex a bunch of your territory" the USA is going refuse, shift to total war mode, and a war that has lasted once year is going to last five more. The British, lacking one of their main trading partners due to war with them, and unable to react well to situations in Europe, Africa, and Asia, won't want that.



Good points, I didn't even consider the Red River Rebellion! That would be a perfect casus belli, since in our scenario, support to the Fenian raiders is increased, its not ASB that they would send support to the rebellion. But IMO, this would elicit a declaration of war from Britain, not the USA. I think Britain would see it as a 'last straw' and going to far on the part of the USA. I agree with many of your other points, except the protracted war one. When the war starts, there's going to be a large disparity between the USA and Britain on pretty much all war materials. As the war goes on, the USA will be more and more able to bridge this gap.

Actually i think the Canadian and British authorities would prefer to treat this as an internal rebellion as long as they can, it deprives the Americans of a seat at the table as it were. As long as the US does not declare war, then Canadian and Br. regulars will be able to transit, albeit by all Canadian route to the Red River basin without fear of interdiction by any significant force, and will eventually prevail. hence why I stated there would probably have to be some kind of further escalation and it would need a decision by Washington to allow itself to be drawn into such a conflict.
 
I originally was thinking the same thing about Grant, but if we go with Fenians in the Red River Rebellion POD than Britain would declare war on the USA.




I agree on some things and disagree on others. I think that the USA could make it a really bloody ordeal for Britain, but I doubt that the will would be there. As for Britain deferring to the USA on those many disputes, that can also be dismissed somewhat as long term planning. Britain wanted to keep on the USA's good side for when the USA became a considerable power.


That's why I said...if the political will is there. I too don't believe either side will be too thrilled about a war. They will negotiate or arbitrate, but if war comes than given the outstanding Alabama Claims and poor perception many in the North held regarding Britain's conduct during the ACW (wrong and uneducated though it was) than Grant may be able to rally the nation together to fight a long and destructive war. Also by the end of the ACW Southerns had no love for Britain. They felt they had been abandoned and lied to by those in Britain who had shown initial support for the Confederacy. Furthermore there was widespread admiration for Grant in the South given the lenient terms that he had given Lee at Appomattox.

As for for long term planning on Britain's part regarding the US future power, call me a bit dubious. Contemporary evidence points more to economic reasoning. America was a very profitable trade partner and a great place to invest. Anglo-American trade was a crucial part of both American and British economic growth during the Second Industrial Revolution. Bringing that partnership to a violent end would have been a very foolish thing to do for either party.

Benjamin
 
Yea, I keep trying to get the British to declare war since Grant would be a badass President, but I guess he'd be a badass General too.

There seem few alternatives... Though I am curious as to the suggestion of Thomas. If the views of Thomas and Grant were reversed vis a vis the political arena. Its seems to me that thomas is just as thoughtful and determined as Grant and unlikely to allow the US to be drawn into such War over something as trivial as the Fenians or American volunteers in Assiniboia.

However if we combine that with Radical reconstruction not being as popular...and Johnson avoiding impeachent proceedings... could he have prevailed as the democratic candidate in '68 against the lesser know and accoladed Thomas. Or at least have carried some of the big electoral college states in the north. He would have been incumbent then. Or would he have still tried to build his National Union Party
 
4 pages and no sign of the timeline:(

Well I'm still trying to figure out the reprecussions of the war 20, 30, or 40 years after the war. That's what we need to know for a TL.

There seem few alternatives... Though I am curious as to the suggestion of Thomas. If the views of Thomas and Grant were reversed vis a vis the political arena. Its seems to me that thomas is just as thoughtful and determined as Grant and unlikely to allow the US to be drawn into such War over something as trivial as the Fenians or American volunteers in Assiniboia.

However if we combine that with Radical reconstruction not being as popular...and Johnson avoiding impeachent proceedings... could he have prevailed as the democratic candidate in '68 against the lesser know and accoladed Thomas. Or at least have carried some of the big electoral college states in the north. He would have been incumbent then. Or would he have still tried to build his National Union Party

I keep returning to this point, and yes, it may just be that I want Grant as President, but I believe the worse Fenian raids spawned by the worse relations could lead to a British declaration of war. All the USA needs to do is turn a blind eye, not even actively aid the raiders. If the British think that the US government is aiding the raiders, it could easily come to war.
 
benjamin wrote:

Given that America's industrial production surpassed that of the UK in or around 1890....

You need to be careful about such claims. Different countries use different methods to calculate figures like GDP/GNP etc, so it can be misleading to compare Country X's figures with Country Y's. As an example, according to German figures, the German economy was larger than that of Britain during the Second World War

- Plus the German economy was already fully-mobilised in 1939
- Plus they gained the resources of occupied Europe (albeit they didn't make very good use of them, but they certainly added something to the production figures).
- Plus they employed a higher proportion of women than Britain (contrary to the popular myth)
- Plus the Germans had millions of slaves and forced labour from all over the Continent.
- Plus they received support from the Soviet Union during 1939-1941 that far outweighed anything that Britain received from the US during that period.

Yet despite all these advantages, Britain outproduced the Germans in every category of war material except submarines.

As another example, when US production is discussed in one of the [FONT=&quot]interminable[/FONT] ever-popular Trent War threads, the figures include the conversion of apples into cider, whereas British figures exclude such activities.
 
benjamin wrote:



You need to be careful about such claims. Different countries use different methods to calculate figures like GDP/GNP etc, so it can be misleading to compare Country X's figures with Country Y's. As an example, according to German figures, the German economy was larger than that of Britain during the Second World War

- Plus the German economy was already fully-mobilised in 1939
- Plus they gained the resources of occupied Europe (albeit they didn't make very good use of them, but they certainly added something to the production figures).
- Plus they employed a higher proportion of women than Britain (contrary to the popular myth)
- Plus the Germans had millions of slaves and forced labour from all over the Continent.
- Plus they received support from the Soviet Union during 1939-1941 that far outweighed anything that Britain received from the US during that period.

Yet despite all these advantages, Britain outproduced the Germans in every category of war material except submarines.

As another example, when US production is discussed in one of the [FONT=&quot]interminable[/FONT] ever-popular Trent War threads, the figures include the conversion of apples into cider, whereas British figures exclude such activities.

I completely agree, but my point was a broader statement that "America's defeat is not a given especially in the post-Civil War era." Surely, there are numerous historical instances where a smaller less wealthy nation has defeated, or at least fought to a standstill, a much larger opponent. Either way the idea put forth by some other posters that the US was completely incapable of building a first class navy any time prior to WWI is absurd.

Benjamin
 
The US being incapable of building a first class fleet is obviously absurd but the US being able to match the RN is another matter. At this point the British position was to keep the RN stronger than any three other powers and at no point through the 19th Century did the US ever rank among the next three naval powers.
 
I completely agree, but my point was a broader statement that "America's defeat is not a given especially in the post-Civil War era." Surely, there are numerous historical instances where a smaller less wealthy nation has defeated, or at least fought to a standstill, a much larger opponent. Either way the idea put forth by some other posters that the US was completely incapable of building a first class navy any time prior to WWI is absurd.

Benjamin

Its within the realms of possibility if Britain gives new meaning to the word incompetant yes. However that is far from the most likely possibility. We're not trying to work out a way America can win here, we don't want that, we're discussing what is most likely to happen- and that is the nation which is weaker in every way gets beat.
 
Top