67th Tigers
Banned
I thought we were talking about 1852 here. I agree the US would lose a war in 1837.
The 1st post was 1830's-40's.
Okay, so it's the 2nd French Empire, which is *also* allied to Britain.
I thought we were talking about 1852 here. I agree the US would lose a war in 1837.
Want to place a number on US warship production 1861-5? (About 40)
Want to compare it to the ca. 300 warships the British built 1854-6?
Between 1849 and 1858 the volume of ship construction throughout the United States was enormous. More than 8000 vessels were built, 1600 of them in the South. Most of the larger craft in the Southern quota were built at the important coastal towns of Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Mobile. Later, small towns, which were often located miles up twisting, shallow rivers, would play an important part in creating a navy, especially after the fall of New Orleans and Norfolk in mid-1862. By then the main need was for small, shallow-draft, wellprotected craft able to navigate Southern waters. As luck would have it, these were the very type of craft that such yards could produce.
Within a year a vast construction program was under way. About 300 vessels were added to the navy and these started to make the blockade effective. By the end of the war, 418 vessels had been purchased, of which 313 were steamers. An extra 208 warships were built under contract, and over sixty of these were ironclads.
But they count for coastal and river defense, which is what matters in this war. As long as America prevents large-scale British occupation, its won.Small craft of shallow draft don't count for much as warships and not at all on the high seas, no matter how many exist.
But they count for coastal and river defense, which is what matters in this war. As long as America prevents large-scale British occupation, its won.
Don't be quite so sure about that.
In 1852, the population of Canada was 2.652 million.
The population of the United States was 23.267 million, including about 6 million slaves.
The population of the British Isles was 27.310 million (20.794 million excluding Ireland).
Obviously, just the population ratios mean that the US is able to provide a lot more manpower to defend itself than the UK can to attack it.
EDIT: Here's the source.
I'm assuming a war in the 1840s would be about the Oregon region. After the war, I find it likely that the Brits would take the whole territory... not so sure they'd take anything else or involve Mexico (they wouldn't really need to)...
British forces in Canada are composed of even fewer regular troops and even more unreliable militia. Don't forget too that at the time the vast majority of the population of Canada was still French. The French-Canadians will gravitate between indifference to the Americans and British and open support for the Americans. A naval blockade will hurt, but American shipbuilders will be able to outproduce Britain in the long run. Besides, America is probably the most self-sufficient nation in the world at the time.
I still think most of this applies to a war in 1837 as well. The British are obviously going to have a lot of advantages but it really comes down to what is defined as a victory. Much like the War of 1812, the objectives in such a conflict are most likely going to be very blurred. Sure the RN is going to blockade the coast, and the USN is going to harass and pick at like they've done before. But the UK just could not send, supply, and sustain enough troops on land to really hold down large areas of the United States. The population of the US is a huge factor. I think depending on how the war starts, the US would have a nice chance to grab Canada. The blunders of 1812 would probably be avoided, and in this TL we are assuming that the Middle and Souther states are supporting the war. The UK might get into a fight just to hold (or retake) Canada.
Would Mexico want to though?
I know very little of Mexico at the time...Could it be possible they use America's being humiliated to grab back their lands?
But in this period any war would probably be started by the US and British war aims would essentially be defensive. Therefore even status quo ante bellum would effectively be a victory for the British as in the war of 1812.
And UK might just arm the Mexicans to raise hell in the US rear - a continental sword is useful afterall and the mexicans may just be after a little revenge