Anglo-American war

wormyguy

Banned
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.

link to source
 
So by those figures and in a war for national survival the US built fewer and far less capable warships during the ACW(1861-1865) than the British did with less need during the Crimean War.

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.
 

wormyguy

Banned
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.
 
No. They do not. Jefferson tried that and his fleets of such craft were a sad waste of resources, even when they could actually be manned and deployed.

And how does the US 'win' if the UK peels off the southwest for Mexico, and control of the Great Lakes, the Pacific Northwest and Maine, Minnesota or Wisconsin for Canada? After all, none of these can be defended, even unsuccessfully, by such craft.


Of course, without foreign trade the US government's budget is effectively broken and so many vital resources unavailable, starting with the key ingredient to produce gunpowder.
 
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.

If the US gets blockaded then its economy will very quickly run into problems, no matter how self-sufficient you may believe it to be. After a while all those who are being ruined by the war (and being even more heavilly taxed and so on) will start applying pressure to end it. It is even more notable that certain states will be effected worse than others which shall create regional dissent as was seen in 1812, regional dissent being more divisive than universal dissent. At some point that pressure shall reach the level when it is successful, depending on what the British are asking for. Peace shall then follow without a single British soldier needing to be in occupation of the USA.
 
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.

Which explains China whupping Japan's arse in the 30s.
It matters even less than that too with this being the 19th century and a unimportant conflict it would not be a total war.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question I don't remember seeing asked before: the POD here is uncertain but is between the British slave emancipation (1833) and the ACW. At a time when there is far more popular pressure for emancipation, could the UK create problems for the slave states by in some way inducing the slaves to rise up and demand freedom, or maybe (though I guess now unlikely) join the fight as some kind of slave militias?
 
Last edited:
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)...
 
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)...

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?
 
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.
 

67th Tigers

Banned

Okay, lets consider that was actually built:

1861 Program

4x Ossipee class (all ld 1861 and completed early 1862)
2x Lackawanna class (lengthened Ossipees, ld 1862 and complete late 1863)
Kearsarge (a repeat of Mohican, ld 1861, complete 1862)
Sacramento (ld 1861, completed Jan 1863)
2x Monongahela (ld dec 61/ jan 62, both complete 1863)
Canadaigua (ld dec 61, complete 1863)
23x Screw Gunboats
12x Sidewheel Gunboats
Monitor (ld 1861, complete 1862)
New Ironsides (ld 1861, complete 1862)
Galena (ld 1861, complete 1862)

1862 Program

10x Passiac class (9 complete late 62-early 63, 1 delayed until 1864)
Roanoke (conversion, complete 63)
Onondaga (complete 63)
4x Miantonomoh class (complete late 64-65)
Dictator (complete late 64)
9x Canonicus (5 completed after the war, the rest broken up)
Keokuk (ld and complete 1862)
8x Screw Gunboats
27x Sidewheel Gunboats

(Puritan and 4 Kalamazoo's under this program were never completed, the Riverine Eads Boats etc. are not considered)

1863 Program

4x Wampanoag class (ld 1863, first complete 1867)
Chattanooga (ld 1863, commissioned for trials 1866, never saw service)
Idaho (ld 1863, commissioned for trials 1866, never saw service)
4x Contoocock class (3 ld 1864, 1 1865, none complete before 1868, program scrapped)

Hardly a vast force of the type you're suggesting...

PS: With the Franklin completing in 1864, this makes the USN receiving exactly 100 warships of various classes during hostilities, a nice round number.
 
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.

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. Any territorial changes would be minor as UK was more interested in having a willing trading partner than an at best apathetic colony

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
 
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?

it would depend mostly on when this hypothetical war with Britain happens... the Mexican War didn't happen until 1846-7, so if the war over OR happens before that, the Mexicans won't have a grudge against the US (except for a secondhand one involving TX)... and it's extremely unlikely that the US will involve itself in a war with Britain if it's still in the war against Mexico. I don't recall offhand just when the near-tiff with Britain over OR occurred...
 
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.

I can agree with that. I can though, think of reasons for a war be declared by either side. What makes you think that it's that much more likely for the conflict to started by the US. If that is the case ... then yes the conditions for a 'victory' favor the British. But a coordinated and intelligent assault into Canada just might have been able to succeed in sweeping out British forces and make a recapture very difficult and expensive.


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

A conflict in the 30's wouldn't have any revenge factor right? Thus any Mexican ventures would have had to travel up through Texas toward the Mississippi and I have doubts any Mexican force would have any success versus even just the Tennessee and/or Kentucky Militias.
 
Don't forget that in the 1830's the British had an extensive series of forts and trading routes used to transferring huge amounts of supplies accross the Northwest Territories/Rupert's Land due to the success of the Hudson's Bay Company. This mix of surveyed routes, staging posts, guides and practiced logistics would allow for large scale movement of troops to apply pressure through the US Midwest/Plains due to the Hudson Bay frieght route. Also you have the potential for pressure from Indian regiments shipped to the west coast leaving the Eastern seaboard as the main target.

The Fenian Raids of the 1830's meant that several of the major garrisons and fortifications in Canada were upgraded due to fears of increased violence along the border. Plus the morale of the Canadian militia would be high due to the success of the War of 1812.

On the other hand the dropping of the provision for an Indian homeland west of Upper Canada (Ontario) during the 1812 Treaty of Ghent negotiations would potentially mean significantly less organizined native support and reduced irregular forces from that quarter (unless the Cree and Plains tribes and Metis were brought in). Butterfly in Metis Canadian regiments recieving lands in Manitoba and no Red River Rebellion???
 
Top