CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
The source is John Steele Gordon's The Great Game; in addition, there's the initial volume of Koistinen's pentology on the political economy of American warfare, although it covers the period from the late 17th century to the end of the civil war, which goes into a lot of detail on the economic strengthes of an autarky like the US in the mid-19th century. Considering that neither of the comparable European wars in terms of scale in the era ended because one side's economy (or the other) "collapsed" it seems unlikely a continental economy on the western side of the Atlantic would either...:
As it was, all the major transatlantic conflicts have turned on boots on the ground; economic disparities have a tremendous impact on that, but given the disparity between the various alliances in both world wars, the coalitions against Napoleon, and (for example) the U.S. and the rebels in the 1860s, the French and the Mexicans in the 1860s, the Spanish and the Latin Americans in the 1860s, and the British and the South Africans in the 1880s, one can only doubt that the U.S. - which, of course, controlled the Mother Lode, Comstock, and Colorado mines in this period, along with most of the temperate band of the North American continent - is going to be unable to finance itself in the event of conflict with a European power.
Best,
Best,
Sure, the US has a lot of resources. But who are we going to sell to when the Royal Navy is blockading the biggest US ports and destroying American shipping? I'm not suggesting that a total blockade is possible (I think the Civil War proved that the US is too big for that), but Britain could definitely cut off American trade with Europe, which will wreak havoc on the economy (although I doubt anyone would starve). Combine that with a bloody campaign to take Canada and the US Navy chilling somewhere at the bottom of the Atlantic, and it seems hard for the US government to justify continuing the war.