British-American War in the late 19th Century?

What sort of situation would need to arise so that eventually, during the 1880s or 1890s, a war breaks out between the British Empire and the United States? What would be the likely outcome of such a war?
 
What sort of situation would need to arise so that eventually, during the 1880s or 1890s, a war breaks out between the British Empire and the United States? What would be the likely outcome of such a war?

I'm not sure what potential triggers there would be at this time, but as for outcome, I'd expect either a British victory or a white peace. The US armed forces were pretty tiny and underfunded for most of the nineteenth century, and whilst the situation did get better during the 1880s and 1890s, they were still pretty small by Great Power standards. OTOH, Britain managed to get hundreds of thousands of men to South Africa within a few months of the Boer War breaking out, and I expect they'd put in at least as much effort to defend Canada as they did to conquer SA.
 
I'm not sure what potential triggers there would be at this time,

Venezuela, Alaska.

but as for outcome, I'd expect either a British victory or a white peace. The US armed forces were pretty tiny and underfunded for most of the nineteenth century, and whilst the situation did get better during the 1880s and 1890s, they were still pretty small by Great Power standards. OTOH, Britain managed to get hundreds of thousands of men to South Africa within a few months of the Boer War breaking out, and I expect they'd put in at least as much effort to defend Canada as they did to conquer SA.

Britain had the edge in naval power but a land war would've been different. And it wasn't just a matter of facing a big US Army at the end of a long logistical tether. How might France and Germany etc react? Could they take advantage of British preoccupation with the US to encroach on British possessions elsewhere?
At the time of the Venezuela crisis, Salisbury's cabinet counseled caution and compromise, which, I assume, mirrored the potential hazards.
 
Venezuela, Alaska.



Britain had the edge in naval power but a land war would've been different. And it wasn't just a matter of facing a big US Army at the end of a long logistical tether. How might France and Germany etc react? Could they take advantage of British preoccupation with the US to encroach on British possessions elsewhere?
At the time of the Venezuela crisis, Salisbury's cabinet counseled caution and compromise, which, I assume, mirrored the potential hazards.

Big US Army? The US Army was down to around 25,000-27,000 officers and men by the time of the Venezuela crisis, when they mobilised the States Militia/National Guard for OTL's Spanish-American War a quarter of the men declined to serve and another quarter proved unfit to fight. You might want to note it took the Army a good couple of months to field a single corps based mostly around regular regiments and that was enabled in part by the fact a big portion of the logistics was handled by the Navy. A little while later they sent a second expeditionary corps comprised of mostly National Guard units but again transported by the Navy to the Philippines.

You might want to look at the numbers collated by this site for a broad idea http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

By contrast the British would start by sending a corps of 40,000 men to Canada with another corps following over about three months. They did this for the South African/Boer crisis which was happening twice as far away and even then managed to support that army in operations deep inland over largely roadless terrain. If things did not otherwise go according to plan the mobilisation at least worked straight from the text book.

Unlike the Americans the British had an actual trained and equipped logistics branch (in fact being the British they had two the Army Service Corps and the Army Ordnance Corps) while the US Army relied on officers and sergeant on secondment from their regiments and would have started the war with a desperate shortage of wagons for road moves.

The image of the vast American horde army Zergling rushing Canada is a bit fanciful. Things might get complicated on the ground but at the end of the 19th Century the British had good cause to think they could hold Canada if push comes to shove.
 
Big US Army? The US Army was down to around 25,000-27,000 officers and men by the time of the Venezuela crisis, when they mobilised the States Militia/National Guard for OTL's Spanish-American War a quarter of the men declined to serve and another quarter proved unfit to fight. You might want to note it took the Army a good couple of months to field a single corps based mostly around regular regiments and that was enabled in part by the fact a big portion of the logistics was handled by the Navy. A little while later they sent a second expeditionary corps comprised of mostly National Guard units but again transported by the Navy to the Philippines.

You might want to look at the numbers collated by this site for a broad idea http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

By contrast the British would start by sending a corps of 40,000 men to Canada with another corps following over about three months. They did this for the South African/Boer crisis which was happening twice as far away and even then managed to support that army in operations deep inland over largely roadless terrain. If things did not otherwise go according to plan the mobilisation at least worked straight from the text book.

Unlike the Americans the British had an actual trained and equipped logistics branch (in fact being the British they had two the Army Service Corps and the Army Ordnance Corps) while the US Army relied on officers and sergeant on secondment from their regiments and would have started the war with a desperate shortage of wagons for road moves.

The image of the vast American horde army Zergling rushing Canada is a bit fanciful. Things might get complicated on the ground but at the end of the 19th Century the British had good cause to think they could hold Canada if push comes to shove.

Not saying this doesn't contain many good points, but here's a few caveats that also need to be included to make a Boer War comparison fair. The Boers had no large manpower pool and industrial base to "ramp up" from. The front was singular and significantly smaller, thus allowing the British advantage in being able to concentrate firepower to come into play and maximize the effect og on the ground Pioneer activity and deploying logistical resources. The Boers had no means to disrupt British commerce. South Africa was widely aknowledged to be part of Britain's sphere by the international order and thus their actions carried little risk of diplomatic repercussions

Of course, alot depends on just what the conflict breaks out over and if the US has a ramping up period to get formal military units organized in the relative ease of peacetime with the expectation of a war.
 
America by the 1880s certainly had the potential to field a very large and well-equipped army. However, their economy and industry wasn't at all geared towards doing so, and it takes a good deal of time to shift from "tiny army used mainly for beating up native tribes" to "large army capable of defeating one of the world's foremost military and economic powers". There's a reason why the other great powers, which knew they might have to fight a war at short notice, kept large and effective armies even in peacetime.

Of course, alot depends on just what the conflict breaks out over and if the US has a ramping up period to get formal military units organized in the relative ease of peacetime with the expectation of a war.

That would certainly help, although presumably the British would also use the opportunity to ramp up their own military, build fortifications in Canada, etc. Heck, they might even declare war as soon as the US starts ramping up its forces -- if another country's preparing to invade you, and your current military is much stronger than theirs, might as well start the fighting now instead of giving them time to even up the balance of power.
 
Not saying this doesn't contain many good points, but here's a few caveats that also need to be included to make a Boer War comparison fair. The Boers had no large manpower pool and industrial base to "ramp up" from. The front was singular and significantly smaller, thus allowing the British advantage in being able to concentrate firepower to come into play and maximize the effect og on the ground Pioneer activity and deploying logistical resources. The Boers had no means to disrupt British commerce. South Africa was widely aknowledged to be part of Britain's sphere by the international order and thus their actions carried little risk of diplomatic repercussions

Of course, alot depends on just what the conflict breaks out over and if the US has a ramping up period to get formal military units organized in the relative ease of peacetime with the expectation of a war.

The Boers were able to mobilise 40,000 men in 2 weeks with modern artillery far faster than anything the US could have done also modern artillery. The front was actually quite broad which was one of the major problems the British faced and led to an increased investment in units such as mounted infantry drawn from the regular infantry and Imperial Yeomanry raised largely from volunteers.

There are caveats but the problem is the ones you have picked are not among them. Canada is widely acknowledged to be in the British sphere, America in the late 19th century is widely acknowledged to be an obstreperous bully with ideas above its station. The Boers on the other hand were romantic farmers spreading white civilisation and Christianity.* American can field a navy but also is dependent on access to global markets for its own economy.

There are caveats. Canada is a big place. Both sides will struggle a bit when they move beyond their railheads or away from ports. Might British ships be seized in American harbours? How will the US cope when around a quarter or more of its regular shipping stops serving its overseas trades due to being British? Wars are complicated and things will go wrong (for both sides).

The British did not want war but could have shoved back hard if America pushed things. The real reason for being amenable to negotiation was that the exact Guiana border was not that important, a big chunk of the British claim was just added to troll the Venezuelans for being gits.

*At least once folks in Europe and America had heard of them and that view would have been a big shock to many white and black miners etc
 
Top