Peace Treaties in an Anglo-American War

In the event of a British-American war around the turn of the century, what would either side try to wrangle out of the other assuming maximum plausible victory either way?

The US may try to go for a number of Canadian territories. But what if the UK was successful in repelling an invasion and was able to inflict some sort of defeat upon the Americans (this becomes more likely the further back you go)?
 
In the event of a British-American war around the turn of the century, what would either side try to wrangle out of the other assuming maximum plausible victory either way?

The US may try to go for a number of Canadian territories. But what if the UK was successful in repelling an invasion and was able to inflict some sort of defeat upon the Americans (this becomes more likely the further back you go)?
It has to be something generous because they can't win a long war against an enemy with such overwhelming numerical superiority. If the US feels the terms are unreaosnable, not only will it will never surrender, it will be emboldened. Definitely agreeing to permanently respect Canada's sovereignty, though that wouldn't have been in question n peacetime anyway. Perhaps demanding a formal apology and therefore, responsibility for aggression in the war? Maybe limited reparations to cover some of the cost of the conflict?
 
It has to be something generous because they can't win a long war against an enemy with such overwhelming numerical superiority. If the US feels the terms are unreaosnable, not only will it will never surrender, it will be emboldened. Definitely agreeing to permanently respect Canada's sovereignty, though that wouldn't have been in question n peacetime anyway. Perhaps demanding a formal apology and therefore, responsibility for aggression in the war? Maybe limited reparations to cover some of the cost of the conflict?
I agree in general although I will point out if the Royal Navy is allowed to dominate a lot of US cities will be under threat from shelling, which would be a lot worse for the US than the UK simply beating the Americans back to the border. They don't even need to occupy any territory.
 
I agree in general although I will point out if the Royal Navy is allowed to dominate a lot of US cities will be under threat from shelling, which would be a lot worse for the US than the UK simply beating the Americans back to the border. They don't even need to occupy any territory.
Shelling is difficult and dangerous, even at this point as long as the US has a credible fleet-in-being and/or fortifications (you'll note that the Royal Navy never made a serious effort to shell the German coast, or even the Austro-Hungarian coast; even the bombardment of the Ottomans was mostly limited to a failed attempt to force the Dardanelles. If the enemy is in range, so are you (and mines demonstrated a serious ability to damage warships during this time period).

I'd expect the British to focus on reparations and colonial possessions (e.g. the Philippines or Hawaii, either as direct annexations or as nominally independent protectorates) and maybe some restrictions on US fortifications/military. If the Americans have allies (e.g. the Venezuela crisis goes hot), then they would also get punished similarly.

Going for actual US continental territory is more trouble than it's worth (the British already have enough trouble with the Boers and the Irish, they don't need any more).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
A lot depends on the date.

1910 or later the British undoubtedly will want the Panama Canal leases transferred, along with Hawaii and the Philippines, possibly Alaska. The U.S will want British Columbia and Yukon Territory (connects the lower 48 to Alaska), possibly Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan up to 54-40 along with the British Island possessions in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Whichever side wins will want economic advantage on the Great lakes, expanded fishing rights off Newfoundland/Maine
 
Top