Possible Third Anglo American War: 1860's or 1870's?

Hey Everyone,

I have been wondering about a Third Anglo-American War sometime after the Civil War (Not a Trent War). There seems to me thier might be possible grounds for a war 1) The CSS Alabama Claims 2) The Fenian Raids in Canada.

If another incident happened or things turned out differently what do you think the chances war breaking out are?

Also what would the war be like?

And yes, this is possible exploration for my current TL so one could speculate as to the chances of the War if the North beats the South quicker.
 
Alabama claims were a joke. Was one of my first threads on AH. I was very interested in the subject.

When US diplomats, notably Sumner, requested Canada as compensation, they merely tried to show how adamant they were on the matter. It was like an Ultimatum that the nation giving it does not expect the nation receiving it to accept it. But unlike Austria in 1914, America didn't want war.

Sumner, although one of my favorite people throughout history, didn't know how to stay out of trouble. A southern US senator beat the living shit out of him with a long heavy cane.

A war in this time period could come if through a war with France. If the US wanted to show Europe who's boss in North America, they would officially kick France out of Mexico while France was at war with Germany. Any escalation could lead to war with Great Britain.

Not the most plausible scenario, but creative if I don't say so myself.
 
Did a thread similar to this recently -- general consensus, the Union gets curbstomped.

That thread doesn't say anything about that...anyways, I don't think the US would be curbstomped, exactly. It was industrialized and populous enough that even the Brits would have had a hard time. The West was a vast expanse of empty space that would wear the Brits down if they tried to invade it (particularly as, unlike in the ARW, the Native Americans were both the very tough "Plains" variety and most unlikely to support the British). In the East they would have had trouble due to the amount of people (look how hard the Union had it, and the South was the less populated and industrialized section!). At the time there was enough anti-British sentiment that there would have been significant support for such a war in the populace at large (if the British were invading, or especially started the war). If the war starts after the Transcontinental Railway is built, then the US has the advantage of much superior interior lines. Overall, while the British do have significant economic advantages over the US, they're not enough to enable anything but a bloody attrition war that both sides will soon tire of.
 
Yeah, I don't think the US could get curb stomped. They were the most advanced nation in the world in terms of war. The American Civil War led to the most rapid advancement in military technology the world had ever seen. However, the politicians were corrupt as balls. They would sell Maine for a lucrative sex act in that time period.

I'm not just talking about the guns and cannons, but supplying armies with food, taking injured soldiers off the battlefield, a very fast mail service, and other various vital facets of war.
 

cw1865

Venezuela

After Trent, Anglo-American relations obviously begin improve, the only other thing that I can see which could potentially start a war would be the Spanish-American War {what if the UK decides to take Spain's side?} or the Venezuela Crisis....http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/venezuela1902.htm {Of course this is more likely to lead to war with Germany, and frankly I don't see this as enough for the UK to go to war with the US over.}
 

Hyperion

Banned
In the Atlantic and Caribbean, the fighting would likely go to the British, simply because the US Navy, while well manned, simply doesn't have as many warships as the British.

Not that the US couldn't take on and win against individual ship on ship actions, or actions involving small numbers from each side. But of the Royal Navy comes in force, the US will loose or have to leave the area to stay alive.

On land, it's a tossup. The British have whatever forces are in or that they can get to Canada, and bases from Bermuda or the Bahamas would make good launching points for coastal expiditions.

OTOH, once the US gets troops mobilized, the US would have the advantage of a strong railroad network, and good communications with the telegraph. This would give the president near instant contact with field forces, an advantage the British would not have.
 
In the Atlantic and Caribbean, the fighting would likely go to the British, simply because the US Navy, while well manned, simply doesn't have as many warships as the British.

Not that the US couldn't take on and win against individual ship on ship actions, or actions involving small numbers from each side. But of the Royal Navy comes in force, the US will loose or have to leave the area to stay alive.

On land, it's a tossup. The British have whatever forces are in or that they can get to Canada, and bases from Bermuda or the Bahamas would make good launching points for coastal expiditions.

OTOH, once the US gets troops mobilized, the US would have the advantage of a strong railroad network, and good communications with the telegraph. This would give the president near instant contact with field forces, an advantage the British would not have.

Don't forget that there are economics involved. The USA depend on their ability to export raw materials and import finished product. Even a good deal of their internal trade os still coastal. Unless the country is willing to fight a wear of attrition the way it did in 1861-65, its strategic depth is of little use against an opponent who can engage where he wants, has deeper pockets, and approaches the whole equation with limited war aims. The British cannot possibly want to destroy the USA, and I hardly think they'd even want territorial gains (Maine? Oregon? Why?). Their forces in Canada are stronger than they may appear to Washington (and certainly going to be tougher to crack for a still small and probably overconfident US Army).

Will the political will hold out in the face of initial humiliation if peace can be bought at a cheap price and the economic cost of war is horrendous? Will the people stand for it after the experience of the Civil War? I doubt it.
 
I'm surprised that no-one here has mentioned the idea of the US being war-weary after the Civil War. Did the Union really take victory in its stride to that extent?
 
The Brits were obviously Big Dogs for much of the 19th Century, but the America is growing throughout. At what point does an Anglo-American war no longer become a curbstomp?
 
I'm surprised that no-one here has mentioned the idea of the US being war-weary after the Civil War. Did the Union really take victory in its stride to that extent?

That would probably prevent the Union from declaring war in the first place; I did allude to it with the massive attrition warfare comment. Neither side would be very willing to fight, the Brits because they couldn't win much, the Union because it just got done with a big war.
 
Sumner, although one of my favorite people throughout history, didn't know how to stay out of trouble. A southern US senator beat the living shit out of him with a long heavy cane.

Actually, the southerner involved (Preston Brooks) was a congressman from South Carolina -not a senator.
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
The Brits were obviously Big Dogs for much of the 19th Century, but the America is growing throughout. At what point does an Anglo-American war no longer become a curbstomp?

The US becomes a major economic competitor to Great Britain in the late 1880's, roughly equalling the output of the island of Britain at this time (but not the Empire as a whole).

In the 1860's the island of Britain alone has 2/3rds the worlds output of coal, iron, manufactures etc., and is further ahead of the rest of the world than the US was in the late 1940's (when they produced just over half the worlds output). The US is a fairly large player at 5-10%, but only a player on the level of Belgium (a reasonably substancial power at this time).

Militarily, the US can effectively defend herself from Britain around 1910, during the Dreadnought race. There is every indication that they may have been able to overhaul the British in the 1930's but they didn't; in 1939 the Royal Navy is much more powerful than the USN, but they certainly have majorly overhauled the British by late 1943.
 
In our hypothetical war in the 1860's (presumably after the ACW), the USA is powerful on land (having that big veteran army), but still can't match the RN at sea (the USN was a powerful coastal blockading force, but didn't match the RN for big open sea forces). I think the USA would actually be worse off in the 1870's... the weapons are better, but the USA drastically shrunk the standing army, and the ACW veterans are getting older and fatter. Plus, IIRC, the navy was a LOT smaller. In either war, the Brits would have a big advantage in that they could put a blockade into force that the USA couldn't really break...
 
Top