The War of 1818

robertp6165

During Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida in 1818, two British subjects, Robert Armbrister and Alexander Artbuthnot, were captured by Jackson's forces. Both had been engaged in various dealings with the Seminole Indians, and may have been guilty of inciting them to attack American settlements, although this is disputed in some quarters. Andrew Jackson, however, was firmly convinced of their guilt, and had them tried by a military court and executed. Armbrister was shot by firing squad, and Artbuthnot was hanged.

When news of this incident reached Britain, there was a great uproar over the fact that two British subjects had been tried and executed by an American military court. Indeed, had Parliament not delayed in discussing the matter until tempers cooled somewhat, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that war might have been the result.

What if it had? What would be the effects of a third war between Britain and the U.S., less than three years after the end of the War of 1812? How would it play out? One interesting question...given how close the New England States came to leaving the Union during the War of 1812, would another war lead to a rupture in the Union itself, especially given the fact that it was "misconduct" by a Southern general which caused the war? Any other thoughts?
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Yikes, this time Britain doesn't have Napoleon to distract them. They also have tons of well-honed veterans from the Peninsular Army...
 

Sgt Detritus

robertp6165 said:
What if it had? What would be the effects of a third war between Britain and the U.S., less than three years after the end of the War of 1812? How would it play out? One interesting question...given how close the New England States came to leaving the Union during the War of 1812, would another war lead to a rupture in the Union itself, especially given the fact that it was "misconduct" by a Southern general which caused the war? Any other thoughts?
Click to expand...

Puts me in mind of this:

http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/althistx/WA.html
 

robertp6165

Flocculencio said:
Yikes, this time Britain doesn't have Napoleon to distract them. They also have tons of well-honed veterans from the Peninsular Army...
Click to expand...

Very true. I wonder if Wellington might come to America...it might be interesting to have a British army commanded by Wellington face off against an American army commanded by Jackson.
 
Last edited:

robertp6165

Thande said:
There was war-weariness, though.
Click to expand...

This is true as well, of course. However, from what I have read, the uproar over the executions was nevertheless very real, and could have lead to war.


Thande said:
Would this affect the Treaty of 1818, which was rather absurdly lenient towards the Americans in some ways?
Click to expand...

I would definitely think so. Indeed, since the executions of Arbuthnot and Armbrister took place in April 1818 and the treaty was not signed until October of that year, if war breaks out in the meantime, the treaty may not be signed at all.
 

robertp6165

Flocculencio said:
Yikes, this time Britain doesn't have Napoleon to distract them. They also have tons of well-honed veterans from the Peninsular Army...
Click to expand...

robertp6165 said:
Very true. I wonder if Wellington might come to America...it might be interesting to have a British army commanded by Wellington face off against an American army commanded by Jackson.
Click to expand...

I was just doing some research on this. It seems that between 1815 and 1818, the strength of the British army was being drastically reduced as troops were demobilized. The post-Waterloo occupation of France was winding down, and in the two years that followed the battle of Waterloo the British army saw a drastic reduction in its strength, so much so that in April, 1817, The Times reckoned that the population of Britain, some twenty-five million people, would somehow have to absorb about half a million ex-soldiers. Thousands of British soldiers were being discharged and sent home during this time period, including most of the Peninsular War veterans and veterans of the 1815 campaign.

Once discharged from the army, how many of the old veterans are going to want to go back into uniform? Many of them would not be available anyway, because they were off fighting in various South American wars of liberation as part of the British Legions. Others had gone off to India to fight for the East India Company. So much, if not most, of the recruits being raised for a new war in America would likely not be returning veterans, but raw recruits. So if war breaks out in late 1818, the British might not find themselves in as good a position as one might think.

This is not to say America's position would be better, obviously.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
robertp6165 said:
I was just doing some research on this. It seems that between 1815 and 1818, the strength of the British army was being drastically reduced as troops were demobilized. The post-Waterloo occupation of France was winding down, and in the two years that followed the battle of Waterloo the British army saw a drastic reduction in its strength, so much so that in April, 1817, The Times reckoned that the population of Britain, some twenty-five million people, would somehow have to absorb about half a million ex-soldiers. Thousands of British soldiers were being discharged and sent home during this time period, including most of the Peninsular War veterans and veterans of the 1815 campaign.
Click to expand...
This is an issue that I write about in The Lady of Anachrony, if I may be permitted a plug ;)

If I was writing a war in 1818 as an AH novel, I'd definitely have the British come cap in hand to Lord Cochrane in Chile (I think, by then) and plead with him to come back with his veterans and ships to help fight the US... :D
 

Dave Howery

America is still likely to come off second best in the war though... at this time, the US is still in the habit of keeping a small professional army backed up by hordes of unreliable militia. Plus, the USN is still massively outclassed by the RN. That's the problem with any pre-ACW scenario with the US... up to the late Civil War, the US just isn't capable of taking on any major power...
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Dave Howery said:
America is still likely to come off second best in the war though... at this time, the US is still in the habit of keeping a small professional army backed up by hordes of unreliable militia. Plus, the USN is still massively outclassed by the RN. That's the problem with any pre-ACW scenario with the US... up to the late Civil War, the US just isn't capable of taking on any major power...
Click to expand...

It also works the other way though - by the 1810s the US is too densely populated for any European power to carve pieces of existing territory off. I suppose Britain could get New Orleans and Louisiana out of an 1818 war, but it's a question of how long they could be held in the face of American settlement.
 

Dave Howery

Thande said:
It also works the other way though - by the 1810s the US is too densely populated for any European power to carve pieces of existing territory off. I suppose Britain could get New Orleans and Louisiana out of an 1818 war, but it's a question of how long they could be held in the face of American settlement.
Click to expand...

for a while, but I'm guessing that in the long run, you'd see something like what happened in TX... US settlers infiltrating or even being invited in by the Brits if they can't find someone else to settle the place.... still, the expansion of the US would be enormously slowed down, as not only would the LA purchase territory be denied for a while, but the US wouldn't be conquering the northern Mexican lands anytime soon....
 

1940LaSalle

I'm not sure it would go all that badly for the US. Remember, the British supply lines would be rather long, especially if the bulk of the war were fought in more southern locations; that would make them vulnerable to naval action and/or privateers. American naval performance might well improve given that this was the time of the rise of the Baltimore clipper as well, which could be used for privateering or lighter naval vessels. I'll go way out on a limb here and suggest that a War of 1818 would be at worst (from an American viewpoint) a draw if not a narrow victory.
 

Wendell

If this ends in a British victory (not unlikely) then, I see the British only getting the areas then disputed between the two countries.
 

Darkling

Sigh.

Britain fielded 250,000 men against Napoleon, the US struggled to field 25,000 (the Britsih suffered more casualties than that some years of the Napoleonic wars).

The US paper strength reached 23,000 with roughly half that being able to be deployed given he somewhat shambolic nature of the US army.

Britain can field 214 ships of the line (although that would require reactivation of a number of ships), the US 3.

Britain has over 5 times the manufacturing power of the US.

The UK has 21 million people and the US has 9 million.

After two years of war against a distracted Britain the US was on the verge of being forced to bring about an income tax.

As for all of those men out of uniform, yes they most likely would go back into uniform because it was a job for them.

People who think this is even a contest need to consider their knowledge and possibly their motives.

The only question is what Britain wants out of this war, they can trim just about anything off the US that isn't heavily settled and a few areas that have been.
 

Locke

eggh, they could get Vermont, Maine, any sorts of Northern teritory, like the Great Lakes and new Orleans as well.
 

Darkling

Locke said:
eggh, they could get Vermont, Maine, any sorts of Northern teritory, like the Great Lakes and new Orleans as well.
Click to expand...

Certainly, I was just pointing out the disputed regions.

Niagara, upstate New York, Michigan and points east are all credible areas of interest for the British.

Especially since it would seem that Canada must have more secure frontiers since it seems the Americans are being unreasonable constantly (in London's eyes).
 

Grimm Reaper

Monroe would surrender Jackson to the British, as his entire Cabinet save John Quincy Adams actually suggested. Of course, that alone would make for some interesting changes in history.


England, of course, did not like to create long-term problems with the current wars, seeing today's foe as often being tomorrow's friend.

Except for France.:p

Therefore I would predict a show of force, a relatively modest border adjustment, Maine's northern third being a good choice and useful for strategic purposes too, just to set the record straight.

Then when either Germany or perhaps France in this TL threatens to dominate Europe we can ponder what concessions England has to make to enjoy a benevolent neutrality from the US later in the 19th Century.:D


Seriously, since dealing with Jackson was already being discussed in the White House a war is extremely unlikely. A major war by the British to break the US, over one officer who the Americans may have even offered to hand over, would be completely out of character for the British.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top