How likely was it for a third Anglo-American war in the 19th century. Nothing connected to the American War of Secession though. It should be about Canada or the Oregon country and feature an invasion of Canada. What chances would Americans have of winning and when would be the best time?
Third Anglo-American war
- Thread starter Alexander George
- Start date
I think it's plausible but unlikely. I doubt if Oregon is a viable flashpoint - too remote for both London and Washington. But get enough jingoism up and the right mix of factors in the US and you might see another attempt by the US to seize British Canadian territory. Maybe as an alternate manifest destiny, rather than challenge Hispanic America for the west the US chooses to unify Anglo America.
Depending on what's happening with Britain at home the US could win on the American continent, but it'd have no chance of projecting the war to the UK, unless you can butterfly the Royal Navy away. The Revolutionary War proves that America could confound attempts to maintain an repressive force from Europe, though 1812 shows the counter. It'd be humiliating to Britain to lose all it's American colonies as Spain had just done. Might force Britain to double down on preventing other colonies from getting the same idea.
Best time to do it?, I'd hazard a soft guess at 1830 to 1850.
Depending on what's happening with Britain at home the US could win on the American continent, but it'd have no chance of projecting the war to the UK, unless you can butterfly the Royal Navy away. The Revolutionary War proves that America could confound attempts to maintain an repressive force from Europe, though 1812 shows the counter. It'd be humiliating to Britain to lose all it's American colonies as Spain had just done. Might force Britain to double down on preventing other colonies from getting the same idea.
Best time to do it?, I'd hazard a soft guess at 1830 to 1850.
It's only a flashpoint in Vicky 2 because the game can't differentiate between something like Fashoda (which nearly led to confrontation in OTL) and Oregon (backward boondocks of no importance to London)
Likely. But you have one of the two demand full control of the area for some reason I suppose.
I have something like this:
The American expedition heads towards the Pacific coast of the Oregon Country. By arrival in the country they encounter a British expedition and several fortification along the Columbia and Snake river preventing the US from expanding to the Pacific. The Americans and British try to negotiate about the Oregon country. The British offer means land east of the Columbia and Snake river down the 49th parallel will become American land. This ends up with a British connection to California and preventing US influence in the Pacific effectively. The US refuse and demand full acces to the Pacific. The British refuse as well and the negotiations end with silence.
The Americans send a force of 3,000 men to force the British expedition out. The British retreat back to Fort Rupert and the Royal navy blockades the coast of the Oregon country down the 49 parallel. Second negotiations end up with full withdrawal of US forces from Oregon Country. The US refuses and the British send the navy from the Caribbean, Canada and Ireland to blockade the Gulf and East Coast US. The British feel the threat of the US force against Canada and move about 10,000 troops every month to Canada for the next 6 moths.
Something like this I guess. In this case, the British will demand a full connection to California for future gains. A different scenario is possible with the US ambition for a future annexation of Alaska.
I agree to that. The US ambition to expand to the Pacific was bigger importance than the British to have a useless land somewhere far away. But... we'll never no
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I think the lesson of the second Anglo-American war for both sides is that conflict is a lose-lose proposition. The Americans gain nothing but prettier borders by conquering Canada, the British gain very little by conquest of Oregon, and in each case it's likely to be an expensive war to the great detriment of trade. Anglo-American relations at their worst were like current U.S.-China relations. While there are points of disagreement and tension, a war would be costly, ugly, and pointless, plus the countries are very closely linked economically (to be fair, I don't think U.S. trade was ever as important to Britain as China trade is to the U.S.)
EDIT: I'm actually 100% wrong
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=tsaconf
By contrast, the U.S. gets about 20% of its imports from China and China is only our third largest export market (though #1 and #2 are Canada and Mexico)
EDIT: I'm actually 100% wrong
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=tsaconf
By contrast, the U.S. gets about 20% of its imports from China and China is only our third largest export market (though #1 and #2 are Canada and Mexico)
Last edited:
Neither side was really eager to jump into a trans-Atlantic shooting match again after 1815. Britain was tied up with her Empire, and the United States was tied up at home with settling the continent. Another war would be exceedingly costly and difficult for both sides. I can only see three scenarios where it is possible:
1838: Insurrection in Canada and a very volatile American mood with the burning of the Caroline, and Britain was not in an apologetic mood. That incident could possibly lead to a shooting war if it were handled very very poorly.
1846-1859: Oregon Boundary dispute. This was a long simmering point of tension, and there were some rather bad personalities (particularly the HBC's comptroller in the area, James Douglas) and things nearly got volatile over a pig. The Civil War put paid to that and it was settled by treaty eventually.
1861: Trent Affair. I really don't need to say anything more about this one I think, but it had the potential. After the Civil War though Britain had no desire to get into a shooting war with the US, it would have been far too costly and Britain knew it.
These are the biggest ones I can think of. The chances of one side or another winning really depend on how things start and the actors involved. I don't like how things would shape up in 1838 personally, its a rough and tumble almost civil war in Canada with an American army mustering to invade *shivers* that would be a recipe for unpleasantness.
1838: Insurrection in Canada and a very volatile American mood with the burning of the Caroline, and Britain was not in an apologetic mood. That incident could possibly lead to a shooting war if it were handled very very poorly.
1846-1859: Oregon Boundary dispute. This was a long simmering point of tension, and there were some rather bad personalities (particularly the HBC's comptroller in the area, James Douglas) and things nearly got volatile over a pig. The Civil War put paid to that and it was settled by treaty eventually.
1861: Trent Affair. I really don't need to say anything more about this one I think, but it had the potential. After the Civil War though Britain had no desire to get into a shooting war with the US, it would have been far too costly and Britain knew it.
These are the biggest ones I can think of. The chances of one side or another winning really depend on how things start and the actors involved. I don't like how things would shape up in 1838 personally, its a rough and tumble almost civil war in Canada with an American army mustering to invade *shivers* that would be a recipe for unpleasantness.
The most likely causes of a third Anglo-American War would be either the Maine or Oregon boundary disputes. In the former case, the British were very serious about keeping the access road through the Madawaska country and Mainers were willing to start a fight over it with or without the consent of Washington.
I think that with either cause, the war would have gone poorly for the United States, as the UK would not have been distracted by a European war.
I think that with either cause, the war would have gone poorly for the United States, as the UK would not have been distracted by a European war.
regarding the Oregon Territory
Its been a bit since I read up on the fur trade, but as I recall, its heyday in value was pretty much over by the time the Oregon Crisis came around because of previous overhunting. (a big reason those fur trappers, mountain men and whatever you call men who bash sea otters and seals in the head, move around a lot). So I suspect as Oregon wasn't as commercially valuable in terms of extractive resources, there was less reason to fight over it. Most of the settlers were moving into the southern part of the territory (modern day Oregon) were American. Indeed Americans outnumbered everyone else pretty quickly even in modern day British Columbia (for a while too).
The other issue of course is that just to get there required 4-6 months travel overland, or a really long sea voyage around the Horn (a bit but not much shorter) as the Panama Route wasn't an option yet either.
So compromise was a bit easier to get I guess is what I am saying because Oregon wasn't British vital interest and a fair split was reached (unless of course you count the almost Pig War).
American/British reapproachment and agreement on how to handle the Spanish loss of their South and Central American colonies helps a lot too. Sharing vital interests tends to improve relations, and the fact that the War of 1812 resulted in neither side suffering any permanent loss or damage also helped. (at least in terms that anyone was willing to raise a fuss about)
Its been a bit since I read up on the fur trade, but as I recall, its heyday in value was pretty much over by the time the Oregon Crisis came around because of previous overhunting. (a big reason those fur trappers, mountain men and whatever you call men who bash sea otters and seals in the head, move around a lot). So I suspect as Oregon wasn't as commercially valuable in terms of extractive resources, there was less reason to fight over it. Most of the settlers were moving into the southern part of the territory (modern day Oregon) were American. Indeed Americans outnumbered everyone else pretty quickly even in modern day British Columbia (for a while too).
The other issue of course is that just to get there required 4-6 months travel overland, or a really long sea voyage around the Horn (a bit but not much shorter) as the Panama Route wasn't an option yet either.
So compromise was a bit easier to get I guess is what I am saying because Oregon wasn't British vital interest and a fair split was reached (unless of course you count the almost Pig War).
American/British reapproachment and agreement on how to handle the Spanish loss of their South and Central American colonies helps a lot too. Sharing vital interests tends to improve relations, and the fact that the War of 1812 resulted in neither side suffering any permanent loss or damage also helped. (at least in terms that anyone was willing to raise a fuss about)
A failure of the Alabama Claims by the US could have been a flashpoint too. Reaching that agreement also caused the US Government to put an end to further Finian nonsense based out of the United States (another potential flashpoint).
Active British support of Mexican in the Mexican War (other than passive luke warm diplomatic support which is all the Mexicans got historically) would have been troubling but not necessarily a major issue unless the British intervened militarily for some reason (which seems implausible at best).
After that the next flash point isn't until 1895 and the Anglo-Americans had years of experience negotiating difficulties by then
although to be fair, trading partners such as France and Germany found reasons to fight three times in 70 years!
Yes, but when you only have tp cross a river rather than an ocean... Not even counting the personalities involved!
I have always felt somewhat sorry for Norman Angell. You have to wonder what he thought by the time 1916 rolled around
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
Did the US have a chance at winning a 19th century war against Britain and take Canada as the prize?
Saphroneth
Banned
During Crimea is tricky - you need to pick a time when the British don't have enough spare force, and the reinforcements they sent OTL to the Crimea were substantial.
1865 - eh, I'm not sure. The veteran armed forces of the US in 1865 are considered by many to actually be "used up" - that is, to have gone past veteran and into "old lag" - and the American armies were very poor on marksmanship and middling in manoeuvre. Meanwhile the logistics routes into Canada are unable to supply much more than a corps each against Montreal, the Niagara Frontier and the Detroit Frontier.
It'd be an eventual victory by sheer overwhelming numbers of replacements (think Overland Campaign but a lot worse), but doing so against several tens of thousands of British regulars would be incredibly bloody - and the RN would be quite able to extremely quickly devastate the USN, as by 1865 the 7" and 9" RML are being rolled out and those were murder on ships of the ACW tech level.
Not without extreme difficulty. The logistics militate against using overwhelming force to win a quick decision most of the time, and the US tended to chronically underfund their military between wars. To give some sense of perspective, there were entire decades when Washington could have been attacked pretty much at will by a British particular-service-squadron because nothing capable of stopping them was in the way...
At the time of the Crimean War, did the US have enough regular or professional troops ready for an invasion or could they recrute enough men fast enough?
Saphroneth
Banned
They had 10,745 All Ranks in the US Army in 1854. Of these there were:
1574 in the Department of the East (from northern Michigan down to Louisiana)
1855 in the Department of the West (Minnesota to Arkansas)
2886 in the Department of Texas
1654 in the Department of New Mexico
1365 in the Department of the Pacific
And consisted of about 2,000 cavalry, 2,900 artillery and 4,000 infantry with the balance made up of military men not in fighting regiments.
Functionally speaking the British garrison of Canada dropped to two battalions plus the RCR at lowest ebb, which is roughly 2,600 fighting infantry (that's April 1855). However, as noted almost the entire US Army was hundreds or thousands of miles from Canada itself (and mostly a long way from railways) - and over the course of April-June 1855 the British shipped six infantry battalions to the Crimea (2/1st, 48th, 3rd, 31st, 72nd and 13th) and four cavalry regiments - if they all go to Canada instead then that's an extra ~5,000 fighting infantry and ~2,500 fighting cavalry, at which point the British have 10,100 fighting troops in Canada and the US has a total of 8,900 potential fighting regulars in the Americas!
This means functionally the US is going to have to rely on militia, and they don't have much luck raising good troops fast in OTL. TTL the Canadian militia (potential first-call out about 35,000 if the British can supply the rifles, and a few thousand permanent militia) will start training at the same time the US does, so by the time the US militia is ready for campaign they're facing about 50,000 defending troops and have lost their chance to take the positions at a rush.
You also have the perennial problem of taking Canada, which is as follows - the only really vital points for the British to defend are all on the far side of the St Lawrence (Kingston, Montreal, Quebec), and they have GUNBOATS (quite a lot of them, actually - send most of the Dapper class to fight in the St Lawrence and the US is never getting over that bloody river). Meanwhile the US is facing the problem of a blockade.
ED: it's not nearly as bad as the Pig War (where there were only a few companies that weren't weeks of march from a railway line and the British Army was totally unoccupied) but it's not easy...
EDED: as an extra point of interest, the British were producing Swiss and German Legions for service in the Crimea. It would not take much divergence for them to be sent to Canada to train up if there's tensions or war, and they actually outnumbered the regular US Army - the German legion consisted of six light infantry battalions, three Jaeger battalions, and two regiments of Light Dragoons; the Swiss legion consisted of four light infantry battalions. The total strength was 12,978 officers and men.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes - and in a real emergency, they could say to the French "sorry, but can you take over half of our Crimean siege operations? We'll keep supplying the logistics and ships."
They would then be able to detach roughly three British divisions (18,000 or so) to go over to America on top of everything mentioned. That's a force the US would have serious trouble in stopping, because - well, British line riflemen in this period were essentially equivalent to ACW US Sharpshooters, having had much the same training, and the US would be facing an infantry force able to outshoot their artillery at combat range.
Shoot out Fort McHenry (which hasn't been upgraded), land at Baltimore, and you've got a major existential threat for Washington.