Especially since they have living memory of the British occupation, and might not be keen to risk being under their boots once more.
Why Did Britain Never Undertake a Revanchist War Against the Early U.S.?
- Thread starter JonasResende
- Start date
Money, my boy. War would jeopardize the profits.
So long as the British get to enjoy trade with America, they get all the profits the Empire craves, with none of the cost and hassle of say, invading and occupying a country many times larger than Britain itself, with a well-armed hostile population that, unlike the Redcoats, don't need to be shipped around the world or pulled from some other restive colony.
Lets assume for a moment the love of money and trade goods is gone, and the Brits get the dumb idea to try and conquer the USA. They would lose, and here is why:
The British Empire was mighty, but it had four distinctive disadvantages going into any conflict with the USA:
1) The Brits were a sea power, not a land power, and never possessed a massive well-trained Army to the point they could solve a problem by just throwing soldiers at the problem til it was subjugated and went away.
2) The few places where the Brits COULD use soldier's might, India, Africa, China, etc, they enjoyed a massive technological and industrial parity over them. "We have the maxim gun, and they do not." There was no such parity with the USA, and any war with the USA would be like a war with another European power, which the Brits avoided unless they could gather a coalition alongside them, to make up for the manpower disadvantage, as per above.
The Brits were never going to get a coalition against the USA, especially when the few powers that might be able to contribute enough men and ships to this war to make a difference, such as France and Russia, all enjoyed very warm relations with the Americans, and saw supporting them as a way to spite the British.
3) So the Brits go it alone - and here we have the next massive disadvantage of the British would face, logistics. This is where a massive globe spanning empire on which the sun never sets comes to be a burden - what troops the British had to throw against the Americans would have to be pulled from somewhere else that needed them far more, such as India. The Brits could not and would not be able to throw the full might of the British Empire behind a war with the USA, because to do so would jeopardize the Empire.
America meanwhile, might not be able to say, land the US Marines in London, but they most assuredly could defend their own borders, and likely make a serious go at conquering Canada. Unlike the British, who had a global empire to occupy, manage, maintain and defend, the Americans could and would be able to make defending the USA and beating back the Brits their sole priority.
This is why any conflict past a certain point - say, 1820 or so - the war on land goes to the USA, while the Brits rule the waves. A wolf against a whale.
4) The USA is growing every year in terms of population, industry, military might, resources, etc, and every year that goes by is another year the Americans come closer not just to being able to fight off the British, but to strike back, and to make it hurt.
UK vs USA in 1812 ended in a stalemate.
UK vs USA in 1848 ends with the USA taking most of, if not all of Canada. Especially since events elsewhere (Rebellions in India, Russia eyeing the Balkans) mean eventually the Brits would need to seek peace.
UK vs USA in 1896 ends with the USA likely taking anything in the Western Hemisphere flying the Union Jack, and maybe even dealing a wound to the British that would make the Boer War look tame.
UK vs USA anytime post 1918 ends with the USA destroying the British.
Short of absolutely everything going wrong for the Americans - we're talking near ASB levels - there comes a point where the British Empire would rip out it's own guts trying to take on the USA 1v1.
So long as the British get to enjoy trade with America, they get all the profits the Empire craves, with none of the cost and hassle of say, invading and occupying a country many times larger than Britain itself, with a well-armed hostile population that, unlike the Redcoats, don't need to be shipped around the world or pulled from some other restive colony.
Lets assume for a moment the love of money and trade goods is gone, and the Brits get the dumb idea to try and conquer the USA. They would lose, and here is why:
The British Empire was mighty, but it had four distinctive disadvantages going into any conflict with the USA:
1) The Brits were a sea power, not a land power, and never possessed a massive well-trained Army to the point they could solve a problem by just throwing soldiers at the problem til it was subjugated and went away.
2) The few places where the Brits COULD use soldier's might, India, Africa, China, etc, they enjoyed a massive technological and industrial parity over them. "We have the maxim gun, and they do not." There was no such parity with the USA, and any war with the USA would be like a war with another European power, which the Brits avoided unless they could gather a coalition alongside them, to make up for the manpower disadvantage, as per above.
The Brits were never going to get a coalition against the USA, especially when the few powers that might be able to contribute enough men and ships to this war to make a difference, such as France and Russia, all enjoyed very warm relations with the Americans, and saw supporting them as a way to spite the British.
3) So the Brits go it alone - and here we have the next massive disadvantage of the British would face, logistics. This is where a massive globe spanning empire on which the sun never sets comes to be a burden - what troops the British had to throw against the Americans would have to be pulled from somewhere else that needed them far more, such as India. The Brits could not and would not be able to throw the full might of the British Empire behind a war with the USA, because to do so would jeopardize the Empire.
America meanwhile, might not be able to say, land the US Marines in London, but they most assuredly could defend their own borders, and likely make a serious go at conquering Canada. Unlike the British, who had a global empire to occupy, manage, maintain and defend, the Americans could and would be able to make defending the USA and beating back the Brits their sole priority.
This is why any conflict past a certain point - say, 1820 or so - the war on land goes to the USA, while the Brits rule the waves. A wolf against a whale.
4) The USA is growing every year in terms of population, industry, military might, resources, etc, and every year that goes by is another year the Americans come closer not just to being able to fight off the British, but to strike back, and to make it hurt.
UK vs USA in 1812 ended in a stalemate.
UK vs USA in 1848 ends with the USA taking most of, if not all of Canada. Especially since events elsewhere (Rebellions in India, Russia eyeing the Balkans) mean eventually the Brits would need to seek peace.
UK vs USA in 1896 ends with the USA likely taking anything in the Western Hemisphere flying the Union Jack, and maybe even dealing a wound to the British that would make the Boer War look tame.
UK vs USA anytime post 1918 ends with the USA destroying the British.
Short of absolutely everything going wrong for the Americans - we're talking near ASB levels - there comes a point where the British Empire would rip out it's own guts trying to take on the USA 1v1.
This is patently false. America would have been in for the fight of its life in 1848 had war erupted. America had almost no army to speak of, no navy and was almost totally reliant on British trade. The war would devastating to America and wouldn't be the walkover you're suggesting.
And how is that wrong?"Most people in the US are armed and had some form of military training"
The militia got rolled for the first two years of the War of 1812, desertion was rampant, the pay sucked, more people died from disease than actual conflict, there were frequent conflicts with the regular forces over command, they went without pay for vast amounts of time and were so starved for currency that many never fought at all for lack of funds.
Having a militia doesn't mean dick if you let the whole thing rot out.
Doesn’t mean people weren’t armed or does not have any form of military training.Thing is that while these militiamen are useless in conventional battles,they make hell for the British in an actual occupation through guerilla warfare.Their conduct from the War of Independence showed that.
Last edited:
From the end of the revolution until well in to the middle of the 19th century Britain has "local"/European problems and/or is busy empire building in places that produce a lot of profit for the empire at a fairly reasonable cost. Assuming Britain could reconquer the USA they gain a vast territory populated by folks who are going to be very difficult to rule, you'll need a lot of troops to keep it pacified. Additionally, the net result will be less money flowing in as the locals will be buying less, and frankly a lot of raw materials can be sourced elsewhere and would be cheaper because of the costs of occupying the USA.
I very much doubt the UK would be willing to use the same tactics on "white" Americans they used on other colonial peoples of different colors which helped cement control.
I very much doubt the UK would be willing to use the same tactics on "white" Americans they used on other colonial peoples of different colors which helped cement control.
It was expensive and there were areas that would deliver higher returns per £ invested.
I doubt they'd go for conquest at all. Probably a few favourable border adjustments, maybe try to peel off states on periphery as client states or beef up Mexico as an ally for the future.
Honestly, the moment the ink dried on the peace treaty the days of mass conquests of populated America were over.
A lot of the reasons colonies were set up in Asia were, besides taking up the responsibilities of semi-private companies, was to get a stable area to trade with, that did not exclude Europeans (well, besides their competitors), and to maintain jobs for their homelands with a stable amount of luxury goods. When the thirteen Colonies went independent there was a rough patch, but just about all the colonies had traded mainly with the British, even without laws preventing them from trading with others. The British had the ships, factories, markets, and money that allowed plantatoins in the South and Chesapeake colonies to export rice, indigo, and tobacco, while also allowing the sailors and merchants of the New England and Middle Colonies to help ship freight around. There was some issues with the Americans wanting access to British colonies, but I am unsure how that turned out. Anyways, with the Napoleonic Wars the Spanish colonies broke away as the Bonapartes toppled the Bourbons and every shred of legitimate loyalty to Spain was seen as cut. Afterwards the British got a century of being the biggest trading trading partner (I assume) with South America, while the ship builders of Baltimore, Bristol, London, Boston, Liverpool, etc. and their sailors both sailed around the world. Sure, there would be scuffles at times, a little bad blood. I don't feel it would have been among the common people though, with the Americans being more concerned about people wearing coronets and powdered wigs. It really wasn't all that strange that some countries might not have recognized the Americans and British as being separate due to how the Americans that came to them were often from New England and would go to British consulates if they had any problems.
Anywho, the Americans learned how to play the game. No claims of overseas territory for the most part, just wanting the right to come and trade. The opening of the Japan specifically had the Americans asking for rights for all foreigners. They didn't often make a fuss about the British when getting somewhere so made good drinking buddies,
Anywho, the Americans learned how to play the game. No claims of overseas territory for the most part, just wanting the right to come and trade. The opening of the Japan specifically had the Americans asking for rights for all foreigners. They didn't often make a fuss about the British when getting somewhere so made good drinking buddies,
Frankly, and this is someone who'd love to see various "America Stays British" TLs - my honest opinion is that the only possible way a revanchist war can end - best case scenario for the British, is a reorganisation of the USA into a Dominion.
Any other piecemeal attempts would fail as soon as they got large enough that the "border army" wasn't scary enough. It is too impractical otherwise. It'd always be a war with a sympathetic fifth column in a vital supply line, unless the Americans were forced off their land. Making the revanchism worse for the US, and making future occupations harder, and harder.
The key is - the best case scenario is a large-scale reorganised 13 Colonies. As that would be expensive (ignoring the wars to build it), that sucks. The other point is that is the cost-benefit positive? Even ignoring opportunity costs, it would be close for a long time. Plus, it means that "American unrest" could spread throughout BNA.
So the best-case is a large territory that is deeply resentful of the British for a long time. Whether it co-operates is still another matter. But it also ensures domination of North America - as the British can just stamp that model again and again in BNA to organise that territory.
So the final, long-term best case is a large series of devolved authorities with limited obligations to the Empire. It may be a lot of real-terms money, and a huge recruiting ground, but is it worth losing opportunities like India? - To paraphrase Laozi - "A bowl is most useful when it is empty", or in this case "A free hand is more useful than what we'll get".
But if pride, and BNA is approved of by the court, it isn't impossible. I outlined elsewhere that a BNA centred on Baton Rouge or New Orleans would probably be vital, especially tied to Quebec and Chicago.
Any other piecemeal attempts would fail as soon as they got large enough that the "border army" wasn't scary enough. It is too impractical otherwise. It'd always be a war with a sympathetic fifth column in a vital supply line, unless the Americans were forced off their land. Making the revanchism worse for the US, and making future occupations harder, and harder.
The key is - the best case scenario is a large-scale reorganised 13 Colonies. As that would be expensive (ignoring the wars to build it), that sucks. The other point is that is the cost-benefit positive? Even ignoring opportunity costs, it would be close for a long time. Plus, it means that "American unrest" could spread throughout BNA.
So the best-case is a large territory that is deeply resentful of the British for a long time. Whether it co-operates is still another matter. But it also ensures domination of North America - as the British can just stamp that model again and again in BNA to organise that territory.
So the final, long-term best case is a large series of devolved authorities with limited obligations to the Empire. It may be a lot of real-terms money, and a huge recruiting ground, but is it worth losing opportunities like India? - To paraphrase Laozi - "A bowl is most useful when it is empty", or in this case "A free hand is more useful than what we'll get".
But if pride, and BNA is approved of by the court, it isn't impossible. I outlined elsewhere that a BNA centred on Baton Rouge or New Orleans would probably be vital, especially tied to Quebec and Chicago.
If the UK takes "nibbles" on American territory - part of Maine, maybe parts of the UP of Michigan etc, all they will do is make a more permanent enemy of the USA for very little gain. Britain really does not have much "revanche" for a war against the USA after the revolution. However a USA which has had national territory nipped off or forced concessions will most definitely become revanchist. The UK gains nothing by making the USA a long term enemy
Why is America so attached to these territories that are largely devoid of people?
Its worth considering that a certain economist of some renown by the name of A. Smith, writing in 1776, thought that the best course of action was to give the Americans independence without a fight, ensuring that the British would have a nation that was destined to be an economic powerhouse as a permanently friendly trading partner (that they got that anyway, even after two wars, was good fortune for both sides of the Atlantic).
A lot depends upon when they are taken, in 1790 they are pretty empty, less so in 1815 and much less so in 1845. However the point of the matter is that they are US territories agreed to by treaty - I doubt the UK would be pleased if the US seized some of the Hebrides - after all some only had a few dozen people on them (heavy sarcasm).
The wealthy, and a want to be wealthy saw huge investment opportunities. In the past century of settlement colonies had made fortunes exploiting and building in the former empty wilderness of the eastern seaboard. The passes through the Blue Ridge & Allegheny mountain looked like wide open doors to treasure vaults.
As others have said, money. There's also the matter that after 1783 it was seen as distinctly impossible to completely require those North American holdings, and Britain soon had an existential threat sitting on her doorstep in the form of Napoleonic/Revolutionary France that kind of overshadowed the former colonies issue.
Then there's just the fact that the US never represented a strategic/existential threat to Britain and her Empire that other European powers did. So by the by it was better to live and let live.
Then there's just the fact that the US never represented a strategic/existential threat to Britain and her Empire that other European powers did. So by the by it was better to live and let live.