Wade M Robinson
Banned
A 3rd British-American War
- Thread starter Wade M Robinson
- Start date
Wade M Robinson
Banned
and you really do learn something new everyday and I never heard of the Aroostook War or the Rebellions of 1837-thanks gentlemen-off to wikpedia 
Wade M Robinson
Banned
So assuming that European history happens in a similar fashion to OTL and the 3rd war is a Trent Affair type war -does that cause a serious enough long term fracture between Britain and the US that the US will become part of the Central Powers-with or without an independent CSA- and hate cursed Albion forever- or at least well into the 20th century?
Last edited:
Well there's a few problems with the scenario of the US/UK being 'eternal enemies' to each other.
The obvious one of course is that it would require the US to overcome its massive anathema to huge standing armies (with an independent CSA that might not be difficult, but it honestly depends on relations between the two).
The other is straight up economics. The US and UK have far more to lose with bad intentions to one another than they have to gain. The British were the biggest investors into the American economy in the latter half of the 19th century, and there were no nations who could pick up that slack, which makes going to war against your investments a bad idea. Even having bad relations with the South would be a perennial drain on resources rather than a net gain. There's far more to be had in terms of trade with one another, and while the US could covet Canada and the CSA, they'd have little to gain by a potentially disastrous war between the two powers (with the possibility of another European power piling in) and there's no guarantee that the Germany that we know would even form TTL, so potentially no Continental power of significant force to ally with. One could always say they will ally with Russia, but the benefits aren't great and the geographical positions aren't precisely favorable.
In short, while relations between the US and Britain would be frostier than OTL, and the US would take a few opportunities to tug the lions tale, you can't really say that two generations down the line people won't feel like "the South" was always destined to secede (they'll be richer than them anyways so why waste lives and money forcing a poor neighbor to live with you?) and while Britain may be 'Nefarious Albion' who is to be reproached for her horrible policies around the world, there is even less to gain by going to war with her.
yeah that's it thanks
you can bet that relations will be pretty cool for a couple of generations, but economics will force the two sides into cooperation pretty quick; there's too much trade going on to toss it all aside. If there is a WW1 50 years later... I'd say that the USA probably won't enter the war, but will have no qualms on selling things to the UK and France. One thing... with the south gone, I wonder if the USA will have the same levels of cash around as they did in OTL; there may not be so much to loan the allies...
TFSmith121
Banned
Given that the end state of an Anglo-American conflict in
Given that the end state of an Anglo-American conflict in 1861-62 is quite possibly to be something OTHER than Britannia Uber Alles, (it certainly wasn't in 1775-83 or 1812-15, obviously) it may be worth considering "where" Britain's energies and the capital invested in the US after 1865 might go instead...
Obviously, the U.S. can get along without exporting to the UK, and the UK can get along with exporting to the U.S. (the British actually lose more in terms of that equation, about $5 in sales to the U.S. to every $3 in purchases from the U.S.), so an interesting question is where do they buy and to whom do they sell?
Along with likely destinations for the emigrants (English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh) who historically left for the U.S. in the second half of the Nineteenth Century and afterwards, along with the potential diminution of European emigration generally to British North America (which may or may not become "Canada" as such in 1867, obviously).
Best,
Given that the end state of an Anglo-American conflict in 1861-62 is quite possibly to be something OTHER than Britannia Uber Alles, (it certainly wasn't in 1775-83 or 1812-15, obviously) it may be worth considering "where" Britain's energies and the capital invested in the US after 1865 might go instead...
Obviously, the U.S. can get along without exporting to the UK, and the UK can get along with exporting to the U.S. (the British actually lose more in terms of that equation, about $5 in sales to the U.S. to every $3 in purchases from the U.S.), so an interesting question is where do they buy and to whom do they sell?
Along with likely destinations for the emigrants (English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh) who historically left for the U.S. in the second half of the Nineteenth Century and afterwards, along with the potential diminution of European emigration generally to British North America (which may or may not become "Canada" as such in 1867, obviously).
Best,
Last edited:
Save for that interesting fact where the USD is worth less than the UKP on a ration of three to one in the 1860s eh? I'm sure that's going to hit some New York bankers in the pocket book
The question is far more solomonic for the Americans than vice-versa.
Well why would there be any deviation from the historical trends, especially if the US is split in two and has lost a war?
I'm currently working on a TL in which the US turns communist after the Great Depression induces a revolution.
I've come up with varying alternatives of where the US sits with respect to Britain.
1. Trade trumps all, and the Americans, even if communist, realize the benefits of owning British debt.
2. The need to seize all of North America for various reasons (the ambitions of the leaders, the ideology of spreading world revolution, or perhaps to secure domestic resources against the perceived dangers of globalization, which was what the Axis powers set out to do)
In option 2, the Canadians might even attack the US first in a preemptive strike of "case red" if threatened enough.
Also, if the radical nationalist party that takes power in Germany isn't rabidly anti-communist, then the German-American Bund could become something more...
I've come up with varying alternatives of where the US sits with respect to Britain.
1. Trade trumps all, and the Americans, even if communist, realize the benefits of owning British debt.
2. The need to seize all of North America for various reasons (the ambitions of the leaders, the ideology of spreading world revolution, or perhaps to secure domestic resources against the perceived dangers of globalization, which was what the Axis powers set out to do)
In option 2, the Canadians might even attack the US first in a preemptive strike of "case red" if threatened enough.
Also, if the radical nationalist party that takes power in Germany isn't rabidly anti-communist, then the German-American Bund could become something more...
Definitely. The USSR never cut ties to the outside world, and while a late 20th century US could certainly try to be an autarky, it's didn't quite work out for the USSR so I don't see it going completely well for them either.
Plausible. It seems like what a communist government would do, and preventing any foreign power from interfering by establishing a foothold on your shores would be imperative.
Not a chance. Canadians aren't stupid. Unless there's a significant Royal Navy fleet backed up by a staggeringly large British/Allied force coming to help them they dig in their heels and wait for help. It's just no contest past 1890 on that front.
Faeelin
Banned
Save for that interesting fact where the USD is worth less than the UKP on a ration of three to one in the 1860s eh? I'm sure that's going to hit some New York bankers in the pocket book
Why would that exchange ratio matter? I'm not sure I follow.
In an 1860s war the loss of British trade hurts the US worse than vice versa. Both sides hurt, but the US is spending more for British goods than the reverse, and in a blockade scenario Britain is still an export economy, and like 1812 she can change her trade, while the US can't.
The other factor is that the UK isn't losing all of its US trade in a Trent War scenario (the Confederate markets are suddenly open...)
Although the economics isn't completely lopsided, the monetary comparison isn't exactly accurate. So on the 3 to 1 ratio more British money is going into the American economy than the reverse, who does that hurt more?
Last edited:
I have been through parts of this scenario myself with a few different twists. It is an obvious point in history that leads to some very interesting possibilities and butterflies. But really, I think it played out here. Nothing new is really going to come up that has not been discussed in depth elsewhere. Agreed?
TFSmith121
Banned
The figures are dollars to dollars, not dollars to pounds
The figures are dollars to dollars, not dollars to pounds.
Amazing how the "US is split in two and has lost a war" is the default in this sort of question...despite the track record of failure of British arms in the Americas in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, as the wars of 1775-83, 1806-07, and 1812-15 make clear.
Cripes, they couldn't even beat the Argentines...
Best,
Save for that interesting fact where the USD is worth less than the UKP on a ration of three to one in the 1860s eh? I'm sure that's going to hit some New York bankers in the pocket book
The figures are dollars to dollars, not dollars to pounds.
Amazing how the "US is split in two and has lost a war" is the default in this sort of question...despite the track record of failure of British arms in the Americas in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, as the wars of 1775-83, 1806-07, and 1812-15 make clear.
Cripes, they couldn't even beat the Argentines...
Best,
1837.
It's possible but Van Buren had other concerns at the time (Texas, the Panic).
British Republic
Banned
With a POD in which French Canada and Nova Scotia join the ARW (and thus become part of the United States) I would imagine Britain would want to later back the CSA against the USA during the ACW, would that count?
deathscompanion1
Banned
A grudge extending eighty years? How many of those do we have in OTL?
A larger more populous USA will be stronger than OTL and have more to offer as a trade partner than OTL. So what would be the logic of fighting a war against it?
British Republic
Banned
China and Japan? Britain and France? Britain and Germany?
Well the "falling out" begins over Britain's annexation of RDP (to compensate for the loss of BNA), this extends to British Involvement in ACW to cut down an upstart potential rival (by the ITTL 1860s in terms of size America is certainly a major rival, especially in the Americas).