Anglo-American War of 1871

[CalBear]

A war in 1871 is a rather interesting proposal from a number of angles. The situation is far from cut and dried and much more layered than RN pawns the USN or Canada is overrun.

Some things that need to be considered:

• Great Britain WILL control the Atlantic
• Canada is, almost completely, in favor of remaining a dominion, a status that Canada acquired. BC is a somewhat unsettled matter, and Quebec is, well, Quebec.
• The U.S. CAN outproduce the British, but not immediately.
• The British Army is spread very, very, thin. There are under 200,000 men available (including enlisted and officers in reserved status) to control a considerable fraction of the land area of the planet.
• The U.S. Army is realistically not an army at all, but a costuablry force with a total strength of under 30,000 Regulars.
• Both the U.S. and British armies are designed to perform "wog bashing" not set piece battles.

Military equipment is in a state of transition from the muzzle loader rifled musket to breech loader/rolling block pattern rifle. The British did not start to replace the Snider-Enfield conversion of Pattern 1853 with the famed Martini-Henry until mid-1871 and the U.S. is still using the the 1868 Springfield drop block. Both sides would, in case of a massive call up (as would be needed for a major war) be forced into issuing many newly raised regiments the Enfield 1853 or Model 1861 Minie Ball muzzle loaders. The same is true for field artillery (interesting the British were actually in the middle of returning to muzzle loaders in 1871).

The main issue is what does each side want? What IS victory for either side.

The U.S. can hold its own territory, even with militia, thanks to the advantage of having rail transport across internal lines and the ability to communicate literally across the Continent in minutes thanks to the telegraph. The RN might be able to transport considerable forces, but not so considerable as to be able to land an invading force sufficiently large to defeat any locally mustered militia force (most major U.S. cities had stores of weapons designated for militia use) in time to take control of a region (the whole concept of amphibious attack was not even under serious dicusssion). In the fairly short term the U.S. can deploy a large enough force of military veterans to expell any probable invasion effort.

Unless there is some sort of dramatic event it is also unlikely that the "South will rise again". That bird has flown.

Britain can defend the Atlantic and deny it to the U.S. in any reasonable meaning of the word. Canada is not going to simply fall to the U.S. because the Americans say boo! The American government will have much greater difficulty putting together an force to INVADE Canada than to drive an invader out. Even with a reason that is enough to get volunteers in large enough quanties to make the attempt, any attack will be difficult in the best of circumstances and near impossible in many.With control of the seas it is also possible for the British to put enough troops into Canada to make it mainly untenable for any American invasion force.

Unfortunately, this still begs the question of why and what. Why the War and What is victory?

Based on what I have read here (beyond the usual Rah Rah for one side or the other, and couple of the usual suspects doing their thing) no one had actually discussed what would constitute the cause belli or what would be the goal of any war.

Both sides can make the other one bleed and lose a fortune. In a military sense neither side can inflict a decisive defeat upon the other.

As near as I can tell the big winner right now is the Kaiser's Germany in 1915.

 

[MerryPrankster]

When did British officers stop buying their commissions?

That will certainly affect the quality of the British generalship.

 

[67th Tigers]

• The U.S. CAN outproduce the British, but not immediately.
• The British Army is spread very, very, thin. There are under 200,000 men available (including enlisted and officers in reserved status) to control a considerable fraction of the land area of the planet.

• 
  
  I suggest you read the Statesman's Yearbook for 1871:
  
  http://www.archive.org/stream/statesmansyearbo1871londuoft#page/240/mode/2up
  
  The British military is dealt with pgs 225-240, the Canadian military on 512-4, and the United States on pgs 568-74
  
  (these are generally worth reading anyway)
  
  On the army, the 1871 edition of the Soldier's Pocketbook is also available.
  

Military equipment is in a state of transition from the muzzle loader rifled musket to breech loader/rolling block pattern rifle. The British did not start to replace the Snider-Enfield conversion of Pattern 1853 with the famed Martini-Henry until mid-1871 and the U.S. is still using the the 1868 Springfield drop block. Both sides would, in case of a massive call up (as would be needed for a major war) be forced into issuing many newly raised regiments the Enfield 1853 or Model 1861 Minie Ball muzzle loaders.

Not Britain, every single P1853 and P1860 was converted to a breechloader. The P1864 was the most advanced general issue rifle in the world (far better than the Chassepot or Dreyse).

The various "Trapdoor Springfields" were experimental arms, never placed on general issue (there is a whole mess of US ordnance procurement in this period, some models saw limited issues). The US Army finally adopts a working general issue breechloader (M1873) in 1873.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Confederates: Who says the British have to be in on it? If your big nasty occupier is suddenly getting his butt kicked by someone bigger and badder then you would take advantage of that and rise up. The entire country wouldn't be up in arms but certainly there would be a significant number wanting to take this opportunity to make the northerners pay and hopefully try and break away. At the very least there'd be a huge fear of this amongst many in the north meaning a lot of troops have to be kept down south.
It is indeed super unlikely the CSA will manage to reappear. A breakaway Texas or somesuch however?...keep America fighting long enough and that could well occur. Certainly at the least the south will be a pain in the arse.

Canada: I think you under-estimate the British defences in Canada. Its not a utterly defenceless place even in peace time. Also its unlikely the US will be able to launch a sneak attack and overun Canada before Britain knows what's happening. The war wouldn't just happen, there'd be a build up in which time Britain can reinforce Canada, and word of American troops getting into position for swarming over the border would also get to the British pretty quickly.

Numerical superiority- The US has 5 million more people than the UK. Canada reduces this gap to 1 million; which elsewhere easily makes up for Britain. Not that it matters. Such things don't come into play until 20th century all out wars.

As to supply lines being shorter for the US...yes. But not by as big a degree as one would think. Canada was rather short on railways at the time, the US troops will be spending their travel time marching through hostile terrain. The Brits meanwhile will be taking a run of the mill quick steam ship journey over the Atlantic. Sea transport had really got pretty quick by this point in time, the Americans won't have too big a speed advantage.
Logistical chain- actually it seems the Americans have a the harder one there. The Brits are fighting in friendly territory and being supplied safely by sea. The Americans are trying to occupy hostile territory over land.

My view is that the worst that occurs in the South is worse terrorism and some guerrilla warfare, which will be a manpower sink, but nothing crippling. As for Canada, I don't think the conquest of Canada will be a sneak attack or an overrun, but I guess I just think the USA can get more troops thrown at Canada than the British can to defend it. Much more. Will it be quick and easy? No way Jose. But it could be an American victory.

snip

I just disagree. I'm sure it will be nasty, but when compared to the Civil War, it will be tame.

In short, the redcoat gets a bloody nose but the yank get his butt kicked? If there is a war, US victory will not be allowed.


What would London do?

1) Settle for a limitation of US army and navy.

2) Territorial gaines for Canada.

3) Confederate puppet.

4) War reparations.


What are the economical consequences for the US after the war? If the US was that badly affected by the confederate war, it would be even worst this time around. Perhapse, revengist feelings starts growing after the war and 2-5 decades later, the war resumes?

Perhapse, there could be a socialist revolution in the 1880s?

As I stated in my previous posts, regardless of who wins, I don't think the war will end with such a harsh treaty. There's just not the will to fight on either side for long enough to really force your will on the enemy.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Based on what I have read here (beyond the usual Rah Rah for one side or the other, and couple of the usual suspects doing their thing) no one had actually discussed what would constitute the cause belli or what would be the goal of any war.

Lets start with the Fenian Raids being worse, with far more accusations on the British side of American involvement. Naturalized Irish-American Fenians are caught in Britain, and Americans furious about the Alabama affair, demand they be returned to the United States and Britain recognize American standards of citizenship as per the Expatriation Act of 1868. The British public being more antagonized by the Fenian affair, refuses. Suddenly, the border dispute and so called "Pig War" of 1859 are brought up by antagonistic politicians on both sides, whom of course believe that their side should have the border dispute settled in their favor. At this point, we have what is really needed; willingness on both sides for a war. The American leadership hoping to unify their nation once again against a European enemy and perhaps gain parts of Canada, and the British, hoping to quash an upstart rival, finally go to war.

But to start looking at the post war, it really strikes me as something that would be status quo ante bellum. Maybe, maybe, maybe the USA could take parts of Canada. Maybe. But the British could always veto that with continued naval blockade. While it would hurt both of their economies, it'd hurt the American one far, far worse. Other than Canada, what else is there? Small unimportant lands that are subject to disputes? Who really cares where they go to, probably the country with the dominate military situation. But that won't have major effects on either country, and I can't see Britain annexing any real good sized parts of the USA, even in a large British victory. As for all of the other issues that started the war, they were negotiated out IOTL, and to be honest, they probably would in this timeline too. None of the issues that started the war are really worth fighting a war over. Honestly, this is one of the wars where the real, overriding reason it started was nationalism. But once the war goes on and people realize how much it sucks and hurts everybody economically, the issues that lead to the war are going to seem smaller and more insignificant.

As for the politics in the post war would, I can see a USA that's going to have a bigger Navy earlier than IOTL. As for Canada(or what remains of it), it will either move closer to Britain, to defend itself against the USA, or further itself from Britain, to prevent another war with the USA. Continued Anglo-American animosity will have VERY interesting butterflies into the 20th century, and since it was the 1871 treaty that really paved the way for better relations, replacing such a treaty with a war will have interesting consequences.

Good post, but I have discussed some things you have brought up. I do think people are just saying that they're nation will win overwhelmingly, but that's disappointing to see because it's really just silly. As I say above, a status quo peace with negotiations is the most likely way to end the war once both countries realize how stupid it is to be fighting. It'll be very similar to the War of 1812, with both sides saying they won. Now, one side could 'win' but it won't be anything major, they'll just get some war reparations and the insignificant border disputes settled in their favor. What I find interesting is post war, since as you said, Germany will greatly benefit from the Anglo-American animosity that the war will bring. It will make the entire international scene more interesting because now the USA can be drawn into international alliances and arms races, since either way the war will end with the USA wanting to counter British power somehow. Could an alliance with Britain's obvious enemy of the time, Russia, be possible?

As for a specific casus belli, I more think it'd be like the War of 1812, where the USA declares war due to numerous grievances with the British.

 

[CalBear]

I suggest you read the Statesman's Yearbook for 1871:

http://www.archive.org/stream/statesmansyearbo1871londuoft#page/240/mode/2up

The British military is dealt with pgs 225-240, the Canadian military on 512-4, and the United States on pgs 568-74

(these are generally worth reading anyway)

On the army, the 1871 edition of the Soldier's Pocketbook is also available.



Not Britain, every single P1853 and P1860 was converted to a breechloader. The P1864 was the most advanced general issue rifle in the world (far better than the Chassepot or Dreyse).

The various "Trapdoor Springfields" were experimental arms, never placed on general issue (there is a whole mess of US ordnance procurement in this period, some models saw limited issues). The US Army finally adopts a working general issue breechloader (M1873) in 1873.

Well, the Springfield 1866 & 1868 in 50/70 may not been in "general issue", but the Springflied Armory produced over 50,000 of each weapon as well as 5,000 of the admittedly deficient Model 1865. That is in addtion to the 200,000+ Spencers, 14,000 Henry's (which were bought by the individual troopers and were quite common in Milita units for that reason). This would indicate that, in 1871, there were roughly 325,000 dropblock/repeating riles in the hands of U.S. troops and residents. This does not include the 30,000 or so Winchester 1866 also available (many of them having been purchased by various State Militias).

I also noted the existence Snider-Enfield conversion in my earlier post.

Thank you for the Statesman link. However when I use it it provided an 1867 edition with almost no data for the U.S. after 1864.

 

[Tyr]

In short, the redcoat gets a bloody nose but the yank get his butt kicked? If there is a war, US victory will not be allowed.


What would London do?

1) Settle for a limitation of US army and navy.

2) Territorial gaines for Canada.

3) Confederate puppet.

4) War reparations.


What are the economical consequences for the US after the war? If the US was that badly affected by the confederate war, it would be even worst this time around. Perhapse, revengist feelings starts growing after the war and 2-5 decades later, the war resumes?

Perhapse, there could be a socialist revolution in the 1880s?

Britain would probally just settle for a largely status quo peace, maybe some war indemnities from the USA, some promises they won't try and invade Canada again, maybe some guaranties of rights for various native American tribes.
Border re-arrangments would probally be minor, A few bits and pieces where the border is messy going in Britain's favour- a firm agreement on Alaska's borders very much in favour of Britain for instance.
The only real possible big border re-arrangment could maybe be in the central US, break away some land round about Dakota for native americans. That is if they side with the British- somewhat likely in a longer term war, they were friendlier with Canada than the US and my enemy's enemy.

 

[Communist Wizard]

Stepping away from all the ironclads and breechloaders for a minute, American politics might be important. Grant is President (does he personally lead troops into battle?), but has been hit with several scandals. The Republicans have a majority in Congress, but the Democrats *just* had a surge in the 1870 elections. If the Republicans get into a war with Britain and are drawn into international politics, what happens? Does isolationism versus honoring alliances (with Russia?) become a major issue in elections?
On the South: 1871, the South is still occupied under Reconstruction. "Terrorism and low-level guerrilla warfare" was already being launched by the KKK and White Leagues against Federal troops, capetbaggers and scalawags. To be honest, what this says to me is NOT that matters are going to get as bad as a wide-scale insurgency. Instead, the white southerners suddenly become loyal and patriotic, and in return Reconstruction ends early - the Southern Republicans and freedmen get the boot in favor of the South's elite enthusiastically supporting the war effort. The main question is who ends REeconstruction first, the Republicans or the Democratic-controlled congress of 1872?
However, the Confederates (aside from a few local elements) rising on behalf of Britain is laughable.

 

[Telemond's_Lamb_Chop]

I have a wee question. Several posters have described a Confederate insurrection as laughable or words to that effect but no one has sought to justify the statement. Would someome like to do so because from where I stand it is not a probable event but hardly one that can be discounted.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Only because it was much longer and the two sides were determined to wage it to the bitter end.

Precisely. It was unlike the wars in Europe between 1815 and 1914 (but like the Paraguayan war and the Taiping rebellion) in that one side was trying to destroy another utterly.

 

[Indigo]

As to why a confederate resurrection is laughable, none of the major people with political support on the confederate side supported reopening the war. Also, the former slaves had at least some degree of power at that period, they certainly wouldn't want the south to become independent. Finally, considering that Britain left the Confederates in the lurch during the Civil War, most former confederates wont have any great friendship towards Britain. In other words, there would probably be small scale uprisings, but no grand insurrection during the war.

 

[Tyr]

Stepping away from all the ironclads and breechloaders for a minute, American politics might be important. Grant is President (does he personally lead troops into battle?), but has been hit with several scandals. The Republicans have a majority in Congress, but the Democrats *just* had a surge in the 1870 elections. If the Republicans get into a war with Britain and are drawn into international politics, what happens? Does isolationism versus honoring alliances (with Russia?) become a major issue in elections?
On the South: 1871, the South is still occupied under Reconstruction. "Terrorism and low-level guerrilla warfare" was already being launched by the KKK and White Leagues against Federal troops, capetbaggers and scalawags. To be honest, what this says to me is NOT that matters are going to get as bad as a wide-scale insurgency. Instead, the white southerners suddenly become loyal and patriotic, and in return Reconstruction ends early - the Southern Republicans and freedmen get the boot in favor of the South's elite enthusiastically supporting the war effort. The main question is who ends REeconstruction first, the Republicans or the Democratic-controlled congress of 1872?
However, the Confederates (aside from a few local elements) rising on behalf of Britain is laughable.

The ex-confederates becoming flag waving uber patriots who instantly forget all their grievances to fully support a war which does nothing for them against the world's super power is more laughable.
What's with this belief any trouble in the south would be 'on behalf of the British?' Who the hell said such a thing?

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

The ex-confederates becoming flag waving uber patriots who instantly forget all their grievances to fully support a war which does nothing for them against the world's super power is more laughable.
What's with this belief any trouble in the south would be 'on behalf of the British?' Who the hell said such a thing?

And now you're attributing claims that weren't made. Your point?

He's clearly bringing up the point that most former Confederates would be placated to see an early end to Reconstruction. Not that the "Evul British" will cause former Confederates to jump and become patriots overnight.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I have a wee question. Several posters have described a Confederate insurrection as laughable or words to that effect but no one has sought to justify the statement. Would someome like to do so because from where I stand it is not a probable event but hardly one that can be discounted.

Nobody has sought to justify the statement?

Did you read my posts?

I said there was a strong possibility ex-Confederates would view Britain as a foreign meddler messing with "their" quarrel, especially if they wanted to encourage secessionism to create what the ex-Confederates would likely perceive as colonies.

Plus there's the whole "foreign invader" thing that tends to crop up whenever the US invading a Muslim country ruled by a cruel (domestic) tyrant comes up.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The ex-confederates becoming flag waving uber patriots who instantly forget all their grievances to fully support a war which does nothing for them against the world's super power is more laughable.
What's with this belief any trouble in the south would be 'on behalf of the British?' Who the hell said such a thing?

What did you think about the claim American soldiers would be greeted as liberators in Iraq in 2003?

 

[Tyr]

What did you think about the claim American soldiers would be greeted as liberators in Iraq in 2003?

I don't see the relevance.

And now you're attributing claims that weren't made. Your point?

He's clearly bringing up the point that most former Confederates would be placated to see an early end to Reconstruction. Not that the "Evul British" will cause former Confederates to jump and become patriots overnight.

....in response to the same.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The impression I have is that most of the "AMERICA KILLS ALL" people are Americans and most of the "UK PWNS AMERICA" people are non-Americans, so there's an element of tribalism and wishful thinking involved.

Furthermore, if imperialists are generally resented, that would apply to the former states of the Confederacy just as much as it would to Iraq or Afghanistan.

And I at least was willing to concede there might be some people willing to fight for London over Washington, like the more anti-democratic planter elements and the craziest bitter-enders.

 

[Maur]

The P1864 was the most advanced general issue rifle in the world (far better than the Chassepot or Dreyse).

In what way? It seems to me it was roughly the same as Dreyse (and as such, inferior to the Chassepot)

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

From the Armenian Genocide:

Chassepot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chassepot
Dreyse Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_gun
P1864: Not sure which one that was, but if it was one of these two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snider-Enfield or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini-Henry, not even close. If it's neither, then I couldn't find it. I had to rely on Wiki because world.guns.ru doesn't go back that far.

Out of all of these, the Chassepot has the farthest effective range.

 

[abc123]

The ex-confederates becoming flag waving uber patriots who instantly forget all their grievances to fully support a war which does nothing for them against the world's super power is more laughable.
What's with this belief any trouble in the south would be 'on behalf of the British?' Who the hell said such a thing?

One of gretaest fears of US politicians in 1899. during the invasion of Cuba was will "South rise again" and that was 30 years after ACW.