WI US / British War of 1837?

[Wendell]

Here's a 2006 political map showing what the US might lose a postwar situation around 1840, the UK takes two or all of the areas assuming Canada does not join the US in the war. If they do, it might be status quo antebellum w/ Canada potentially joining the US as States and the UK selling the Hudson's Bay area for a tidy sum.

Doubtful IMO. Maine won't be completely taken, and the U.S. will be forced to give up its stake in the Oregon Country entirely.

 

[M79]

Taking Maine entirely gives them much greater claim to the Grand Banks and a greater distance for an American army to march to hit Halifax. Peninsular Michigan is gone (I think this is fairly certain regardless), but the US will try to maintain its claims on the area north of 42 S and south of the Columbia for the sake of Pacific access. Again, I don't assume overwhelming British victory, but enough they can make *some* territorial concessions. The whole of Oregon will likely be seen as a pound of flesh, more likely they'd shift the border to 48 or 47N, stretch it to the Columbia, and follow it into the sea. We might then send settlers and filibuster Oregon at that point, either way look for a revenge war in two-three decades. Especially if the nation is pushed closer together and/or the British remove slavery as a means of regional infighting (and cutting us off from much of our cash crop income).

 

[Wendell]

Taking Maine entirely gives them much greater claim to the Grand Banks and a greater distance for an American army to march to hit Halifax. Peninsular Michigan is gone (I think this is fairly certain regardless), but the US will try to maintain its claims on the area north of 42 S and south of the Columbia for the sake of Pacific access. Again, I don't assume overwhelming British victory, but enough they can make *some* territorial concessions. The whole of Oregon will likely be seen as a pound of flesh, more likely they'd shift the border to 48 or 47N, stretch it to the Columbia, and follow it into the sea. We might then send settlers and filibuster Oregon at that point, either way look for a revenge war in two-three decades. Especially if the nation is pushed closer together and/or the British remove slavery as a means of regional infighting (and cutting us off from much of our cash crop income).

The U.S. agreeing to turn its back on a loyal state within the Union would spell the end of the U.S. in ANY form. The U.S. will give up land that has not yet been formed into states.

 

[Paul Spring]

Why do British vs USA threads always fall into cliches.

It always starts with a quick going over of the various forces. The conclusion is always the same. RN invincible (give or take), military forces about equal but the British have far greater financial and industrial backing. This declines as the war moves closer to the 20th century.

....

Regardless.. anything is better than
C) The British will not possibly make demands on the USA because its a well known fact in 19th century circles that at some point in the early 20th century the British will find themselves in a hard fought war with Germany (that geographical expression somewhere between France and Austria if your not sure) and with a hostile USA will surely be doomed. Even if this isn't offered as a direct reason, the assumption that such a war is an inevitable concequence wih a PoD somewhere the better part of a century earlier is simply madness.

There is obviously some occasional justification for these claims but by and large they come up every time and are dealt with the same every time. Its almost as predestined for the USA to go from coast to coast as it is for France to have A-L returned at some point post the Franco-Prussian war.

Let me guess, Earling, you're British aren't you?

I sense a certain ... reluctance on the part of people from the UK to admit that there was ever any chance that the US could have done well in a war against Britain. Apparently two wars in OTL were complete flukes.

 

[Darkling]

And the British took quite some time to defeat Napolean, I doubt this war would last >3 years *if* it stays contained to US/UK. My division of Oregon follows the Columbia River and stays along 49 degrees for the remainder of the border to the Great Lakes, it very nearly became the border in OTL.

Yes because Britain was negotiating, not dictating the peace.

The delimiter n the area is clearly the Rockies.

I also don't see the UK taking anything south of 46/47N (Duluth MN) unless the UK overruns us entirely, we'd not allow that except in total
defeat.

Why?

Why is the US going to watch it's economy get ruined and it's people reduced to penury in order to hold some land they haven't even settled and is filled with Indians.

The fact of the matter is that a peace will be based upon the parties walking away with what they control, with adjustment made from there.

We also supply our own food, a war causes supply lines and likely higher prices for Britain which is already facing riots over the Corn Laws.

The corn laws actually help in this instance, the British price was already artificially elevated and thus an increase in the cost of imports won't make a difference until it bypasses the domestic level however if it was found the corn laws were having an effect they could simply be suspended for the course of the war.

It should also be pointed out that North America wasn't that important to Britain's imports at the time, by 1850 (when imports had increased due to the Corn laws being removed) Britain got 870,000 bushels from North America compared with 5,106 from Russia and 6,662 from Prussia.

As for the price of bread staying the same in the US, the problem here is transportation.
The Erie canal will be cut preventing the easy flow of materials from the great lake states and New York itself will be blockaded preventing the easy flow of northern grain to the South.

It seems quite likely that the bread cost could increase.

It should be noted that the price of wheat increased considerably during the civil war and it was only the US trade tariff that prevented Britain exporting large amounts to the US (the US did take over Canada's wheat exports almost entirely).

 

[Darkling]

Let me guess, Earling, you're British aren't you?

I sense a certain ... reluctance on the part of people from the UK to admit that there was ever any chance that the US could have done well in a war against Britain. Apparently two wars in OTL were complete flukes.

That reminds me Earling, you forgot to include that old chestnut about the US (with the assistance of France et al, but that gets omitted) "beating" (never mind 1812 was a draw at best for the Americans) twice already and thus would again, never mind any differences in situations.

 

[Reddog794]

The one point in history that it seems most of you forget was the Fenians raids. Irish Americans invading Canada, in order to free Ireland. The US government didn't offically back the raids, but went the British moved it's army to the border, they quickly arrested the raiders, and so on, in order to appease. What if the US government fully backed the Fenians, and began to mobalize. Tentions between the US/UK/Canada didn't really start to thaw until 1941 when the US was thrown into war by Japan, and Hitler (boob) declared war on them first. The US has invasion plans for Canada/UK in 1935. WI the US back the Fenians and moved to the Lakes region and set up for invasion.

As well nearing the end of the war of 1812, most of NewEngland was pretty pissed about the blockade, and Southern Land interests. The idea of succession from the Union was a serious possiblity, with strong leaning to the UK.

Just a history nerds 2 pence...