1815-1935: A third Anglo-American War?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

I think the last thread on the American Civil war has come to a dead end. But here is the next one:

With the end of the American War of 1812 in early 1815, the British Empire and the United States concluded their last declared conflict.

But what I have read in multiple sources is really amazing:

as late as the eve of World War II, the United States considered war with Britain a possibility.

on such example of this is War Plan Red http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

and War Plan Red-Orange, which had the US Fight Britain and Japan simultaneously.

If any of you in the UK are aware of any such declassified plans and or thoughts from Generals/Politicians, please share them, I am quite interested.

There were a number of diplomatic and military spats between the US and Britain throughout the 19th century. Most of which were border disputes with Canada, and of course Britain's perceived possible support for the Confederacy.

I want to examine such a possibility, albeit in a very large timeframe.

So, within the timeframe of 1815 ending in the mid 1930s, not including 1861-1865, could the United States of America and the British Empire have gone to war with each other?

(NOTE: As the last thread dealt with the American Civil War, please leave out that possibility from this thread).

Where would the most likely conflict areas have been? Canada is an obvious one, but could there have been any other possibilities?

Could it have been limited to a local conflict in a disputed area, or could their conceivably have been a massive war, possibly drawing in other major powers?

Given the over 100 year timeframe, what were the balance of forces in any given year or decade?

Who could have won? By this I mean a war in 1825 vs 1925 for example.


I know the last few What if/Could it? threads have not done that well, but I hope this can turn it around, and I think it is a very unique and seldom discussed topic.

Hildor

Oregon and Washington (1846) could have been a potential flashpoint

Amilcar Barca

If we dont take into account the 1861-1865 years i dont think there might be real possibilities for a war. The USA was an aislacionist country until ww II knock on its door. Only The Americas (north and south) really hooked the interest of the USA, so there wasnt much room for conflict like it might happen among the brithish and Russia, Germany or France.

Regarding the war plans it is just natural that the naval chief of staff took into consideration the brithish empire as a possible enemy, even if improbable. The USA was (is) a country with just two neighbours. One of them was not dangerous (Mexico) and the other one could be dangerous only if the Brithish empire supported it. With few land menaces, the seas and its navy were key for the USA as a mean to protect itself. The two biggest navies in the world were the brithish one and the japanese one. So it is natural the USA got some plans. Just in case. War Plan Orange came very handy during ww II.

Who might have won? I dont know much about the mid and late xix century military forces, but if the so called modern war was an industrial war, then the USA was above the UK in industrial capacity a bit before the first world war, iirc.

Rath_Darkblade

Britain and the USA did go to war during the period you mention. The episodes I have in mind are The Aroostook War (on the border of Maine and New Brunswick, 1838-9) and The Pig War (around the San Juan Islands, 1859). However, the term "war" is theoretical only:

- During the former, local militias were called out but never engaged in combat;
- During the latter, no shots were exchanged and no one was killed.

Both conflicts were resolved through arbitration.

Amilcar Barca wrote: »

Regarding the war plans it is just natural that the naval chief of staff took into consideration the British empire as a possible enemy, even if improbable. The USA was (is) a country with just two neighbors. One of them was not dangerous (Mexico) and the other one could be dangerous only if the British empire supported it. With few land menaces, the seas and its navy were key for the USA as a mean to protect itself. The two biggest navies in the world were the British one and the Japanese one. So it is natural the USA got some plans. Just in case. War Plan Orange came very handy during WWII.

Mexico was not dangerous? Clearly you've never heard of the Mexican Civil War or the Zimmermann Telegram, then.

In addition, some prominent Mexicans (e.g. Madero, Pancho Villa) fled across the border into Texas during the Civil War and raised or tried to raise opposition to the ruling party in Mexico at the time - which certainly made things very interesting for America.

It's also not true to say that "The USA was (is) a country with just two neighbors." It is now, but it's easy to forget that for much of the 19th century, America had many dangerous neighbors on its western flank as well - the American Indians, natch.

Istvan

I think the concept is utterly nuts. In the 19th century, the British were involved in spreading globalization and constructing the underlying architecture for an international free trade regime centred around Britain's gold standard. I highly doubt the British saw any value in sparking conflicting with the Americans. Similarly, the Americans saw no value in declaring war on the economic beating heart of the globe, to which the Americans were strongly linked through economic and financial ties.

World War 1 ravaged the British Empire, causing it to no longer be able to maintain the global economy. During the post-war peace conferences attempts were made to redraw the global architecture centred around the US, but as we know, the US never picked up and carried on the mantle. As Britain's military and economy were exhausted and there was no superpower willing to replace it, the onset of the Great Depression brought about a radical change in the world.

The globalization that Britain had fostered was rapidly undone as countries opted for short-sighted anti-trade policies to protect their domestic economies, thus ravaging the interdependent liberal trade regime Britain had attempted to put in place. In this interwar and WW2 period, prosperity was no longer a mutual goal to be shared in common by interdependent participants. Attitudes shifted with a belief that prosperity derives from independence and militarization in order to protect ones own holdings, and to claim and dominate the holdings of others.

It is in this context of a deglobalized and hostile world in which the American military may have seen it sensible to have a plan drawn up to incapacitate the sickened British Empire, while plundering and conquering its territory in North America. Based on your article, however, it seems the American politicians were sensible enough to not seriously support such an idea.

Amilcar Barca

Rath Darkblade wrote: »

Mexico was not dangerous? Clearly you've never heard of the Mexican Civil War or the Zimmermann Telegram, then.

In addition, some prominent Mexicans (e.g. Madero, Pancho Villa) fled across the border into Texas during the Civil War and raised or tried to raise opposition to the ruling party in Mexico at the time - which certainly made things very interesting for America.

It's also not true to say that "The USA was (is) a country with just two neighbors." It is now, but it's easy to forget that for much of the 19th century, America had many dangerous neighbors on its western flank as well - the American Indians, natch.

First, I dont see how the Mexican civil war nor the telegram incident take anythign away from what I said. Mexico was never a threat to the USA after the 1848 war. The fact that it got into a civil war (SEVERAL civil wars, from 1860s to 1920s) speaks for itself. There might be some problems on the border, but Mexico was very far from being a threat. It simply hadnt the stability nor the industrial and human resources to be one. Same goes for Canada (unless supported by the Brithish Empire, as I said). Just take into account that during the US Civil War the Union needed a one million men army to subdue the South. Just imagine what would have been needed by Mexico or Canada to subdue the whole or most of the USA. It would be like Sweden (during the XIX century) trying to conquer Russia.

Regarding Indians, it is absurd to think they might pose a threat to the Union. They might be problematic in the border, sure, but not a threat to the Union. On any case they were doomed to be wiped out, as anybody could see, given the already existing and increasing technological gap.

So, all that is left is the sea. Here is where real threats might come from. Mainly with the Brithish Empire and, much later, Japan.

Amilcar Barca

Istvan wrote: »

I think the concept is utterly nuts. In the 19th century, the British were involved in spreading globalization and constructing the underlying architecture for an international free trade regime centred around Britain's gold standard. I highly doubt the British saw any value in sparking conflicting with the Americans. Similarly, the Americans saw no value in declaring war on the economic beating heart of the globe, to which the Americans were strongly linked through economic and financial ties.

World War 1 ravaged the British Empire, causing it to no longer be able to maintain the global economy. During the post-war peace conferences attempts were made to redraw the global architecture centred around the US, but as we know, the US never picked up and carried on the mantle. As Britain's military and economy were exhausted and there was no superpower willing to replace it, the onset of the Great Depression brought about a radical change in the world.

The globalization that Britain had fostered was rapidly undone as countries opted for short-sighted anti-trade policies to protect their domestic economies, thus ravaging the interdependent liberal trade regime Britain had attempted to put in place. In this interwar and WW2 period, prosperity was no longer a mutual goal to be shared in common by interdependent participants. Attitudes shifted with a belief that prosperity derives from independence and militarization in order to protect ones own holdings, and to claim and dominate the holdings of others.

It is in this context of a deglobalized and hostile world in which the American military may have seen it sensible to have a plan drawn up to incapacitate the sickened British Empire, while plundering and conquering its territory in North America. Based on your article, however, it seems the American politicians were sensible enough to not seriously support such an idea.

One thing, international prosperity was never the aim of the brithish free trade policy. It was a way of profitting from the advanced and big english industrial base during that century.

Apart from that, I dont see the 1920s USA politicians supporting any ideas of invading Canada or incapacitating the Brithish Empire. Among many, many things, the USA army during the interwar period was tiny (ranking 34th in the world, just behind Romania)

Rath_Darkblade

Amilcar Barca wrote: »

First, I don't see how the Mexican civil war nor the telegram incident take anything away from what I said. Mexico was never a threat to the USA after the 1848 war. The fact that it got into a civil war (SEVERAL civil wars, from 1860s to 1920s) speaks for itself. There might be some problems on the border, but Mexico was very far from being a threat. It simply didn't have the stability nor the industrial and human resources to be one. Same goes for Canada (unless supported by the British Empire, as I said). Just take into account that during the US Civil War the Union needed a one million men army to subdue the South. Just imagine what would have been needed by Mexico or Canada to subdue the whole or most of the USA. It would be like Sweden (during the XIX century) trying to conquer Russia.

I'm not claiming that Mexico would (or should) have tried to subdue the whole or most of the USA. As you say, that would have been madness. What I am saying is that Mexico - officially or unofficially - did make life very interesting for the border states (e.g. Texas) for quite some time.

The Zimmermann Telegram comes into it because of its consequences. As we all know, the telegram was sent uncoded (an act of madness on Zimmermann's part) and when it was intercepted and published, Zimmermann came out and claimed responsibility - another foolish act that basically doomed him. However, just suppose that things happened a different way: e.g. this telegram is sent in code, or is not intercepted. Suppose further that Mexico accepts German help and technology, and uses these to invade the USA. What then? To start with, the USA must divert resources to repel the threat from the south. It might crush the threat, or it might take some time; but it would mean that the fighting in Europe would take longer to be settled, by which time either France or Britain would be even more exhausted than they actually were - and might sue for peace earlier than what actually happened.

Could it have happened? Could Germany have had 'peace with honour', thereby averting the ruinous Treaty of Versailles that inevitably led to World War II? And if so, what would post-war Europe had looked like? The possibilities are fascinating.

Amilcar Barca wrote: »

Regarding Indians, it is absurd to think they might pose a threat to the Union. They might be problematic in the border, sure, but not a threat to the Union. In any case they were doomed to be wiped out, as anybody could see, given the already existing and increasing technological gap.

Again, I'm not saying that the Indians would have posed a threat to the Union. I agree with you there. However, the timeline given - 1815-1935 - is vast, and I'm thinking more of the earlier years when the Indians might have still had a chance. Don't forget that the Indian threat was not checked completely until the late 1870s. Between 1815 and 1880, the Indians were a considerable threat to the Union's frontiers. This map will show you what the USA was like in 1815, in the dawn of the era of Westward Expansion. I think you'll find that there was not one person in the USA at the time who thought that the Indians were 'doomed to be wiped out'.

I do believe that you are judging the era with the benefit of hindsight, which is not helpful... *G*

daelin4#9896

I personally believe that, beyond the two sides taking strong belligerent stances towards eachother, any war that broke out would have quickly been resolved, or prevented. Powerful countries have a way of being calm when confronted with a more equal opponent. Even the American Revolution and war of 1812 have not really made any lasting animosities between the United States and Britain; at the very worst, statesmen of both sides has viewed the other as useful allies. And it's not like the British or the Americans have taken much effort to pick fights with eachother, as was the case with historical enemies like Germany vs. France in territorial disputes. The Americans for example have largely left British possessions surrounding their country intact.

War Plan Red was more or less hypothetical and in any case is not surprising. The Americans are undoubtedly going to look after themselves, even if allies like Britain and her possessions turned on it. It had very little support or approval not only because of it's purely theoretical nature, but the prevailing political environment where the British becoming an enemy when they have so many potential mutual foes was slim to none. In any event it failed to take into account that Canada may or may not coalesce with British war ambitions, so in a way it's not so much waging war against Britain but one against Canada, a foolish gesture if the actual enemy was the UK. The gist of the war plan was also a defensive one, which of course relied on the British being the aggressor. It was certainly not a blueprint for conquest, but one to respond to the slightest of strange developments for sake of preparation.

In any event such a hypothetical war would surely be to the Americans' advantage, even if it was met with worldwide disdain. Canada isn't exactly Britain's backyard so attacking them without provocation (even if the British declared war) would have been foolish, not unless Canada accepts beyond all reason to join in rather than declare neutrality. Technically the UK controlled foreign affairs up until 1931, but even then public sentiment towards being dragged into a war that involved mostly their own expense for reasons most might deem stupid would have caused an outrage in Canada, something that might prompt them to join the US instead. No one wants to be called to war and have their own home be dictated as the battleground. WW1 is not comparable because of historical animosities and the geographic detachment to the realities of war.

Regardless of the chances of war, what's guaranteed is that both sides would suffer horribly as they had mutual trade relations. If anything it would have a very belligerent United States to start encroaching on European affairs and sovereignty before war became a possibly reality, and that was something the Americans never developed.

Istvan

One thing, international prosperity was never the aim of the brithish free trade policy. It was a way of profitting from the advanced and big english industrial base during that century.

I never said it was, in fact, I'd argue that that isn't directly the aim of the American Empire and its international bodies either. There are far too many blatant examples of the US imposing free trade in areas that it has historically had little competition while ardently opposing free trade in areas where its products could be undercut by poorer countries (ie agriculture).

Nonetheless, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Victorian Era wasn't a period of global prosperity or that the US isn't to thank for the economic development of the last 60 years throughout much of the globe.