British Empire Retaking The United States circa 1870s onwards

[Exarch]

The British Imperialist Cecil Rhodes' last will and testament called for '

the ultimate recovery of the United States as an integral part of the British Empire...'

source: http://books.google.com/books?id=S2s...page&q&f=false

(along with taking over all of africa and the eastern seaboard of China and malaysia and having a unified british led government where all peoples would be represented, but more on that later).

Could the British Empire at the time of Rhodes' writing and afterwards up to ww1 have retaken the entire united states? with the amount of men and resources London had at hand, would they have been able to retake the US in its period of industrialisation?

and if not, then how about during the american civil war? did London ever have any plans of retaking the united states throughout the 19th century?

[RedGuard]

I think and of course im biased, it would be like nazi germany fighting against the near infinte manpower of Soviet Russia. and we all know how that turned out. having just gained freedom a hundred years prior i don't think the brits could win agasinst a combined USA on our own turf. albiet a wartorn country in reconstructon mode.

[Claudius Gothicus]

By the 1870's the USA was still recovering from the huge destruction of the Southern States... but I doubt that any European power would be able to subdue the United States.

Imperialist Powers always aimed at disorganized and loosely arranged enemies that didn't really portray a threat(''imperialist conquest'' was a ''calculated conquest''). The USA was an Industrial Powerhouse and both a large manpower base from were to draw recruits and a centralized government to organize armed resistance.

[Erebus Pasha]

By the 1870's the USA was still recovering from the huge destruction of the Southern States... but I doubt that any European power would be able to subdue the United States.

Imperialist Powers always aimed at disorganized and loosely arranged enemies that didn't really portray a threat(''imperialist conquest'' was a ''calculated conquest''). The USA was an Industrial Powerhouse and both a large manpower base from were to draw recruits and a centralized government to organize armed resistance.

Not until the 1890's.

[hellheaven1987]

Probably impossible since US Army at that time had far larger, experienced reserve than British Army could dream about; Union perhaps would have no problem to quickly mobilize its Civil War units back to active service with little effort (and the equipments were ready there).

[Erebus Pasha]

Probably impossible since US Army at that time had far larger, experienced reserve than British Army could dream about; Union perhaps would have no problem to quickly mobilize its Civil War units back to active service with little effort (and the equipments were ready there).

It's maybe difficult. Really from the 1870's until WW1 the US Army was pathetically small considering the size of the country. The army was capable of subduing Native Americans and second rate powers like Spain, but would've been hard pressed to face a first rate power like Great Britain. On the other hand, the British Army was small in comparison to the armies on the European continent like Germany and Russia, and the designation of being a 'colonial police force' was not entirely inaccurate although it was highly professional. The defences of Canada would also be crucial. It has been discussed in the other thread about British intervention in the ACW about how the Canadian defences were obsolete and under-manned. Would this be any different by the 1880's and 1890's? The US navy was also small until the early 20th century and it's enlargement was motivated by it's conflict with Spain and the emerging power of Japan in the Pacific. Facing the Royal Navy in the 1870's and the 1880's would've been a daunting prospect for the United States.

[Poach]

No, the British Empire could not occupy and retake the entire United States, it was simply too big.

The British Army could brush aside the US Army of the time with relative ease: I'd have no doubt the British would've been able to occupy the major cities along the coast and could probably occupy New England with relative ease.

From there, however, things would simply deteriorate into an endless skirmishing and guerilla war: the US would never roll over and accept that it was once more a British colony, thus the British would've been forced to occupy it. They'd be constantly fighting a resistance movement and what was left of the US Army. British manpower couldn't cover the whole US, so they'd have a vast expanse on the plains to hide in and launch attacks.

Essentially I believe the British could've taken the population centres along the coast and near Canada, but they couldn't have held them: it would be too costly in terms of getting a return and would tie up the majority of the British Army in a constant occupation campaign.

[hellheaven1987]

Facing the Royal Navy in the 1870's and the 1880's would've been a daunting prospect for the United States.

The problem is that Royal Navy's usefulness here is to launch amphibious assault on coastal line, and that was pretty much erase by the US coastal fortification which was purposely built to prevent British amphibious assault. Blockade was not important here since US could/can self-support itself without import and Royal Navy had little usefulness to provide river naval force in order to occupy river system.

Overall, it was land campaign decided the factor, and British Empire was especially weak at that aspect.

[visser300]

The point is why did they need to that?

In 1870s, They had British Canada, British india, British Australia and a vast number of small colonies in China, Africa and South East Asia.

They were simply too big. There was no reason for them to sallow more lands.

[Londinium]

We couldn't do it when the United States was much smaller and less populated in the 1770s, I doubt we could have done in the 1870s. The simple fact was that the United States was much too large to hold down, you can take it's cities and ports but unless you have a millions strong army it's impossible to hold down, in the same way that Russia is. The British knew this in 1812-15, let alone 1870. That's why the British strategy in 1812-15 was naval descents upon important cities and nibbling away at American territory on the fringes (Maine, Upper New York, Louisiana). By 1870 a united USA could also raise rather large armies that would outnumber anything the British could put across the Ocean. The American Civil War was the last concievable time when the British could have beaten the Americans, had they split America into the Union and the Confederacy they also would have been able to compete military but the fact was they didn't intervene and America was reunited.

[Fluttershy]

No, the British Empire could not occupy and retake the entire United States, it was simply too big.

The British Army could brush aside the US Army of the time with relative ease: I'd have no doubt the British would've been able to occupy the major cities along the coast and could probably occupy New England with relative ease.

From there, however, things would simply deteriorate into an endless skirmishing and guerilla war: the US would never roll over and accept that it was once more a British colony, thus the British would've been forced to occupy it. They'd be constantly fighting a resistance movement and what was left of the US Army. British manpower couldn't cover the whole US, so they'd have a vast expanse on the plains to hide in and launch attacks.

Essentially I believe the British could've taken the population centres along the coast and near Canada, but they couldn't have held them: it would be too costly in terms of getting a return and would tie up the majority of the British Army in a constant occupation campaign.

umm... how? at the time being talked about the US would have a MASSIVE trained reserve.

The British couldnt have done what you are suggesting during the civil war with the south on there side and a USA who hadnt fought a true war in decades.

saying the British could even conquer the coast of the USA is quite laughable... Seriously the British couldnt even dream of matching the manpower or the trained reserves of the USA at this time.

really the British couldnt match any major land power... If the British attempted it would easily be defeated... The British simply did not have the manpower to even hope to defeat the USA on the USAs turf at the time.

suggesting they could conquer the population centers is rather laughable

[Dr. Croccer]

Imperialist Powers always aimed at disorganized and loosely arranged enemies that didn't really portray a threat(''imperialist conquest'' was a ''calculated conquest''). The USA was an Industrial Powerhouse and both a large manpower base from were to draw recruits and a centralized government to organize armed resistance.

No. The US wasn't an industrial powerhouse, far from it. The American arms industry was so small that both sides had to import huge amounts of rifles and ammunition during the Civil War. Around one in three rifles used in that conflict were foreign.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Being an Industrial Powerhouse is not the same as having an Industrial Military Complex(which would not happen up until after the Second World War).

By the 1870's and 1880's the Second Industrial Revolution in America was at full speed, I think they called it the Gilded Age.

[Dr. Croccer]

Being an Industrial Powerhouse is not the same as having an Industrial Military Complex(which would not happen up until after the Second World War).

By the 1870's and 1880's the Second Industrial Revolution in America was at full speed, I think they called it the Gilded Age.

America wasn't anywhere near the level of industrialisation as Britain was until 1890.

[Claudius Gothicus]

America wasn't anywhere near the level of industrialisation as Britain was until 1890.

And where did I say it was? I'm just arguing that Industrial Nations do not screwed each other directly(because of the immensely big costs of waging conquest wars against each other, as I said earlier Imperialist Conquests were Rational Conquests).

That's why It took more than 40 years for the Belle Epoque to blow up in the air. As long as they could wage imperial domination against less developed areas of the world or simply trade with them(like it happened in the Southern Cone) it was all cool.

[Erebus Pasha]

umm... how? at the time being talked about the US would have a MASSIVE trained reserve.

The British couldnt have done what you are suggesting during the civil war with the south on there side and a USA who hadnt fought a true war in decades.

saying the British could even conquer the coast of the USA is quite laughable... Seriously the British couldnt even dream of matching the manpower or the trained reserves of the USA at this time.

really the British couldnt match any major land power... If the British attempted it would easily be defeated... The British simply did not have the manpower to even hope to defeat the USA on the USAs turf at the time.

suggesting they could conquer the population centers is rather laughable

What manpower and trained reserves? The size of the US Army from the 1870's until WW1 was quite small. Good enough for dealing with Plains Indians and, in the late 1890's, the Spanish but could it necessarily deal with a first rate power - who knows? The American Civil War left many scars, scars which didn't begin to heal until a couple of decades after that war ended. On the eve of the Spanish-American War the US Army's strength was only 28,000 men and was short on supplies. Therefore the US would be hugely reliant on volunteers and on mobilizing it's National Guard. This is not to say that the US would be defeated - far from it, but it was hardly some sleeping behemoth waiting to be awoken during the late nineteenth century. It's military strength was far from overwhelming, and it's industrial potential was still waiting to be fully realised.

Mind you this alternative history, and therefore just a bit of fun. Despite minor tensions here and there there was little chance of the two countries going to war during the late nineteenth century. What Claudius Gothicus suggested in his last post is pretty much spot on, not to mention the important financial and trade investments the British had in North America and the fact that the US was a major supplier of grain to the UK at the time.

[jermagon]

and why the British empire invades America? by 1870 th British ruled the biggest empire in history, and it's easy to win against iron age nations than to fight the Americans on their ground.

[visser300]

Being an Industrial Powerhouse is not the same as having an Industrial Military Complex(which would not happen up until after the Second World War).

By the 1870's and 1880's the Second Industrial Revolution in America was at full speed, I think they called it the Gilded Age.

I agree. Look at China before 1950s. They owned a vast number of lands and population yet their army was no match with Imperial Japan.

[Dr. Croccer]

And where did I say it was? I'm just arguing that Industrial Nations do not screwed each other directly(because of the immensely big costs of waging conquest wars against each other, as I said earlier Imperialist Conquests were Rational Conquests).

You said it was an ''industrial powerhouse'', which is not true. By 1870 the US was still an overwhelmingly agrarian economy, geared towards supplying Europe with resources.

That's why It took more than 40 years for the Belle Epoque to blow up in the air. As long as they could wage imperial domination against less developed areas of the world or simply trade with them(like it happened in the Southern Cone) it was all cool.

Not really. The main thing that prevented war before WWI was diplomacy and geopolitical manouvering. After Germany lost it's edge and both sides became equal again, the tensions started to rise.

[conon394]

No. The US wasn't an industrial powerhouse, far from it. The American arms industry was so small that both sides had to import huge amounts of rifles and ammunition during the Civil War. Around one in three rifles used in that conflict were foreign.

You said it was an ''industrial powerhouse'', which is not true. By 1870 the US was still an overwhelmingly agrarian economy, geared towards supplying Europe with resources.

Oh Dr Crocccer that's a bit of Sophism. Say rather the US was overwhelmingly rural, and that does not preclude also being a industrial powerhouse. The US still have vast amounts of untapped natural resources so yes it was a vast supplier of such too Europe (and also itself...)

Using Kenndy's figures (Rise and Fall of the Great Powers pg149) for share of World Manufacturing Output:

1860 UK 19.9 US 7.2 (third only France with 7.8 is better) *
1880 UK 22.9 US 14.7 (second)

* I'm ignoring the figure for China

On balance from the OP date of 1870 the US was very likely the second larges manufacture in the world - smaller than the UK true, but than again more self sufficient and with a larger population (excluding colonial subjects).

The figure on Civil War guns is a bit of slight of hand is it not? The CSA was hardly the manufacturing center of the USA, and so of course it needed imports. Second the US had no military industrial complex if you will having only a tiny army meant no vast network of Government or private contractors ready to make tons of guns. In the sort run both sides did import anything and everything they could as sooon as it became clear a real long term nasty war was a reality. However, by the middle to end of the War the Union was quite able to arm itself and often with weapons quite bit more advanced than the UK was using (Spencer repeater for example).

As an aside did you know the UK bought gunpowder from DuPont during the Crimean war - I don't suppose you would see that as an Indication of US industrial ascendency in the mid 1850s.

So sure during 1870-1890 (and even 1900) the UK still was more urbanized, mostly had the larger manufacturing economy (but by a shrinking margin), and did convert far more of its resources into an actual military establishment. In addition the UK could draw on the manpower of India and its colonies but at some risk. It had rivals in Europe, and it had colonial issues, could it really sustain an attack on the second largest industrial power in 1870 ->, one that was far more self sufficient and fighting on the defensive?