As Mr. Frink suggested, the British global empire in 1776, while in existance, was not yet dominant. It is fact interesting that at the same time Britain was losing the 13 colonies, it was winning the decisive phase of its struggle for dominance in India, seeting the stage for its new renaissance.
In response to aahala, the reason for the non-decisive involvement of the British navy in 1812 had to due to committments elsewhere ( I forget the exact numbers, but I belive Britain fielded something like 800 warships to the U.S.'s 12 ). It was purely a sideshow. In 1776, you had one of those extremely rare moments in history where France had very temporarily gained naval superiority ( or at least parity ) and in concert with Spain put enough pressure on the West Indies and provided enough of a threat to the Channel defenses to prevent the British fleet from deploying fully in the American theatre.
As to the Op, I think it is unanswerable in those terms, unless, as others have pointed out, we define what beating the other in a fight would entail. But I agree the British fleet was dominant until WW I and one of the most dominant until WW II. Somewhere in that period, world power started shifting heavily in favor of the the U.S. and it was confirmed by the mid-1940’s.
A case could be made that the War of 1812 ended in a stalemate. Certainly the U.S. territorial designs on Canada, were militarily thwarted, Washington D.C. was burned, Detroit surrendered.
(tho American political aims as far as 2nd War Independence, incl. free navigation and Neutrality were achieved in the Treaty of Ghent).
How the Hell this is apropos to the OP: I think the War of 1812 helps makes the case that others in this thread have already made: that a Military INVASION of either Country would not bring military victory and would, in the end, result in stalemate and withdrawal of the invader at least since 1815.
As for invasion and conquest, 1812. Britain may have handily won if it wasn’t fighting a major war against France at the same time. The USA came very close to being defeated or at least greatly weakened and divided. After that period, it is hard to call until after World War II.
I believe Britain is still more than capable of defending its own territory. I remember reading that during WWII, the British contemplated going all out in arming the population and using any weapon - even chemical or biological - if Nazi Germany landed on the shore. The Germans were wary of all out resistance and called off “Operation Sea Lion”, and I believe the United States would come to a similar conclusion, and not invade, if indeed Eddie Izzard managed to provoke open warfare.
The War of 1812 did not end in a stalemate. Had Jackson lost at the Battle of New Orleans, Great Britain would have split the country in two. America at the time did not have the military might nor the wherewithal to mount a counter-offensive.
Except that this battle occurred AFTER the war had officially ended. Even then, I don’t believe it would have happened. Attrition would have taken its toll. The brits burned Washington, but had to get out of there pretty quickly afterward. Baltimore proved to be a harder target. I believe we returned the favor to Toronto. Or was it Montreal?
GB had the fight of its life with Napoleon at the time. Enough that it was impressing (forceably drafting) our merchant sailors to help them. We were small change.
The British army that went to France in 1914 at the out break of the First World War (also fairly called The World War, Part One) was a mere six or eight divisions and was greatly dependent on the French for logistical support. The dispatch of the BEF to France pretty well depleted the home forces. Admittedly there were considerable forces overseas, especially in India and Africa but those were needed to keep the natives, and in South Africa the Boers, in order. The volunteer force and the conscripted armies raised in the next year or so were huge by prewar standards but were throughly tied up in Europe, as were Commonwealth forces. The point is that in 1914 Britain did not have an army that could engage an industrial power, even one with the puny standing army maintained by the US. The thought that the British army was capable of taking on, defeating and occupying a continental nation in 1913-1914 is silly.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Pakenham had defeated Jackson at New Orleans in 1815 and occupied the mouth of the Mississippi the fine people of Texas would be celebrating the Queen’s Jubilee, Treaty of Paris or no Treaty of Paris. Remember that in 1814 Napoleon had abdicated for the first time and that he did not return to France until the next spring. The Battle of Waterloo was fought in June 1815 and Napoleon was off to St. Helena 30 days of so later. The British armed forces, including the superb Royal Navy, had nothing to distract them from the task of closing off the Mississippi and extending British power into the largely unoccupied Mississippi Valley. The probable result would have been a United States confined to the area east of the Appalachians. Britain had taken control of the Great Lakes until the Battle of Put-In-Bay and it would have been a pretty simple matter to reestablish that control once the Ohio and Illinois country was deprived of its trade with New Orleans.
Once the Cotton Belt and the Northwest Territory and the Missouri Valley was occupied, no foreign power had a ghost of a chance to drive the Americans out. The only chance was to occupy the area, and especially New Orleans and St. Louis, before the Americans were in firm possession. Both Napoleon and Hitler learned that it was futile to try to defeat a continental power when they took on Russia. An occupation of the United States offered the same problems and worse problems because of the need to carry everything needed across the Atlantic.
I agree you could make the case that the Brits “won” the War of 1812, at least I can’t say that is completely CRAZY.
I disagree however with what your assessment of what went on at New Orleans .
A. I don’t think the British aim was to march up the Mississippi to actually cut the U.S. in two. Rather, the war was stalemated, at this point it was clear they weren’t going to win (& neither were the Americans). What they hoped to do was seize New Orleans and so control trade on the Mississippi, menace the Gulf and deny the U.S. those abilities.
Famously, they did not know that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed. The Treay, which provided for the restoration of conquests, rendered any victory they would have had as useless as Gen. Jacksons was militarily.
B. I am surprised you think the U.S. wouldn’t have any power to counter attack. Especially given that the British three part invasion (Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain and New Orleans) had already failed on two fronts when the British invasion force of 10,000 men retreated to Canada after the Naval loss in Lake Champlain, and after the failure to take Baltimore, the expeditionary force evacuated (after burning Washington). So the U.S. at one point facing a three front War had won on two fronts – how would they be unable to regroup and push the British out even if Jackson had lost? (Sincerely am interested in your ideas – not meant hostily)
Through most of the 1800s, America could have been Britain’s VietNam: something that Britain SHOULD have been able to win, but where instead Britain ends up dumping lots of resources into an unpopular war, while the enemy American combatants live off the land and keep moving further west or otherwise disappearing into the landscape. I think this assumes Britain’s inability to form lasting alliances with native American Indian nations/tribes, and also assumes that they would find it difficult and prohibitively expensive to hold the entire eastern coast.
Meanwhile, playing it another way, America is equipped for two simultaneous “police action” sized military escapades. Let’s say for the sake of argument that America gets increasingly heavy-handed and militaristic and invades Iraq and finds to its surprise that a lot of Islamic resources are flooding to the military aid of Iraq, even Iran and Turkey; meanwhile, America declares that Al-Qaeda forces have been allowed to build up within Libya, and America invades there as well. Nigeria is declared to be providing military aid and America begins attacking Nigeria, too. In the course of all this activity, America interferes with various international shipping and air traffic and favors in an unfair way any nations helping them attach existing governments in these countries, and at some point royally pisses off the UK. The UK lands with both feet in one of the regional conflicts, the UN and NATO step back and either declare neutrality or side with the UK. The US, unable to pull away from its other simultaneous adventures, gets its butt kicked in that theater and learns some mortal humility.
Right, which was why I brought it up. One the Union got into full Civil War swing, it could have smoked those 14,000 without too much trouble. I’m thinking about those crucial early months before the Union built up sufficient manpower and acquired any good generals when a quick strike by experienced British troops could have gotten grabby with New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, if not Washington DC. Confronting Lincoln with a two-front war, the British might have been able to force him into a less-than-favourable deal, maybe making him give up certain western territories.
The western border might not now be the 39th parallel, but the Columbia river. And while we’re playing alternate history, imagine the political crap Lincoln would suffer in losing a territory (Washington) named for the nation’s founder. He’d lose the 1864 election to McLelland, who would settle with the Confederates…
Anyhoo, 1861 represents the last time there were sizable numbers of British troops in North America and before American industrial capacity, stimulated by war, became unbeatable.
I’m curious as to why you think a coastal blockade in 1913 would have worked?
At that time, the US was probably more self-sufficient than it is now, and had the resources of an entire continent to support itself. Granted that air power wasn’t impressive anywhere, but it would have given us a great incentive to improve the technology in order to jump over the blockade.
Also - the UK would have had to blockade BOTH the Atlantic and the Pacific. That’s a huge pile of coastline. Could the UK have blockaded all of Europe in 1913? If not, then it couldn’t blockade the entire US, either.
I wasn’t thinking of us invading the US (How’s that for a confusing sentence?). We haven’t been able to do that for a very long time. Its too big and there are too many yanks to take on.
I was thinking along the lines of a serious dispute that escalated into a shooting war (a trade dispute perhaps or an arguement over territory eg Jamaica). When was the last time that Britain could have brought the USA to heel?
I’m sticking with 1913, when our naval power could have caused such disruption and damage to US coastal cities as to cause the USA to sue for peace.
The USA would have been unable to retaliate, as it would have no means of reaching Britain (although it could have made life entertaining for Canada).
Also; we are always taught that we weren’t that fussed about losing the colonies as they were far from the jewel in the crown. THe places we cared most about were India, Jamaica (and surrounding islands) and Southern Africa. As that’s where the money was.
If we had the support of the nation? Hell yes. Would we, of course not, but that’s not the point. Let me assure you, as an Army transporter, that it is considerably easier to launch a cross-Atlantic campaign now than it was in 1776.
I’ll give you an example: The US has not fought on its own soil in well over 100 years. Are you saying that US actions in WWII were not easier than the British had it in 1776? If a division was decimated in the Revolutionary War, the British didn’t even FIND OUT about it for several months…let alone have time to regroup and send replacements. Now, we could have a new division on the ground with full equipment in less than 30 days.
Think of the US in Japan…hell, that was across the PACIFIC…and we still won.
Also, do not fail to remember that the US has a considerably large European presence, and would not even need to move very much to begin an invasion…there are tons of units in Germany (I’ll be there soon), and elsewhere in Europe…by the time they needed reinforcements, several CONUS units could be deployed to France (or by that time, a port in the UK itself), and could begin the true attack. Would it be a tough fought war…sure, but to claim that it’d be as hard as a cross-Atlantic fight in 1776 is ludicrous.
FWIW, in the late 1800’s and first decade of the 1900’s, a string of gun positions were build on the Potomac for defending against an invader attempting to come up-river against Washington, D.C. AFAIK, this action was not done with the UK specifically in mind but rather with the idea of any European nation that might get into it with the US over anything, and catch the US fleet away from the Chesapeake area or defeat it badly enough to prevent the enemy from doing as was generally done in the War of 1812-1814. The thought behind this would seem to be no radio communications, no air recon, and no US Navy as it was to become after Theodore Roosevelt’s building program.
TR’s capital ship building program really helped US industry develop the capacity to produce large, heavy items such as would be needed for battleships, but also heavy equipment for land armies worthy of a major power of the day.
I really think to answer the OP we should re-frame the question as when the US Army and the US Navy were on par with the deployable forces of the major powers of the day. For the purposes of the question, we shouldn’t consider the “deployable” US forces (which in any case were essentially non-existent until 1918, and then not again until 1942), or the distant-action capabilities of the USN, as the question infers a war against the US rather than by it against others.