A U.S.-British War in 1895-1896

I think it would be a fairly limited war as its in neither sides interest for a full scale conflict. [Having said that and skimed through the 1st part of the Wiki page the US was definitely in an aggressive mood so it could have gone further but still suspect common sense would have won out].

In the event of a limited war, if say the US had supported the full Venezuelan claim then Britain would win in the shorter term, simply because of the massive superiority of the RN. However given the mood in the US this might see an earlier decision to challenge the RN which would have wide ranging impacts on world affairs.

If things went totally to hell and you got an all out slog then difficult to say.

  For the US by this time:
a)  Its surpassed the UK in sheer industrial strength and also has a larger population, I think ~70M to ~45M, although that excludes the empire and Canada [the only dominion at this stage].  Also the US population probably has a better level of technical education by this time.
b)  Its in most ways economically self-sufficient.
c)  It has its centre of power in the main theatre of war, whereas the main centre of power for the empire is across the Atlantic so Britain has to ship men and supplies across the ocean.  [Although with the massive merchant marine available for Britain and modern technology this is not as great a problem as in earlier decades].
d)  America has no threats to its borders whereas Britain has to consider potential local threats to the homeland, which at this point really means France, and assorted parts of the empire [which could be Russia, France, China, the Boers, possibly even Germany and assorted potential internal threats].

  For the UK
a)  It has the RN which means it can seek to blockade at least partially the US and protect British trade.  Also to support opertions by the army.
b)  It has a much larger starting armyto provide troops almost immediately, whereas the US has to start pretty much from scratch.  As the Boer war OTL showed the army has problems, having not faced a major opponent since the Russians in the Crimean and has been mainly involved in colonial conflicts.  [On the other hand the same could be said about the US army at this time].
c)  While having to transfer large forces to N America is a problem it does also mean that assorted bases, in Canada, Bermuda and the Carribean can be used to operate against the US while, unless it gets a major European ally the US can't itself threaten the British homeland.
d)  The US will have funding problems as the vast majority of its money comes from import tariffs, which are going to largely disappear once full scale war starts as Britain can blockade a lot of imports.  It can find other internal sources but unlike Britain the US is used to very low taxes so this will be a bigger burden on American society.
e)  Possibly the most important military problem for the US is that explosives of this time are produced from nitrates, which are largely from guano from islands in the south Pacific.  Britain has strong influences in Chile, the main producer and also with its navy could probably greatly restrict any imports directly.  As such the US could find itself rapidly running out of explosives and possibly even being forced to revert to the far less efficent black powder [i.e. gunpowder].
f)  The US has a strong sense of manifest destiny at this point and many may have a desire for expansion while there is an history of Anglophobia.  However a lot of its citizens [along with quite a number of residental non-citizens] are likely not to be happy with a bloody war, especilly if it means attempts at conscription.  Let alone those with British/Canadian links either blood or economical.]

  As such a major, all-out war could go either way.  Britain should have the edge but neither side is likely to really hurt the other and this could be reversed  by a big difference in the quality of leadership or if a major European power was to ally with the US.  This latter is unlikely probably given the historical American weakness in diplomacy but not impossible and simply threatening manouvering by another power without actual conflict could cause Britain a lot of problems.

  The main factor in such a big war would probably be the willingness [or not] of both societies to endure a long and costly conflict.

  You saw only the 1st part of my post as it somehow - some finger problems I presume posted before complete.

  I suspect that no European powers would be drawn in, at least initially.  Their too busy watching each other and have other fish to fry.  [Assorted colonial expansions as the scramble for Africa and the Pacific comes to an end].

  If they did, at this point, before Wilhelm II really upsets people British relations are probably better with Germany than with France plus Victoria is still alive and while Willy had a love-hate relationship with Britain he definitely seemed to love his grandma.   Also about this time Germany was the most aggressive of several European powers with regards to outstanding debts by Venezuela.  [Actually this was later than I thought, in 1902-03, when I checked it up.]  Slightly earlier it clashed with the US over Saoma and the US taking over Spanish possessions so if the Anglo-American conflict drew in the European powers I suspect its more likely Britain would be allied with Germany and Austria and the US with France and Russia.  Especially when you add in historical links between the US and France.

  The dangerous bit might be if France supported the US but Germany decided to sit the conflict out.  However not sure how likely this is?

  One result of the conflict is that a number of OTL events are likely to not occur or be changed/delayed.  For instance the Spanish/American war, Kitcheners Sudan expedition and the following Fashoda crisis.  The 2nd Boer war might not occur or could be in different circumstances and what happens to the Boxer uprising if the Anglo0-American conflict is still ongoing then?  Japan might gain more from its victory over China if the war starts early enough or could possibly be drawn into an earlier war with Russia if a major European conflict starts.

  If you get a mechanism for accessing different times in parallel Earth's by all means and I would love to hear your report but OTL was bad enough.

  Something like that but you would really need to have it a hell of a lot more controllable than in that series.

  Since it was a US series would I be right in assuming the resultant world - or at least the N American part of it - was a repressive hell hole?

  It doesn't sound that great with a lack of democracy and arbitary rule by the sound of it.

  I think the only published TL I've read which sees no American revolution or its defeat as basically a good thing is the "The Two Georges", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges.  Correction there was also "For Want of a Nail", although that had some very dubious events espeically in the many non-butterflies elsewhere and the isolation of British North America from the rest of the world.