In the unlikely event of a late British entry into the American Civil War, could the United States unambiguously win?

[the Imperium of Canada]

So most 1860s Third Anglo American War discussions and TLs usually go with a PoD in 1861 or 1862, such as the ever-popular Trent Affair escalates premise. Usually the conclusion reached is that the United States simply loses or is forced to make a separate peace with the British for a whole number of reasons. So to change that up a bit, what happens in the event of war breaking out much later into the ACW?

Of course this is extremely unlikely, but let's just suppose that, say, the St. Albans Raid incident somehow ends up escalating to the point where war breaks out in late 1864. So given the vastly different circumstances compared to something like a Trent War, does the United States actually have of chance of unambiguously winning, like say, forcing the British to cede parts of Canada during peace talks if things actually manage to drag out long enough for something like that to even be on the table?

 

[HB of CJ]

By late 1864 the USA had very large and powerful land and sea forces. The British would have to cross the Atlantic ocean to engage on land while the USA would practically be fighting next door. As a coastal defense force the USN would be difficult to defeat. I suppose it would depend upon how badly the USA wanted outright victory as opposed to an armistice.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The St Albans raid made Canadian public opinion go from pro-Union to even more pro-Union, and most Canadians (rightly) condemned it as an attempt to draw them into a war against the side they favored. That late in the war, there's a decent chance that the USA forces Britain off of North America. The USA would probably not annex Ontario or Quebec; Lincoln is not going to do so over the objections of the local populace, so in the event of a US victory, "Canada" would gain independence earlier. British America (aside from Ontario and Quebec) could either join "Canada" or the USA. If "Canada" (ie Ontario and Quebec) splits into two countries, one Anglophone and one Francophone, then the Maritimes would most likely join the USA while the western provinces could join either the USA or Ontario.

At this point the US Navy is strong enough that the odds would favor them in coastal waters, so the Royal Navy would probably not be able to lift the blockade. They could try setting up a blockade of their own by intercepting ships on the high seas, but if they do that I think the USA would stay in the fight until Britain is forced to give up Halifax, in order to prevent Britain from ever using it as a naval base again.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Of course this is extremely unlikely, but let's just suppose that, say, the St. Albans Raid incident somehow ends up escalating to the point where war breaks out in late 1864. So given the vastly different circumstances compared to something like a Trent War, does the United States actually have of chance of unambiguously winning, like say, forcing the British to cede parts of Canada during peace talks if things actually manage to drag out long enough for something like that to even be on the table?

No I don't. The US had very large forces by 1864, but by international standards their quality wasn't very high: their soldiers weren't well-trained in marksmanship (200 yards was considered a long-range engagement in the American Civil War, whilst European forces would generally start shooting at 600 yards plus), and their navy was mostly either riverine craft or coastal defence vessels unsuited for open-seas combat.

The US military's sheer numbers probably mean that Britain isn't going to be occupying large swathes of land, but any invasion of Canada would just end up a bloody mess.

 

[mjwebb76]

I will first note that I find this tremendously implausible as the war was clearly lost by this point and Lincoln's re-election was highly likely. Furthermore, the Union Navy would have been at its peak. By contrast the Royal Navy would have been operating far from home ports (and many ships were wooden which would not have done well against the Iron Clads). As such, Palmerston would have no interest in allowing the St. Alban's raid to escalate (and indeed IOTL it did not). That said, if somehow Alt-Lord Palmerston says (with a maniacal laugh) "Now I can finally get those darn Americans!!!" it would at a minimum take several months to assembly any type of fleet and begin moving across the Atlantic etc. This means that Sherman takes Savanah, Richmond likely falls. While it is tempting to say that in this context Grant then brings troops to Canada I think this is implausible. The Union was deeply tired of the war and extending enlistments to march north would be deeply unpopular. Thus, I would foresee some type of negotiated peace, perhaps with a minor border adjustment or more likely some monetary compensation to make up for the madness of Alt-Lord Palmerston.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

I will first note that I find this tremendously implausible as the war was clearly lost by this point and Lincoln's re-election was highly likely. Furthermore, the Union Navy would have been at its peak. By contrast the Royal Navy would have been operating far from home ports (and many ships were wooden which would not have done well against the Iron Clads). As such, Palmerston would have no interest in allowing the St. Alban's raid to escalate (and indeed IOTL it did not). That said, if somehow Alt-Lord Palmerston says (with a maniacal laugh) "Now I can finally get those darn Americans!!!" it would at a minimum take several months to assembly any type of fleet and begin moving across the Atlantic etc. This means that Sherman takes Savanah, Richmond likely falls. While it is tempting to say that in this context Grant then brings troops to Canada I think this is implausible. The Union was deeply tired of the war and extending enlistments to march north would be deeply unpopular. Thus, I would foresee some type of negotiated peace, perhaps with a minor border adjustment or more likely some monetary compensation to make up for the madness of Alt-Lord Palmerston.

I think that would depend on just how far the Brits went down the rabbit hole. If it brings down the Palmerston government quickly enough, the Union would probably just settle for status quo antebellum. If the cabinet for some reason went all in (and didn't get ousted in a no confidence vote), then the Union would want to ensure Britain never has the opportunity to do something like that again. I wouldn't read too much into Irish American anti-draft sentiment. That would evaporate at the first sign of a British invasion.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Yes, I think so.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

That said, if somehow Alt-Lord Palmerston says (with a maniacal laugh) "Now I can finally get those darn Americans!!!" it would at a minimum take several months to assembly any type of fleet and begin moving across the Atlantic etc.

The British managed to move men and ships across to Canada pretty quickly during OTL's Trent crisis. That's the thing about ruling the largest colonial empire in history -- crises can flare up anywhere in the world, so you need to be able to respond quickly.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The British managed to move men and ships across to Canada pretty quickly during OTL's Trent crisis. That's the thing about ruling the largest colonial empire in history -- crises can flare up anywhere in the world, so you need to be able to respond quickly.

Britain didn't build the world's largest empire by sending the British army to fight peer level opponents on their own turf. They relied on arming local proxies as much as possible, and on fighting militarily weak unindustrialized populations (especially indigenous peoples). When fighting a peer-level opponent over colonies they relied on the Royal Navy to prevent the other side from moving troops.

The Royal Navy can't stop the movement of troops or supplies overland. The Union is not a militarily weak unindustrialized nation. The Confederacy was on the brink of defeat and breaking through the Union blockade to arm them wouldn't be a sure thing, even for the Royal Navy. The Canadians would fight to avoid being annexed, but if there's an option that involves neither fighting the USA nor being annexed by it, a lot of them will take it. There is such an option, independence, and Lincoln will go along with that the instant someone suggests it, assuming he doesn't propose it himself.

 

[Jedi Dragon]

The British wouldn't be stupid enough to get involved. They have nothing to gain from supporting a Confederacy that's clearly losing, especially given how supporting slaveholders would make them look. The Union would be tired of fighting, but a foreign invasion would probably re-invigorate the public. However, a white peace seems more likely than anyone losing land over something this obviously pointless.

 

[Wendell]

Not easily, but yes, probably.

 

[ghappy1000]

Or have a Trent-style incident involving British ships in late 1864.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Britain didn't build the world's largest empire by sending the British army to fight peer level opponents on their own turf. They relied on arming local proxies as much as possible, and on fighting militarily weak unindustrialized populations (especially indigenous peoples). When fighting a peer-level opponent over colonies they relied on the Royal Navy to prevent the other side from moving troops.

The point is that, if you have a globe-spanning empire, you need to be able to move troops and ships around quickly to deal with crises which, after all, could happen anywhere in the globe. You can't build or maintain such an empire if you take "several months" to assemble "any type of fleet", because chances are you'll already have lost by the time you get there.

The Canadians would fight to avoid being annexed, but if there's an option that involves neither fighting the USA nor being annexed by it, a lot of them will take it. There is such an option, independence, and Lincoln will go along with that the instant someone suggests it, assuming he doesn't propose it himself.

Firstly, the Canadians showed no signs of wanting independence during the historical Trent crisis, so why would their attitudes be so different just two years later?

Secondly, an independent Canada would be helpless in the face of future American aggression. They'd know this, and they'd also know that America was and always had been a very expansionistic state. Accordingly, there's every reason for them to suppose that declaring independence would, at best, only delay the fight with the USA for a few years, and would also make it much harder to win when it does occur.

Thirdly, it's hardly likely that the British would take the secession of one of their colonies lying down. IOW, the Canadians would now find themselves fighting the UK, which probably wouldn't be any more pleasant than fighting the US. So even on the terms of avoiding fighting in the short term, declaring independence wouldn't be a very good idea.

I know that many American posters here are unconscious believers in Manifest Destiny, but other countries don't exist simply to roll over for America's benefit as and when required.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The point is that, if you have a globe-spanning empire, you need to be able to move troops and ships around quickly to deal with crises which, after all, could happen anywhere in the globe. You can't build or maintain such an empire if you take "several months" to assemble "any type of fleet", because chances are you'll already have lost by the time you get there.

Even the Royal Navy can't move a force capable of taking on the Army of the Potomac that quickly.

Firstly, the Canadians showed no signs of wanting independence during the historical Trent crisis, so why would their attitudes be so different just two years later?

Because Britain would have just dragged them into a war they didn't want against the side they overwhelmingly favored.

They'd know this, and they'd also know that America was and always had been a very expansionistic state. Accordingly, there's every reason for them to suppose that declaring independence would, at best, only delay the fight with the USA for a few years, and would also make it much harder to win when it does occur.

All of the both of the wars between the USA and the colonies that became Canada arose out tensions between the USA and Britain. The ARW was a fight against Westminster and the Crown. The War of 1812 was primarily about the Royal Navy impressing American sailors. They have seen territorial disputes without Anglo-American tensions (Pig "War," disputes over Rupert's Land-Louisiana Territory boundary, etc) get resolved by arbitration and/or negotiation. This would be the third time Britain had instigated a major war with the Americans, which would again put them at risk of annexation unless they went for independence. Canadian security doctrine was essentially to scream bloody murder if Anglo-American tensions got too bad.

Thirdly, it's hardly likely that the British would take the secession of one of their colonies lying down. IOW, the Canadians would now find themselves fighting the UK, which probably wouldn't be any more pleasant than fighting the US. So even on the terms of avoiding fighting in the short term, declaring independence wouldn't be a very good idea.

Fighting for independence against a power on the other side of the Atlantic with your powerful neighbor as your ally is preferable to fighting against said powerful neighbor. The coastal areas would be at risk in the former case (though the US Navy would hold the edge in coastal waters). In the latter case, the entire US-Canadian border would be a war zone.

I know that many American posters here are unconscious believers in Manifest Destiny, but other countries don't exist simply to roll over for America's benefit as and when required.

Becoming an independent country is not rolling over for America's benefit, and we know their own writings that Canadians of the time overwhelmingly favored the Union cause, and that saw the St Albans Raid as an attempt to draw them into a war against the Union against their will. If you're referring to the fact that I said the Maritimes and the western provinces of BNA might join the Union, that's because in 1863-1865, there wasn't a fully formed sense of Canadian identity across all of British North America. The Confederation of Canada formed from Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes in 1867. Even then it took time for a sense of Canadian identity to firmly establish itself in the Maritimes and to spread to the western provinces of BNA. Ontario would not join the USA because of the War of 1812 and Quebec wouldn't join because it's ... well ... Quebec, but the Maritimes and the western provinces could go either way. Note that saying they could go either way means just that; they could also join Canada.

 

[brunohusker]

Depends how much Britain wants to put in towards the effort. Also as others have mentioned, the Army by 1864 was a large force and victory was more or less certain though no one knew how long it would take.

In a naval war, Britain has the advantage but on the ground they’d have it rough unless they can ship British and other colonial troops over. I think Britain’s best option would be to use the Navy to create a blockade and maybe have Canadians in the north cause trouble.

The only problem is that I feel as if the average working Briton wouldn’t support this. Most were against slavery and sure America wasn’t as close to Britain by a long shot, but I think you’d see working class revolts in the UK. In fact I wonder if in such a timeline where Britain and France help the CSA, they end up having more issues with workers, who feel their bosses are hypocrites for supporting liberty at home but not abroad. Maybe a communist Britain and France look more possible..

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Even the Royal Navy can't move a force capable of taking on the Army of the Potomac that quickly.

The Army of the Potomac is currently fully committed on the other side of the country. Granted the Confederacy is on its last legs by now, but when your entire military and logistics effort is pointing in one direction, it takes quite a lot of time to get it to point in another, especially with 19th century technology, and especially if you intend to go on the offensive in this new direction.

Because Britain would have just dragged them into a war they didn't want against the side they overwhelmingly favored.

Firstly, they overwhelmingly wanted the Union to win against the Confederacy. The Union vs. their own Mother Country is a very different kettle of fish entirely.

Secondly, if relations between America and the British Empire break down badly enough for Britain to declare war, you can't just assume that the Canadians would still support the Union, overwhelmingly or otherwise. In fact, it seems rather unlikely, since people don't generally wish well on countries they're about to go to war with.

Thirdly, this consideration would apply to a hypothetical Trent War just as much as a war in 1864. But in the historical crisis, there was no sign of any sort of secessionist upswell in Canada.

The War of 1812 was primarily about the Royal Navy impressing American sailors.

Yes, in the same way that the Second Gulf War was primarily about Saddam's weapon of mass destruction.

Becoming an independent country is not rolling over for America's benefit,

Declaring independence specifically to screw over a British war with America, when they'd shown no desire to do so at any point previously, kind of is. It's like how posters imagine that, in the event of a British intervention, some unspecified European country would join in on the Union side and force Britain to sue for peace, despite having nothing to gain from such a policy.

 

[Elfwine]

A question because I don't feel what I've read of Canadian history suggests any annexation of any of Canada by the US is likely or acceptable to the Canadians: Why would the Maritimes and the western provinces - regardless of how they feel about the other parts of (to use the term for simplicity) Canada - favor the US over the UK? It's one thing to not want to join Ontario, it's another thing entirely to want to have anything to do with the US in a scenario where it's a choice between the US and the UK.

And "Fighting for independence" implies some very strong desire for independence from the UK, to boot. If they're just trying not to be annexed by the US, that suggests staying close to the mother country - not striking out alone.

 

[SlickerVyn]

I actually did read a series with this premise, Britannia's Fist, which is very well researched. What ultimately causes the conflict is... well, miscommunication. A British company had been building a ship for the CSA, and so the US, having had enough, went to seize it. Unfortunately, the British also sent a ship to seize it, and both sides being under orders from their governments, ended up fighting each other. So yes, the CSA manage to drag Britain into the war thanks to some rich asshole who was sympathetic to the Confederate cause.

Ultimately America wins, but it's done realistically - America merely annexes the CSA and takes nothing from Britain, because they're just tired from war and neither side really wanted it in the first place. France actually tried to exert influence over New Orleans while 'helping' the CSA, but they ended up being kicked out of America as well. If anything, the war actually has greater consequences in Europe than it does in the US, as Prussia and Russia both take the chance to begin a war with France and Britain for their own designs - though we never find out what ended up happening.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Yes, in the same way that the Second Gulf War was primarily about Saddam's weapon of mass destruction.

Seeing as it is demonstrably true that Britain was impressing American sailors. That's bull. There is no historical evidence to suggest that Americans were not outraged by the practice of impressment and much evidence to the contrary.

A question because I don't feel what I've read of Canadian history suggests any annexation of any of Canada by the US is likely (or acceptable to the Canadians): Why would the Maritimes and the western provinces - regardless of how they feel about the other parts of (to use the term for simplicity) Canada - favor the US over the UK? It's one thing to not want to join Ontario, it's another thing entirely to want to have anything to do with the US in a scenario where it's a choice between the US and the UK.

And "Fighting for independence" implies some very strong desire for independence from the UK, to boot. If they're just trying not to be annexed by the US, that suggests staying close to the mother country - not striking out alone.

If they fight for Britain, then that would make annexation much more likely. Unless the Palmerston government negotiates a peace very quickly, the USA is not going to tolerate a threat on its northern border. Also independence is an option that doesn't involve joining the USA or remaining with the UK; it would just be BNA/Canada becoming its own country decades earlier than in OTL.

Declaring independence specifically to screw over a British war with America, when they'd shown no desire to do so at any point previously, kind of is. It's like how posters imagine that, in the event of a British intervention, some unspecified European country would join in on the Union side and force Britain to sue for peace, despite having nothing to gain from such a policy.

Who said anything about doing it to screw over Britain? I said doing it aligns with Canada's own interests at this point. 19th century Canadians aren't going to be looking to join American fantasies of Manifest Destiny but they're not going to be trying to fulfill Britwank fantasies about "Putting the yanks in their place" at the height of British imperial power either. That is what independence means.

 

[Elfwine]

If they fight for Britain, then that would make annexation much more likely. Unless the Palmerston government negotiates a peace very quickly, the USA is not going to tolerate a threat on its northern border. Also independence is an option that doesn't involve joining the USA or remaining with the UK; it would just be BNA/Canada becoming its own country decades earlier than in OTL.

I'm not sure how "the "USA is not going to tolerate X" has much weight when it is a noticeably weaker power than the British Empire. Not so much that I think the US is going to be crushed and pulverized, but enough that it's pretty hard to see it forcing Britain to hand over parts of Canada in a situation where a war has broken out (as distinct from other situations where Britain preferred border adjustments to war).

.Also independence is an option that doesn't involve joining the USA or remaining with the UK; it would just be BNA/Canada becoming its own country decades earlier than in OTL.

It's an option that would require a very strong desire for independence from the UK considering the downsides to doing so at this point.