Is American Canada the American Equivalent of Sealion?

[Saphroneth]

In that case, all the Americans need to do is build a half-decent navy to succeed I suppose. But do you agree that if the Americans could take Halifax the British cannot doo too much about it?

A half decent navy?
Try the world's biggest navy. They're going to have to outbuild the Royal Navy to win that kind of war.

I'm not sure either what you mean by "if the Americans could take Halifax the British cannot do too much about it" - if the Americans can take Halifax, the British can surely just take it back again with their giant navy and not inconsequentially sized army.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

In that case, all the Americans need to do is build a half-decent navy to succeed I suppose. But do you agree that if the Americans could take Halifax the British cannot doo too much about it?

Building that navy is easier said than done. Then it has to defeat the RN at sea, which is again easier said than done. Marching overland to Halifax from Maine is basically impossible, and any army which managed to land would be forced to lay siege to the city. Then of course they must try and prevent the British from coming back.

There's quite a bit the Beitish can do about it if they so choose.

 

[RodentRevolution]

In that case, all the Americans need to do is build a half-decent navy to succeed I suppose. But do you agree that if the Americans could take Halifax the British cannot doo too much about it?

The problem is that building a "half-decent navy" is the work of decades, typically at least two and by that stage the British have moved the goalposts which they did repeatedly right up until the 1920s at the earliest or even the 1930 at the latest.

As to Halifax if you can take it you have to hold it and if it were that easy to take the first British relief convoy with its accompanying battleships would roll right over it.

To take Halifax you need a good navy in order to be able to escort, land and support once in place good siege artillery and since siege artillery cannot take forts by themselves you need good assault troops who will also need supplies and they need time...because sieges are not quick against near modern defences as Halifax's were due to a continuous cycle of upgrades.

So even if say you somehow smash all those defences and the garrison troops you then have the British arrive and land troops under covering fire from their own battle squadron at least and you have the defences you just smashed up to fall back into.

And the British cannot do much equates to cutting off US trade with the rest of the World until into the C20th at least and that provided far more to the US economy than Canada ever would, even assuming and that is not guaranteed, the British would leave it at that which is unlikely for most of the C19th at least.

 

[Dave Howery]

No it's not if anything it's asb that america had such positive relations with the british.

didn't economics have a lot to do with that? The USA/Canadians/UK were mostly all from the same stock and tied up a lot of trade with each other.

 

[David T]

It seems to me that there's really no good time for the US to conquer Canada. If it seizes it in 1775, then they're driven out a few months later by British forces. The Napoleonic Wars would require the US to at least get a major military complex prior to the war; which would only come about if you had pro-British Federalists in charge.

The Civil War? Eh...

Short of something like TL 191, this seems to be a surprisingly low probability.

As I note at https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9513791&postcount=1 it was perfectly possible for the US to have obtained southern Ontario in the Treaty of Paris. Bradford Perkins has argued that if that had happened, "The future of Canada would have been extremely problematic, American sovereignty over the entire Canadian west very likely."

 

[sloreck]

If the UK wants to hold on to the Maritimes, the 19th century US really can't stop it. If the War of 1812 results in significant US forces in Canada AND the USA offer Quebec independence (not unreasonable as the US would not want a large non-English speaking Catholic population), this cuts off the UK from everything west of Quebec - and lets assume some of Ontario which is majority Francophone goes to Quebec. The USA lets Hudson's Bay Company keep a trading monopoly for a while. Now the USA includes everything from the western half of Ontario to the BC mountains. This is almost literally a terra nullis - nobody but Indians there and a few trappers. While BC/Victoria are almost completely empty, again except for natives, I expect the UK will want to keep the coastal areas for the RN if no other reason.

Absent the UK becoming an ally of the CSA as in the BROS timeline or the CSA wins type scenarios, the natural affinities of the USA & UK I don't see how the US decides to try and take Canada. The ability of the RN to trash US trade trumps any gain by the USA for taking Canada (doable but why in most scenarios).

 

[Caesar Biden]

Not ASB at all. What people seem to forget is that although the British had the largest Navy and a good Army, they also had interests spread around the world. The Britain of the mid 1800s (which is when I would assume this would take place) couldn't very well pull troops out of India or Ireland or they'd be facing revolt on their hands.

On the other side, you only need to look at the Civil War to see the kinds of men the United States could muster when it wanted to. In addition, the British are not going to be able to blockade any post Mexican-American War USA with impunity- it's a long coastline with a lot of production. And again, the British have to protect their interests elsewhere.

So once you get into the mid-1800s, the Americans can win this hypothetical War handily- because Wars do not exist in a vacuum.

 

[thekingsguard]

What about more peaceful methods?

The Hudson Bay Company could offer to sell to the United States rather than the British Crown.

The USA could get the whole of Oregon Country, and upon purchasing Alaska, has denied British North America a Pacific Coast.

The US accepts British Columbia instead of cash settlement as indemnity for the Trent affair.

Heck, have the Ontario Peninsula ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris like Ben Franklin wanted - that rips the heart of Modern Canada out and hews it to the side of the USA as firmly as Kentucky. British North America is left to Quebec, the Maritimes and whatever the HBC holds with nothing to link them. At that point, the Brits are likely to sell them to the US or use them as negotiating chips.

 

[Lateknight]

didn't economics have a lot to do with that? The USA/Canadians/UK were mostly all from the same stock and tied up a lot of trade with each other.

Yes the british used a mixture of overt and underhanded force to ensure they remained America's main trading partner.

 

[Saphroneth]

Not ASB at all. What people seem to forget is that although the British had the largest Navy and a good Army, they also had interests spread around the world. The Britain of the mid 1800s (which is when I would assume this would take place) couldn't very well pull troops out of India or Ireland or they'd be facing revolt on their hands.

On the other side, you only need to look at the Civil War to see the kinds of men the United States could muster when it wanted to. In addition, the British are not going to be able to blockade any post Mexican-American War USA with impunity- it's a long coastline with a lot of production. And again, the British have to protect their interests elsewhere.

So once you get into the mid-1800s, the Americans can win this hypothetical War handily- because Wars do not exist in a vacuum.

What do you mean, pull troops out of Ireland? Ireland was really very placid (relatively speaking) in this time period, and indeed provided large numbers of volunteers for the armies of Empire.
And the British home army (not in the colonies or in India) was quite large, as was the Militia (think national guard, complete with wholesale enlistment in the regular army under wartime conditions.)

Thing is, any pre-1860s war would result in the South going gaga. (Expansion of free soil?) And 1860-1890 the US's problem is that the Brits have a huge navy without trying financially.

To give some idea of how much the UK was coasting during the 1860s, in terms of funding, the Crimean War and Indian Rebellion debt was so very paid down ~1860 that Palmerston seriously considered abolishing income tax for simple lack of need.
By contrast, the US debt from the ACW took decades to painstakingly pay down. (Mainly by growing the economy so the % of GDP went down.)

 

[Lateknight]

I've always thought much of 19th and 20th century Anglo-American history makes more sense if you see it as Britain and America recognising how fundamentally similar they are to the other power and desperately scrabbling to differentiate themselves.

1812 America: "King George is the same bloodthirsty authoritarian tyrant we overthrew before! Good luck in your invasion of Russia, Emperor Napoleon!"

1854 America: "It's disgusting how the upper classes of Britain tyrannise the lower! Hopefully Autocrat of All the Russias Nicholas I and his army of serfs will give them what for!"

1866 Britain: "The £7 borough rental* franchise would open the floodgates of democracy and throw the country into the unsteady hands of the working classes! £6 rating* is a far safer measure!"

*If you're curious as to what these terms mean, I suggest you forget it and go enjoy the sunshine.

It's cloudy today where I am so this post makes no sense.

 

[Faeelin]

Conquer? Perhaps unlikely, but American Canada itself? Not really. A harsher occupation of Quebec after the 7 Year War and maybe Quebec voluntarily joins in the rebellion when it hits.

The problem with this is that a different Quebec Act seems to have a lot of butterflies, including the outcome fo the Revolution.

 

[Caesar Biden]

What do you mean, pull troops out of Ireland? Ireland was really very placid (relatively speaking) in this time period, and indeed provided large numbers of volunteers for the armies of Empire.
And the British home army (not in the colonies or in India) was quite large, as was the Militia (think national guard, complete with wholesale enlistment in the regular army under wartime conditions.)

Thing is, any pre-1860s war would result in the South going gaga. (Expansion of free soil?) And 1860-1890 the US's problem is that the Brits have a huge navy without trying financially.

To give some idea of how much the UK was coasting during the 1860s, in terms of funding, the Crimean War and Indian Rebellion debt was so very paid down ~1860 that Palmerston seriously considered abolishing income tax for simple lack of need.
By contrast, the US debt from the ACW took decades to painstakingly pay down. (Mainly by growing the economy so the % of GDP went down.)

And in each of those wars, the British barely committed a fraction of the Hundreds of Thousands of Soldiers the US armed and trained. It's impossible for the British to hold Canada. They may be able to hole up around the Maritimes and Halifax, but everything West of that is going to fall to American forces. There is no easy system of transportation that can bring the British into the Inner continent, at least not one that doesn't rely on American Rails.

 

[Saphroneth]

And in each of those wars, the British barely committed a fraction of the Hundreds of Thousands of Soldiers the US armed and trained. It's impossible for the British to hold Canada. They may be able to hole up around the Maritimes and Halifax, but everything West of that is going to fall to American forces. There is no easy system of transportation that can bring the British into the Inner continent, at least not one that doesn't rely on American Rails.

Er... ships will get you as far as Montreal even without a St Lawrence Seaway.

 

[Faeelin]

Er... ships will get you as far as Montreal even without a St Lawrence Seaway.

Does this matter though? Ships could land the Allies in the Baltic, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea in WW2...

 

[robcraufurd]

To give some idea of how much the UK was coasting during the 1860s, in terms of funding, the Crimean War and Indian Rebellion debt was so very paid down ~1860 that Palmerston seriously considered abolishing income tax for simple lack of need.

Actually, Gladstone wanted to get rid of it because it would encourage the public finances to shrink: "how is the spirit of expenditure to be exorcised? ... I seriously doubt whether it will ever give place to the old spirit of economy, as long as we have the income-tax" That's right- in the 1860s the income tax was bringing in so much revenue that Gladstone wanted to abolish it before it corrupted the government like the Dark Side of the Force.

It's cloudy today where I am so this post makes no sense.

Neither do counties and boroughs, renting and rating, compounding, tenants-at-will, copyholders, leaseholders, 40-shilling freeholders, or any of Disraeli's fancy franchises. But, if the weather means the day's as bad as it's going to get for you, knock yourself out.

 

[MrNumbahOne]

No. During the negotiations for the Treaty of Paris, the British were willing to give away Canada (they didn't see the point of keeping it if they lost the Thirteen Colonies) and that was the original agreement before the British changed their minds and opted to keep it.

 

[RodentRevolution]

And in each of those wars, the British barely committed a fraction of the Hundreds of Thousands of Soldiers the US armed and trained. It's impossible for the British to hold Canada. They may be able to hole up around the Maritimes and Halifax, but everything West of that is going to fall to American forces. There is no easy system of transportation that can bring the British into the Inner continent, at least not one that doesn't rely on American Rails.

Quick question but once they have advanced away from their railheads, how do these hundreds of thousands feed themselves, restock their ammunition and maintain their kit...oh and their horses hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the march means tens of thousands of horses, they are going to need feeding too.

Yeah I suppose they could try for quick assaults of fortified positions to get at their stores but those are messy.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Does this matter though? Ships could land the Allies in the Baltic, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea in WW2...

Quite a bit. It's what did Arnold in at Quebec. Then with control of Halifax Britain can retain the Martimes and make life difficult for any would be invaders.

 

[Caesar Biden]

Quick question but once they have advanced away from their railheads, how do these hundreds of thousands feed themselves, restock their ammunition and maintain their kit...oh and their horses hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the march means tens of thousands of horses, they are going to need feeding too.

Yeah I suppose they could try for quick assaults of fortified positions to get at their stores but those are messy.

What are you talking about? The Americans? There are rails that go into Canada, you know.

And it's not like they'd be advancing hundreds of miles. The St.Lawrance River and the Great Lakes and the areas around them need to be secured, and then there's not much of Canada left to attack besides the Maritimes and Halifax.