What would be the likely outcome of such an event? Imagine some type of dispute where the US and UK come to blows.
US invades Canada in 1866
- Thread starter writofcertiorari
- Start date
The US could in theory lend more support for the Irish-Canadian Fenian rebels, but i still don't know why or how willingly they would do that.
Last edited:
Well, it would be unpleasant. The Canadians aren't going to be happy about it one bit. I don't expect them to put up as much of a fight as the South just did, but I bet they're going to kill a buttload of American invaders for a long time. Britain is going to make life real miserable for the Atlantic Coast. Pretty much guaranteed to have one or two follow up wars. That puts us into the era of chemical and nuclear weapons.
Triggering a war with the British empire, which was then at the height of its power would be a very bold decision. And this is, of course, an understatement.
But doing it just one year after the civil war is nothing less than surrealistic and suicidal.
Maybe Britain is then going to decide to put an end to the union of these United States and aim to split them in 4 or 5 independent States.
Brunaburh
Banned
My position has always been that, if the US was serious about taking Canada, the measures it would have to take to prepare would show Britain its hostile intent and allow them to defend Canada effectively. Strangely, just after the Civil War is the one time the US had enough men under arms to sneak attack Canada, which is the only way to capture it really.
However. The US army was war weary and would not necessarily obey orders. There would be mass anti-conscription riots. People tend to forget that British people were the largest single immigrant group in the US until very late, a lot of them would refuse to fight against the country of their birth, some would actively help it. Guerrilla warfare would break out in areas of the south. The UK would successfully take San Francisco and everything urban the US had on the Pacific Coast.
A naval blockade would force the collapse of the US economy, the UK would blitz America's long, soft, badly defended, East Coast. They would be welcomed as liberators by confederate diehards. The UK takes areas of Florida with its Caribbean squadron, perhaps setting up a puppet confederate regime there. New Orleans is under threat.
The most likely result of a US invasion of Canada at that time, which was politically impossible btw, is the end of the United states as a continental power, and the surrender of Canada to the British in an 1873 peace treaty in which the US also ceded Oregon and recognised the independence of California and perhaps the British puppet confederacy.
Don’t think it’s impossible to “defeat” Britain. At this point the US has a vast pool of trained soldiers. It has had years of industrial growth and expierence if producing weapons and war goods. The Navy while behind the Royal Navy has also undergone a vast expansion to blockade the South and has a lot of vets to draw from. Population advantage as well as a shorter supply line. I don’t think the naval GAO can’t be overcome or offset enough that the vast disparity in troops and distance means Canada is conquered. Britain can hurt the US is cannot conquer it, it probably can’t invade and if so it would be a a very narrow front such as seizing Boston it New York to try to get the US to negotiate or cause public pressure to end the war as opposed to military considerations. Perhaps the UK smuggles wepons to the South to stir up trouble and create another front to tie up troops.
The problem is the political will to do this. The citizenry is war weary. The political will to fight a war against the most powerful nation in the world just a year after a 4 year civil war is not there. The political leadership is at each other’s throats with Radical Republicans our to get Johnson, the occupation of the South, and the sheer number of dead and wounded means no one has the stomach for another war of this scale so soon.
The problem is the political will to do this. The citizenry is war weary. The political will to fight a war against the most powerful nation in the world just a year after a 4 year civil war is not there. The political leadership is at each other’s throats with Radical Republicans our to get Johnson, the occupation of the South, and the sheer number of dead and wounded means no one has the stomach for another war of this scale so soon.
Brunaburh
Banned
The US navy's best course of action against the RN would be to scuttle itself after putting its guns ashore. Then at least it will keep the men and deny the RN the prizes. There is no transcontinental railroad at this time, so California is lost as soon as the British Pacific forces can get there, alternatively it can be taken by going round cape horn, which was how US soldiers got there.
All irrelevant, because the decisive theatre will be at sea.
Which only means the RN will obliterate it in about five minutes instead of completely ignoring it, and impose the sort of blockade on the US that the USN could only dream of imposing on the Confederacy. The US, be it in 1812, 1866 or the present day, is a trading nation. Its wealth has always been dependent on free access to the seas, and any opponent with the wherewithal to block that access has its boot on the country's throat. The UK, until the very late 19th century would have been such an opponent, and the Royal Navy was the biggest and heaviest such boot on the planet.
This really boils down to the kind of issues we always find in true major power conflicts popping up out of thin air: which country cares the most?
If it's a blatant cynical landgrab by the USA, that country runs a serious risk of falling apart (having only just avoided falling apart all by itself). If it's the British running a cynically imperialist policy to strangle the USA, that country runs a serious risk of losing Canada and having its government overthrown.
The reason, of course, is that whatever happens it will be painful as hell; I believe in 1866 it might still be more painful to the USA than to Britain, but it's close enough that the national sense of why so much is being spent is the determining factor.
If it's a blatant cynical landgrab by the USA, that country runs a serious risk of falling apart (having only just avoided falling apart all by itself). If it's the British running a cynically imperialist policy to strangle the USA, that country runs a serious risk of losing Canada and having its government overthrown.
The reason, of course, is that whatever happens it will be painful as hell; I believe in 1866 it might still be more painful to the USA than to Britain, but it's close enough that the national sense of why so much is being spent is the determining factor.
I don’t think it’s irrelavant at all. There is no way the UK can prevent a determined US from taking and keeping Canada. They can inflict heavy losses but if the war is over Canada than the sea is not automatically the decisive theatre. The UK can harm the US trade, they can conduct coastal raids, maybe even blockade but in the end it’s all to attempt to negotiate the US out of Canada. The US can feed itself, produce it’s wepons, has sufficient manpower, a seasoned military, and shorter supply lines, closer ports, and a vast coastline. It would not be easy for the US to win but a very big task for the Royal Navy. It all depends on how determined the US is. If it’s a long dragged out affair to me it’s more likely to US wins as the UK will eventually have some other issue somewhere to handle, and how motivated is the UK in this fight. Other matters basically lead them to accept independence and end the War of 1812. UK won most battles and fights yet the US gains independence and looses no territory in 1814. The US is far stronger realist I’ve to itself than the Uk is to itself than in either of these wars. Acerbite is correct it’s all will and motivation.
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure this is too late for the US to annex Canadian territory, right? Most likely the goal would be independence as an allied Republic.
But that raises the question of who in Canada would actually support this. Maybe the Metis and some Catholics?
But that raises the question of who in Canada would actually support this. Maybe the Metis and some Catholics?
The catholics ? Why not the amerindians ? Virtually nobody wanted to be annexed by the US, be it in Canada or in Mexico.
to put it mildly. The US had just gone through 4 years of bloody awful war, and no one was in the mood for any more. The nation was rather eagerly looking to build and expand... peacefully. Railroads were expanding, people were going west to make new lives/fortunes, industry was booming. Now, in the middle of this, the Federal government suddenly decides to invade Canada for no good reason and bring on a war that will be many times worse than the one we just went through? That will be enormously unpopular....
I would like to break down that immigration into Irish, Scottish & Scotch Irish, English, and Welsh; regardless I don't think you're right about their sentiments. Pre-1840 immigration is a poor comparison to post-1840 immigration, the amount of Irish and Germans showing up was blowing away the precedent immigration in numbers.
To your point though, I think it is very likely that the large birth rate in early America would have meant the families of those British immigrants were rather numerous. Also, the Yankees of New England opposed the War of 1812; and they had since spread across upstate New York to establish Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and the Washington Territory with large population percentages in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and California.
I think this is actually the beginning of a weird little time frame where the USN had a regional advantage over the RN because the engine technology of the time necessitated frequent coaling stations that would have limited the range of engagements. If the USN can interfere with Nova Scotia, Bermuda, and the Bahamas then it would hinder British deployment. The Brits might be able to sway Spain to help.
Very likely will not be more positive than the War of 1812, but it may go the exact opposite of your prediction. Regardless, that will not be the end of it - there will be a series of horrible revenge wars.
1.) No, especially when British troops show up on American soil. 2.) Yes, even when British troops show up on American soil.
I don't know, it's possible. There may also be a growth of populist, race neutral, patriotic philosophies like the Readjuster Party.
It is a long way from Piccadilly (or Australia) to fight that fight. And they've got to do it in at most three years before the railroad is finished.
I doubt they will be able to project a land force very far inland. Then again Florida was (is) very weird and mercantile, I can see it cooperating with whoever controls the port cities.
I disagree, especially if Lincoln lives. Maybe the Johnson Administration uncovers "evidence" of British connections to John Wilkes Booth, or blasts propaganda "exposing" British manipulation of the Confederacy.
A World War. Prussia, and Russia, and Italy - Austria, oh my. Probably have some fighting in Mexico, and an earlier Franco-Prussian war.
There was quite a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment in the US at this time, so I can't imagine many Canadian Catholics being particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of being absorbed into the US.
As I recall, ocean-going ironclads of this period tended to have sails as well as engines, so coal would be less of a problem than you might think. And I doubt that the US Navy, even in 1866, would be strong enough to take any overseas British possessions.
If in the unlikely event the US decides to go north in 1866, it's actually up in the air. The army and navy has rapidly demobilized from its peak strength in 1865, falling from closer to 1,000,000 men to only 57,000, with the navy falling from 58,000 to, 16,000. The US has just fought a brutal four year conflict which has depleted the treasury, left numerous hostile native groups restive in the rest, and is now required to garrison the South. Britain meanwhile has comparative numbers of regulars and militia she can call on to defend Canada (and we're assuming a US invasion of Canada here) with a navy that hasn't demobilized, and the will to use it if here North American possessions are threatened. Historically in 1866 there were about 18,000 regulars in Canada with the ability to call on some 30,000 militia in the Province of Canada at need (not sure about the Maritimes) and the ability to send more soldiers from Britain.
Beyond simple numbers, the political will in the Union simply may not exist. How many Radical Republicans will push for an invasion of Canada vs the continuing garrison of the South. How many Democrats will be eager to lend their support to another Republican war effort? How many men will re-enlist to conquer Canada vs having fought and bled to mend the Union?
If the US did not rapidly demobilize in 1865 and turned her full war might against Canada, the numbers and skills would exist to simply drown the British in a sea of blood on land while making a respectable struggle on the seas. However, if you put say, 50,000 men into Canada West and 100,000 men into Canada East, they will be able to simply run the British back through sheer numbers at first. Which means you might get the force ration you want while accomplishing all the post civil war missions. However, with demobilization, this can't be achieved.
TL;DR it's super unlikely that such a war could even get off the ground, but if the US attacked Canada right after the Civil War with their full might they would probably win.
Beyond simple numbers, the political will in the Union simply may not exist. How many Radical Republicans will push for an invasion of Canada vs the continuing garrison of the South. How many Democrats will be eager to lend their support to another Republican war effort? How many men will re-enlist to conquer Canada vs having fought and bled to mend the Union?
If the US did not rapidly demobilize in 1865 and turned her full war might against Canada, the numbers and skills would exist to simply drown the British in a sea of blood on land while making a respectable struggle on the seas. However, if you put say, 50,000 men into Canada West and 100,000 men into Canada East, they will be able to simply run the British back through sheer numbers at first. Which means you might get the force ration you want while accomplishing all the post civil war missions. However, with demobilization, this can't be achieved.
TL;DR it's super unlikely that such a war could even get off the ground, but if the US attacked Canada right after the Civil War with their full might they would probably win.
Brunaburh
Banned
Interesting post, I'd take issue with this though, the railroad would not be finished at all if the US was at war with Britain. The US simply couldn't afford it under blockade. And the sailing time between New York and California is the same as that between Southampton and California.There are lots of supply spots on route which would be open to the British.
Yes, it looks like the Brits began designing ocean going warships without sails in 1868/1869. So it appears that a naval stalemate would necessitate an earlier and earlier divergence from OP on the American side. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe they get a care package and tutors from Krupp. The Pinkertons drag John Brooke and Pierre Toutant-Beauregard up to the renovated West Point Foundry, and put them to work with - ahh well we see how convoluted this is becoming to connect America's strung out potential at this point - doable but fantastic.
I think Hallifax could be taken by land and a quick naval deployment, I don't know if it could be held by land. The Bahamas could be taken by crazies in canoes launching out of Florida (it's kind of a humorous mental image). Bermuda sure is out there, maybe the USN could run out to it and destroy everything, but that's not going to work well in a war decided over a time frame of several years - and we saw how quickly the War Between the States ended after the picnic at Bull Run (can you imagine if Sherman was there, he probably would have stroked out at the sight).