AHC: United States expands into Canada

Hmm. I guess that question starts with how early we’d have to keep a standing army.

The US with a larger standing army - let's say it's authorized strength by the War of 1812 (three times its actual strength: http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-06.htm ) - is still in a very poor position to conqueror Canada and demand Britain give it up.

It might be more feasible to do the first part, but the second is still outside the US's reach.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
I like how you act like New England is just going to meekly submit in your own proposal.

Ha.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

and


I join in his laughter at the thought that your claim would ever happen.

Do you not think it would have been a spiffingly good idea to actually read what I had 'claim'ed before making statements like this?
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Hmm. I guess that question starts with how early we’d have to keep a standing army.

Well the HAC has been around for more than two centuries before the Kingdoms United so 'we' British have had a standing army at least that long.

Of course 'we' Irish have only had a standing army since we won our independence from the British Empire.

Frankly I can't see how long 'we'd' had standing armies being in any way relevant to the thread?
 
Erm, yes. AND I guffaw in the general direction of your statistics. You do realise that at the time of the Pig war the USA had an army of just 16,000 men. I suspect you had decided to reply to my post out of context and we're referring to the combined armies of the USA and CSA at the peak of the ACW but even then you only get an army of just about 1 million not three!

The U.S. maintained a standing army of 16,000 men because it relied on volunteer forces in times of war. In the opening of the war Congress called for 500,000 volunteers, from purely Union forces. By 1865 the Union alone had 2,213,000 soldiers. So go ahead and laugh, but reality is on my side.

And you seem to forget that the British had just gotten out of the Crimean War, had put down a rebellion in India just a few years before, and would be fighting an enemy with internal lines of control and communication across the Atlantic Ocean. Again, I don't think the United States will win the war, just that Britain isn't going to be able to dictate terms like you are suggesting. And again, British leaders won't be looking for a U.S. Aiming for revenge in twenty-thirty years, when the U.S. most likely would win.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
wcv215,

You have confused the size of the Union army with what looks like the total number of men that served in it. The peak army size was only about 680,00 (from memory).

So go ahead and laugh, but reality is on my side.

Reality is on no side but its own. History is about opinion and interpretation not reality, Alternative History even more so.

And you seem to forget that the British had just gotten out of the Crimean War, had put down a rebellion in India just a few years before,

Yep. That was in the late 1850s, they also defeated the Chinese too. So what?

and would be fighting an enemy with internal lines of control and communication across the Atlantic Ocean.

Well the USA never controlled the Atlantic in this period and once the Admiralty in London cries 'Havoc' the USN would cease to exist!

As for internal lines pof communications you do realise that the British logistical system across the Atlantic is much quicker and higher capacity than the USA's railway system in this period? The USA comms system also gets quickly erroded once the British gunboats move up the Mississippi.

And again, British leaders won't be looking for a U.S. Aiming for revenge in twenty-thirty years, when the U.S. most likely would win.

This is sad. A USA holding a grudge against the British Empire for 20-30 years will be a USA that gets stamped on by the Iron Heel of the Royal Navy for 20-30 years each time it steps out of line. It will get very little British investment. The path to greatness will be closed to it. It will become like modern day North Korea.
 
Why not just use the usual POD for this aim in this era? The rumored British offer to sell the USA British Columbia is more than a rumor, SoS Seward snaps it up for whatever the asking price is, and with the stroke of a pen, you've given the USA the first chunk of Canada, and neutered any possible Canadian Confederation.

More than likely, in this scenario, with no Pacific port, we could see what's left of British Canada form into smaller Dominions or get sold to the USA bit by bit. Either way, it paves the way for peacefully integrating the rest of our northern neighbor(s) without ending up in another Whale vs. Wolf War (My slang for any Anglo-American War in the era, Britain (the whale) winning at sea, America (the wolf) winning on land, resulting in an impasse).
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Why not just use the usual POD for this aim in this era? The rumored British offer to sell the USA British Columbia is more than a rumor, SoS Seward snaps it up for whatever the asking price is, and with the stroke of a pen, you've given the USA the first chunk of Canada, and neutered any possible Canadian Confederation.

More than likely, in this scenario, with no Pacific port, we could see what's left of British Canada form into smaller Dominions or get sold to the USA bit by bit. Either way, it paves the way for peacefully integrating the rest of our northern neighbor(s) without ending up in another Whale vs. Wolf War (My slang for any Anglo-American War in the era, Britain (the whale) winning at sea, America (the wolf) winning on land, resulting in an impasse).

Well other than:

(a) The proposal is based on an apparently fallacious rumour
(b) There is no apparent reason for Britain to sell BC*.
(c) Worse, there is no reason for the British to sell the province of Canada to the USA and even if they wanted to the Franco-phones at least would want independence instead.
(d) Even worse why would the British sell Nova Scotia with the great naval base of Halifax** at a time when it still needs the place to ensure it can 'rule the waves'. Prehaps the Admiralty had a universal brain anurism to a man?

This is a pretty good idea ... of course the OP does not get his/her 'invasion of NB/NS'.

* I mean come on! If I suggest that the USA sells Britain Maine and Delaware (which are respectively both snowy and wet) for absolutely no reason there will be uproar.
** My counter proposal would of course be that the USA in the interest of closer ties of friendship with Britain swaps them Fortress Monroe, the Panama railway and the Forts defending New York, Washington DC and Boston for a ten year residency by Charles Dickens and Wm Thackery.

I note your Wolf/Whale war never ends in impasse either the Wolf beats the Whale at sea (a very low probability event) or the Wolf yields due to blockade.
 
You have confused the size of the Union army with what looks like the total number of men that served in it. The peak army size was only about 680,00 (from memory).

And this matters why exactly? It shows the number of soldiers the Union was willing to throw into an internal war. There is no reason to believe the president won't call up similar numbers to wage a foreign war.

Yep. That was in the late 1850s, they also defeated the Chinese too. So what?

So London is not looking for a sustained land war, especially not against another nation they have strong trade and cultural ties with. And they can't afford to field the numbers of men that would be required to crush the United States the way you seem to think they will especially given how much Food was imported from the Union at this time. London would be looking to reestablish trade and end a war as fast as possible, not crush a country they have no real quarrel with.

As for internal lines pof communications you do realise that the British logistical system across the Atlantic is much quicker and higher capacity than the USA's railway system in this period? The USA comms system also gets quickly erroded once the British gunboats move up the Mississippi.

If you count the West and South that is absolutely true, but the fighting (especially in the situation you are pushing) is going to be in the East.

This is sad. A USA holding a grudge against the British Empire for 20-30 years will be a USA that gets stamped on by the Iron Heel of the Royal Navy for 20-30 years each time it steps out of line. It will get very little British investment. The path to greatness will be closed to it. It will become like modern day North Korea.

To quote you, ha.

By 1890 the US was capable of fighting Britain as an equal OTL, with no allies. Give them thirty years to build a proper regular military and a chance to find allies who have similar grudges against Britain (say a certain newly united European country that is looking to build its own colonial empire, or a certain enormous country that got beaten by the British as well in a similar time period) they would do more than be equal.

Give them another ten years and the British would lose against the US alone, another twenty and it wouldn't be close to an even fight anymore. There's a reason that by the early 1900s the British plan for war with the United States was abandon Canada to save the Empire. The US is too huge, has too high a population, and had too much domestic industry to end up like North Korea.
 
Do you not think it would have been a spiffingly good idea to actually read what I had 'claim'ed before making statements like this?

Did read. That’s why we made the statements.

…maybe even the whole of New England returning to British control again…

Did YOU read it before posting? Because that’s exactly what you said.

Frankly I can't see how long 'we'd' had standing armies being in any way relevant to the thread?

What’s your problem? Don’t put it in quotes. You know exactly why I used that word.

You don’t see how it’s relevant? Well, I’m sure that if Britain didn’t have a standing army or navy they’d be able to drum one up instantly of the same quality and scope as one they’d had for centuries. /s
 
Well other than:

(a) The proposal is based on an apparently fallacious rumour
(b) There is no apparent reason for Britain to sell BC*.
(c) Worse, there is no reason for the British to sell the province of Canada to the USA and even if they wanted to the Franco-phones at least would want independence instead.
(d) Even worse why would the British sell Nova Scotia with the great naval base of Halifax** at a time when it still needs the place to ensure it can 'rule the waves'. Prehaps the Admiralty had a universal brain anurism to a man?

This is a pretty good idea ... of course the OP does not get his/her 'invasion of NB/NS'.

* I mean come on! If I suggest that the USA sells Britain Maine and Delaware (which are respectively both snowy and wet) for absolutely no reason there will be uproar.
** My counter proposal would of course be that the USA in the interest of closer ties of friendship with Britain swaps them Fortress Monroe, the Panama railway and the Forts defending New York, Washington DC and Boston for a ten year residency by Charles Dickens and Wm Thackery.

I note your Wolf/Whale war never ends in impasse either the Wolf beats the Whale at sea (a very low probability event) or the Wolf yields due to blockade.

(A) It's actually more than a rumor - it was made over offers to compensate the USA over an incident during the American Civil War when they impounded an American ship. The British offered to sell British Columbia or pay a lump sum in reparations. The US, much to our poor judgement, took the reparations.

(B) There are plenty of reasons actually - massive infusion of cash, goodwill with the USA, the fact that at the time the deal was made, Canada did not exist, and British Columbia was an outlying holding, not an integral part of keeping Canada a viable nation. May take a few other PODs (Maybe Britiain gets into a war with a European power and needs an infusion of capitol and resources). This ain't the Isle of Wright we're talking about here - as long as the British retained the ability to use the harbors, which they would, swapping the Union Jack for the Stars and Stripes in Vancouver would have a negligible effect on the British Empire's integrity.

(C) At this time? No. Without a Pacific Port though, Canada's viability just took a critical blow, as there would be no rush to settle the Prarie provinces, or build a transcontinental railroad, or maybe even to federate, given Ontario and Quebec would dominate the Union even further.

Instead of Canada, we may end up with a collection of separate Dominions - A Dominion of the Maritimes, a Dominion of Quebec, a Dominion of Canada (aka, Ontario), and the holdings of the Hudson Bay Company. At the very least, I could see the USA making generous offers on the latter, and the rest would be far more prone to American influence than OTL United Canada.

(D) Is it a great harbor? Sure. Why would they need one if the Empire has no holdings in this corner of the world? Or why could they not secure basing rights from the USA, as they did elsewhere?

As far as the Whale against the Wolf scenario, you overestimate the British Capacity to bring the USA to heel - the entire point is that, it this point in history, the war would be a stalemate. The USA would overrun Canada, the British Navy would win at sea, but even a blockade would not bring the USA to its knees - the USA was for the most part self-sufficient, and the British had too many obligations across the world to make a fool proof blockade of both US shores. Shell a few ports? Sure. Partial Blockade? Sure. TOTAL blockade? Not a chance in hell. End result will be the two coming to terms - the British make some token concessions in Canada, the US pays reparations, and both come away without losing too much.

The other point to remember is that the later this conflict is, the more the US will be favored in such a conflict. the 1860s? We're looking at a stalemate. The 1890s? If the British couldn't bear the Boers, how the hell are they gonna beat the most industrialized nation on the planet?
 

frlmerrin

Banned
And this matters why exactly? It shows the number of soldiers the Union was willing to throw into an internal war. There is no reason to believe the president won't call up similar numbers to wage a foreign war..

This matters because it shows your statistics are wrong and your suggestion is silly!

US Population in 1860 was ca. 31.5M according to Wikipedia thus an army of 3,000,000 would represent almost 10% of the total population (ca. 9.5%). almost 20% of the male population (19%+) and about 40% of the total work force. If a 19th century 'democracy' such as the USA put an army this size into the field and the economy implodes in a few months. In 1885 the population is ca. 55.5M the USA are still sending 5.4% of the total population to war, 11% of the male population and 22% of the labour force. This is possible but it is not sustainable and will still wreck the economy. It is (from memory) more than double the percentage the Confederacy sent to war.

... especially given how much Food was imported from the Union at this time. London would be looking to reestablish trade and end a war as fast as possible, not crush a country they have no real quarrel with.

1) Invading NB and NS is hardly a case of 'have no real quarrel with'.
2) The food argument sometimes called the 'King Corn' argument is completely fallacious and has been comprehensively disproved here and elsewhere. Please look it up.

By 1890 the US was capable of fighting Britain as an equal OTL, with no allies. Give them thirty years to build a proper regular military and a chance to find allies who have similar grudges against Britain (say a certain newly united European country that is looking to build its own colonial empire, or a certain enormous country that got beaten by the British as well in a similar time period) they would do more than be equal.

The OP says 1865-1885 so all of this is irrelevant.

Give them another ten years and the British would lose against the US alone, another twenty and it wouldn't be close to an even fight anymore. There's a reason that by the early 1900s the British plan for war with the United States was abandon Canada to save the Empire. The US is too huge, has too high a population, and had too much domestic industry to end up like North Korea.


Still irrelevant but ...

I note in passing that by 1910 when you appear to think the USA will be able to defeat the British the time-window for this thread will have been over 25 years. I also note that implicit in you rather ambiguous statements is the view that prior to this the USA will not be able to defeat the British and thus you have presented no reason to suggest that the USA would not, as I suggest, be denied the path to greatness.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
Did read. That’s why we made the statements.


1) 'We' are you suggesting you are Madj or that this post was written by a consortium?
2) I wrote

Last but not least in terms of low probability events a Pig war scenario is more likely to see Maine, maybe even the whole of New England returning to British control again rather than NB let alone NS falling to an invasion and adsorbtion into the USA.

Which means that in a Pig war scenario I think it extremely unlikely that Maine and the rest of New England woykd end up in British control but that however unlikely that event it is still more likely than the USA ending up in control of NS and NB.

I cannot understand why you claim to have read my statement because if you had what you are trying to argue with me about is that one incredibly unlikely event is more credible than another incredibly unlikely event and I can't understand why anyone would embark upon this course of action? Anyway I think any further correspondence on this matter would only do you a dis-service so I shall halt at this point.
 

Except that as I have pointed out, the Union did have this many total men under arms in the Civil War. You have provided no reason why this suddenly is magically not going to happen. Just because they can't maintain an army that size for the entire war does not change that this is the number of men who can be summoned throughout the war. And we know this is true BECAUSE THEY DID IT.

1) Invading NB and NS is hardly a case of 'have no real quarrel with'.
2) The food argument sometimes called the 'King Corn' argument is completely fallacious and has been comprehensively disproved here and elsewhere. Please look it up.

Do you even remember how you started this argument? You were basing everything on the Pig War time. Any invasion of Canada would only occur afterwards. The British have no particular quarrel with the US because the beginning of the war would be so damn stupid.

The OP says 1865-1885 so all of this is irrelevant.

No it isn't irrelevant because I am arguing against your ridiculous notion that Britain is going to be taking New England.



Still irrelevant but ...I note in passing that by 1910 when you appear to think the USA will be able to defeat the British the time-window for this thread will have been over 25 years. I also note that implicit in you rather ambiguous statements is the view that prior to this the USA will not be able to defeat the British and thus you have presented no reason to suggest that the USA would not, as I suggest, be denied the path to greatness.

Prior to about 1910 (or thereabouts) the outcome of a war between just the United States and the British Empire would be in doubt, I.e. it would be possible for either side to pull out a victory, with the balance shifting between Britain and the US as time passes. By the time you get to 1910 it becomes virtually impossible for Britain to pull out a win against the US.

And where does your notion of "denied the path to greatness" come from? I don't bother to refute it because you have presented no reason to say why this is going to happen. 1860 is too late to stop the US from becoming a Great Power, hell anytime after the Mexican American War is probably too late for the US to not become a Great Power. A lack of British investment (which I doubt would happen) isn't going to change that,
 
Jeez, someone needs to end this thread, it's starting to turn into a bitter argument, pretty much like every other thread that even hints at Britain vs America -.-
 
Top