Canada and the U.S. in mortal conflict 1800-1899

[EnglishCanuck]

Well, if you really believe this, why didn't the British intervene during the American Civil War, and make the whole of the United States once more part of the British Empire, in 1861? Surely, abolishing slavery, and sparing a million deaths, while simultaneously bringing the enormous wealth of the U.S. once more under the control of the British Empire would have been a game worth the candle, as it were?

Because real world =/= paradox games

This says it all really.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

No, I'm not asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat the nineteenth century British Empire. I'm asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat nineteenth century Canada. It does not inevitably follow that the whole of the British Empire will be brought to bear on this particular conflict. Your question is certainly easier, and, I agree, the nineteenth century U.S. could not have taken over the whole of the nineteenth century British Empire, although I doubt they really wanted to.

Until 1933 the two are synonymous. By extension, any American attack on Canada (even post 1867) is an attack on Britain. That invites retaliation from the Empire as a whole.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

did you consider the British feeling at the time... the British didnt hold any particular ill will towards the Americans (either side) and at this point had been trading partners with the United States for 50 years since the end of the War of 1812... unless this is your scenario where Skippy the Space Bat demands British intervention against the United States in which case in 1861, yeah the British Army driving south from Canada against a (arguably) criminally mismanaged and commanded American Army that is divided between fighting the British in the north and the Confederacy under Lee in the south would likely lose

So, effectively, the only reason the United States remained independent in the nineteenth century was British good will towards her? Otherwise, she once more is part of the British Empire?

Surely, with so much good will, the British would want the U.S. to once more be part of the British Empire, and would arrange it!

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Until 1933 the two are synonymous. By extension, any American attack on Canada (even post 1867) is an attack on Britain. That invites retaliation from the Empire as a whole.

So, the entire population of India will be transported to fight in the U.S., in the nineteenth century? Are you quite sure that's practical?

 

[vesica]

No, I'm not asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat the nineteenth century British Empire. I'm asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat nineteenth century Canada. It does not inevitably follow that the whole of the British Empire will be brought to bear on this particular conflict. Your question is certainly easier, and, I agree, the nineteenth century U.S. could not have taken over the whole of the nineteenth century British Empire, although I doubt they really wanted to.

You mean Canada entirely on it's own without any British assistance? Supremely unlikely as the British would never leave their remaining colony on the North American continent to fend for itself, but honoring your scenario just at this face value... no Canada would not be able to survive against the United States.. it is outweighed even then 8 to 1, and while the Niagara penisula and the St. Lawerence River are excellent defences against a century long conflict with the US of course Canada BY ITSELF wouldn't survive

 

[Planet of Hats]

No, I'm not asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat the nineteenth century British Empire. I'm asking if the nineteenth century U.S. could defeat nineteenth century Canada. It does not inevitably follow that the whole of the British Empire will be brought to bear on this particular conflict. Your question is certainly easier, and, I agree, the nineteenth century U.S. could not have taken over the whole of the nineteenth century British Empire, although I doubt they really wanted to.

...But a Canada attacking the US for dominance in North America is going to be a Canada which has the full backing of the Empire.

You're basically asking what would happen if Britain was crazy aggressive against America, then when told what would happen, incredulously demanding to know why it didn't happen when Britain wasn't crazy aggressive.

So, the entire population of India will be transported to fight in the U.S., in the nineteenth century? Are you quite sure that's practical?

This is an extremely dishonest reading of what vesica posted.

 

[vesica]

So, effectively, the only reason the United States remained independent in the nineteenth century was British good will towards her? Otherwise, she once more is part of the British Empire?

Surely, with so much good will, the British would want the U.S. to once more be part of the British Empire, and would arrange it!

No not really... why would the British want to spark a conflict with the Americans? While possibly within their power, the Americans were excellent trading partner and a good market for British goods, and a conflict would be enormously expensive. However if the scenario is that Canada and the US are locked in a mortal conflict yes Britain would eventually crush the United States if only so they wouldn't have to keep such massive garrisons in North America against US aggression every few years

 

[Jerry Kraus]

You mean Canada entirely on it's own without any British assistance? Supremely unlikely as the British would never leave their remaining colony on the North American continent to fend for itself, but honoring your scenario just at this face value... no Canada would not be able to survive against the United States.. it is outweighed even then 8 to 1, and while the Niagara penisula and the St. Lawerence River are excellent defences against a century long conflict with the US of course Canada BY ITSELF wouldn't survive

No, what I really mean is that the capacity of Britain to actually help Canada in the nineteenth century was, practically, rather limited, and extremely expensive, and, that Britain would have given it up, as they gave up during the Revolutionary War, if the U.S. had been very determined, by 1850, at the very latest. Probably by 1835. As it happened, the U.S. wasn't really that interested.

 

[Brunaburh]

Well, if you really believe this, why didn't the British intervene during the American Civil War, and make the whole of the United States once more part of the British Empire, in 1861? Surely, abolishing slavery, and sparing a million deaths, while simultaneously bringing the enormous wealth of the U.S. once more under the control of the British Empire would have been a game worth the candle, as it were?

Because that's not how running a country works.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Because that's not how running a country works.

Sure it is. Unless what you're proposing is a practical impossibility. As British reconquest of the United States would have been.

 

[Planet of Hats]

No, what I really mean is that the capacity of Britain to actually help Canada in the nineteenth century was, practically, rather limited, and extremely expensive, and, that Britain would have given it up, as they gave up during the Revolutionary War, if the U.S. had been very determined, by 1850, at the very latest. Probably by 1835. As it happened, the U.S. wasn't really that interested.

Except we have an example of the US being very determined to take Canada.

They didn't, despite Britain viewing the war as a sideshow.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Except we have an example of the US being very determined to take Canada.

They didn't, despite Britain viewing the war as a sideshow.

Actually, we have two examples -- the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. I didn't say it would be easy. But, in the first case, they almost did it, despite just being a ragtag gang of Revolutionaries. In the second case, they would have done it, if Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia and self-destructed, freeing up British forces. If you don't realize this, I'd suggest you look into it. And, the U.S. got much, much stronger as the nineteenth century progressed. Very few people dispute that the Union Army could just have walked into Canada, in 1866, if they'd wanted to. And, the British couldn't have done much about it.

 

[Brunaburh]

Sure it is. Unless what you're proposing is a practical impossibility. As British reconquest of the United States would have been.

I'm not proposing anything. You are asking me why something didn't happen, i.e. the UK deciding to reconquer the US in the Civil War. I'm telling you, the UK in the 19th century was not playing a game where it invaded developed countries the moment the opportunity presented itself. Queen Victoria =/= Hitler*.

A British total reconquest of the states was impossible, a war where the UK forced the US government to the negotiating table after capturing various US coastal cities is the most likely result of an invasion of Canada scenario.

*Hitler killed far fewer people..

 

[Jerry Kraus]

I'm not proposing anything. You are asking me why something didn't happen, i.e. the UK deciding to reconquer the US in the Civil War. I'm telling you, the UK in the 19th century was not playing a game where it invaded developed countries the moment the opportunity presented itself. Queen Victoria =/= Hitler*.

A British total reconquest of the states was impossible, a war where the UK forced the US government to the negotiating table after capturing various US coastal cities is the most likely result of an invasion of Canada scenario.

*Hitler killed far fewer people..

Given what happened to British marines in New Orleans in 1815, and in Buenos Aires in 1807, I sincerely doubt that. The British were consistently overreaching and exaggerating their own strength.

 

[vesica]

Actually, we have two examples -- the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. I didn't say it would be easy. But, in the first case, they almost did it, despite just being a ragtag gang of Revolutionaries. In the second case, they would have done it, if Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia and self-destructed, freeing up British forces. If you don't realize this, I'd suggest you look into it. And, the U.S. got much, much stronger as the nineteenth century progressed. Very few people dispute that the Union Army could just have walked into Canada, in 1866, if they'd wanted to. And, the British couldn't have done much about it.

So your arguing then that the history as to remain as it was until the US was powerful enough to conquer Canada at will?

No one is arguing the might of the Union Army in 1866... though I'll note for the record this is the same Union Army that took 4 years facing a country a third their size to finally force to capitulate so I won't go there.

You clearly don't understand history... the War of 1812 was truly a sideshow to the British in most ways... ans the US went bankrupt trying to do it; their merchant fleet was destroyed and the US Navy was no more then an organization on a piece of paper; the Revolution is irrelevant here as we are talking about 1800 to 1899, not 1776.

Following your original question and scenario; if the US began a life or death struggle with Canada and subsequently the British Empire in 1800 the US would have lost.. no ifs, ands or buts.

If the US chose to annex Canada in 1866 (not your question but honoring your point) yes the Million Man Army of the US would have beaten Canada for the same reason the Grizzlied British regular beat the Union Army in the war of 1812

 

[cerebropetrologist]

In the second case, they would have done it, if Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia and self-destructed, freeing up British forces. If you don't realize this, I'd suggest you look into it.

For those who missed it:

Well, alright, let's deal with the War of 1812 -- possibly best described as "Boy, did we pick a bad year to declare war on Britain!" If the British really had continued to be distracted by Napoleon as much as they had been -- if Napoleon doesn't self-destruct in Russia immediately following James Madison's exceedingly ill-timed declaration of War -- well, you know you can kiss Canada goodbye. The point is the British already had a huge military machine in place, that they could quite conveniently and almost immediately transfer to the North American theater of war, as soon as Napoleon succeeds in self-liquidating his own Grande Armee.

This is completely wrong. Britain remained heavily committed to the Peninsular theatre until the defeat of Napoleon in April 1814, as well as engaging in secondary theatres (e.g. the 7,000 men sent to the Netherlands in late 1813, who later fought at Bergen-op-Zoom). This is made patently obvious by the number of British regular infantry battalions in Canada and the Maritimes. In June 1812 there are 8 infantry battalions present: three more are sent during the course of 1812, and eight in 1813. In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon, 22 battalions are despatched, a reinforcement which more than doubles the number of regular infantry battalions present in the theatre.

As of April 1814, there are 19 infantry battalions in British North America and 67 in Wellington's Peninsular army. What this demonstrates is that the US enjoys just under two years of fighting Britain while she's distracted by Napoleon, and conspicuously fails to make any progress in annexing Canada during that time.

 

[Planet of Hats]

Actually, we have two examples -- the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. I didn't say it would be easy. But, in the first case, they almost did it, despite just being a ragtag gang of Revolutionaries. In the second case, they would have done it, if Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia and self-destructed, freeing up British forces. If you don't realize this, I'd suggest you look into it. And, the U.S. got much, much stronger as the nineteenth century progressed. Very few people dispute that the Union Army could just have walked into Canada, in 1866, if they'd wanted to. And, the British couldn't have done much about it.

It feels like you're just looking to try and convince people that America is invincible. That's not the case.

In a century-long conflict for dominance in North America, America wouldn't last long enough to get stronger through the 1800s. Again, your premise is undermined by your own OP. You asked what would happen if both sides wanted absolute dominance in North America. Well, okay - Canada brings in Britain, which rapidly gets tired of American raiding and brings down the hammer sometime in the 1810s, forces America to the table and extracts draconian concessions, squishes their further attempts at resistance, then gleefully steps into any subsequent civil strife to ensure America fractures as much as possible.

Given what happened to British marines in New Orleans in 1815, and in Buenos Aires in 1807, I sincerely doubt that. The British were consistently overreaching and exaggerating their own strength.

You realize that the US mainly won a few single-ship engagements in 1812 that didn't really have any strategic impact on Britain's absolute dominance at sea, of course. The British blockade of America was so stiff that of every 14 ships that traded before the war, only one dared leave port during it.

 

[CalBear]

So, effectively, the only reason the United States remained independent in the nineteenth century was British good will towards her? Otherwise, she once more is part of the British Empire?

Surely, with so much good will, the British would want the U.S. to once more be part of the British Empire, and would arrange it!

Not good will. Market pressures. The British found it much easier to have the United States as a market for finished good and a source for raw materials. American privateers were a total pain in the ass for British merchants and cost the Treasury a fortune.

There are some people who see the U.S. as having won the War of 1812. They are wrong. It was, at best, a draw. None of the U.S. war goals were achieved (impressment stopped because Napoleon hand been defeated, not due to any level of U.S. success), the British hadn't really wanted to fight the war in the first place and were perfectly happy to go back to status quo antebellum since Britain's merchant class was making a mint under those conditions. That was what the Empire was all about, making profits while ensuring that no country was able to develop the power to take it all away. All the War of 1812 demonstrated was that the U.S. could build one hell of a nice heavy frigate.

 

[vesica]

No, what I really mean is that the capacity of Britain to actually help Canada in the nineteenth century was, practically, rather limited, and extremely expensive, and, that Britain would have given it up, as they gave up during the Revolutionary War, if the U.S. had been very determined, by 1850, at the very latest. Probably by 1835. As it happened, the U.S. wasn't really that interested.

My argument there is that what little support the British have Canada in the War of 1812 was enough to stop the US Army in its tracks and bankrupt the United States.. after Napoleon is finished with what happens when the British bring their full weight down on the US? By the 1830s the US didnt have the will becuase they were still feeling the sting of their defeat at the hands of the British... by 1850 yes you have a moderately capable and competent US Army with growing and capable leadership

 

[vesica]

All the War of 1812 demonstrated was that the U.S. could build one hell of a nice heavy frigate.

It WAS a hell of a heavy frigate...