Canada as bad a neighbor for U.S. 1800-1899, as New France was for New England, 1700-1760

Jerry Kraus

Banned
I can't help but notice that the Canadians, Brits and Americans on this site seem to get into endless battles regarding the ability of the U.S. to take over Canada in the nineteenth century. Personally, I'm a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, so, I don't really care, from a purely nationalistic point of view. So, in an effort to cut the Gordian knot here, as it were, I'm posting this thread. Let's suppose that Canada, backed by Britain, is doing to the U.S., regularly, in the nineteenth century, what New France was doing to New England, regularly, in the eighteenth century -- piracy on the high seas, border skirmishes, regular incursions, attempts to take territory by armed force. To the point that it's effectively impossible for them both to survive long term in North America. Who wins?

You see, Americans tend to argue, with some reason, that the reason they didn't annex Canada in the nineteenth century was simply that Canadians got along well enough with them that they had no reason to mobilize and militarize sufficiently to do so. Not that it would have been easy, of course, Britain was a great power, but, also very far away. Canadians and Brits argue that the U.S. didn't have the military might -- except at some point just towards the end of the Civil War, and shortly thereafter. Americans counter they had no reason to mobilize, because Canadians got along with them. So, let's say that Canada decides regularly to battle the U.S. to the death in the nineteenth century. Does Canada survive?
 
your second paragraph is pretty apt. The US didn't face great threats on either border for much of it's history, and the one with Canada is about at benign as it got. That said, if the situation had been different, then the US would have been different too. If Canada/UK had decided to be a persistent hostile threat, then the US would have reacted differently. The US would have spent more on maintaining a defense force on the border, and a bigger navy along it's coast. It would also have altered US politics some. One notable fact about the War of 1812 is that the invasion of Canada sparked regional tensions here; the south opposed it because if successful, it would lead to more free states, and NE opposed it because they were so dependent on trade with the UK. 'Attempts to take territory', 'armed incursion', 'piracy'... all of these would go a long way in uniting the US regions against the threat. It's likely that such blatant hostility will lead to war... what happens next depends a lot on when that happens and the circumstances leading up to it...
 
Let's suppose that Canada, backed by Britain, is doing to the U.S., regularly, in the nineteenth century, what New France was doing to New England, regularly, in the eighteenth century -- piracy on the high seas, border skirmishes, regular incursions, attempts to take territory by armed force.

Let me just object to this way of twisting facts.

Reality was that, except of course when they were in open war, it was New England colonies, settlers, militias, that harassed New France. For the obvious reason that the British colonies were locked on the coast, were far more crowded, and wanted to break the French-Indian ceiling to their westward expansion.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
Let me just object to this way of twisting facts.

Reality was that, except of course when they were in open war, it was New England colonies, settlers, militias, that harassed New France. For the obvious reason that the British colonies were locked on the coast, were far more crowded, and wanted to break the French-Indian ceiling to their westward expansion.

Well, the boundaries between New France and New England weren't so well defined as all that, were they? So, wouldn't who was harassing whom be rather a matter of perspective? In any case, they certainly didn't get along very well, whoever you choose to blame for this. And, that's the point. Canada and the U.S. didn't have a lot of conflicts through most of the nineteenth century, New France and New England were constantly at loggerheads. Hence, the U.S. had little reason to arm against Canada, while New England had every reason to arm against New France.
 
We mustn't maintain the monstrous malfeasance of the Maple Menace made against mild and meek Mainer and Massachusettean migrants to Moncton, and methodically managed to malign near Montreal, once most merrily managed by magnificent Montgomery.

you know, or... or something like... kind of like that, I think... maybe
 
We mustn't maintain the monstrous malfeasance of the Maple Menace made against mild and meek Mainer and Massachusettean migrants to Moncton, and methodically managed to malign near Montreal, once most merrily managed by magnificent Montgomery.

you know, or... or something like... kind of like that, I think... maybe

Meh, my mother maintained that both their maple mashing methods were magnificent and their mellifluous marching military music would mesmerize more than a mere minute fraction of Mainers who became little more than mild, measly mice.
 
Meh, my mother maintained that both their maple mashing methods were magnificent and their mellifluous marching military music would mesmerize more than a mere minute fraction of Mainers who became little more than mild, measly mice.

My magnanimous man, merely mimicking a man's mother's memory makes for a multitude of malignant morons.
 
Well, the boundaries between New France and New England weren't so well defined as all that, were they? So, wouldn't who was harassing whom be rather a matter of perspective? In any case, they certainly didn't get along very well, whoever you choose to blame for this. And, that's the point. Canada and the U.S. didn't have a lot of conflicts through most of the nineteenth century, New France and New England were constantly at loggerheads. Hence, the U.S. had little reason to arm against Canada, while New England had every reason to arm against New France.

That’s the argument of a lawyer or of a politician. Not of an historian.

Some countries may create myths, narratives, lies to self justify. These however don’t stand the quickest scrutiny.

Unless you ignore the Manifest Destiny. Unless you consider that the french, amerindians, Spanish and then Mexicans, were such a terrible threat that the settlers of the thirteen colonies were forced to chase them down from the Appalachians to the Pacific coast.

What terrible threats, to have been so easily removed in barely more than half a century !
 
It's difficult to say, not least because a hostile Canada implies a hostile Britain, which is likely to have all sorts of butterflies. For example, lots of British money IOTL was invested in American industry; in a scenario where the two countries are habitual enemies, there would presumably be a lot less investment, resulting in the US being slower to industrialise compared to OTL. Again, if the British saw the US as an enemy, they'd presumably do more to stop America's westward expansion -- giving aid to US enemies, trying to occupy land themselves, that sort of thing -- which would also result in a weaker USA. So, whether or not Canada survives depends partly on how strong the US is compared to OTL, which can't be answered precisely because there are so many ways it could go.
 
Top