Could the USA ever really have conquered Canada?

i say way earlier, back during the American Revolution. Granted that the Americans won the Battle of Quebec (possibly only needed the help of another Battalion or Platoon, and some more artillery), then the French may have fought harder with the Americans. their combined forces would have driven the British from Canada. After the war however, both America and France would have contested over who should control the lands. The French would Take back all of "New France" and the formerly British areas would become American. In addition to the Louisiana Purchase, America would have bought Quebec as well. Napoleon would have sold them both to finance his war, which he then may have won.

And there you have it. American Canada.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The USA in 1860 had a population of 31 million or so (not counting Injuns). England's population in 1861 was estimated at 19 million. The UK as a whole only reached the 30 million mark after the 1861 census. During the Civil War, the USA raised over 2 million troops. Britain in the nineteenth century, while never faced with such crisis, also never anywhere near approached this level of mobilisation. I doubt it could be matched without straining the fabric of society to breaking point.

Of course it would be hard for the USA to raise that number of troops without a popular cause, but I can't quite see anyone other than John Q. Public being stupid enough to want to go to war with the Empire, either.

John Q Public and pandering politicians.There was a LOT of anti-british sentiment in the U.S. as late as the early 20th Century, some of it dating all the way back to 1814, but much of it in the immigrant Irish population. Unlike today, where it takes years of residence and some effort to become an U.S. citizen, you were eligible to vote as soon as your foot hit the dock. This was well known to the political machines that ran most of the major cities (and, by extension, the state legislatures and U.S. Congress) and they pandered to this voting block 24/7.

There is also the impact of the media. Just as today's television news shapes the voters views, the newspapers of the second half of the 19th Century shaped opinion then.The Spanish American War was effectively the result of Hearst Newpapers wanting a war to write about. God knows what would have happened if he'd gotten his tail in a knot over Canada.
 
The US Army might have been able to conquer Canada in the late 1800's.... but how would that help when the RN so outclasses the USN? The RN could blockade damn near the entire US east coast and ruin the economy....
 
The US Army might have been able to conquer Canada in the late 1800's.... but how would that help when the RN so outclasses the USN? The RN could blockade damn near the entire US east coast and ruin the economy....

Not Necessarily. Americans as a whole are very stubborn and tenacious people. Just because their navy wasn't up to par with the british, doesn't mean they'd lose, look at the Battle of New Orleans. and even if they did lose, America has (or rather, had) many resources available to it without trade. it woudl have been able to withstand blockade for several months, if not years. and then, once again, there is the factor of the French. who would have most likely aided the warring americans and broken the blockade at some point. and my final point. Americans at the time were very giving. they would have happily given up almost everything that they had to either fight in the war, supply the troops, or to limit the amount of goods that would have been brought into America.
 
...i would just like to see them try now...that would be one humiliating defeat for them today...

but back then they would have "rebels" fighting everywhere behind their "lines"
 

MrP

Banned
Not Necessarily. Americans as a whole are very stubborn and tenacious people. Just because their navy wasn't up to par with the british, doesn't mean they'd lose, look at the Battle of New Orleans. and even if they did lose, America has (or rather, had) many resources available to it without trade. it woudl have been able to withstand blockade for several months, if not years. and then, once again, there is the factor of the French. who would have most likely aided the warring americans and broken the blockade at some point. and my final point. Americans at the time were very giving. they would have happily given up almost everything that they had to either fight in the war, supply the troops, or to limit the amount of goods that would have been brought into America.

First, as Dave said, the economy will be buggered before the French can intervene. It isn't a matter of America being self-sufficient in food or gunpowder or anything else. I doubt anyone's arguing that America can be starved into submission. It's a matter of the flow of money - and a blockade stops that. Second, if you want the USN to stand a fighting chance in the '80s or '90s, you'll need it to have some ships to fight with. The OTL USN would be shafted. USS Texas wasn't commissioned until 1895! In fact, by the start of '96, the USN had 3 battleships, two tiny: Texas (c.6k tons), Maine (c.7k tons) and Indiana (c. 11.7k tons). The RN has about 20 battleships, all of at least 10k tons. And many many support ships.

Third, if the French get involved - and they'd have both a) to have avoided their OTL crushing defeat in the F-P War of '70-71 to have the daring to risk annoying Britain, and b) changed their government, because old Napoleon was very keen on not annoying the British - unlike his famous forebear - then they're definitely a way to break or weaken the blockade, since more RN units'll have to be assigned to cover them.
 
First, as Dave said, the economy will be buggered before the French can intervene. It isn't a matter of America being self-sufficient in food or gunpowder or anything else. I doubt anyone's arguing that America can be starved into submission. It's a matter of the flow of money - and a blockade stops that.

American Revolution, there was no money. everyone did it for free because they believed in the cause. many didn't care that there was no money. however, in the cases of those that did, they were promised money for their services. the first form of credit i can imagine. no one needs money. i consider it a pointless item that increases greed. but, it is necessary. and money can be but on hold if need be. it occurred in WWII, granted its a much later period of time. people are willing to sacrifice ANYTHING for what they believe in. and if they believe strongly enough, then they'll die for it. The Crusades are a perfect example, especially the later ones, and the Child's Crusade. a blockade can stop anything it wants. if people believe that they don't need the money, then they don't need the money. and that will defeat any blockade any day of the week... except christmas.

Second, if you want the USN to stand a fighting chance in the '80s or '90s, you'll need it to have some ships to fight with. The OTL USN would be shafted. USS Texas wasn't commissioned until 1895! In fact, by the start of '96, the USN had 3 battleships, two tiny: Texas (c.6k tons), Maine (c.7k tons) and Indiana (c. 11.7k tons). The RN has about 20 battleships, all of at least 10k tons. And many many support ships.

In the Battle of New Orleans, the USN was outdated, out numbered, and out gunned. the only thing that we had was a will. and we won. the numbers don't matter when the heart is thrown into the battle. besides. whose to say there wouldn't be a saboteur? or, even consider this... a row-boat. unlikely right? well think of this, the USS Cole was attacked by a suicide bomber in a small fishing boat. A SMALL FISHING BOAT. i can guarantee that some americans would have thought of that and, during the cover of the darkness, quietly rowed to any British ship, light a powder keg, and destroyed, if not severely damaged, any of the ships. one keg would probably end up putting a small hole in there. two, a bigger hole, and three, possible enough explosives to ignite the ships actual Keg room. this would result in a similar explosion to the one that may or may not have destroyed the USS Maine.

Third, if the French get involved - and they'd have both a) to have avoided their OTL crushing defeat in the F-P War of '70-71 to have the daring to risk annoying Britain, and b) changed their government, because old Napoleon was very keen on not annoying the British - unlike his famous forebear - then they're definitely a way to break or weaken the blockade, since more RN units'll have to be assigned to cover them.

and i said this before... its not during the late 19th century, but during the late 18th century. the French,Spanish, Dutch, and some German Mercenaries were already at war with the British and fighting for the American's independence. and the Americans would have happily given Quebec, if won, to the French. The logistics make sense. it all makes sense. just open up your mind and consider the possibilities. now, i promise that a Revolutionary invasion of Canada would be Bloody, possibly as Bloody as the Civil War. but it would have been won. and the Canadians quite possibly would have become intoxicated with the Patriotic and Independent spirit. and the french who would have been living in Quebec, may have risen and fought along their formerly British enemies. and that, would have made them American. An American fights alongside his old enemies to face new ones. Which is why now, America, Britain, Germany, Japan... were all allies. just imagine. forget about many of the rules and you may end up in interesting places.
 
American Revolution, there was no money. everyone did it for free because they believed in the cause. many didn't care that there was no money. however, in the cases of those that did, they were promised money for their services.

I'll be brief for now because I really should be off cooking Christmas dinner, but you are way overestimating the American public's willingness to sacrifice for war IMO. Keep in mind you are talking about the nineteenth century and think of the things the Union had to do to get soldiers. Or taking the example of WWII, read up on some of the concerns the government had, especially in the last year or so.
 
I'll be brief for now because I really should be off cooking Christmas dinner, but you are way overestimating the American public's willingness to sacrifice for war IMO. Keep in mind you are talking about the nineteenth century and think of the things the Union had to do to get soldiers. Or taking the example of WWII, read up on some of the concerns the government had, especially in the last year or so.

i never said ti wasn't a stretch. but hell, people are cows. if given the right leader, then most cows will follow, and ALL sheep will follow. there are some who are more intelligent, these donkeys are quite possibly the smartest, but they're stubborn. people don't like those who are stubborn. IDK... and i am not overestimating. we DID attack Quebec, we DID attack Montreal. we WANTED to stimulate revolutionary feelings there as well. but we couldn't get Quebec, which brings me back to my first point. If we had managed to defeat the British during the battle of Quebec, then we may quite possibly be in control of Canada right now.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
i never said ti wasn't a stretch. but hell, people are cows. if given the right leader, then most cows will follow, and ALL sheep will follow. there are some who are more intelligent, these donkeys are quite possibly the smartest, but they're stubborn. people don't like those who are stubborn.

Actually, they're more giraffes, in that really they're very different but alike, or sometimes they act like sheep but they're really wolves in sheep's clothing but then you have your Vegans, and I think they're more like Parrots really....:p:D

(Yes, I got a bottle of very good wine, and just opened it.)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
American Revolution, there was no money. everyone did it for free because they believed in the cause. many didn't care that there was no money. however, in the cases of those that did, they were promised money for their services. the first form of credit i can imagine. no one needs money.

Well, the Continental Army was supposed to be paid, but the money they were paid became worthless through hyperinflation. It caused huge problems in the army, and Washington kept his army together through rather extreme levels of floggings and hangings. If the current thinking is to be believed as much as 25% of the Continental Army defected to join the Provincials/ Regulars during the war.

this would result in a similar explosion to the one that may or may not have destroyed the USS Maine.

No, it wouldn't. You don't appriciate (sp?) the physics of the weapons of the time. A large external explosion would do very little damage to a wooden warship, since the gases will expand along the path of least resistance, i.e. away from the ship. For this very reason shellfire of the period was very ineffective unless the shell detonated within the ship (where it was very effective). Later 20th century weapons use high explosives (the shockwave is supersonic, Gunpowder is a low explosive with a subsonic shockwave) which actually can transfer significant quantities of energy through shock, especially against a target like the Cole (which lacks the protection of a even a 19th century wooden warship).

and i said this before... its not during the late 19th century, but during the late 18th century. the French,Spanish, Dutch, and some German Mercenaries were already at war with the British and fighting for the American's independence. and the Americans would have happily given Quebec, if won, to the French. The logistics make sense. it all makes sense. just open up your mind and consider the possibilities. now, i promise that a Revolutionary invasion of Canada would be Bloody, possibly as Bloody as the Civil War. but it would have been won. and the Canadians quite possibly would have become intoxicated with the Patriotic and Independent spirit. and the french who would have been living in Quebec, may have risen and fought along their formerly British enemies. and that, would have made them American. An American fights alongside his old enemies to face new ones. Which is why now, America, Britain, Germany, Japan... were all allies. just imagine. forget about many of the rules and you may end up in interesting places.

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding this paragraph, but there was a US backed French-Canadian rebellion in history, and guess what, it didn't come off....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriote_Rebellion
 
Well, the Continental Army was supposed to be paid, but the money they were paid became worthless through hyperinflation. It caused huge problems in the army, and Washington kept his army together through rather extreme levels of floggings and hangings. If the current thinking is to be believed as much as 25% of the Continental Army defected to join the Provincials/ Regulars during the war.

I knew this. i didn't say they werent being paid. and this is part of the reason for the National Debt.

No, it wouldn't. You don't appriciate (sp?) the physics of the weapons of the time. A large external explosion would do very little damage to a wooden warship, since the gases will expand along the path of least resistance, i.e. away from the ship. For this very reason shellfire of the period was very ineffective unless the shell detonated within the ship (where it was very effective). Later 20th century weapons use high explosives (the shockwave is supersonic, Gunpowder is a low explosive with a subsonic shockwave) which actually can transfer significant quantities of energy through shock, especially against a target like the Cole (which lacks the protection of a even a 19th century wooden warship).

Appreciate. anyway, i know that it'll travel across the path of lease resistance. and i know it'll travel through air more than the ship itself. now i said explosion, i should edit that statement. i should rather say "Cannon Fire" a small cannon placed on the ship, could make it through some of the armor, and if not, then damage the Mast. Older ships have many more locations for sabatouge than modern ships. im not saying its practical, im just saying that it is plausible...

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding this paragraph, but there was a US backed French-Canadian rebellion in history, and guess what, it didn't come off....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriote_Rebellion


Thats too far ahead! please understand this, im not reffering to a new rebellion, im talking about an expansion of the First democratic rebellion into Canada. If the revolutionaries could promise the Canadians a vote to either join the US, become independent, or rejoin the French Empire (for Quebec) i am pretty confident that many of the Canadians would have fought.
 
Top