How Would America Take All Of Britain's American Possessions

TFSmith121

Banned
And, of course, the Parliament gets burned down by Orange mobs...

EnglishCanuck - If you lived in Montreal...and happened to be a either a wealthy Torie who had a vested interest in opposing the abolition of Corn Laws or one of the few remaining die hard patriotes...

Of course it's is just a minor coincidence that support for the movement died out when the Canadian–American Reciprocity Treaty was signed in 1854 right?

Wouldn't make one wonder at all if it was just some political arm twisting by colonial elites ;)

And, of course, itas the same year the Parliament gets burned down by Orange mobs, but no, everything was perfectly quiet in the Province...other than it being second only to South Africa among the "white dominions" in terms of blood being spilled and political violence.:(

Well not that American banks had relied on specie payments or anything, or that the mere threat of war almost caused a stock market crash. I mean of course whose to say that a nation undergoing inflation needs foreign investment/materials/expertise in building new weapons and financing a war right?

Especially because the suspension of specie payments lasted until the mid-1870s...Hint: the Cross of Gold and Free Silver was an issue because?

The American banks were just dutifully churning out scrip to pay Washington's troops in 1775-83 right? I mean it's almost like those weren't British cities ;)

Boston, Philadelphia, and New York British cities? Really? When was the last time the British had a military governor in London, Manchester, or York?

And got bogged down in winter...before being repulsed by a British fleet. The the Americans couldn't manage even that with over 9x as many men and far more resources. In fact they somehow managed to do worse.

Amazingly enough, situations change over time. Shocking, I know. Hence my "this could be done at this point, and that at that point" posts above, based on the historical record.

The American military of the 1860s might be an entirely different creature, but the idea they could drive all before them and somehow reach Quebec City before a second snow fall depends on everything going utterly wrong for the British and the Americans not making one single mistake in the entire campaign. Just stretches the fabric of belief a tad no? Add to that a larger, more experienced, faster ocean traversing force unencumbered by a major war a world away...

Who has argued Plattsburgh to Quebec in one season?

Makes you wonder what the British could accomplish with sixty thousand men and steam engines.

Presumably, something less than what the other guys could accomplish with at least twice as many men and steam engines, plus whoever showed up from the Great White North - especially when the British strategy involved a two front war.

That aside there is a reason I cite 1890 as the beginning of the point where the US could hope to take Canada through sheer force of arms.

And that reason is?

Best,
 
Well not that American banks had relied on specie payments or anything, or that the mere threat of war almost caused a stock market crash. I mean of course whose to say that a nation undergoing inflation needs foreign investment/materials/expertise in building new weapons and financing a war right?

Bear in mind here that you're arguing with the person who once seriously claimed that countries can never go bankrupt because they can always just print, borrow and tax more.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Autarkies, Fabius, autarkies...

Bear in mind here that you're arguing with the person who once seriously claimed that countries can never go bankrupt because they can always just print, borrow and tax more.

Autarkies, Fabius, autarkies...especially those that have the Mother Lode, Comstock, and the wealth of the North American continent to draw from.

Little different than small, cold, forlon archipelagoes off the coast of Northwestern Europe that depend on trade to feed their own people.

And just because it is such a neat graphic:

npscw_facts-01.jpg


Best,
 
Last edited:
But if Quebec joins the American Revolution, I know no doubt everything west of it will go to the USA since the British have no access to it. If Nova Scotia does as well, we might see all of Canada as well. In fact, until American ships raided the crap out of them, there were attempts on independence on Nova Scotia.
 
And, of course, itas the same year the Parliament gets burned down by Orange mobs, but no, everything was perfectly quiet in the Province...other than it being second only to South Africa among the "white dominions" in terms of blood being spilled and political violence.:(

Well it's not as though the burning of Parliament in 1849 led to the Canadian tradition of responsible government or anything and that the provincial government managed to sort out nearly every single grievance and prevent another such outbreak of mob violence from ever happening.

Or isn't that what the historical record says?

Strange that eh?

Especially because the suspension of specie payments lasted until the mid-1870s...Hint: the Cross of Gold and Free Silver was an issue because?

Oh I'm not disputing the economic issues persisted after the crisis, I'm a little more confused how the greenbacks can be expected to not keep ballooning from inflation in the way the greybacks did without access to foreign markets, I'm also a little confused how lack of foreign materials/finance/expertise is made up completely at home when it wasn't at all the case OTL.

Autarky is a wonderful thing in theory yes?

Boston, Philadelphia, and New York British cities? Really? When was the last time the British had a military governor in London, Manchester, or York?

Well it's not like the Continental rebels held these cities or these cities were producing arms, uniforms, money, and supplies for the rebels. Actually I think the French had rather more to do with that than the cities ever did.

Coincidence eh?

Though it's not like a blockade from 1812-1815 nearly brought America to it's knees either...

Amazingly enough, situations change over time. Shocking, I know. Hence my "this could be done at this point, and that at that point" posts above, based on the historical record.

True it does change. The Britain of 1812-15 is far different from Britain in 1862 much like the Canadas of 1862 are far different and vice versa.

Or looking at the historical record we can actually compare British thinking/preparations to the non-existent American ones.

Yes time does change things.

Who has argued Plattsburgh to Quebec in one season?

All of Upper Canada and Montreal is rather generous if I can be more specific. That would be your claim I believe. It's especially generous in light of the realities on the ground at the time.

Presumably, something less than what the other guys could accomplish with at least twice as many men and steam engines, plus whoever showed up from the Great White North - especially when the British strategy involved a two front war.

And where would that second front be? The Baltic? The Mediterranean?

Or do you mean the Atlantic?

As I recall the only person fighting at two front war at this time is the United States.

And that reason is?

Mostly because it's at this point the United States is master of the continent, incapable of being effectively blockaded anywhere, has no festering internal issues, and is militarily capable of driving crushing any defensive force before its opponents have time to react.

Rather simply, before then the US does have a few more problems closer to home which tend to preclude an easy contest of all of Britain's North American possessions.

After 1890 not so much.
 
And plus if the U.S. controlled Canada, then they have an entire wood supply that Britain relied on. Take that away, and what becomes of the Royal Navy?

Precisely why before the whole ironclad revolution the RN was not particularly fond of losing its only 100% reliable source of timber ;)

Maybe this is one of the reasons Britain chose to historically fight to defend her North American colonies?
 
Precisely why before the whole ironclad revolution the RN was not particularly fond of losing its only 100% reliable source of timber ;)

Maybe this is one of the reasons Britain chose to historically fight to defend her North American colonies?

And if Quebec and Nova Scotia become independent, I imagine how screwed the British navy would be if Canada was lost. By the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars the British could be finally defeated on the seas.

But would it be plausible for the British to lose all of Canada? Though no doubt most of it.
 
And if Quebec and Nova Scotia become independent, I imagine how screwed the British navy would be if Canada was lost. By the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars the British could be finally defeated on the seas.

But would it be plausible for the British to lose all of Canada? Though no doubt most of it.

Depends on how you want it lost. The American Rebels taking it in 1775 is out. Even had they taken the city of Quebec the arrival of British forces would have crushed them.

1812-15 is also out. The Americans were woefully unprepared for war then and only managed to fend off British invasions while having their economy pushed steadily down the toilet by a blockade.

1860s are also out. The historical record of a power fighting a two front war on opposite sides of a continent is fairly obvious.

1880s? Can't quite think of a casus-belli personally.

However, that being said. If somehow the US can take advantage of the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada before the British manage to a) crush them or b) smooth over the relations in the colonies in the 1850s then there is a chance a portion of the nation could be convinced to rebel and become independent.

Though the British could have lost control over everything in what is now Upper Canada in the negotiations after the Revolution. The Maritimes and Quebec is a harder sell. However...should they not control Upper Canada it is plausible that Quebec could be lost to them as well via rebellion.

You need to spin a pretty good POD before 1800 to work it, but I think it's doable.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
New Brunswick-Maine AND Lower Canada

And where would that second front be? The Baltic? The Mediterranean?

Or do you mean the Atlantic?

As I recall the only person fighting at two front war at this time is the United States.

New Brunswick-Maine AND Lower Canada...

As per the Army's plan (attack at Rouse's Point!) and the Navy's plan (attack at Portland, Maine!)...and blockade everything from the Chesapeake to the Gulf of Maine! And operate against the US blockade of the South from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande! And against 1,000 miles of the Pacific Coast! And hunt down raiders, defend trade, and every port from Halifax to Kingston ... and hold down the Channel, the Med, African and South American waters, and the East Indies and the Pacific, from China to New Zealand...

Don't blame me; that's what the British wanted to do...

I'll come back to this one, but back to work. More seriously, thanks for the comment on BROS.

Best,
 
Depends on how you want it lost. The American Rebels taking it in 1775 is out. Even had they taken the city of Quebec the arrival of British forces would have crushed them.

1812-15 is also out. The Americans were woefully unprepared for war then and only managed to fend off British invasions while having their economy pushed steadily down the toilet by a blockade.

1860s are also out. The historical record of a power fighting a two front war on opposite sides of a continent is fairly obvious.

1880s? Can't quite think of a casus-belli personally.

However, that being said. If somehow the US can take advantage of the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada before the British manage to a) crush them or b) smooth over the relations in the colonies in the 1850s then there is a chance a portion of the nation could be convinced to rebel and become independent.

Though the British could have lost control over everything in what is now Upper Canada in the negotiations after the Revolution. The Maritimes and Quebec is a harder sell. However...should they not control Upper Canada it is plausible that Quebec could be lost to them as well via rebellion.

You need to spin a pretty good POD before 1800 to work it, but I think it's doable.

If Quebec does rebel if they are continually suppressed (no Quebec Act, or even harsher persecution) then that is the best opportunity since the Quebecois would be forced to work with the Americans.
 
If Quebec does rebel if they are continually suppressed (no Quebec Act, or even harsher persecution) then that is the best opportunity since the Quebecois would be forced to work with the Americans.

Except for that you have to change the Traty of Paris in 1763. Otherwise Britain not adhering to the terms gives all the other signatories a pretext for war. Which if you look at the terms Britain obviously wanted to avoid; they did not humiliate the French anywhere near as much as they might have.

Britain did not want to strengthen the other French colonies by encouraging mass emigration from Quebec

For France the acceptance of Catholocism in NA by the British was an important part of their agreeing to cede Quebec in the first place.

If France is belligerent perhaps Britain opts to take Guadeloupe instead (worth a lot more money) as was discussed in parliament. They only decided against Guadeloupe as a way to secure NA. Perhaps Britain caps the defenses that Quebec is allowed instead?

With a hostile French North America still in existence it's debatable that the 13 colonies feel safe enough to rebel.

So no Quebec act seems like a stretch to achieve what you want.
 
Except for that you have to change the Traty of Paris in 1763. Otherwise Britain not adhering to the terms gives all the other signatories a pretext for war. Which if you look at the terms Britain obviously wanted to avoid; they did not humiliate the French anywhere near as much as they might have.

Britain did not want to strengthen the other French colonies by encouraging mass emigration from Quebec

For France the acceptance of Catholocism in NA by the British was an important part of their agreeing to cede Quebec in the first place.

If France is belligerent perhaps Britain opts to take Guadeloupe instead (worth a lot more money) as was discussed in parliament. They only decided against Guadeloupe as a way to secure NA. Perhaps Britain caps the defenses that Quebec is allowed instead?

With a hostile French North America still in existence it's debatable that the 13 colonies feel safe enough to rebel.

So no Quebec act seems like a stretch to achieve what you want.

Or maybe a Québécois version of the Boston Massacre that causes Britain to fight against the people there that goes with no Quebec Act.
 
Or maybe a Québécois version of the Boston Massacre that causes Britain to fight against the people there that goes with no Quebec Act.

No Quebec act means no British Quebec. Tolerance of Catholicism was stipulated in the treaty of Paris.
So either,
a) the French don't insist on it (which makes no sense),

b) Britain decides it wants to take on France and Spain again by breaking the terms of a treaty it agreed to (why bother to agree to terms like these when you are the clear victor if only to break them?)

or c) Britain takes the much more profitable Guadeloupe, assuming that Quebec fell rather easily once and likely would again (so they may as well take the much more profitable colony and leave the money sink alone - let France with reduced income waste it's time and money on Quebec)
 
New Brunswick-Maine AND Lower Canada...

As per the Army's plan (attack at Rouse's Point!) and the Navy's plan (attack at Portland, Maine!)...and blockade everything from the Chesapeake to the Gulf of Maine! And operate against the US blockade of the South from the Chesapeake to the Rio Grande! And against 1,000 miles of the Pacific Coast! And hunt down raiders, defend trade, and every port from Halifax to Kingston ... and hold down the Channel, the Med, African and South American waters, and the East Indies and the Pacific, from China to New Zealand...

Don't blame me; that's what the British wanted to do...

I'll come back to this one, but back to work.

Except those aren't actually two fronts, but two army groups deployed in the same theater supported by an uncontested naval effort with the only serious separation between them being the wilderness of Northern Maine (the border road there which the British should have absolutely zero difficulty securing). Now if the attack on Portland fails and the British cannot carry the attack inland all the way then it becomes a tad more difficult. A successful operation however makes a nightmare for the US.

Now as to the Rouse Point plan, it's doable (as you yourself indeed acknowledge in BROS) and actually can only be defeated if the Americans actively prepare months in advance for an attack. Now the historical record is pretty clear in that the British could most likely have pulled off some type of attack, the resources were available, as to the American defense? Well that's a mite more speculative, but come January 1st 1862 OTL the border was wide open...

The naval effort on the other hand is rather predetermined to go the RN's way, Milne would have had 60 ships come the end of January (he asked for 65) and received more as needed. British supplies are secured by a convoy system (ala 1812) and it seriously depends on whether the British strike first in the navy war (more than likely judging by Russel's correspondence to Lyons) if America can get any commerce raiders out into the Atlantic. What effect they have has a dismal precedent in 1812 I'm afraid.

This is also predicated on if these commerce raiders can find neutral ports. However, if France were to join the fun (very likely) the job of US commerce raiders enters into the territory of near impossible. This is in the Atlantic of course, on the Pacific slope it's an entirely different question.

But by no means is the navy aspect impossible. Even on her own the RN is a formidable opponent, but we have no reason to believe in a war she would be acting on her own.
 
No Quebec act means no British Quebec. Tolerance of Catholicism was stipulated in the treaty of Paris.
So either,
a) the French don't insist on it (which makes no sense),

b) Britain decides it wants to take on France and Spain again by breaking the terms of a treaty it agreed to (why bother to agree to terms like these when you are the clear victor if only to break them?)

or c) Britain takes the much more profitable Guadeloupe, assuming that Quebec fell rather easily once and likely would again (so they may as well take the much more profitable colony and leave the money sink alone - let France with reduced income waste it's time and money on Quebec)

But of course the British can suppress the use of the French legal system and language.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, I disagree (as indicated elsewhere) but this can be discussed there

Except those aren't actually two fronts, but two army groups deployed in the same theater supported by an uncontested naval effort with the only serious separation between them being the wilderness of Northern Maine (the border road there which the British should have absolutely zero difficulty securing). Now if the attack on Portland fails and the British cannot carry the attack inland all the way then it becomes a tad more difficult. A successful operation however makes a nightmare for the US.

Well, I disagree (as indicated elsewhere) but this can be discussed there.;)

Best,
 
Top