Is American Canada the American Equivalent of Sealion?

And you'd need to also have the British not bothering to fortify Canada appreciably despite having (presumably) some considerable time to do so.

Ya, realised I'd overlooked that- kind of a big miss. Any POD that gets Britain and US into a war also has Britain moving forces in to defend Canada.
 
Nobody has mentioned the obvious.

the only way to get a successful invasion and occupation of Canada by the US is to pick a time when the US is (locally) strong and Britain (internationally) weak and there are no strong reasons for patching up the relationship after the war. I suggest the only way to fulfil these three conditions is to have Britain collapse during the Napoleonic war, this is not easy but it would achieve the object.

I do not think any local American POD can achieve the first condition until the late 19thC by which time the third condition bites hard.

I exclude of course any POD that results in a successful invasion 20 years or more down the line because that would not meet the objective either.
 
I'm not sure that I follow. When you say harsher, you mean one that's tougher on Quebecois? I f that's so, then there's less of an incentive for Americans to rebel, no?

The main issue why the Patriots rebelled was over the fact Quebec was granted Ontario over the 13 colonies. If you gave it to the HBC for example then you will still have many other issues to deal with.
 
Basically the problem is that by the time the US is easily capable of taking Canada it has no real interest in doing so.
 
Basically the problem is that by the time the US is easily capable of taking Canada it has no real interest in doing so.

That is a major problem with the objective. Why go north and try to conquer a world power's colony when there are other, richer, and still sparsely-populated lands nearby? Mexico is a much softer target.

Still, it could be accomplished in steps. Have the US be slightly more successful in the revolution and get southern Ontario. Prevent the War of 1812, precluding a Canadian national identity from developing yet. Later on, assuming that the border between BNA & the U.S. is the same (although a border at the 50 instead would have interesting repercussions in Oregon and Vancouver) and the U.S. goes into Mexico in roughly the same schedule (perhaps earlier, as the slave states would want to expand), the free states could possibly have a reactionary desire to expand their numbers as well. The British are stuck with the various disparate colonies with no unified identity, and may not want to attach Rupert's Land to Quebec (The Maritimes are too far away this early and Columbia, if it exists, is too small). That could be the impetus for the south to secede, as they see the north trying to perpetuate the advantage.

That's one way I can imagine. (Can't type too much; computer in shop and I hate typing on mobile). The U.S. is hardly destined to remain friendly with the U.K., but it is harder to make the U.S. less fond of the mother country and largest trading partner. The world be a very different place to due to it.
 
That is a major problem with the objective. Why go north and try to conquer a world power's colony when there are other, richer, and still sparsely-populated lands nearby? Mexico is a much softer target.

You mean Northern Mexico that is, but you are correct. Since 1812 there has been in OTL a lack of reasons for the United States to take even most of Canada let alone all of it. Of course that does not mean this policy is a good idea in itself.

Still, it could be accomplished in steps. Have the US be slightly more successful in the revolution and get southern Ontario. Prevent the War of 1812, precluding a Canadian national identity from developing yet. Later on, assuming that the border between BNA & the U.S. is the same (although a border at the 50 instead would have interesting repercussions in Oregon and Vancouver) and the U.S. goes into Mexico in roughly the same schedule (perhaps earlier, as the slave states would want to expand), the free states could possibly have a reactionary desire to expand their numbers as well. The British are stuck with the various disparate colonies with no unified identity, and may not want to attach Rupert's Land to Quebec (The Maritimes are too far away this early and Columbia, if it exists, is too small). That could be the impetus for the south to secede, as they see the north trying to perpetuate the advantage.

That's one way I can imagine. (Can't type too much; computer in shop and I hate typing on mobile). The U.S. is hardly destined to remain friendly with the U.K., but it is harder to make the U.S. less fond of the mother country and largest trading partner. The world be a very different place to due to it.

The "American Ontario" option is not a bad one if you want to reduce Canada to just Quebec and the Maritimes. Likewise the ARW and CP USA options are other possible PODs one can use to have an American Canada. But the big question with the latter (as you say yourself) is how do you get the UK and US to fall out?

Ironically if the US did include Canada after the ARW, it would be easier to have a worse UK-USA relationship.
 
You mean Northern Mexico that is, but you are correct. Since 1812 there has been in OTL a lack of reasons for the United States to take even most of Canada let alone all of it. Of course that does not mean this policy is a good idea in itself.

Correct. I should have specified. Either way, North/northwest Mexico and central Canada are relatively sparsely populated, but Mexico is the softer target than Canada at this point.

The "American Ontario" option is not a bad one if you want to reduce Canada to just Quebec and the Maritimes. Likewise the ARW and CP USA options are other possible PODs one can use to have an American Canada. But the big question with the latter (as you say yourself) is how do you get the UK and US to fall out?

Ironically if the US did include Canada after the ARW, it would be easier to have a worse UK-USA relationship.

Quite. You could have the Oregon dispute become much more extreme in execution, but it would take a consistent series of sleights on both side, along with suite a bit of aggression, to have war come to that. Point. The two are extremely valuable trading partners.

It would be easier to delay the birth of Canadian national identity and decrease the chance of a union. Although, to be fair, Canada didn't always incorporate anything beyond the (northern) watershed of the Great Lakes and the st Lawrence. it depends upon which definition of Canada that we use to determine the degree of difficulty.
 
Dear unprincipled heron,

We are going to have to agree to disagree, because I believe military adventurism was the last motivation for the USA to invade Canada.

Instead, I believe that the primary motivation was economic.

By the mid-18th century all the arable land - East of the Appalachian Mountains was under the plow. Continually expanding population forced the 13 Colonies to look westwards for more arable land.
The 13 colonies were trying to expand westwards into the Ohio, Mississppi, Missouri and Red River Valleys.
Remember that the French and Indian Wars started when a Virginia-based surveyor named George Washjngton clashed with French traders. The French and Indian Wars sparked the Seven Years War which ended with the invasion of Quebec, followed a few years later by the American Revolutionary War, followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
If the British had allowed American colonists to expand into the Ohio River Valley that would have reduced population density and political frustration. As soon as the USA started poising the Mississippi Valley, it was only logical to expand northwards (along the Red River) into what are now the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Then the Mississippi River becomes the logical export route for Canadian cereal crops and cattle.

IOW the 49th parallel is an illogical border for the Canadian Prairies. If you want to draw borders based on topography, climate, river basins or natural trade routes, then all of the inland prairies logically go to the USA.
The 49th parallel makes little sense until you reach the West Coast and realize that the 49 the parallel is just south of the mouth of the Fraser River. The primary reason that the border is drawn along the 49 th parallel is that it gives Canada a third port on the West Coast.
 
So let me get this correctly, if Ontario was annexed then basically Canada as a state would not come about and the Dominion of Quebec, the Dominion of the Maritimes and the Dominion of Newfoundland will come about instead.

Meanwhile the rest of Mainland North America north of San Luis Potosí (and perhaps more besides) will be under the American flag with a lot of the Antilles in the same boat.

I do wonder how America's relations with Quebec, Maritimes and Newfoundland and how the English-French tensions are dealt with in Quebec.

Very much possible - without Ontario to link them, the remaining British claims wouldn't even be contiguous. Its likely they might not even be Anglo - a French-speaking Quebec and a Gaelic-speaking Maritimes are possible, at which point the British may just sell them to the Americans.

Certainly more plausible than many invasion scenarios. The major reason BC didn't become American OTL was the exodus of American miners after the end of the gold rushes in the 1860s, leaving the British immigrant and apathetic American (and the tiny% of others) as the majority. If somehow BC's population boomed then perhaps you'd see more of an annexation movement grow than OTL.

But peacefully annexing Canada after 1815 becomes tricky.

Semi-plausible. HBC preferred Canada since it worked with the Crown and could still guarantee them pretty exclusive rights. If the US was willing to pony up the millions of dollars they'd probably demand it would be doable.

Possibly. The British might give up on their claim if there's no Mexican War.

I think you mean in the Alabama Claims, but that's not going to happen as Britain never offered the territory OTL and was rather uninterested in making any concession on the subject until arbitration forced them to.

The most likely one I'd say.

Yeah, I meant the Alabama claims, and good to hear most of my ideas were plausible.
 
Top