Night Probe = implausible ?

[1940LaSalle]

In his 1981 action novel Night Probe, Clive Cussler posits that a so-called North American Treaty had been negotiated between Great Britain and the US in 1914, whereby, for $1 billion US (value today ~$185B), Great Britain sold Canada to the US. There were said to be two copies of the treaty: one lost in the St. Lawrence as the result of a shipping accident; the other (long story) hidden well away in the US. The US copy was found and after machinations, put into effect.

I find the whole idea thoroughly implausible for a variety of reasons:

1. In 1914, the combatants weren't yet fully resigned to a long war until later in the year. And debts had only started to mount. If such a treaty had been attempted, it seems like 1915 would be a more likely time.
2. According to the novel, William Jennings Bryan was part of the negotiations. I don't think Bryan was capable of keeping secret what he had for breakfast for more than about 30 minutes, so keeping quiet about something of this magnitude boggles the mind.
3. Not at all sure how much leeway the British PM has in terms of negotiating treaties. I suspect it's roughly akin to that accorded the US president or Secretary of State, but someone from the UK would need to confirm/correct.
4. I get the impression that implementing this treaty would meet with a LOTof resistance, either in 1914 or in later years:
   1. In 1914, Great Britain still had a significant empire, and the idea of selling any of it off voluntarily, even to help with the war effort, would not go over well especially with the Conservatives (I suspect that Rudyard Kipling, among others, would be apoplectic). At the same time, in the US, there was some non-trivial anti-British sentiment that probably would have balked at adding territory seen as "British", as well as resistance from the South, figuring that the provinces added would be just so many more northern states. And I question that the Canadians would have been particularly enthusiastic at all.
   2. In later years, with the empire gone, I suspect a resurrected treaty would be met with some amusement in the UK, and not much more. In the US, the debate in the Senate wold be truly epic: the more conservative states would probably want none of it, while the more liberal states would probably welcome the idea. And I suspect reaction in Canada would fall into one of a few camps:
      1. Modest enthusiasm in the Maritimes: no more would they be the small provinces everyone overlooks.
      2. Complete opposition in Quebec--and possibly a revival of separatism.
      3. A generally hostile reception in Ontario.
      4. Mild interest in the prairie provinces and BC.

So...in the final analysis, I'd assign a plausibility value of about 1.1 out of a possible 10 to the whole idea. What are your thoughts?

 

[Garrison]

Canada isn't some empty chunk of land, its a country with its own government and national identity, the idea that the British could actually sell it is a non-starter and let's not forget how much manpower Canada provided to the war effort in WWI. It's just an utterly bizarre notion even for a novel and any British PM who even thought about this would face a no confidence vote 5 minutes after it became public, which it would because any such treaty would have to be agreed by parliament.

 

[Riain]

Upper and Lower Canada were united in 1840, and had their own Parliament as the province of Canada. Canada was granted Dominion status in 1967, with it's own Prime Minister. Britain can't simply sell it (or transfer Sovereignty) without Canada's knowledge or consent after 75 years of self government and 47 years of virtual independence.

Britain had some 19 billion in foreign investments in 1914, dwarfing France in second place with 9 billion, and was easily able to raise a $500 million loan in the US in 1915 followed by many more loans, it also liquidated half of those investments. Britain was not in dire financial straights until 1917.

$1 billion is not a lot of money even in 1914 for Canada, even if its sovereignty could be sold I think it would fetch a far higher price than a measly $1 billion.

IIUC the US position in the book was that the US had paid Britain well over $1 billion, so the sale had gone through. However those payments, grants, Lend Lease etc had their own Terms and Conditions and shouldn't be seen as payment for the 1914 offer to sell. The 1914 offer had to been seen as a discreet offer, it had not gone through. Saying the US had paid the $1 billion over the years is like me saying I've overpaid for my groceries over the years so I can go into Woolies and take what I want.

0% chance for me.

 

[Lalli]

Agree. This is not even implausible but ASB. I can't see British PM being able to sell any part of British Empire without consent of parliament and him probably has even talk with king too. Even if PM would had talked with parliament or even with his cabinet that traty hardly would had been secret such long time. And you should take too Canadians in notice. Canada wasn't same for Brits what Alaska was to Russians. It was inhabitated by people originated from British Isles and it had already its own parliament and status of dominion. You just can't sell that away that way. And selling Canada much later would be even more impossible.

And I am pretty amazed that such important paper would just disappear for several decades without no one caring. Did Asquith and Wilson get dementia and forgot whole paper?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

In the 1911 election Canada rejected free trade with America, no way Canada is becoming part of America.

 

[overoceans]

I'm pretty sure Britain didn't have the power to sell Canada in 1914.

 

[Lalli]

I'm pretty sure Britain didn't have the power to sell Canada in 1914.

Probably not. And even lesser sole prime minister. Canada was already dominion and it had its own independent government and domestic policy. It wasn't some remote colony filled by some natives what could be sold to another nation without any consueqences. Canadian government wouldn't accept that and even leser Canadian people.

And I am not sure if USA even so much wanted that place anymore after ACW. Probably not much even after 1812 War.

 

[YYJ]

Also, Canada had been mobilizing since August 1914, so it was full of trained and semi-trained soldiers. I'm not sure the state of the US Army at the time, but I recall that chasing Pauncho Villa stretched their capabilities.

 

[YYJ]

And I am not sure if USA even so much wanted that place anymore after ACW. Probably not much even after 1812 War.

Indeed, by 1914 the US could get by trade any resources they could get by conquest. Canada was somewhat concerned about US invasion up until the 1920s, wanting to make sure rail lines were internal, rather than having to pass through the US, etc. The Royal Navy did consider the US as a potential adversary at this point, but then militaries game every possible scenario.

 

[Riain]

Also, Canada had been mobilizing since August 1914, so it was full of trained and semi-trained soldiers. I'm not sure the state of the US Army at the time, but I recall that chasing Pauncho Villa stretched their capabilities.

The Permanent Active Militia of Canada (Regular Army) was 3,110 strong in April 1914 and tasked with training the Non-Permanent Militia which had an establishment of some 55,000 in 1914 and was organised into 6 divisions.

The US Army was in a very low state in 1914, the Regular Army was 100,000 strong but only about 30,000 were able to be put into 4 divisions to be moved around, the rest were coastal artillery, engineers on the Mississippi etc. The National Guard was 117,000 strong and organised into 12 divisions. These units were at 'peacetime establishment' with about 2/5 of the men they needed, the RA and NG would need over 300,000 'volunteers' just to fill out their existing units, although by the look of it Canada would be in a similar situation.

If the US and Canada went at it from a cold start in 1914 the US would have a reasonably tough time, it would be no walkover.

 

[Garrison]

The Permanent Active Militia of Canada (Regular Army) was 3,110 strong in April 1914 and tasked with training the Non-Permanent Militia which had an establishment of some 55,000 in 1914 and was organised into 6 divisions.

The US Army was in a very low state in 1914, the Regular Army was 100,000 strong but only about 30,000 were able to be put into 4 divisions to be moved around, the rest were coastal artillery, engineers on the Mississippi etc. The National Guard was 117,000 strong and organised into 12 divisions. These units were at 'peacetime establishment' with about 2/5 of the men they needed, the RA and NG would need over 300,000 'volunteers' just to fill out their existing units, although by the look of it Canada would be in a similar situation.

If the US and Canada went at it from a cold start in 1914 the US would have a reasonably tough time, it would be no walkover.

With the added problem that just as soon as Asquith has been sacked/locked up for treason/committed to an insane asylum the British will be supporting the Canadians.

 

[Riain]

With the added problem that just as soon as Asquith has been sacked/locked up for treason/committed to an insane asylum the British will be supporting the Canadians.

Yes, the topic of US vulnerability in about 1914 has come up from time to time and people get really upset at the notion that according to the correlation of forces in mid 1914 Europeans could attack the US and be militarily successful.

To be fair the idea of the US as a military pygmy is a strange one to modern eyes.

 

[Garrison]

Yes, the topic of US vulnerability in about 1914 has come up from time to time and people get really upset at the notion that according to the correlation of forces in mid 1914 Europeans could attack the US and be militarily successful.

To be fair the idea of the US as a military pygmy is a strange one to modern eyes.

Yeah I've been watching a lot of Drachinifel's videos on Youtube and the parsimony of the US Congress when it came to the US navy prior to WWI is ridiculous.

 

[jlckansas]

You would also have to have the US Senate ratify the treaty, IIRC it takes a 2/3 majority vote, and then have actual proof the US sent the money to the UK and they actually received the money for this to take effect.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

According to the novel, William Jennings Bryan was part of the negotiations.

He was Secretary of State at the time, so of course he would be.

I don't think Bryan was capable of keeping secret what he had for breakfast for more than about 30 minutes, so keeping quiet about something of this magnitude boggles the mind.

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..."

So, Congress would have to appropriate that $1B. It would be rather silly to negotiate such a treaty without first determining whether Congress would actually appropriate the money. That means Congress would have to be informed of the prospective deal. Therefore, secrecy would be utterly impossible.

 

[Lalli]

He was Secretary of State at the time, so of course he would be.

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..."

So, Congress would have to appropriate that $1B. It would be rather silly to negotiate such a treaty without first determining whether Congress would actually appropriate the money. That means Congress would have to be informed of the prospective deal. Therefore, secrecy would be utterly impossible.

And pretty surely prime minister should talk with British and Canadian parliaments. So not any chance that it would remain as secret. And when Canadians find out what is going on there is real shitstorm on-going.

But not only time when Cussler hasn't bothered about realism when he has prioritised enternaining plot.

 

[RanulfC]

In his 1981 action novel Night Probe, Clive Cussler posits that a so-called North American Treaty had been negotiated between Great Britain and the US in 1914, whereby, for $1 billion US (value today ~$185B), Great Britain sold Canada to the US. There were said to be two copies of the treaty: one lost in the St. Lawrence as the result of a shipping accident; the other (long story) hidden well away in the US. The US copy was found and after machinations, put into effect.

I find the whole idea thoroughly implausible for a variety of reasons:

1. In 1914, the combatants weren't yet fully resigned to a long war until later in the year. And debts had only started to mount. If such a treaty had been attempted, it seems like 1915 would be a more likely time.
2. According to the novel, William Jennings Bryan was part of the negotiations. I don't think Bryan was capable of keeping secret what he had for breakfast for more than about 30 minutes, so keeping quiet about something of this magnitude boggles the mind.
3. Not at all sure how much leeway the British PM has in terms of negotiating treaties. I suspect it's roughly akin to that accorded the US president or Secretary of State, but someone from the UK would need to confirm/correct.
4. I get the impression that implementing this treaty would meet with a LOTof resistance, either in 1914 or in later years:
   1. In 1914, Great Britain still had a significant empire, and the idea of selling any of it off voluntarily, even to help with the war effort, would not go over well especially with the Conservatives (I suspect that Rudyard Kipling, among others, would be apoplectic). At the same time, in the US, there was some non-trivial anti-British sentiment that probably would have balked at adding territory seen as "British", as well as resistance from the South, figuring that the provinces added would be just so many more northern states. And I question that the Canadians would have been particularly enthusiastic at all.
   2. In later years, with the empire gone, I suspect a resurrected treaty would be met with some amusement in the UK, and not much more. In the US, the debate in the Senate wold be truly epic: the more conservative states would probably want none of it, while the more liberal states would probably welcome the idea. And I suspect reaction in Canada would fall into one of a few camps:
      1. Modest enthusiasm in the Maritimes: no more would they be the small provinces everyone overlooks.
      2. Complete opposition in Quebec--and possibly a revival of separatism.
      3. A generally hostile reception in Ontario.
      4. Mild interest in the prairie provinces and BC.

So...in the final analysis, I'd assign a plausibility value of about 1.1 out of a possible 10 to the whole idea. What are your thoughts?

Left out some rather 'important' bits actually

Part of the "historical background" was that both the US and UK were GLAD in the end that both copies of the treaty were lost as neither had really wanted the deal to begin with. And IIRC the treaty, while stating "Canada" was actually more like the US getting Quebec or some such. (There was a Quebec Separatists' sub-plot I recall) The other major 'background' bit was that the then Prime Minsters of (modern) Canada and the President of the (modern) United States were old collage room-mates who'd often discussed the merits of a merger between the US and Canada. Once they learned that the treaty "might" exist they pulled out all the stops to try and locate a copy hence the British "bringing-James-Bond-but-we-won't-name-him-out-of-retirement" subplot to try and stop them from finding the treaty.

Randy