Realistic ways of the United States annexing Canada

Eire, no such event ever took place during the ACW. Some silliness in NYC thought they could trade with the south and were disabused of that notion.
 
No, Faeelin, they were the chaps who thought Mexico yearned to retake Texas, Arizona and New Mexico at a time when Mexico couldn't even cope with Pershing's 6000 troops rampaging all over northern Mexico or put down regular political banditry at home with the reconquest to be made possible by whatever German forces and armaments that could mystically pass the British blockade.:D
 
Confederation

Supose the leaders of the UK had the idea of Confederation earlier. They combined not only Upper and Lower Canada but, also other colanies further south.
 
The President walks into Ottawa, says "Hey, we're taking over," and the Prime Minister replies, "Okey dokey!" ;)

Or is that not realistic? :D
 
The USA annexing some or all of Canada is pretty plausible as long as the POD is sometime between 1776 and 1867. It's still possible leading up to WWI but with every year after Canada's Confederation in 1867, it gets less and less likely as Canada grows in size and independence. Before the 1860s though, any decline in Britain's fortune, for whatever reason, increases the chance of the USA expanding into Canada. Britain & the USA both, on the whole, had good 19th. centuries, but if Britain had declined as a colonial power the way, say, Spain did during the 19th. century, it seems likely that the USA would have snapped up some or all of Britain's colonial possessions just as they did Spain's.

The "Quebec joins the Revolution" scenario might be conceivable if Britain's occupation of New France had been less accommodating of the entrenched French language, culture, and laws. Had the British been a brutal occupier in New France, Quebec might have joined with the Thirteen Colonies despite animosity left over from the Seven Years' War, especially given France's support of the Revolution. The Colonists would probably have been welcoming to Quebec up to a point; they might not have wanted to live amongst Catholics who spoke a different language (which would have been pretty different from the Parisian language of culture that Franklin et al spoke), but they would have welcomed an ally who was also seeking independence from the Motherland. What would have happened once Independence was won I can't say, but the loss of Quebec as well would have been a further damaging loss to Britain.

One more scenario that hasn't been mentioned would have been if Spain had colonized further up the Pacific coast. The Canadian Pacific Northwest was explored almost concurrently by Britain's Captain Vancouver and Spain's Dionisio Galiano, and they even almost went to war over Vancouver Island during the 1792 Nootka Crisis. If Spain had won out there, or if Britain had been less interested in exploring the Pacific Northwest, then Spanish North America would have stretched farther north than it did IOTL, perhaps taking up all of what's now British Columbia. If this land had passed on to Mexico as most of Spanish North America did IOTL, and the Mexican War proceeded as it did, the USA could have been in a position to snap up all of Canada's Pacific Coast. This would have limited Canada's westward expansion and might have led to clashes with the US over the modern-day Prairie provinces.
 
Anglo-American war in the 1920's or 30's is the most realistic. British Empire is too strong before WW1 and US is too strong to be denied after. Any hint of Canada helping the Commonwealth would lead to a preemptive attack, more likely than not. Maybe the League does something stupid that provides the impetus?
 
No, Uxi, the idea of the US going to war with Canada or Great Britain in that time period is not realistic in the slightest.

It seems that there is a confusion here between what is possible purely in theory and what is realistic.
 
Well it would need to be a great big PoD, but it's hardly impossible.

It would need to be a huge POD on the level of an assassination or 9/11-type attack. Also, for an Anglo-American war to be possible in the 20s or 30s, the POD would need to be a good bit earlier. It's unlikely that two war-weary Great Powers who were allied during the last conflict would go to war with each other. You are right about Britain being too strong for it to happen in the 20th. century, which is why as I said earlier you need a British decline in the 19th. century for this to be plausible.

Also, by the 1930s Canada had almost complete legislative independence from Britain thanks to 1931's Statute of Westminster so a war with Britain did not guarantee war with Canada (even in 1939 it took a week before Canada followed Britain in declaring war on Germany); Canada could well have sized up the situation, realized it didn't need a war fought on home turf with its' powerful neighbour, and opted not to follow Britain.

It's also worth keeping in mind that if the hypothetical Anglo-American war was a limited conflict between just the two main powers, America might not have launched a full-blown invasion of its' giant neighbour. There might have been raids and attacks, possibly even occupations of some territory, but for anyone to invade a country the size of modern Canada would have to be part of a World War-level conflict.
 
How do you figure?

The arguemnt advanced is that since many of the "Canadians" in 1812 were Aemrican settlers, they would have been inclined to join the USA over remaining British subjects. This is why Italian-Americans yearn for the rule of Rome, and why the Swedes of Minnesota are in a territorial enclave ruled from Stockholm.
 
It's also worth keeping in mind that if the hypothetical Anglo-American war was a limited conflict between just the two main powers, America might not have launched a full-blown invasion of its' giant neighbour. There might have been raids and attacks, possibly even occupations of some territory, but for anyone to invade a country the size of modern Canada would have to be part of a World War-level conflict.

It definitely wouldn't be in one massive invasion, but a series of assaults at strategic targets and population centers. I'm thinking a land corridor through to Alaska (Big chunks of BC and Yukon), the GTA, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, to begin with. Maybe offer Quebec independence. Then the next wave at natural resource deposits. Then the slow assimilation of the rest (possibly in "autonomous zones" in the interim), but there isn't much of a military risk once the major population zones were occupied/pacified.
 
It definitely wouldn't be in one massive invasion, but a series of assaults at strategic targets and population centers. I'm thinking a land corridor through to Alaska (Big chunks of BC and Yukon), the GTA, Regina, Winnipeg, Ottawa, to begin with. Maybe offer Quebec independence. Then the next wave at natural resource deposits. Then the slow assimilation of the rest (possibly in "autonomous zones" in the interim), but there isn't much of a military risk once the major population zones were occupied/pacified.

I agree with Grimm Reaper. It would make a good soft "What-If" story, but I can't see that quite working. A land corridor through to Alaska would in itself require a full-blown invasion force of at least hundreds of thousands, and more to pacify the nearby population centres of Vancouver & Victoria (which is on an island off the mainland and would make a great Anglo-Canadian rallying point). Ottawa would also be a hard nut to crack as it was actually selected in 1867 as a capital that would be hard to take in the event of American invasion. Quebec's independence movement wasn't anywhere near as well-developed as it is now at that time, and besides only a few die-hards would jump at the chance to break away from embattled Canada, especially if it meant being beholden to another English speaking power who had just invaded. Finally, an occupation of Canada would have the same problems as an occupation of, say, Russia would; namely Canada has lots and lots of land. It would be ideal for a guerilla/partisan movement to wear invaders down. So yeah, it's an interesting idea but no go.

The war of 1812 thing makes a bit more sense as that was really the first hint of there being any "Canadian" identity.
 
What if Russia showed a little more intrest in North America early on, but then looses interest: Instead of taking Alaska and a few coastal forts/trading outpoasts further south (like Fort Ross near San Francisco) they get Alaska and OTL Yukon, BC and part of Washington... Then the Alaska purchase includes all of that territory as well...

Oh, by the way, Grimm Reaper, I rechecked my facts, the Mayor of NYC wanted to secede form NY and the Union to form The Trinsula Republic, but what little suport he had dissapeared when Union troups arived... But my point was that seceding from the Union during the ACW did not have to be the same thing as joining the CSA, it just happened to be a 1:1 in OTL... (People in CA talked about forming Republic of the West, including CA, OR, and the Utah and New Mexico territories, if you want another example)
 
What if Russia showed a little more intrest in North America early on, but then looses interest: Instead of taking Alaska and a few coastal forts/trading outpoasts further south (like Fort Ross near San Francisco) they get Alaska and OTL Yukon, BC and part of Washington... Then the Alaska purchase includes all of that territory as well...

That one makes a lot of sense, as with the Spanish North America example I suggested above it would leave Canada much smaller and without a Pacific coast. If that had happened in the 1860s it would have provided much more of an impetus for Canadian Confederation, so the remaining provinces might have come together as a country that much quicker. Whether or not Canada's smaller size & being surrounded by the US on two sides would have led to the rest eventually being snapped up is up for debate.
 
Since Canada is an independent nation Great Britain has no authority to sell Canada in the first place, Canada will not agree to being purchased and has more trained soldiers than the US does without the 1917 mobilization, and the idea of the US telling Canada to surrender or we'll let Germany seize territory in North America is beyond implausible.

Ummm.... No. Canada doesn't become independent until ... hmmm... say, the Statute of Westminster in 1931 (one can argue the exact date)*, but during WWI, the UK probably has the RIGHT to sell Canada. Of course, it wouldn't work, Canada would likely declare independence. Still, the attempt would likely, ultimately, lead to a US take-over.

OTL, by the end of WWI, Canada was establishing its own identity (Canadian units officered by Canadians, instead of British, for instance), but I don't think Canada as 'its own country' was quite the dominant meme yet, although it was growing fast.
--
*Granddad, who never took out Canadian citizenship for some reason, could vote in every Canadian federal election in his lifetime as a British subject. And, of course, there are those who claim that the repatriation of the Constitution was the formal dividing line.
 
It is pretty hard to determine when any particular 'White' dominion became independent, given the lack of a clear declaration. If I remember correctly in NZ's case constitutional theorists think are at least half a dozen to a dozen (could be more/less, but I forget) points that can be identified as potential candidates for a date of independence. I imagine Canada would be in a similar situation to us
 
Top