What if the British sold Canada to the U.S. in ww1?

Over the course of the 'troubles' in NI the UK maintained an average of 9k troops there. About half of these could be seen as controlling the Unionists so that leaves 4.5k for the Republicans. The Catholic population was about 400k throughout this period (growing) and support for the armed struggle went up and down but was about 50% of the Catholic population and a tiny % of the Protestants.

So an organization with approx. 300 active 'troops' supported by 200k civilians needed 4.5k regular army personal on the ground to control it. Given the links between the two countries I think this is the most comparable situation.

Current population of Canada is 35mil. I think we can safely assume that if incorporated into the USA without the consent of the Canadian people supporting a resistance (not volunteering) would be near unanimous, so you would need? I make it 875k troops on active service in Canada at any one time.

OK the British Army were operating as riot police most of the time and all the fighting was down with the proverbial 'one hand behind their back'> Since then in Iraq and Afghanistan both British and American troops have used very different tactics. I still think given the land border and the fact that most Canadians could wander the USA passing as Americans this is the most comparable situation and it suggests things would be very nasty.

The IRA did almost all their killing with simple firearms and home made bombs so cutting off access to those in NA is out.

Well I was mainly talking about a ATL-WW1 Siutation but we can always bring it to OTL 2015...

Well firstly what needs to be factored in is why the United States has decided to invade Canada in the first place. Now if the US is still a democracy at this point then such a invasion would have to have at least a majority of the country supporting such a war and thus there would have to be a pressing reason why there is such support for such an invasion.

My view is that such an invasion would only have the needed approval if Canada ended up with such an Anti-American Government that it pretty much blocks all trade and gets very cozy with Moscow and Beijng (In other words like with Venezuela but worse). Now considering the closeness of US Cities to the Canadian Border that would give a National Security justification to push though an invasion (No one wants a Canadian Missile Crisis).

So lets say the invasion is done, the government is overthrown and the United States annexes Canada (Mainly because they don't want to go though this again, remember also that Canada is the biggest trading partner of America bar China). There is the question of what happens next.

I mean if the Americans co-opt the moderates who opposed the government and left them alone within the US Constitution then perhaps the worst that would happen is the odd terrorist attack here and there. If on the other hand they manage it in the sort of way they managed when it came to Iraq then you would need a lot of milltary force to deal with the blowback.

The question then comes to what happens from here, I feel it would get nasty but what do the Americans do about it. Especially when they have experenced what happens when you have a hostile Canada on your doorteep.
 
I'd expect a generation of resistance, but it would eventually subside. Americans wouldn't brutalize Canadians, and I doubt Canadians would do mass active resistance (passive most definitely)

I could see the passive working, but most likely once Canada got political rights, they'd just take over America that way and make it more like Canada.

Like they have taken over the American Comedy Industry. :D

In all seriousness if it did happen it would not take much to make the government policies "More Canadian" now that the Democrats have the support to push though UHC for example.
 
You do know that the force that sacked Washington and torched the White House was 100% British regulars, right? Not a single Canadian unit participated in that.
Oh yes. I was being facetious.

Putting aside any unlikelihood that he British selling Canada, or legally being able to sell Canada, the USA is fully capable of absorbing Canada at this point.

More likely though? The Canadian general population settles in under the reasonable amount of autonomy allowed under the American system (case in point - Quebec would have no issues being French as an American state, just ask Louisiana) - and economics and shared culture do what bullets can't in uniting the cultures.

Quebec is made of issues. Trust me on that.

I do think that eventually most of Canada would accept becoming a region of the US in 1914. I just don't think it will be as easy as many posters seem to think. The Loyalists that came here after the ARW will be very reluctant. I could totally see Ontario as well as Quebec threatening independence votes every generation or so.

This thread also raises the question of what effect there would be on the rest of the States. I can't say for sure that there would be the same liberal shift in Canada as in the OTL, but it would make a difference overall. Especially on issues like Vietnam, and close votes like the 2000 election.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
And looking up the Rupeet's land thing, looks as if the Russians got four times as much money for Alaska as the Brits got for Rupert's land. It was as if they were deliberately trying to keep it out of American hands even when they weren't using it themselves. How petty.
Rupert's Land was basically getting a British company to surrender its' monopoly, not the actual land. Alaska was purchasing the land from a different nation state entirely.

I'm not sure who you mean as "petty"?
 
Putting aside any unlikelihood that he British selling Canada, or legally being able to sell Canada, the USA is fully capable of absorbing Canada at this point.

Let's be clear hear: the USA was fully capable of arming and equipping as many soldiers overseas in WWI as Canada had citizens. Even a fraction of that force would be more than capable of brushing aside any meager resistance Canada can muster.

As for Canadian resistance, how? We're not exactly talking about the Vietkong armed with AK-47s here. Where will this Canadian resistance be getting weapons and supplies from? Much less weapons and supplies in such numbers that they can go toe to toe with a nation just over the border that is more than capable of putting a soldier in every Canadian home?

IMVHO you are vastly underestimating Canadian opposition to the idea of living under a US Constitution that failed to prevent the US Civil War and 650,000 deaths. Also that so many Americans would be willing to manhandle, even kill, members of a subject White English-Speaking mostly-American accented Christian population with no common history, save for one trying to keep away from the other. There were many reasons why Reconstruction failed, and this was one of them. This would be Reconstruction on steroids complete with Green Lantern's power ring.

So too being willing to put up the $$$ and manpower needed for this mother-of-all-occupation armies. Then there's the whole "5th Column" thing about people able to now cross a nonexistent borders with no checks. Don't forget that to supress a hostile population you need a 10:1 occupier to civilian ratio. Good luck with that. And what do you say to Canadians looking to join the US military? "No, we don't trust you"? "Yes, but you can't serve in Old Canada"? The US Constitution says that's a no-no. "Yes, but we'll never REALLY trust you, so feel free to moonlight spying for the Resistance."

Yeah, because Louisiana is soooooo francophone today... What happened to the French language in Louisiana is what the Anglos want for Quebec. The WASPs did it in Maine, in Louisiana, in Nova Scotia, etc.

Seconded
 
IMVHO you are vastly underestimating Canadian opposition to the idea of living under a US Constitution that failed to prevent the US Civil War and 650,000 deaths.
Canada didn't even unify until after the Civil War. So perhaps those things with their constitution would have been ironed out before there was such a thing as Canadians, outside of speaking of people from Ontario and Quebec.

Rupert's Land was basically getting a British company to surrender its' monopoly, not the actual land. Alaska was purchasing the land from a different nation state entirely.

I'm not sure who you mean as "petty"?
The British. Mostly just a joke, though. And true about them not purchasing the land, since the Canadians apparently tried annexing it too quickly despite not having the agreement the Crown or Company had with the tribes.
 
This thread also raises the question of what effect there would be on the rest of the States. I can't say for sure that there would be the same liberal shift in Canada as in the OTL, but it would make a difference overall. Especially on issues like Vietnam, and close votes like the 2000 election.

Well it depends on when exactly Canada ends up joining but answering the 1 of the examples you have listed if Canada joined around the time of the Quebec Vote (I actually did a thread on this*) then Gore would certainly win.

*http://www.counter-factual.net/upload/showthread.php?t=25755)
 
Invading that fine you must remember that the British Empire was still around at that time and I am sure it would rally the troops.

America may have had 1 million men under arms for a year but the empire had a lot more and they were battle hardened.

The problem is come WW1 the British where devoting most of their UK and Empire Forces in Europe and the Middle East (Including a lot of Indian, ANZAC and Canadian Forces). They did not have the spare capacity to then fully defend Canada from an American Army whose main focus was on home soil and the Phillipines.

So if America joined the CP and targeted Canada, then this is a war that they can at best find it very difficult to win unless they abandon the war in Europe and the Middle East.

I think its inevitable.

Except most Canadians at the time where mostly White Chiristians who mostly spoke English or in some cases French. So they are not likely to be discriminated because they are "different" to them.

One reason the RCMP was so successful at its birth was that the Mounties could not be formed with anyone from west of Ontario. So the RCMP came into the western territories and provinces from Ontario and all point to the east. They simply lacked the problems of the bitter race hatreds to be found in the US Army patrolling the Plains.

So you are saying that Royal Northwest Mounted Police (The RCMP did not come about until 1920) basically recruited all its members from Ontario and elsehwhere in Eastern Canada. Was that a deliberate policy to prevent issues with the Natives or did it happen anyway without a formal policy.

The US Army according to the US Constitution could not sift through its members and send east soldiers from west of the Alleghenies. The worst massacre against Natives ever committed on US soil was the work of the so-called "3rd Colorado", a "volunteer" regiment only called up from the local populace two days before. With predictable results.

What aspects of the Constitution mean that you are limited in what parts of the Armyyou can use?

I wouldn't want to think of US Marines and soldiers from the Texas National Guard raising hell in Quebec City or among the Natives in the Yukon. Not considering what both of those Canadian populations were used to in terms of treatment by authorities.

How many French-Speaking Soliders did the United States have in 1914 and how many of those have ancestry from Quebec and NB? Because if there are enough of them then perhaps they could be used to establish order in Quebec

2nd Amendment. Two howitzers in every garage.:rolleyes:

Bear in mind that if a "Canadian Liberation Army - Armée de Libération canadienne" decided to exploit that amendment, it would only push though the sorts of guns controled which in OTL where introduced to counter orgainsed crime.

I think the US Supreme Court would have something to say about that. Even English isn't the "official" language of the USA AIUI, but this...

Except there are already states which are bi-lingual as it stands in cases such as with New Mexico

How about AT missiles and shoulder-held SAMs stolen from National Guard armories? Christ, we had the problem IOTL of sympathetic National Guard officers handing over weapons (or providing training advice) to the Militia Movement!

Are we talking about today or in the 1910s because neither weapons you list came about in WW2. Also its one thing giving weapons to a couple of Americans with some guns, its another to give it to someone who ITTL would be on the level of AQ when it comes to American hosility.

Likewise it would make the case for a crackdown on such groups in the name of "National Security"
 
To summarise.

1. Britain has no power to hand over Canada to anyone post 1900.

2. Even if it did the Canadians would not comply and would actively resist.

3. The only way is for the USA to launch a war of conquest to impose foreign rule by the force of arms and would have to maintain a colonial army to suppress Canada. Not likely but Native Americans might have a sense of deja vu.
 
The idea of Canadians, particularly Anglo-Canadians being discriminated against is laughable. Being overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon origin, and largley invisble, they were the most favoured ethnic group. An immigration study by Congress in 1921 undertaken about various immigrant groups found that Anglo-Canadians were among the highest earning and most skilled immigrant groups, earning more than native-born Americans in many fields.

In 1900 there were people listed as native-born Anglo-Canadians 785,000 and anotehr 395,000 French Canadians in the United States. What's interesting is that during World War I and the 1920s Canadian emigration to the U.S. increased drastically for two reasons. Firstly the economic downturn in 1917 and the 1920s in Canada made the U.S. more attractive. Also, the end of the supply of European immigrants.

By 1940, there were still 1,191,000 Canadian born people in the U.S., of these 836,000 were Anglo-Canadian with 33% having arrived between 1920 and 1930, for the 506,000 French Canadians, 31% having arrived during the 1920s. So this was a huge migratory movement.
 
Quebec is made of issues. Trust me on that

So is Texas. We managed to make it work in the end :D

I do think that eventually most of Canada would accept becoming a region of the US in 1914. I just don't think it will be as easy as many posters seem to think. The Loyalists that came here after the ARW will be very reluctant. I could totally see Ontario as well as Quebec threatening independence votes every generation or so.

Quebec would probably be satisfied with the considerable autonomy that comes with statehood. Ontario might be an issue, but once the rest of Canada quiets down, I expect they would too.

This thread also raises the question of what effect there would be on the rest of the States. I can't say for sure that there would be the same liberal shift in Canada as in the OTL, but it would make a difference overall. Especially on issues like Vietnam, and close votes like the 2000 election.

This is one area I's expect to see some lingering regional influence, ala with the American South. Still, I expect most of the Canadian states would fall in pretty quickly with their American counterparts across the former border - (formerly British) Columbia voting with the other Northwestern states, the Prairie provinces voting with the Great Plains/Mountain states, Ontario voting with the other Rust Belt states, and Acadia voting with New England. Quebec would be a wild card.

IMVHO you are vastly underestimating Canadian opposition to the idea of living under a US Constitution that failed to prevent the US Civil War and 650,000 deaths. Also that so many Americans would be willing to manhandle, even kill, members of a subject White English-Speaking mostly-American accented Christian population with no common history, save for one trying to keep away from the other. There were many reasons why Reconstruction failed, and this was one of them. This would be Reconstruction on steroids complete with Green Lantern's power ring.

Oh yes, and look how well that ended up for the last bunch of would be secessionists. :rolleyes: I expect Canada would learn the same lesson the Confederacy did - that if you take on a country that dwarfs your population, industry and military might, and they happen to be just over the border, you'll lose.

Also, what makes you think the Canadians would all suddenly be willing to take up arms against, as you point out, fellow White English-Speaking mostly-American accented Christian population whose ONLY mark of separation was British overlordship.

Say what you will about Reconstruction, it succeeded in the most critical way - that the South knew damned well that for all the saber rattling, the South will NEVER rise again, and better to participate than to be ignored entirely.

Give Canada a generation, and it will be much the same - you'll have some folks in the boonies with Maple flags talking about how "Canada will rise again" and they put gravy on french fries, but aside from that, are as American as someone from New York, California or Georgia.

So too being willing to put up the $$$ and manpower needed for this mother-of-all-occupation armies. Then there's the whole "5th Column" thing about people able to now cross a nonexistent borders with no checks. Don't forget that to supress a hostile population you need a 10:1 occupier to civilian ratio. Good luck with that. And what do you say to Canadians looking to join the US military? "No, we don't trust you"? "Yes, but you can't serve in Old Canada"? The US Constitution says that's a no-no. "Yes, but we'll never REALLY trust you, so feel free to moonlight spying for the Resistance."

Again, what 5th Column? We're not talking about Vietnam or Iraq, we're talking about Canada, a country whose economy was completely interlinked with the American economy, where nearly a million Canadians depended on America for jobs, and where America is fully capable of having a soldier or two for every man, woman and child in the entire Canadian nation - what you don't mention with that 10:1 ratio is that you only need to outnumber the men, and buddy, the American military of the era has Canada on that.

So putting aside dreams that the majority of Canadians will toss aside economic and regional self interest aside to join La Resistance, which will probably amount to a few dozen cells and a moose, it's far more likely that the majority will co-operate and integrate, especially given if the US has already conquered Canada, it stands to reason the CP has beaten the British.
 
Top