Tactics of the US if it invades Canada 1890

[Arkenfolm]

In the same vein, local people would probably not have acquiesced peacefully to now being US citizen which would mean a lengthy and costly occupation,

Depends where. Pretty much everything west of Ontario had a large population of Americans or was full of immigrants who wouldn't have any lingering loyalties to Canada/the British Empire. I would not expect resistance to be challenging in that area, or incorporation into the United States to be challenging either.

Although the common Anglo-American War trope of "pro-US Quebec" is unlikely to work out.

 

[Pauh the federalist]

There was no Panama Canal, or even a project to build one in 1890. That happened in Teddy Roosevelt's time. I think the French were trying to build one at the time, but nothing came of it. Panama was still part of Columbia at the time.

Thanks for mentioning (I assumed it was already a thing) in that case literaly the only benifit in soliciting military access from Mexico is occupying British Belize and protecting there existining banana republics if Britain trys to occupy them/overthrow the US plantation elite allys.

 

[Alstein]

One issue to consider is morale and motivation. While Canada had a large amount of autonomy since becoming a Dominion in 1867, it would definately be seen as British and it's inhabitants British subjects up to the Statue of Westminster in 1931. This means that for the british government, losing any inhabited parts of Canada or the other part of British North America would have been perceived by the government and the public as surrendering british land *and* british subjects, something that would have been bound to enrage the population and justify almost any expenditure.

In the same vein, local people would probably not have acquiesced peacefully to now being US citizen which would mean a lengthy and costly occupation,

I think once the war was over, and the Canadians realize help isn't coming, they won't be fanatical about it, since the US wouldn't be trying to change their way of life/freedom too much- they'd let the Canadians vote, admit them as states and try to integrate. While the war is going on there would be fierce resistance, and there will always be a separatist faction in Canadian states, but I do think they'd accept it eventually.

Assuming WWI happens roughly equivalent to OTL, this will be a German-screw.
1) Britain will learn from its war mistakes- giving them better fighting ability and possibly a better army/navy
2) Germany won't be able to use USW at all, the Americans will deliver the same ultimatum, and a stronger America that beat the Brits would be seen as a side you can't cross at all.

If the US does enter WWI, it will be on the side of the Allies for that reason, and that might ease US/British relations temporarily (and France/US relation would be really strong, most likely you might see the US do a Frenchwank at alt-Versailles, still somewhat fearing potential British revanchism)

That said long-term, a US/British cold war is likely in this scenario. Perhaps alt-WWII is US, France, and Japan vs Britain, Soviets, China, Germany , Italy

That war would be a close-run thing until the nukes get flying, and it would be easily possible for the Brits to get first nukes, especially if it's not Nazi Germany

 

[Belisarius II]

North American and West Indies Station!
Halifax, Bermuda and Jamaica

As for lobbing 12" shells into Boston, how and with what will the USN stop them?

The British had no major fleet bases in the West Indies, they had coaling stations. Look at maps of Boston, NYC, Charlestown SC, Wilmington NC, or many other cities. There not on Atlantic Beaches, there up rivers, or in sheltered harbors. To get that close you have to sail into narrow waters, with forts or batteries protecting them, and the channels would be mined. It isn't the days of Nelson sailing into Copenhagen, to burn the Danish Fleet. This is why the RN gave up the idea of a close blockade of Germany long before WWI broke out. Trying to do that across the Atlantic in 1890 is completely unrealistic. Not even Civil War Ironclads could force their way into strongly defended major Confederate Port Cities, and nether could Ironclad Battleships.

 

[NotedCoyote]

Depends where. Pretty much everything west of Ontario had a large population of Americans or was full of immigrants who wouldn't have any lingering loyalties to Canada/the British Empire. I would not expect resistance to be challenging in that area, or incorporation into the United States to be challenging either.

That was the assumption that America brought toward its invasion of Upper Canada in 1812, and it proved to be a complete and disastrous misreading of the situation. Upper Canada in 1812 had a considerably higher percentage of American-born immigrants among its population than the Canadian west did in 1890 - in fact American settlers were at least a plurality. Instead of passively accepting the American occupiers, the invasion actively created a Canadian national identity. War brings hardship for people who have nothing to gain from it. The kind of war that the US will fight in the Canadian west would consist almost entirely of severing rail lines, raids and attacks against infrastructure. It will kill civilians and ruin the livelihoods of the civilians that it doesn't kill. That wasn't the way to ease the way for incorporation in 1812, and it won't ease the way for incorporation in 1890.

Although the common Anglo-American War trope of "pro-US Quebec" is unlikely to work out.

You're right about this. The tendency is to project the Quebec separatist attitudes of the 1990s back in time to whenever an alt-timeline has America attack Canada.

I think once the war was over, and the Canadians realize help isn't coming, they won't be fanatical about it, since the US wouldn't be trying to change their way of life/freedom too much- they'd let the Canadians vote, admit them as states and try to integrate. While the war is going on there would be fierce resistance, and there will always be a separatist faction in Canadian states, but I do think they'd accept it eventually.

The reason we have a Canada at all is because Canadians became convinced that British help would not be coming if America decided to attack the Canadian colonies. Far from shrugging and deciding they might as well become Americans, that convinced the separate provinces to band together for mutual defense. In 1890 Canada still had a large core of the population who took their status as citizens of the British Empire seriously, and the number who wanted to become American was small. On top of that, the war will bring devastation to Canadian communities that suffer raids and occupations, and will almost certainly have the same effect of hardening Canadians against their American neighbours that the invasions in the War of 1812 did.

The idea that an occupied Canada will quickly and gladly integrate with the US is a persistent alt-history fantasy, but it is a fantasy that has little going for it aside from the belief of Americans that their country and political system are so wonderful that everyone would love to join them.

I don't disagree that the occupied territories could probably be brought to accept it eventually - but eventually is going to mean generations, not years.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

What Anglo/Canadian army is going to get close to Chicago, or invade NY State? Cavalry raids in Montana, or North Dakota yes, but invade a heavily populated industrial State? That's a fantasy.

Being "a heavily populated industrial State" doesn't automatically render you safe from invasion. Historically, heavily-populated industrial countries have been difficult to invade because they could keep a large standing army to defend themselves. The US doesn't have such an army in 1890, and hence it won't be hard to invade it, at least until the US can retool its factories, produce large quantities of arms, and train significant numbers of soldiers, which based on the examples of the ACW and WW1 should take a good couple of years at least.

The Union Army in 1865 had a strength of around 1,000,000 men. The Empire forces at the height of the South Africa War in 1900 was around 500,000. There's no doubt the United States Army in 1890 could put a far bigger army into the field for a Canadian war then the Empire could.

The British Empire wasn't exactly straining to support its army in South Africa. If it had needed/wanted to, it could easily have sent more.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

I think once the war was over, and the Canadians realize help isn't coming, they won't be fanatical about it, since the US wouldn't be trying to change their way of life/freedom too much- they'd let the Canadians vote, admit them as states and try to integrate. While the war is going on there would be fierce resistance, and there will always be a separatist faction in Canadian states, but I do think they'd accept it eventually.

I think you underestimate how much people hate getting invaded and annexed. Also, a large part of anglo-canadian identity back in the 19th century was the fact their ancestors were loyalists and french-canadians were well aware that catholics weren't particularly well liked in the US so that wouldn't really give them an impetus to simply accept the situation.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

The Union Army in 1865 had a strength of around 1,000,000 men.

What was its strength in 1898?

The British Empire wasn't exactly straining to support its army in South Africa. If it had needed/wanted to, it could easily have sent more.

It also wasn't a war that was begun by, or even involved, someone invading British territory...

ETA: Correction, it does appear to have involved pre-emptive strikes but, as far as I can tell, no invasion with intent to annex.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

Depends where. Pretty much everything west of Ontario had a large population of Americans or was full of immigrants who wouldn't have any lingering loyalties to Canada/the British Empire. I would not expect resistance to be challenging in that area, or incorporation into the United States to be challenging either.

Although the common Anglo-American War trope of "pro-US Quebec" is unlikely to work out.

west of ontario was least populated part of Canada so that's not helping in any way with conquering the main population parts.

Fully agreed with the Quebec comment.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

The Union Army in 1865 had a strength of around 1,000,000 men. The Empire forces at the height of the South Africa War in 1900 was around 500,000. There's no doubt the United States Army in 1890 could put a far bigger army into the field for a Canadian war then the Empire could.

Might the size of the armies have had something to do with the fact that the Empire forces were fighting eight times fewer enemies than the Union?

The British Regular Army in 1890 was a lot smaller then the army in 1914

British regular army: all ranks strength as of 1 January 1890, 210,218; all ranks strength as of 1 October 1913, 249,887. 39,669 officers and men is a lot in the sense that it's almost twice as many men as the entire US regular army, which has 26,436 officers and men as of December 1887. However, I'm not sure the British regulars only outnumbering the US regulars by eight to one instead of nine and a half to one is going to make that much of a difference to how the war plays out.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

The simple fact that Canadá exists seems to be enough for some posters. For how dare Canadá defeat the US in 1812 or refuse to join during the ARW. For the fact we continue to have these fantasy threads about US fulfilling its manifest destiny by invading Canadá over maple syrup.

I don't see this as another Ameriwank "US absorbs Canada" thread. More like an absurd Britwank about beating the USA when the British empire is at its peak. Having such a war in the 1890s requires a POD well before then.

The Royal Navy was very germanophile in early 1914. That didn't stop them from blockading the German Empire and starving a good portion of their population to death. The British public in 1861 was also very pro-American, but when the Trent Affair became known people took the streets in London, Cardiff, and Dublin calling for war, until the apology from Lincoln came. Stumbling into war, is very possible, and could happen easily. As it was, Spain did stumble into war with America otl, really only due to American yellow journalism.

In 1914 the Royal Navy was in an arms race with the Imperial German Navy.

Nope. From Army For An Empire by Graham Cosmas:

"During the Spanish-American War, the partial mobilization of 30,000 troops in the Canadian Confederation forced the government to think about the possibility of a British intervention in the war. President McKinley and and Commanding General of the US Army, Nelson A. Miles as well as the Secretary of War Russell Alger concurred with one another that any war with Britain would see Canada occupied, but the US economy and navy destroyed, as well as the loss of American Pacific islands, and the risk of increasing inflation by 39%. As such, the cabinet agreed that in the case of war, the US would annex New Brunswick, and if possible Novo Scotia and the Prince Edward Island and pay reparations while ceding Hawaii and the other islands that Washington owned to Britain in return for releasing a very probable blockade. Nelson A. Miles further went ahead and showed massive pessimism for the likelihood of an invasion of Canada succeeding, as he pulled in information from British conflicts in recent years which showed a massive amount of deployment happening in a very short amount of time. He was in particular, looking behind at the Second Opium War, the British Wars in Africa, and the Boer War, where hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were dispatched within weeks at latest. He theorized that within six weeks of war, Britain could reinforce Canada with 200,000 troops, within 6 months with 550,000 troops and further than that as time went ahead. He then stated that with the amount of forces the American army had, the Canadians would be able to hold out for such a time." (Chapter 11 and 12)

Is he using a crystal ball? Otherwise how is he looking at the 2nd Boer War during the Spanish-American War? The Spanish-American War ended in 1898. The 2nd Boer War began in 1899. If he's talking about the 1st Boer War, it did not involve Britain transportin hundreds of thousands of troops and did not go so well for the British.

Britain blockaded all of Europe in the Napoleonic Wars.

Britain relied on coalitions to defeat Napoleon

Britain blockaded all of the Russian Empire during the Crimean War, virtually bankrupting the country. Britain blockaded the entire Chinese coast in the Opium Wars, even in the second opium war by which point the chinese had modern warships.

The Chinese had warships, calling it anything resembling a modern navy is a stretch.

Britain blockaded all of europe from trading with the Boers in the Boer Wars.

Blockading South Africa is not the same as blockading the entirety of the Americas south of Canada.

Over 90% of American trade even till today happens through sea. 10% would not make much a difference, and the USA still stands to lose a fifth of their industrial firms and investors.

You mean 90% of foreign trade. Domestic trade would still continue overland.

A Prime Minister also needs the voting of the Parliament to declare war. The PM cannot declare war without the consent of parliament. The PMs of the world, which aren't dictatorships anyway, still do not have blanket power to declare war even till today unlike the POTUS.

Lord Asquith declared war on Germany, although parliament did vote to fund the war later that day. The POTUS does not have the power to declare war. If FDR had had that much power the USA would not have remained neutral until Pearl Harbor.

Before the wars of the 20th century, frankly speaking the public has never been asked for their opinion about war. And neither have majority of their wills, relevant ones have been carried out in full, if at all, and instead have been manipulated beyond belief. American governmental intervention whipped the public into a frenzy to start the Spanish American War, the Prussians whipped the Germans into a frenzy by provoking France to declare war first, the British whipped out propaganda during the Napoleonic Wars like normal school books to whip the country into a frenzy to support the Coalition wars. Their support was always wanted, but their end goals and wishes were rarely, if ever fulfilled.

The American government did not whip the public into a frenzy to start the Spanish-American War. The myth that explosion and sinking of the USS Maine was a false flag operation belongs on the same ash heap as the conspiracy theories about FDR and Churchill having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Neither McKinley nor Lord Salisbury is analogous Otto von Bismarck or Napoleon III.

 

[Lusitania]

I don't see this as another Ameriwank "US absorbs Canada" thread. More like an absurd Britwank about beating the USA when the British empire is at its peak. Having such a war in the 1890s requires a POD well before then.

Yes one that would change the dynamics of American-Canada/British Empire relations and interaction. The troops levels, defenses and navy be all different and trying to argue about 1890s troop, defenses and navy using iotl levels and geopolitical would be impossible.

Case point about lack of British navy in Caribbean in this pod is not even relevant since a hostile British-American attitude would mean major changes worldwide with British countering American intervention and expansion plus Canadian forces and defenses be completely different.

 

[tallthinkev]

I don't see this as another Ameriwank "US absorbs Canada" thread. More like an absurd Britwank about beating the USA when the British empire is at its peak. Having such a war in the 1890s requires a POD well before then.

The way I have things, semi, worked out is that there are a number of small things, then larger things that lead to war over 2/3 years

 

[durante]

Depends where. Pretty much everything west of Ontario had a large population of Americans or was full of immigrants who wouldn't have any lingering loyalties to Canada/the British Empire. I would not expect resistance to be challenging in that area, or incorporation into the United States to be challenging either.

This kind of thinking can only come from the mind of an American. My ancestors were in the area at the time; they and most others on the Canadian west immigrated to Canada because they HATED America and anything to do with it. Keep in mind America had free immigration at this point. Anyone immigrating to Canada specifically chose going to a colder, poorer nation for some reason...

Canadian battle plans up to WWI were entirely based on preemptive attack against the USA in event of a war (and the Americans hilariously predicted basically that the Canadians would do the exact opposite of what the actual plan is).

American war plans were designed on capturing Halifax and Vancouver by sea while the Canadian Army begins preparing its defences;

Canada had mandatory militia service for 30 years for all males into the early 20th century; Canadian battle plans were to strike across the border as quickly as possible before US expected it; when they encounter US troops they begin high-tailing it back to the border while destroying every bridge and railroad along the way.

The Americans were woefully unprepared for the Canadian plans, and completely underestimated the strength of the country and the level of resistance (as they did in 1812, as others are doing now). If Britain chooses to get involved (and therefore throws the empire behind it), theres no contest.

Even left to it's own defenses (as Canada expected would happen), you're talking about Vietnam times a million.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

This kind of thinking can only come from the mind of an American. My ancestors were in the area at the time; they and most others on the Canadian west immigrated to Canada because they HATED America and anything to do with it. Keep in mind America had free immigration at this point. Anyone immigrating to Canada specifically chose going to a colder, poorer nation for some reason...

Canadian battle plans up to WWI were entirely based on preemptive attack against the USA in event of a war (and the Americans hilariously predicted basically that the Canadians would do the exact opposite of what the actual plan is).

American war plans were designed on capturing Halifax and Vancouver by sea while the Canadian Army begins preparing its defences;

Canada had mandatory militia service for 30 years for all males into the early 20th century; Canadian battle plans were to strike across the border as quickly as possible before US expected it; when they encounter US troops they begin high-tailing it back to the border while destroying every bridge and railroad along the way.

The Americans were woefully unprepared for the Canadian plans, and completely underestimated the strength of the country and the level of resistance (as they did in 1812, as others are doing now). If Britain chooses to get involved (and therefore throws the empire behind it), theres no contest.

Even left to it's own defenses (as Canada expected would happen), you're talking about Vietnam times a million.

There's a reason Defence Scheme No. 1 was dismissed as national suicide. If Canada launched a pre-emptive invasion of the United States you can expect that American will to fight would not fade as it did in Vietnam. Vietnam was something far away that was not vital to American security, an invasion by Canada would be seen as an attempt by the British Empire to re-annex the USA, an existential threat. Buster Sutherland Brown, noted that the people he interviewed didn't want to invade Canada. His mistake was thinking that aversion to war would remain the case if Canada launched a pre-emptive invasion and implemented a scorched earth campaign. Note, this isn't saying that Americans would just decide to invade Canada and stay there. I'm talking about what would happen if Defence Scheme No 1 was implemented.

Also Defence Scheme 1 was concocted in the 1920s. This is about the 1890s. What matters is what gets us to a war then because that's going to affect both will to fight and military preparations. Also a POD in the 1890s is not going to result in a war an Anglo-American (or Canadian-American) war in the 1890s.

 

[durante]

There's a reason Defence Scheme No. 1 was dismissed as national suicide. If Canada launched a pre-emptive invasion of the United States you can expect that American will to fight would not fade as it did in Vietnam. Vietnam was something far away that was not vital to American security, an invasion by Canada would be seen as an attempt by the British Empire to re-annex the USA, an existential threat. Buster Sutherland Brown, noted that the people he interviewed didn't want to invade Canada. His mistake was thinking that aversion to war would remain the case if Canada launched a pre-emptive invasion and implemented a scorched earth campaign. Note, this isn't saying that Americans would just decide to invade Canada and stay there. I'm talking about what would happen if Defence Scheme No 1 was implemented.

Also Defence Scheme 1 was concocted in the 1920s. This is about the 1890s. What matters is what gets us to a war then because that's going to affect both will to fight and military preparations. Also a POD in the 1890s is not going to result in a war an Anglo-American (or Canadian-American) war in the 1890s.

But it wasnt a pre-emptive invasion; it was an immediate strike if the AMERICANS declared war, which the Americans were unprepared for.

Also you seem to miss the point: the fighting WILL be in Canada. They had no hope of holding anything in the USA, just inflicting maximum damage to delay the Americans in their offensive efforts.

I know were talking about the 1890s; I don't know why you brought up a defense scheme from the 1920s. I specifically talked about Canadian war plans before WWI and in the early 20th century.

 

[Belisarius II]

Being "a heavily populated industrial State" doesn't automatically render you safe from invasion. Historically, heavily-populated industrial countries have been difficult to invade because they could keep a large standing army to defend themselves. The US doesn't have such an army in 1890, and hence it won't be hard to invade it, at least until the US can retool its factories, produce large quantities of arms, and train significant numbers of soldiers, which based on the examples of the ACW and WW1 should take a good couple of years at least.



The British Empire wasn't exactly straining to support its army in South Africa. If it had needed/wanted to, it could easily have sent more.

1890 isn't 1812, or 1861. The militia system of 1890 was closer to the National Guard system of the early 20th Century. The logistics, and transportation system of 1890 increased the speed of mobilization, and concentration of forces. A Canadian invasion force would quickly find itself out numbered, and cut off in NY State. The mobilization in 1917 was creating an army of over 2,000,000 men for a trans Atlantic war, with a huge logistical tail, and be feed with thousands of replacements a month. All that while keeping up Allied war orders for supplies, and materials. A North American war with 500,000 men was a much simpler problem.

That depends on what you consider straining. The SA War saw the employment of the first all empire force, and the largest British Army in it's history, up till that time. It wasn't a small colonial war, it was a full scale national war. For those interested in this subject read this article about the 2nd Boer War, and the British Army of the period, and it's failure to learn many of the lessons of the ACW. https://battlefieldanomalies.com/2boerwar/ It doesn't give one a feeling of overwhelming confidence in a decisive British Victory over a barely trained American Mob in 1890 Canada.

 

[Belisarius II]

That was the assumption that America brought toward its invasion of Upper Canada in 1812, and it proved to be a complete and disastrous misreading of the situation. Upper Canada in 1812 had a considerably higher percentage of American-born immigrants among its population than the Canadian west did in 1890 - in fact American settlers were at least a plurality. Instead of passively accepting the American occupiers, the invasion actively created a Canadian national identity. War brings hardship for people who have nothing to gain from it. The kind of war that the US will fight in the Canadian west would consist almost entirely of severing rail lines, raids and attacks against infrastructure. It will kill civilians and ruin the livelihoods of the civilians that it doesn't kill. That wasn't the way to ease the way for incorporation in 1812, and it won't ease the way for incorporation in 1890.

You're right about this. The tendency is to project the Quebec separatist attitudes of the 1990s back in time to whenever an alt-timeline has America attack Canada.

The reason we have a Canada at all is because Canadians became convinced that British help would not be coming if America decided to attack the Canadian colonies. Far from shrugging and deciding they might as well become Americans, that convinced the separate provinces to band together for mutual defense. In 1890 Canada still had a large core of the population who took their status as citizens of the British Empire seriously, and the number who wanted to become American was small. On top of that, the war will bring devastation to Canadian communities that suffer raids and occupations, and will almost certainly have the same effect of hardening Canadians against their American neighbours that the invasions in the War of 1812 did.

The idea that an occupied Canada will quickly and gladly integrate with the US is a persistent alt-history fantasy, but it is a fantasy that has little going for it aside from the belief of Americans that their country and political system are so wonderful that everyone would love to join them.

I don't disagree that the occupied territories could probably be brought to accept it eventually - but eventually is going to mean generations, not years.

The American failure to conquer lower Canada in 1812, was due mostly to the spectacular personal failure of Hull at Detroit, and dissention of the NE States. The NY Militia refused to fight in Canada, and the New England States refused to join the land war effort. None of those conditions would prevail in 1890. I would imagine in this war Canada wouldn't be annexed, but would be returned in a peace treaty.

 

[M79]

What Anglo/Canadian army is going to get close to Chicago, or invade NY State? Cavalry raids in Montana, or North Dakota yes, but invade a heavily populated industrial State? That's a fantasy.

Respectfully they can invade northern NY state and use the Great Lakes to land troops near Chicago if they wish. Landing enough to win battles on such terms, however...

 

[M79]

Also of interest - Would certain former Confederate generals now be called to service and work with their former opponent Union counterparts since they'd be the most experienced commanders available? Does Longstreet end up commanding overall?

John McCausland - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

James Longstreet - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org