Tactics of the US if it invades Canada 1890

[Hugh Third of Five]

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

It was indeed a pre-emptive invasion plan. Also the United States just starting a war without preparing for it or drawing up plans in implausible. The counterpart, War Plan Red, did assume that Canada would be used as a base of operations from which to attack the USA, but it didn't anticipate the pre-emptive strike because they concluded that any conflict would arise from tensions between the United States and Britain, based on the assumption that Canadians would not be suicidal.

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.

You have just described Japan's World War II strategy. It didn't work then, and that was when the USA was just really pissed off. It's certainly not going to work if Canada creates a situation where Americans feel the survival of the nation is at stake.

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.

Your description of Canadian war plans seemed to be about Defence Scheme 1. That's the plan that called for seizing as much of the northern United States as quickly as possible and then implementing a scorched earth campaign accompanied by a fighting retreat. It originated with James "Buster" Sutherland Brown in the 1920s.

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?

I don't about Longstreet specifically, but one of the few things I can say is that most likely former Confederate generals would be called to service because former Confederate officers did fight in the Spanish-American War. The rest is up in the air because it depends on what POD causes this. I keep saying it because its true but a British-American War in the 1890s requires a POD before the 1890s. The outcome of the resulting war, and the tactics used will depend on what leads up to it and crucially what effect that has on will to fight.

 

[Belisarius II]

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...

The problem with landing troops near Chicago is that Lake Michigan is completely inside U.S. Territory. Taking armed troop carrying steamers into Lake Michigan wouldn't be a realistic plan. Even if they could get there, no one would get back. Invading NY along the Champlain Corridor as in 1814 would be the most practical avenue, but the balance of forces would be very different in 1890. The invasion of 1814 failed because the British couldn't control the waterways, or protect their flanks, and rear. The situation in 1890 would be far worse, with rail lines letting American forces mass in their rear. The British would have to fall back quickly, or be trapped, and any troops invading on that front would be needed to defend Montreal. As you suggest there just aren't enough British/Canadian Troops available in 1890 for offensive action.

 

[M79]

An 1898 war is not off the table if the Venezuela and Alaska-Canada border situations go differently. Should the US side with Venezuela entirely and push harder against Canada while blundering attempts at diplomatic reproachment. UK enters the Spanish-American War on the Spanish side, with Fashoda we might get France joining the US and getting a bigger World War I ahead of schedule.

 

[M79]

The problem with landing troops near Chicago is that Lake Michigan is completely inside U.S. Territory. Taking armed troop carrying steamers into Lake Michigan wouldn't be a realistic plan. Even if they could get there, no one would get back. Invading NY along the Champlain Corridor as in 1814 would be the most practical avenue, but the balance of forces would be very different in 1890. The invasion of 1814 failed because the British couldn't control the waterways, or protect their flanks, and rear. The situation in 1890 would be far worse, with rail lines letting American forces mass in their rear. The British would have to fall back quickly, or be trapped, and any troops invading on that front would be needed to defend Montreal. As you suggest there just aren't enough British/Canadian Troops available in 1890 for offensive action.

A small invasion, or just perhaps a large raid, could be dreamt up as a scare tactic to try to convince Midwestern Americans that even they are not safe from the reach of the Empire. More than likely all it does it stiffen resistance and resolve even further.

 

[NotedCoyote]

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.

I think you mean Upper Canada - the attack on the much better defended Lower Canada came later in the war and was equally botched, although with less spectacularly bad leadership on the American side. But I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree that the Americans can manage an occupation (at least of the western provinces), my analogy to the War of 1812 was in terms of the claim that the civilian population, most of whom were not British, would be alright with occupation and annexation.

The Americans in 1812 assumed that the presence of a large number of American settlers would mean that the population would support their invasion or at least not resist it, and could be easily brought on side. That didn't end up happening, because the Americans needed to take actions that had the effect of turning the civilian population against them. Attacks against rail transport and the vital supply lines for the country will not make the Canadian settlers love the invaders.

 

[durante]

It was indeed a pre-emptive invasion plan. Also the United States just starting a war without preparing for it or drawing up plans in implausible. The counterpart, War Plan Red, did assume that Canada would be used as a base of operations from which to attack the USA, but it didn't anticipate the pre-emptive strike because they concluded that any conflict would arise from tensions between the United States and Britain, based on the assumption that Canadians would not be suicidal.

You have just described Japan's World War II strategy. It didn't work then, and that was when the USA was just really pissed off. It's certainly not going to work if Canada creates a situation where Americans feel the survival of the nation is at stake.

Your description of Canadian war plans seemed to be about Defence Scheme 1. That's the plan that called for seizing as much of the northern United States as quickly as possible and then implementing a scorched earth campaign accompanied by a fighting retreat. It originated with James "Buster" Sutherland Brown in the 1920s.

I don't about Longstreet specifically, but one of the few things I can say is that most likely former Confederate generals would be called to service because former Confederate officers did fight in the Spanish-American War. The rest is up in the air because it depends on what POD causes this. I keep saying it because its true but a British-American War in the 1890s requires a POD before the 1890s. The outcome of the resulting war, and the tactics used will depend on what leads up to it and crucially what effect that has on will to fight.

Defense plan 1's specific locations for attack were scouted by Brown, but Canada had similar defensive plans in play since the 1820s...

And again, Japan was the aggressor. The Canadian plan was specifically about attacking the USA immediately upon the US declaring war on them.

You said I was describing Japan in WWII, but the idea that the USA assumes very little resistance as they play a geopolitical battle with an area of very low strategic importance, other than as a proxy for war against a rival superpower, only to realize the locals are well armed, well trained, and patriotic...sounds more like Vietnam, bruh.

 

[durante]

IOTL, if the Yanks thought they had even a *chance* of taking Canada in the 1890s, they would have tried it.

 

[Belisarius II]

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

Although Longstreet was one the best Rebel Generals, and had returned to his loyalty to the Union he wouldn't have been in the top command. My guess would be General Nelson Miles would command the Invasion of Canada. Many of the junior officers, of both North & South would be in the middle, and upper ranks of an 1890 army. General Weaver had a high command in 1898. There was a large pool of experienced leadership to draw from at that time.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think you mean Upper Canada - the attack on the much better defended Lower Canada came later in the war and was equally botched, although with less spectacularly bad leadership on the American side. But I think you're missing my point. I don't disagree that the Americans can manage an occupation (at least of the western provinces), my analogy to the War of 1812 was in terms of the claim that the civilian population, most of whom were not British, would be alright with occupation and annexation.

The Americans in 1812 assumed that the presence of a large number of American settlers would mean that the population would support their invasion or at least not resist it, and could be easily brought on side. That didn't end up happening, because the Americans needed to take actions that had the effect of turning the civilian population against them. Attacks against rail transport and the vital supply lines for the country will not make the Canadian settlers love the invaders.

Thanks for the correction. I agree with your point about the attitude of Canadians not wanting to be Americans. The Americans used heavy handed tactics in 1812. The population densities on both sides of the border, between Lake Superior, and the Vancouver/Seattle area in 1890 was so low as to make occupation policy almost a null factor. Both sides would be using small raiding forces, of a few Troops of Cavalry.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Defense plan 1's specific locations for attack were scouted by Brown, but Canada had similar defensive plans in play since the 1820s...

Canada's defensive plans in the 19th century consisted largely of building forts and negotiating (via Britain) demilitarization treaties (for example both sides agreed not to have heavy fortifications on the Great Lakes). The "scorched earth" plan originated with Lt. Colonel James Sutherland Brown

The Canadian plan was specifically about attacking the USA immediately upon the US declaring war on them.

Correction it called for a pre-emptive strike if they think a war is imminent. Of course if a war were actually imminent the the USA would prepare for it, so the only way Defence Scheme 1 goes off with Canada seizing large swaths of the northern United States and implementing a scorched earth policy is if it occurs either out of paranoia or because of something between the United States and Britain sets it off.

You said I was describing Japan in WWII, but the idea that the USA assumes very little resistance as they play a geopolitical battle with an area of very low strategic importance, other than as a proxy for war against a rival superpower, only to realize the locals are well armed, well trained, and patriotic...sounds more like Vietnam, bruh.

I never said there wouldn't be resistance. I was talking about your assumption that Americans wouldn't have the will to fight if attacked. A strong determination to win can help a weaker opponent defeat a stronger less determined one, but it's not that helpful if the stronger opponent is determined to win.

IOTL, if the Yanks thought they had even a *chance* of taking Canada in the 1890s, they would have tried it.

No. Just no. The United States didn't want a war, and neither did Canada or Britain. That is why there was no invasion of Canada in the 1890s. Why would a country that had just experienced what total war was like over a large swath of the North American continent want to repeat the experience? The thing about large scale wars is even if you "win" that doesn't necessarily make you better off than you would be without the war. Exhibit A, see how Britain was weakened by the World Wars despite winning both of them. At any rate Americans could rationalize violating principles of consent of the governed when it came to Mexicans, native Americans, Cubans etc because of racism. That's not going to work between a British settler-state and a former British settler state, and if you're interested in bringing up 1812 as a counterpoint, that only happened because the British policy of impressment, ie kidnapping American sailors. One more thing, you keep bringing up Vietnam. Did it ever occur to you that events between the 1890s and 1960s might have changed American attitudes during that time?

 

[Lusitania]

Again why is everyone thinking that one minute we have peace another minute we have war and following week there is an invasion and all Canadians will bow down to the mighty Americans

Again the author of thread because he can’t or won’t provide a real pod decides that magically one day US being mighty prepared and able to mobilize, arm itself and move its troops to the border suddenly invaded while Canada has its head up its ass.

what made the uS government go mad that it suddenly going to attack the largest empire on earth? What led up to this? How would Canadá and Britain react to this? I find it hard to believe that US would want war with Britain.

So go back X number of years and we have a pOD (make it real) that will lead to both countries exchanging threats or angry words. Both countries begin to arm themselves and moving troops to border.

don’t give me US shows up a the border with its army because the president got upset Queen Victoria not acknowledge his great powers. That Britain have all its troops away and Canada is knitting sweaters.

again people still going on about iotl Canadian forces or plans which makes no sense in this thread.

If everyone going on with that the Canadian special forces of armored Moose, sonic beavers and Canada gesse are valid.

 

[durante]

Canada's defensive plans in the 19th century consisted largely of building forts and negotiating (via Britain) demilitarization treaties (for example both sides agreed not to have heavy fortifications on the Great Lakes). The "scorched earth" plan originated with Lt. Colonel James Sutherland Brown
Correction it called for a pre-emptive strike if they think a war is imminent. Of course if a war were actually imminent the the USA would prepare for it, so the only way Defence Scheme 1 goes off with Canada seizing large swaths of the northern United States and implementing a scorched earth policy is if it occurs either out of paranoia or because of something between the United States and Britain sets it off.
I never said there wouldn't be resistance. I was talking about your assumption that Americans wouldn't have the will to fight if attacked. A strong determination to win can help a weaker opponent defeat a stronger less determined one, but it's not that helpful if the stronger opponent is determined to win.
No. Just no. The United States didn't want a war, and neither did Canada or Britain. That is why there was no invasion of Canada in the 1890s. Why would a country that had just experienced what total war was like over a large swath of the North American continent want to repeat the experience? The thing about large scale wars is even if you "win" that doesn't necessarily make you better off than you would be without the war. Exhibit A, see how Britain was weakened by the World Wars despite winning both of them. At any rate Americans could rationalize violating principles of consent of the governed when it came to Mexicans, native Americans, Cubans etc because of racism. That's not going to work between a British settler-state and a former British settler state, and if you're interested in bringing up 1812 as a counterpoint, that only happened because the British policy of impressment, ie kidnapping American sailors. One more thing, you keep bringing up Vietnam. Did it ever occur to you that events between the 1890s and 1960s might have changed American attitudes during that time?

You used an analogy to describe why Canada was like Japan in WW2, I used a more apt analogy for why *Canadian resistance would be greater than Americans think*.

I never said that Americans wouldnt fight Canada, I responded to another poster who said Canadians wouldnt resist an American invasion.

 

[durante]

Canada's defensive plans in the 19th century consisted largely of building forts and negotiating (via Britain) demilitarization treaties (for example both sides agreed not to have heavy fortifications on the Great Lakes). The "scorched earth" plan originated with Lt. Colonel James Sutherland Brown
Correction it called for a pre-emptive strike if they think a war is imminent. Of course if a war were actually imminent the the USA would prepare for it, so the only way Defence Scheme 1 goes off with Canada seizing large swaths of the northern United States and implementing a scorched earth policy is if it occurs either out of paranoia or because of something between the United States and Britain sets it off.
I never said there wouldn't be resistance. I was talking about your assumption that Americans wouldn't have the will to fight if attacked. A strong determination to win can help a weaker opponent defeat a stronger less determined one, but it's not that helpful if the stronger opponent is determined to win.
No. Just no. The United States didn't want a war, and neither did Canada or Britain. That is why there was no invasion of Canada in the 1890s. Why would a country that had just experienced what total war was like over a large swath of the North American continent want to repeat the experience? The thing about large scale wars is even if you "win" that doesn't necessarily make you better off than you would be without the war.

Yeah that's my point, bro. You're simultaneously agreeing that Americans wouldnt want a war and also saying that the resistance would be crushed because so much has changed between the 1960s and going back in time to a mythical event which never happened. If you're going to be a d-bag with your tone, at least argue in good faith.

 

[durante]

At any rate Americans could rationalize violating principles of consent of the governed when it came to Mexicans, native Americans, Cubans etc because of racism. That's not going to work between a British settler-state and a former British settler state, and if you're interested in bringing up 1812 as a counterpoint, that only happened because the British policy of impressment, ie kidnapping American sailors.

Lol "America is only racist against blacks and Latinos" like they didnt other the Germans and Soviets.

1812 was American expansionism pure and unadulterated, regardless of what propaganda they told you in school and how it was justified at the time.

BTW, this attitude is why we hate the USA.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Again why is everyone thinking that one minute we have peace another minute we have war and following week there is an invasion and all Canadians will bow down to the mighty Americans

Again the author of thread because he can’t or won’t provide a real pod decides that magically one day US being mighty prepared and able to mobilize, arm itself and move its troops to the border suddenly invaded while Canada has its head up its ass.

what made the uS government go mad that it suddenly going to attack the largest empire on earth? What led up to this? How would Canadá and Britain react to this? I find it hard to believe that US would want war with Britain.

So go back X number of years and we have a pOD (make it real) that will lead to both countries exchanging threats or angry words. Both countries begin to arm themselves and moving troops to border.

don’t give me US shows up a the border with its army because the president got upset Queen Victoria not acknowledge his great powers. That Britain have all its troops away and Canada is knitting sweaters.

again people still going on about iotl Canadian forces or plans which makes no sense in this thread.

If everyone going on with that the Canadian special forces of armored Moose, sonic beavers and Canada gesse are valid.

The USA had experienced total war across large swaths of North America within living memory. An estimated one in ten men of military age died. Britain wanted the USA as an ally because of shared heritage and because they were concerned about the growing power of Germany. For either one to seek a war against the other is ASB IMO unless the either the POD is further back or the war happens later or both.

 

[M79]

(Not repeating these posts)

May I ask that you consider a brief respite and maybe a snack?

 

[Alstein]

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.

I don't think it would be easy. I do think it would take until after WWI at a minimum, and there would be a little generational resistance. That said, once folks realize their rights and liberties aren't changed, and their cultural traditions are fully accepted, it will be tolerated at least, even if you see pro-independence Canadians elected to state legislatures/Congress.

The US will need to keep a large garrison in Canada for a long time though.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Again the author of thread because he can’t or won’t provide a real pod decides that magically one day US being mighty prepared and able to mobilize, arm itself and move its troops to the border suddenly invaded while Canada has its head up its ass.

That Britain have all its troops away and Canada is knitting sweaters.

Uhm...
What the author of the thread wrote, and my bold:

Some ideas about this would be nice. Why this happens doesn't matter for the question

Given the size of the US armed forces in the late 19c, an army of about 15,000 and a navy of 6 modern ships how badly does it go.
Lets say a path towards war has been building up for a 6-9 months. This the US can build up slightly yet the Empire much more so.
What can the US do before losing?

Or the war comes as almost surprise, a week or so 'talk' before the attack.

So, no clear/proper POD but also no starting assumption of British-Canadian ignorance and inaction and
even less of bowing down to the mighty Americans.

Sidenote: I have not gone through the thread to check when somebody began arguing from the position that Britain was
the aggressor, because the peace-loving American people would only ever invade Canada in self-defence.

Edited because "on" instead of "no" makes a big difference.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Lol "America is only racist against blacks and Latinos" like they didnt other the Germans and Soviets.

What does anti-German racism have to do with this? It's not going to help expansionists in a former British settler state rationalize attacking a current British settler state.

1812 was American expansionism pure and unadulterated, regardless of what propaganda they told you in school and how it was justified at the time.

I see. If a country's ships are fired upon, its sailors kidnapped, and after attempts to stop the practice with diplomatic and economic pressure fail that country declares war, it must be pure expansionism. Seizing Canada was seen as a nice bonus (and a strategic goal for denying Britain a base of operations on the North American continent) but it was not the casus belli.

If expansionism were the primary reason for the war, why didn't the USA declare war in 1804 when Britain began intercepting ships departing New York Harbor to search them? Or in 1806 after the Leander affair? Or in 1807 after the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair? Or any of the other instances between 1804 and 1811 during which thousands of American sailors were kidnapped?

Sidenote: I have not gone through the thread to check when somebody began arguing from the position that Britain was
the aggressor, because the peace-loving American people would only ever invade Canada in self-defence.

If you're talking about me, I said the USA wouldn't want to start a war but I also said Britain wouldn't want to.

 

[Lusitania]

Uhm...
What the author of the thread wrote, and my bold:

So, no clear/proper POD but also on starting assumption of British-Canadian ignorance and inaction and
even less of bowing down to the mighty Americans.

Sidenote: I have not gone through the thread to check when somebody began arguing from the position that Britain was
the aggressor, because the peace-loving American people would only ever invade Canada in self-defence.

Then if Canada is ignorant then the author is smoking on ingesting stuff that I not at liberty to discuss. Otherwise move this to ASB. Sorry that is ..... I can’t say because it get me kicked at least. To say in the pre-1900 that US government with its various government levels be able to declare war, arm and send its troops all in a matter of what seconds, minutes that public, people along border and their elected officials all say sh.... don’t breath a word is, is, oh there not any correct words.

this forum is for plausible even if unlikely scenarios not magically inspired ones.