Wrapped In Flames

[The Gunslinger]

I've never thought very highly of Douglas, but I think he's got the right idea in arming the company men. If the British hang on to San Francisco and he can grab the west bank of the Columbia the British might be damned hard to dislodge from the Pacific.

With a "major" British victory on the west coast we'll have to see if the French are feeling adventurous and make a play for San Diego...

 

[MorningDew]

Seems fine to me. I mean, this was basically an assault on a port by a small number of troops, defended by a small number of troops, in which the superior force won but wasn't able to fully enforce a total victory.

I'm not talking about just this update, I thought it was more than plausible enough.

I'm referring to the overall course of W.I.F.. Even though it was done as a response to BROS, I don't think that flipping BROS' plot makes for a very interesting story.

Both BROS and W.I.F. could have happened otl as they are written, but I don't think them being inverses is necessary. I think that W.I.F. should take a different direction altogether. If EC is already planning to do this then I apologize, this post was unnecessary.

 

[robcraufurd]

I'm referring to the overall course of W.I.F.. Even though it was done as a response to BROS, I don't think that flipping BROS' plot makes for a very interesting story.

Think of it like chess. The opening moves are generally extremely similar, because there are only so many rational choices (with the British attacking Biloxi being the equivalent of 1. e4 h6). However, as things progress, the small divergences become greater and greater as contemporary evidence dwindles and the importance of authorial judgement grows.

 

[Saphroneth]

I'm not talking about just this update, I thought it was more than plausible enough.

I'm referring to the overall course of W.I.F.. Even though it was done as a response to BROS, I don't think that flipping BROS' plot makes for a very interesting story.

Both BROS and W.I.F. could have happened otl as they are written, but I don't think them being inverses is necessary. I think that W.I.F. should take a different direction altogether. If EC is already planning to do this then I apologize, this post was unnecessary.

If it matters, both of them are explorations of the Trent Affair, with a little extra sauce. This is the easiest PoD for a US-British war.

 

[galveston bay]

If it matters, both of them are explorations of the Trent Affair, with a little extra sauce. This is the easiest PoD for a US-British war.

although a good timeline based on the 54/40 or Fight issue (1844, Oregon Border dispute, historically it split at the modern day US/Canadian border, but both sides were claiming what has become Oregon, Washington, British Columbia)

US has pretty powerful Navy at that point relative to the RN, the British potentially could ally with the Mexicans (which was discussed), there is still a Republic of Texas (which France is trying to woo, as are the British, a big reason the annexation treaty passed) and the US has probably the best general it would have in the 19th Century

That would be an interesting timeline indeed.

 

[galveston bay]

Think of it like chess. The opening moves are generally extremely similar, because there are only so many rational choices (with the British attacking Biloxi being the equivalent of 1. e4 h6). However, as things progress, the small divergences become greater and greater as contemporary evidence dwindles and the importance of authorial judgement grows.

it was at that point that I realized I was reading a pseudo historical Stainless Steel Rat Novel (a series I absolutely adored, but it was supposed to be comedy)

I am still not unconvinced the Harrison wrote that 'alternate history trilogy" as intentional satire (quotes are on purpose)

 

[galveston bay]

the Pig War is finally won!

http://www.nps.gov/sajh/learn/historyculture/the-pig-war.htm

to be fair, in Hawaii, it was Americans that helped Kamehameha I unify the islands in the first place, but gratitude is always a luxury in realpolitik
(two American fur trading ship). Losing access to Hawaii will however permanently damage the US whaling industry (which has probably lost large numbers of ships already to the British anyway).

Losing San Francisco hurts but Sacramento is well inland (on a river though, so it would be threatened by gunboats), as are the gold rush towns, and places like Stockton and the Napa Valley area (where most of the Americans live at this point... Los Angeles and San Diego are villages).

(basically we are talking about the San Joaquin River delta for those who know the geography). Mare Island would be the obvious objective too, although I would have expected some pretty determined efforts to fortify that pretty strongly. But that is a author choice and not an unreasonable choice either way.

(I lived in California for 18 years, and Sacramento has a rather nice little military museum in Old Town I highly recommend, lots of information on California during the Civil War can be found there)

http://militarymuseum.org/

a plethora of links on their website too

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I've never thought very highly of Douglas, but I think he's got the right idea in arming the company men. If the British hang on to San Francisco and he can grab the west bank of the Columbia the British might be damned hard to dislodge from the Pacific.

Well say what you will about the man but he was loyal to his colonies. He may have run them like a personal fiefdom at times, but he was sharp, quite sharp.

With a "major" British victory on the west coast we'll have to see if the French are feeling adventurous and make a play for San Diego...

Well they may have some more pressing business in Mexico...

I'm not talking about just this update, I thought it was more than plausible enough.

I'm referring to the overall course of W.I.F.. Even though it was done as a response to BROS, I don't think that flipping BROS' plot makes for a very interesting story.

Both BROS and W.I.F. could have happened otl as they are written, but I don't think them being inverses is necessary. I think that W.I.F. should take a different direction altogether. If EC is already planning to do this then I apologize, this post was unnecessary.

Well TTL is really a precursor to establishing the post-war world and some ideas there I would like to explore. I'm intending to keep this as detailed as possible to allow enough detail on the post war world when I wrap the overall course of the war up.

It is hard to get enough divergent points in the opening salvos thanks to details of geography and logistics, but I'm trying to keep it as original as possible in regards to how the war pans out.

I admit I've been sorely tempted a few times to just railroad through the war updates to the peace process but I think I'm better served to outline the war as thoroughly as possible just peace at the Treaty of [Spoiler Redacted] makes sense when we roll around to the year [Spoiler Redacted]

the Pig War is finally won!

One of those fun little butterflies (as fun as they can be in this situation) is that the San Juan Boundary dispute gets rather definitively worked out a decade earlier.

to be fair, in Hawaii, it was Americans that helped Kamehameha I unify the islands in the first place, but gratitude is always a luxury in realpolitik
(two American fur trading ship). Losing access to Hawaii will however permanently damage the US whaling industry (which has probably lost large numbers of ships already to the British anyway).

The situation as it panned out in Hawaii could really have only happened with Kamehameha IV, he was pro-British and fairly anti-American (especially with regards to the missionaries) and in a situation such as this he is sharp enough to see the writing on the wall post war and would make this leap IMO.

It of course presents all sorts of butterflies to Hawaii post-war, as well as the US position on the Pacific.

Losing San Francisco hurts but Sacramento is well inland (on a river though, so it would be threatened by gunboats), as are the gold rush towns, and places like Stockton and the Napa Valley area (where most of the Americans live at this point... Los Angeles and San Diego are villages).

(basically we are talking about the San Joaquin River delta for those who know the geography). Mare Island would be the obvious objective too, although I would have expected some pretty determined efforts to fortify that pretty strongly. But that is a author choice and not an unreasonable choice either way.

(I lived in California for 18 years, and Sacramento has a rather nice little military museum in Old Town I highly recommend, lots of information on California during the Civil War can be found there)

http://militarymuseum.org/

a plethora of links on their website too

Some wonderful links! I hope you're enjoying TTL so far as to the effects of the capture of San Francisco, well it is just one city, and as to whether the British can project power beyond the city proper, well I'll come back to that in another chapter

 

[galveston bay]

an important note of sealift requirements

unrelated note but important

I remember reading this somewhere and it took me a while to find it

"In the late 19th Century, two steamers were considered to be required to transport a regiment of infantry on a long voyage. For a division of 10,000 men, a least 30 steamers were calculated to be required; for a corps of 33,000 men, 135 steamers. No nation except Great Britain and possibly France possessed enough ships to carry 50,000 troops across an ocean.

In theory, Great Britain might have transported 500,000 men; but that would have required all her shipping, which she could not have afforded becaouse of her economic needs. An invasion of the United States by a European power was out of the question:

from "The American Way of War" Russell Weigley, 1973, page 168-169

who by the way is considered one of the greatest American military historians.

He is drawing from Reports to the Secretary of War, 1884, John Bigelow, Page 54-55, 1968 which is a compilation of reports made to that office over the period.

In other words, next time someone says the British can invade North America with a huge army point this out.

Note that shipping does include horses, artillery, bridging equipment, wagons, ammunition in quantity, forage etc.

A typical steamer is about 3,000 tons in this era (as a high average), smaller in the Civil War period.

So in other words, if you need 135 steamers to move 33,000 troops, that works out to be 405,000 tons of shipping. That includes the 15,000 or so horses and mules, their wagons and artillery, and usually about 30 days worth of food for the men, far less for the mounts.

A horse typically eats about 4 times what a man eats (usually factored as 3 pounds a day for a man, about 5 when you count storage containers etc). In other words, 20 pounds per day per animal, or 150 tons per day for the corps. (that includes containers for the feed). Now grazing, when it is available, will help some, but not a lot as most domesticated European and Eastern North American horses require grain (due to size) and get sick and die quickly if reduced to grass only.

There is a reason the British didn't use a lot of cavalry or heavy artillery in their wars in North America. The logistics alone explain it.

Now of course you can ferry those troops over one corps at a time to friendly ports, which reduces your immediate lift requirements. But each corps is adding more and more logistical requirements which of course will require still more troops.

All of that is the main reason the US wasn't too concerned about being invaded during the 19th Century (consider how many sailing ships 405,000 tons would require)

 

[DAv]

Missed the last update, but certainly quite a victory for the British. Isn't one that will probably mean too much in the short term sense but as a potential bargaining chip, San Francisco is the ace in the hole for the British and Canadians. Along with what's happening to Hawaii, the Pacific is very likely to look a lot different after the war.

 

[machine3589]

Dammit, I thought there was another update.

 

[LordIreland]

Dammit, I thought there was another update.

Yep, I got all excited as well

 

[Dupplin Muir]

It seems to be taking an excessive amount of time for the Canadian militia to become effective on the battlefield. To me, they should have been fully comparable to the US troops from the outset: the Americans had somewhat more time to train, but the British have more (and better) instructors, so it's all a bit of a wash. I can only presume that it's being done to prevent the fighting becoming too one-sided.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

It seems to be taking an excessive amount of time for the Canadian militia to become effective on the battlefield. To me, they should have been fully comparable to the US troops from the outset: the Americans had somewhat more time to train, but the British have more (and better) instructors, so it's all a bit of a wash. I can only presume that it's being done to prevent the fighting becoming too one-sided.

Well on the surface of it it may look like the Canadians aren't doing very well, but for a group of men who either had no combat experience before the fighting started, or whose training largely consisted of outdated drill manuals read by social positioned officers at 'drills' which tended to devolve into drunken parties, it's pretty well done for them.

Between the outbreak of hostilities in February of 1862 and the invasion in May you only had the A and B categories of the militia called up in October in response to the border incident. They were already the most 'trained' men in the Provinces, which wasn't saying much. Between December and May you had the call up of some 60,000 others as volunteers to join the ranks.

In those 8-6 months for some they received rudimentary drill by British sergeants and officers, had time to be brigaded with British regulars (primarily in Canada East) and were re-equipped as fast as was physically possible.

Importantly none of these men (with very few exceptions) had seen action prior to the battles at Speed River and Richelieu in 1862. Come September they're all combat veterans to varying degrees, but before then it was very much a toss up as to how they could preform.

Now personally I've hedged my bets and put money on the primarily militia forces in Canada West doing less well in their opening engagements (due as much to deficiencies in equipment and command versus any lack of spirit) versus their American counterparts versus those in Canada East (who are still a minority compared to the British). Now that can all be subject to change as the war goes on, but in the opening stages while the Canadians might fight heroically, on their own they're all green and need serious British help to campaign. In the East they've got it, in the West, well not so much...

Dammit, I thought there was another update.

Yep, I got all excited as well

Sorry about the long wait between updates! I do have two chapters currently in the last stages of editing one of which should hopefully up before next weekend.

 

[TFSmith121]

So 70,000 out of a population of 2.5 million in the Province

Between the outbreak of hostilities in February of 1862 and the invasion in May you only had the A and B categories of the militia called up in October in response to the border incident. They were already the most 'trained' men in the Provinces, which wasn't saying much. Between December and May you had the call up of some 60,000 others as volunteers to join the ranks.

So 70,000 out of a population of ~2.5 million in the Province of Canada? As in:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4064809-eng.htm

1860-61--Population of Upper Canada : 1,396,091.
(Census.--See summary tables in E-STAT 1.)
1860-61--Population of Lower Canada : 1,111,566.
(Census.--See summary tables in E-STAT 1.)

About 1 in 36, then?

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

So 70,000 out of a population of ~2.5 million in the Province of Canada? As in:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4064809-eng.htm

1860-61--Population of Upper Canada : 1,396,091.
(Census.--See summary tables in E-STAT 1.)
1860-61--Population of Lower Canada : 1,111,566.
(Census.--See summary tables in E-STAT 1.)

About 1 in 36, then?

Best,

That's correct, something to that effect (or roughly one third of the registered sedentary militia on the lists in 1860). Give or take a few hundred from the south of the border who chose to switch sides or enlist to defend their homeland.

Breakdown is roughly:
Canada East - 31,000
Canada West - 43,000

With all the attendant young/older men stepping away from jobs issues that implies. Though there's a small consolation for that I haven't addressed yet. Either way that can of worms is for a later chapter.

 

[TFSmith121]

Interesting...

That's correct, something to that effect (or roughly one third of the registered sedentary militia on the lists in 1860). Give or take a few hundred from the south of the border who chose to switch sides or enlist to defend their homeland.

Breakdown is roughly:
Canada East - 31,000
Canada West - 43,000

With all the attendant young/older men stepping away from jobs issues that implies. Though there's a small consolation for that I haven't addressed yet. Either way that can of worms is for a later chapter.

Same ratio for the free and loyal border states from the 1860 US census (population 22,080,240) gives 613,340, which is almost 100,000 than the 1861 enlistment totals (527,804 army - the navy, of course, totalled 101,000, but that was for the entirety of 1861-65), but pretty far off the wartime total of some 2,778,304 enlistments.

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...2;node=waro0122:3;size=l;frm=frameset;seq=787

That's page 787, which gives 527,804 in service on Dec. 31, 1861.


Interestingly enough, the 2,507,607 population that StatsCanada gives Upper/Lower Canada in 1860 is less than the populations of Ohio (2,339,502) and Minnesota (172,014), or 2,511,516, combined. Historically, Ohio is credited with 313,180 enlistments, and Minnesota with 24,020, a total of 337,200 over the course of the war - some 48 months, or (averaged out) some 7,025 per month.

The point being in all this that however one totals it up, given the presumably similar demographics in Upper/Lower/Province of Canada, the states of Ohio and Minnesota alone can match the military manpower that can be mobilized out of the Province, and - given the Americans began to mobilize in April, 1861, and no credible "Trent War" scenario can begin the same in BNA before December, 1861/January, 1862 - the US has at least an eight month lead, if not longer...

So on day one of the BNA mobilization, Ohio (alone) already had (or was raising) six regiments, one battalion, and two troops of cavalry; three companies of sharpshooters; 78 regiments of infantry; and 28 batteries of artillery, all for extended service (~36 months) and with cadre from the prewar militia, veterans, the regulars, and the 22 3-months regiments raised in the spring of 1861. Minnesota adds five regiments of infantry, two companies of sharpshooters, and two batteries.

So a total of 83 regiments of infantry, six of cavalry, about a regiments' worth of separate companies and troops, and 30 batteries of artillery; something like the equivalent of seven divisions of infantry and two brigades of cavalry, at full TO&E.

Pretty impressive - except for the fact that's just two US states.

New York (3.88 million) had a larger population than the entirely of BNA, and Pennsylvania (2.9 million) had more than the Province of Canada (Upper and Lower); Illinois (1.71 million), Indiana (1.35 million), Kentucky (1.15 million), Massachusetts (1.23 million), and Missouri (1.18 million) all had more than a million people ... and it just goes on from there.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

The BNAers are in a hole, and they're not getting out of it; for every man the Empire could - potentially - mobilize out of BNA, the US could get seven ... and that's just in the loyal and border states; southern loyalists and the enslaved boost the numbers even higher, along with whatever percentage of BNAers (Francophone or Anglophone) who emulate Willcocks, Mallory, Markle, Livingston, Hazen et al...

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Same ratio for the free and loyal border states from the 1860 US census (population 22,080,240) gives 613,340, which is almost 100,000 than the 1861 enlistment totals (527,804 army - the navy, of course, totalled 101,000, but that was for the entirety of 1861-65), but pretty far off the wartime total of some 2,778,304 enlistments.

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...2;node=waro0122:3;size=l;frm=frameset;seq=787

That's page 787, which gives 527,804 in service on Dec. 31, 1861.


Interestingly enough, the 2,507,607 population that StatsCanada gives Upper/Lower Canada in 1860 is less than the populations of Ohio (2,339,502) and Minnesota (172,014), or 2,511,516, combined. Historically, Ohio is credited with 313,180 enlistments, and Minnesota with 24,020, a total of 337,200 over the course of the war - some 48 months, or (averaged out) some 7,025 per month.

The point being in all this that however one totals it up, given the presumably similar demographics in Upper/Lower/Province of Canada, the states of Ohio and Minnesota alone can match the military manpower that can be mobilized out of the Province, and - given the Americans began to mobilize in April, 1861, and no credible "Trent War" scenario can begin the same in BNA before December, 1861/January, 1862 - the US has at least an eight month lead, if not longer...

So on day one of the BNA mobilization, Ohio (alone) already had (or was raising) six regiments, one battalion, and two troops of cavalry; three companies of sharpshooters; 78 regiments of infantry; and 28 batteries of artillery, all for extended service (~36 months) and with cadre from the prewar militia, veterans, the regulars, and the 22 3-months regiments raised in the spring of 1861. Minnesota adds five regiments of infantry, two companies of sharpshooters, and two batteries.

So a total of 83 regiments of infantry, six of cavalry, about a regiments' worth of separate companies and troops, and 30 batteries of artillery; something like the equivalent of seven divisions of infantry and two brigades of cavalry, at full TO&E.

Pretty impressive - except for the fact that's just two US states.

New York (3.88 million) had a larger population than the entirely of BNA, and Pennsylvania (2.9 million) had more than the Province of Canada (Upper and Lower); Illinois (1.71 million), Indiana (1.35 million), Kentucky (1.15 million), Massachusetts (1.23 million), and Missouri (1.18 million) all had more than a million people ... and it just goes on from there.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

While as usual the flurry of population statistics is impressive, it must be remembered that this was a population of 21 million (22 million if you include those enslaved) mobilizing against a free population of 5.5 million over the course of a four year conflict.

Speaking to the time frame this was when the Union Army was still squaring off against roughly 350,000 Confederates come January of 1862. The sudden opening of a second front (or two) containing some 70,000 Canadians and 40,000 British troops (this is noninclusive of the militia garrisons in the Maritimes of course, nor the Army of New Brunswick in Maine) puts a sudden stretch on those 500,000 men across thousands of miles of frontage.

For comparative purposes this also raises the total free population the Union is directly at war with in North America from 5.5 million to 8.5 million (this including the Province of Canada and the Maritimes). Which of course doesn't include the populations of Britain or France.

The obvious outcome of this numbers crunching means that the Union is facing considerably larger numbers of opponents on a larger number of fronts than was the case historically, which causes all the problems of stretched supplies and re-allocation of resources that entails. When one considers the numbers needed to crush the Confederacy alone OTL, much less invade/occupy Canada and defend a built up coastline as in TTL, the prospects of anything resembling a speedy victory become much less sanguine, especially in light of two previous attempts to accomplish only one of the above scenarios.

and - given the Americans began to mobilize in April, 1861, and no credible "Trent War" scenario can begin the same in BNA before December, 1861/January, 1862 - the US has at least an eight month lead, if not longer...

Small aside to address this point. Amy events resembling the build up to December 1861 as happened in TTL would see in the Province of Canada at least the calling out of the Category A Volunteer militia to man their posts as it were, and a probable call up of the Category B as well if the crisis does not die down immediately. Putting (if we include the Royal Canadian Rifles as part of this call up) 11,000 Colonial troops on standby immediately.

As was the case historically, when the crisis seemed to be deepening the preparations were made to call up a further 38,000 men from the sedentary flank companies to augment the volunteer militia as well as calls for further volunteers being sent out (which historically doubled the size of the enrolled militia come March 1862). If one naturally assumes that these preparations are stepped up and the patriotic fervor first hand sources describe continues then the idea that with the already in place volunteers and a continued call up/expansion of the volunteers and sedentary militia companies then it seems perfectly reasonable to estimate that roughly double the expected number of 38,000 (or 48,000 if you include the already enrolled 10,000 men present for duty in the purely volunteer battalions) could be mustered and drilled come invasion time in May 1862.

For illustrative purposes the number of men enrolled in the Province of Canada in the sedentary militia (and thus eligible to be called up by ballot if the volunteer quotas are not met) is 236,427. Assuming that roughly a third of this force could be mobilized and equipped in the six months between a call up and the accepted campaign season start date of May, then the numbers presented here are fairly reasonable.

The BNAers are in a hole, and they're not getting out of it; for every man the Empire could - potentially - mobilize out of BNA, the US could get seven ... and that's just in the loyal and border states; southern loyalists and the enslaved boost the numbers even higher, along with whatever percentage of BNAers (Francophone or Anglophone) who emulate Willcocks, Mallory, Markle, Livingston, Hazen et al...

Well when compared to the numbers needed to be mobilized to crush/occupy the Confederacy alone, this becomes a number which seems far less bleak than at first glance.

As to "whatever percentage emulate Willcocks, Mallory, Markle, Livingston, Hazen et all..." I think the rather lacking numbers of turncoats from the historic invasions makes those individuals who would turn over to the American side a distinct non entity versus those south of the border (enlisted or not) who object to the invasion of their homeland. Or if we want to be unrealistic we could say the numbers might, might be even.

To use a historical counterpoint, the total strength of the rebels in the 1837-38 rebellions could be roughly assumed to be 5,000 men (if we include foreigners who joined in 1838, absent that 4,000 is the more likely number). This is at the height of anti-government feeling with the most cause for grievance. Compare that lofty number to the roughly 25,000 thousand loyalist militia mobilized in the same period (Anglophone and Francophone) to fight and police said rebels.

This is again in a period at the height of discontent with the colonial administration and British rule. Fast forward some 25 years later and add the efforts of Lafontaine and Baldwin, and MacDonald and Cartier's bridge building exercises in the preceding years and you have anything but the recipe for something like large numbers of Canadians (Anglophone or Francophone) deciding that joining American ranks to kill their countrymen is a good idea. This is even less likely in the most potential trouble spot that is modern Quebec for reasons already outlined in Chapter 15.

Are there staunch Francophone nationalists out there, and disgruntled Patriotes remaining? Sure, I've already included some schemers in the narrative, and a few more are going to show up. Is there anything like the number that exploded into revolt in 1837? Nope.

As I think the historical evidence makes abundantly clear, the Canadians are on the side of Queen and Empire at this point in history. So any invasion coming from the south is likely to be greeted with a rather warm welcome, from the muzzle of a gun.

 

[TFSmith121]

Interior lines, however, and all-weather...

While as usual the flurry of population statistics is impressive, it must be remembered that this was a population of 21 million (22 million if you include those enslaved) mobilizing against a free population of 5.5 million over the course of a four year conflict.

- snip -

As I think the historical evidence makes abundantly clear, the Canadians are on the side of Queen and Empire at this point in history. So any invasion coming from the south is likely to be greeted with a rather warm welcome, from the muzzle of a gun.

Interior lines, however, especially all-weather interior lines in the winter of 1861-62? A winter campaign and "BNA first" would be common sense...

There's also the point that the lists of venireman notwithstanding, turning sedentary militia into anything more than a paper list requires quite a bit of effort, time, money, and persuasion, as per the 3,214,310 million names on the most up to date militia lists in 1861 (north and south) in the US (as per the OR):

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0122&node=waro0122%3A3&view=image&seq=912&size=400

The point being, of course, that the lists were just that... names on a page.

In the US (north and south) it took months to get useful forces into the field, which is why combat was largely limited in the first year of the war - both sides were mobilizing, and other than the Border States, couldn't really get at each other - although it is worth noting that before the end of 1861, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia were all secure, the first division+ amphibious operation, TW Sherman's to North Carolina, had taken place, and the US had 527,000 regulars and long-service volunteers already in service.

But, I get it, Canadians are special, and the evil Americans will give them six months to mobilize in peace.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

But, I get it, Canadians are special, and the evil Americans will give them six months to mobilize in peace.

If this sums up your attitude you'll forgive me if I stop taking you seriously. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm sure you're more mature than that.

When you're interested in a serious debate please do stop by again.