...I also wanted to put to rest the 'matter of marching' myth that seems to permeate the board where the US can cross the border and Canada will roll over and be easily occupied. I'm intending to quite firmly demonstrate how its not quite as easy as most assume. The unfortunate side effect of course is that Canada becomes a battleground.
Well, I've given the people of Canada their due--they would not make it easy, making the cost high. And of course that is before factoring in the vengeance the British Empire would wreak.
So the wise thing is for the Yanks to do what they have done, OTL, since 1814--leave their neighbors in peace.
That said--what shall they do if it is their neighbors who will not leave
them in peace?
If I think it will be tragic that the Union and the peoples of Canada will fight and bleed each other--honestly, while there are Yankees at some fault in this war with Britain, notably the impetuous captain who seized the Trent, and the arrogant posturing of Seward in the past--though your reference on "English Public Opinion" suggests he remained an ungracious buffoon in his dealings with Britain OTL even after assuming the office of the USA's chief diplomat, supposedly executing Lincoln's soft-spoken policy toward the chief power of the world (certainly chief in terms of who could marshal serious forces to affect the American part of the world).
Still and all, stepping back, the chief villain at fault for this war between Britain and the Union is in my view Palmerston. Britain, from its position of strength, could afford magnanimity and forbearance, particularly bearing in mind wrongs were done by both sides.
That Confederate raid out of New Brunswick onto New England for instance--surely I don't think any responsible party in that province's government nor even substantial private sympathizers were behind it in advance--it was entirely the initiative of some bold Southerners. But having committed their little rampage, shouldn't the municipal and provincial authorities have handled the raiders as common criminals, if they refused to see the diplomatic aspects?
Their being let go by the law of a British polity could only look very bad; it suggested that Confederate raiders could strike out of British protection at will and then return to its safety.
The contempt of the British aristocracy for the Republicans who so belatedly and equivocally cry out in the abstract for abolition but who support a law which even to this moment keeps hundreds of thousands on Union controlled soil in slavery is easy to understand if not to forgive (considering the OTL outcome we know the Republicans will in the fullness of time implement). It was more amazing to see some of your major Canadian political actors bringing up the Union's complicity in slavery--when in fact taking up arms against the Union puts them into direct alliance with the most forthright and sweeping advocates for slavery on the planet. Populist Canadians prepared to give their lives for Queen and home is one thing; shooting at Yanks because of the very crime the particular government they are fighting hoped to end is just perverse. And in the context of a Canadian court turning loose actual Confederate raiders!
Yes, I accept that the 31,000 men in arms already for Britain and Canada armed in Canada are not going to be brushed aside painlessly.
And the Yanks still aren't acting actively to interdict their movements (though winter is!)
But if I were a proper Civil War buff I'd have some idea of the size of the Union Army at this point OTL, and as your posts said, the hostility of Britain is going to yield another round of more or less voluntary troops (who may or may not actually be drafted, the point being they aren't fighting being drafted). I'd have to go back, but I thought the mere increment in extra troops war with Britain would reliably bring forward would amount to more than 31,000, IIRC 50,000 or so. Of course those recruits are hardly the ones to send north to clash with Britain's, a good portion of whom are seasoned regulars who recently saw service in the Crimean War. Lincoln needs to divert north a lot of his most seasoned men, which is very unfortunate given the Southern threat and the likelihood the Richmond government, if they are not complete fools, will seize on this moment for a hard strike, while Washington is distracted with not only Canada but the uncertain but scary threat of the RN off the Atlantic shores--particularly the danger they might drive up the Chesapeake to bombard Washington itself. At a time like this can Lee be expected to give them any respite?
(As I say--coordinated or not, declared or not--in fighting the Union now, the Canadians and their British mentors are in fact allied with the slaveholders and must wish them victory for their own sakes).
And if the Union does not do something to neutralize the worst case threat Canada poses the Union can be dissected, with strikes from Canada meeting drives from the South, ravaging the most industrialized areas and severing communications with the Midwest, which would come under the threat of random raids from the north.
My gut feeling, as I've said before, not based on any figuring of actual strength distribution, is that Lincoln needs to stop free movement between the Maritimes and the heartland of Canada West, and to do that he needs to take Quebec, or anyway key parts of it--Quebec City, Montreal. The British can concentrate with impunity in Nova Scotia, by sea, and harass New England, Maine especially--the New England militias under Federal marshaling will have to counter those moves, but if those forces can get west to support the Canadian militias defending their homes, they can wreak havoc on the whole Midwest.
I think therefore Lincoln is going to have to send rather more than 30,000, perhaps 50 or 60 thousand, north to sever Canada. The people of Quebec will not welcome them, but if they can be taken with overwhelming force, and held without too many outrages being committed, I can see how maybe the Union can buy itself time to deal with the Confederacy, however reinforced it is about to become, both by the eradication of the Blockade and probably by the actual infusion of at least token British and perhaps French units.
I appreciate how you've pointed out, Palmerston has not jumped into a deep Grand Alliance with the Confederacy. One point I did pick out of your inherently confusing Canadian politics is, the secessionists aren't very popular in Canada--nor, I gather, in Britain. But the nature of war is, one takes the allies one finds, and makes the best of them. Palmerston does not have to make any declarations of love for the slaveholder's rebellion, but it only makes sense to coordinate things with them a bit, anyway to encourage them to take advantage of opportunities the British naval attack offers them and in turn to support any bold initiatives Lee or his brother generals might undertake now.
In the light of these rather grim cumulative threats, your casual mention of the Union's surviving at all in the story of Farragut gives me hope neither Richmond nor London comes close to making the most of the opportunities this very dire moment for the Union offers them.
Lincoln of course can't know that, and has to assume the worst.
I imagine it is with a heavy heart, and a grim appreciation of how much loss both sides will suffer, that he will order an attack on Canada. He knows it will be not be easy.
But he has no choice.
If Canada is severed--I blame Palmerston, and the arrogant, smug cliques who rule the Empire. They are I fear suffering a kind of Victory Disease, the cumulative kind that is the trap of any superpower confident in its overwhelming force that guarantees victory. This blinded him to the costs he is now going to have to face, in his confidence that British will will simply be, in the end, after a few glorious victories. He did not have to opt for this--having opted, it is not going to be easy to get out of this war, and one reason for that is that for a while, it is going to go pretty well for Britain and its dependencies.
So perhaps Lincoln can't sever communications between the parts of Canada--yet. But until some kind of honorable end to the war with Britain is within his grasp, he has to keep trying, to try and keep the Midwest secure enough to win the two wars he is now stuck with.
And yes, if 31,000 is all Canada has as of this moment--sooner or later the Union will grind them down, Crimean veterans or not.
The Union cannot afford to be utterly defeated in the north as well as the south; they will keep on until either they collapse completely or one front or the other is secured.
