British whatif

[Pudnhead]

"Considering"? The US, or public opinion of a significant segment within it, considered annexing Canada right up until and past the 1860s; William Seward's platform for the Republican nomination in 1860 included the idea of insulting Britain to provoke a war.



In what earthly way in 1860? The populations are at best equivalent and the British economy is significantly more developed, sustaining a large peacetime army and navy with functionally no economic strain at all and producing truly enormous quantities of material and materiel.

"Considering?" Do you recall a specific citation that shows Seward attempting to provoke, warn, or otherwise suggest the American intervention between Canada and Great Britain?

 

[Pudnhead]

"Considering"? The US, or public opinion of a significant segment within it, considered annexing Canada right up until and past the 1860s; William Seward's platform for the Republican nomination in 1860 included the idea of insulting Britain to provoke a war.

Do you have a citation showing that Seward sought to provoke or otherwise intervene in the relationship of Canada to Great Britain? The point is that after Montgomery's death, even New Englanders refused to cross the Canadian border even during the American Revolution. Was whatever Seward mentioned simply a bargaining chip to gain the favor of the Canadian people?

 

[steve59p]

Do you have a citation showing that Seward sought to provoke or otherwise intervene in the relationship of Canada to Great Britain? The point is that after Montgomery's death, even New Englanders refused to cross the Canadian border even during the American Revolution. Was whatever Seward mentioned simply a bargaining chip to gain the favor of the Canadian people?

Do you think "we're going to invade and occupy you" would win the favour of the Canadians?

There was reluctance to attack Canada in 1812 from New England because it bitterly opposed the entire conflict but there were invasions from New York and further west. They were defeated and the UK made counter attacks, albeit sometimes unsuccessful - most noticably Baltimore and New Orleans but there was a definite desire for the invasion and annexation of Canada, just as it became perfectly clear, even before the burning of Toronto and of villages near Niagara that the Canadians didn't want to be invaded and ruled from Washington.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

I am not so familiar with the stats for production in 1860 for both countries including the U.S. as a whole, but I know we were in a similar situation at the beginning of WWII--that is our military armament was quite comparatively poor to the rest of the world. But logistically such a war would have been more difficult for the British--they had to first cross the wide ocean. The question that arises for me is would have the Canadians been willing to side with the U.S.? I have heard in 2 ways that the Canadians would and wouldn't have supported our efforts in Canada. I tend to believe that for the most part the Canadians would have supported us. But at the time of the CW, I don't really know.

The answer there, is a hard no. The Canadians were universally opposed to the idea of annexation by the US, and the small annexation movement of 1849 was essentially a non-entity, which by the 1860s was being used as a whip to discredit certain politicians who supported it, most of the signatories essentially threw the few ardent annexationists under the bus in 1854 (which shows that perhaps they didn't even truly support it in the first place) and the men who rose in politics later on distancing themselves from it.

The historic Trent affair overwhelmingly turned Canadians against the North, even when they had been previously supportive of it. The two most solid examples of it are George Brown, owner of the Toronto Globe which was one of the most influential papers at the time, and had been firmly pro-North, anti-South, and pro-Lincoln. After Trent he castigated Lincoln and the North in the press and was all for war. Even the parti rouge, the radical and even pro-annexation party in Canada, used its paper Le Pays to denounce invasion and repel the invaders.

The militia organization grew and Canadians put thousands of dollars into rearming and expanding the militia, preparing initially to deploy 38,000 men (exclusive of cavalry and artillery) and with a call up of 38,000 more also in the works. There may have been some factions sympathetic to the Union, but they were atrociously outnumbered by people who did not want to be part of the US.

Essentially, war would have been a unifying factor for Canadians and probably would have got the Confederation project off the ground faster than historically.

 

[Saphroneth]

I am not so familiar with the stats for production in 1860 for both countries including the U.S. as a whole, but I know Edited. our military armament was quite comparatively poor to the rest of the world.

Edited.

In 1860 the British are the industrial superpower of the world and have a peacetime regular army of 220,000 with another ~270,000 auxiliary troops (militia and volunteers) available to call up; that's exclusive of Canada.

Edited.

But logistically such a war would have been more difficult for the British--they had to first cross the wide ocean.

It's an eight day round trip on a good day, that's less time than it would take an army to march from Plattsburg to Montreal.

The question that arises for me is would have the Canadians been willing to side with the U.S.?

No.

 

[Saphroneth]

"Considering?" Do you recall a specific citation that shows Seward attempting to provoke, warn, or otherwise suggest the American intervention between Canada and Great Britain?

A few.


"She [Canada] cannot refuse if you tender her annexation on just terms, with indemnity for the stuggle she may expect with Great Britain"- William H Seward, 31 January 1856

"Hitherto, in common with most of my countrymen, as I suppose I have thought Canada — or, to speak more properly, British America — a mere strip lying north of the United States, easily detachable from the parent State, but incapable of sustaining itself, and therefore ultimately, nay, right soon, to be taken into the Federal Union, without materially changing or affecting its condition or development. (Seward, Albany Journal, 1857)

In 1860 Seward had informed the Duke of Newcastle at a public function that as soon as he got into office (Seward being a candidate for the Republican party nomination) he would insult England.

"We must CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLIC FROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION OR DISUNION... FOR FOREIGN NATIONS, I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at once. I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continental spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention. And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, Would convene Congress and declare war against them."
-a memorandum of Seward, April 1861.

"Now that the confederacy is about to be shorn of more than half its strength in territory, and more than a third of its population, it is necessary to repair the loss, else we would sink to a third or forth-rate power. By peaceable means or force, therefore, Canada must be annexed... such is the decree of manifest destiny, and such the programme of William H Seward premier of the President Elect"- New York Herald, February 1861

Was whatever Seward mentioned simply a bargaining chip to gain the favor of the Canadian people?

No. He expressed the view both publicly and privately on many occasions, and it's not even as if he was alone in this - the New York Herald enthusiastically supported the idea and was very widely read, and the Times of London noticed.

When there was the news of potential war, the Canadian population turned out enthusiastically for the militia muster.

 

[steve59p]

I am not so familiar with the stats for production in 1860 for both countries including the U.S. as a whole, but I know Edited. our military armament was quite comparatively poor to the rest of the world. But logistically such a war would have been more difficult for the British--they had to first cross the wide ocean. The question that arises for me is would have the Canadians been willing to side with the U.S.? I have heard in 2 ways that the Canadians would and wouldn't have supported our efforts in Canada. I tend to believe that for the most part the Canadians would have supported us. But at the time of the CW, I don't really know.

Pudnhead

Edited.

In 1861 things are vastly different. It has a decent industrial base but still markedly smaller than that of Britain, which was the clear leader at the time. Its already vastly expanded its small peace time army to fight the rebel south, which has caused problems with providing training and equipment for those new recruits and as Saphroneth and Canadian Canuc is highly dependent on many imports, both manufacturing and raw materials. Also it has a small navy largely committed to and to a degree exposed by its attempts to blockade the south. In comparison Britain has a massive navy and merchant marine and also numerous bases from Canada south via Bermuda to numerous colonies in the Caribbean.

As such if Britain went to war over the Trent Affair it can do a lot of damage to the US economy and its war effort against the south simply by a blockade. There was a sharp financial crisis for the US with a run on the dollar simply on the fear of war with Britain and if war had actually occurred this in itself would have been deepened. Sending troops to protect Canada and also to support attacks on US ports was well within Britain's capacity. In the last decade it had sent forces to fight Russia in the Crimean and elsewhere, to reinforce India during the mutiny and to fight China, along with probably numerous smaller conflicts.

At this point the vast bulk of the Canadians, while they wouldn't be happy with war with the US, because it affected their own trade and posed the danger of an invasion from the south they would have supported Britain in defending them against such an attack.

Also you seem to have overlooked the impact of the Trent affair. Not only was the emotional one of the flag being insulted by an illegal stopping of a British ship and the kidnapping of four passengers from it. Since Britain had a huge merchant marine and a large part of the economy depended on it and the imports/exports it carried it couldn't allow anyone to get away with setting such a precedent.

I haven't replied to your earlier post as I've been at work but can do if you still wish.

Steve

PS See I was ninjed by Saphroneth on most of those points.

 

[Saphroneth]

As for the need to cross "the wide ocean", the main delay the British have on building up a large and very powerful army in Canada is, indeed, travel time; they already have the army they need at home and can build it up to a larger size both by enlisting men from the militia (many of whom already have 28 days' training a year and some of whom were recently embodied for garrison duty). But that travel time is not very large, because steam ships can cross the Atlantic to Canada in as little as eight days in this time period.

Conversely, the Union has nothing in place at all. Any troops they post north need to either be newly recruited, or pulled from the armies facing the CSA; the USA never had a surplus large enough that they could do so without any risk, and indeed I'd be very interested in analyzing how many troops the Union could push north without placing their border with the South under threat. But that's not the half of it - the Union needs to set up supply depots and so on. If it's a Trent war then the time from the moment of the war beginning to the point when it's feasible for a large army to campaign in Canada is about 4-5 months, because one cannot move a large army in Canada during the freeze or during the thaw (the campaign season opens in the middle of May) and this gives the British time to move and train large numbers of troops themselves. Meanwhile the blockade is hurting the Union.

 

[Saphroneth]

So here's a bit of a specific analysis.

If the British do the following:

They DO NOT send any British militia to Canada.
They DO embody British militia to protect the UK and to send overseas to garrison locations, to free up regular battalions.
They DO send over all the available regular troops, but not the depots which would train up new troops.
They DO make two militia callouts (as per their plans to do one, plus a second one)
They DO send over some of the 200,000 or so spare Enfield rifles in the armouries in the UK


Then the resultant force for the defence of Canada looks roughly like this by the time the thaw is complete and armies can move. Numbers estimated PFD.

From Britain
Total inf bns:
7 pre-crisis, 44 from home, 16 from elsewhere. Total 67. (60,300)
Total cav regiments:
15 (6,750 cav)
Field batteries:
Ultimately there are 25 field batteries available. (A-K minus C from 4th Brigade, and A-H from 8th and 9th.) (6,250 gunners)
Horse batteries:
12, two for each cav brigade. (3,000 gunners)
Garrison batteries:
Unclear. Definitely more than four, though - that's how many were sent historically pre-climbdown. I'd assume about ten to twelve. (About 1,400 gunners)

Canadian forces:
Volunteer, Lower and Upper Canada
34 cavalry troops
8 field batteries
19 foot/garrison batteries
186 rifle companies (i.e. enough for 18 battalions total of volunteer rifles.)
Militia, lower and upper Canada
46 regiments, each of 2 battalions: 92 battalions.

Maritimes, volunteer
Nova Scotia has 2,364 men total (1863) with 16 guns - this appears to be four batteries and about 27 companies of rifles.
New Brunswick has a single cavalry troop, eight batteries (with only twelve guns) and about 12 companies of rifles (1863).
Total for Maritimes volunteers: ~4 battalions of volunteer rifles, enough men to make up about 7 batteries total, and one troop cavalry.
PEI has three regiments and can functionally provide 1 battalion to operate on the mainland.
Maritimes, militia:
7 regiments, each of 2 battalions; one regiment of one battalion in Nova Scotia.


So, Canadian:
110 battalions of Canadian inf of which 18 volunteer (77,000 rifles)
20 battalions of Maritimes inf of which 5 volunteer (14,000 rifles)
8 field batteries Canadian (1,600 gunners)
19 garrison batteries Canadian (3,800 gunners)
7 field batteries Maritimes (1,400 gunners)
35 cavalry troops, almost all Canadian (2,625 cav)

Total:
Infantry 60,000 British regulars plus 91,000 Canadians. All armed with Enfield rifles.
Artillery 17,500 gunners.
Cavalry 9,300 horse.

Total size a little under 180,000 PFD. This is huge, a lot of it's very well trained indeed, and it also has the advantage of the defensive. It is split between the various points of contact (Detroit/Sarnia, Niagara, Montreal, Maritimes etc.) but it's not going to be run over in a rush - it will take serious campaigning by a large force to overcome.



There's another problem that should be pointed out, though. How are you going to cross the St. Lawrence river?
The whole thing's too deep to wade and can accomodate British warships, some quite large.

 

[Pudnhead]

satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, Would convene Congress and declare war against them."

Thanks for the NY Herald quote. Wow. But this notation of Spain and France makes me pause and muse. The U.S. had little problem defeating Mexico and taking over Mexico City in 1848. But how in the world would Spain, Mexico, or France evolved into a military threat? surely Seward had some basis for saying these things. I do think Seward would have preferred as friendly as possible an association with Canada and England instead of military conflict. Had such diplomacy been practiced by the Germans at the torpedoing of the Lusitania, then WWI might have been a different story and Hitler never come to power. I do not know if you are familiar with how much the Mediterranean states relied on their exports to New Orleans or not. But given the fact that New Orleans population was closely equivalent to the next total of the next 6 most populous states in the South, the prospects of future marketing of the Mediterranean produce through New Orleans into that highly populated community plus the surrounding areas and even up the Mississippi which is today the busiest river system in the world makes me wonder if the Louisiana populous and the Mediterranean states did not have a much higher stake in undermining the southern territory further away from and not including the old French and Spanish areas of Louisiana.

 

[Saphroneth]

Thanks for the NY Herald quote. Wow. But this notation of Spain and France makes me pause and muse. The U.S. had little problem defeating Mexico and taking over Mexico City in 1848. But how in the world would Spain, Mexico, or France evolved into a military threat?

They're not. He's basically laying out a plan to try and conquer all European possessions in the Western Hemisphere under pretexts.
ED: well, France is a military threat because they've got a big, hefty army and navy and they've got experience conducting amphibious landings at long distances from their support base.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Maritimes, volunteer
Nova Scotia has 2,364 men total (1863) with 16 guns - this appears to be four batteries and about 27 companies of rifles.
New Brunswick has a single cavalry troop, eight batteries (with only twelve guns) and about 12 companies of rifles (1863).
Total for Maritimes volunteers: ~4 battalions of volunteer rifles, enough men to make up about 7 batteries total, and one troop cavalry.
PEI has three regiments and can functionally provide 1 battalion to operate on the mainland.
Maritimes, militia:
7 regiments, each of 2 battalions; one regiment of one battalion in Nova Scotia.

Hypothetically, the service militia could be mustered (though not in great numbers) and an entire regiment of cavalry (7 cos or 3 squadrons) could be embodied via the Regiment Yeoman Cavalry. This List (1866), shows that there were a few proper battalions embodied in 1862, and more in 1863 so there is the basis for an organization.

I haven't been able to find as detailed a list for Nova Scotia to make any similar judgments.

There's another problem that should be pointed out, though. How are you going to cross the St. Lawrence river?
The whole thing's too deep to wade and can accomodate British warships, some quite large.

That's the rub isn't it? At Montreal and points north you'd be facing entrenched opposition and the guns of the Royal Navy, though further south crossing the river becomes slightly easier.

West of Cornwall and all the way down to Gannanoque the St. Lawrence is almost trivially easy to cross, its a narrow river and the frontier is too long to defend effectively in depth. However, the trick is that the only rail connection on the American side meets at Ogdensburgh, which is overlooked by the guns of Fort Wellington at Prescott, so any crossing in force is bound to be difficult.

 

[WJC]

Ever since the misguided affairs of Benedict Arnold and his escapade through the Maine wilderness in 1775 led to the death of General Richard Montgomery and the failure at Quebec City resulted in us never again considering such an invasion

The United States did indeed try to take Canada in the War of 1812. In addition to cross-border raids, actions included the Battle of Queenstown Heights, October 13, 1812; Battle of the Thames, October 5, 1813; Battle of York, April 28, 1813; Battle of Fort George, May 27, 1813....

 

[Pudnhead]

They're not. He's basically laying out a plan to try and conquer all European possessions in the Western Hemisphere under pretexts.
ED: well, France is a military threat because they've got a big, hefty army and navy and they've got experience conducting amphibious landings at long distances from their support base.

No doubt that England and France could have done a lot of damage to U.S. territory and people. The Trent Affair is so similar to what the U.S. was complaining to the British about leading up to the War of 1812; however, in the instances of the British being so extreme so as to conscript whole vessels of American citizens and keep the vessel as well, that was a much more severe act and we did go to war. I believe that American philosophy is such that we have believed that in cases where North American and South American states are concerned and generally all people throughout the world, that people will generally prefer to be ruled by their own government as long as such a government is founded on principles that do not strain a common sense approach given they have an opportunity to practice such a governance. Upon that philosophy I believe is what Seward sought to make clear to the world is what he sought. Had he merely wished to "annex" nations, he would have gone outside the diplomatic norm as we see easily represented by our failure to make Mexico a territory after gaining independence for Texas and sending Santa Anna back to Mexico City. The Trent Affair "sounds" serious because the concerns expressed were emanating from a part of the world that many decades earlier had violated our rights much more seriously. As far as removing the suspected rebels or criminals from the ship, I have to be curious how these individuals boarded that ship to begin with. Comparatively, the pursuit and capture of John Surratt after the conclusion of the Civil War resulted in American agents pursuing Surratt through Canada, England, France, Switzerland, and ultimately to Egypt where he was finally captured. Did that provoke such a response from the public or governments foreign to the U.S.? Now you've got my curiosity. Why would there be such an outcry? are not foreign vessels liable to inspection? Possible criminals to be interrogated? Even on the high seas? a very interesting and tense moment in history. Maybe also pivotal in the development of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Britain. I believe the Monroe Doctrine is intended as a means of the U.S helping to protect the rights of the people living in the Americas. More so to insure the safety of the American people than anything else. we have not done as great a job as we might have at fulfilling the righteous goals of such an endeavor. But we have likely achieved much more than I am aware.
As far as Seward desiring to get away from the discourse about slavery, I would think that his hope was that the South also would not have been so adamant at seeking secession even before Lincoln took office. Had john C Calhoun suggested secession prior to the Nullification Act, the whole world would have been bewildered. So the question now arises what would any nation in the world benefit if the U.S. had a civil war? I do not see how Britain would benefit. Since the Trent Affair did evolve, what benefit to Britain did that affair, the transporting of the rebel diplomats, or the support of the media have?

 

[Ian Peavot]

Someone once told me that HMS Warrior was purposefully readied in response to an incident involving the Federal navy. Does anyone know if this is factually accurate, if so was it to do with the Trent affair, though i'm not sure she was ready for active service at that time.

 

[leftyhunter]

QUOTE="leftyhunter, post: 2006439, member: 4725"]We can't discount the possibility of US Commerce Raiders. Even in the American Revolutionary War John Paul Jones was able to do a fair amount of damage to British commerce and managed to sink a British warship. The US had a lot of manpower and ship building capability. It is not a given that the RN and British commercial shipping would not suffer serious damage.
Leftyhunter

IF the situation had deteriorated into a shooting war, the U. S. Navy would have been outmatched and defeated by the Royal Navy. It was fortunate for all concerned (except the Southern rebels) that cooler heads prevailed.[/QUOTE]
We can't know a hypothetical. Wars don't always go as planned. History is full of examples of war plans gone awry.
Leftyhunter

 

[WJC]

William Seward's platform for the Republican nomination in 1860 included the idea of insulting Britain to provoke a war.

I don't recall that this was part of Seward's efforts to gain the nomination. He certainly suggested initiating a crisis with Spain, France or Britain as early as December 1861. In a speech, he asserted that if New York were attacked by a foreign power, "all the hills of South Carolina would pour forth their population for the rescue." <G. G. Van Deusen, William Henry Seward. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 242, 246-248.>

 

[WJC]

They're not. He's basically laying out a plan to try and conquer all European possessions in the Western Hemisphere under pretexts.
ED: well, France is a military threat because they've got a big, hefty army and navy and they've got experience conducting amphibious landings at long distances from their support base.

I believe it is more basic: Seward thought a war- or the threat of a war- with any foreign nation would be enough to galvanize unionist sentiment even among the most rabid secessionists. That- not conquest- was his intent.

 

[Saphroneth]

Someone once told me that HMS Warrior was purposefully readied in response to an incident involving the Federal navy. Does anyone know if this is factually accurate, if so was it to do with the Trent affair, though i'm not sure she was ready for active service at that time.

Yes, it was the Trent, and she was. She went to the Tagus along with Dacre's squadron to come over as support for Milne.

We can't know a hypothetical. Wars don't always go as planned. History is full of examples of war plans gone awry.

The Royal Navy was far, far too powerful for the USN to win. This is simply a matter of sheer military strength; the USN was much smaller, more spread out and less experienced.

I don't recall that this was part of Seward's efforts to gain the nomination. He certainly suggested initiating a crisis with Spain, France or Britain as early as December 1861.

Before that; he said he'd do it during a public event in 1860.

Since the Trent Affair did evolve, what benefit to Britain did that affair, the transporting of the rebel diplomats, or the support of the media have?

I don't think I understand the question.

 

[WJC]

We can't know a hypothetical. Wars don't always go as planned. History is full of examples of war plans gone awry.
Leftyhunter

Thanks for your response.
Of course we'll never know. And of course, once the shooting starts, 'all bets are off'.
That's why this is a "What if?" thread.