What would be the latest PoD during the history of the US to later have a successful invasion of the continental US during the 20th century (3os - 40S) id est during some kind of World War by maybe Germany or another (european) power? Maybe prevent the annexation of the mexican territories and Texas, and/or the Oregon annexation. Or maybe an Anglo-German-Mexican Alliance against a Franco-Russian-American Alliance or something because England supported the southern states during the CW or during the Mexican American war. What do you think?
Latest PoD for a successful invasion of the continental United States during the 20th century?
- Thread starter Moctezuma1466
- Start date
Latest POD would probably be to avoid or greatly shorten WW1. That broke the back of most of the other great powers, and also led to the US majorly expanding its army (albeit this was wound down again after the war). Then maybe an Anglo-French-Mexican alliance, with the British invading from Canada, the French from Mexico? Probably best to include the Germans, just to be on the safe side.
The Millenium Bug happens just as the clock signals the transition between the 20th & 21th Century in the last second of 1999 amd first second of the year 2000, with apocalyptical consequences due to the malfunction of every single piece of electronic technology in the United States
Thus the US is forced to accept if not outright request the intervention-occupation of it's neighbours not for conquest but for humanitarian aid as civil society in the country starts to fall apart
Thus the US is forced to accept if not outright request the intervention-occupation of it's neighbours not for conquest but for humanitarian aid as civil society in the country starts to fall apart
So your scenario is jumping around a bit. It diverges into alternate history with alternate Civil War scenarios and alternate Mexican-American War scenarios.
Let's redo the question a bit and get a "when could the US be successfully invaded?" which then begs the question... is this a war of outright conquest or just a war to limit US power?
For outright conquest the answer is 1776. That is the last time a foreign power has a chance of conquering the United States or conducting a full on, nation destroying invasion. While the War of 1812 was a disaster in some locations (like Washington), the US also beat the British at numerous crucial engagements which made national occupation and annexation back into the British Empire impossible (and really, it would not have happened even with a US loss).
If you want anything after that you have to alt history it pretty substantially. Because you're forcing, most likely, Britain, to intervene and "stop" the United States... which begs the question of what changed to force this intervention?
The United States was going to the Pacific Ocean. Either through purchasing Oregon or conquering California. If you halt the sale of Oregon then you might end up with a United States annexing more Mexican territory than in OTL. Oregon/Washington v California isn't even a debate. It's California 10 out of 10 times. You diminish US power but not enough.
The Civil War? This is really the only point of divergence where an invasion of the USA in the 20th century could happen. You have to have Britain and France support the CSA militarily and diplomatically. France won't do it militarily because it makes no sense. If things have soured with Britain that bad, you could have British naval support, limited troop support, money, and weapons.
I think Britain would try to limit fighting. It would lose Canada. No debate. If Britain goes full on the attack on the US it risks a US counter attack and the loss of at least Lower Canada, if not Nova Scotia, Maritimes, etc. We are talking the Union fielding armies of 100,000+ soldiers... Union armies of veteran soldiers. These are not the scared militias of 1812. If Britain maintains a naval blockade and maybe limits its troop actions to retaking coastal locations the Union has taken in placed like Florida or New Orleans you might keep the US from invading Canada. MAYBE. And that depends on how betrayed the populace feels.
If you can butterfly some impressive Confederate land victory early in the war before the western theater makes it clear the CSA is a dead man walking I can see a negotiated peace simply on fear of a British invasion or naval blockade. But the Confederacy is sure as hell not getting Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, or Kentucky. They MIGHT be able to get some of Oklahoma and maybe some Confederate sympathy counties in Kentucky but not the entire states. It's an ask they can't force.
So fast foward... you could have an invasion of the US from the Confederacy in a World War One scenario, which is the common scenario.
But this ALSO relies on the US being idiots and acting isolationist like OTL. The USA could have a tiny ass army because we had zero threats. Canada? No. Indian tribes? Nope. Mexico? Nope. If you have a hostile CSA along 1,000 miles of your southern border you're going to have a much bigger military for the USA than in OTL. And the CSA is probably borderline broke. I also think if the CSA won the USA would get into the Africa game and look to acquire new territory quite rapidly. Alaska 100%. Probably Cuba. Annex Panama at some point. Hawai'i is getting annexed much earlier. Probably a much heavier presence in Asia, etc. Too many alt history scenarios (Turtledove!) relies on the USA doing nothing with the CSA being some military ninja... yeah the CSA might be more militant but that's to keep down black revolts because of how brutal they would be. It'd be Sparta-Helot.
If we exclude the CSA existing there is no point after 1812 where a foreign power can successfully invade the US to legitimately threaten its very existence. Any European-Mexican alliance succeeds only in getting Mexico curb stomped and occupied and then a vengeful US Navy coming for all your overseas colonies and shipping.
Even if we do the "ultra isolationist USA"... which is something I hate... it requires the USA to have the idiot ball and not see the millions of soldiers and thousands of ships amassing in Canada or Mexico. Because an invasion of the US is only coming from Canada or Mexico. It sure as shit aint coming from Alaska or Cuba. While Russia has General Winter the US has Admiral Pacific and Admiral Atlantic and General Fuckton of Land and General Rocky Mountains and General Fucking Cold Winters of our own depending on where you are in the US. That's why Nazis-invade-US or Soviets-invade-US or Japan-invades-US are so dumb. They're not remotely plausible unless you force the US to grab the idiot ball and just smash its face in. Because even the isolationist USA prior to World War II still had a massive Navy and would have stomped on anyone shipping an invasion force for an obvious invasion of the US proper.
But to sum up, the further you go from 1776 your odds of an invasion of the US drop to 0 after the War of 1812 in our timeline and close to 0 unless you let the CSA win and butterfly some other things.
Plenty of debate here, really. See every time the idea of the Trent Affair turning into a war comes up - the US is simply not overwhelmingly powerful in the 1860s.
It's not going to be a cakewalk to take Canada even under ideal circumstances for the US here, even if "Britain takes the US down with ease" is not really feasible either.
Not a cakewalk of course. But who has the advantage and when is this happening? Canada has 3.5 million around this time compared to 19 million in the Union. Not a cakewalk but Britain… would they risk it? Britain cannot achieve success on the Great Lakes nor can it defeat the heavier ironclads the US is going to put out. Canada can’t put enough men in uniforms to stop a committed invasion of Lower Canada or New Brunswick.
But I think you need more than the Trent Affair to bring them to war. There needs to be something “else” that degraded relations so much.
And then you’ll have US commerce raiders that will reap havoc on British shipping.
We are not talking about the US's 19 million vs. Canada's 3.5 million, though. In any situation where there is a war in this period at all, focusing only on Canada as far as forces opposed to the US is a considerable underestimation of British forces. That is a pretty serious problem for the US on land and sea, and that includes US commerce raiders.
I imagine that the US is going to be a better position on the Great Lakes than fifty years earlier, and its land and (sea) naval forces are more respectable than fifty years earlier - but we are far from "best case scenario is the British avoid losing Canada" here. The US is not in any area an overwhelming power relative to Britain any time near 1860-or-so.
I'm betting on the more heavily industrialized empire whose navy rules the waves having the advantage here, not on the US, even if I don't think Britain is managing anything like "annexes New England" without significant cost (if at all).
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
This is in the middle of the Civil War, right? The war that was more or less stalemate up til the final year. Add Britain to the armies of the South, and the North is not taking anything with ease, or most likely not with difficulty, either. The South is winning that war.
Maybe when the Civil War is over, if a fight breaks out between USA and Britain, USA has the armies to swamp the northern border into Canada. But it has to be right after the CW, before the USA shelves its war machine.
Overall, I would agree that 1812 is the cutoff date for USA to be invaded and beaten. However, USA could lose wars that don't involve their heartland. If an Oregon war is limited to the Pacific Northwest, USA could lose as land access is limited, and USA doesn't have good naval power projection.
You're seriously underestimating the logistical issues involved with projecting power across the Atlantic. Also a Trent War would probably not mean Britain allying with the Confederacy; it would be a co-belligerency. And Britain losing Canada doesn't have to mean it becomes part of the the United States. It can just become its own country earlier than in OTL; I think that's the most likely outcome of British intervention in the ACW.
I haven’t made the assertion the US would win on the ocean. Just that the British Navy can’t win along the coasts. At least not on any permanent basis.
For the British they would need to send, low end, 100,000-250,000 troops to really threaten the US. This is coming off the British themselves having faced a massive rebellion in India so… we’re putting a US facing down the CSA and Britain with Britain facing down the USA and worrying about their most profitable colony rebelling again due to this massive resource sink that is a US-British war.
When I say lose Canada I just refer to the area around the Great Lakes. It would be foolish for the US to attack the Maritimes when the big prize is securing all land around the Great Lakes… something the British can’t stop.
We must also consider the butterflies here. Now this isn’t an internal conflict but a conflict with Britain… many people are still alive from 1812… some are still alive from the Revolutionary period! You have Britain engaging in a —third— war with the US…. The propaganda writes itself for Lincoln.
I don’t see draft riots or really any domestic problems in the North for Lincoln when you now have Britain trying to destroy the USA. I would put forward the US Army is far larger far earlier and the North becomes much more devoted to the war effort. This is now a conflict on National Survival. The politics are completely different.
I would see the people of the time viewing this as a significant betrayal by Britain and British interests wanting to destroy the US because it’s “Star is rising” or whatever message US propagandists will have a field day with.
Britain will win battles and maybe all the sea battles but will lose this war hard. I can see butterflies in Europe leading to significant changes. A big rebellion in India and then a big loss in North America? Like… what is Britain’s objective here? Defending the enslavers? That’s the message.
For the US recruitment = save the nation. For Britain and conscription = something something + protect slavery.
US is winning this one but it’ll be tough.
The UK has the largest navy and merchant marine in the world at this time, and already has plenty of experience sending troops long distances. Power projection wouldn't be trivial, but it wouldn't be insurmountable, either.
Even a co-belligerency would be very bad news for the Union; in no particular order:
- Even if it makes no offensive moves against the British, the US would have to divert tens or hundreds of thousands of troops to defend its northern border and its coastline against British attacks.
- Likely the first action the British would take after war breaks out would be to sweep the sea of any Union vessels they can find. This would render the Union's blockade of the Confederacy untenable, enabling the CSA to import large quantities of weapons and munitions and to boost its finances by exporting cotton, dramatically improving the rebels' position.
- The British would also blockade the Union, reducing the Union's ability to import weapons and to raise money by exports. Especially in the early years of the war, the US didn't have enough domestic production to equip all its soldiers, and relied on imports to make up the shortfall.
The war was already a war of national survival, at least according to Lincoln: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." You can't get much more existential than that, and yet we did see draft riots and the like.
Assuming we're referring to a Trent War or similar scenario, I think people of the time would view this as Lincoln being a complete idiot, blundering into a wholly unnecessary war the US can't afford at the time.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Canada was afraid of the USA at this time. They aren't rebelling against Britain to become an independent country. The hypothesis is that USA immediately attacks Canada. Britain is going to act in union with Canada to repel the USA. Britain has backed off trying to run the colonial show in North America, but is acting as protector. That's tailor made for Canada to want to remain in the fold.
As Fabius states, Britain's far superior Navy opens the blockade of the South, and seriously impacts the trade of the North. Britain will supply the South. A South with full resource access and a Navy will win this war. Britain/Canada can supply a northern ground threat. There'll be a rump USA, upset with the leadership that got them into this condition, a triumphant South, and a Dominion of Canada. Now, maybe Dominion means 'losing' Canada, but that clearly is not what was being referenced.
JohnnyFive talked of losing Canada, to which I was responding. He's backtracked to 'not ALL of Canada, only parts of it', but he clearly was referring to USA taking it by force. It's mighty big talk of USA winning a two front war when it could barely win a one front war with a lopsided naval situation.
Well... the issue with this, is that every other technically-advanced society on Earth would be affected too, depending upon their degree of dependence on electronic technology... Any nation which had the ability, and the will, to attempt a forcible occupation of the US, would find themselves unable to do so. Now, a requested "intervention" might be more likely, particularly from the neighbor to the south, as someone would have to do all the manual labor that would now be required due to the loss of automation (because a lot of Americans, of course, would be either unwilling, or lack the experience, to do it!)
Let us take a step back: the OP is not looking to create an alt history timeline. The OP is asking when the last realistic point of invasion could be.
That means the CSA and Britain do not get to become hyper competent while the USA becomes a nation of morons. The CSA and Britain do not get advantages by default while giving every obstacle for the USA to overcome. No. So let’s stop with that because that’s what’s happening. Every. Single. Issue that could hurt Britain is ignored.
A Trent war is a fairly lame reason for Britain. Do you think all those poor kids who will be conscripted really want to do another war on America?
Let’s not give the US the idiot ball and make Britain hyper competent. Let’s address some underlying issues:
1. What is the European reaction to Britain stopping US shipping in light of Europe and Britain needing US grain?- reactions from other European powers? Their harvests failed as the Civil War kicked off. Grain > cotton.
2. What is the economic impact of no trade with the USA? How will others react to that.
3a. What is the economic impact of the merchant marine having to support an invasion force rather than ship goods around the Empire?
3b. What is the economic impact when the USA begin commerce raising back at Britain?
4a. How is Britain going to avert a possible new rebellion in India considering so much of its fleet and merchant marine and its army is wrapped up in America?
4b. How is Britain going to save Canada west of the St. Lawrence and Quebec? Can it build enough ships on the Great Lakes or get an army to Lower Canada fast enough? British Columbia?
5a. How will the government justify a war to preserve slavery when Britain had a strong abolitionist movement? (And it WILL no debate become that issue unless we make Britain unassailable to real life politics… so… *shrug*).
5b. When Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation or some similar order earlier how will Britain and the European public react? Because Britain allied to the CSA is to preserve slavery. The US engaged in a vigorous PR campaign in Europe making the very point about slavery.
6. What is Britain objective here?
Additionally a war against the CSA is not the same “war of survival” and you know it if Britain declares full on war against the USA it will radically change the political dynamic within the USA.
Don’t handwave away Britain’s issues while forcing the US to maintain all its real timeline problems.
I didn’t backtrack. I mentioned Canada and then specifically mentioned Lower Canada. But let’s expand that. You think Britain can hold western Canada with no railroad? While the US doesn’t finish its first transcontinental railroad until 1869 it’s in a better position with rail than Canada which doesn’t get its own for 20 more years. Britain has to send reinforcements a long long way.
You would have the US most likely able to take western ports in BC with little effort or chance of British reinforcement. The US focusing on BC along the western border and an invasion of lower Canada is all that’s necessary.
Let’s not give Britain all the cards and leave the USA out to dry. I know it’s common to assume countries won’t change their tactics when presented with an alt history scenario but come on.
Also the US did not “barely” win against the CSA. It ravaged the CSA. It demolished the CSA. The war was fought almost completely within CSA territory. Do you not remember Sherman’s March to the Sea? Or how the US split the Confederacy in two by taking the Mississippi River? Or how the US was in Virginia for almost the entire war? Or how the US had seized areas all around the coastal CSA?
This war lasted so long because of multiple factors but none of them ever had US victory in doubt and this revisionism the US barely won is crap to be frank.
See my response above as well.
Let’s be fair.
unprincipled peter
Donor
The CSA was hamstrung the entire war by an inability to get resources. And yet still it held out for most of the war. It was a war of attrition, which the North won by being able to remain viable the longest. At the beginning of the '84 presidential campaign, Lincoln's re-election was in doubt, with a good possibility of a peace candidate willing to accept the secession being elected. Absolutely, the CSA was ravaged by the end of the war, OTL. It is going to be in tatters at the end of my alt war. But, the war was in balance for much/most of the war. Odds were with the North because they had the naval, and industrial, edge. They were likely to win the war of attrition. All that is thrown out the window IF Britain gets involved. Maybe the rump USA can win a two front war, defeat the South, and take parts of Canada. You seem to have the view that USA is destined to win any war, that after 1812, it is destined to grow to OTL size/status. I absolutely agree that given OTL conditions, this is the best choice to bet on. But, IF, for some reason, Britain joins the CSA when the war still hung in the balance, I'm pulling my chips off the USA and betting against them. You want me to be fair, I ask the same of you. One simply cannot deny that the Civil War was hanging in the balance for quite a while. Adding a major power to one side, or the other, will determine the outcome. The OP asks for a successful invasion, and maybe that won't happen, but the North will lose. Or, at least has a very good chance of losing. You want to bet on the North/USA to win against the South joined with Britain. I'm betting the other way.
Most of your points hold validity IF the south is not in the picture. But the North can't bleed off resources to invade Canada, when the South is penetrating into Pennsylvania. It'll be bad enough to bleed resources to defend against an invasion from Canada. Going on the offensive, and encouraging Britain to send land troops will be even worse. The tables will be turned. OTL, the South had to win before attrition set in. Here, the North has to win before the South and Britain can coordinate a victory.
You would need a situation where the US antagonizes so many people that no one gives a shit about "mumble mumble economics" because they want to see America brought down/they have so little trade with the US anyway that anyone trying to claim" but economics" is ignored.
It would be a tough campaign but they could theoretically be invaded until 1930 if you put together a mix that includes at least the North (this US is basically CSA plus parts of the West) Canada, Mexico, Western Europe and Germany, the Japanese Empire/East Asia, and logistic support from Russia and parts of Latin America (supply of resources, troops and advanced bases).
Yes, the USA makes enemies with so many people. The British Empire is not a factor (it dissolved a few decades earlier) so they will not jump to the aid of the United States. And still it would probably be Downfall-level carnage.
It would be a tough campaign but they could theoretically be invaded until 1930 if you put together a mix that includes at least the North (this US is basically CSA plus parts of the West) Canada, Mexico, Western Europe and Germany, the Japanese Empire/East Asia, and logistic support from Russia and parts of Latin America (supply of resources, troops and advanced bases).
Yes, the USA makes enemies with so many people. The British Empire is not a factor (it dissolved a few decades earlier) so they will not jump to the aid of the United States. And still it would probably be Downfall-level carnage.
Point for clarity before writing something on the thing below. When I referred to the ocean here:
it was as opposed to the lakes, not just the open sea vs. the coast. The US can build some impressive ironclads in the 1860s, which is certainly not nothing, but it's not something where Britain is stuck without any response.
In the end my point here is that it is very much not "no debate" that Britain would lose Canada here - the US is strong enough to be a tough fight, not strong enough to have things all its own way.
it was as opposed to the lakes, not just the open sea vs. the coast. The US can build some impressive ironclads in the 1860s, which is certainly not nothing, but it's not something where Britain is stuck without any response.
I can only speak for myself, but I am not assuming one nation is of morons and the other is of hyper-competent geniuses. But this scenario doesn't have the US industrially stronger than Britain, and "militarily stronger" depends on the US during the war (like how it massively expanded the army and navy during the ACW) facing a Britain with little to no interest in building up large scale forces - just somehow leaving Canada nearly to its own devices.
In the end my point here is that it is very much not "no debate" that Britain would lose Canada here - the US is strong enough to be a tough fight, not strong enough to have things all its own way.
Last edited:
Britain was willing to go to war over it IOTL. You may think it "lame", but the world's foremost maritime and trading power took the freedom of the seas pretty seriously. Not to mention, this was a period when prestige was considered very important in international relations. For Britain to meekly do nothing when the US illegally impounded one of its vessels would entail a major loss of face, and encourage other powers to try and push Britain around.
The rest of Europe took Britain's side in the Trent debate (even Russia, which was quite friendly with the US), so apparently they thought they'd be able to get by without American grain. Not to mention, Britain and France had recently fought a big war against a major grain-producing nation (Russia) without any food problems. King Grain isn't going to save the Union any more than King Cotton saved the Confederacy.
See above point re: the rest of Europe taking Britain's side.
Much less than the economic impact of the US merchant marine getting either sunk or bottled up in port.
Much less than the economic impact when the US is put under blockade by Britain.
Was there any threat of a new rebellion in India? From what I've read the mutinying sepoys were pretty comprehensively crushed, so I doubt anyone will be eager for an Indian Mutiny: Pt. 2.
It would take a lot of planning and time for the US to move large forces to its northern border, given that it's already very heavily engaged in the south, so it's quite possible that Britain can get reinforcements to Lower Canada before the US is ready to invade. Even if the US manages to launch its invasion first, there's nothing to stop the British winning back any occupied territories at the negotiating table later on.
It wouldn't be a war to preserve slavery, but a war to preserve Britain's ability to trade freely -- which, as already mentioned, was something Britons of all classes cared about quite a lot.
Actually the US' official position was that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Even if Lincoln does issue an Emancipation Proclamation or similar, I expect the British reaction will be along the lines of "Great, but just because you want to abolish slavery doesn't give you licence to flagrantly violate international law."
As mentioned above, to preserve Britain's ability to trade freely without having her ships illegally seized. Depending on how big a threat Britain expects the US to be in future, they might also try and weaken it by, e.g., supporting Confederate independence, or try and annexe some lands along the border to make Canada more defensible.
Having a third of the country secede is a much bigger threat to the US' survival than maybe losing a few border territories to British North America.
The Union had over twice the population of the Confederacy (and around four times the free population) and about ten times the industry. That it nevertheless took them over four years to win frankly doesn't speak very well of the Union's war-making ability.
[/QUOTE]
"Lame" as in it is not a powerful enough excuse to go to total war with a major trading partner and risk so much when there are other ways. The British threatened war and they had some support but that would most likely end if there was total war. The most likely British response is that they don't recognize the US blockade around some Southern ports and tell Lincoln they will resume trade out of, I don't know... Charleston, Savannah, and Wilmington, and dare Lincoln to order the US Navy to intercept. That is a strong enough message without war.
But if there must be war...
[/QUOTE]
Taking their side =/= supporting an actual war.
And do you think Prussia and Napoleon are going to let the opportunity Britain is in a total war with the US just sit by?
Or are British concerns handwaved away like you did throughout your post as of no consequence?
You continually dismiss issues that would effect Britain... like I said, give one side hypercompetence while denying the same to the other. You habitual ignore any geopolitical concern of Britain or one that will come up, as if making by authorial fiat that everyone will just sit twiddling their thumbs on the sideline as Britain goes to total war and no other ascendant power takes advantage of it.
Britain imported 1/4 of its wheat crops during this time period and the US provided 40% of that. Have fun with your bread riots... or does that not effect Britain because magic reasons?
[/QUOTE]
Magic! That's the answer! The 19 million person market in the US, the grain imports, and everything else... oh no, it won't hurt Britain one bit! Not at all!
[/QUOTE]
Magic! No one in the world takes advantage of how the British Royal Navy must use its expensive ocean going fleet to blockade thousands of miles of coasts! And by Magic! the Union will never build any ships to contest that blockade!
And Magic! there will be NO! US commerce raiding because by MAGIC! it will be "much less" than the economic impact the US suffers for a war.
[/QUOTE]
Butterflies here. If somehow Trent escalates to total war! then why not a rebellion being possible?
[/QUOTE]
The British had 18,000 troops in Canada by the end of the year and Britain anticipated an invasion of 50,000 to 100,000... so even the British were not really taking a rosey view of things. British generals sent to inspect Canadian forts found them in serious case of decay and the untrained militia (basically just all men above 16 I think) were... untrained and not ready one bit. The Brits estimated 100,000 men just to defend Canada, let alone attack the US over land.
Wondering where Britain gets that army?
[/QUOTE]
Magic! Magic everywhere! Because of course the US is the moron here and Britain hypercompetent and the US will not engage in any diplomatic PR campaign like it did in real life to win the moral argument (against the Confederacy) against Britain by saying Britain is fighting to help the CSA preserve slavery and grossly overreacted to the US arresting two traitors.
Remember, the US threatened war on any nation that DID recognize the Confederacy... guess how many did?
[/QUOTE]
I know what the official position is. This is a PR battle, one the British will lose, one the US can easily fight in Europe which has like not really any support for slavery. We're talking, I guess, after the Trent Affair where this PR battle would be waged. Britain is not going to have support here and other nations, assuming total war, will take full advantage.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, a war of national survival. That is far different than just a civil war. Your flippant dismissal of that... when you go from civil war to having the world's premier empire invade you... your politics change, the citizenry will adopt new views, they will become intensely patriotic, maybe nationalistic. The people alive in 1812 will see this as Round 3, once again the Britain coming to destroy American liberty and freedom.
Who will have the support of its citizens more for a long total war? Britain who is fighting based on legal theory of free trade or America who now sees its very existence threatened? There is one right answer but I feel to be contrary you won't chose it.
[/QUOTE]
The US losing territory is going to be a major issue for the US.
I would say the British are in a bigger peril of losing territory. British Columbia has 50,000 people around this time (and actually lost population in the 1860s-1870s)... Oregon + what will be Washington has around 70,000... California has 370,000 people at this time. Britain is not taking any west coast American territory and I would bet they will lose portions of BC. And most likely portions along the vast border and western Great Lakes at a minimum. Canada does not have the population and Britain does not have the troops in Canada to stop even small, local invasions. I'd also foresee small citizen militias going back and forth from each side attacking any nearby towns.
Their war making was fine. But are we going to make it so the Union just does "the same damn thing" while the CSA and Britain get wanked or are we going to assume the US will change its strategy?
The Union could have most likely ended the war earlier if the Penninsula Campaign had succeeded with a more aggressive general. And before that both sides were expecting the war to not last long, remember the 3 month enlistments? They thought Bull Run would be the battle, one side would win, then it'd be over soon after... which was clearly wrong.
The biggest issue for the US is saltpepper, which the British have a lot of. So that could be an issue, though the US might have to find some other source ASAP.
An invasion of Canada (if it occurs) is a no debate US victory because the British simply do not have the forces necessary to defend it. The forts in Canada are decaying and utterly worthless. The militia is nonexistent and not trained. The vast territory of Canada cannot be adequately defended. The US rail network is far superior to Canada's... who won't even have a transcontinental rail road for 29 more years (granted the US does not in 1861 either).
Also... remember.. Canada was the end point for the Underground Railroad, tens of thousands of Canadians fought for the Union, and slavery was deeply unpopular. So Britain forces Canada to fight for slavery... not going to go over all that well. If the US plays this as a defensive invasion they could perhaps limit popular Canadian support for Britain.
(And yes I know this is before Canada existed as one nation, I'm not typing out all the provinces)
And then lets consider that Canada, which benefited economically, now has to support a British invasion force and a possible huge ass US invasion force...
So maybe Canada wont even get invaded if they just declare independence rather than fight Britain's War.
It wasn't a balance for much of the war. The North was winning. The South is massive and the South should have surrendered at various points (especially after Gettysburg and debatable after Shiloh) but it did not. Once the Union controlled the Mississippi in the few months after Shiloh it was over. That was 1862 (granted Vicksburg solidified the hold on the Mississippi in 1863). That the South did not surrender is more an indictment of the utter greed, depravity, and ruthlessness of its leaders... they continued an unwinnable war (Davis even viewed it as unwinnable in the months after Shiloh) because their way of life- owning slaves, raping slaves, murdering children- was under threat... and (in southern accent) I say, I say, they could not have that, no sir, not tat taaaall.
There are factors where the British coming in (like with saltpepper and gunpowder) can really fuck the US over if not alternative is found, if the US can't compensate in some capacity. l don't deny Britain coming in will make US naval efforts almost impossible. But victory on the MIssissippi (as heavy ironclads come in) will clinch the victory.
The British can fuck around with the US economy but they cannot win on land. The Confederacy could not win on land. And Britain relies on 1/4 of its grain to be imported so it is NOT going to be exporting grain to the Confederacy, which was suffering food riots and its army was facing serious desertion issues as the war went into 1864/1865.
Cotton was also coming from other places in the empire, so are the British going to just give free money to CSA cotton producers and just crash their own cotton industry in Britain? No... once Britain decides to just import its own cotton and not buy Confederate cotton you're kind of in the same boat regarding the CSA economy. Britain could extend them loans... but that will depend on how the war is going. Mississippi River lost... no loans.
This also depends on ALL of Britain's enemies not taking advantage of the massive resource sink this war will be and starting shit in places Britain finds much more important than a civil war in America.
It's not a fair proposition to make Britain throw all its economic concerns out the window... throw the massive cost of this war out the window... throw all its political concerns out the window... and assume no ascendant power will take advantage of this situation but somehow the USA gets nothing in exchange for all these freebies Britain and the CSA are getting here.
I think British intervention will prolong the war... unless Britain decides it isn't worth it.
And let's not forget that when the CSA massacres black troops that have surrendered (assuming Fort Pillow happens) that will be a nightmare for the British PM to somehow sell to the British public. Once the US propaganda machine gets going in Europe it will be an utter nightmare for Britain. And all the US-sympathetic MPs are going to demand why Britain is fighting alongside a nation murdering troops who have surrendered... a big no-no.
As an aside....
I wrote a time line where the British DO intervene after the Trent Affair and a few other incidents which lead to war... essentially the British just break the blockade of the south and engage in very limited land actions. Neither Britain nor the US do anything with Canada because neither side wants to escalate it that much...
The British provide weapons and ships, essentially... But the Confederates- as is their nature to be brutal monsters- still massacre black troops who have surrendered, and Palmerston tells the Confederates Britain will withdraw support by the new year (1864) so the CSA does a big ole Hail Mary play doing an attack up the Eastern Shore into Delaware (due to British naval assets) and an attack on DC but get bogged down in Maryland.... Lincoln also gets assassinated while visiting a military hospital and the vice president is just exhausted from the war so does a ceasefire and truce.
Realistic? Maybe... most likely not.
But I really don't see a total war from Britain because they have too many other things to worry about.
The time line was the backstory to my America-Pacific War I posted in the post-1900 forum.
Last edited: