Post by jerry kraus Post by Pete Barrett Post by jerry kraus
Suppose the Americans decide they like the cut of Luis Riel's jib, in
1869-70 in Manitoba, or in 1885 in Saskatchewan, and they decide to
provide him with some military support, and backing. So, we have
American troops, guns and artillery crossing the border North, to
give Louis Riel a hand in his Rebellions. What happens?
In 1885, there would be a war between the US and the UK. Gladstone was
PM in London, but was already in disarray after the death of Gordon at
Khartoum, and an invasion of Canada by the US would force his
resignation a few months early. Salisbury would take over, a much more
aggressive PM - therefore war.
1869-70 is a bit different. Gladstone was in power then, too, but in a
much stronger political position domestically, having won the 1868
General Election with a sizeable majority. He may be able to avoid a
war with the US, though not if the US is intent on absorbing part of
Canada. If it does come to war, one of the interesting things is that
during this period, Gladstone's government was carrying through major
reforms of the army, and it's not clear if an unreformed British army
would be able to cope with the US.
Pete, Theodore Roosevelt believed, as a young man, that the United
States should simply invade and annex, all of Canada. And, this was
more or less contemporary with Louis Riel's rebellions. As to the
practicalities of such an action, we must consider the difficulties of
transporting sufficient British troops across the Atlantic, to deal with
the 10 to 1 superiority in population of America versus Canada.
Wouldn't the American Navy have been sufficiently powerful by this time
to have sunk a great many British troop carriers, even given the power
of the British Navy? So, is there really any possibility of the
British being able to effectively defend Canada, if the Americans really
wanted it, in whole, or in part?
Arguably, Canada has been for the taking for the U.S. since the end of
the Mexican American War in 1848, and, arguably, the British have known
it. Which is precisely why relations between Britain and the U.S. began
improving a great deal following the end of the Mexican American War.
It was quite clear that the Americans were going to write their own
ticket, and there wasn't a damn thing that Britain could do about it.
So, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So, since the 1850's Britain's
policy as simply been one of systematic accommodation of the U.S.
Within limits, whatever they wanted, particularly in North America, they
got -- resources, trade, territory, even foreign policy.
sides, than any territory either could get from the other.
obviously they took a different form. (I don't suppose you read British
wasn't worth doing.
Post by jerry kraus
Under these circumstances, how, and why, would the American leadership
have motivated the American people to invade Canada? And, even
supposing an extremely eccentric leader like young Teddy Roosevelt
decided to invade Canada, and somehow got Congress to go along, bear in
mind the 2 year election cycle for Congress. With no reason to do it,
Teddy would end up in prison if he tried. So really, the problem with
this whole scenario is that the U.S. won't invade Canada, simply because
Canada won't give them any reason to do so.