Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2012, 07:44 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,598

@betgo:

As far as the CSA, by the middle 19th century, the United States was beginning to develop both industrially and economically. Railroads, oil wells, coal mining, etc.

Equipment, steam engines, specialized tools and so on were not manufactured much in North America at the time, so they were purchased from.....Great Britain. Steel for the rails, locomotives, etc. were mostly imported until later (a decade or so after the ACW).

The North had the wealth; the South had cotton...which was rather quickly replaced by the British textile mills with cotton from Egypt and India.

A war supporting a slave culture that G.B. had invested considerable effort in abolishing, AND against an economy that did good business with Britain made no sense at all.

Both before and after the Civil War here, Canada was too underdeveloped for the British to concern themselves with it. As it happened, of course Canada did begin to develop. Britain could access all the natural resources that are there, and by that time (say 1880s), the economic and political interests of both the US and GB were similar.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 10th, 2012, 09:45 AM   #42

Epix's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 630

The UK. did fight for Canada when they found gold in the Klondike in 1898.

Quote:
The increased population coming with the gold rush led to the separation of the Yukon district from the Northwest Territories and the formation of the separate Yukon Territory in 1898.
Yukon Territory Act, 1898


Among one of the reasons this was done was to make sure the US did not get annexation ideas. When gold was discovered in the Klondike US citizens who had gold fever started venturing in the thousands to the Yukon.

Quote:
In 1897-98 the Klondike Gold Rush in Yukon, Canada, enormously increased the population of the general area, which reached 30,000, composed largely of Americans. Some 100,000 fortune seekers moved through Alaska to the Klondike gold region.
Another factor which was most likely reasoned in creating the Yukon territory was the problem over the Alaskan panhandle. Canadians had wanted an outlet to the Yukon via the Alaskan Panhandle but with the 1903 treaty the UK. gave in to most of what the US wanted. Some Canadians were not happy that the UK. accepted this.

Quote:
The presence of gold and a large new population greatly increased the importance of the region and the desirability of fixing an exact boundary. Canada wanted an all-Canadian route from the gold fields to a seaport. There are claims that Canadian citizens were harassed by the U.S. as a deterrent to making any land claims.[5]

The head of Lynn Canal was the main gateways to the Yukon, and the North-West Mounted Police sent a detachment to secure the location for Canada. This was based on Canada's assertion that that location was more than ten marine leagues from the sea, which was part of the 1825 boundary definition. A massive influx of American prospectors through Skagway very quickly forced the Canadian police to retreat. They set up posts on the desolate summits of Chilkoot and White Passes, complete with a mounted Gatling gun at each post. This was still disputed territory, as many Americans believed that the head of Lake Bennett, another 12 miles (19 km) north, should be the location of the border. To back up the police in their sovereignty claim, the Canadian government also sent the Yukon Field Force, a 200-man Army unit, to the territory. The soldiers set up camp at Fort Selkirk so that they could be fairly quickly dispatched to deal with problems at either the coastal passes or the 141st Meridian.

Last edited by Epix; November 10th, 2012 at 09:51 AM.
Epix is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 10:01 AM   #43

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,469

A thing to remember about the British Empire, it wasn't built to gain territory, it came about because of the search for profit. If somewhere or something wasn't profitable Britain wasn't interested.
Admittedly towards the end of the 19th century Britain did lose the plot slightly and start to add territory just for the sake of it, but for the most part it was all about money, not land.
redcoat is online now  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:11 AM   #44
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
A thing to remember about the British Empire, it wasn't built to gain territory, it came about because of the search for profit. If somewhere or something wasn't profitable Britain wasn't interested.
Admittedly towards the end of the 19th century Britain did lose the plot slightly and start to add territory just for the sake of it, but for the most part it was all about money, not land.
The paradoxical relevant point is that the vast majority of the British Empire was simply never profitable.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 11:33 AM   #45

USMC's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 473

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The north would probably have fought hard in this scenario, and there was also a danger of the north also getting allies and the war expanding.
Man would that have been a slow moving "world war" or what?
USMC is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 01:18 PM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,598

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
The paradoxical relevant point is that the vast majority of the British Empire was simply never profitable.
They didn't know that yet. However, the manpower and natural resources of the Empire enabled Britain to survive the "Second Thirty Years War," 1914-45.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 01:20 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,598

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
A thing to remember about the British Empire, it wasn't built to gain territory, it came about because of the search for profit. If somewhere or something wasn't profitable Britain wasn't interested.
Admittedly towards the end of the 19th century Britain did lose the plot slightly and start to add territory just for the sake of it, but for the most part it was all about money, not land.
"The British Empire was acquired in a fit of absence of mind."

- Sir John Robert Seeley
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 01:23 PM   #48
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 74

Wonderful comments considering I'm Canadian. Anyway, I'm not sure why: but lets consider that when we gained our "independence" it was a time of Britain focusing more on consolidating its internal power and progressing in the fields of science, culture, etc. Technically Britain still owns us, for we can't do anything without their permission: though they gave their word to sign everything we planned on passing.
Locke is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:06 PM   #49
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
A thing to remember about the British Empire, it wasn't built to gain territory, it came about because of the search for profit. If somewhere or something wasn't profitable Britain wasn't interested.
Admittedly towards the end of the 19th century Britain did lose the plot slightly and start to add territory just for the sake of it, but for the most part it was all about money, not land.
Exactly! Think of how Britain actually left the American Revolutionary War content because the outcome made them lose land, but gain the upper hand on atlantic naval shipping routes: therefore making them even richer than before.
Locke is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 02:28 PM   #50
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
They didn't know that yet. However, the manpower and natural resources of the Empire enabled Britain to survive the "Second Thirty Years War," 1914-45.
Nope, regarding most colonies (especially African colonies) Britain survived those ten years of war in spite of wasting money and resources in those same colonies.

Who knows, maybe America and other Allies helped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
"The British Empire was acquired in a fit of absence of mind."

- Sir John Robert Seeley
Amen.

Last edited by sylla1; November 10th, 2012 at 03:01 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
britain, canada, fight, harder


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canada/Australia in the event Britain was invaded by Germany? Mitchell Hundred European History 31 January 5th, 2013 06:15 PM
So why didn't Britain and France invade Germany in 1939 general.wolfe War and Military History 58 December 24th, 2012 04:26 AM
Could Britain sell Canada? wildthing202 Speculative History 49 June 6th, 2012 03:51 PM
Why did France and the Netherlands fight decolonization but Britain didn't? jeroenrottgering European History 26 December 20th, 2011 03:01 AM
Why didn't the Czechs fight back? Mohammed the Persian European History 197 November 27th, 2011 06:21 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.