What caused the US to lose interest in expanding into Canada?

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,810
Stockport Cheshire UK
OK. That said, though, would Britain have actually managed to prevent US troops from reaching Europe and helping Germany?
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The USA had zero interest in involving itself in a major war to gain Canada during this period, if they had they would have automatically found themselves at war with France, Russia and Japan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
Two points:

1. The US intended to take and hold one or more strategic points along the St. Lawrence River as bargaining chips. That was a failure, but the US was not trying to "conquer" Canada. Throughout the first seven decades of the 19th century there were some screw-ball politicians who thought Canada would be a prize. Others knew better.
What was the point of these bargaining chips, though?

2. Integrating and settling the land that came with the Louisiana Purchase was enough of an opportunity (and challenge). Canada has a harsh winter climate and a short growing season. Until late in the 19th century it was so underdeveloped that it was essentially a wilderness. The United States didn't need it. After the Louisiana Purchase there were California and Oregon and what we stole from Mexico.
Very true (and you forgot to mention Florida here!). That said, though, having even more sparsely populated territory couldn't have hurt us--could it? Indeed, I was thinking of only taking western Canada if the people in eastern Canada would have been too rebellious.

Bargaining chips on the St. Lawrence were not an issue as there were no further wars between the US and GB. By 1840-1850, the bankers and industrialists and railroad tycoons were only interested in getting rich from the resources that the US already had. The politicians were happy to go along (and of course profit themselves).
OK; makes sense.

BTW, what was the point of subsequent US expansion, in that case? After 1855, the US acquired Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Philippines, and the US Virgin Islands.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The USA had zero interest in involving itself in a major war to gain Canada during this period, if they had they would have automatically found themselves at war with France, Russia and Japan.
Yes, I know. My question here was not meant to be realistic; rather, I asked it out of pure curiosity.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
Yes, I know. My question here was not meant to be realistic; rather, I asked it out of pure curiosity.
If War Plan Red is still the subject, it was a contingency plan. It is unlikely that there would have been support either in Congress or the public at large for such a war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
If War Plan Red is still the subject, it was a contingency plan. It is unlikely that there would have been support either in Congress or the public at large for such a war.
Actually, my reply had to do with my previous question about whether the US would actually be capable of sending its own troops to help Germany or whether Britain would successfully be able to block the passage of these US troops to Germany.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
What was the point of these bargaining chips, though?



Very true (and you forgot to mention Florida here!). That said, though, having even more sparsely populated territory couldn't have hurt us--could it? Indeed, I was thinking of only taking western Canada if the people in eastern Canada would have been too rebellious.



OK; makes sense.

BTW, what was the point of subsequent US expansion, in that case? After 1855, the US acquired Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Philippines, and the US Virgin Islands.
Bargaining chips for peace negotiations. No need to dwell on that as it was a colossal flop.

Florida was IMO a strategic acquisition. Otherwise a foreign state(s) would control all means of ingress and egress to the Caribbean basin. Florida was a pestilential swamp until the very first couple of decades of the 20th century.

Other than Alaska the other expansion was for lines of commercial trade. Asia was a commercial magnet as soon as the US gained the West Coast. By the age of steam, and the establishment of a modern US navy, coaling stations were a strategic necessity. As to the US Virgin Islands - I got nuthin' :D.

I must assume that Alaska from the Russians was intended to freeze out another European power in N.A.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
Actually, my reply had to do with my previous question about whether the US would actually be capable of sending its own troops to help Germany or whether Britain would successfully be able to block the passage of these US troops to Germany.
Why in Hell would we aid Germany? :zany:
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,810
Stockport Cheshire UK
Actually, my reply had to do with my previous question about whether the US would actually be capable of sending its own troops to help Germany or whether Britain would successfully be able to block the passage of these US troops to Germany.
While the US Navy is powerful in this period, the British would have the support of all the other Allied navies as well, so I don't consider the US would be able to send any troops to the battlefields in Europe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
While the US Navy is powerful in this period, the British would have the support of all the other Allied navies as well, so I don't consider the US would be able to send any troops to the battlefields in Europe
OK; makes sense.