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

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
Bargaining chips for peace negotiations. No need to dwell on that as it was a colossal flop.
What concessions did we want to get from the British, though?

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.
Yep, that makes sense.

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.
Weren't the US Virgin Islands also strategically important?
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
What concessions did we want to get from the British, though?



Yep, that makes sense.



Weren't the US Virgin Islands also strategically important?
Concessions might have been formulated if positions on the river valley around, say Montreal had been seized. Having a bargaining chip is better than not having it. Didn't work though, so......

A quiki-Wiki mentions that in the atmosphere of 1916-17, it was feared that Germany might seize the Virgin Islands as a submarine station (unrestricted sub warfare, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
Concessions might have been formulated if positions on the river valley around, say Montreal had been seized. Having a bargaining chip is better than not having it. Didn't work though, so......
What concessions do you think that the US would have wanted, though?

A quiki-Wiki mentions that in the atmosphere of 1916-17, it was feared that Germany might seize the Virgin Islands as a submarine station (unrestricted sub warfare, etc.).
Yes, but the US's interest in these islands already existed long before WWI. There were previously US attempts to purchase these islands in 1867 and 1902--with the latter attempt failing by just one vote (specifically a tie vote) in the upper house of the Danish Parliament.
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,481
Japan
America learned that Canada is quite large and spacious and filled with people who don’t want be American. US Army was tiny, like the British was in 1776, and was not of any significant size until 1900s (1860s excepted) At this point I’d say the US saw it’s self as a land of freedom and liberty so imperial designs on fellow white nations would be a tough sell.

After losing the war of 1812 to pretty much Britain’s 3rd tier troops and Canadian Militia, I’d hazard a guess that, a few hot heads and blow heads aside, most realized the expense in blood and treasure required to take it was not worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
What concessions do you think that the US would have wanted, though?



Yes, but the US's interest in these islands already existed long before WWI. There were previously US attempts to purchase these islands in 1867 and 1902--with the latter attempt failing by just one vote (specifically a tie vote) in the upper house of the Danish Parliament.
Well, other than the Wiki, I can't say. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,958
America learned that Canada is quite large and spacious and filled with people who don’t want be American. US Army was tiny, like the British was in 1776, and was not of any significant size until 1900s (1860s excepted) At this point I’d say the US saw it’s self as a land of freedom and liberty so imperial designs on fellow white nations would be a tough sell.

After losing the war of 1812 to pretty much Britain’s 3rd tier troops and Canadian Militia, I’d hazard a guess that, a few hot heads and blow heads aside, most realized the expense in blood and treasure required to take it was not worth it.
Well, Edric, the British, 1775-1783 learned that America was quite large and spacious and filled with people who don't want to be British. With the emasculation of the northwestern Indian tribes, the US got more out of that 1812 war than GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,481
Japan
Well, Edric, the British, 1775-1783 learned that America was quite large and spacious and filled with people who don't want to be British. With the emasculation of the northwestern Indian tribes, the US got more out of that 1812 war than GB.
Exactly. 1812-14 showed the US it would have pretty much the exact same problems trying to occupy Canada that Britain had trying to contain the rebels in America. They are too large and open and the armies too small to have anything but a localised impact.

It would not be until 1917 I’d guess that the US had an army large enough to consider it. By which point relations between the 3 countries were too good.

Flashpoints for war in North America between the US and B.E over Canada would have been
1837-8, 1845, 1859 and 1861-2... and the US army and navy lacked the strength required for such an undertaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,877
SoCal
America learned that Canada is quite large and spacious and filled with people who don’t want be American. US Army was tiny, like the British was in 1776, and was not of any significant size until 1900s (1860s excepted) At this point I’d say the US saw it’s self as a land of freedom and liberty so imperial designs on fellow white nations would be a tough sell.

After losing the war of 1812 to pretty much Britain’s 3rd tier troops and Canadian Militia, I’d hazard a guess that, a few hot heads and blow heads aside, most realized the expense in blood and treasure required to take it was not worth it.
Was Mexico considered a White nation back then?

Also, didn't things get harder for the US after Napoleon's defeat in 1814 and the sending of a lot of British troops from the Old World to the New World?
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,481
Japan
I’m not sure. I don’t think it was... Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish and Native. So I doubt they were held to the same standards as Anglo-Germano-Celtic stock. I’d need more study on 19th century-20th century attitudes to Latinos.

But either way Mexico, while heavily populated, had little to no navy and a poor army. So not quite the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist