"1860's Russian Invasion of the USA and Canada" Topic

"Now two "What If's" have always fascinated me about this war:

What If the British and French came in on the Confederate side? They gave considerable assistance in the early days of the war to the Confederacy.
What If the Russians decided to re-take their Alaskan, US and Canadian Western Seaboard territories? Post Crimea they had redoubled their push Eastwards. Why not re-take these, what with the US in a massive civil war and Canada militarily inconsequential. Besides, Gold had been found in some of the areas the Russian had relinquished…."

New Byzantium

link

Armand

A great "what if" idea; an earlier concept might include the Spanish in San Francisco and the Russians in Marin County, CA and Hawaii.

Not so far fetched. My current home town of Lampasas actually was captured and occupied by "Russians" in the 1950s.

link

The Russians supported Lincoln and the Union cause. They sent their fleets to New York and San Francisco to show their support.

link

How do you like the US participation in the Crimean War on the side of Russia against the coalitions of Great Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey? A completely possible scenario then. And modern analogies are visible)))

link

Cuprum2 – I didn't realise the US successfully exploited the opportunity of the Crimean War in this way, makes it's success in making the most of 20th century wars seem more like business as usual.

One important component of policy is geography. It can be both a blessing and a curse. Many conflicts are dictated by her…

This could only be proposed by someone totally ignorant of mid-19thCentury US politics. The war with Mexico was unpopular enough. A war on the other side of the world with no good reason for US involvement (like a direct threat to the US) would cause riots in the streets and impeachment of the President.

And with a Regular Army of only nine infantry, five cavalry (ok, two cavalry, two dragoon, and one mounted rifle), and four artillery regiments, US intervention in the Crimea would have been both pointless and farcical.

Why precisely the intervention in Crimea? Allied military actions also took place in the Far East.

link

But the most important thing is Russia's possible consent to issue letters of marque to the Americans to counteract British maritime trade. There were many who wanted to…

The Russians supported Lincoln and the Union cause. They sent their fleets to New York and San Francisco to show their support.

Actually, Russia just wanted to put its fleet somewhere where it could not be blockaded by the British should a war between them break out. A visit to the U.S. just made a good excuse.

How Russian ships defended New York and San Francisco:

link

Thanks

Armand

Recently I watched several lectures on YouTube by the famous Russian researcher of the Crimean War, Sergei Makhov. He is interesting because he studies and compares both Russian and foreign documents on this war. Among other things, he made an analysis of the possible course of this war in the Pacific Ocean with various decisions made by the warring parties, which is consistent with the title of this topic. Among the possible Russian allies, the United States was named, whose participation could be reduced to allowing US citizens to receive Russian letters of marque. American prize courts were ready to accept ships and cargo captured from the British and French… In addition, in the event of an allied attack on Russian Alaska, one could count on a stream of American volunteers willing to fight against them. One can go a little further and imagine that in response the British would have attempted to seize, say, a steamship with Californian gold going through Panama to San Francisco, which could have led to a full-fledged war between the USA and the Allies…
The Allies could have counted, under certain conditions, on the participation of Manchurian and Chinese troops in the fight against the Russians in the Far East, as well as the arrival of sepoys from the East India Company to the Far Eastern theater.

I mentioned geography for a reason… Russia is a natural ally of the USA in the Pacific Ocean. Just as Germany is a natural ally of Russia in Europe. And the natural opponents of these countries have been making great efforts for centuries to prevent the emergence of such alliances in reality))) This is if we discard any ideology.

Russia did not sell Alaska to the US until 1867-after the Civil War was over.

Alleluia Deo Gratias…at least someone finished by paying attention to such chronological nonsense…we are really in an US forum?

and with only the 14th Line Siberian Battalion as only garrison and when you see what occurred in 1904-1905 to send more troops on its own far eastern soil, you can imagine the great Russian invasion of Western Canada in the years 1850'-1860' and the degree of involvement in such area while not even its long conquest of the East in Turkestan was not achieved not to mention the events in Poland and etc…

and concerning the US participation in the War in Crimea-Ukraine-Caucasus-Baltic-Kamchatka and cruise to the Aleutian Islands

This could only be proposed by someone totally ignorant of mid-19thCentury US politics. The war with Mexico was unpopular enough. A war on the other side of the world with no good reason for US involvement (like a direct threat to the US) would cause riots in the streets and impeachment of the President.

And with a Regular Army of only nine infantry, five cavalry (ok, two cavalry, two dragoon, and one mounted rifle), and four artillery regiments, US intervention in the Crimea would have been both pointless and farcical.

totally agree, another hard reality
only 10 248 soldiers, more 1221 marines, even the Denmark or Belgium had more troops
in the previous Mexican War 6 of the 29 states of the Union didn't raise volunteers units

The US Navy facing the first and second world naval powers in the Pacific and Far East instead of being associated with them in several Chinese Japanese operations of that time…
probably the only option for the US Navy would be the german one of 1870-1871 and seek refuge in the harbors for the rest of the war

no more than a ridiculous border "Pig War" in Alaska and/or Oregon can be 'seriously' imagined in the Pacific coast in such period

historically the only planned Russian intervention I have heard in America was against the Spanish America to reestablish the Spanish crown in the wars of Independence of 1815-1825, hope that you know the reaction and feelings of the United States about such crusade in 1823

Scott, I was going to point that out, but the title of this topic indicated only that the U.S. involvement could be in the '60s, implying the entire decade, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

As I point out in my Filibuster articles in Time Portal Passages, the 1850s was an era of active Filibuster operations. Cuba, Hawaii, North Mexico and Nicaragua were a few.
So in my opinion, it is not much of a stretch to imagine an operation to Alaska in the 1850s, or a volunteer regiment joining the Russians. Such troops could garrison the Pacific areas to free troops to head west.
So you have both anti and pro-Russian scenarios.

The Russians had plenty of their own troops to send to the Crimea. The problem wasn't numbers it was logistics. The supply lines were so long and the land transport system so poor that it took an age to get any new troops to the Crimea. It was neither troops nor courage that lost the war, it was incompetent generals and a massive misjudgement by the Russian government of the political situation.

If the US had allowed any privateers to operate from their ports the British & French could have seized every US registered merchant that came to any controlled port in retaliation. No US government would have risked that.

There is something similar with the US Army obliged to cross through New Granada (today Colombia) by the isthmus of Panama instead of its own territory to reach California and Oregon, despite a non-wartime episode something that impressed Grant for the rest of his life with his 4th US Infantry Regiment in 1852 sent from New York to the Washington Territory not yet State, and having lost many soldiers and followers by the Panama route and diseases

all the Pacific Northwest was under-militarized at that time…hard to imagine a great theater of operations with expeditionary forces and battles like an anachronistic transposition right in the middle of the 19th century of the Japanese offensive against the Aleutians facing US and Canadian Armies

among the 3 potential powers, it is not only Russian Alaska with the 14th Siberian Battalion, even in western Canada, in British Columbia, almost nothing at that time in term of military presence, except the Royal Navy's warships and sailors and few Royal Marines who can reinforce only very few auxiliaries French-Canadians and Métis Victoria Voltigeurs, the biggest contingent was the 225 Royal Engineers who arrived in 1858-1859…

Canadian Military Heritage Volume II 1755-1871 page 178
PDF link
The Purported Russian Threat 1854-1856
the war against Russia in 1854 fed the worst fears of the colonists of the Vancouver Island. Governor Douglas urgently called for troops cannons rifles ammunition and provisions to battle his Russian neighbours to the north. His requests were given the cold shoulder in London. According to the staff England had "no such interest in the maintenance and support of his outlying settlement" which was costing it a great deal.
As "for taking possessions of the Russian settlements" it was not clear to them "whether it would be worth our having". Douglas was thus advised that "H.M. Government deems it to be at once both unnecessary unadvisable" but that the warships would continue to patrol the coast.
Douglas was nevertheless convinced that his fears were well founded. The Russians had, at it happens, send a Siberian Infantry Battalion to Sitka, but – and Douglas could not have known this – for the sole purpose of protecting their colony and not to attack their British neighbours.
In fact neither the British nor the Russians wished to do battle on the northwest coast. The two countries thus agreed not to fight in this part of the globe.

when you read that the Admiralty HQ of the Royal Navy Pacific Squadron remained in a foreign country in Valparaiso, Chile until 1862…that says a lot about the militarization in Northwest coast and British Columbia…

during the "Pig War" page 180 :
if war were to break out the British with their naval superiority in the Pacific would be able to hem the American soldiers in on the island and bombard cities in Oregon and California
(…) 67 men suggested that a company of volunteers be formed in Victoria. Governor Douglas refused because he had no weapons to give them, so they formed a company of volunteer firemen. The next year 45 Black Americans who had taken refuge in Victoria created the Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps.

not to mention that there were some problems also here with the natives tribes, the British landed 437 sailors and marines reinforced by 18 Victoria Voltigeurs in 1856

The 14th Siberian Line Battalion in Alaska I mentioned as only garrison, it was not even a whole Battalion but only 200 men, from a 800 men composite battalion raised to serve in the Pacific coast, sent to Sitka in the fall of 1854, they were the first regular soldiers to serve in Russian America

status quo, business and even a neutrality agreement were preferred to the war

The War Scare of 1854 The Pacific coast and the Crimean War
link
In March 22, Her Majesty's Government informed the Hudson Bay's company that it was willing to agree to a statement of neutrality for the territories of the two companies, but reserved the right to seize all Russian vessels and to blockade any Russian port. These reservations were never of significance, but the Russian American Company promptly made arrangements to have all its vessels fly neutral flags and to increase trade with California. In the middle of May arrangements for neutrality were complete and acknowledged by both sides. The Russian fleet had been informed of the agreement, and previous orders to the British fleet on the subject were soon confirmed.

Technically, Vancouver Island, as a colony, was perhaps subject to attack by Russia. While the Government in St. Petersburg may have realized this, its official attitude was conditioned by the attitude and position of the Russian American Company. That organization had a complete monopoly of all phases of Russian activity in America. The Hudson's Bay Company had previously occupied a similar position, and a dual relationship continued in the new colony of Vancouver's Island. No Russian attack on the colony would have failed to harm the Hudson's Bay Company. It is doubtful if the northeastern Pacific was given much serious consideration in either London or St. Petersburg, except by officials of the companies.

(…)

Although Vancouver Island was visited a number of times in 1855 by British warships, the base at Esquimalt was not of importance in the strategy of the war in the Pacific. It was a convenient supply-point and not much more. This limitation was a direct result of the neutrality agreement made between the fur-trading companies of the nations at war. Had the agreement not been consummated the course of northwestern American history might well have been altered. Russia would have had to defend Sitka and other American ports but would also have had bases for possible attacks on British Columbia.

It seems inconceivable that, at least, the import of the arrangement was not promptly communicated to Governor Douglas. Apparently, however, he received no official information on the subject until September 1855. This represented a delay of over a year, and is a possible clue to the amount of thought given to the colony during the war. If Douglas knew of the agreement before this time he did not feel free to transmit his information to the colonists or to mention it in his official dispatches. At long last, he was sent copies of official instructions to the Admiralty on the subject of respecting the neutrality of Russian American Company's territory, and these provided him with the information by which he could allay the fears of the colonists. The unusual nature of the agreement may have accounted for the secrecy observed; but, whatever the reason, the colony apparently remained in ignorance to a very late date, despite its close connection with the Hudson's Bay Company and despite the visit of ships of the fleet in 1854. Both the company and officers of the fleet were, of course, well aware of the agreement by the fall of 1854.

At the beginning of the war several Russian warships were in the Pacific. As a result of the agreement these vessels were forced to depend for a base on Petropaulovski, on the eastern side of the Kamchatka peninsula. Accordingly, the naval strategy was confined to the northwestern part of the ocean, where the very weak Russian squadron made its base. An attack on Petropaulovski in the fall of 1854 was unsuccessful, perhaps because of the suicide of Rear-Admiral Price just before the attack started. When an augmented British and French squadron returned to the attack in May 1855, it found that the Russians had slipped away, and was forced to content itself with the destruction of the fortifications.

Throughout the war the neutrality agreement was respected by both sides. On July 11, 1855, the Pacific squadron, on its return from Petropaulovski, approached Sitka. The Russians were alarmed and sent the Governor's secretary and a translator out to meet H.M. screw sloop Brisk. Rear-Admiral Bruce asked questions concerning ships in Sitka harbour, and left a package of newspapers. The squadron left without entering the harbour.

Quite interesting … thanks!

Armand

2 words: – Royal. Navy.

You can't get down the Pacific Coast of British Columbia by land.

You have to sail. That means the Russians have to sail a navy around Africa and up the Chinese coast and then down Alaska and BC.

And then the RN kills them. End.

Indeed because if both Russian Alaska and British Columbia are military deserts, the things didn't seem better on the Russian Asia Far East to support a so-called Russian invasion in the years 1850'-1860'

Throughout the Crimean War the war in the Pacific illustrates the lack of Russians military and naval means in the area

The Allied British and French fleet tried to find something to attack, it was the unsuccessful siege of Petropaulovski mentioned above and presented as a great victory by the Russians, actually there was no more than a garrison of 800 men, soldiers and sailors, including civilian functionaries and inhabitants were obliged to serve in the artillery batteries
the following year when the Allied fleet came back again they found…none…the garrison has evacuated what it was so defended the previous year and the inhabitants had fled…

so they went to Alaska…uuuppps…the British realized there was a russian-british neutrality agreement…the French tried to find some Russian vessels in the waters, so they went to the Kuriles to take possession of the Urup island to expell the Russians

details about this small forgotten naval campaign
Naval War in the Pacific, 1854-55
link

In terms of a meaningful effort against Russia, at a time when Russian expansion eastwards across Siberia was still in its infancy, there were few Russian settlements on her Pacific coast which might merit the attention of allied warships. The only sizeable Russian towns in the region were Okhotsk and Petropavlovsk, along with the fur and fish trading port of Sitka in Alaska. Smaller fishing and trading settlements were hardly worth any effort, as were communities on Sakhalin Island or around the estuary of the river Amur, former Chinese territory which had only recently come under Russian control. The port of Petropavlovsk, on the Kamchatka peninsula and sheltered in Avocha Bay, was the largest Russian settlement on the Pacific coast. In 1854, it was also an anchorage of the small Russian Pacific squadron.

Had it not been for the fact of a Russian naval presence in the northern Pacific the region might well have been left alone by the allies, since it was so remote and of little economic significance. Added to that, British (and French) knowledge of the region was minimal and sea charts just about non-existent.

The Russian naval presence in the north western Pacific was very small. Her fleet in the region in 1854 was commanded by Rear Admiral Putyatin, a highly experienced explorer, diplomat and naval officer who had under his command only the aged 60-gun frigate Pallas, the frigate Aurora (44), and the armed transport Dvina (12). Putyatin knew very well that his enemy could deploy a far greater force against him and wisely sought to avoid a naval engagement. The frigate Pallas was sent for safety far up the River Amur, whilst the Aurora and Dvina were dispatched to Petropavlovsk where they could not only find refuge but also help in the defence of the port.

(…)

It is an interesting area for gaming, but I thought of it in terms of a Russian exploratory expedition in Manchuria getting ambushed by Manchus and fighting tigermen and matchlock men.

Sort of a skirmish version of the Anglo-French expedition to Peking, but with Russian marines and maybe some cossacks.

This is also the time period where the sinister Count Ignatieff bamboozles the Imperial Chinese court into giving away the entire present day Russian Pacific region to the Czar.

not sure there were a lot of marines in this theater, they should be proportionated to the very reduced size of the Russian Navy in the Pacific flotilla of Okhotsk I assume

there were ~600 000 men in the Russian Army but also mainly concentrated in Russia of Europe and Caucasus, where lived 90% of the people
if I understand the Russia of Asia Siberia had the sole 24th Division, 15 000 men, but, of which maybe only a brigade of 4 Line Siberian Battalions (x800 men) more Transbaïkal Cossacks and irregulars and small invalids garrisons for Eastern Siberia until Pacific coast
even in the years 1870'-early 1890' there were only 12 to 22 000 soldiers to cover the Eastern Siberia military district not raised before 1867 and Amur one, separated from this last one, not before 1884

with such military parsimony it is easy to understand why when the US Army had several infantry regiments in California Oregon, Russian America didn't see its first 100 soldiers before 1854 and 100 more the following year, while on Asian coast Petropavlovsk had only 231 soldiers initially as garrison before reinforcement and the today major naval place of Vladivostok, not founded before 1860 with 28 soldiers only, had
The Russian settlement at Vladivostok consisted in November 1861 of nine wooden houses and one mud house, inhabited by 2 officers and 70 soldiers.
These poor people lead a sad life there, and I could not help feeling sorry for them and admiring the resigned courage with which they endure their exile.
Rudolf Lindau