Alternative History - The War of 1812, the Americans win!!!

Inspired by a quote war i currently am having in the BtS forum...

So anyway, here's the "alternate" history...

What if, During the War of 1812, The Americans won, and conquered the british colonies in Canada, and they became states of Modern day America? How would this effect modern history?

And before the Americans/Canadians come and claim that "they did win the war" No you guys didn't... It was a stalemate where both sides (the americans and canadians/british) claim to have won.

Well America 'won' by not being defeated. In the majority of other aspects the war was won by the British and the colonies. If they had of completly won and captured Canada then i imagine they're small military and large areas they would have to govern militarily (Canadians didnt want them there) would have been their downfall and the British or someone else would have taken full advantage of this.

On a not being invaded by a foreigner path, then the civil war may not have happened, with all them predominantly non slavery states being added then the south would have been outvoted on any slavery issue and would have been less likely to seceede against an even stronger north

TheLastOne36 said:

And before the Americans/Canadians come and claim that "they did win the war" No you guys didn't... It was a stalemate where both sides (the americans and canadians/british) claim to have won.

Click to expand...

That was a win to us, the Brits had an large well equipped organized military, we had a couple farmers and squirrel hunters who had outdated muskets who were willing to fight for a good cause. The Brits had a large very powerful navy, we had some fishing boats and a small Navy. Yes the White House was burnt, yes we didn't beat the Brits out of Canada, yes no American soldier even took the fight to the U.K., but just because we survived it was a win. Many people said the revolution was a lucky fluke, and had the French Navy not bottled up Cornwallis' men then we would have lost that so this proved that although we weren't a world power we could survive. It wasn't a win in the sense of we got money or land or anything but we showed the world who we are and that it wasn't a fluke so it wasn't a win when you look at both sides agreed to a white peace after 2 years but to us it was a huge win.

But the new states (rven just 2 new states would represent 20% of the new total) would also not be particularly happy to be part of the Union and would probably support states rights and decentralization (more important than slavery as a cause of the Civil War) and may want to secede. So their opposition to slavery may not be a great benefit.

The biggest changes would come from politics. What happens if Macdonald (or any other Canadian) went to Washington and won the 1960 election? Or change any election?

say1988 said:

The biggest changes would come from politics. What happens if Macdonald (or any other Canadian) went to Washington and won the 1960 election? Or change any election?

Click to expand...

That would have been very very interesting, and it would have changed the world greatly if he would have beat JFK

Hmmm, that just might have been a typo
But still, what happens if as a result of many minor changes, someone other than JFK is elected and keeps the US out of Vietnam (who knows over 150 years a lot could change)?

I honestly don't see how it could happen. Canada's just too far flung for an early America to govern effectively.

North King said:

I honestly don't see how it could happen. Canada's just too far flung for an early America to govern effectively.

Click to expand...

We probably would have just done with it what we did with like Kentucky and other frontiers and just let people settle them and not even worry about governing them in till they are big enough to worry about.

holiday_hawk said:

We probably would have just done with it what we did with like Kentucky and other frontiers and just let people settle them and not even worry about governing them in till they are big enough to worry about.

Click to expand...

Thing is, these frontiers were already settled ... with the French, who would have balked at being in the US just as they balked at being in Confederation in the 1830s. And with an Anglo/Scot population that was still hot with Loyalist sentiment, comprised of a large proportion of decommissioned soldiers who received land for their service. 19th century Canada wasn't so firmly ordered and tightly governed for no reason at all, it was necessary to govern it heavily. Without governing the place, it would have broken away from any external power, and from each other.

Anyway, the US never really stood much chance of capturing British North America, maybe seize a little territory, but outright conquest was out of the question. The defences at Halifax (Fort Louisburg), Quebec City, and Kingston were more or less impregnable to the kind of forces the US had, and without seizing these points, control of the interior would have been impossible. Plus the US would have had to be able to overpower the British Navy on the high seas in order to wrest control of the Maritimes and Newfoundland away, and that just wasn't going to happen. They couldn't even overpower the British on the Great Lakes, at least, not after the monstrous HMS St. Lawrence left drydocks. Bit of overkill, that thing was.

The best chance would be a resurgent Napoleon taking even more of Britain's attention, forcing negotiations in North America (Britain would always put Europe first).

Though a few points:
Louisbourg was on Cape Breton Island and was razed after the British captured it during the Seven Years' War.
And the great defenses: Fort Henry, La Citadelle, the Halifax Citadel were built after the war.

As for the Navy: Upper and Lower Canada New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia are reachable by land, and account for pretty much all important areas.

Granted the only chance for the US to get a decisive victory was right off the bat, but their militia based armies failed miserably in that regard.

double post!

say1988 said:

Louisbourg was on Cape Breton Island and was razed after the British captured it during the Seven Years' War.

Click to expand...

Indeed, you are correct.

And the great defenses: Fort Henry, La Citadelle, the Halifax Citadel were built after the war.

Click to expand...

Hmmm ... yes and no. Kingston's defences were erected before and during the war, though the present fortress dates from 1837. Actually Kingston had been fortified since 1673 (starting with Fort Frontenac) except for a short period between 1758 and 1783.

The Citadel of Montreal was built in 1690, expanded in 1723, and actually larger and more complete in 1812 than it was later, since the British demolished a portion of it in 1823.

Citadel Hill in Halifax was fortified before Halifax was even settled, in 1740, and there were actually five other forts defending the harbour in 1812, though the present-day version of the fortress dates from 1856 when it was rebuilt.

The Citadel of Quebec was present since 1701, and vastly expanded in 1745, though again, upgraded in the 1820s.

As for the Navy: Upper and Lower Canada New Brunswick and mainland Nova Scotia are reachable by land, and account for pretty much all important areas.

Click to expand...

Reachable, yes, but unsupportable without control of the water, except perhaps Lower Canada and New Brunswick. Upper Canada demanded control of the Great Lakes, and Nova Scotia can be reached only by a narrow chokepoint and could easily be cut off from the mainland by a naval landing (especially with such readily available staging grounds as PEI and Newfoundland).

Forts: while all had forts at their locations, none (except perhaps Montreal, which I know nothing about, and was far less important than the other 3) were near as powerful as the current ones.

The US had control of the great lakes at times. If the Americans got Kingston, Lake Ontario was theirs, and the rest of upper Canada would follow.
True Nova Scotia was pretty safe and the US had little hope on the high seas.

And if the British ever shifted their focus onto North America, the US didn't have any chance.

But IF Detroit didn't surrender, the results of the war could be very different.
If Detroit had resisted Brock and Tecumseh, any attack would have been a disaster, and the best forces in Lower Canada are gone, and perhaps the native allies as well.
Or IF the American militia hadn't refused to fight in battles such as Queenston Heights.
One or both of those, could vastly change the outcome of the early war, while Napoleon was kicking butt and the British war machine got into motion in North America, the Canadas could easily have fallen.

I'm not talking about wether it could happen or not, let's skip that and go to After the war, with Canada being part of America. What would happen afterwords?

To general of a question to really say with any degree of certainty.
As said before, the biggest immediate impact would be the build-up to the civil war.
Canada would likely be anti-slavery, yet pro states rights. It would also depend on immigration and how many states they would have.

In Canada, it would likely lead to far fewer French speakers (and more of their assimilation), and more successfully assimilated natives. Just compare the two and Frenc would be even more outnumbered by English speakers.

TheLastOne36 said:

I'm not talking about wether it could happen or not, let's skip that and go to After the war, with Canada being part of America. What would happen afterwords?

Click to expand...

Probably revolt, though not necessarily immediately. US occupation is possibly the one thing that would've united the French and the loyalists.

Most of Upper Canada was settled either by UEL families or Scots from disbanded British units (rewarded land in the colonies for service), with a very high proportion of Ulster Scots ...

The central facet of Canadian history has been the difficulty keeping everything together (kind of like Russia), and before Confederation, the tendency towards disaggregation was much stronger. Even now, Canada is one of the world's most decentralized federal states. The US, if it had managed to maintain control in Canada, would have found itself facing a much more difficult challenge during the Civil War, possibly a war on two fronts; Upper and Lower Canada and New Brunswick (although perhaps not Nova Scotia) would have asserted themselves strongly and would have chafed at the new and much more centralized vision of federal government which emerged under Lincoln. Additionally, it was a model of government which was extremely ill-suited to governance in Canada.

I would imagine the US would be waaay overstretched ... and consequently would probably lose control of Canada, the West, and the South as a result. The Canadian territories themselves would probably fragment too. North America would probably be a patchwork quilt of different countries, and the Civil War probably wouldn't have been the last war among them.

So a more divided up North America then?

Maybe someone could make a map of this new divided up america? (i can't due to my inexperience with the lands history pre-1900)

holiday_hawk said:

That was a win to us, the Brits had an large well equipped organized military, we had a couple farmers and squirrel hunters who had outdated muskets who were willing to fight for a good cause. The Brits had a large very powerful navy, we had some fishing boats and a small Navy. Yes the White House was burnt, yes we didn't beat the Brits out of Canada, yes no American soldier even took the fight to the U.K., but just because we survived it was a win. Many people said the revolution was a lucky fluke, and had the French Navy not bottled up Cornwallis' men then we would have lost that so this proved that although we weren't a world power we could survive. It wasn't a win in the sense of we got money or land or anything but we showed the world who we are and that it wasn't a fluke so it wasn't a win when you look at both sides agreed to a white peace after 2 years but to us it was a huge win.

Click to expand...

So you won because your country wasn't completely destroyed?
Oh my! Well done! I'll break out the schampers!

Take your patriotic crap elsewhere.

Ancient Grudge said:

So you won because your country wasn't completely destroyed?
Oh my! Well done! I'll break out the schampers!

Take your patriotic crap elsewhere.

Click to expand...

How was what he said patriotic, it was the truth :s the truth that is supported by the majority of eminent American Historians. It was a win for the Americans because they weren't destroyed whilst for England it was a draw because it was a war they didnt particularly want but had managed to defend their assets.

How was what he said patriotic, it was the truth :s the truth that is supported by the majority of eminent American Historians. It was a win for the Americans because they weren't destroyed whilst for England it was a draw because it was a war they didnt particularly want but had managed to defend their assets.

Click to expand...

I don't recall reading anywhere that Britain wanted to destroy America in the 1812 war. I rather thought our initial aims were to maintain the maritime policies as part of the endeavour to undermine Napoleon whilst retaining our hold on our possessions in the region. Since we retained the embargo policy until the end of the war and the impressment policy was removed before it began on our own decision I'd say we were pretty sucessful in those. These policies would have gone anyway upon the defeat of France, but to take its place on the international stage America was obliged to force the issue, to show that she was not prepared to be dictated to in that way.

I can therefore see the arguments for America claiming a victory, but if America won because she achieved her aims then you could argue that so did Britain for achieving ours. Napoleon was defeated, we did retain our maritime policies and we held off America without seriously damaging the main conflict with France. You can't view the war from the British perspective by isolating it to just the Americas.

Its for that reason that I conclude that either both sides won or it was a draw but either way it was a costly mess by the time the war ended.