Southern America Act of 1774

[Glen]

In 1774, Parliament passed a number of acts deemed by the Ten Colonies the Intolerable Acts. Passed in the same year was the Southern America Act of 1774, removing the restrictions on expansion of the Southern American Colonies, deemed more trustworthy then the Middle Colonies, into the region South of the Ohio, West of the Appalachians, and East of the Mississippi.

While the act did only a small amount to assuage the anger felt by Virginia over the Quebec Act of the same year, which assigned land long claimed by Virginia to the territory north of the Ohio to Quebec, it did help sway many on the fence to the British cause in the rest of the Southern Colonies. While rebel delegations were sent to the Continental Congress from these states, only the Virginian and South Carolinian delegations were sanctioned by their state legislatures.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Glen

In 1774, Parliament passed a number of acts deemed by the Ten Colonies the Intolerable Acts. Passed in the same year was the Southern America Act of 1774, removing the restrictions on expansion of the Southern American Colonies, deemed more trustworthy then the Middle Colonies, into the region South of the Ohio, West of the Appalachians, and East of the Mississippi.

While the act did only a small amount to assuage the anger felt by Virginia over the Quebec Act of the same year, which assigned land long claimed by Virginia to the territory north of the Ohio to Quebec, it did help sway many on the fence to the British cause in the rest of the Southern Colonies. While rebel delegations were sent to the Continental Congress from these states, only the Virginian and South Carolinian delegations were sanctioned by their state legislatures.

While internecine fighting flared in the Southern Colonies from time to time, only in Virginia, readily supported by the Middle Colonies, were the rebels successful. South Carolina also was a hotbed of rebellion, but Loyalists from the surrounding colonies did much to suppress them, as did the British regulars in their occupation of Charleston.

When Spain joined the war, West Florida was invaded, but a relief party from Georgia was able to contain the forces of Galvez long enough for the British Navy to deliver regular troops for the liberation of Pensacola.

By the time of the Treaty of Paris, the Southern Colonies (as well as their sister colonies in the Maritimes and Quebec) were saved from rebellion and remained British Territory. Of the colonies mentioned in the Southern America Act of 1774, only Virginia was lost to the Americans, and some would argue that, though included as a Southern Colony under the Act, Virginia should have rightly been counted as a Middle Colony.

An early flag of the new nation of America:

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Glen

While internecine fighting flared in the Southern Colonies from time to time, only in Virginia, readily supported by the Middle Colonies, were the rebels successful. South Carolina also was a hotbed of rebellion, but Loyalists from the surrounding colonies did much to suppress them, as did the British regulars in their occupation of Charleston.

When Spain joined the war, West Florida was invaded, but a relief party from Georgia was able to contain the forces of Galvez long enough for the British Navy to deliver regular troops for the liberation of Pensacola.

By the time of the Treaty of Paris, the Southern Colonies (as well as their sister colonies in the Maritimes and Quebec) were saved from rebellion and remained British Territory. Of the colonies mentioned in the Southern America Act of 1774, only Virginia was lost to the Americans, and some would argue that, though included as a Southern Colony under the Act, Virginia should have rightly been counted as a Middle Colony.

Many celebrate 1789 as the ending of slavery in the United States of America, though in actuality the ban of slavery in the Northwest Territory and later the Bill of Rights were only written into the legislation that year, but it wasn't until the early 1790s that the abolition of slavery really began to take effect. While many states of the union allowed slaves at the time, it was felt to be a dying institution, and counter to the spirit of freedom that the new nation wished to foster. While there was some federal funds voted for recompense for freed slaves, many slave owners chose instead to sell their slaves south to the British colonies there, getting a better price than that offered by Congress, even with the downturn in price by the flooding of the slave market.

While some slave owners migrated to the Southern Colonies with the passage of abolition, the majority preferred the loss of their slaves to living once more under the rule of the Crown. Even though many slaves were sold from Maryland and Virginia, a sizable number remained with their previous owners and continued to work the land, typically in return for some share of the crop. Some likened the relation to manorialism, with the plantation owners acting as feudal lords and freed slaves as serfs.

Obviously, the Southern Colonies saw a significant increase in their slave population, just in time for the onset of a massive growth in cotton cultivation with the invention of the Cotton Engine.

To read a variant timeline after this point, go to the Confederation of Southern America.

[Glen]

Editor's Note: This entry on a parallel War of 1812 is being considered for removal. Please consider joining the discussion on this thread as to the likelihood of a War of 1812 ITTL.

Originally Posted by Glen

At the turn of the century, events in Europe started to touch the North American Continent. Revolutionary France inspired free blacks and slaves to rise up in Saint-Domingue and form the second Republic in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti. The United States of America was somewhat slow to recognize the nation due to fears of alienating France, but when the British began to interfere, the United States recognized the new country to lend heart to the fighters there. This was poorly received in the Southern Colonies, many of whom feared slave revolt.

The British eventually abandoned the island, and when Napoleon came to power in France, he eventually formalized the independence of the island, as the US had already recognized the nation.

Furthermore, in the early 1800s Napoleon sold the entirety of Louisiana to the United States of America.

The War of 1812 was a desperate time for the young United States of America. Facing two fronts, they were hard pressed to defend their territory, but despite frequent raids by the British Navy on their coast, the near uprising in New England, and the Southern raids into Louisiana, the United States persevered.

One of the most dramatic and important theatres of the war was New Orleans, which early on was taken by militia from West Florida. It was only through the efforts of a motley force of Kentuckian frontiersmen and Indians under the command of Andrew Jackson that the city was restored to American control just before the peace.

Andrew Jackson, who later went on to become a United States President, is an interesting figure. Born in the Carolinas only weeks after his father's death, he and his brother joined the rebel cause in their teen-age years. After an arduous ordeal as a prisoner of war and the loss of his brother and mother to disease, the young Jackson is reputed to have developed a deep hatred for the British. When finally released, he immigrated to Kentucky (then still part of Virginia) and became an American. Thus it was when he took up the sword in 1812 that he was able to fight back against the British as he had longed to do as a boy.

[benjamin]

I like this a lot. As for the actual Revolutionary War I think all it would take to have a victorious U.S. without the southern colonies would be a pair of victories. If the Continental Army can win both an equivalent Saratoga and Germantown than Britain will most likely seek to end the war. If the war ends sooner it may keep the Netherlands from getting involved thus keeping the Cape Colony Dutch. France and Spain would take the brunt of British ire.

This U.S. without the slave south and surrounded by British possessions would almost certainly industrialize even faster and maintain a larger standing army and navy. This U.S. would be focused even more on foreign trade and cultivate a merchant marine, thus leading to some possible conflicts with the U.K. Conversely having retained the South Britain would have no incentive to cultivate the cotton regions of Egypt and India. Emancipation would likely take much longer and a frustrated Wilberforce may find his way to the U.S. It is possible for abolition to become linked to republicanism and thus be stigmatized in British politics.

As for the U.S. I'd hate to have it confined to its original area, especially since there is no reason that it wouldn't be the destination of just as many immigrants as per OTL. In fact if the South becomes more tied to the British system and their being no British Cape Colony, there is a good chance of the U.S. receiving even more immigrants than in OTL.

Finally, if the Britain recognizes U.S. independence in a more timely manner than there is the very good chance that the U.S. could gain the Canada peninsula south of the 45th latitude which Britain offered in OTL early in negotiations. Other differences in the final territorial outcome are also possible.

Just a few thoughts.
Benjamin

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Glen

The period after the War of 1812 was a time for consolidation and conciliation for the nascent United States of America. In the period between 1818-1820 it made great strides defining its new borders with Britain in the North and Spain in the South. Several states were added to the Union, bringing its numbers up to 17 by 1820.

The 1830s saw rebellions break in all of the neighbors of the United States of America. In the British Colonies, the spark was the Slavery Abolition Act of 1834. While the British had been moving incrementally towards restrictions of slavery for decades, the act was still jarring for the Southern Colonies of British North America. The linchpin of their whole economy was based on slavery in the form of the cotton trade. While the colonies had pled with Parliament to exempt them from the act and preserve their 'peculiar institution', they failed. Thus did rebellion spark anew in North America.

The heart of the rebellion was South Carolina, the only province of the Southern Colonies that had been forced to remain in the British Empire. However, the cry for revolution spread far and wide, and soon all the Southern Colonies were in armed revolt.

While slavery was a non-issue in Upper and Lower Canada, there were many grievances against the mishandling of colonial rule by the British government, and with the South rising, a militant minority was inspired to take up arms as well, first in Lower Canada but quickly spreading to Upper Canada.

Coincidentally, only a year later in 1835, a series of rebellions broke out in the United States of Mexico, especially in Texas. Texas had a disproportionate amount of English speaking settlers from the United States and the British Southern Colonies, and when several other states of Mexico rose up in protest to the Federalization of Mexico being forced from the government in Mexico City, they too joined the fray.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by benjamin

I like this a lot. As for the actual Revolutionary War I think all it would take to have a victorious U.S. without the southern colonies would be a pair of victories. If the Continental Army can win both an equivalent Saratoga and Germantown than Britain will most likely seek to end the war. If the war ends sooner it may keep the Netherlands from getting involved thus keeping the Cape Colony Dutch. France and Spain would take the brunt of British ire.

Good points, but the war goes on about the same length of time, just a bit less successful in the South compared to OTL.

This U.S. without the slave south and surrounded by British possessions would almost certainly industrialize even faster and maintain a larger standing army and navy. This U.S. would be focused even more on foreign trade and cultivate a merchant marine, thus leading to some possible conflicts with the U.K.

Good points and probably true.

Conversely having retained the South Britain would have no incentive to cultivate the cotton regions of Egypt and India.

True for a time, but then again I don't think the Egyptian and Indian cotton industry really got going until the American Civil War decreased the available cotton coming out of the South.

Emancipation would likely take much longer and a frustrated Wilberforce may find his way to the U.S. It is possible for abolition to become linked to republicanism and thus be stigmatized in British politics.

I must completely disagree here. While it is true that two Republics (the USA and then France) would lead the way for internal abolition, it is the British who were the leaders in abolishing the international slave trade.

While the South will slow abolition in the British Empire a small amount, it won't be able to stop it. After all, the British still weren't listening to the needs of their colonies at this time....

As for the U.S. I'd hate to have it confined to its original area, especially since there is no reason that it wouldn't be the destination of just as many immigrants as per OTL.

It's not. The Louisiana Purchase goes off pretty much as per OTL, and that's a large amount of room to grow. Expect more population growth west of the Mississippi, that's all, and not even that much more. Note that due to the large slave population, there wasn't as much demand for free labor as there was in the North, so less attractive for immigrants. If anything, Virginia might see more immigrants ITTL than they did IOTL, since they've sold off a sizable portion of their workforce with abolition.

In fact if the South becomes more tied to the British system

Somewhat.

and their being no British Cape Colony,

Sorry, but that still happens ITTL.

there is a good chance of the U.S. receiving even more immigrants than in OTL.

Maybe a little, but not much.

Finally, if the Britain recognizes U.S. independence in a more timely manner than there is the very good chance that the U.S. could gain the Canada peninsula south of the 45th latitude which Britain offered in OTL early in negotiations.

Not going to happen ITTL, but that's interesting. Do you have a reference for it?

Other differences in the final territorial outcome are also possible.

Just a few thoughts.
Benjamin

Good thoughts and thanks for sharing them and commenting in general. Basically the ARW and Treaty of Paris are OTL except for everything south of 36-30 where the real changes are.

[Domoviye]

I like this, but one big question, why is there a War of 1812? I think having the British on two sides would make the US a little more cautious than OTL. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd like to know the reasons for it.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Domoviye

I like this, but one big question, why is there a War of 1812? I think having the British on two sides would make the US a little more cautious than OTL. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd like to know the reasons for it.

For the same reasons we went to war in OTL's War of 1812.

Yes, it gave them pause, but the British were actually more provocative given their holdings on two fronts.

It's a harder war for the US than OTL's War of 1812, but in the end its still a sideshow for the British. The only really major issue was gaining New Orleans, which was a Southern Colony goal, not a British one. Jackson manages to win it back just before the end, but it was a near thing.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Glen

The 1830s saw rebellions break in all of the neighbors of the United States of America. In the British Colonies, the spark was the Slavery Abolition Act of 1834. While the British had been moving incrementally towards restrictions of slavery for decades, the act was still jarring for the Southern Colonies of British North America. The linchpin of their whole economy was based on slavery in the form of the cotton trade. While the colonies had pled with Parliament to exempt them from the act and preserve their 'peculiar institution', they failed. Thus did rebellion spark anew in North America.

The heart of the rebellion was South Carolina, the only province of the Southern Colonies that had been forced to remain in the British Empire. However, the cry for revolution spread far and wide, and soon all the Southern Colonies were in armed revolt.

While slavery was a non-issue in Upper and Lower Canada, there were many grievances against the mishandling of colonial rule by the British government, and with the South rising, a militant minority was inspired to take up arms as well, first in Lower Canada but quickly spreading to Upper Canada.

Coincidentally, only a year later in 1835, a series of rebellions broke out in the United States of Mexico, especially in Texas. Texas had a disproportionate amount of English speaking settlers from the United States and the British Southern Colonies, and when several other states of Mexico rose up in protest to the Federalization of Mexico being forced from the government in Mexico City, they too joined the fray.

This timeline splits into two at this point, continued as:

Federation of Southern America

and

Republics of North America

[benjamin]

Initial Anglo-American negotiations had a line drawn across the peninsula between the Great Lakes for much of the early period of negotiations (October - November of 1782). This changed once Benjamin Franklin became ill with a kidney stone and Jay took over. Jay felt that the French may be working towards a separate peace at odds to American interests (he was right) and so gave in to the Lake Line suggested by the British. This kept Canada for Britain, which France had desired to keep America beholden to them for defense.

I use an older set of books for this type of historical information. One of them is...

Bemis, Samuel Flagg, A Diplomatic History of the United States. Henry Holt and Company, New York, New York; 1942.

As for abolition I still think given that the South remains British, freeing the slaves will be delayed for quiet some time. Many more wealthy Brits will have ties, both financial and familial (with possible large absentee land holdings), in the American South. Over turning slavery will be increasingly difficult. I'm not saying it would be ASB, just expensive economically and politically.

Also, is it the independent U.S. that buys Louisiana in this TL? If so how does the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819 work out? For that matter what about the Treaty of 1818 with Britain that in OTL set the American-Canadian border along the 49th? Is another map possible?

Finally, I don't think that New England would be against the War of 1812 in this timeline. With the Federalists (or their equivalent) almost certainly having more power ITL than more than likely they would have to support the war in order for it to occur in the first place. Remember it was mostly New Englanders being impressed by the Royal Navy. It was, in OTL, Jefferson's bungling with the embargo act that angered the people of New England. In TTL it is likely that the war mat start earlier over a Chesapeake like incident and has the full support of New England. The loss of trade would hurt New England temporarily but constant bullying by the RN had to be dealt with.

Benjamin

[Domoviye]

Originally Posted by Glen

For the same reasons we went to war in OTL's War of 1812.

Yes, it gave them pause, but the British were actually more provocative given their holdings on two fronts.

It's a harder war for the US than OTL's War of 1812, but in the end its still a sideshow for the British. The only really major issue was gaining New Orleans, which was a Southern Colony goal, not a British one. Jackson manages to win it back just before the end, but it was a near thing.

Fair enough. I'll keep reading, and check out the other one as well.
Keep up the good work.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by benjamin

Initial Anglo-American negotiations had a line drawn across the peninsula between the Great Lakes for much of the early period of negotiations (October - November of 1782). This changed once Benjamin Franklin became ill with a kidney stone and Jay took over. Jay felt that the French may be working towards a separate peace at odds to American interests (he was right) and so gave in to the Lake Line suggested by the British. This kept Canada for Britain, which France had desired to keep America beholden to them for defense.

I use an older set of books for this type of historical information. One of them is...

Bemis, Samuel Flagg, A Diplomatic History of the United States. Henry Holt and Company, New York, New York; 1942.

Hmmm....very interesting, and very easy to do a POD on. Not for this timeline, but I will likely use it for some other things. Thanks!

As for abolition I still think given that the South remains British, freeing the slaves will be delayed for quiet some time. Many more wealthy Brits will have ties, both financial and familial (with possible large absentee land holdings), in the American South. Over turning slavery will be increasingly difficult. I'm not saying it would be ASB, just expensive economically and politically.

I think you could make a viable argument that way, but there were similar issues in other parts of the Empire at the time. I delay the act by a year, but have decided to let the South fail to delay further. While you may be right, this wasn't a good decade for Parliament thinking about the colonies.

Also, is it the independent U.S. that buys Louisiana in this TL? If so how does the Transcontinental Treaty of 1819 work out? For that matter what about the Treaty of 1818 with Britain that in OTL set the American-Canadian border along the 49th? Is another map possible?

These remain unchanged ITTL. And yes, there will be more maps in future (just not until later today or maybe even tomorrow).

Finally, I don't think that New England would be against the War of 1812 in this timeline. With the Federalists (or their equivalent) almost certainly having more power ITL than more than likely they would have to support the war in order for it to occur in the first place. Remember it was mostly New Englanders being impressed by the Royal Navy. It was, in OTL, Jefferson's bungling with the embargo act that angered the people of New England. In TTL it is likely that the war mat start earlier over a Chesapeake like incident and has the full support of New England. The loss of trade would hurt New England temporarily but constant bullying by the RN had to be dealt with.

Benjamin

Good points there. I might go back and remove that reference and leave the history silent on that point.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful contributions.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Domoviye

Fair enough. I'll keep reading, and check out the other one as well.
Keep up the good work.

Thanks very much.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by benjamin

If the war ends sooner it may keep the Netherlands from getting involved thus keeping the Cape Colony Dutch.

I have to say I agree with Glen's decision here. I mean no insult or aggression but that comment is something of an American-centric perspective on the Cape Colony. The reason the British took the Cape had absolutely nothing to do with residual grievances left over from the ARW, and everything to do with the Napoleonic Wars. The Netherlands had just fallen to the Revolutionary French, and this meant the Dutch colonies were now there to be used to French ends. The French had been seeking a decent base to access the East, where among other plans they still harboured the intentions of completely conquering India from the British, thus it was seen as a strategic imperative that the French be denied this luxury. In a manner similar to the way that the British in 1807 were compelled to destroy the neutral Danish fleet because Napoleon would have taken it and forced a second Battle of Trafalgar under any other conditions, the UK essentially had to turn to the Dutch and say "while we respect that you have been conquered by the French and wish to free you as much as you want to be freed (depends on who they were talking to, I guess, but anyway), we have no choice but to consider your ownership of the Cape Colony void, for the greater good".

Changing this TL isn't going to alter this. The Napoleonic Wars are near-certainly still going to happen, the Netherlands will be the first to fall, and the Cape Colony will be confiscated. Therefore, South Africa stays British.

[benjamin]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I have to say I agree with Glen's decision here. I mean no insult or aggression but that comment is something of an American-centric perspective on the Cape Colony. The reason the British took the Cape had absolutely nothing to do with residual grievances left over from the ARW, and everything to do with the Napoleonic Wars. The Netherlands had just fallen to the Revolutionary French, and this meant the Dutch colonies were now there to be used to French ends. The French had been seeking a decent base to access the East, where among other plans they still harboured the intentions of completely conquering India from the British, thus it was seen as a strategic imperative that the French be denied this luxury. In a manner similar to the way that the British in 1807 were compelled to destroy the neutral Danish fleet because Napoleon would have taken it and forced a second Battle of Trafalgar under any other conditions, the UK essentially had to turn to the Dutch and say "while we respect that you have been conquered by the French and wish to free you as much as you want to be freed (depends on who they were talking to, I guess, but anyway), we have no choice but to consider your ownership of the Cape Colony void, for the greater good".

Changing this TL isn't going to alter this. The Napoleonic Wars are near-certainly still going to happen, the Netherlands will be the first to fall, and the Cape Colony will be confiscated. Therefore, South Africa stays British.

Of course. I was being a bit brain dead as well as being distracted by my 3 year old son and our obnoxious Corgi. For some reason, most likely due to a one Mr. S.M. Stirling, I was thinking that the Cape Colony was taken by the British in OTL in 1781. My apologies. And overall I concur with your assessment of the situation.

Benjamin

[benjamin]

Just a few more thoughts Glen.

With only the Northern colonies partaking in the revolution, would whomever is in command of the U.S. military, which I would assume is still Washington, be more open to finding a negotiated settlement with the Iroquois? It might take getting rid of Joseph Brant but that may be possible.

Also, what happens with Vermont? I don't see it lasting as an independent nation for too long here.

What about control of the western lands. I assume that the initial states would still be compelled to release their western land claims. Might we see a bit quicker fill up of these new territories as immigrants move in. Perhaps the states of Franklin and Transylvania which were proposed in OTL will come to be.

As for the government, I think a U.S. surrounded by the British will be even quicker to form a strong Federal government. I guessing something similar to OTL Constitution and Bill of Rights just ratified about five years earlier. And this Bill of Rights will most likely contain an article or amendment forbidding slavery and possibly one forbidding U.S. citizens from holding titles of nobility (to further separate the U.S. from the southern colonies).

Benjamin

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I have to say I agree with Glen's decision here. I mean no insult or aggression but that comment is something of an American-centric perspective on the Cape Colony. The reason the British took the Cape had absolutely nothing to do with residual grievances left over from the ARW, and everything to do with the Napoleonic Wars. The Netherlands had just fallen to the Revolutionary French, and this meant the Dutch colonies were now there to be used to French ends. The French had been seeking a decent base to access the East, where among other plans they still harboured the intentions of completely conquering India from the British, thus it was seen as a strategic imperative that the French be denied this luxury. In a manner similar to the way that the British in 1807 were compelled to destroy the neutral Danish fleet because Napoleon would have taken it and forced a second Battle of Trafalgar under any other conditions, the UK essentially had to turn to the Dutch and say "while we respect that you have been conquered by the French and wish to free you as much as you want to be freed (depends on who they were talking to, I guess, but anyway), we have no choice but to consider your ownership of the Cape Colony void, for the greater good".

Changing this TL isn't going to alter this. The Napoleonic Wars are near-certainly still going to happen, the Netherlands will be the first to fall, and the Cape Colony will be confiscated. Therefore, South Africa stays British.

Originally Posted by benjamin

Of course. I was being a bit brain dead as well as being distracted by my 3 year old son and our obnoxious Corgi. For some reason, most likely due to a one Mr. S.M. Stirling, I was thinking that the Cape Colony was taken by the British in OTL in 1781. My apologies. And overall I concur with your assessment of the situation.

Benjamin

Glad that you two cleared that up!

[Glen]

Originally Posted by benjamin

Just a few more thoughts Glen.

With only the Northern colonies partaking in the revolution, would whomever is in command of the U.S. military, which I would assume is still Washington,

It is.

be more open to finding a negotiated settlement with the Iroquois? It might take getting rid of Joseph Brant but that may be possible.

I don't think it will make that much of a difference. The northern states can be just as aggressive against Native Americans as the southern ones can.

Also, what happens with Vermont? I don't see it lasting as an independent nation for too long here.

It doesn't. It becomes a US state just like IOTL.

What about control of the western lands. I assume that the initial states would still be compelled to release their western land claims. Might we see a bit quicker fill up of these new territories as immigrants move in.

A little quicker, yes.

Perhaps the states of Franklin and Transylvania which were proposed in OTL will come to be.

Nope, these states still form much the way they did OTL, with some possible border adjustments to Illinois....

As for the government, I think a U.S. surrounded by the British will be even quicker to form a strong Federal government. I guessing something similar to OTL Constitution and Bill of Rights just ratified about five years earlier.

Nope, it's still pretty close to OTL. If you think about it, they did these things pretty fast IOTL, too.

And this Bill of Rights will most likely contain an article or amendment forbidding slavery

Yep, sure will.

and possibly one forbidding U.S. citizens from holding titles of nobility (to further separate the U.S. from the southern colonies).

That's in US law OTL, so it shall be ITTL.

[eschaton]

One knock-off effect I'm wondering about is the settlement of Canada. Only around 20% of the Tories (which were perhaps 20% of the colonial population) actually emigrated in OTL. 46,000 in total went to British North America. The vast majority of these went to Nova Scotia (indeed, tensions betwen them and the "old Yankee" population there forced the creation of New Brunswick). The remainder mainly went to what became Upper Canada, or the Eastern Townships of Quebec (which themselves became largely depopulated of anglophones once more land opened up in Ontario.

In addition, prior to the war of 1812, most migrants into Canada came from the U.S., not Britain. This was enough overall to cement the majority of Anglophone Canada as more "American" than "British" in character.

With the Carolinas and Georgia still remaining British, at least for awhile, IITL, I wonder if many of the Loyalists will make different decisions? AFAIK, loyalist sentiment was strongest in New York and Pennsylvania, so migration is just as likely to turn south as north. New Brunswick is probably somewhat inevitable, due to its convenient location and depopulated status, but I wouldn't say the same is true with Canadian settlement at all. Indeed, I wonder if you were a bit too hasty with the war of 1812 going down pretty much as is.