Alternate America - if Canada joined early on

JJohnson · Feb 11, 2010

I would like to posit two scenarios for ideas on a timeline.

Scenario 1: King George passes the Quebec Act which spurs Quebec onto the Patriots' side in the American Revolution, and drags Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada with them. This Canada joins the American Republic and becomes part of the United States. How could this plausibly happen, and would this likely affect the evolution of the country?

Scenario 2: The US successfully invades Canada during the War of 1812 and captures the entire colony, annexing it to the US. How could this plausibly happen and what would its effect be on the US?

The only caveats on either scenario would be that the US in 2010 will cover the entire OTL Canada and USA at the minimum and will be at least as free/democratic as it is in OTL in most respects, Quebec does not have any secessionist party, they are as patriotic as the rest of the country, and the US and Britain are still allies.

I've written a bit on the first scenario in my own timeline, but I would like to see what others thought on the topic as well.

Thanks!

Nugax · Feb 11, 2010

Scenario 1 I'd dispute would turn out that rosy - the Canadians within the framework of the US would be very states rights and you'd probably see a weaker federal government and unified identity that falters at several important junctures and has less interest in Southern adventures. Also more northern power in the senate would bring the slavery issue to a head earlier on, when the South is less weak relative to the north.

My prediction would be a strong and patriotic US in 2010 that doesn't have some sections of the southwest (despite the TL stipulation), and which had an earlier and nastier civil war.

The problem with Scenario 2 is making the invasion successful in anything like 1812's OTL circumstances. If the ASB do intervene with that then there isn't really a problem with achieving your ameriwanky aims, as the US identity is established and they can demographically overwhelm the Canadians as they did the Texans.

danwild6 · Feb 11, 2010

Scenario two is the best way to end up with an America most like todays. For its success we need a continuing Federalist administrations leading up to the war for that we need to butterfly the Alien and Sedition Acts, or have Alexander Hamilton remain a potent political force. In the 1807-1812 period the US would build up its military forces.

In OTL Canada could have been occupied had the US forces been properly lead and coordinated. Had the US built up its Navy significantly enough with Britain distracted in Europe its possible the USN could have taken Halifax. In OTL Britain had only 1 ship of the line in North American waters at the outbreak of hosilities.

Dan1988 · Feb 11, 2010

We've already gone through this many times before, so I'll just make it brief.

JJohnson said:
I would like to posit two scenarios for ideas on a timeline.

Scenario 1: King George passes the Quebec Act which spurs Quebec onto the Patriots' side in the American Revolution, and drags Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada with them. This Canada joins the American Republic and becomes part of the United States. How could this plausibly happen, and would this likely affect the evolution of the country?

Not really - doesn't matter if the Québec Act passes or fails, though passage would be helpful - the British were smart enough not to piss off the Canadiens in any way that would impinge on language and religion. Lower Canada is probably still going to remain British in this scenario. French involvement would be a hindrance in this scenario.

JJohnson said:
Scenario 2: The US successfully invades Canada during the War of 1812 and captures the entire colony, annexing it to the US. How could this plausibly happen and what would its effect be on the US?

In such a scenario, be prepared for massive backlash against an "occupation" in both Upper and Lower Canada - particularly Lower Canada. Eventually, the Americans will have to leave because resistance is too much for them to handle (and this isn't even counting that the British were well armed in Québec City, so that would never be invaded) - particularly since, several years earlier, the execution of Louis XVI pretty much forced the Canadiens to remain close to monarchist, despite minority movements like the Patriote rebellion. There is actually much less chance of a success here than the earlier scenario.

In both cases, unless the Americans were prepared to give the ex-New France the same amount of concessions that the British gave with the Québec Act (the very same concessions that the proto-Americans rejected as being an "Intolerable Act"), expect them to be disappointed as the Canadas refuse to join and remain Loyalist, largely due to prevailing opinions of the time - anti-Catholicism was rather strong, and there would certainly be any anger aimed at Francophones on top of that - not necessarily France if we are talking scenario 1, but aimed at the Canadas because after all, they were the enemy - the latter particularly true with scenario 2. Especially with scenario 2, sovereigntism/separatism/secessionism is going to more attractive, of which under scenario 2, the Canadas are probably going to take the first available opportunity to get out. Any "patriotism" as such would only be of convenience/necessity, not out of anything genuine.

Hence why, in my opinion, the Canadas were lucky to remain under British rule (and would probably remain so) than under American rule. The British were at least shrewd enough to recognize interference with the central tenets of Canadien identity would be futile and hence accomodated to them. I, for one, am not too sure about the Americans.

Sorry to disappoint you.

KingByng · Feb 11, 2010

Dan1988 said:
snip

So, US conquers Canada in the War of 1812, the Canadians never really become "American", stay restless for a few decades, and secede when the South does come Civil War time.

That'd certainly make an for an interesting time line.

Dan1988 · Feb 12, 2010

KingByng said:
So, US conquers Canada in the War of 1812, the Canadians never really become "American", stay restless for a few decades, and secede when the South does come Civil War time.

That'd certainly make an for an interesting time line.

I agree. It would even more interesting if both the Loyalists and the Canadiens allied with each other to gang up on the north whilst seceding (and probably get British backing for their secession as opposed to the South's secession) - maybe the Patriote flag would get new meaning from these events.

800px-Flag_of_the_Patriote_movement_(Lower_Canada).svg.png

Mike · Feb 12, 2010

Dan1988 said:
We've already gone through this many times before, so I'll just make it brief.

Not really - doesn't matter if the Québec Act passes or fails, though passage would be helpful - the British were smart enough not to piss off the Canadiens in any way that would impinge on language and religion. Lower Canada is probably still going to remain British in this scenario. French involvement would be a hindrance in this scenario.

The British passed the Royal Proclamation Act of 1763 which predated the Quebec Act of 1774. The 1763 act explicitly called for the assimilation of the New France colonists despite promises made by the British to the French that they would not do that.

The only reason the British passed the Quebec Act was because they faced rebellion and needed allies. The Act was intended to get the New France colonists to fight for the British side in the upcoming rebellion. The Act failed because the New France colonists saw through the act as nothing more than an attempt to buy them off and consequently refused to fight for either the British or Rebel side.

When the American Rebels captured Montreal, the colonists there were indifferent, they neither attempted to repel the Americans or joined them.

Dan1988 said:
particularly since, several years earlier, the execution of Louis XVI pretty much forced the Canadiens to remain close to monarchist, despite minority movements like the Patriote rebellion. There is actually much less chance of a success here than the earlier scenario.

You call the Patriotes, which led to the Rebellion of 1837, a minor movement? Yeah sure.

Dan1988 said:
Hence why, in my opinion, the Canadas were lucky to remain under British rule (and would probably remain so) than under American rule. The British were at least shrewd enough to recognize interference with the central tenets of Canadien identity would be futile and hence accomodated to them. I, for one, am not too sure about the Americans.

Nope, as I have said, the British passed the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which were designed to assimilate the New France colonists. The British, after relations with the United States were good, also passed the Act of Union of 1840, which, like the Royal Proclamation, were designed to assimilate the New France colonists.

So, you can stuff the myth that the British accomodated the French fact. The New France colonists were lucky that the North American continent was divided into the United States, the stronger power, and British, the weaker power, forcing the latter to make alliances with the New France colonists only when it suited them.

Mike · Feb 12, 2010

Dan1988 said:
I agree - and when you get French people pissed off, no matter if they are Canadien or français métropolitaine or not, they get REALLY pissed off.

This is a racist and stereotypic statement. They only get pissed off if they have reason to. I should report you.

Dan1988 said:
It would even more interesting if both the Loyalists and the Canadiens allied with each other to gang up on the north whilst seceding (and probably get British backing for their secession as opposed to the South's secession) - maybe the Patriote flag would get new meaning from these events.

The Loyalists were just as anti-Catholic and anti-French as the American Rebels were. An alliance between them is nonsensical. They would not live with together for long as the Loyalists would not tolerate this. This has happened in OTL with the Orangmen of Ontario effectivily eliminating French settlements and populations in Ontario and the Prairies. Louis Riel and the Métis experienced this.

Dan1988 · Feb 12, 2010

Why, bonjour monsieur! Ça va?

Mike said:
You call the Patriotes, which led to the Rebellion of 1837, a minor movement? Yeah sure.

In the grand scheme of things, yes - but there were also rebellions in Upper Canada at the same thing and all because of the cliques that controlled politics at the time.

Mike said:
This is a racist and stereotypic statement. They only get pissed off if they have reason to. I should report you.

True, as the Sentinelle affair in the 1920's pointed out.

Then again, I am descended from French-Canadians on both sides of the family thanks to immigration to la Nouvelle-Angleterre, so make of that what you will. However, just for you, I will delete that. No hard feelings or insult intended.

Mike said:
The Loyalists were just as anti-Catholic and anti-French as the American Rebels were. An alliance between them is nonsensical. They would not live with together for long as the Loyalists would not tolerate this. This has happened in OTL with the Orangmen of Ontario effectivily eliminating French settlements and populations in Ontario and the Prairies. Louis Riel and the Métis experienced this.

When you have a Civil War going on because of an occupation of both Upper and Lower Canada by Americans who demand things that both anglophones and francophones in the Canadas refuse to accept, then it would only seem pretty natural. After all, history has had stranger things going on. Part of the British "luck" is that Westminster and Whitehall are basically across the Atlantic, so it would be a bit easier for Westminster and Whitehall to tolerate diversity. With the Americans, not only is DC not too far away, but there would be more demands of conformity to the extent that no one in the Canadas would be exempt. So an Upper/Lower Canada alliance is not too far-fetched.

JJohnson · Feb 12, 2010

So, let me amend my original question to three alternates:

1a. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes join the ARW of their own volition, and continue to this day to be part of the USA. What would cause them to join the ARW? How would this affect the evolution of the US?

1b. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes are successfully invaded by the USA in the ARW, but assimilate into the US and are still part of it to this day. Which American successes would help bring this about?

2. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes are invaded in the War of 1812 and annexed into the US, and remain to this day. How will this affect the development of the US?

From my limited investigation so far of the issues at the time, sectionalism, slavery, and the tariff being some of the largest issues, I can likely guess that the South would push for expansion south, especially in the Mexican-American War, a purchase of Cuba, and less 'popular sovereignty' in the west. Thoughts?

GreatScottMarty · Feb 12, 2010

JJohnson said:
So, let me amend my original question to three alternates:

Great Choices

JJohnson said:
1a. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes join the ARW of their own volition, and continue to this day to be part of the USA. What would cause them to join the ARW? How would this affect the evolution of the US??

In 1775, the Continental Congress sent Ben Franklin to negotiate Candian joining of the revolution. I don't know why they didn't, simply have Ben Franklin be more successful in negotiating the joining. The effects would stupendous, US gains the most populated and industrialize portion (for the 1770s) of Canada. Also should make the free/slave politics interesting. I would expect more pressure to push into Cuba and the Carribean.

JJohnson said:
1b. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes are successfully invaded by the USA in the ARW, but assimilate into the US and are still part of it to this day. Which American successes would help bring this about?

The first campaign into Canada in winter 1777. Simply have Gen. Montgomery hold Montreal and this should do it. Some potential butterflies are here: Aaron Burr was a top aide to Montgomery and Burr's reputation suffered because of Montgomery's death. How do we get US into the Maritimes? I can imagine these are won as part of a compromise at the end of the war. ALthough I am unsure what gets traded for the Maritimes?

JJohnson said:
2. Upper/Lower Canada and the Maritimes are invaded in the War of 1812 and annexed into the US, and remain to this day. How will this affect the development of the US??

Similar to Canada joining the rebellion. Although if they have to seize Canada instead of Canada joining willingly. There maybe strategic issues such as ongoing partisan warfare that may lead to either a stronger military within the confederation or a stronger Central govt. from the outset (post ARW). I am unsure as to what sort of national identity canadians felt at the time

JJohnson said:
From my limited investigation so far of the issues at the time, sectionalism, slavery, and the tariff being some of the largest issues, I can likely guess that the South would push for expansion south, especially in the Mexican-American War, a purchase of Cuba, and less 'popular sovereignty' in the west. Thoughts?

The following is posited on two things: 1. Treat of Paris 1783 includes Canada and British claims to the NW. 2. Some version of the NW Ordinance is created essentially banning slavery from north of the Ohio River. Creating the same North - South divide relevant to OTL.

you nailed the issues of the time although I would say sectionalism is the cause of the slavery and tariff issues not one of them. because North and South had inherently different ideas about slavery and tariffs. Not to say the North is innocent on slavery (the Dutch of upstate New York, for instance had slaves and opposed abolition in New York). But that is a minor quibble. Astute observations overall. I think a Purchase of Cuba is likely and may happen sooner than the OTL proposal of 1824 by JQA, and the main impetus would be if Canada is in the union. Canada would make a lot of free states and Cuba could make 4-5 slave and depending upon Texas 3-4 so you could balance the power in the Senate, depending upon divison of Canada.
"Popular Soverignity" comes from Jackson, he really opened suffrage to poor whites. Most of the mainline establishment (Virginia Dynasty + Adams' of Mass= not caring about poor white suffrage). Neither side did, the D-R's just won the rhetorical battle. Provided Jackson wins election in this situation/is still alive you will see the popular soverignty in the west regardless.

The Mexican American War OTOH comes about because of Manifest destiny, and if the US starts buying Spain's Carribean or goes to war with it over the areas than Manifest Destiny is stillborn and expansion across the continent is put on hold, because the South has the requiste areas to create slave states and balance out the presumed free states in Canada (assumed there is a NW Ordinance, it is possible to Butterfly it and create chaos). Although I think any situation with Canada in the Union drives the Southern part of Manifest Destiny and creates the percieved need to Filibuster into Texas and this will eventually bring war with Mexico or less likely a negotiated purchase of some of the Mexico's northern possesions OTL Colorado, Wyoming, California etc). One would think that this Mexican War would go similar to OTL but the addition of Canada could cause a rift because the North is already larger and may tell the South to stuff it, and then we get a civil war in an aftermath of a loss to Mexico. One thing to remember is the Mexican War was a close run thing. Less success at the landings in Monterrey and Veracruz coupled with less animosity towards Santa Anna and you end up with an even match. Many European observers thought the Mexican Army was better and the US was just rabble.

I can go on but I feel like I typed a lot of stuff. I open it up to others
Respectfully,
GreatScottMarty

Eurofed · Feb 12, 2010

Nugax said:
Scenario 1 I'd dispute would turn out that rosy - the Canadians within the framework of the US would be very states rights

They would pressure (and succeed) for getting an explicit constitutional guarantee of their language and religion. Not that it was any really necessary, the US Constitution gave the Canadiens all the autonony they would ever need, but it be a symbolic statement that would reassure them. Apart from this, they would not be any more anti-federalist than the rest of the states. In time, their social and economic ties with New England and New York would grow, and as Quebec industrializes, it would become a Romance-Catholic version of New England, and see eye-to-eye with their neighbors.

and you'd probably see a weaker federal government and unified identity

Established churches and bilingualism are not going to make the federal government and American identity any weaker. Remember, for all the 19th century, French was the second language of cultured Americans.

Also more northern power in the senate would bring the slavery issue to a head earlier on.

To a significant, but not substantial degree, say in the early-mid 1850s, and the presence of the Canadian states would nullify the difference. Before than trying secession, the South is going to try agrarian expansionism in Mexico and the Caribbean, and the rest of the nation is sitll going to humor for the sake of national unity. Keeping the Union together is well worth a war with Mexico. If anything, we may expect TTL USA to expand southward more than OTL (e.g. they annex northern Mexico, too) as the result of the South trying harder to balance a stronger North. The crisis is only going to come later, when the Southerners realize that no matter how much new territory they conquer, most of it is still going to become free states because the northern settlers are typically more successful than the southern ones.

Eurofed · Feb 12, 2010

Dan1988 said:
We've already gone through this many times before.

And you are still proffering the same outlandish wild claims about American anti-Catholic/Francophone discrimination, it seems.

Not really - doesn't matter if the Québec Act passes or fails, though passage would be helpful - the British were smart enough not to piss off the Canadiens in any way that would impinge on language and religion.

Not necessarily so. George III was a staunch ultra-Protestant that had no time for giving the Catholics any slack, and he wielded a substantial amount of influence and patronage in the 1770s Commons. It only takes the right butterfly (say, a incident between Canadiens and the British colonial administration that leads to a riot) to piss off the British in passing a Quebec Act that would be as oppressive on the Canadiens as the rest of the Intolerable Acts were on the other 13 colonies. If this happens, it becomes very likely that Canada shall side of its own will with the Patriot movement, join the Continental Congress, and fight the ARW together.

IOTL, the American leaders were very eager to get Canada onboard (they repeatedly lobbied it to join the ARW, and the Articles of Confederation preapproved Canada's admission). You would be terribly challenged to find real anti-Canadien prejudice among the Founding Fathers. Likewise, the degree of anti-Catholic and anti-French-speaking prejudice among the American public at large is terribly exaggerated: there were sizable amounts of Catholics and non-English-speakers in the 13 colonies, they could rise to positions of prominence (there were Catholics among the Framers), French was the second language of the cultured American, there was no significant support among the American public for discrimination of Catholics or non-English-speakers. The federal constitution and the state constitutions gave full civil and political rights to such minorities, without discernible opposition.

Moreover, the US Constitution gave a minority that was local majority in a state exceedingly ample autonomy and leeway to protect its language and religion. Due to the dep respect for states rights in the American public, anything less than the Canadiens discriminating and harassing Protestants and Anglos would be accepted. To the very most, the Canadien Framers would petition for a "this constitution does not say what it does not say" explict guarantee of states rights concerning language and religion, and they would get it. The experience of fighting the ARW together would foster strong feelings of brotherhood between Canada and the 13 colonies. Apart from language and religion, the Seigneurs were not really different from the Southern planter elite, and the Canadien trading urban elites from their New England counterparts. As time goes on, American Quebec would become more and more socially and economically integrated with New England and New York, immigration would bring an amount of cultural diversity, and the Canadien settlers would spread to create other French-speaking or mixed states above of the Great Lakes. Not too late, Lower Canada would become a Romance version of New England, and Upper Canada a mixed version of the Midwest.

French involvement would be a hindrance in this scenario.

Not really. France had no real urge to recover Quebec after 1763, it was a closed deal to them. They would make no difficulty to Canada becoming a part of the USA.

Eventually, the Americans will have to leave because resistance is too much for them to handle (and this isn't even counting that the British were well armed in Québec City, so that would never be invaded) -

The usual outlandish Canadawank claims about the invincible Canuck guerrillas. They are not going to be any more successful than in 1837.

In both cases, unless the Americans were prepared to give the ex-New France the same amount of concessions that the British gave with the Québec Act

But they are. It is called the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which give much better rights than the QA. You are challenged to show the part where it discriminates against Catholics and French-speakers.

(the very same concessions that the proto-Americans rejected as being an "Intolerable Act"),

Wholly false. The only part of the Quebec Act that the 13 colonies vehemently protested against, was making the Ohio Valley a part of Quebec and closing it to their expansion. They certainly didn't really object to the Canadiens getting better civil rights.

- anti-Catholicism was rather strong, and there would certainly be any anger aimed at Francophones on top of that

You are challenged to provide evidence of any real political movement in the 13 colonies to deny Catholics and Francophones equal rights. Any real sympathy for anti-Catholicism in the USA happened much later, and it was an outlet for prejudice against Irish immigrants, vanilla nativist sentiment taking a thin confessional painting.

Eurofed · Feb 12, 2010

danwild6 said:
For its success we need a continuing Federalist administrations leading up to the war for that we need to butterfly the Alien and Sedition Acts, or have Alexander Hamilton remain a potent political force. In the 1807-1812 period the US would build up its military forces.

In OTL Canada could have been occupied had the US forces been properly lead and coordinated. Had the US built up its Navy significantly enough with Britain distracted in Europe its possible the USN could have taken Halifax. In OTL Britain had only 1 ship of the line in North American waters at the outbreak of hosilities.

All true. I would only remark that these things could easily happen in scenario one, too. In my USAO TL, they do.

Eurofed · Feb 12, 2010

GreatScottMarty said:
The effects would stupendous, US gains the most populated and industrialize portion (for the 1770s) of Canada. Also should make the free/slave politics interesting. I would expect more pressure to push into Cuba and the Carribean.

Very true. As well as more pressure to annex greater chunks of Mexico, all the relatively sparsely-populated section above the Tropic of Cancer.

I think a Purchase of Cuba is likely and may happen sooner than the OTL proposal of 1824 by JQA, and the main impetus would be if Canada is in the union. Canada would make a lot of free states and Cuba could make 4-5 slave and depending upon Texas 3-4 so you could balance the power in the Senate, depending upon divison of Canada.

Mostly true, but big problem: Spain had little intention to sell Cuba at all when the South was really willing to get it in the 1840s-1850s, since it was getting to be seen as the crown jewel of the Spanish colonial empire. It is unlikely to cede it short of war. Moreover, Cuba is unlikely to be split in more than two states, although Texas is very likely to become four. Florida could remain divided in two states. The USA have better chances to annex the Dominican Republic, as they almost did in 1870. Moreover, a more expansionist USA could give more support to Rio Grande and Yucatan when they temporarily split from Mexico, they could easily follow Texas' footsteps. Rio Grande could get statehood as two separate states.

Although I think any situation with Canada in the Union drives the Southern part of Manifest Destiny and creates the percieved need to Filibuster into Texas and this will eventually bring war with Mexico

Exactly. Even more so if the USA also supports the secession and annexation of Rio Grande and Yucatan, too.

One would think that this Mexican War would go similar to OTL but the addition of Canada could cause a rift because the North is already larger and may tell the South to stuff it,

Very unlikely. The national unity of the Great Republic was much more important to the North than the lives of some Mexican rabble, they would still reluctantly go along with the South's Mexican adventure.

However, it is correct that ITTL the Civil War would come slightly earlier, in the 1850s, because sections would come to blows sooner about a larger war booty.

Many European observers thought the Mexican Army was better and the US was just rabble.

The same "observers" that utterly failed to learn all the blatant lessons about an industrial total war from the ARW, and had to relearn them the hard way in WWI. Please, cultural prejudice made them blind about real American military potential.

GreatScottMarty · Feb 12, 2010

Eurofed said:
Very true. As well as more pressure to annex greater chunks of Mexico, all the relatively sparsely-populated section above the Tropic of Cancer.

Mostly true, but big problem: Spain had intention to sell Cuba at all, since it was seen as the crown jewel of the Spanish colonial empire. It is unlikely to cede it short of war. Moreover, Cuba is unlikely to be split in more than two states, although Texas is very likely to become four. Florida could remain divided in two states. The USA have better chances to annex the Dominican Republic, as they almost did in 1870.

I am assuming you meant Spain had NO intention to sell Cuba, this actually not true at all. They offered it to the US in the same deal that brought in Florida in 1824. We just didn't have the Cash or the requisite Free States to accomodate it. JQA had the treaty negotiated to include Cuba and we just didn't have the money. Maybe I overestimated the size of the areas involved but my point was and you agree with me that the South would look to the Carribean to mitigate the incluscion of Canada in the Union.

Eurofed said:
Moreover, a more expansionist USA could give more support to Rio Grande and Yucatan when they temporarily split from Mexico, they could easily follow Texas' footsteps. Rio Grande could get statehood as the three original Mexican states it was made of.

How do you reconcile slavery? Mexico is already free, this is one reason why Texans wanted to secede from Mexico. This is assuming that we completely wipe out the Mexican Army and Santa Anna and destroy the Mexican Politcal system certainly in our power; but in that case lets just annex the damn thing and call it an Ameriwank.

Eurofed said:
Exactly. Even more so if the USA also supports the secession and annexation of Rio Grande and Yucatan, too.
Very unlikely. The national unity of the Great Republic was much more important to the North than the lives of some Mexican rabble, they would still reluctantly go along with the South's Mexican adventure.
However, it is correct that ITTL the Civil War would come slightly earlier, in the 1850s, because sections would come to blows sooner about a larger war booty.

Probably. I don't think the North goes along with the SOuth just because the South asked nicely. What is the North's motivation? more markets? they get that with an independent Mexico too. I think we still go to war with Mexico, I just think we get dragged in and goes less willingly than OTL.

Eurofed said:
The same "observers" that utterly failed to learn all the blatant lessons about an industrial total war from the ARW, and had to relearn them the hard way in WWI. Please, cultural prejudice made them blind about real American military potential.

So why didn't cultural prejudice blind them about Mexico? Both dirty tinpot republics on the otherside of Atlantic. The fact is the Mexican Army was better equiped and more experienced than ours was. Yes, those same observers made crucial mistakes when understanding the use of machine guns and rate of fire in defensive warefare and what that does to unsupported infantry over open ground. You are missing the point, the point is the Mexican American war was a much closer thing than people realize, and that it could have gone either way.

Eurofed · Feb 12, 2010

GreatScottMarty said:
I am assuming you meant Spain had NO intention to sell Cuba, this actually not true at all. They offered it to the US in the same deal that brought in Florida in 1824. We just didn't have the Cash or the requisite Free States to accomodate it. JQA had the treaty negotiated to include Cuba and we just didn't have the money.

I stand corrected. What I was thinking of and meant to say is that Spain was unwilling to sell Cuba (a US offer was made and rejected in 1854) when the South grew really willing to get it, in the 1840s and 1850s. Just as IOTL, the South is going to be more and more anxious to get additional territory to create new slaveholding states as the Union develops in the mid-1800s and the relative weight of the North in it grows more and more. Quebec, by itself, and even quite possibly Nova Scotia, too, is a very nifty addition for the North but does not radically upturn the relative sectional balance in the early decades. However, the addition of several additional free states north of the Great Lakes to the rows of the North as the Union expands west is going to make the South even more eager for a balance than IOTL.

Maybe I overestimated the size of the areas involved but my point was and you agree with me that the South would look to the Carribean to mitigate the incluscion of Canada in the Union.

Indeed. Then again, if you wish to see this trend carried to its extremes, you may have my signature TL where you combine this, a more successful ARW with American Canada, the Iroquois going Patriot too seriously lowering anti-Indian/Hispanic racism, Federalists achieving a very long political dominance, a very good US performance in the wars with France and Britain, and you get the butterfly of the Manifest Destiny concept being grafted to American psyche very early on and expanded to *all* of the Americas. End result ? Americas intervene in the South American wars of independence, Simon Bolivar becomes a pro-US irredentist patriot (choke to death, Chavez

) and the US annex most of the Caribbean (which go slaveholding), Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia (which go free). The South then becomes *even* more anxious to expand, and sponsors the war with Mexico and filibusters in Central America. Northern Mexico is annexed, southern Mexico and Central America become US protectorates earmarked for eventual assimilation.

How do you reconcile slavery? Mexico is already free, this is one reason why Texans wanted to secede from Mexico.

Greater Southern influence and settlement owing to a more successful US projecting from Texas to Rio Grande and making the latter, too, a close copy of Texas.

This is assuming that we completely wipe out the Mexican Army and Santa Anna and destroy the Mexican Politcal system certainly in our power;

This is not necessary to make the secession of Rio Grande (which happened four years after Texas), too, being victorious. Just change the outcome of a couple battles thanks to Rio Grande getting much more US and Texan support.

but in that case lets just annex the damn thing.

After the Mexican-American War, Mexico was utterly defeated, the decision about how much of Mexico to annex was entirely political and for the US to make. This is nothing "wank" about the US getting bigger chunks of it.

I think we still go to war with Mexico, I just think we get dragged in and goes less willingly.

Which pretty much describes Northern attitudes IOTL, too. I don't think anything substantially changes ITTL.

The fact is the Mexican Army was better equiped and more experienced than ours was. (...) You are missing the point, the point is the Mexican American war was a much closer thing than people realize, and that it could have gone either way.

I remain rather doubtful of it. IMO Mexico had not any better chances than the South in the ACW, when at the start the Dixies were supremely confident of easily winning it in a few months owing to their superior military spirit, outdoor lifestyle, getting a greater cut of the US officer corps, etc. Anyway, ITTL the USA are stronger, so the OTL outcome is even less likely to be overturned.

GreatScottMarty · Feb 13, 2010

Eurofed said:
I stand corrected. What I was thinking of and meant to say is that Spain was unwilling to sell Cuba (a US offer was made and rejected in 1854) when the South grew really willing to get it, in the 1840s and 1850s. Just as IOTL, the South is going to be more and more anxious to get additional territory to create new slaveholding states as the Union develops in the mid-1800s and the relative weight of the North in it grows more and more. Quebec, by itself, and even quite possibly Nova Scotia, too, is a very nifty addition for the North but does not radically upturn the relative sectional balance in the early decades. However, the addition of several additional free states north of the Great Lakes to the rows of the North as the Union expands west is going to make the South even more eager for a balance than IOTL.

Indeed. Then again, if you wish to see this trend carried to its extremes, you may have my signature TL where you combine this, a more successful ARW with American Canada, the Iroquois going Patriot too seriously lowering anti-Indian/Hispanic racism, Federalists achieving a very long political dominance, a very good US performance in the wars with France and Britain, and you get the butterfly of the Manifest Destiny concept being grafted to American psyche very early on and expanded to *all* of the Americas. End result ? Americas intervene in the South American wars of independence, Simon Bolivar becomes a pro-US irredentist patriot (choke to death, Chavez ) and the US annex most of the Caribbean (which go slaveholding), Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia (which go free). The South then becomes *even* more anxious to expand, and sponsors the war with Mexico and filibusters in Central America. Northern Mexico is annexed, southern Mexico and Central America become US protectorates earmarked for eventual assimilation.

Greater Southern influence and settlement owing to a more successful US projecting from Texas to Rio Grande and making the latter, too, a close copy of Texas.

This is not necessary to make the secession of Rio Grande (which happened four years after Texas), too, being victorious. Just change the outcome of a couple battles thanks to Rio Grande getting much more US and Texan support.

After the Mexican-American War, Mexico was utterly defeated, the decision about how much of Mexico to annex was entirely political and for the US to make. This is nothing "wank" about the US getting bigger chunks of it.

Which pretty much describes Northern attitudes IOTL, too. I don't think anything substantially changes ITTL.

I remain rather doubtful of it. IMO Mexico had not any better chances than the South in the ACW, when at the start the Dixies were supremely confident of easily winning it in a few months owing to their superior military spirit, outdoor lifestyle, getting a greater cut of the US officer corps, etc. Anyway, ITTL the USA are stronger, so the OTL outcome is even less likely to be overturned.

I have read a bit of USAO and I did enjoy it and started my mind churning with other TL ideas, whic I am currently working on (see sig).

My basic issue with the south of the Rio Grande is the fact that it is all desert in Chihuahua, Sonora, and the state south of the Rio Grande, not condusive to plantation agriculture. I just don't see the Southern interest in desert.

I think the wankification does come from a takeover of Mexico, because the South didn't want all those Mexicans messing up there union, but I agree with the reality that the Creole elites of Mexico and landed elites of the USA have more in common with each other than they think.

I think you are discounting the lack of a large professional army too much. I too think the US beats mexico in the 1840s 9 out of 10 but, it's closer run than people think and that is what I wanted to demonstrate to the OP.

Coyote Knight · Feb 13, 2010

Mike said:
This is a racist and stereotypic statement. They only get pissed off if they have reason to. I should report you.

To be perfectly objective, you seem to to overreacting to this thread and you seem to be visibly angry. Just saying...

This has happened in OTL with the Orangmen of Ontario effectivily eliminating French settlements and populations in Ontario and the Prairies. Louis Riel and the Métis experienced this.

Riiiiiiiiiight. That's why there's what, at least 500,000 Franco-Ontarians today?

As a side note, have you even BEEN to Northern, Western or Eastern Ontario? There's French people everywhere. The only areas truly removed from the French Sphere are those in Southern Ontario where British and American influence had always been highest. Your argument doesn't hold its weight historically.

Eurofed · Feb 13, 2010

GreatScottMarty said:
My basic issue with the south of the Rio Grande is the fact that it is all desert in Chihuahua, Sonora, and the state south of the Rio Grande, not condusive to plantation agriculture.

True, but then again, the same may be said of Arizona and New Mexico, and the South honestly meant to make them slaveholding states. We may say that often, the political ideal of creating new slaveholding states overshadowed the economic realities on the ground. This would be true fro the Southwest on both sides of the Rio Grande.

I think the wankification does come from a takeover of Mexico, because the South didn't want all those Mexicans messing up there union, but I agree with the reality that the Creole elites of Mexico and landed elites of the USA have more in common with each other than they think.

True, on both counts, and indeed, once they can get familiar, the Southern planters and the Creole elites (as well as the Quebec signeurs) can quickly realize that they are all cultured landowner elites together. Of course, in the long term, industrialization and immigration are relatively quickly reshaping Quebec and Ontario into a Romance copy of New England and the Midwest, and slavery is going to put a wedge between Dixie and the Hispanic states, not only because of the political issue, but also because the freesoiler nature of the Hispanic agriculture makes it easier to be integrated with the economy of the North, just like to an higher degree it happened to the Midwest. In the coming struggle, the Creoles are going to side with the North, and the continental South can only count on the Caribbean states as their allies, since they had the same kind of slave plantation socio-economic structure.

Nonetheless, even in the USAO, where political butterflies made the Americans less wary of union with the Creoles (and viceversa) to begin with, they went at it in stages: first a decade of increasing economic and political union as protectorates, then statehood. Having developed the model in western South America, they reapply it to Mexico and Central America: the relatively low populated northern Mexico is immediately set up in territories (or states, for former Rio Grande), the rest is set up as protectorates earmaked for statehood in a decade or two. Of course, the ACW puts the process temporarily into hold.

I think you are discounting the lack of a large professional army too much. I too think the US beats mexico in the 1840s 9 out of 10 but, it's closer run than people think and that is what I wanted to demonstrate to the OP.

Nine out of 10 is good with me, so we are in basic agreement. As it concerns the US army, the basic case was very similar to Prussia: they had a very good professional officer and NCO corps organizing the volunteer/conscript enlisted in an efficient way. The consistent evidence of the 19th century is that such "hybrid" armies regularly kicked the butt of the all-professional armies. The superiority of the all-professional armies did not get reaffirmed again until the late 20th century.