US *after* War of 1812 victory
- Thread starter ScottForschler
- Start date
Canada was a popular destination for escaped slaves. Take away Canada, and that does bring up an interesting question: where would the terminals for the Underground Railroad be? Newfoundland? Surely not Greenland. I suppose they could try for Florida and become some early version of Boat People, trying to sail to freedom in the Bahamas.
To forestall any Civil War, slavery might be extended further into the Midwest for that pointless balance in the Senate to continue. Nebraska and Kansas slave States? I don't think cotton would grow well or long out there.
To forestall any Civil War, slavery might be extended further into the Midwest for that pointless balance in the Senate to continue. Nebraska and Kansas slave States? I don't think cotton would grow well or long out there.
War of 1812 alternate history screnarios
Contributors to this thread might be interested in the alternate history chapters in my recent Neither Victor nor Vanquished: America In the War of 1812.
They include:
Contributors to this thread might be interested in the alternate history chapters in my recent Neither Victor nor Vanquished: America In the War of 1812.
They include:
- Imaging how the US might have avoided the capture of Washington.
- Four scenarios based on the length of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and variations in the quality of US and British generalship.
- A worst case scenario that alters the role of the military in US politics.
- An alternate history where the America and Britain avoid the War of 1812, and consequently the rise of Andrew Jackson.
Dirk_Pitt
Banned
Except Britain didn't have this ability in the 19th century. Sure the British had the biggest navy in the world, but it was also spread out over said world. Even during the ARW pre-1778 the British never pulled off a 100% successful blockade.
One thing I am thinking is that this might butterfly the Missouri Compromise of 1820 away completely (and I don't mean just the year). Depending on just how much land is absorbed, your going to have a huge area of the country that will want nothing to do with slavery. If there is no version of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (in whatever year) in this TL, then perhaps the whole precedent of equal number of free/slave states may never arise.
Sure, South Carolina might try to break away in some time after 1815 (picking that as a decent date for the end of the alt-War of 1812), but would they receive as much support? You could have in this TL a mooted South Carolina rebellion seen akin to something like Shays' Rebellion as opposed to a full out Civil War.
Instead slavery, being massively outnumbered and outgunned at the political level, might just wither away slowly as was originally foreseen. Some sort of manumission bill a few decades down the road, with monetary compensation or something like that.
OTOH, the issue of the day might just be the Quebec Question. How to integrate Quebec into an America that supposedly respects states rights (and at the time, they were 'respected' a hell of a lot more) and supposedly respects freedom of religion might be a very interesting set of discussions.
Basically I'm challenging the notion that there must be some sort of huge showdown over slavery with such an early and massive change to OTL America.
Sure, South Carolina might try to break away in some time after 1815 (picking that as a decent date for the end of the alt-War of 1812), but would they receive as much support? You could have in this TL a mooted South Carolina rebellion seen akin to something like Shays' Rebellion as opposed to a full out Civil War.
Instead slavery, being massively outnumbered and outgunned at the political level, might just wither away slowly as was originally foreseen. Some sort of manumission bill a few decades down the road, with monetary compensation or something like that.
OTOH, the issue of the day might just be the Quebec Question. How to integrate Quebec into an America that supposedly respects states rights (and at the time, they were 'respected' a hell of a lot more) and supposedly respects freedom of religion might be a very interesting set of discussions.
Basically I'm challenging the notion that there must be some sort of huge showdown over slavery with such an early and massive change to OTL America.
And its a really good notion to bring forward because honestly the US was one of very few countries to totally eliminate slavery with violence (the civil war). Most other countries just gradually phased it out. With the introduction of so many free states, supporters of slavery might seek to be bought out instead of taking the 'winner takes all civil war/rebellion' rout that didn't work out. The cards would be even more stacked against them earlier on.
Quebec is an interesting question. When it comes to religion, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is just kept hush-hush. Quebec knows it is in a majority non-Catholic country and the Federal government doesn't even want to have this argument.
I have a few more questions to raise. With a huge swathe of the west and the later acquisition of Alaska, does the US have as much incentive to go into Mexico? Will the US claim California? I imagine it will even with reduced American settlers be diverted to more northern lands. Though it is also possible the California Republic holds on for a few more years before going the same route as Texas purely out of less US interest in the region.
Or the US possibly takes more interest in the region. I can see a great incentive to 'lock down' the entire continent. It would be a lot easier to protect a border that is 400ish miles long with Central America than protecting a border that is 2000 ish miles long. It also partially depends upon how British influence is pushed in Central and South america which the US may want to respond to.
With no Britain to argue with for control of western Canada, I feel that US expansionism my be directed elsewhere.
Because this is not how slavery works? As a matter of fact, I believe slavery may have still been legal in a few provinces during the war, but there were virtually no slaves still there.
I believe in this scenario, ASB as it is, the southern states would be desperate to find other territory to annex and create new slave states from, lest they be overpowered in Congress.
Northern free-states were actually fairly common destinations on the Underground Railroad until the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. Prior to that point slavemasters had to rely on private slave-catchers to be able to kidnap and take their escaped slaves back south. It would be nowhere near as safe as an entirely separate country, though.
Having Spain permanently ejected from the Americas would be in Britain's best interest. Much easier to trade with a lot of independent states. Spain tried to maintain a monopoly on trade with its colonies (operative word being tried).
Again I always ask about the logistics of this. While the British may be able to get a few thousand loyalists to the pacific coast by the 1830's, what happens when 90k Americans come knocking around 1850, if not earlier? The British now get to defend a number of small settlements that will be inundated with really aggressive American settlers. But this time instead of trying to suppress a revolution/war that is a relative hop skip and a jump across the Atlantic, the British get to go clear around the world.
And this is the salient fact that everyone seems to want to ignore. NAm was a side show with the barest of forces committed. If the War is ongoing once Napoleon is dispatched... and Britain still has bases in the Caribbean the Maritimes and Newfoundland. It simply will not matter how much land has been occupied. The British will land with battle hardened veterans and sweep the field clear of Cousin Jonathon. Then give their hide a caning it will not soon forget for being so impertinent and unreasonable.
As said the US cannot make the Brits come to the table and agree to anything if they don't want to or don't wish to. This is not the ARW where everyone was against them...
So yes in order for this to have occurred...the Brit's and its various Sponsored coalitions would have to have been defeated and Napoleon is still in charge and still the undisputed hegemon in Europe. That proximity would make them the more mortal threat.
One idea I had was that because Napoleon does much better in France, there is no Louisiana purchase. The US, who had made some military reforms much earlier in its history/right away and had properly built up invades Canada in or around 1812. Canada is occupied, partially due to more thinly spread British presence. The US navy, also benefiting from earlier reforms, also does better against the British navy, enough to write off Canada for the most part until Napoleon can be beat.
Well negotiations happen and GB realizes it can possibly put the US at a huge disadvantage later by having it press claims/occupy the Louisiana territory which Nap was losing practical day to day control of anyways. US marches into New Orleans largely un-apposed (perhaps colonies were getting very heavily taxed?) and GB assumes the US will be burdened with holding down all this territory and making it easier to retake later on.
Well, Napoleon gets defeated and France loses out, but GB stands depleted for the time being. In the few years after the war, a combo of the British population being very war weary, greatly improved relations and greater US solidification of its territory leads GB to kick the re-taking of Canada and possible seizure of New Orleans down the road. By the time GB is recovered and some issue comes up, its the mid 1830's. Canada has been admitted as various states, more states have joined the union in the south and US settlers push ever more west.
Will GB still try to gain some influence?
Well negotiations happen and GB realizes it can possibly put the US at a huge disadvantage later by having it press claims/occupy the Louisiana territory which Nap was losing practical day to day control of anyways. US marches into New Orleans largely un-apposed (perhaps colonies were getting very heavily taxed?) and GB assumes the US will be burdened with holding down all this territory and making it easier to retake later on.
Well, Napoleon gets defeated and France loses out, but GB stands depleted for the time being. In the few years after the war, a combo of the British population being very war weary, greatly improved relations and greater US solidification of its territory leads GB to kick the re-taking of Canada and possible seizure of New Orleans down the road. By the time GB is recovered and some issue comes up, its the mid 1830's. Canada has been admitted as various states, more states have joined the union in the south and US settlers push ever more west.
Will GB still try to gain some influence?
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
On the question of slavery, while the abolitionist minority wasn't as yet a significant political force in 1814, the pro-slavery South also hadn't quite consolidated around the idea of slavery being a positive good in 1814 either. Either way, states rights were still paramount, and despite the earlier fugitive slave act, it was still mostly a regional issue.
I actually don't see slavery being much of an issue in this particular scenario, but I do see it inevitably leading to a weaker South once King Cotton changes southern attitudes in a decade or two. This might lead to either a humbled south (less likely) or a South more insistant upon greater annexations of Mexico, perhaps even to the point where the entire country is annexed in the furtue, and indian slaves become as important in certain areas of a truly north Americans "Union" as black slaves in the old south.
I actually don't see slavery being much of an issue in this particular scenario, but I do see it inevitably leading to a weaker South once King Cotton changes southern attitudes in a decade or two. This might lead to either a humbled south (less likely) or a South more insistant upon greater annexations of Mexico, perhaps even to the point where the entire country is annexed in the furtue, and indian slaves become as important in certain areas of a truly north Americans "Union" as black slaves in the old south.
I would imagine its less about liberating those colonies for their meager value and more about curtailing future growth of the US (or another power for that matter) in the region. I would imagine that Britain would be seeing the US potentially doing a continent lockdown by 1850. This could especially be proven true if the US has a Mexican American war.
One idea I had was for a 'two and three' rule. For every 2 slave states there would be 3 free states. Totally arbitrary but I feel like it is a compromise congress would see to by 1820. Especially with the sudden intro of so many new free states in the north and the fact that while the south may push to annex more Mexican territory later on, those new states might not care for slavery by that point.