A somewhat more successful Manifest Destiny

Eurofed

Banned
This TL idea is the combination of two different PoDs, which together expand significantly the boundaries of the continental USA northward and southward.

1) During the negotations between Britain and the Americans at the close of the ARW, there are somewhat less delays and interference caused by French and Spanish dickering at the negotiations table. As a result, the US still fails to claim the Maritimes and what shall later become Lower Canada and Quebec IOTL, but successfully asserts a claim to all the parts of the Province of Quebec that lie west of the Ottawa River and drain in the Atlantic, effectively the ATL equivalent of what shall later become Upper Canada IOTL. The northwestern boundary is placed along a line going westward from the northern shore of Lake Nipigon to the Mississippi River (due to the use of a faulty map, the diplomats fail to realize that the river did not extend that far north, as IOTL; this mistake shall be acknowledged in following decades and need to be corrected later, as it was in 1818 OTL). The treaty also establishes joint ownership of Rupert's Land, with freedom of navigation and settlement for both parties throughout, and a lease of the area to the Hudson's Bay Company, for 99 years. Afterwards, the ownership of the area shall default to America.

It is assumed that PoD 1 does not butterfly away the Mexican-American War nor changes its outcome.

2) When the OTL short-lived Republic of Rio Grande (formed of the Mexican states of Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo Leon) secedes from Mexico in 1840, it does not pick a territorial quarrel with Texas. As a result, Texas and the USA support the republic and Rio Grande effectively defends its independence against Mexico. Later it successfully applies for US statehood like Texas and this triggers the ATL Mexican-American War, which still turns out in a total US victory. At the peace table, the US government is obviously interested in claiming the rest of northern Mexico and extend the Rio Grande border to the Pacific, so they claim the mexican states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Sinaloa, Durango, and all of Baja California. Since these areas are still relatively unpopulated at the time of the cession, claiming northern Mexico does not draw the racist concerns from Southern Democrats about incorporating a large mixed-race population that annexing all of Mexico would have, so the treaty is ratified.

In the OP's opinion, neither PoD is significantly likely and able to butterfly the ACW away or change its outcome.

What are the social, political, economic, and military effects of these PoDs on Canada, Mexico, and the USA ? Does PoD 1 butterfly away the War of 1812 entirely, or change its outcome ? Do US and the UK become even more friendly, or more antagonistic, in the long run, with a shrunken Canada ? How is ownership of Rupert's Land and Oregon Country eventually settled ? Does it make all of OTL Western Canada a part of the USA, or just moves the western US-BNA border northward, say at the 51st parallel ? How would Canada and Mexico fare without northern Mexico, the "useful" portions of Ontario and Western Canada, and perhaps without the latter at all ? How this would change the demographic and economics, and the state boundaries, in the USA ? Is the ACW accelerated ?
 
Last edited:
The larger the US gets, the more likely the European powers are going to interfere in the civil war to break it up.
 
Even if the *US gets Upper Canada by this route I doubt that the UK would agree to a joint ownership of Ruperts Land. Indeed if the US has Upper Canada expect more UK forts in Ruperts Land. The UK may even push for keeping Florida from Spain.
the War of 1812 would certainly never happen as OTL since the Loyalists that in OTL resettled in Upper Canada would now go to the Maritimes and Lower Canada.
 
The loss of the Ottawa peninsula would be difficult for Quebec/what's left of Canada as it would give the US total control of the easiest routes into the vast interior. The importance of controlling the Great Lakes can not easily be overstated. This would almost ensure that America would gain control of the entire Oregon Territory as well as the future Prairie Provinces. Even in our timeline settlement patterns were favoring America until the War of 1812. There is a good chance that joint control of the more northern portions of Rupert's Land would occur and continue for quite some time. The final outcome would probably be that the US is allowed to buy out the HBC in the mid-1850s as the fur trade becomes less profitable. This would give the US all of Canada minus Quebec, the Maritimes and possible a bit of land along the Hudson Bay.

Without OTL Ontario far more loyalists would settle in Quebec proper. This would almost certainly lead to increased Anglo-French tensions as neither group would want to be dominated by the other. Coupled with pro-British Indian refugees, this would make Quebec a very tense place.

I think some form of War of 1812 would still occur as any major war in Europe would still give rise to impressment and the blockade. Also, as ethnic tensions flared both sides in Quebec would look to elements within the US for support. Ironically, it could be the ex-loyalists that now try to enlist American aid to gain political and economic control of Quebec. In this scenario it is realistic to imagine Britain tiring of North America and finally wiping her hands of all but Newfoundland as part of a settlement ending this TL's War of 1812.

As for American politics the balance of slave versus free states would remain paramount. The division of Florida and Texas into multiple states may occur to compensate for the several free states carved out of Ontario. The ACW could occur earlier, but it most likely will not be delayed as demographically, the North will reach the population needed to decide the issue politically regardless of the outcome in Mexico. With more land (North and South) it is likely that the US will have a larger overall population going into the ACW, thus more casualties.

I don't agree with Super_Cool's assessment that a larger US will increase the likelihood of European involvement. Instead, I think with Britain's interest in Canada far decreased the possibility exists that she may openly side with the Union. Especially, since the Carolina Affair and numerous other border incidents in the pre-ACW era will not have occurred. Also, increased American interest in Mexico may diverge history enough so as to prevent the French intervention in that region.

Benjamin
 

Eurofed

Banned
Even if the *US gets Upper Canada by this route I doubt that the UK would agree to a joint ownership of Ruperts Land.

OTL they agreed to a joint ownership of Oregon for a generation. The key bit here is that they are allowed to keep exploiting the area for fur trade. If they get that, it is plausible that they are willing to allow Oregon-like joint ownership and freedom of settlement for Americans (and selling away or making substantial territorial compromises about the area when fur trde declines). RL was valuable to UK for the furs. Apart from that, what's the UK interest in keeping a large swath of mostly frozen land, centuries before its other mineral resources are known ?

The US have a big national security interest in making BNA as little as possible, the UK have not a comparable one, esp. if they already keep Quebec and Maritimes and lack of Upper Canada makes communications between them and RL rather difficult. Besides, US Upper Canada means that the US-BNA Western border is going to go along the 51st parallel at the very least, so the really valuable part of RL for settlement is going to be lost anyway.

Indeed if the US has Upper Canada expect more UK forts in Ruperts Land.

Possibly, or maybe they grow disillusioned faster about the feasibility of keeping Oregon and the Prairies.

The UK may even push for keeping Florida from Spain.

I don't see any good reason why they should. It wasn't that very much valuable a land, back then. Swamps and more swamps.

the War of 1812 would certainly never happen as OTL since the Loyalists that in OTL resettled in Upper Canada would now go to the Maritimes and Lower Canada.

Many parts of the war are going to be different since one of the two main fronts shall be on the Ottawa river, not in the peninsula. Butterflying away the War of 1812 entirely is more difficult, there are still blocakde, the impressment, and US desire to conquer Lower Canada and the Maritimes (which, with a front starting on the Ottawa river, may have a realistic chance to succeed, or at least exhaust the Napoleon-harried British that they accept to give up the rest of Canada, or perhaps Rupert's Land and Oregon Country at the least) as big causes.
 

Dure

Banned
The first option is not really viable. There are a number of reasons for this:
First, the British are a naval power they full understand the importance of the Great Lakes. They understand that if they give them up then Quebec, and the mainland Maritimes are effectively indefensible. The might give up all of what is now Canada in certain circumstances but relinquishing Upper Canada alone is foolish.
Second, you completely overstate the importance of the HBC, an economic asset when compared to a strategic one, Upper Canada.
Thirdly, you have not demonstrated any lever that would enable the colonists to get the British give up Upper Canada.
The second option isn’t really viable either. The insurgents are an unpleasant (from a US perspective) brown colour. There is absolutely no way the place will be let into the USA. Furthermore the Mexican constitution outlaws chattel slavery so there would be opposition in the south, esp. Texas. Remember, the freedom they died for at El Alamo was the freedom for white men to buy and sell black men.
 

Eurofed

Banned
You make some rather interesting and compelling points. Good.

The loss of the Ottawa peninsula would be difficult for Quebec/what's left of Canada as it would give the US total control of the easiest routes into the vast interior. The importance of controlling the Great Lakes can not easily be overstated. This would almost ensure that America would gain control of the entire Oregon Territory as well as the future Prairie Provinces. Even in our timeline settlement patterns were favoring America until the War of 1812. There is a good chance that joint control of the more northern portions of Rupert's Land would occur and continue for quite some time. The final outcome would probably be that the US is allowed to buy out the HBC in the mid-1850s as the fur trade becomes less profitable. This would give the US all of Canada minus Quebec, the Maritimes and possible a bit of land along the Hudson Bay.

So what is the most likely outcome for Western Canada ? Does the US get all of it, or just the southern part ? Drawing a line from the Atlantic watershed means the US-BNA border shall lie on the 51st parallel at the very minimum which already includes most of the "useful" WC. If as you say American settlement likely pushes the border even more north, the next likely line would be 54° 40', the souternmost level of Russian Alaska. And that means all of viable WC goes American, effectively. This would leave Canada with Yukon, the NWT, and northernmost slice of the Prairies Provinces and Ontario. Is this the most likely outcome? Or would London just sell off all that frozen land at some point ?

Without OTL Ontario far more loyalists would settle in Quebec proper. This would almost certainly lead to increased Anglo-French tensions as neither group would want to be dominated by the other. Coupled with pro-British Indian refugees, this would make Quebec a very tense place.

This is very interesting too, and quite plausible. Of course, admitting the Loyalists do not end up in Ireland or Australia or the like. A Quebec almost evenly splitted between Anglos and French shall be a rather interesing place, in the Chinese sense.

I think some form of War of 1812 would still occur as any major war in Europe would still give rise to impressment and the blockade. Also, as ethnic tensions flared both sides in Quebec would look to elements within the US for support. Ironically, it could be the ex-loyalists that now try to enlist American aid to gain political and economic control of Quebec.

I agree with this assessment.

In this scenario it is realistic to imagine Britain tiring of North America and finally wiping her hands of all but Newfoundland as part of a settlement ending this TL's War of 1812.

Hmm, in this scenario, what is the most likely outcome for the war ?

The UK giving back all of Canada but Newfoundland, or just Rupert's Land and Oregon ?

As for American politics the balance of slave versus free states would remain paramount. The division of Florida and Texas into multiple states may occur to compensate for the several free states carved out of Ontario.

Very true. How many pieces would both be carved into ? The planned 5 for Texas and the old two for Florida ? Be mindful that Rio Grande itself could be easily split off in its old 3 components. And how many states would be carved out of Upper Canada ? I would expect a couple, the Peninsula and northern shore of the great Lakes.

The ACW could occur earlier, but it most likely will not be delayed as demographically, the North will reach the population needed to decide the issue politically regardless of the outcome in Mexico. With more land (North and South) it is likely that the US will have a larger overall population going into the ACW, thus more casualties.

This is very true, too. An aside thought, if Quebec ends up American, and Anglo-French struggles have awakened nasty Quebecois siege mentality, I would expect them to attempt a breakup during the ACW, even if on their own and not in a league with the SOuth, there was very little sympathy for slavery in Quebec. Nonetheless, without major help from UK (very unliekly) I would fail as miserably as the larger secession, but it would leave the Quebecois resentful for long. France may or may not attempt something but IMO any intervention by France alone in ACW is remotely possible but would just turn the USA in an implacable enemy of France during WWI.

I don't agree with Super_Cool's assessment that a larger US will increase the likelihood of European involvement. Instead, I think with Britain's interest in Canada far decreased the possibility exists that she may openly side with the Union. Especially, since the Carolina Affair and numerous other border incidents in the pre-ACW era will not have occurred. Also, increased American interest in Mexico may diverge history enough so as to prevent the French intervention in that region.

I agree here.
 

Eurofed

Banned
First, the British are a naval power they full understand the importance of the Great Lakes. They understand that if they give them up then Quebec, and the mainland Maritimes are effectively indefensible.


This is not actually true. What becomes very hard to defend is a settled Western Canada. Quebec and mainland Maritimes are somewhat more difficult to defend, but not exceedingly so. However, Rupert's Land was an howling and cold wilderness in 1783, only thought really valuable because of the fur trade for Britain, and for that they just needed a smattering of trade posts here and there.


The might give up all of what is now Canada in certain circumstances but relinquishing Upper Canada alone is foolish.


I was aiming for a somewhat better diplomatic bargain for the US in 1783, but not so good as the all of Canada option. Besides, only Quebec and the Maritimes were settled and hence were most valuable to London in 1783, Upper Canada was essentially empty like Rupert's Land, trading away empty land is far easier than settled one, and Upper Canada was not even thought as economically valuable as RL. So I reason out it's the bit of Canada that the British would give away the easiest. Americans would care rather morwe about getting it because it rounds up their strategic protection of the Great Lakes area, and it gives them a future foothold for expansion towards Rupertìs Land, and Americans were always much more settlement-minded than the British. And above everything lese, I went for a somewhat more complex deal and PoD than just "US gets all of Canada in 1783". Besides, I would use a different PoD to accomplish that, say something that butterflies away the Quebec Act and hence makes the Quebecois willing to join the American Revolution.



Second, you completely overstate the importance of the HBC, an economic asset when compared to a strategic one, Upper Canada.

See the point above.


Thirdly, you have not demonstrated any lever that would enable the colonists to get the British give up Upper Canada.


IOTL, the French and Spanish dragged their feet about settling the peace deal, and this made the British less willing to make concessions to the Americans than they were at the start of the talks. ITTL this does not happen.


The insurgents are an unpleasant (from a US perspective) brown colour. There is absolutely no way the place will be let into the USA.


You missed the fact that Northern Mexico was very scarcely populated in the 1840s. A very few "browns" that the confident Americans can expect with good reason) to overpopulate within a decade or two shall be no concern, racially speaking, just the OTL Mexican Cession was not.


Furthermore the Mexican constitution outlaws chattel slavery so there would be opposition in the south, esp. Texas.


Would-be Southern settlers can expect to overrun Rio grand in a few years like the did with Texas, and turn it into a slave state. Whether they would manage to repeat Texas, or northenr freesoiler settlers would beat trhem to the gun as they did in Kansas and Nebraska is questionable, but what happened in Kansas and Nebraska came as a complete suprise to Southern public opinion, so it cannot be expected that the South shall not want more of Mexican goodness because they fear they are not going and be able to enforce slavery there.
 
This thread is a very thought provoking.

1.) Leverage point for US for Upper Canada could be US capturing and holding both Ft Niagarra and Ft Detroit in ARW.

Ft. Niagarra could be captured by the 1775 Canadian expedition by Montgomery and Arnold. The main objective of this expedition would be to neutralise the NE Indians from becoming a British ally not try to subdue Quebec. Instead of Monty capturing Montreal and then meetuing up with Arnold at Quebec City, what if Monty catpures Montreal and then moves on Ft Niagarra and meets Arnold who marches across New York state. Patriots loose Montreal in 1776 but hold onto Niagarra due to valiant effort by Monty who dies in the defence. It could be defended again in 1777, as St. Leger is thawrted. This leaves Ft. Detroit withering on a vine for 1778-1779 moves by Clark and an expedition from Ft. Niagarra further West.

British cede what would have been Upper Canada to US in peace negotiations desribed by Eurofed. I do not see where the Brits would want joint ocupation of Rupert's land at this time.

2.) War of 1812 does not go down the way it does since the growing westerners have more territory and the Britsh cannot incite the NE Indians as much. But what if the War Hawks instead of stirring up a war with the Brits, ally with the Brits, and look to jump in and get some French booty, try capture French posessions in the Caribbean? If the US can bolster a Navy perhaps so, but more realistically could not. Could it be a joint effort with the Brits where they provide the ships and the US provides the troops?

3.) Could there be support in the North during the 1820's to 1830's to adqiure Cuba knowing that it would be slave?

4.) Portion of Ruperts land would eventually become entirely US as settlers come into those areas. As Americans move into Minnesota and the Dakotas, they will spill over into the Red River region. The US may actually decide to throw some money into it and give the British an offer they cannot refuse for the Red River area as part of the Rush-Bagot treaty in 1818 rather than wait the 99 years.

5.) Even with the Red River purchase from Britain or the Rupert's land 99 year deal, the Brits would like to keep Oregon. So there would be a peaceful agreement much like the OTL split. Perhaps the Yanks throw some more money into it and Vancouver island is split as well along the 49th paralel.

6.) Even with the US capturing more Mexican territory, I do not see the Europeans joining in to split the US up during the ACW. Mainly because the US and Britain would have even better relations than OTL and the rest of Europe would fall into line behind Britain.

Could the North and the origional seven seceeding states plus Cuba come to a peaceful deal on seperation without a fight? They pay the federal government back the money for forts and other public instalations over a set period of time. US keeps a naval base at Gitmo. US retains free passage of Mississippi river and New Orleans.

Border states (Vaginia, NC, Tenn, Ark, Indian Terr) stay in Union. Constitutional ammendment prohibits further states from seceeding without mjority of Congress approval.
 

Eurofed

Banned
This thread is a very thought provoking.

Thanks, you make some rather interesting points too.

1.) Leverage point for US for Upper Canada could be US capturing and holding both Ft Niagarra and Ft Detroit in ARW.

Ft. Niagarra could be captured by the 1775 Canadian expedition by Montgomery and Arnold. The main objective of this expedition would be to neutralise the NE Indians from becoming a British ally not try to subdue Quebec. Instead of Monty capturing Montreal and then meetuing up with Arnold at Quebec City, what if Monty catpures Montreal and then moves on Ft Niagarra and meets Arnold who marches across New York state. Patriots loose Montreal in 1776 but hold onto Niagarra due to valiant effort by Monty who dies in the defence. It could be defended again in 1777, as St. Leger is thawrted. This leaves Ft. Detroit withering on a vine for 1778-1779 moves by Clark and an expedition from Ft. Niagarra further West.

Thanks for bringing these nofty military PODs to our attention, they round up my own diplomatic PoD nicely.

I do not see where the Brits would want joint ocupation of Rupert's land at this time.

About this, I have to remark that joint ownership, although inspired by OTL Oregon precedent, was not my main idea. Basically for Rupert's Land I was thinking of the HBC keeping a long-term lease, but with America getting freedom of settlement in the area and the reasonable guarantee that after it expires, they can buy or get Rupert's Land if they want it without London being in the legal and diplomatic position to say no without a war. Something like "the HBC keeps a 99-year lease on Rupert's Land, America has freedom of settlment in the area and a first-choice buy option (I dunno if this is the proper English common-law legal term for the idea, please correct me, uncertainety about this what made me use joint ownership) after the lease expires". This is my true idea, if you wish I may edit the OP along these lines if it looks more realistic.

War of 1812 does not go down the way it does since the growing westerners have more territory and the Britsh cannot incite the NE Indians as much.

What is the most probable outcome IYO ? A revision of the status of Rupert's Land and Oregon in terms more favorable to America ? America conquering Lower Canada ?

But what if the War Hawks instead of stirring up a war with the Brits, ally with the Brits, and look to jump in and get some French booty, try capture French posessions in the Caribbean? If the US can bolster a Navy perhaps so, but more realistically could not. Could it be a joint effort with the Brits where they provide the ships and the US provides the troops?

This is a possibility. Another one is that a US more emboldened by a more favourable ARW outcome, builds a more efficient navy in the 1790s and turns the Quasi-War into a full-fledged declared Franco-American War and conquests the French Caribbeans, in such a case the War of 1812 may unfold against the British as OTL for the possession of Quebec.

Could there be support in the North during the 1820's to 1830's to adqiure Cuba knowing that it would be slave?

Well, with a couple new free states coming out of Upper Canada, and possibly Quebec as well if conquered in 1812, and anyway the realistic perspective of setting up more from chunks of Rupert's Land, I can see the North being willing to greenlight the acquisition of Cuba. It is going to ask the South some meaningful concessions about the tariff and internal improvement if the acquisition requires an expensive buy or a war, as it is likely. In such a case, however, America would most likely enlarge the bid to Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo to reap even more good land and round up their control of the Caribbean.

Portion of Ruperts land would eventually become entirely US as settlers come into those areas. As Americans move into Minnesota and the Dakotas, they will spill over into the Red River region. The US may actually decide to throw some money into it and give the British an offer they cannot refuse for the Red River area as part of the Rush-Bagot treaty in 1818 rather than wait the 99 years.

With the Upper Canada in American lands, at the very least all the area of Western Canada south of the 51° Parallel (the line between northern tip of Vancouver Island, Calgary, and the South Saskatchevan river) surely ends up American between 1812 and 1846, and I totally expect Americans to be adament about writing such a settlement in the 1818 treaty, if not the 1812 peace treaty or even the 1783 one. They may offer money, but it shall an offer that London cannot refuse, indeed. Say they make an offer for the 51st parallel line in 1818 (if they do not conquer it in 1812) and in 1846, when the Oregon question reopens the whole prairie settlement, they make the British another offer they cannot refuse for the 55th parallel line.

Even with the Red River purchase from Britain or the Rupert's land 99 year deal, the Brits would like to keep Oregon.

They may want to get a good bargain for it, sure, but keeping it ? Strategically and economically unfeasible. What good use can the British Crown get from Oregon when American prairies and Great Lakes divide it from the rest of BNA and it is nested between Russian Alaska, California, and American prairies ???

So there would be a peaceful agreement much like the OTL split. Perhaps the Yanks throw some more money into it and Vancouver island is split as well along the 49th paralel.

American Upper Canada makes the 51st Parallel the default boundary line between US and BNA, London cannot realistically expect to hold everything below that line. Most likely, America throws some money into it and buys the 55th parallel line.

Even with the US capturing more Mexican territory, I do not see the Europeans joining in to split the US up during the ACW. Mainly because the US and Britain would have even better relations than OTL and the rest of Europe would fall into line behind Britain.

True, at the very most France may try to give some aid to the CSA on its own to secure its grasp of rump Mexico, but this would be an adventure that Napoleon III would pay dearly.

Could the North and the origional seven seceeding states plus Cuba come to a peaceful deal on seperation without a fight?

Veeerryy unlikely IMO. If nothing else, the contested territories in the Southwest are even larger ITTL as they include northern Mexico as well and they would come to blows over them if every other casus belli fails.
 
Given a TL where the US takes the top three of OTL Mexico [C, C & S] I can see the Comprise of 1850 extending the Missoiui [33oN???] Line all the way to the West Coast.
With a Free North & Slave South California.

The establishment of a Trans Continental boundry lessens the Free Soil Debate.
With such a preestablished Border, and room for new states on each side, the two states Free/Slave enter compromise may last longer.
This continues the 50-50 split in the Senate, and the ACW is postponed till the Imbalance in the House becomes to Large to Ignore.
 
I'd like to point out how gratifying it is to see some relatively new posters (well, I assume from the postcounts) doing some Ameriwankage discussions in a calm and enlightened manner.

Many kudos, folks, many kudos.
 

Dure

Banned
Mmmm Eurofed, Had a look at your responses to my critique and I don’t think they hold up.

My first point was that if Britain yields the territory west of the Ottawa river the rump of Quebec/Labrador and New Brunswick are indefensible. Your reply to this was:

This is not actually true. What becomes very hard to defend is a settled Western Canada. Quebec and mainland Maritimes are somewhat more difficult to defend, but not exceedingly so. However, Rupert's Land was an howling and cold wilderness in 1783, only thought really valuable because of the fur trade for Britain, and for that they just needed a smattering of trade posts here and there.

Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by Western Canada in this context. It appears to mean Rupert’s Land from context. What becomes Canada West you have given away to the USA. Western Canada as in British Columbia, Victoria and (I think it was called?) Selkirk are yet to come and may not come ITTL. Assuming you mean Rupert’s Land the place has become unviable the HBC only have what is in effect a 100 year lease and the USA controls all of the ports of entry to it except through Churchill on the Hudson bay or via the Brigade Express which was only a messenger trail. The terms you propose are such that the Company has no security of access and USA can close Rupert’s Land to the HBC in the year 1 post treaty never mind year 100 and neither the Company nor the British Government can do anything about it. Put simply the HBC would never accept it and lobby the British Government accordingly.

You do not make clear how you propose that the British defend their Quebecois rump. You just told me the can. Here is why the can’t.

1) The USA are only about one day’s march from Montreal.
2) The USA can supply troops along the Niagara peninsula and across Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence.
3) The USA can interdict British attempts to remove them from the Great Lakes at several bottle necks where they hold
4) The USA can also attack via the Lac Champlain route.
5) The USA can move troops via the upper river systems of Quebec.
6) With concerted effort the USA can close the middle St. Lawrence and hence starve the British into submission (up until the steam ship era at least).

In short the British are surrounded. The USA can take Quebec and Labrador without difficulty. New Brunswick is then exposed on two flanks and that will also fall. Nova Scotia is unlikely to fall unless the British run out of ships for some reason. Then it might fall.

My second point was that the USA has no lever to compel the British to make these excessive concessions. You responded to this by reiteration your position that the British will yield to these terms if the negotiations are more speedy. This is frankly ridiculous, the British have not been comprehensively beaten, they have just spent more than they wanted to. Their golden goose has just stopped laying golden eggs and begun crapping on the hand that fed it, time to get rid of the goose. The British are no longer interested but they are not going to give the goose anything more than they have to just because it asks for it quickly. If you want the British to yield this territory you have to give the USA a lever, carrot or stick, it does not really matter but you do need a lever.

You seem to be wanting your cake and eating it with Rio Grande. Either it comes into the Union full of brown Roman Catholic people (far more than Texas) who abhor chattel slavery or it does not come into the Union until there are enough fine upstanding Christian white folks to put boot heel to neck in the place, which of course there won’t be because the brown Roman Catholic people will be watching what happens in Texas and laying their plans accordingly. There will be no immigration from the USA and no deeds of impresario. So in conclusion it won’t be admitted to the Union full of undermenschen and the undermenshcen will not make the mistakes Mexico made in Texas and California so it will never fill up with God’s own pure white people beloved of the Union.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Mmmm Eurofed, Had a look at your responses to my critique and I don’t think they hold up.

Ok, let's see.

Firstly, I am not sure what you mean by Western Canada in this context. It appears to mean Rupert’s Land from context. What becomes Canada West you have given away to the USA. Western Canada as in British Columbia, Victoria and (I think it was called?) Selkirk are yet to come and may not come ITTL.


I apologize for lack of clarity. In period terms, I was indeed referring to Rupert's Land. I meant Western Canada in the modern sense (prairie/pacific provinces).


Assuming you mean Rupert’s Land the place has become unviable the HBC only have what is in effect a 100 year lease and the USA controls all of the ports of entry to it except through Churchill on the Hudson bay or via the Brigade Express which was only a messenger trail. The terms you propose are such that the Company has no security of access and USA can close Rupert’s Land to the HBC in the year 1 post treaty never mind year 100 and neither the Company nor the British Government can do anything about it. Put simply the HBC would never accept it and lobby the British Government accordingly.


Sincerely, I cannot grasp what is so really terrible for the HBC about getting a 99-year lease on Rupert's Land with freedom of settlement for Americans. The duration of the lease doubles the time the HBC has been in control of the land already (1670-1882) and in all reasonable expectations fur resources are going to dwindle eventually, even by period expectations. The British military might is not so unconsequential for early America that they are going to blockade the HBC on a whim without minding UK military reprisals, and America is essentially interested in getting freedom of settlement in the area and clamping down UK strategic foothold in the area, they can let the HBC keep their fur trade business for decades. The HBC was born and built around Churchill as its main port, well before British Canada existed, and by 1783 there are huge stretches of wilderness between the main HBC turf and the rest of BNA.

1) The USA are only about one day’s march from Montreal.
2) The USA can supply troops along the Niagara peninsula and across Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence.
3) The USA can interdict British attempts to remove them from the Great Lakes at several bottle necks where they hold
4) The USA can also attack via the Lac Champlain route.
5) The USA can move troops via the upper river systems of Quebec.
6) With concerted effort the USA can close the middle St. Lawrence and hence starve the British into submission (up until the steam ship era at least).

In short the British are surrounded. The USA can take Quebec and Labrador without difficulty. New Brunswick is then exposed on two flanks and that will also fall. Nova Scotia is unlikely to fall unless the British run out of ships for some reason. Then it might fall.


So what is your point here ? Is it that a peace that gives Upper Canada AKA Ontario to America and guarantees them a phased leave of Britain from Rupert's Land AKA Western Canada is strategically intolerable for London, either the UK keeps everything or the peace has to make Lower Canada AKA Quebec American as well ? That a BNA and Canada that is limited to Quebec and the Maritimes cannot be done, either the USA get none of it or all of it, so we must drop the scenario, and discuss the (more clichè) PoDs that make all of Canada (except maybe the Maritimes) American in 1783 ?


My second point was that the USA has no lever to compel the British to make these excessive concessions. You responded to this by reiteration your position that the British will yield to these terms if the negotiations are more speedy. This is frankly ridiculous, the British have not been comprehensively beaten, they have just spent more than they wanted to. Their golden goose has just stopped laying golden eggs and begun crapping on the hand that fed it, time to get rid of the goose. The British are no longer interested but they are not going to give the goose anything more than they have to just because it asks for it quickly. If you want the British to yield this territory you have to give the USA a lever, carrot or stick, it does not really matter but you do need a lever.


I acknowledge the objection, which I tried to dodge because honestly I was not familair enough with the details of ARW to puzzle a PoD that would give America a good leverage/control on Ontario at the peace table but not Quebec. What about the PoDs that hzn5pk posted ? Are they good enough, is there something else possible, or have to throw Quebec in the package and find PoDs that give both Upper and Lower canada to the Patriots during the ARW ?

As a further justification about my territorial settlement choice, besides looking for a more original one than all of Canada, I can only mention that Upper Canada and Rupert's Land were essentially empty in 1783, while Lower Canada was fairly settled for ARW standards. Notwithstanding the sensible strategic issues you mentioned, this has to amount to some significant degree of differential value in the eyes of the British, besides the fur trade (concerns for which I tried to address with the lease idea, rather than giving Rupert's Land to America as once).

You seem to be wanting your cake and eating it with Rio Grande. Either it comes into the Union full of brown Roman Catholic people (far more than Texas) who abhor chattel slavery or it does not come into the Union until there are enough fine upstanding Christian white folks to put boot heel to neck in the place, which of course there won’t be because the brown Roman Catholic people will be watching what happens in Texas and laying their plans accordingly. There will be no immigration from the USA and no deeds of impresario. So in conclusion it won’t be admitted to the Union full of undermenschen and the undermenshcen will not make the mistakes Mexico made in Texas and California so it will never fill up with God’s own pure white people beloved of the Union.

In absolute terms, I take objection to the implication that Rio Grande was "full" of Mexicans ever enough to make it a racial problem for the US more than California and Texas. I acknowledge the problems that the interplay of slaver settlment and the antislavery feelings of Rio Grande Mexican voters may create about Rio Grande statehood.

I have another PoD that make Northern Mexico US, however. Rogue diplomat Tilsit tarries a bit more or Polk is a bit quicker in firing him, so he's fired before he can present the fait accompli of OTL treaty, the "official" US representatives sent by Polk arrive in time to take over peace negotations and they have a mandate to ask for Northern Mexico, too. Again, annexing relatively heavily populated southern Mexico was what gave racist troubles to the South and defeated the "All of Mexico" stance, the northern portion roughly down to Tampico was fairly empty like OTL Mexican Cession and few local "Catholic Browns" were not a big problem. If Polk has not to deal with the poltical inertia created by a signed treaty, he can easily enforce the expansionist-optimal "Half of Mexico" solution.
 
Last edited:
Top