AHC: 1837 Rebellions in the Canadas turn into major international war

Yes these rebellions certainly are not on the level of something like the American Revolution or French Revolution (hence why they are historical footnotes) and the Upper Canada Rebellion was pretty pathetic in and of itself (note the story of the battle in Toronto in my first post) but they do serve as an important launchpad for a US mounted invasion. Firstly they would give the US government a way to rally public support (to free fellow colonials fighting against British tyranny) that they didn't have the previous times they invaded BNA. Secondly they would have local allies in the Canadas that would support them (not just the Rebels themselves but a good chunk of the populations, particularly in Lower Canada) which had previously been almost entirely hostile to the US invading forces. Upper Canada probably would have less support for the rebels (and hence more support for the British regulars and colonial militia) than Lower Canada but it is also a lot more vulnerable to US invasion (much less fortified and less populated then Lower Canada at this time) and one would think that with the British forces in Lower Canada fighting the much larger rebel forces there that an early American invasion could sweep through the South Ontario Peninsula fairly easily. I would also argue that a direct American military intervention would cause a significant change in the nature and makeup of the rebellion, particularly in Lower Canada where a large portion of the Francophone population sympathized with the Patriotes but didn't actively join them. With the US actively joining the fight on the Patriot side you would think they would be able to draw much more material support form the populous than in OTL. Of course an American invasion would likely have the reverse effect on some of the populous there and push them to side with the British, but this too would definitely lead to an escalation of the conflict (which is the point of this thread).

Small note, the majority of the Francophone population in 1837 did not sympathize with the rebels. The sympathized with the Church, who followed the British lead.

The point I'm trying to make is that to get the widespread support on the ground which didn't exist historically is that you need to change the basic makeup and message of the rebels themselves.

To do that you at least need a POD in 1815.

Though to get a more willing US you probably need one in 1814.
 
Small note, the majority of the Francophone population in 1837 did not sympathize with the rebels. The sympathized with the Church, who followed the British lead.

The point I'm trying to make is that to get the widespread support on the ground which didn't exist historically is that you need to change the basic makeup and message of the rebels themselves.

To do that you at least need a POD in 1815.

Though to get a more willing US you probably need one in 1814.

Ok, I'll take your point that alienating the Catholic Church at this time does handicap the rebel cause in Lower Canada at this time, but there did seem to be at least a significant minority of the people who covertly supported the Patriotes. One would think these people would be emboldened if the Americans openly supported the Patriote cause and we might see some more violent conflicts even before the US reaches Lower Canada in force.

Having the UK badly administer Quebec is a pretty common POD in the "US annexes Canada" threads, but it seems pretty unlikely given the skillful way London administered the province both before and after the rebellions. Indeed Whitehall showed an usual degree of flexibility and adaptivity in administering their North American colonies (post American Revolution of course) compared to the other European colonial powers, which is probably why they never faced the kinds of violent revolts that pretty much all of the other settler colonies launched against their European masters (again the biggest case in point in the 19th century would be Spain).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Basically you need to get a situation where the Quebequois would rather be an American satellite than a British colony. Given the frankly impressive historical anti-Catholic animus in the US (remember, Kennedey was a shock for being a Catholic President!) then it'll be tricky - but not, of course, impossible, so long as you go far enough back.
 
Basically you need to get a situation where the Quebequois would rather be an American satellite than a British colony. Given the frankly impressive historical anti-Catholic animus in the US (remember, Kennedey was a shock for being a Catholic President!) then it'll be tricky - but not, of course, impossible, so long as you go far enough back.


I would think that the fact that a not-insignificant part of the population was already in open revolt and now the US would be joining them as an ally would go a long ways to ameliorating Quebecois fear and resentment of the US. Especially if the US press is able to market this as a war in support of a free and sovereign French Sate (the Patriots) rather than just a blatant land-grab by the US. This is in stark contrast to 1775 and 1812 where the US just decided to unilaterally march an army into Quebec and hoped the Quebecois (who were not in open conflict with the British) would see them as allies.

Ironically you could make the argument that Quebec today (and certainly Canada as a whole) IS a US satellite. Then again, who isn't nowadays...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
What would the logistics of projecting a Crimea sized army to North America be compared to what they were in OTL in the Crimean peninsula?
Easier than the OTL. Crimea's further, the Russians had one of the largest navies in Europe, and the British can unload onto actual ports instead of (as OTL) basically mounting an over-the-beach invasion. The British also handled supplies for basically the entire Sevastopol siege force (meaning all the French as well) and here they're just supplying their "own".

That said, it's a sail period rather than a steam period - but then again the British supplied large forces up and down North American in the War of 1812, including one in New Orleans which is several thousand miles further.
 
Easier than the OTL. Crimea's further, the Russians had one of the largest navies in Europe, and the British can unload onto actual ports instead of (as OTL) basically mounting an over-the-beach invasion. The British also handled supplies for basically the entire Sevastopol siege force (meaning all the French as well) and here they're just supplying their "own".

That said, it's a sail period rather than a steam period - but then again the British supplied large forces up and down North American in the War of 1812, including one in New Orleans which is several thousand miles further.

This is an aside, but I seem to remember that during the Crimean war the British soldiers were actually quite woefully equipped compared to the French troops.

Anyway, how far do you think the British could conceivably project that army inland? Unlike Crimea, the core territory they would have to retake (and hold) would be up to hundreds of miles away from the nearest blue-water port.
 
As much as I would love to help the case of my nations homeland, I have to point out that people are forgetting about the First Nations.

In the war of 1812 Tecumseh's coalition and other Native allies were an important ally for the British, with a handful holding off an American invasion force for hours at one point. I don't know what the Native population was like in the 1830's but I do know that they were no longer a serious threat after the War. Without them the defense of the sparsely populated and undeveloped Upper Canada is going to be a lot harder.
 
How about a slightly different PoD - France has more success in the Napoleonic Wars, possibly with a more successful campaign in Spain, and the British are forced to spend even more manpower holding the line in Europe. This allows the United States to do better in the War of 1812: the invasions of Canada have modest success (though eventually do fail), the Royal Navy is slightly less successful at holding the blockade, Washington DC never burns, etc.

You'd get essentially the same peace treaty - the United States certainly can't threaten Britain directly, and the Canadians were happy being British North America - but the US could view it as a victory (We beat up the British until they stopped kidnapping our sailors! and whatnot) and British prestige takes a small blow in BNA. Fast forward fifteen years, and some form of revolt in Lower Canada appears with broader support, and you have a United States that might look at this as an opportunity to weaken the British and secure more favorable western borders.

The source PoD also provides enough change in Europe that somebody could be rivaling the British there, and view the revolts as a good opportunity to get one over on their rival.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This is an aside, but I seem to remember that during the Crimean war the British soldiers were actually quite woefully equipped compared to the French troops.

Anyway, how far do you think the British could conceivably project that army inland? Unlike Crimea, the core territory they would have to retake (and hold) would be up to hundreds of miles away from the nearest blue-water port.
I don't think the British were woefully equipped in terms of combat power - they all had Minie rifles (TTL it'll be flintlock muskets - the conversion to percussion is 1839).

Something also worth noting is that this is a time when the paddle steamer is coming in - transporting things across the Atlantic is easier than before (less risk of becalming).


Anyway, as to your question about projecting power inland, they don't need to get all that far inland. The core territory of Canada is the Quebec-Winsdor corridor, which is pretty much all either near the St. Lawrence or near the Lakes - the lower Lakes, that is. (The First Welland Canal has been built.)
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
May want to consider when the 1837 rebellions began...

May want to consider when the 1837 rebellions (historically) began; the St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, and Welland aren't going to be of much use other than as skating rinks in the winter of 1837-38.

Winter in Canada (and the Great Lakes states in the US) is somewhat limiting on marine transport, after all.:rolleyes:

As an example, the "white hurricane" of November, 1913:

great-lakes-storm-of-1913.png


Best,
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'll take your point that alienating the Catholic Church at this time does handicap the rebel cause in Lower Canada at this time, but there did seem to be at least a significant minority of the people who covertly supported the Patriotes. One would think these people would be emboldened if the Americans openly supported the Patriote cause and we might see some more violent conflicts even before the US reaches Lower Canada in force.

Well the question is how one defines 'significant minority'. Most of the population remained apathetic to the fighting and wanted to stay out of it. The hotbed of rebel activity was the so called "Six Counties" which is where the fighting took place.

The alienation of the Church and the fact that the colonial elites were dead set against the (admittedly unclear) goals of the rebels was effectively a death sentence to any kind of popular revolt. It took recruiting people inside the US for the rebellion to even last into 1838!

If you can find a way to not alienate the Church then you have a very good opportunity for the rebellion to spread.

Having the UK badly administer Quebec is a pretty common POD in the "US annexes Canada" threads, but it seems pretty unlikely given the skillful way London administered the province both before and after the rebellions. Indeed Whitehall showed an usual degree of flexibility and adaptivity in administering their North American colonies (post American Revolution of course) compared to the other European colonial powers, which is probably why they never faced the kinds of violent revolts that pretty much all of the other settler colonies launched against their European masters (again the biggest case in point in the 19th century would be Spain).

Well absent the British significantly mismanaging events in Lower Canada from 1815 onwards it is difficult to get the people of Lower Canada to be willing to see the British as tyrants.

As history has shown, a rebellion itself is not enough for a power to get involved. If the rebels look like they will be crushed before you can get involved there's no reason to risk relations and blood in an effort to intervene. The rebels would need to accomplish something in order to motivate American intervention, if say Montreal falls to the rebels I think the Americans would be far more likely to move themselves to action.
 
If one avoids the 1837 panic in order to get American involvement, there's a very good chance the Upper Canadian rebellion never even gets off the ground. The huge restriction of credit was a major motivator for the people. Keep in mind that MacKenzie wasn't even sure he was willing to rebel until less than a week beforehand and that the Duncombe revolt only happened because he'd heard that MacKenzie had seized Toronto.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
British inland power projection in the 19th century:

Kandahar (400 NM or so from Karachi), Lhasa (again about 400 NM), or Omdurman (again, about 500 miles). ...Omdurman of course, being on the Nile. If you apply that criteria, then Kabul (1839-42) is probably the furthest at about 590 NM from Karachi.

(pdf27)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not aware the Nile froze over, or that the Raj

British inland power projection in the 19th century:Kandahar (400 NM or so from Karachi), Lhasa (again about 400 NM), or Omdurman (again, about 500 miles). ...Omdurman of course, being on the Nile. If you apply that criteria, then Kabul (1839-42) is probably the furthest at about 590 NM from Karachi.

(pdf27)

Not aware the Nile froze over, or that the Raj fought winter campaigns over the Hindu Kush or the Himalayas.

The things one learns...:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Top