AHC: Britain takes Michigan's UP in Treaty of Ghent

[anim8orkid]

This is for a TL I'm working on. I know there are plenty of threads on this forum about British gains in the War of 1812, but I haven't noticed a lot of threads about this specific topic. What could have led to the cession of Michigan's Upper Peninsula back to British control in the terms of the Treaty of Ghent?

From my understanding, the British didn't commit as forcefully to North America in the conflict due to the Napoleonic Wars. What I'd prefer for this scenario is for there to be no major long term changes in Europe because I want to minimize the butterfly effect there.

Is a more forceful British campaign in Lower Canada realistic considering the conditions of the European front? Could their annexation of the UP (or any part of the NW Territory) be considered a realistic option without greatly affecting the course of the Sixth and Seventh Coalition Wars?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

One problem is that a more forceful British campaign isn't realistic at all given that you want Napoleon to win the War of the Third Coalition (British and allies best chance for a smackdown, if you ignore the 1st one).

The only way for more gains to be make is if the British existing forces did well. Remember, the British considered the American front a distraction.

And by this time, the British considered almost everything east of the Mississippi nothing they wanted to touch. They'd assume the Americans would squat just as the colonists ignore their orders decades earlier (in fact more reason to do so now. A better British campaign might result in them demanding reparations. Or maybe the dismantling of the US navy (if the Americans sack York or something impritant in Canada before the British do well). Or perhaps New Orleans (I don't know, they wanted it from the French the moment Louis met guillotine, but by 1812 maybe they stopped caring). Maybe ask for a "favor" which would allow them to take Oregon at a later date when they call it in? All three?

 

[anim8orkid]

Fair enough. Is there a precedent, then, for the UP to return to British control sometime between the end of the Revolutionary War (specifically 1783) and the early 1800s? Maybe the Jay Treaty? What about after the War of 1812 (besides the Toledo War?) My knowledge of all the inner workings of these agreements is limited, but I'm curious about how this could happen seeing as there were already Canadian settlements in Michigan anyway.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Someone once claimed that if Tarleton overpowered and the British Legion won, the British plan might work. I described it here. http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-british-legion-won-1781.421102/

Now the historian behind my speculation claimed that if the British Legion won, USA would just be Philadelphia, New England, and New York except the city (think Singapore).

The thing is, I pointed out in that post that perhaps Tarleton's success wouldn't make that much of a difference. He seemed liked a hot headed commander who would fall for a trap anyways. Or just bite his unit's teeth on some fort. And even avoiding all that, if he went according to plan, he wouldn't find anything suspicious about losing contact with the boss since that would be expected. So, he might end up doing nothing useful. Granted, the other guy is a historian and I'm not, but sometimes they get this wrong. At least one American historian claimed an American midway disaster would lead to the loss of Midway Island... except that the defenders outnumbered the Japanese there and a host a zillion reasons why the odds of them taking it would be below 40% to say the least.

However, there is a middle ground. Whoever partnered up with Crawley does history for living, so he might have seen something that he didn't think was important to put in his limited space, so give him the benefit of doubt. Maybe Tarleton can't save his boss if the British Legion won at Cowpens, but he can still go around seizing rebel nests. Maybe when the peace treaty comes, the Americans give up the UP since the miltiary situation, while favorable to the Patriots, isn't completely gone to the rebels. The rebels really only want the 13 colonies and the Ohio river valley (read: Indian land) anyways. Under this situation an interesting side effect is that the British might be able to force the Patriots to honor all debts the Patriots had to Loyalists and compensate property seizures. The American government will have extra debt (because the population is poorer I assume the tax base shrink) but don't worry a lot of it is French so when the French revolution comes, they can just default and give revolutionary France the middle finger, so America won't be that much worse off in the long run finances wise.

Now, the Jay Treaty is an interesting one. At around this time, America doesn't really care for that piece of land yet either. The problem is that the British don't really feel like having it either. I don't think they really have extensive settlements in Michigan. Perhaps to save face, America can claim "yeah we were too broke to pay off compensation to loyalists, but this land is worth exactly that amount." Around this time the former British colony and its motherland were actually warming up. If America was slightly more butt-kissing, they might give the region or sell it for a steep discount.

 

[The Gunslinger]

The UP would have to have been held before any War of 1812, because the British will only take it after the war as part of a larger piece of the old Northwest. What they really want is Michigan proper, and if they didn't do well enough to get that than they'll just opt for the white peace and keep the Americans happy. The war will either see lots of territory being taken, or none. The UP adds no strategic depth to Canada and that's what they were really after.

 

[The Professor]

The UP adds no strategic depth to Canada and that's what they were really after.

The challenge then is to add an economic incentive. Perhaps a stronger Hudson Co presence so that holding the upper nw gives a stronger presence on the Mississippi? This would also impact all the boundaries westward. Not necessarily detrimental to the US but definitely beneficial to what will be Canada.

 

[funnyhat]

The UP has abundant copper resources, but I don't think they knew that at the time.

Dividing the Great Lakes the way they did was the most logical solution. If you give the UP to Britain, it may as well also include the Lower Peninsula. Regardless, you would end up with a land border, which is less secure.

 

[The Professor]

Ooc but I've just realised the op is "animator kid" not "animate orchid". Sorry dude!

 

[The Gunslinger]

The challenge then is to add an economic incentive. Perhaps a stronger Hudson Co presence so that holding the upper nw gives a stronger presence on the Mississippi? This would also impact all the boundaries westward. Not necessarily detrimental to the US but definitely beneficial to what will be Canada.

The Americans had virtually no presence there until after the war. The Indians seized and burned anything that belonged to them (and the Americans burned the Northwest company's base of operations too). It would take far more than economic incentive to get the Americans to willingly negotiate it away because at Ghent the issue didn't even come up so they didn't really consider it an issue.

 

[anim8orkid]

I can't really blame you, Professor! It's an old username I've been using since I was an actual kid.

 

[anim8orkid]

Gunslinger, since the terms of the Jay Treaty were considered to be "surprisingly generous" to the U.S., is it more conceivable then that the U.S. gives up the UP to create a more even distribution of the Great Lakes (giving Canada more control of Superior just as the U.S. has control of virtually all of Lake Michigan), perhaps in a stronger attempt to placate Southern Senators who were wary of northern expansion? Or do we have to go all the way back to the Treaty of Paris (1783) for something like that to make sense?

 

[funnyhat]

Gunslinger, since the terms of the Jay Treaty were considered to be "surprisingly generous" to the U.S., is it more conceivable then that the U.S. gives up the UP to create a more even distribution of the Great Lakes (giving Canada more control of Superior just as the U.S. has control of virtually all of Lake Michigan), perhaps in a stronger attempt to placate Southern Senators who were wary of northern expansion? Or do we have to go all the way back to the Treaty of Paris (1783) for something like that to make sense?

It was really the 1783 treaty that was generous. The Jay Treaty basically just enforced the terms of that treaty.

 

[Just a Rube]

Concerns about Northern expansion are more of a later issue; it's not a coincidence that most of the 1812 "War Hawks" dreaming of conquering Canada were from the South or West while the doves tended to be from New England. Slavery was much less of an issue at that point (remember that even most of the "free" states had adopted plans for gradual emancipation, so e.g. New York's emancipation act didn't officially end slavery for everyone until 1827, despite having passed the law in 1799), while expansionism for expansionism's sake was a big deal.

More broadly, the Jay Treaty was already incredibly unpopular; if it gave away US territory as well, it would be rejected out of hand.

Pre-1783 the borders are fluid enough that the final line could be drawn in any of a number of places, but after the Treaty of Paris, a British attempt to annex American territory is going to be seen as aggression and make the US angry. If the British want to take the UP, they also need to take enough other land to weaken the Americans to the point that they no longer matter; just taking the UP will only antagonize them but leave them unharmed enough to likely to align with France or other British enemies.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Gunslinger, since the terms of the Jay Treaty were considered to be "surprisingly generous" to the U.S., is it more conceivable then that the U.S. gives up the UP to create a more even distribution of the Great Lakes (giving Canada more control of Superior just as the U.S. has control of virtually all of Lake Michigan), perhaps in a stronger attempt to placate Southern Senators who were wary of northern expansion? Or do we have to go all the way back to the Treaty of Paris (1783) for something like that to make sense?

The Jay Treaty just cleared up problems from the revolution. So any border adjustments would have to take place then because if the Jay Treaty had swapped land there would have been rioting in the streets of America.

 

[The Professor]

The Americans had virtually no presence there until after the war. The Indians seized and burned anything that belonged to them (and the Americans burned the Northwest company's base of operations too). It would take far more than economic incentive to get the Americans to willingly negotiate it away because at Ghent the issue didn't even come up so they didn't really consider it an issue.

I meant economic for the British politicians tbh but I see your point. I suspect a Treaty of Paris POD will be needed which goes against the Ghent requirement.

 

[anim8orkid]

I meant economic for the British politicians tbh but I see your point. I suspect a Treaty of Paris POD will be needed which goes against the Ghent requirement.

We could retroactively ignore the Ghent requirement for the scenario since it's become clear that this might be way too late for the British to annex any more territory without consequences. At this point, I agree a Treaty of Paris POD is a good starting point. What is the likelihood of the Brits keeping the UP and maybe some other northern lands (such as portions of Maine and/or Minnesota) from the get-go since they're already granting the Americans control of vast swathes of the Northwest Territory anyway? Then by the time the Jay Treaty rolls around technically the U.S. won't be giving anything up?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

UP Michigan isn't a geographical thing, really. If someone gets 'UP', they're going to get e.g. large chunks of Wisconsin.

Let's say that (harder negotiating by the Brits for the Jay Treaty, a worse War of 1812 for the US) that Britain demands, and gets, the border moved from 49° to 45°. That would give them the vast bulk of OTL's UP.

 

[anim8orkid]

Pre-1783 the borders are fluid enough that the final line could be drawn in any of a number of places, but after the Treaty of Paris, a British attempt to annex American territory is going to be seen as aggression and make the US angry. If the British want to take the UP, they also need to take enough other land to weaken the Americans to the point that they no longer matter; just taking the UP will only antagonize them but leave them unharmed enough to likely to align with France or other British enemies.

This is a very specific question, but for my timeline, I have a strict POD no earlier than 1 January 1783 (for secondary reasons I'll reveal if/when I post the finish TL at a later date). Since the preliminary boundaries and terms of negotiation for the Paris treaty were already signed on 30 November 1782, is there any chance that the borders could be shifted (say the British want to keep a few forts along the Great Lakes after all) between 1 Jan 1783 and 3 September 1783 without sparking outrage?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

It's going to be the Jay Treaty or American Revolution. In the war of 1812, there just isn't a realistic way for the British to pick that over something like reparations and maybe dismantling of the USN (if the war goes thaaaat bad).

 

[TimTurner]

It's going to be the Jay Treaty or American Revolution. In the war of 1812, there just isn't a realistic way for the British to pick that over something like reparations and maybe dismantling of the USN (if the war goes thaaaat bad).

what happens if it's ceded to Britain in the Jay's treaty? what happens next?