AHC/PC : Both sides of Great Lakes in British Canada

Apparently, despite the Treaty of Paris clauses, Britain kept under its control several forts and locations on the southern part of the Great Lakes, such as Detroit.

While not talking about a British control of the whole OTL Great Lakes states, would have it be possible to have a maintained control on both sides, northern and southern, of the region?
What would have been the consequences?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, and a) a militarized border, and b) war

Apparently, despite the Treaty of Paris clauses, Britain kept under its control several forts and locations on the southern part of the Great Lakes, such as Detroit.

While not talking about a British control of the whole OTL Great Lakes states, would have it be possible to have a maintained control on both sides, northern and southern, of the region?
What would have been the consequences?

Kind of what happened in reality. Didn't work out well, because the British had things much closer to home to worry about from 1783-1815...

Worth remembering is that after 1815, the British never saw any point in really fighting over the US-BNA boundaries, whether in Maine, the Great Lakes, the Old Northwest/Upper Great Plains, or the Pacific Northwest.

There was nothing worth the expense, frankly; there's a reason Confederation came about, and it wasn't because Nova Scotians and British Columbians loved each other...

Best,
 
There's my TL (yes, yes, I need to.get back to it).

Theres Crown and Tomahawk
And British Imperialism of the 18th century, just off the top of my head.
 
Top