AHC: USA Takes Upper Canada in 1812

As it says, have america win in canada during 1812 and annex upper canada.
On a side note: what would the butterflies be?
 
Even if they can capture it, being able to hold onto it - especially after 1814 - is another matter entirely. Ironically, things will probably turn out worse for the United States if Britain is given motivation to pursue the war with any effort.
 
Probably another status quo peace. Britain will deem the US to be a greater threat, and will commit more resources to the NA America sideshow. America will suffer a string of humiliating defeats as they cannot compete with Britain either economically or militarily.

Nevertheless its difficult to boot America out of positions in upper Canada. The peace treaty is therefore view negatively in the coming years, with many Americans feeling as though they had "won the war" against their nation's arch nemesis only to have politicians sign it away.
 
It's going to be a real problem for a vast segment of the small population who were American and had emigrated to get away from this crap.
 
Some butterflies of USA obtaining Upper Canada in 1815 peace treaty with Britain might be that USA gets more land in the future above the 49th parallel.

Especially if the USA pays for Upper Canada in the peace treaty with Britain to end War of 1812. I see the USA obtaining all of the Red River drainage basin (lower half of OTL Manitoba and Saskatchewan).

The Aroostook matter and Oregon country will be settled the same as OTL. Britain wants a Pacific base. Maybe eventually USA obtains all of the mainland in OTL BC and Alberta and Britain keeps Vancouver Island, but I see Britain keeping all of Oregon country above the 49th.

In the USA, the population of Lower Canada will boom and it will become a state in 1820's or 1830's. The Eerie canal will still be completed, but Toronto or another city on the Great Lakes with access to the St. Lawrence will compete more with New York.

The free state, slave state admission process will need another slave state for balance or tensions arise to untenable Union sooner. Perhaps this leads to two Texas states, or a second state south of the Rio Grande that is open to slavery? Texas may become a state sooner promping the War with Mexico to be sooner. Perhaps Indian territory become a state? Perhaps Florida is two states, or Cuba is taken away from Spain to be a state. Or just that the tensions rise sooner in national politics to the breaking point.
 
Physically taking Upper Canada isn't impossible, but gaining it politically would be hard considering it was largely settled by Loyalists who escaped after the Revolution.
 
I see the USA obtaining all of the Red River drainage basin (lower half of OTL Manitoba and Saskatchewan).

The Aroostook matter and Oregon country will be settled the same as OTL.

These sentences are in direct conflict with one another, at least to me.

…a second state south of the Rio Grande that is open to slavery? …Cuba…

These seem most likely, but it's equally possible the war could just happen earlier.
 
Completely change the nature of the war into an opurtunistic landgrab in a napoleonic war that the British are losing hard in.
 
Last edited:
Completely change the nature of the war into an opurtunistic landgrab in a napoleonic war that the British are losing hard in.

Britain wasn't exactly 'losing hard' overall in the Napoleonic Wars, given that it was the beginning of the end by 1812; with French power starting to crumble in all of their various conquered areas. It took until 1814 for the collapse to be total, though.
 
The US will need to be militarily viable for this to take place and there isn't much basis for the militia being capable of this.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The US will need to be militarily viable for this to take place and there isn't much basis for the militia being capable of this.

Well, they did have some leaders that were amazing officers. Of course...the one I'm thinking about got hit in the head by a rock when the British set off the powder magazine at York...


...poor Zebulon Pike...you're the only guy I'm interested enough to write a pre-1900 story about...
 
Okay my idea for making this possible is to have the RN fail pretty bad in a few battles against the French so that a Napoleonic Sea Mammal is a real possibility and Britain withdraws its forces home for home defense

Now assuming Napoleon does nothing stupid (cough Russia cough) and is still going strong when 1812 rolls around, assuming somehow the war starts on schedule, Britain has pulled many of its Regulars out of Canada and after a few bloody campaigns the Americans are able to seize it.

With the threat of a French Invasion of Britain the British sign a peace treaty to keep the USA from taking even more (upper Canada is not all of Canada) and allow them to focus on the French and not spend troops ships and money on fighting the US
 
As an AHC, shouldn't we try to make it possible:confused:

But I think the point is that is physically not doable.

Once the British have the window to throw their forces at the Americans they are toast aand we all should recognize that.

As stated, with a better overall start at the outset...The US could with difficulty occupy Loyalist Upper Canada... certainly the Niagara and the SW peninsula. The North Shore of Lake Ontario, all prime Loyalist held and occupied terr. will be somewhat more difficult and require a substantial occupation force.


Given that the Americans will simply have presented themselves as more of a nuisance than the British originally consigned them too.....Once the French start to crumble.. forces will be diverted to retake the terr. occupied by the Americans. Britain will not quit until they are expelled....it would be a matter of national honour having been stabbed in the back as such while pre-occupied with the French.

Thus the war is a bit longer and the economic screws are turned on NE commerce that much tighter...they probably do succeed from the Union.

Argueably the bumbling course of the American war effort saved the Union from a severe drubbing that they would not soon forget.

And before someone else mentions it... Napoleon may very well escape and win at Waterloo ( butterflies however dictate that perhaps he never escapes from Elba, thus no 100 days)... but by then the tide had turned. Britain is less influential at the COf V but Napoleon is finished as the Russians, Austrians, and Prussians will see to it. There may or may not be a Bourbon restitution. It will depend on just how things transpire.
 
Okay my idea for making this possible is to have the RN fail pretty bad in a few battles against the French so that a Napoleonic Sea Mammal is a real possibility and Britain withdraws its forces home for home defense

Now assuming Napoleon does nothing stupid (cough Russia cough) and is still going strong when 1812 rolls around, assuming somehow the war starts on schedule, Britain has pulled many of its Regulars out of Canada and after a few bloody campaigns the Americans are able to seize it.

With the threat of a French Invasion of Britain the British sign a peace treaty to keep the USA from taking even more (upper Canada is not all of Canada) and allow them to focus on the French and not spend troops ships and money on fighting the US

After the purges of the Revolution...the French Navy is simply not even remotely capable of the feat you are suggesting... all the aristocratic officers with experience have been purged by the excesses of the revolution that went before. Its now filled with revolutionary sychophants and opportunists of only mediocre calibre, less competent that even their Spanish counterparts. A fact that the Spanish are well aware of and will chafe at having to take direction from the French Admirals in overall command. Witness Trafalgar and its aftermath.
 
After the purges of the Revolution...the French Navy is simply not even remotely capable of the feat you are suggesting... all the aristocratic officers with experience have been purged by the excesses of the revolution that went before. Its now filled with revolutionary sychophants and opportunists of only mediocre calibre, less competent that even their Spanish counterparts. A fact that the Spanish are well aware of and will chafe at having to take direction from the French Admirals in overall command. Witness Trafalgar and its aftermath.
And the same thing pretty much happened to the French Army, though to an admittedly lesser degree, they fixed it given time, what is to say given time and resources they can't do the same at sea

Not saying this is likely but France has the resources to do so, not likely but not impossible
 
Last edited:
These sentences are in direct conflict with one another, at least to me.



These seem most likely, but it's equally possible the war could just happen earlier.


What I am getting at is that the Brits will still want to keep the lands on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts but are more willing to give up land in the interior.

If the USA buys Upper Canada as part of the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812, the British may be willing to sell the Red River Basin in the Treaty of 1818. OTL, the Brits and the USA swapped land with the 49th parallel being the boundary. If the USA has Upper Canada, this makes the land of the Red River basin less attractive to the British. Say a treaty, where the USA buys the land, but the HBC still has fur trapping rights in the territory for 20 years.

In the 1830's, the Aroostook dispute in Maine, still goes down the same as OTL. The British want to keep it for communication and travel between Nova Scotia and Quebec.

In the 1840's, Oregon country is settled the same as OTL. The British want to keep a Pacific presence.
 
Well, they did have some leaders that were amazing officers. Of course...the one I'm thinking about got hit in the head by a rock when the British set off the powder magazine at York...


...poor Zebulon Pike...you're the only guy I'm interested enough to write a pre-1900 story about...

Pike was damn good, I didn't know he was at York.
 
Once the British have the window to throw their forces at the Americans they are toast aand we all should recognize that.

The British did do exactly that OTL and still failed. They wanted a huge buffer in the west to check US expansion to the west. They organized THREE major invasions to force the US to accept the British proposal and failed each time.

Given that the Americans will simply have presented themselves as more of a nuisance than the British originally consigned them too.....Once the French start to crumble.. forces will be diverted to retake the terr. occupied by the Americans. Britain will not quit until they are expelled....it would be a matter of national honour having been stabbed in the back as such while pre-occupied with the French.

I doubt it. The war was hurting the British economy as much as it did New England's. The British public was already tired from the war and demanded an end to it. The US had trained a regular army based on European standards that went undefeated. It would have been a bloody drawn-out war if the British continued to press. The British knew that. One British diplomat said after peace was established that if there would be a future war with the United States, it would be impossible to defend Canada successfully.
 
Top