AHC/WI: Decisive UK victory in the war of 1812

For that 40/60 do you mean that it would be a 40% change of the British not trying to keep it or a 40% of the Britain not managing to keep it at all? Because IMO I have hard time believing that if it comes to war that the US wouldn't seize relatively easily, especially by the time railroads reached southern Illinois. Would the British really even want it to come to war against the US?

Also about the 4-5 million figure, why would Canada get so much many more people just because of Michigan and Northern Illinois? I mean I get them having more land directly free for settlement but Michigan in 1850 had just 400k people and altogether I don't imagine Canada going over 3 or 4 million people even with immigration mostly because from what I see most of US growth was actually local growth until the 1840-1850 period. As I understand Canada had about 2 million people in 1850 IOTL, with Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota I can see them reaching 3 million but in itself would those annexed areas really have much more people than they had under the US?

40% Britain keeping it and 60% selling it off later.

As to another war, it would depend on a) The Americans feeling up to challenging the British again (not incredibly likely within 20 years of peace IMO) or b) the British feeling that the investments made in the region are worth defending. Historically the defended Canada on principle vs. for its greater economic benefits, but if Canada becomes a more profitable colony then they might see it in their interests to press the issue. And when they were not exactly winning a definite victory they were more cautious, but in a scenario where they win decisively, well who can say?

4-5 million includes immigration and natural increase. Higher immigration probably tips Canada over the 3 million mark by 1850, but with larger settler families (and period growth rates) I'm willing to bet the population is about double its historic size by 1850, and by later in the 1800s is probably pushing 5 million. This does assume higher settler rates, largely on the basis of canal projects attracting workers and more land being opened for settlement "filling" Ontario sooner than OTL which pushes casual settlers west while increasing cities like Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec, and Detroit.

Admittedly 5 million by 1850 is a bit of a stretch, but 4 million is easily doable with the land Canada has to offer even before including any land seized in the war, here I'm just positing bigger growth rates from a healthier economy and higher settlement patterns.
 
The Canadian rebellions are pretty murky and still need a lot of research IMHO. But i'll make some general statements.

In anything west of Upper Canada you likely see little, if any rebellion. Much of the rebellion in Upper Canada was tied to land ownership and land management by the government, especially the crown and clergy reserves. This kind of rolled naturally into general opposition to the legislative council and formed the whole affair. These issues won't go away, but they'll be dimmed in a more heavily settled Upper Canada. So you could see more soft opposition to the regime but less hard action against it. Michigan won't see any of this for the simple reason that the issue was well understood by the time 1812 rolled around. As to why there was no significant reform to the land system in 25 years, well... that blame falls on the legislative council who wanted the land firmly for the government to distribute and for themselves (and the other wealthy elite) to prosper from speculation.

The rebellion in Lower Canada is much better understood and documented, though it's been grasped by nationalists who have bent the story. It was almost wholly economic and restricted to the areas immediately surrounding Montreal. The land in question was being flooded by Anglo settlers and the poorer French locals were being pushed off their land. Most of this was due to poor farming practices by the French peasants (and they were peasants as opposed to farmers) who were extremely suspicious of new land management techniques and farming practices. Their farms were less productive and the rising rents was forcing them off their lands (this is why the peasants had such wide support for the rebellion while the landowners had literally no support for it). The liberal middle class also resisted the British for fear that they would lose their influence in government were continued reforms to take place (the Lower Canadian civil law differed heavily from the British common law). When rebellion comes, it's largely because the middle class dupes the peasants into thinking it's the Anglo who's to blame for their misfortunes.

Why didn't it spread beyond Montreal? Well for starters, the land was pretty thickly settled with Francophones and there weren't a lot of Anglos pushing up rents. The rest of Quebec was also heavily tethered to the British Empire economically. Shipping, shipbuilding and government in Quebec City saw almost no support for the rebels. The proto-industry at St. Maurice likewise saw little support. Even the timber and fur trade saw little support, and they employed a huge number of Lower Canadians.

I think any rebellion in Lower Canada will be more violent but be a smaller total percentage of the total population (due to increased immigration).
 
In a scenario with more Anglophones and the Lower Canadian rebellion being the only one and possibly even stronger because of more immigrants, is it possible that the British or Anglophone Canadian would react in reprisal? possibly reducing the size of Quebec or stuff like that? I'm not that knowledgable of internal Canadian politics, be it modern or historical.
 
In a scenario with more Anglophones and the Lower Canadian rebellion being the only one and possibly even stronger because of more immigrants, is it possible that the British or Anglophone Canadian would react in reprisal? possibly reducing the size of Quebec or stuff like that? I'm not that knowledgable of internal Canadian politics, be it modern or historical.

Prior to the rebellion there was talk of attaching Montreal and the eastern townships to Upper Canada, but since the two were unified in 1840 it was a moot point.
 
Honestly they might arrive at the opposite conclusion and say "well we know armies are dangerous, but who ever heard of the navy launching a coup?" and decide that investing in the navy is their best bet. It would have been after all the RN's total dominance of the sea and interior waterways which allowed them to carry out such a victory, and the blockade would have done the vast amount of the economic damage.

I could see them taking the "safer" bet and just doing the bare minimum with the army, while expanding the navy as much as possible to be, while not a competitor to Britain, just strong enough to make a European power think twice about tangling with them on the open seas.
that is certainly possible. Depends a lot on just how the war goes. If it is mainly a blockade/naval action, then yes. But it seems more likely that the Brits are more likely to have a lot of boots on the grounds to get this war won so decisively, and the US is going to have to take a hard look at ground troops...
 
that is certainly possible. Depends a lot on just how the war goes. If it is mainly a blockade/naval action, then yes. But it seems more likely that the Brits are more likely to have a lot of boots on the grounds to get this war won so decisively, and the US is going to have to take a hard look at ground troops...

Too true. It's a judgement call really on the author's part, and on the habits/financial burdens of the immediate administration after the Madison Administration.
 
In some sense they did. They viewed their war against Napoleon the main one and North America as a theatre of that war since they thought Napoleon must have encouraged deserters to go to America. in the eyes of the contemporaries, they might have had an embarrassment at New Orleans in the NA theatre but they won that war decisively at Waterloo
 
I remember seeing an ATL about the 1812 war, where Britain made use of its influence and Empire, and secured the American West Coast. But I have no recollection of where I saw it!
 
Top