Britain keeps more land after the ARW: the basis for a Super-Canada?

Skallagrim

Banned
It's an interesting fact that most Canada-wanks tend to have a POD involving the War of 1812. Very rarely does the ARW get brought into it, and this surprises me. Suppose for a moment that Britain does better in the ARW (I'm thinking of a vague scenario where no foreign power comes to the aid of the fledgling USA). As a result, while the USA still successfully secedes from British rule, Britain holds on to land that was gained by the USA in OTL, but as of the ARW's end, wasn't actually occupied by the USA at all. I'm thinking of all of Ohio Country, the regions occupied by the Iroqois, and the northern regions of Maine.

On the map below, everything marked in orange remains British. Of the yellow areas (the Indian reserve), the areas north of the Ohio (roughly corresponding to Iroqois territory) also remain British, while the much larger region south of the Ohio goes to the USA as per OTL. Additionally, the northern regions of Maine (disputed for some time after the ARW in OTL) remain in British hands. So do West and East Florida (returned to Spain in OTL; that doesn't happen here).

Situation in 1775 North America Portland State University.jpg


...doesn't this provide a basis for an instant Canada-wank? It surprises me that everyone is always trying to get an Indian buffer state created in the War of 1812, covering part of the Ohio Country/North-West Territory... when a POD in the ARW can simply prevent the USA from getting any of the Ogio Country in the first place. Similarly, people are concerning themselves with ways to give Canada a strip of land belonging to New York in OTL, to facilitate the creation of a St. Lawrence canal... but again, a POD in the ARW can ensure that this land never falls into the hands of the USA to begin with.

Am I crazy, or is an ARW-related POD the superior starting point for an ambitious Canada-wank? Presuming that Britain is dedicated to actually keeping US settlers out of the relevant areas (or at least dedicated to ensuring that any such settlers cannot secede the areas from Britain and join the USA), the whole of British North America is now in a much better starting position:

-- It's got far more useful land (the Ohio Country).

-- It's got the ability to contruct a St. Lawrence Canal.

-- It actually controls land that the USA would need to construct an Erie Canal (so assume that there will be no Erie Canal).

-- It has Northern Maine, where it will later be able to build a very useful railroad from the coast to Montréal.

In short, British North America gets a huge boost, while the USA is rather screwed (though hardly hopelessly so) compared to OTL. This doesn't even go into the fact that without French involvement in the ARW (the presumed POD?), the French revolution may just be prevented, or turned into a much milder affair (resulting in constitutional monarchy). That, in turn, means that Spain keeps Louisiana Country (no Napoleon to grab it off them). Not having Florida (which stays British), Spain will have just a few more settlers for Louisiana. They may not be interested in selling it to the USA, especially not if Britain is opposed to such a transaction. This, too, limits the ability of the USA to ever pose a threat to British North America.

At the same time, without the Napoleonic Wars, Britain will have more time and energy available to invest in North America. Keeping in mind that British colonisation of Australia was at least partially instigated by the loss of North America as a huge dumping ground for convicts and other undesirables, this ATL (which is based on Britain retaining more of North America) may well be one wherein British is much less interested in Australia, and keeps sending convict ships west to ensure that the Ohio Country gets well-populated before the USA can start moving in on it...

Truly, I see the makings of a very ambitious Canada-wank here.
 
The settlement patterns will be very strange in such a Canada. You'll have Upper and Lower Canada being filled using the St. Lawrence and then the northern banks of the Ohio River, and the two societies will have very little to do with each other prior to about 1830 when Michigan and northern Ohio start to fill in.

The two regions will be heavy competitors until the age of rail though. Ohio country will be more concerned with the Ohio River and trade to New Orleans, whereas the Canadas will want to tie it in with the Great Lakes. Ohio will be settled primarily with Loyalists simply because there isn't an easy way for Brits to get there, whereas the Great Lakes will have a far higher proportion of British settlement. It won't matter in the 1860s onwards, but the two colonies won't exactly see eye to eye until then.

The Erie canal may still be built though. Canada was nuts for canals and New York is such a big and lucrative market that it might get built as a joint American-Canadian project.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The settlement patterns will be very strange in such a Canada. You'll have Upper and Lower Canada being filled using the St. Lawrence and then the northern banks of the Ohio River, and the two societies will have very little to do with each other prior to about 1830 when Michigan and northern Ohio start to fill in.

Yes, it'll be a bit, ah, bi-polar at the outset. On the other hand, Britain maintained forts in the Ohio Country for quite a while after the ARW in OTL, even though they were actually bound to evacuate those. The British interest in the region was clearly well-established, and given this ATL circumstance, I wonder if a constant military presence - likely organised from Canada - would not be a sort of "bridge" between the two areas. The idea that Ohio Country is theirs, and that they are set on defending it, could play a role in the cultural consciousness of the Canadians.


The two regions will be heavy competitors until the age of rail though. Ohio country will be more concerned with the Ohio River and trade to New Orleans, whereas the Canadas will want to tie it in with the Great Lakes. Ohio will be settled primarily with Loyalists simply because there isn't an easy way for Brits to get there, whereas the Great Lakes will have a far higher proportion of British settlement. It won't matter in the 1860s onwards, but the two colonies won't exactly see eye to eye until then.

Competitors... or complementary pieces? They wouldn't really be getting in each other's way, after all. Keeping in mind that Britain also retains the Floridas, the southern orientation of the Ohio Country could lead to interesting results. Once the Spanish Empire starts to decay, Britain might see an opportunity to purchase (or conquer) New Orleans and the west bank of the Mississippi. The would make the whole of British North America less "Canadian", of course. Yet should such a connection to the gulf be opened up, it will certainly motivate all parties concerned to hurry up with the canal-digging and the railway-building. The economic opportunities are far too tempting not to do so.


The Erie canal may still be built though. Canada was nuts for canals and New York is such a big and lucrative market that it might get built as a joint American-Canadian project.

That's a really cool idea!
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
Imagine Australia being American in this world...

I was vaguely thinking French and a bit Dutch, since the Americans are likely locked in on the East Coast. On the other hand, if Britain and the USA do manage to establish a friendly bond (after some co-operative canal-digging, perhaps?) they might both get a little something out of the Spanish Empire's slow collapse. For instance, the USA may get a chance to grab up some Caribbean holdings with British approval...
 
usa-treaty-of-paris-1783-french-proposals-1782-canada-treaty-1842-FD1RM7.jpg


If the British kept the Northwest, it would likely be either as part of Quebec (as it was at the time) or would be used as some Indian buffer zone. Unless of course they went with the supposed French proposal. The British did not, preferring that instead of some small Confederation under French patronage there be a decent sized country made up of Englishmen running stuff. The British didn't pull out of the Midwest until after the War of 1812, though. Understandable enough, as the US still hadn't paid compensation to Loyalists, as had been agreed upon in the Treaty of Paris. If we want some sort of 'uber' Canada then we should look at making the true Source of the Mississippi known. You can see the Lake of the Woods fifty miles or so above the actual source they had been aiming for. With that fixed we could see the loooong line along the Canadian border be further south than IOTL, though it would be awkward around the Oregon Country, as the IOTL split was basically fifty-fifty, with certain resources, populations, etc balancing each other out on each side. They weren't equal, but they both got enough stuff and had the advantage in different fields. Might be harder to make one long line here though, as there isn't the river along northern Minnesota to act as one big borderline. Now, maybe we have the areas of the First Line in the Midwest a bit further south to allow the U.K. more of the Upper Peninsula? Though might be iffy, since the Yanks might want at LEAST to surround one of the lakes, since the Brits get Superior here.
 
I was vaguely thinking French and a bit Dutch, since the Americans are likely locked in on the East Coast. On the other hand, if Britain and the USA do manage to establish a friendly bond (after some co-operative canal-digging, perhaps?) they might both get a little something out of the Spanish Empire's slow collapse. For instance, the USA may get a chance to grab up some Caribbean holdings with British approval...
True.
I think you would see a US much more trade-focused. The Navy would be immensely important. The US might also be more heavily black than OTL.
 
True.
I think you would see a US much more trade-focused. The Navy would be immensely important. The US might also be more heavily black than OTL.
The South would dominate. For decades most of the exports came from the south. At least the more valuable ones. In this world.. I actually think the British would suffer a bit, if the Midwest and Great Plains were kept form the Americans. Less of a safety value for their Irish, and without the funding of states and entrepenuers to make canals, getting to the Midwest would be more difficult. Lot of grain there that the British needed. And here it would be the British needing to fight the Natives for the land. Yankees will settle the land anyways, whether the British like it or not. Might end up with various Canadian revolutionaries.
 
The South would dominate. For decades most of the exports came from the south. At least the more valuable ones. In this world.. I actually think the British would suffer a bit, if the Midwest and Great Plains were kept form the Americans. Less of a safety value for their Irish, and without the funding of states and entrepenuers to make canals, getting to the Midwest would be more difficult. Lot of grain there that the British needed. And here it would be the British needing to fight the Natives for the land. Yankees will settle the land anyways, whether the British like it or not. Might end up with various Canadian revolutionaries.

The Irish would end up in what would become Canada, they'd just wind up in Montreal, Kingston and York instead of New York and Boston. Ohio would be settled slower, but that would be still be finished by the time the largest of the Irish exodus would be underway.

And if we look at how Canada dealt with the Indians, I think you'll see that it was more ordered and a lot less bloody than the American drive west (but with a similar end result), I doubt there would be many Indian wars, just more agreements akin to what happened in Ontario and the west.

You may wind up with additional revolutionaries, but I think you'd wind up with more agitation for self government instead and an earlier confederation.

A more populous Canada will be building it's own canals (as per OTL), and the provincial government and Britain would back them. The only difference is you'd have two sets of elites with conflicting goals; the Laurentian elite would want the trade steered toward Montreal, while the Ohio River elites would be pressing for it to go to new Orleans.
 
Top