Canada/UK decisively wins the War of 1812

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMA

What if the US is defeated in the War of 1812, with the frontier border with Canada overrun with Red Coats; that major coastal cities, including Washington, are not only attack but occupied,;& that the Battle of New Orleans is a British victory leading to an official surrender.

What are the terms of surrender?

Does the US once more become a member of the British Empire?

Or does America fight on regards?

Anything else?

Discuss
 

Wolfhound

At least: Canada has a more defensible border, American claims on the North West weakened, possibly eviscerated.

At most: New England throws her lot in Britain, Detroit etc, Great Lakes entirely Britain. Depending on at what time, theres a Native American state headed by Tecumseh. America has to pay reparations - quite possible.

The US in the Empire again...doubtful. Though the situation you present is almost the complete overrun of the US, I don't know if public sentiment would ever accept British rule again, although this defeat would definately demoralise America, I can imagine a big let down among people that 'Independance has failed'.
 

Tyr

Free New England ( :p ), British Louisiana and lakes region, big British economic benefits.
I doubt Britain would even want to totally conquer the US.
 

OAM47

Well, sense it says "decisively", I'm going to be rather harsh.

Short term:

New England becomes independant. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minisota are given to Canada. Louisiana becomes another Canada. I don't think anything will happen to Florida, its in a bad spot.

In the long term:

Civil War (as we know it): Without New England, the West, or MI/WI/MN, CSA will gain independance. Capital moved if they didn't already. Assuming it happens in the first place. North might break off instead.

Texas and California: Will probably gain independance sooner or later, probably later. The area inbetween will probably stay with Mexico.

Oregon Territory: Part of Canada.
 
Last edited:

Mikey

OAM47 said:
Civil War: Without New England, the West, or MI/WI/MN, CSA will gain independance. Capital moved if they didn't already.
Click to expand...


Why would there be a Civil War if there aren't more than a handful of free states and no territories to even have slavery debates over? The rump US in this situation is going to be a Southern Republic plus New York and Pennsylvania - and if anyone is going to leave over slavery, it's gonna be them.
 

OAM47

Mikey said:
Why would there be a Civil War if there aren't more than a handful of free states and no territories to even have slavery debates over? The rump US in this situation is going to be a Southern Republic plus New York and Pennsylvania - and if anyone is going to leave over slavery, it's gonna be them.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, sorry, was in a hurry posting. I'll edit that section. Though the North still has Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Ohio would still probably be about as OTL, but Illinois development would probably hinge on how the US-UK/Canada relations were.
 

Zyzzyva

I made a map for this scenario a while back, I think it fits what people have been saying fairly well:

nam1812.PNG

nam1812.PNG
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
OAM47 said:
Oh yes, sorry, was in a hurry posting. I'll edit that section. Though the North still has Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Ohio would still probably be about as OTL, but Illinois development would probably hinge on how the US-UK/Canada relations were.
Click to expand...
There will almost definitely not be a civil war like OTL in this enviroment, with anti-slavery sentiments far weaker than OTL the south will be more integrated into the system (have more power with less free states). Mexican war is derailed, and both sections of the US will have an external enemy to concentrate on.

And there will almost certainly be a third anglo-american war in this scenerio.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

Other things that haven't been covered that winners often demand after wars:
reparations
restrictions on the military
occupation

Britain as a primarily naval power might be interested in bases/ports on the US seaboard and perhaps in preventing the USA from having a navy.

Also, how about if Britain forced the dissolution of the USA into its individual constituent states, as a divide and rule tactic?
 

OAM47

Typo said:
There will almost definitely not be a civil war like OTL in this enviroment, with anti-slavery sentiments far weaker than OTL the south will be more integrated into the system (have more power with less free states). Mexican war is derailed, and both sections of the US will have an external enemy to concentrate on.

And there will almost certainly be a third anglo-american war in this scenerio.
Click to expand...

There won't be a Mexican War because they probably won't have a border.
 

OAM47

Seperate post for map:

This is around 1850, after the area has settled down about. I didn't mess to much with internal borders or correct line types. It is the color that matters. If you have trouble telling, Canada and Louisiana are seperate things.

As for TL-wise comments, just know that Flordia was obtained later then OTL, not sure how long.

nam1850.PNG
 

Lord Grattan

A beautiful map! I do have an observation/thought about the UK/US line ...
The northern boundary of Indiana Territory in 1812 was ran due east from the southernmost point of Lake Michigan to the Ohio state line. I imagine that the British would use that line and extend it west to the Mississippi to divide the Illinois Territory, rather then the OTL Indiana/Michigan state line of 1816. (Perhaps they could have demanded the "Toledo Strip" as well.)

nam1850-2.png
 

Tyr

I wonder; would the UK keep the Louisana name?
I'd imagine it becomes known as Missisipi or some such.
 

Dave Howery

would the UK really want the LA purchase territory? The US only bought it because New Orleans came with it, and we really wanted that. The rest of the place was considered to be a great wasteland....
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top