DBWI: War of 1812

What would have North America come too look like if the US hadn't dominated the in the war, and taken all of British North America?
 
What would have North America come too look like if the US hadn't dominated the in the war, and taken all of British North America?

Dunno, though one thing we may wish to remember is that we weren't able to hold onto Rupert's Land forever; after many problems with rogue trappers and fights with Native Americans, we ended up spinning it all off in 1856, partly to help pay off the debts incurred by the failed invasion of the Yucatan in 1849(there's a reason why James K. Polk is seen as the 2nd worst President in history, while his predecessor Winfield Scott is seen as one of the best)as well as the economic recession which began shortly before that.....

And not to mention the Canadas(they were never admitted as states, btw) broke off, too, after Polk's successor James Buchanan became seen as too soft on slavery; and then the North really started rallying behind the abolitionists en masse, and then the Civil War broke out.....

In short, while it seemed like a real victory at first, the circumstances ended up developing as such as to where it ended up not working out so well after all(though at least today's Canada is our friend, and has been for a long time, so maybe I'm wrong here)

OOC: Think of the Canadas before 1857 here as something akin to OTL's Puerto Rico.
 
Last edited:
Well, it would almost certainly lead to the delay of the idea of an American world power by at least 50 years.

Though it must be asked, how badly is the war lost? If the British are able to beat the Americans (maybe they manage to beat Napoleon ITTL) then they are going to be able to enforce whatever treaty they want. This will probably lead to an end to American aims for defeating the Native nations in the Ohio and Michigan region, probably slowing statehood and population of the region by a decade or more.

Though it might give the U.S. government a slice of humble pie they wouldn't get until the French kicked them out of the Yucatan in 1849.
 
Well, it would almost certainly lead to the delay of the idea of an American world power by at least 50 years.

Though it must be asked, how badly is the war lost? If the British are able to beat the Americans (maybe they manage to beat Napoleon ITTL) then they are going to be able to enforce whatever treaty they want. This will probably lead to an end to American aims for defeating the Native nations in the Ohio and Michigan region, probably slowing statehood and population of the region by a decade or more.

Though it might give the U.S. government a slice of humble pie they wouldn't get until the French kicked them out of the Yucatan in 1849.

Lets say a statuesque peace. No side really gains or loses anything.
 
Lets say a statuesque peace. No side really gains or loses anything.

Okay, that's a toughie. I can't think of anything like it (there probably has been, but not that I can think of.)

Though in this case there might not be as many hard feelings on either side, leading to more cooperation later on rather than the British drifting toward the French and America toward the Russians as time went on.

The conquest of the Natives in Ohio and Michigan continues, probably faster than OTL since there is no need to try holding Canada. It also means we are going to be looking at Spanish territory a lot sooner, so Florida is American by 1820 (though this depends how the war with Napoleon goes.) If the British can get Russia on their side there they might win, but it wouldn't be easy or fast. Another five years at least.

So overall the U.S. probably uses the Europeans being distracted to grab Florida and maybe Cuba.

If so I could see the war over slavery being a lot worse. Rather than a handful of states trying to rebel we could see a significant percentage, with the border states of Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas perhaps going rogue as well.
 
Well, it would almost certainly lead to the delay of the idea of an American world power by at least 50 years.

Though it must be asked, how badly is the war lost? If the British are able to beat the Americans (maybe they manage to beat Napoleon ITTL) then they are going to be able to enforce whatever treaty they want. This will probably lead to an end to American aims for defeating the Native nations in the Ohio and Michigan region, probably slowing statehood and population of the region by a decade or more.

Though it might give the U.S. government a slice of humble pie they wouldn't get until the French kicked them out of the Yucatan in 1849.

Well, yeah, but there's just one problem: The French government wasn't officially involved in the conflict, and in fact we were over there until 1853. In fact, the French volunteers who did help the Yucatan's government ended up being recalled in 1852, or at least, those who were willing to go back voluntarily; some did not, and became Mexican citizens(btw, a descendant of one of these men became President of Mexico in the '50s).

OOC: Sorry about that, but I did intend for the Yucatan conflict to be an actual war; I doubt a short conflict would have hurt Polk's reputation anyway, but rather, a longer one like OTL's Iraq, had that war gone wrong.

Okay, that's a toughie. I can't think of anything like it (there probably has been, but not that I can think of.)

Though in this case there might not be as many hard feelings on either side, leading to more cooperation later on rather than the British drifting toward the French and America toward the Russians as time went on.

The conquest of the Natives in Ohio and Michigan continues, probably faster than OTL since there is no need to try holding Canada. It also means we are going to be looking at Spanish territory a lot sooner, so Florida is American by 1820 (though this depends how the war with Napoleon goes.) If the British can get Russia on their side there they might win, but it wouldn't be easy or fast. Another five years at least.

So overall the U.S. probably uses the Europeans being distracted to grab Florida and maybe Cuba.

If so I could see the war over slavery being a lot worse. Rather than a handful of states trying to rebel we could see a significant percentage, with the border states of Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas perhaps going rogue as well.

OOC: Uh....the Civil War here was supposed to be pretty bad, wcv. Maybe I'd better clear that up.

IC: yes, that may be true; even Tennessee didn't want to join at first and there were plenty of people in western N.C. & east Tenn. who fought for the Union as did a fair number more from the immediate Nashville, Chattanooga, and Jackson areas. But I don't see how you could get any worse than OTL without Va., Ark., and Ky. breaking off, too: Over a million soldiers died fighting the Civil War, 560,000 on the Union side and about 490,000 on the Confederate side. Had those three states joined, too, it could have been even worse for the South(and maybe for Unionites, too, perhaps especially from the Ohio river states, as well as Maryland, Del., and Pa. on top of that)
 
Top