Independent Canada in the War of 1812
- Thread starter ronaldo
- Start date
You'd need an overwhelming American victory in 1812 and the heads that merely wanted to use Upper Canada as a bargaining chip, and not annex it, to prevail. And who knows, Lower Canada/Quebec would be independent too at that rate.
The rest of OTL Canada to the west of Ontario/Upper Canada (Rupert's Land, North-Western Territory, the co-dominium of Oregon Country) is still British/-shared territory. Upper Canada would have no way of expanding westward with how underpopulated and developed it was at the time.
Britain's hold on their remaining possessions sans Atlantic Canada would be tenuous without Upper and Lower Canada's geography and population to help hold it. It all may eventually be sold to America.
So Ontario and Quebec would basically be little independent republics, and the Maritimes and Newfoundland little dominions, compared to the colossus of the USA.
The rest of OTL Canada to the west of Ontario/Upper Canada (Rupert's Land, North-Western Territory, the co-dominium of Oregon Country) is still British/-shared territory. Upper Canada would have no way of expanding westward with how underpopulated and developed it was at the time.
Britain's hold on their remaining possessions sans Atlantic Canada would be tenuous without Upper and Lower Canada's geography and population to help hold it. It all may eventually be sold to America.
So Ontario and Quebec would basically be little independent republics, and the Maritimes and Newfoundland little dominions, compared to the colossus of the USA.
Napoleonrules
Banned
An independent Canada, which is ASB if you mean both Upper and Lower together, would not expand to the Pacific. The Metis of Red River/Manitoba would not be able to be conquered without British backing. The HBC's Rupert's Land similarly would not just be handed over by the UK. British Columbia would not join.
Interesting how these smaller, fragmented areas would affect US expansion. Assuming that they become US territories, I'd say it might forgo the Gadsden Purchase (meanwhile, California is still in...but what about Texas?), and-later-maybe leave us uninterested in Cuba. That would make for some butterflies around the Panama Canal. A further north expansion would be interesting to the south/north balance of power in the mid 1800's. Does the South try to secede earlier? If so, can it succeed? Or does it now not even try? Or does the addition of all this extra territory send the USA off on an all-North American empire wank?
It can't. IOTL the provinces had a lot of loyalists who'd fled to Canada after the AWI, and they weren't about to rebel against the UK any time soon. If the Americans somehow did better in the war and occupied Canada, they'd either give it back in exchange for concessions elsewhere, or annex it as part of the USA.
*Canada (i.e., Québec) could possibly be independent, but only if it had a larger population. But then, if it had a larger population it may never have gotten conquered by the British in the first place.
Then again, if Canada remains under French rule, perhaps it would be more likely to become independent, as the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars (if they still happen) could result in Canada being cut off from France by the Royal Navy, possibly even at Canada's request (similar to Brazil during the occupation of Portugal).
Then again, if Canada remains under French rule, perhaps it would be more likely to become independent, as the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars (if they still happen) could result in Canada being cut off from France by the Royal Navy, possibly even at Canada's request (similar to Brazil during the occupation of Portugal).
Napoleonrules
Banned
Ugh. Another common AH.com misconception. The number of Loyalists that fled to Upper Canada was actually outnumbered by 10-1 by "American" expats in the early 1800s that went to Upper Canada not because they were "loyalists" but for land and normal American drive to go "west" from NY and New England in search of land. These Americans were no different than Daniel Boone going to Louisiana while it was French, or Bowie and Crockett in Texas, or Sutter in California, or the Americans who settled in and revolted in Freedonia, West Florida, and Hawai'i. Upper Canada wasn't full of large numbers of Loyalists. It was full of apathetic American expats who really didn't care about who was in charge as long as they had land and freedom, the only people they probably did not want to have over them would have been Catholic and French speaking Lower Canada (hence the reason the British split the two)
In fact, Laura Secord was an American expat, and she is a beloved Canadian figure.
In any case, many of those expats were loyal to the empire they settled in, and I don't see Canada falling due to that.
But yes, to find lands where there were mostly descendants of loyalists, you need to look at the Maritimes.
I agree with this, but also have to throw in that a NS governor just before New Brunswick's split complained the Planters - descendants of pre-ARW Yankees - were so bitchy and guarding of their local representatives and ways of life against the Loyalists the governor moaned they were more restless than any of the now-US states had been!
That and the Maritimes despite their national (IE Loyalism) politics were on the ground quite close to New England in more local political issues and culture in any event.