Most territory under present day Canada

[funnyhat]

It wouldn't initially, but it probably would eventually. The majority of British immigrants during the 19th century went to the United States, not Canada. But if Canada had more land further south, more would go there than in OTL. Likewise with the German immigrants, more would end up going to Canada if Canada had a larger chunk of the southward arable land. There were a decent number of Germans who settled on the Canadian Great Plains, I don't think there's any political reason why less came to Canada, just land-related reasons.

I'm not sure about that. Did Germans want to be British subjects? Did the British/Canadian governments want large-scale German settlement? I do note that relatively few Germans immigrated to any of the British dominions during the 19th century, be it Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, whereas an absolutely huge number came to the United States, and a substantial number settled in parts of South America as well.

Also, a lot of settlers to Michigan and places further west were Americans, leaving the eastern states. They most likely wouldn't cross borders to settle in Canada (unless they hoped to spark a secessionist movement, à la Texas).

Canada's population in your hypothetical would be somewhat larger than today's but it wouldn't be 70 million (i.e., double its present size).

 

[fluttersky]

Edward VIII and Oswald Mosley successfully launch a fascist coup of the British government in the 1930s with German assistance. Canada refuses to recognize this, and sets up a British government-in-exile. All of Britain's colonies and dominions recognize the government in Canada as being the legitimate rulers of the British Empire.

Result: Canada and her Empire are the most powerful country in the world, a global superpower.

QED.

 

[Tripwire]

I'm not sure about that. Did Germans want to be British subjects? Did the British/Canadian governments want large-scale German settlement? I do note that relatively few Germans immigrated to any of the British dominions during the 19th century, be it Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, whereas an absolutely huge number came to the United States, and a substantial number settled in parts of South America as well.

Also, a lot of settlers to Michigan and places further west were Americans, leaving the eastern states. They most likely wouldn't cross borders to settle in Canada (unless they hoped to spark a secessionist movement, à la Texas).

Canada's population in your hypothetical would be somewhat larger than today's but it wouldn't be 70 million (i.e., double its present size).

As I said before, there was significant German settlement in the Canadian Plains provinces, contiguous with the German settlement on the other side of the border. When it comes to good, arable land for homesteading, the US just had a hell of a lot more of it.

 

[M79]

1810 US census:

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/census/1990/poptrd1.htm

In 1810, "Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont" alone had a population of more than 660,000 people.

1811-14 population of BNA colonies:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4064809-eng.htm

In 1811, the population of Upper Canada (today's southeastern Ontario) was all of 77,000; in 1814, that of Lower Canada (today's southeastern Quebec) was estimated at 335,000.

There's no way BNA can deal with the demographic realities of the US in 1812-15; to suggest otherwise is completely a-historical.

Best,

The District of Maine was already largely under British control by the end of the war OTL and preparations were underway to turn it into the Province of 'New Ireland'. Vermont had a substantial French-Canadian population at the time, as did New Hampshire and northern New York - integration might not have been as difficult as you foresee. Disaffected and largely under economic duress, I think that with significant British victories a desperate Madison administration might not have had much of a choice if the British had asked for these territories. The anti-Catholic stance of many of the United States is not going to sit well with the population either, and if Plattsburgh happens slightly differently, Vermont will be pushed farther from the American orbit to begin with and upper New York state would already be in British hands.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I'm not sure about that. Did Germans want to be British subjects? Did the British/Canadian governments want large-scale German settlement? I do note that relatively few Germans immigrated to any of the British dominions during the 19th century, be it Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, whereas an absolutely huge number came to the United States, and a substantial number settled in parts of South America as well.

Also, a lot of settlers to Michigan and places further west were Americans, leaving the eastern states. They most likely wouldn't cross borders to settle in Canada (unless they hoped to spark a secessionist movement, à la Texas).

Canada's population in your hypothetical would be somewhat larger than today's but it wouldn't be 70 million (i.e., double its present size).

Well throughout the period from 1812-1862 (for which I have read the most about prior to the boom in the 1890s when the Prairies were settled) the second largest group of settlers to Canada after those from the British Isles were those from Prussia and the German states followed by Holland and peoples from Scandinavia respectively. Germans (largely fellow Protestants mind you) were not especially threatened by the idea of British rule and indeed when Canada later adopted a more open immigration policy for the Prairies they certainly came in numbers only rivaled by those from Eastern Europe.

The real lack of settlers prior to the 1890s (in big wave terms at least) was due to a lack of large easily accessible open tracts of land available to prospective immigrants. Though there was a steady trickle to the Prairies post 1870 and even before that a trickle to the areas on the northern edge of the Ontario peninsula.

More territory to fill probably sees a bigger drive for immigrants than was the case historically.

In regards to American settlers, well they would come. In 1812 when Britain occupied American territory they either swore the oaths to King George or moved, I have my doubts that an overwhelming number of people would be so completely repelled by the thought of the British crown that they would decline to settle said land, especially second generation immigrants from the US itself. They certainly crossed the border freely before the conflict in 1812 OTL, and many returned after.

 

[M79]

Something like this is what I had in mind for British North America/Canada by 1830...

 

[TFSmith121]

The District of Maine was already largely under British control by the end of the war OTL and preparations were underway to turn it into the Province of 'New Ireland'. Vermont had a substantial French-Canadian population at the time, as did New Hampshire and northern New York - integration might not have been as difficult as you foresee. Disaffected and largely under economic duress, I think that with significant British victories a desperate Madison administration might not have had much of a choice if the British had asked for these territories. The anti-Catholic stance of many of the United States is not going to sit well with the population either, and if Plattsburgh happens slightly differently, Vermont will be pushed farther from the American orbit to begin with and upper New York state would already be in British hands.

Actually, no. As far as Maine goes, the 1814-15 occupation lasted all of eight months (32 less than during the Revolution, and the British were eager to get out in 1783, even with the supposed "loyalist colony" plans; they knew it was fruitless), and the 1814-15 occupation was limited to the Penobscot and points east (Hampden, Bangor, Machias, Castine, and Eastport, which is roughly the northeastern fifth of the state, not "largely" by any stretch of the imagination) and barely populated; Hampden had all of 1,300 people in the 1810 census; Bangor, 850; Machias, 1600; Castine, 1000; and Eastport, 1500. Portland, alone, in contrast, had 7,000. See:

https://www.censusrecords.com/searc...ar=1810&_suid=1463702007628017672920458350894

Please provide any detail you have on the "disaffected" populations of Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern New York, much less the "anti-Catholic stance of many of the United States" in 1812-15, much less any circumstances in which Britain could win any "significant" victories on US territory in the same period, given the historical realities of the correlation of forces and Britain's strategic situation.

Thanks

 

[Saphroneth]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/canada-wank-yacw.130408/

This has a slow buildup trying to keep the Canada feel.

 

[The Dornishman]

New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine had about the same combined population as all of British North America in 1815. Annexing them would mean that half of their subjects would be former American citizens, putting the British at risk of losing the whole thing during a future war. I'm not sure they would even want them.

There's no way that the British are going to get entire existing US states out of the War of 1812, and if they somehow did it would lead to endless war in North America. I think they could get both penninsulas of Michigan though, as well as northern Maine and a more southern border. This +Oregon Territory alone would probably double Canada's eventual population, to say nothing of Alaska or Greenland.

I'm not sure it would even need a real Anglo-American War a la 1812 to accomplish. In a situation like that, what guarantee is there that American citizens who consider the British to be unwanted occupies simply don't rise up and throw the British out? Sure, one can make a fair argument that such revolts can be defeated by the British military, but that poses all kinds of economic and political problems in Britain. Is Parliament going to absolutely and consistently support the maintenance of permanent military garrisons in North America to hold massive territories of questionable economic value? What about all the merchants and businesses in Britain that depend upon trade with the United States, they've got more than enough money to lobby the British government to trade with the North Americans instead of pursuing crazy imperialist schemes.

See, this sort of thing is the kind of problem I have with Canadian expansionism as a scenario. It's not impossible, but what is inevitably not taken into account is that it would wreck a lot of arrangements that are crucial for British trade, and moreover Britain isn't some kind of absolutist system that can consistently hold to an unpopular policy: if any British Prime Minister decides that his sentimental crusade to regain the Thirteen Colonies is more important than trade, he'll face a lot of opposition from people who disagree. And if he don't prove amenable to the idea of backing down, then he can be voted out of power and replaced with someone who will.

 

[Tripwire]

The District of Maine was already largely under British control by the end of the war OTL and preparations were underway to turn it into the Province of 'New Ireland'. Vermont had a substantial French-Canadian population at the time, as did New Hampshire and northern New York - integration might not have been as difficult as you foresee. Disaffected and largely under economic duress, I think that with significant British victories a desperate Madison administration might not have had much of a choice if the British had asked for these territories. The anti-Catholic stance of many of the United States is not going to sit well with the population either, and if Plattsburgh happens slightly differently, Vermont will be pushed farther from the American orbit to begin with and upper New York state would already be in British hands.

Source on the high French Canadian population in Vermont and New Hampshire? Most of the French-Canadian immigration to New England came during the mid to late 19th century, and I just ran across an internet page claiming that there were very few French Canadians (A Catholic bishop counted maybe 100 total Catholics in the Burlington area) prior to 1820. The same source estimates a population of only 12,100 French Canadians in Vermont in 1850.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not sure about that. Did Germans want to be British subjects? Did the British/Canadian governments want large-scale German settlement? I do note that relatively few Germans immigrated to any of the British dominions during the 19th century, be it Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa, whereas an absolutely huge number came to the United States, and a substantial number settled in parts of South America as well.

Also, a lot of settlers to Michigan and places further west were Americans, leaving the eastern states. They most likely wouldn't cross borders to settle in Canada (unless they hoped to spark a secessionist movement, à la Texas).

Canada's population in your hypothetical would be somewhat larger than today's but it wouldn't be 70 million (i.e., double its present size).

Land was perhaps the biggest issue at play. If there was more arable land, then it would be settled. In OTL there tens of thousands of Germans, Scandinavians and eastern Europeans never seemed to mind living under British rule, so why would that change if the British had more land? There might be shifting populations of who shows up, but it will be filled by somebody.

 

[M79]

Actually, no. As far as Maine goes, the 1814-15 occupation lasted all of eight months (32 less than during the Revolution, and the British were eager to get out in 1783, even with the supposed "loyalist colony" plans; they knew it was fruitless), and the 1814-15 occupation was limited to the Penobscot and points east (Hampden, Bangor, Machias, Castine, and Eastport, which is roughly the northeastern fifth of the state, not "largely" by any stretch of the imagination) and barely populated; Hampden had all of 1,300 people in the 1810 census; Bangor, 850; Machias, 1600; Castine, 1000; and Eastport, 1500. Portland, alone, in contrast, had 7,000. See:

https://www.censusrecords.com/searc...ar=1810&_suid=1463702007628017672920458350894

Please provide any detail you have on the "disaffected" populations of Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern New York, much less the "anti-Catholic stance of many of the United States" in 1812-15, much less any circumstances in which Britain could win any "significant" victories on US territory in the same period, given the historical realities of the correlation of forces and Britain's strategic situation.

Thanks

There is a reason the British chose to make their military invasion on the western side of Lake Champlain - as not to disturb the Vermonters who were seen as 'neutral'. Ethan Allen had already attempted to broker a deal to return to the United Kngdom as a separate province from New York and New Hampshire, nearly reaching a deal with the governor of Quebec before being granted statehood. Vermont, like New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (of which Maine was still a district), sent representatives to the Hartford Convention. Vermonters, as well as others in New England, were not only willing to trade with Great Britain but did so enough to be reliable for supplies when they were not necessarily so for American forces.

There are several colonies that had anti-Catholic statutes on the books before 1700, remember that there are still official churches in Connecticut and Massachusetts until after the war was over (almost 20 years after on case of the latter). There is not only official funding of certain churches to the exclusion of others, there is law reinforcing it at the state level despite the Bill of Rights. This is a sliver of what is to come and what already is, but I recommend you do some more reading on the subject if you are interested.

By late 1814 there were few if any US military forces in Maine, even west of the Penobscot. They had retreated to Portsmouth, NH to regroup and the British had landed men on the western bank. Had it not been for extracting significant loot from the region many of the towns might have been burned to the ground.

As for your request of could the British have taken territory? Certainly - although the Duke of Wellington stated that he did not wish to go to Canada with an expeditionary force in 1815 and that at the time of the Ghent negotiations there was no territory that they held which they could have claimed (did he know about New Ireland?), responding that the British has not gained enough ground to ask for territory, though there was ample opportunity for them to have done so earlier in the conflict. Earlier in the war the Americans were not very effective on the ground in many cases, and secession became a real possibility in parts of New England prior to Ghent and New Orleans. Reverse any of four to six major battles (Plattsburgh, Baltimore, Siege of Fort Erie, or Second Battle of Sackett's Harbor immediately come to mind, arguably a few others) and the British are likely taking some land from the United States at war's end, the amount depends on what they occupy. Reverse any more than two of those and you are likely missing *at least* Maine along with the areas I have outlined as well as parts of the Old Northwest, especially if Vermont is still on the fence and the rest of New England is still mounting dissatisfaction at the course of the war.

 

[TFSmith121]

1) There is a reason the British chose to make their military invasion on the western side of Lake Champlain - as not to disturb the Vermonters who were seen as 'neutral'. Ethan Allen had already attempted to broker a deal to return to the United Kngdom as a separate province from New York and New Hampshire, nearly reaching a deal with the governor of Quebec before being granted statehood. Vermont, like New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (of which Maine was still a district), sent representatives to the Hartford Convention. Vermonters, as well as others in New England, were not only willing to trade with Great Britain but did so enough to be reliable for supplies when they were not necessarily so for American forces.

2) There are several colonies that had anti-Catholic statutes on the books before 1700, remember that there are still official churches in Connecticut and Massachusetts until after the war was over (almost 20 years after on case of the latter). There is not only official funding of certain churches to the exclusion of others, there is law reinforcing it at the state level despite the Bill of Rights. This is a sliver of what is to come and what already is, but I recommend you do some more reading on the subject if you are interested.

3) By late 1814 there were few if any US military forces in Maine, even west of the Penobscot. They had retreated to Portsmouth, NH to regroup and the British had landed men on the western bank. Had it not been for extracting significant loot from the region many of the towns might have been burned to the ground.

As for your request of could the British have taken territory? Certainly - although the Duke of Wellington stated that he did not wish to go to Canada with an expeditionary force in 1815 and that at the time of the Ghent negotiations there was no territory that they held which they could have claimed (did he know about New Ireland?), responding that the British has not gained enough ground to ask for territory, though there was ample opportunity for them to have done so earlier in the conflict. Earlier in the war the Americans were not very effective on the ground in many cases, and secession became a real possibility in parts of New England prior to Ghent and New Orleans. Reverse any of four to six major battles (Plattsburgh, Baltimore, Siege of Fort Erie, or Second Battle of Sackett's Harbor immediately come to mind, arguably a few others) and the British are likely taking some land from the United States at war's end, the amount depends on what they occupy. Reverse any more than two of those and you are likely missing *at least* Maine along with the areas I have outlined as well as parts of the Old Northwest, especially if Vermont is still on the fence and the rest of New England is still mounting dissatisfaction at the course of the war.

1) Ethan Allen died in 1789; 1814-15 is a little late to be negotiating with him. The Hartford Convention didn't begin until December, 1814, same month that Ghent was signed; little late for treason at that point, which - of course - makes Morison's point the Convention was NOT a secessionist effort moot, anyway. The Convention provided a handy club for the Democrats to beat up the Federalists with, nothing more and nothing less.

2) 1700 would be, what, 11 decades before the end of the 1812-15 war? And 1815 was 27 years after ratification of the Constitution, which prohibited state religions. Guess the Catholic signatories of the Declaration and the Constitution knew what they were doing...

3) Because burning civilians out of their homes is a guarnteed way to secure political support. Yeah, okay.

4) Except the results of battle are not reversible; one needs to win them with the forces on hand, or - as an alternative - explain where the resources to change the historical situation are going to come from. As it was, the Great Lakes front was in stalemate by 1813 (Lundy's Lane/Chippewa/Lake Erie), and the British were soundly defeated in New England (Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain) and the Chesapeake (Fort McHenry-Ferry Branch-North Point-Hampstead Hill) in 1814 AFTER Napoleon abdicated but BEFORE Ghent, and on the Gulf Coast (New Orleans) AFTER Ghent and BEFORE the 100 Days...

So, basically, no. Sorry.

St. Pierre et Miquelon and Greenland, as a result of the Napoleonic wars is a possibility; Alaska in 1854-56 is another one. Fighting the US after 1783? Not likely.

Best,

 

[Admiral Beez]

\ Alaska, maybe, if the US won't buy it and Canada decides to. Greenland, possibly, though it's more of a stretch.

Per Wikipedia, Russia offered Alaska to the British for sale. So that's certainly on the table.

 

[M79]

1) Ethan Allen died in 1789; 1814-15 is a little late to be negotiating with him. The Hartford Convention didn't begin until December, 1814, same month that Ghent was signed; little late for treason at that point, which - of course - makes Morison's point the Convention was NOT a secessionist effort moot, anyway. The Convention provided a handy club for the Democrats to beat up the Federalists with, nothing more and nothing less.

2) 1700 would be, what, 11 decades before the end of the 1812-15 war? And 1815 was 27 years after ratification of the Constitution, which prohibited state religions. Guess the Catholic signatories of the Declaration and the Constitution knew what they were doing...

3) Because burning civilians out of their homes is a guarnteed way to secure political support. Yeah, okay.

4) Except the results of battle are not reversible; one needs to win them with the forces on hand, or - as an alternative - explain where the resources to change the historical situation are going to come from. As it was, the Great Lakes front was in stalemate by 1813 (Lundy's Lane/Chippewa/Lake Erie), and the British were soundly defeated in New England (Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain) and the Chesapeake (Fort McHenry-Ferry Branch-North Point-Hampstead Hill) in 1814 AFTER Napoleon abdicated but BEFORE Ghent, and on the Gulf Coast (New Orleans) AFTER Ghent and BEFORE the 100 Days...

So, basically, no. Sorry.

St. Pierre et Miquelon and Greenland, as a result of the Napoleonic wars is a possibility; Alaska in 1854-56 is another one. Fighting the US after 1783? Not likely.

Best,

I would appreciate it if you read my posts should you choose to comment on them. I would also point out you might remember this site is about *alternate* history, where we discuss how changes in the course of events may impact events afterwards. You might wish to be a bit more flexible in your thinking, as there are ways the Confederacy might have won the Civil War, the British might have won this war, etc.

That being said -

1. The Hartford Convention did involve those interested in discussing secession and the failure of Madison to pay for the militia costs of Connecticut and Massachusetts was enough for some to wonder if he was to abandon them. Cooler heads prevailed from making it an outright forum of secession, but the subject not only came up but was forced to be managed by the leader of the convention. This is as the governor of Massachusetts was sending out feelers to Great Britain for a separate peace. No one would know about Ghent for some time to come and there was reason to doubt the outcome of the war even to that point.

2. Again, please read my posts before you comment on them. Those laws were not entirely repealed for some time and stayed in place for years to come in many cases, again I cited two states giving official support to churches at the time of the war, you are free to read about the subject if you wish to learn more. Please refer to previous post for a starting point.

3. Burning or threatening to burn civilians to the ground without a military nearby is a great way of showing who is in charge on the ground. No American army was available to stop them on the western (or certainly Eastern) side of the Penobscot at the time. American forces in the whole of the District of Maine were minimal for a time though perhaps they were there on paper. Besides, knocking someone down only to help them get back up after defeating them in a war is not unheard of either, especially if you want to earn their loyalty.

4. This is an alternate history site Mr. Smith, the reversals of those battles are potential turning points for alternate histories. I gave leads into where changes might occur, as well as ramifications for those changes, any of them are plausible. Without Plattsburgh, the British army will likely take Albany and threaten New York City, potentially cutting the US in two with one section potentially becoming a separate nation. Without Baltimore, the British occupy a significant area of the Mid-Atlantic, can put Philadelphia and New York under threat, and could re-occupy the capitol at will barring another freak storm/hurricane. Without Sackett's Harbor, the American influence on the Great Lakes is probably all but gone as the Americans would have no place to build ships securely, leaving the entire American shoreline under threat. Without Fort Erie, the momentum for American movement into Canada fails, perhaps resulting in disastrous pushes back into New York state. Are you saying you wish to discuss specific possibilities for divergence within each?

Note: I did not mention New Orleans in my posts save to say major battles prior to that would be points of divergence.

 

[TFSmith121]

I did read the post, hence the numbered response.

1. Everyone knew about Ghent before the Convention delegation got to Washington; basically held them up to ridicule. The Convention meant secession trope is a myth.

2. Constitution trumps state law. The US was no more "anti-Catholic" in 1815 than it was in 1805, 1795, or 1785 ...

3. Doesn't mean anything as far as territorial gain/annexation.

4. The British couldn't take Albany in 1777, even after winning at Valcour Island; in 1814, they couldn't even win on Lake Champlain. Doesn't bode well for the march on Albany in 1815...

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

It would be a remarkable reading of Alternate History if battles with roughly equal forces on both sides had to be won by the historical side.

Heck, there's a ready made PoD in the crossing-the-bar at Presq'isle. Both American heavy ships unarmed, unable to retreat, the British ships come in and... OTL they don't attack, ATL they do, and with that you've changed the course of the war on the Lakes.
If your protest is that Barclay is too timid - why, have someone be left behind to keep watch and see them disarming the brigs before dragging them over the bar and see that they're not armed yet.

Many alternative PoDs suggest themselves, too.
1: there's a storm which blows up shortly after the crossing of the bar, driving both brigs out to sea and meaning they're vulnerable to easy capture.
2: rewinding a bit, the constructor who suggested the use of Presq'isle is executed in British custody (or just doesn't escape).
3: Forward again, Oliver Perry dies during the battle on Lake Erie before he can bring the other brig into battle, meaning that the Lawrence is captured without the British fleet then being defeated themselves.


That's Lake Erie. There are, of course, others.