No war of 1812 - Anglo/Canadian-American relations?

There's been a variety of threads lately on the war of 1812, with plenty of rather strong opinions being bandied about. Given the military realities however it seems difficult to greatly change the outcome, at least without a relatively early POD/massive screwing of one side or the other by other factors.

A more interesting question IMO is if the war did not occur at all. This shouldn't be too hard to achieve, an end to impressment for one reason or another would do it, perhaps Napoleon falls of his horse and the war in Europe ends early. No war however does not mean no tensions, there are still plenty of border disputes and in particular the British presence in nominally American territories in the Great Lakes as well as their support of Tecumseh and other tribes which could spoil relations. Perhaps most importantly the lack of a frustrating and relatively inconclusive war means a lack of understanding the limitations of both British and American power at the time.

Personally I think the most likely outcome of such a scenario would not greatly differ in appearance to what occurred IOTL, though I guess the butterflies further down the track could dramatically change the world. The US and British Empire had strong interests in trade and peace, after all. Nevertheless, I do think there is some room for a future and far more bloody competition in North America, in particular if a later war broke out between the US and Britain over border disputes/British support for the Amerindians. A (much larger than in 1812) US conquest of Canada during the 1820's? An undistracted British Empire devastating the US economy? Or perhaps border disputes being resolved more in favour of Canada?
 
There would always be border disputes but they only seldom and with poor diplomacy would threaten to break out into the threat of open warfare. Britain had a gigantic Empire and America had a huge open expanse of land to the west. Neither would want to pick a fight over a few hundred square miles of forest in Ontario/New York or Maine/New Brunswick.

The British support for the western Indians has often been played up, they only really got involved during an actual conflict.

The key diplomatic issues that threatened war was the presence of British troops in Ohio (I believe they pulled out in the Jay Treaty well before this) and the impressments. If Percival had gotten himself shot a few months earlier, it is unlikely the war would ever have happened. The treaty ending the war of 1812 has long been overrated at a long term peace. It took several more treaties to really hammer our assorted disputes over the course of decades.

I don't think that this or an alternative later war was inevitable. It was a waste of time for the British and an embarrassing failure for the Americans. It harmed both economies (the Americans more) and created ill-will for years to come.

To plug my own series, I took a left turn on this and created the Franco-American "Quasi-War" Series on this website which I thought, in hindsight, would be a more likely scenario than the OTL War of 1812, which was eminently avoidable.
 
Oh I quite agree that it was far from inevitable, but if it doesn't occur there still are problems between the US and Britain that have yet to be solved. Without a war, is it really that likely that the majority of the major border disputes would be resolved as easily as they were, in particular once Britain is no longer distracted in Europe?
 
I'd think there would be 'lots of negotiation"... over the Great Lakes/Old Northwest boundaries, the Oregon region... basically set the borders between the USA and BNA exactly and specifically, for once and all. And we would still have a President's House, not a White House...
 
Given that the end of the war didn't settle any of the territorial disputes between the the two powers, you'd probably see a great deal of convergence with OTL.

The war was a massive waste of resources and blood that didn't do anything, an ultimately sad affair that killed a lot of men for almost literally nothing.
 
Given that the end of the war didn't settle any of the territorial disputes between the the two powers, you'd probably see a great deal of convergence with OTL.

The war was a massive waste of resources and blood that didn't do anything, an ultimately sad affair that killed a lot of men for almost literally nothing.

it gave us the White House and the Star Spangled Banner... that's something...
 
it gave us the White House and the Star Spangled Banner... that's something...

It also gave Canada some of our founding myths.

"We were founded by loyalists, and gosh darn, we fought to stay independent from America!"
Note that this myth is for Anglo-Canadians.

If I remember my history right, the war did result in a relative tightening of the border and some proto-Canadian nationalism. It'd be interesting to see the effects in an alt 1830's rebellion.
 
It also gave Canada some of our founding myths.

"We were founded by loyalists, and gosh darn, we fought to stay independent from America!"
Note that this myth is for Anglo-Canadians.

If I remember my history right, the war did result in a relative tightening of the border and some proto-Canadian nationalism. It'd be interesting to see the effects in an alt 1830's rebellion.

There might not be too much of a difference, the only difference is that the Canadas might not enact the alien laws on Americans and there might be a few more people of loyalist extraction in the area.

But the cause of the rebellion will still be there, and there probably just as much antipathy towards it from much of the populace.
 
I'm tempted to say the world would be a better place. Jackson may not have risen to prominence. The Second Bank would still stand then, and may help moderate economic panics/depressions/recessions. Lastly, the Trail of Tears may not have taken place.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Canada is even more of a backwater

There's been a variety of threads lately on the war of 1812, with plenty of rather strong opinions being bandied about. Given the military realities however it seems difficult to greatly change the outcome, at least without a relatively early POD/massive screwing of one side or the other by other factors.

A more interesting question IMO is if the war did not occur at all. This shouldn't be too hard to achieve, an end to impressment for one reason or another would do it, perhaps Napoleon falls of his horse and the war in Europe ends early. No war however does not mean no tensions, there are still plenty of border disputes and in particular the British presence in nominally American territories in the Great Lakes as well as their support of Tecumseh and other tribes which could spoil relations. Perhaps most importantly the lack of a frustrating and relatively inconclusive war means a lack of understanding the limitations of both British and American power at the time.

Personally I think the most likely outcome of such a scenario would not greatly differ in appearance to what occurred IOTL, though I guess the butterflies further down the track could dramatically change the world. The US and British Empire had strong interests in trade and peace, after all. Nevertheless, I do think there is some room for a future and far more bloody competition in North America, in particular if a later war broke out between the US and Britain over border disputes/British support for the Amerindians. A (much larger than in 1812) US conquest of Canada during the 1820's? An undistracted British Empire devastating the US economy? Or perhaps border disputes being resolved more in favour of Canada?

If the point of departure is 1812, Canada is even more of a backwater; Confederation may not even take place, and there are two or three "British" nation states north (more or less) of the 49th Parallel... Newfoundland, some variation of Acadia/Maritime confederacy, and "Canada" limited to the historical Province (Upper/Lower) and maybe points north...

The US may be in a position to purchase/acquire some or all of what became the Canadian west, all the way to (and including) what became British Columbia, from Britain, the HBC, Selkirk's people, or all of the above.

Best,
 
It also gave Canada some of our founding myths.

"We were founded by loyalists, and gosh darn, we fought to stay independent from America!"
Note that this myth is for Anglo-Canadians.

If I remember my history right, the war did result in a relative tightening of the border and some proto-Canadian nationalism. It'd be interesting to see the effects in an alt 1830's rebellion.

That is a very interesting point, as I have thought for a while.

The War of 1812 was really the "founding moment" for Canadian nationalism. It established Canada as separate from the U.S.

If it doesn't happen, by the 1830s there could be a lot of sentiment in "Canada" (Ontario and possibly Quebec) not only for overthrowing the Family Compact and the United Empire Loyalists, but for joining the U.S.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There was a fair amount as it was...

That is a very interesting point, as I have thought for a while. The War of 1812 was really the "founding moment" for Canadian nationalism. It established Canada as separate from the U.S. If it doesn't happen, by the 1830s there could be a lot of sentiment in "Canada" (Ontario and possibly Quebec) not only for overthrowing the Family Compact and the United Empire Loyalists, but for joining the U.S.

Well, sort of - the Maritimes weren't really "Canadian" until after Confederation, and Newfoundland wasn't until after WW II.

And there was a fair amount of sentiment for joining the US as it was...

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/colonial/annexationmanifesto.htm

Best,
 
The War of 1812 was really the "founding moment" for Canadian nationalism. It established Canada as separate from the U.S.

one book I have on the war notes exactly that... in particular, it cemented the idea of the border being an actual border between two different political entities. Before the war, the border was widely ignored, and people moved back and forth across it at will. The war saw the rather odd situation of former Americans fighting for Canada, and vice verse...
 
I think it's entirely possible that Canada (well Upper Canada=Ontario) would have joined the US eventually if there hadn't been the war to establish a Canadian identity.

As pointed out, a lot of people moved across the border both ways before the war, and you could end up with an Upper Canada that was a lot more Yankee flavoured than OTL.

So... The war of conquest to take over Canada may be precisely the thing that PREVENTED the takeover of Canada.... :)
 
I think it's entirely possible that Canada (well Upper Canada=Ontario) would have joined the US eventually if there hadn't been the war to establish a Canadian identity.

As pointed out, a lot of people moved across the border both ways before the war, and you could end up with an Upper Canada that was a lot more Yankee flavoured than OTL.

So... The war of conquest to take over Canada may be precisely the thing that PREVENTED the takeover of Canada.... :)

Most likely the case. Without the near immediate inflammation of old wounds towards the Loyalist population and the resentment of the French for a second invasion it is likely that the bad blood and hard feelings of the Revolutionary War could have been papered over in time through cross border marriage, the erosion of the British identity, economic intermingling, mutual dislike of the Francophone population, and a shift towards the more wealthy American institutions.

Attempting to force that decision brought out an enormous illogical stubborn streak in rejecting American ideals that crossed linguistic boundaries.
 
So the general consensus is that it's likely that most of Canada would just end up joining the US at a later date peacefully? Perhaps US-backed 1837 style rebellions would do the trick.
 
I don't buy that idea. But I do think you'd see less impetus to unite the colonies; New Zealand and Australia remained separate, so why not the Canadian dominions?
 
There were a lot of Americans settling in Canada prior to the war, and some were of loyalist extraction but most came in search of free/cheap land. But even this isn't evidence of Americans swamping the colony. There was continual migration from Britain primarily Scots (both highland and lowland) as well as the English and the protestant Irish. And many of the Americans that were being allowed to settle were of the apolitical variety, because several of the prominent Americans who agitated for reform or had republican sympathies were forcefully removed. The Canadians were exceedingly picky about who they admitted to their colony.

So my argument would be that very little would change in the result of conflict being avoided. Because except an extra-strong anti-American streak running post war, the current elite (and to a lesser extent the common people) were already fairly established in their views and ideology.
 
Last edited:
Top