PC: Third Anglo-American War in 1837?

[Nofix]

I've been reading John Eisenhower's Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott, and one of the things it talks about was Scott's role in defusing American involvement for the Rebellions of 1837. American personal involvement was relatively low, mostly cash and supplies with a scattering of troops, but the assumed death of an American citizen inflamed much of the Western states (in the 1830's that would be Ohio and such). Most of the army was in the South fighting and removing Natives from their land, and not in the position to either get personnel away from the semi-Civil War, or to fight the British/Canadian forces. Still many saw a third war with the British Empire as inevitable.

Is it possible that events could have deteriorated to the point where another war would start? Could America win and force Britain to either cede or let Canada fall into independence?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I've been reading John Eisenhower's Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott, and one of the things it talks about was Scott's role in defusing American involvement for the Rebellions of 1837. American personal involvement was relatively low, mostly cash and supplies with a scattering of troops, but the assumed death of an American citizen inflamed much of the Western states (in the 1830's that would be Ohio and such). Most of the army was in the South fighting and removing Natives from their land, and not in the position to either get personnel away from the semi-Civil War, or to fight the British/Canadian forces. Still many saw a third war with the British Empire as inevitable.

Is it possible that events could have deteriorated to the point where another war would start? Could America win and force Britain to either cede or let Canada fall into independence?

In a word, no.

The simplest point to make is that when the rebellions were happening the US was undergoing a recession and the loss of trade is something they couldn't afford, the army is dispersed and in no position to engage in hostilities at short notice (while Britain is in the process of shipping 10,000 men to Canada because of the rebellions) and have already called out some 20,000 militia or so in Canada as a response.

The rebel 'allies' are a fractious lot who don't even support each other and were in Canada West incredibly unpopular while in Canada East were not incredibly beloved by the population, who were split between supporting the Church and loyalism and the really unclear position of the Patriote's whose leader had already ducked out on them. Besides, the rebels were crushed way too quickly to even make intervening on their behalf a viable option in the first place.

It would be almost hilariously one sided.

 

[King Nazar]

I don't think Mackenzie's rebellion can survive long enough for the Americans to intervene in force. Remember, these are the guys who dispersed because they could not tell if their soldiers were being shot or simply reloading. Papineau's rebellion could last but and Anglo-American conflict over either rebellion is just way too unlikely. It is far more profitable for both sides to simply continue their (relatively) cordial relationship then to fight a costly war over who rules over the St. Lawrence/Great lakes watershed.