Plausibility Check/AHC: Put All Canadian Soil In American Hands before the ACW

Either due to decisive victories in the American Revolutionary War and/or the War of 1812 and/or any residual or ancillary skirmishes between 1812 to 1861, do all you can to put all of Canada under the American banner by the start of the American Civil War, if at all possible.
 
Either due to decisive victories in the American Revolutionary War and/or the War of 1812 and/or any residual or ancillary skirmishes between 1812 to 1861, do all you can to put all of Canada under the American banner by the start of the American Civil War, if at all possible.
Definitely possible, in fact the entire reason that most of these types of threads go with the inverse ("put all canadian soil in american hands after the war of 1812") is because to many, doing it earlier is simply too easy. However I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on North American history.
 
Definitely possible, in fact the entire reason that most of these types of threads go with the inverse ("put all canadian soil in american hands after the war of 1812") is because to many, doing it earlier is simply too easy. However I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on North American history.

I'd love to see a timeline developed where all Canadian lands falls under the realm of the United States by 1860.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
All seems a bit too much. The UK will fight for Halifax in a very determined manner, but it is doable with a big, big ARW loss for UK. The easiest is have the USA take Quebec and hold in ARW, this gives us everything west of their. You can also do in the war of 1812, by having Napoleon do a lot better, therefore the UK can't send as many troops over. To do both, i would go with America keeps Quebec in ARW, and gains Halifax during Napoleonic wars. Or if you like later POD's, you could have the Americans fight the UK near 1860 with the forces of the civil war. You need some POD where the UK is a greater issue than the slavery issue, but that is probably doable. Think a "Kaiser Willie" type King or PM who does a bunch of actions that anger the USA but does not weaken it. Statements about reconquering the USA. Sailing RN up and down coast in threating manner. etc.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Have the British military and financial situation vis a vis Napoleon be considerably more desperate. In exchange for a respectable amount of cash and an agreement to not try to run the blockade of Europe, they sell Canada to the US (and stop impressing US sailors, but that's more as a sop to public opinion than anything of significance.
 
The US was fortunate to do as well as it did in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Taking all of Canada is wildly unlikely so long as Britain exists. If Britain falls, perhaps to Napoleon, there will be no real counterbalance to French ambition. Napoleon will probably claim both Canada and the Louisiana Purchase and if Britain couldn't stop him, it's unlikely the US will.

If the US does manage to take and hold all of Canada, that's almost certainly butterflied away the American Civil War. If the ACW does go down, the Union will be much larger than in OTL and the Confederacy's chances of success would be almost non-existent.
 
States north of the former border would really screw up (or just alter significantly) the balance between slave and free in the Senate. You might see Kansas being admitted as a slave State to try and maintain the balance. Why it would, I'm not sure. Wheat isn't as profittable pound-for-pound as cotton or tobacco, and I'm not sure how well they'd grow on the plains.
 
If you can manage to rile up Atlantic Canada a bit more in the Revolution so St. John Island/Nova Scotia/Newfoundland join their American brethren, and then put peninsular Ontario into the US's hands at the Treaty of Paris (and it was there for a bit in 1782), you've gotten Anglo-Canada at least. I personally think Quebec is extremely low on the doability scale. At least Atlantic Canada was British/Yankee-settled and English-speaking compared to Quebec's French-Catholics.

*Upper Canada wasn't part of Rupert's Land politically/Hudson Bay watershed geographically - actually part of the Great Lakes watershed - and so it'd be a natural extension of the Northwest Territory, especially if Britain has even less access to it via Atlantic Canada and especially Quebec seceding.

(I'd be interested to see what happens to a Quebec that is completely surrounded by a United States, actually)
 
Top