I was thinking on the American Revolutionary War and Canada, and something from my old history lessons came back to me.
After the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, both the ex-colonies and Britain promptly broke parts of the treaty. Britain maintained forts on the western frontier and armed indians, while justifying it in part because the US hadn't paid back loyalists who had lost property during the revolution.
After the war, life wasn't good for many loyalists, as they faced state-accepted persecution and weren't paid for damages caused by revolutionaries seizing their property. In response, many promptly left the states and moved to Canada, where they served as both a loyal population for Britain and kept Canada semi-hostile towards the US for many years.
So what if the states hadn't persecuted the loyalists so, and had not allowed/participated persecution blantantly, but also paid back the loyalists? What could be the changes?
Might more loyalists stay in the US where it was bad/inconveniant but not intolerable, rather than uproot their lives and move to Canada? That would both increase US population (and presumembly the future children would be loyal), and insert a whole new demographic into the US while denying it too Canada.
Admiting that I don't know Canada history in the least, would having fewer loyal anglos in Canada let it remain more "French", per say, and thus more likely to rebel/ assist the US in a future war of 1812 (American Revolution 2.0, with Canada included)?
Or would a significant pro-Britain element in the population help avoid the War of 1812? Or if there was still a war, would a New England with lingering loyalist sympathies be more inclined towards British troops during a hypothetical occupation?
What kind of affects can you spot from this little-explored PoD? Or can you spot a fatal flaw in this?
After the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, both the ex-colonies and Britain promptly broke parts of the treaty. Britain maintained forts on the western frontier and armed indians, while justifying it in part because the US hadn't paid back loyalists who had lost property during the revolution.
After the war, life wasn't good for many loyalists, as they faced state-accepted persecution and weren't paid for damages caused by revolutionaries seizing their property. In response, many promptly left the states and moved to Canada, where they served as both a loyal population for Britain and kept Canada semi-hostile towards the US for many years.
So what if the states hadn't persecuted the loyalists so, and had not allowed/participated persecution blantantly, but also paid back the loyalists? What could be the changes?
Might more loyalists stay in the US where it was bad/inconveniant but not intolerable, rather than uproot their lives and move to Canada? That would both increase US population (and presumembly the future children would be loyal), and insert a whole new demographic into the US while denying it too Canada.
Admiting that I don't know Canada history in the least, would having fewer loyal anglos in Canada let it remain more "French", per say, and thus more likely to rebel/ assist the US in a future war of 1812 (American Revolution 2.0, with Canada included)?
Or would a significant pro-Britain element in the population help avoid the War of 1812? Or if there was still a war, would a New England with lingering loyalist sympathies be more inclined towards British troops during a hypothetical occupation?
What kind of affects can you spot from this little-explored PoD? Or can you spot a fatal flaw in this?