Questions about the US, the 1812 War, Mexican War, and Butterflies

OK, your going to have to bear with me, I'm really newbish when it comes to this AH stuff, and if this is not the right section to post this I'm sorry.

I have three main questions, revolving around a generally more feverish manifest destiny, combined with a more decisive Mexican war and War of 1812.

1) The War of 1812 is a victory, but there is much more fighting along the Canadian border. Now I know during that war, the annexation of part of Canada was a goal. So, say, the British were much more preoccupied with le French, and get humiliated by the US in the war, and thus part or the whole of Canada is annexed, with the possible independence of Quebec. I remember reading on Wikipedia that the British were afraid that they would not be able to defend Canada against a second war, so that is also a possibility. My question for this, is how much of Canada could be annexed w/o making this seem like an Ameriwank, and how would it affect the future, would it butterfly away the Mexican war or even WWI?

2) The Mexican war is also a much more decisive victory. What are the possibilities of a more drastic end to the war, say annexation of Baja California, and a few of the Mexican provinces near Texas, say parts, or the whole, or a mix, of Sinora, Chihuahua, and/or Coahuila? The other possibilities are maybe two even three wars between Mexico and the US over the course of say 1820-1850. And what would this annoying butterflies look like?

3) The final question, is would the course of major events in Europe, be affected by this? IE, would WWI still happen generally the way it did OTL, I'm still looking for a way to make this plausable without making it Ameriwank II.

I'm sorry if this is a huge load, but these are the basic questions, as I'm really not as good wit hthe technicalities of butterflies or how much you can bend history before it snaps. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!
 
Last edited:
Legosim,

The "Search" function is your best friend.

There are a few 1812 threads active right now and hundreds of others in the archives. There was a Mexican War thread active in the last month and, again, hundred of others in the archives. Ditto "Manifest Destiny" and ditto everything else you asked about.

Use the "Search" function and get your answers.


Bill
 
My question for this, is how much of Canada could be annexed w/o making this seem like an Ameriwank, and how would it affect the future, would it butterfly away the Mexican war or even WWI?

Not much. Because of America's meteoric rise to power, many posters on this forum call Real Life America an Ameriwank. So long as they can dispatch Mexico, they have no real threats on their continent, and taking parts of Canada make this even more stark - the only real "America doesn't do well" TLs on this forum are "USA loses the ARW/it never happens" and "America fails at invading Canada". If you have them do better than OTL then they are unchallenged in power on the American continent(s) and unless they then go into isolation they're going to have a lot of success building the American Empire. The USA is bordering on wank enough already. You'd have to almost be harsh to the USA in the ensuing treaty to keep people from calling your bluff.
 
Mhm...OK, thanks. I think I know how much of Mexico I'm going to annex into the US, and it's not much outside Baja and a little bit of land off the Texan border, but I'm still not quite sure about the Canadian issue. Maybe, I can find a way to keep Cuban nationalism down, and be able to make them a state. Mhm...
 
Eh, we never really wanted Canada so to say. Why would we? It's full of French people and Loyalists or decendants of Loyalists who hated us.

Had the conquest of Canada been successful, it more than likely would've been used as a bargaining chip for concessions further west. Maybe you'd see a free Quebec.. maybe.

As for Mexico, again, why would the US want more of it? Aside from the southern fireeaters who wanted to expand slavery, what is it to the US, but a whole slew of problems we'd have to pay to fix at the time?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Eh, we never really wanted Canada so to say. Why would we? It's full of French people and Loyalists or decendants of Loyalists who hated us.

Had the conquest of Canada been successful, it more than likely would've been used as a bargaining chip for concessions further west. Maybe you'd see a free Quebec.. maybe.

As for Mexico, again, why would the US want more of it? Aside from the southern fireeaters who wanted to expand slavery, what is it to the US, but a whole slew of problems we'd have to pay to fix at the time?

Crazy Imperialists always realize their problems way to late...
 
Eh, we never really wanted Canada so to say. Why would we? It's full of French people and Loyalists or decendants of Loyalists who hated us.

Had the conquest of Canada been successful, it more than likely would've been used as a bargaining chip for concessions further west. Maybe you'd see a free Quebec.. maybe.

As for Mexico, again, why would the US want more of it? Aside from the southern fireeaters who wanted to expand slavery, what is it to the US, but a whole slew of problems we'd have to pay to fix at the time?
Yeah, I've been doing some research on Wiki and such, and it looks like my dreams are slight wankage for no reason. I know I deffinatly want to annex a little bit more of Mexico, and I'll probably turn down worldwide nationalism a titch, and give the US Cuba, Puerto Rico, and a united Mariana Islands as states by the 1950's.

If I feel adventurous, maybe the Philipines too.
 
Eh, we never really wanted Canada so to say. Why would we? It's full of French people and Loyalists or decendants of Loyalists who hated us.

Had the conquest of Canada been successful, it more than likely would've been used as a bargaining chip for concessions further west. Maybe you'd see a free Quebec.. maybe.

As for Mexico, again, why would the US want more of it? Aside from the southern fireeaters who wanted to expand slavery, what is it to the US, but a whole slew of problems we'd have to pay to fix at the time?

lothaw

I think your applying far more logic than is common for many aspects of human behaviour. There were elements in the US population that beleived they had the the right to take anything they could. Also others seemed to have believed their governments propaganda and that they would be welcomed. Its not totally impossible in western Canada as many of the settlers here came from the US.

The loyalists and Quebecers would have been more difficult to absorb than many US conquests, because they have a clearer identity, in part defined by their rejection of the US. Not to mention the former has the continued link with Britain. However as with areas in the SW settled alien populations can be absorbed and swamped. Also, provided they weren't treated too badly even most of the English speaking groups would have probably been absorbed with a couple of generations at most.

If things had gone really wrong and the US had somehow managed to conquer most of Canada [leaving say only the maritimes under British control] coupled with some difference in Europe which means that Britain felt it couldn't continue the war to liberate its people then the US might have made substantial gains. Would have required a considerable increase in the quality of the US forces in the conflict but if a couple of military geniuses had suddenly emerged its not totally impossible.

One effect in this is that it would have affected the free-slave state balance that was already a big factor in internal US politics. You have increased southern pressure for expansion in areas where they could use slaves to restore the balance. Or possibly more aggressive expansion of slavery in areas already under US rule. However likely to see and earlier war with Mexico and more substantial annexations from that country as a result. [This points to the difference between what is and what people believe. I think most of the possible additional gains the US could have made are not suitable for slave estates and the instituation was pretty unpopular in Mexico so the south would probably have been disastisfied and possibly even weakened by such gains]. Not to mention if the central valley of Mexico had been annexed there would probably be a long and expensive guerilla war before the US finally admitted defeat.

The other alternative would probably have been thoughts of earlier expansion into the Caribbean. However this requires a much more powerful navy than the US had, as well as probably a significantly more centralised government as such a plan would have meant clashing with one or more European states. [Especially with a possibly vengeful Britain in the wings this could be very dangerous].

Another factor to consider. If Britain suffers heavy losses in Canada its very doubtful it would seek to work with the US. Admittedly the later was rejected but if some butterfly means that Britain isn't willing to warn off France when it offers to help Spain regain its controls over its colonies there's no Monroe Doctrine. [Even if the US is rash enough to make such a declaration without knowing the RN will effectively enforce it its negated by either being totally ignored or the hammering France and Spain would get the US if it tried to interfer. In TTL {this time-line} you could see French distraction from European defeats in the Americas rather than Algeria, although that is possibly unlikely].

In summary the US could get very lucky and expand faster and further than it did OTL [Our Time-line] but there are a lot of possible complications, some of which could come back to seriously maul it later.

Steve
 
Crazy Imperialists always realize their problems way to late...
Ah, but thinking in 1840s terms.... the problem with Mexico is that it is full of Mexicans. That is, why would America want more non-whites in it's borders at this time? Look at the situation in California in the 40-50s to see what happened when the whites turned on the Hispanic population during the gold rush. Saw a 2-3 hr program on PBS about the situation, pretty vile in my opinion. I suppose if it happened though we might see some interesting dynamics especially in regards to the slave states.

In terms of more Canada, I'd say that the maximum allowable limit would be enabling the "54°40 Or Bust" idea and even that's dicey.
 
Thanks for the input guys! I deffinatly want the US to be more expansionist than it was in OTL, and a bit more militaristic than in OTL. I know what border I want in the south, and the Mexican issue I want to stick into the ACW somehow, most likely annexed Hispanics will be persecuted by the US gov't. When the ACW breaks out, I'm tinkering with the idea of the South offering them equal rights etc, if they fight for the Confederacy. Idc the details yet.

On Canada, I was thinking maybe just taking BC, but that would knock all Canadian access to the Pacific, and idk if I want that.

Also...how does this look...I sort of ripped off Turtledove for the general idea of the Southern border...but meh.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6092/picture1siz.png
 
Last edited:
If we are going that route; you might as well annex the Bahamas and Bermuda if America managed to capture Jamaica. It feels odd they'd leave those out if they managed to knock out Britain's prime Caribbean estate.
That was supposed to be Puerto Rico colored in!

D'oh.

I just won the prize for most retarded thing ever done on this website.
 
say annexation of Baja California
This is a real easy one
OTL the negotiators couldn't agree on who got Baja - So they cut cards for it.
The Loser keep Baja. a different cut, and Voilà.
As for Mexico, again, why would the US want more of it? Aside from the southern fireeaters who wanted to expand slavery, what is it to the US, but a whole slew of problems we'd have to pay to fix at the time?
The top three states Sonora & C, C, were as empty as New Mex and Arizona,
OTL there was a new negotiator on his way, with orders to ask for the top three states.
Have Him arrive earlier -- or better yet have a different Negotiator [Harder Liner, maybe Southerner] from the beginning.

If the US does get Baja, Then the Southern Border of Alto California would probably be farther north and Baja includes San Diego North to the LA Desert. [??North or South Edge of the Desert :confused::confused:]
 
This is a real easy one
OTL the negotiators couldn't agree on who got Baja - So they cut cards for it.
The Loser keep Baja. a different cut, and Voilà.

The top three states Sonora & C, C, were as empty as New Mex and Arizona,
OTL there was a new negotiator on his way, with orders to ask for the top three states.
Have Him arrive earlier -- or better yet have a different Negotiator [Harder Liner, maybe Southerner] from the beginning.

If the US does get Baja, Then the Southern Border of Alto California would probably be farther north and Baja includes San Diego North to the LA Desert. [??North or South Edge of the Desert :confused::confused:]
In 2005, a combination of both Baja states in Mexico, the population is ~3.3million people, or, in between Connecticut and Iowa, so, I think I'll just unify them into one state. Need to get a state flag though. Mhm.
 
Top