Realistic territorial changes if America won the war of 1812.

What would be a realistic territory exchange if the USA had done far better in the War of 1812? The US annexing the entirety of British North America is ASB, but is there any reasonable amount of territory the US could have taken if they managed to temporarily occupy, say, Toronto and Montreal? I think the US annexing either one of Upper or Lower Canada is ASB, but could the US have annexed the entire Oregon territory by using Upper and Lower Canada as bargaining chips. In a timeline I am working on, the US uses parts of Eastern Canada to secure the majority of the Canadian West. Originally it was just going to be Oregon but I figured that if the US secured the entire Canadian west coast the rest of Western Canada shouldn't really be that much of an ask.

New America.png

The black line is my general idea of the new border. It is based on watersheds and rivers. I remember somebody saying the Hudson Bay was privately owned so the US couldn't have annexed it. Is this true? And is my new border realistic?
 
What would be a realistic territory exchange if the USA had done far better in the War of 1812? The US annexing the entirety of British North America is ASB, but is there any reasonable amount of territory the US could have taken if they managed to temporarily occupy, say, Toronto and Montreal? I think the US annexing either one of Upper or Lower Canada is ASB, but could the US have annexed the entire Oregon territory by using Upper and Lower Canada as bargaining chips. In a timeline I am working on, the US uses parts of Eastern Canada to secure the majority of the Canadian West. Originally it was just going to be Oregon but I figured that if the US secured the entire Canadian west coast the rest of Western Canada shouldn't really be that much of an ask.

View attachment 367661
The black line is my general idea of the new border. It is based on watersheds and rivers. I remember somebody saying the Hudson Bay was privately owned so the US couldn't have annexed it. Is this true? And is my new border realistic?
Well, most of the territory on the American/western side of that black line is empty, so Britain probably wouldn’t be as loath to part with it as Upper and Lower Canada. Plus, this is before the Yukon and Alaska Gold Rushes, so the true value of the territory isn’t yet known. I think it’s a possibility, not an easy one, but not ASB either.
 
Well, most of the territory on the American/western side of that black line is empty, so Britain probably wouldn’t be as loath to part with it as Upper and Lower Canada. Plus, this is before the Yukon and Alaska Gold Rushes, so the true value of the territory isn’t yet known. I think it’s a possibility, not an easy one, but not ASB either.
How my timeline be more realistic? And do you think the border is a good one?
 
Well, most of the territory on the American/western side of that black line is empty, so Britain probably wouldn’t be as loath to part with it as Upper and Lower Canada. Plus, this is before the Yukon and Alaska Gold Rushes, so the true value of the territory isn’t yet known. I think it’s a possibility, not an easy one, but not ASB either.

It's also not valued by the Americans though, especially since in 1814 the Louisiana Purchase is still basically empty. Not to mention how such a massive swath of land joining the Union would play out in the slavery debate; Southern congressmen won't accept if they have to assume all the land that logically would end up free in the territories basically doubled.

You need a reason for the US to make the demand, and make it domestically palatable
 
In the short term I doubt they'd be able get very much more than southern Ontario, because Kingston and Montreal are pipe dreams given what they were working with. Long term, perhaps more but I doubt Britain would willingly part with Rupertsland.
 
What about Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the stretch of Quebec south of the St. Lawrencd instead? The gains from Quebec could be partitioned with NY, Vermont, NH, Maine, and NB, so only three states would be added. I don't see Britain signing away a chance to have territory on the Pacific this early on.
 
What about Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the stretch of Quebec south of the St. Lawrencd instead? The gains from Quebec could be partitioned with NY, Vermont, NH, Maine, and NB, so only three states would be added. I don't see Britain signing away a chance to have territory on the Pacific this early on.

With what army is this conquered? America never once contested the area in the entire war. You'd need a POD far prior to the war to get an America that can threaten the Maritime colonies.
 
In the short term I doubt they'd be able get very much more than southern Ontario, because Kingston and Montreal are pipe dreams given what they were working with. Long term, perhaps more but I doubt Britain would willingly part with Rupertsland.

I'd say this - IE basically all of Upper Canada goes to the Americans. The Assiniboine colony westward was part of the North-Western Territory that the Hudson Bay Company took control of and de-facto if not de-jure made part of Rupert's Land in the 1820s.

Jefferson spoke of seeing a "march to Halifax" post-Canadian conquests, but seeing just Upper Canada annexed and the British-supported Tecumseh Confederacy collapse is a pretty great deal for America.
 
I'd say this - IE basically all of Upper Canada goes to the Americans. The Assiniboine colony westward was part of the North-Western Territory that the Hudson Bay Company took control of and de-facto if not de-jure made part of Rupert's Land in the 1820s.

Really depends on how America does west of the Mississippi. Historically, not so well, and honestly they probably wouldn't be contesting the land for a while since the Louisiana Purchase is thousands of miles of empty land. Serious settlement didn't take place until the 1830s, and the greater Trans-Mississippi/Great Plains wasn't really opened up until the 1860s.

Honestly, Upper Canada seems like the best they get while de-facto controlling the gateway to the West which means that probably by the 1870s they're negotiating its purchase from the British/HBC.

Jefferson spoke of seeing a "march to Halifax" post-Canadian conquests, but seeing just Upper Canada annexed and the British-supported Tecumseh Confederacy collapse is a pretty great deal for America.

Jefferson was patently wrong when he suggested that. Then again, most of the people predicting an easy victory were eating crow by 1814.
 
Really depends on how America does west of the Mississippi. Historically, not so well, and honestly they probably wouldn't be contesting the land for a while since the Louisiana Purchase is thousands of miles of empty land. Serious settlement didn't take place until the 1830s, and the greater Trans-Mississippi/Great Plains wasn't really opened up until the 1860s.

Honestly, Upper Canada seems like the best they get while de-facto controlling the gateway to the West which means that probably by the 1870s they're negotiating its purchase from the British/HBC.

I'll admit I wasn't even thinking of the far future of the remainder of BNA when I said Upper Canada would be the only real viable acquisition of the USA, but that makes enough sense. Anyone who thinks Britain wouldn't hold on to the N-W T and Rupert's Land as long as possible, or even longer than OTL due to the lack of settler colonialism nibbling away at the region's fur trade, is being purposefully dense though.

Jefferson was patently wrong when he suggested that. Then again, most of the people predicting an easy victory were eating crow by 1814.

Exactly why I said just the above was a great deal. :p
 
I'll admit I wasn't even thinking of the far future of the remainder of BNA when I said Upper Canada would be the only real viable acquisition of the USA, but that makes enough sense. Anyone who thinks Britain wouldn't hold on to the N-W T and Rupert's Land as long as possible, or even longer than OTL due to the lack of settler colonialism nibbling away at the region's fur trade, is being purposefully dense though.

Well by rights the lucrative nature of the place should be gone by the 1850s absent Britain trying to claim the area via a massive influx of settlers into the territory post-Selkirk. Overall their influence would diminish and over time be eroded until the American settlers begin encroaching and Britain doesn't have a claim. Why would they bother fighting for something so remote anyways?
 
Well by rights the lucrative nature of the place should be gone by the 1850s absent Britain trying to claim the area via a massive influx of settlers into the territory post-Selkirk. Overall their influence would diminish and over time be eroded until the American settlers begin encroaching and Britain doesn't have a claim. Why would they bother fighting for something so remote anyways?

Oof, that soon? I always took it dying down at least a decade later due to the selling of R'sL to Canada in 1869-1870.
 
It's also not valued by the Americans though, especially since in 1814 the Louisiana Purchase is still basically empty. Not to mention how such a massive swath of land joining the Union would play out in the slavery debate; Southern congressmen won't accept if they have to assume all the land that logically would end up free in the territories basically doubled.

You need a reason for the US to make the demand, and make it domestically palatable

What if the Americans promise the South more slave land in the Louisiana territory and future states from Mexico in exchange for supporting the acquisition of new territory in the North? Could they even designate some northern territory to be slave states, knowing that none of those states will even have slaves due to being practically empty.
 
If the USA somehow won the war on land decisively, I see a few choices.
1. The USA takes a lot, in land or trade concessions.
1a. The next time Britain is not worried about a war about to blow up elsewhere, there's a rematch

1b. The USA gets involved in European balance of power politics and alliances, resulting in near endless war

1c. The USA goes it alone, and militarizes significantly, eventually getting drawn into foreign wars anyway.

1d. The USA takes a lot of land, and gives most of it back at the peace table, perhaps in exchange for something less embarrassing to Britain than a loss of lots of land.

2. The USA tales a little bit of useful land--perhaps complete resolution of American border disputes with Britain in America's favor. Other deals get made as well. Hard feelings are kept to a minimum.

Either way, Britain now sees the USA as a threat, to be dealt with, contained, or otherwise manipulated. That, IMVHO, makes either another war with Britain likely, or, failing that, British intervention on the side of the rebels whenever civil war breaks out.
 
Either way, Britain now sees the USA as a threat, to be dealt with, contained, or otherwise manipulated. That, IMVHO, makes either another war with Britain likely, or, failing that, British intervention on the side of the rebels whenever civil war breaks out.
What would be interesting would be if those rebels were abolitionists.
 
Would it be plausible for them to demand western Canada just in order to pen the British in the east and stop BNA getting too big and powerful?

That land isen't even well attached to the rest of British North America at this point; its loosely controled by the Hudson Bay Company and next to completely unexplored and populated only sparcely by Native Americans. As far as anybody knows, its just a bunch of trees, barely arable prairie, and swamps that are frozen half the year. What kind of threat is that? Remember, you need to see this from the perspective of very early 19th century Americans. As far as they can see that land hardly gives any power to BNA, and keeping control of the place is probably more trouble that its worth. Especially for the USA at the time, who just took on a massive swath of land they need to chart out, settle, establish control of, coral the natives on, ect.


What if the Americans promise the South more slave land in the Louisiana territory and future states from Mexico in exchange for supporting the acquisition of new territory in the North? Could they even designate some northern territory to be slave states, knowing that none of those states will even have slaves due to being practically empty.

The South would tell them they need to put their money where their mouth is and adopt a firm policy of expansion south than. Unless they have concrete proof that those Mexican and Carribean territories are actually going to materialize (something that, in an ever-shifting democracy, can't be promised decades in advance), its just empty words. Same thing with slave states in the frozen north: those who you need to convince know you'd be selling them a false bill of goods and call you out on it. The Southern leadership isen't stupid.
 
The South would tell them they need to put their money where their mouth is and adopt a firm policy of expansion south than. Unless they have concrete proof that those Mexican and Carribean territories are actually going to materialize (something that, in an ever-shifting democracy, can't be promised decades in advance), its just empty words. Same thing with slave states in the frozen north: those who you need to convince know you'd be selling them a false bill of goods and call you out on it. The Southern leadership isen't stupid.
What if they pushed the Missouri compromise further north into Kansas? Would that serve as proper compensation? It would give the South at least 4 more states, possibly 5 if you could California.
 
Last edited:
What if they pushed the Missouri compromise further north into Kansas? Would that serve as proper compensation? It would give the South at least 4 more states, possibly 5 if you could California.

You're talking about a patch of dry, unpopulated prairie land in terms of what is being offered within current US borders. Have you ever seen Oklahoma and Kansas? (The Americans haden't at the time, at least not every well). In the 1810's you're promising them gold from the King of Spain's purse for anything south and west of that.
 
You're talking about a patch of dry, unpopulated prairie land in terms of what is being offered within current US borders. Have you ever seen Oklahoma and Kansas? (The Americans haden't at the time, at least not every well). In the 1810's you're promising them gold from the King of Spain's purse for anything south and west of that.

Well, it's important to remember that the expected outcome of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was that Kansas would vote to be a slave state and Nebraska would vote free. So, at that time at least, Kansas was a region that the Slaveocracy certainly coveted (and, even if the land was terrible, it was the two Senate seats it would contain that they REALLY wanted)

Of course, that was a few decades later, when people had a fairly good expectation of what kind of land Kansas contained.
 
Top