Realistic ways of the United States annexing Canada

Ummm.... No. Canada doesn't become independent until ... hmmm... say, the Statute of Westminster in 1931 (one can argue the exact date)*, but during WWI, the UK probably has the RIGHT to sell Canada. Of course, it wouldn't work, Canada would likely declare independence. Still, the attempt would likely, ultimately, lead to a US take-over.

OTL, by the end of WWI, Canada was establishing its own identity (Canadian units officered by Canadians, instead of British, for instance), but I don't think Canada as 'its own country' was quite the dominant meme yet, although it was growing fast.
--
*Granddad, who never took out Canadian citizenship for some reason, could vote in every Canadian federal election in his lifetime as a British subject. And, of course, there are those who claim that the repatriation of the Constitution was the formal dividing line.
Canada was the next thing to independent in 1867. Yes it kept ties to Britain, extremely close ties in fact, but Britain couldn't just tell Canada exactly what to do, much less sell land.
After 1867 Canada had control of all internal affairs as long as they did not badly affect Britain. Selling off Canada is definitely an internal matter.
The part where it gets tricky is international affairs. Canada agreed to follow Britain in regards to international matters that did not affect it. If Canada was affected it would act as the junior partner to Britain.
This was shown in the Alaskan Border Dispute in the early 1900's. Canada had one diplomat and Britain had 2 in the border discussions with the US. Britain sided with the United States because Canada's argument was frankly full of hot air. But Canada did have a say in the matter, and if Canada had decided to ignore it they could have. But in that case Britain would have walked away and said "Its your problem now" and the US could do whatever it wanted.
If Britain had openly sold Canada or even parts of Canada, the Canadian people would have thrown the British out. Canada was fine being a junior partner on the world stage because being the junior partner to Britain still gave them a lot more power than being a tiny totally independent country. But this doesn't mean they were owned by Britain.

And I think the best way for Canada to join the US after the ARW is no War of 1812. Keep the American settlers coming in, keep the Family Compact out of power, and most importantly keep the immense amount of trade open between Canada and the US without fear of invasion and most of Canada is going to feel very cozy with the US. This doesn't mean they'll jump into the US with open arms, but a gradual economic union throughout the 1800's followed by political union in the early 1900's is possible.
Quebec would likely be an independent minded dominion of Britain and the Maritimes would stay British, but Ontario and the west would likely join the US, simply because of the economic benefits.
 
Best bet is to let Quebec join the revolution. That way, if the Americans get their independence, Quebec will be an allied independent nation and the rest of canada will be american dominion
 
If the war of 1812 is butterflied away is it possible for American settlers to eventually become numerous enough to pull a Texan and revolt taking part of Canada into the Union?
 
Sigh. Upteenth time I have to counter the foolish clichè in this board that there were anti-Catholic or anti-French pogroms in the 13 colonies. :(:mad:

There was no "intolerance" whatsoever of French language and culture in 18th and 19th century America. Back then, French was the highly valued and respected second language of educated elites and the international language of culture throughout Europe and America alike, just like English after 1945. Intolerance against Catholics was much less strong and widespread than you think. Catholics were elected to the Continental Congress and to the Constitutional Convention, you may see their signatures in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both the US Constitution and the state constitutions gave full equality and civil rights to Catholics and French-speakers, and those measures were passed with little controversy. There is no historic record of significant anti-Catholic grassroots harassment or mob violence in 1770s-1780s America.

The 1787 Constitution would have given Quebec complete freedom to legislate to establish the Catholic Church (the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states till the 14th Amendment, and there were established chirches in the 13 states till the 1830s), protect French language, and establish the civil code. Respect for state rights was so deep in American public opinion that unless Quebec had actively discriminated against Protestants and English-speakers, nobody in the other states would have questioned the right of Quebeckers to manage their own state as they seemed best.

The Founding Fathers were highly interested in Canada joing their ranks: during the Revolution they wrote open invitations to do so, and after it, Canada was pre-approved for membership in the AoC.

The American system would have granted Quebec more equality and autonomy for their religion, language, law system, and culture, not to mention more political freedom and self-rule, than British colonial administration. That's an unquestionable fact.



Well, Britain did lose the ARW, and if Quebec had joined the revolution, it would have lost just the same, in all likelihood quicker and more decisively.



Well, since Quebec representatives shall be among the Framers, it is indeed likely that a couple clausles shall be added to the Constitution to state that the Federal Government shall not interfere with the "domestic institutions" of the states (the Tenth Amendment actually shall make it unnecessary anyway), nor establish a national official language (the 1st Amendment already forbids to create a national church). The other states shall have little trouble with them, they fit well with the spirit and framework of the constitution. Nothing more is necessary, the states were already free to legislate to create an established church, an official language, and adopt the French civil law system.

I think that you are both right and wrong about the attitude toward Catholics in the American colonies. It's true that there were Catholics among the patriot-American forces - mostly from Maryland, because that's where most of the Catholics in the 13 colonies lived. On the other hand, anti-Catholic prejudice of a less violent and blatant sort was far from dead. Perhaps the biggest problem that the patriot forces had in OTL getting sympathy in Quebec was that the majority of patriot troops who went into Canada in 1775 and 1776 were from New England and New York - and these were the parts of the colonies that had the longest memories of fighting the French in Canada as enemies. The New Englanders in particular, with their Puritan-descended Congregationalism, were especially anti-Catholic. They weren't going around lynching priests, but they definitely had little inclination or ability to win hearts and minds. Anti-Catholicism of at least a mild sort was also extensive in most of the other colonies, if not as overt as in New England. Remember that the colonists were, on average, probably more militantly Protestant than the British themselves

Still, I agree that if the patriot forces are more successful militarily, the deal offered to Quebec as part of the USA would give their institutions the same level of recognition as the British (I'm not sure about more - the Quebec Act in OTL was pretty liberal in that regard), plus more self-government. The states in the USA under the Articles of Confederation and even under the early Constitution had so much autonomy that Quebec could have largely followed its own path. I like the idea of an alternate 1st amendment explicitly stating that the Federal government could not establish a national language. Quebec will almost certainly support the Anti-Federalist/Republican political side of the spectrum, because a stronger federal government totally dominated by anglophone protestants would be seen as a potential threat to their autonomy.
 
Last edited:
I think it'd be an incremental thing.

Need a lot of PODs though.

The Revolution:

Nova Scotia and Canada join the revolution.

Two parter: Rather than "Up The Kennebec" Arnold goes "Up the Connecticut", reaching Canada sooner in 1775 with his men in better shape and perhaps more of them and better prepared for a siege.
(Examples: More supplies (and the right type; tools, winter coats, etc..) for a siege camp that doesn't leave the CA in such terrible condition when they finally launch the attack.)

The attack on Quebec succeeds.

With more men (men actually fit for combat at that) there's a chance.

Say Charleton is killed early in the attack. What happens to the Brittish troops and militia if Charleton's dead? In the face of a larger, stronger attacking CA?

If Arnold can win at Quebec, he'll gain great prestige, even when he's forced to abandon it in early spring when the British send a huge expeditionary force to retake it and "silence the sedition in Halifax".

Arnold and his men retreat in good order and have support amongst the locals, perhaps with many coming with him in his withdrawal to say, Montreal.

Eventually, Montreal will become untenable and Arnold withdraws again back down Lake Champlain to Ticonderoga. Valcour Bay still goes down as OTL, Ticonderoga is still evacuated. Saratoga still happens as per OTL with a few more PODs playing out:

1. Arnold's in total command and isn't wounded during the battle.

2. The British feel that, in light of Canadian support for the revolution, they were far too lenient and become far harsher occupiers of Canada in 1776-1778.

3. The British handle revolutionary sympathies in Nova Scotia far more harshly than they did in Massachusetts. Halifax is basically on lock down.

Two pronged effect of the above three PODs:

1. Canadians swing even further into the revolutionary camp.

2. Nova Scotia swings fully into the revolutionary camp.

3. Arnold, unwounded, fresh from victory (that he gets due credit for) and flush with troops gets another crack at Canada. (He'd have tried it again if he could OTL. I'm almost positive he would.)

Arnold and his men winter in Ticonderoga (evacuated, as per OTL in November, along with Crown Point) but Arnold has his men work on some important building projects during the spring: Gunboats and troop transports.

Late spring/early Summer 1778: Arnold invades Canada again, but has much stronger local backing, particularly on the south bank of the St. Lawrence. It's a brawl, but eventually, Montreal falls and Arnold consolidates a concerted Continental Army along the south bank and strengthens this force's position.

Then...

Arnold and John Stark launch a CA expedition into Nova Scotia in support of revolutionaries there.

I'm not suggesting that this is by any means a pushover; either campaign, and Quebec may be so heavily defended that Arnold doesn't even attack it, rather, he leaves a deceptively sized force across the St. Lawrence to pin forces in Quebec in place. Quebec isn't going down, but the British forces there are effectively out of the war. Nova Scotia's going to be a bloodbath that probably doesn't resolve itself before Yorktown...unless the French Navy is able to assist in a siege to take Halifax, but that may not even be within their capabilities.

Perhaps if the Dutch lend a hand on the naval end? (Albeit, it'd probably have to be a sizable hand.)

End result: with Canadian and Nova Scotian delegates seated in the Continental Congress, the south bank of the St. Lawrence occupied to the Gaspe and Nova Scotia both occupied by the CA in some areas and unwilling to return to the British fold where it's not, you would probably see The Saint Lawrence river as the border between the U.S. and Canada in the treaty of Paris, 1783. Nova Scotia and Acadia (south bank of the St. Lawrence + Gaspe and a chunk of Northern Maine, state capital: Montreal) become the 14th and 15th states.

Lingering problems/new consequences:

French Canadians resent losing lands on the north bank and Quebec, makes them a wild card in ALL dealings with Britain.

Acadians and Nova Scotians possibly make thing tougher for slavery to survive the Constitutional Convention. 9 "free states" to 6 "slave states"= Two thirds of the country in the free camp. Two thirds majorities being what they are...

With a major river as a national border and Acadia just about totally dependent on maritime activities for commerce, plus Nova Scotia being an almost totally maritime economy would make a large standing U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. a political necessity. Even Jeffersonians (unless they want to remain a permanent minority party) would have to concede to that point. Jefferson could freeze the size of such a force, (probably until his veto pen is neutered in the mid-terms) if he can even become president in TTL, but he could never smash it to pieces the way he did OTL. The Big Navy becomes an American institution.

And Americans are really good at building, maintaining and staffing navies when they put their minds to it.

Here's where it gets tricky though:

The Quasi-War with France: Would a big U.S. Navy deter it or just make it an American curb stomping of the French?

The maritime commerce issues that lead to the War of 1812: Would the British back off ships of a U.S. that can adequately protect it's commercial shipping?

The British are still going to run guns to the tribes in the Northwest. They're still going to cajole the tribes into harassing/impeding U.S. settlement there. The Americans in the West are still going to be pissed off about that and the government can't ignore that forever.

However, war with Britain may still end up averted if the Army balks at a "Big Navy"/"Small Army" and the Army is built up to effectively crush the tribes in the Northwest totally in the Northwest Indian War 1785-1795 and then effectively guard the settlements against possible attack out of Upper Canada.

If the Northwest is fully pacified by 1795, even more free states, and quicker, than OTL.

Slavery might become the biggest issue in the U.S. at the turn of the 19th century.

That quite a few PODs and possibilities that may get some of what is modern Canada, but might also create conditions where the next war with Britain (if there is one) may not come about in 1812 and getting more may only be possible by other means or not at all until the Oregon Crisis and that's decades away.

Also creates a much different U.S. from it's very foundations.

Thoughts on the situtation I've laid out so far?

And bear in mind, what I suggest here is possible effects/scenarios, not assured outcomes.

I believe I've avoided wankery here.
 
The US gained the Ohio Valley in the Peace of Parris when a group of around 300 men under George Rogers Clark captured a couple of outpost forts in the Ohio Valley.

Now what if the Sullivan campaign of 1779 was more sccessful and lead to the capture of Ft Niagara and then aiding Clark to capture Ft Detroit. Would not need a ton of men, but would need organisation, supplies, and leadership.

The US would have conquered Upper Canada and would hold it until 1782 as the British turn to the South.

The US would get Upper Canada in the Peace of Paris.

I started a tread on this last February.

Some butterfly effects are of the US obtaining Upper Canada are
1. Better US -British relations in 1800's due to no War of 1812
2. Better US - Indian relations as Indians in Upper Midwest are screwed with no Brit backing and have to have better relations with USA for survival. Perhaps the US sets asside some of Upper Canada like Oklahoma for the North East and Great Lakes tribes.
3. US purchase of more Hudson Bay Company Territory, perhaps all of the territory of the Red River in 1819. More of the Great Plains bread basket is American.
4. British keep access on the Pacific - so Oregon territory still might be split OTL, perhaps the US gets a little more, perhaps the southern portion of Vancouver island, maybe all of Vancouver island.
5. US may acquire more of Mexico as a compromise to the South to offset northern states - thiscould happen but I doubt it
5. Southern Secession & ACW occurs 4 to 8 years sooner as the South loses political power as more northern, free states are created. North with more power may be more unflxible to fugitive slave laws.
6. Quebec and the maritimes are still British possession, may become a Confederation later.

......
 
Last edited:
Top