Successful Canadian Rebellion of 1837

What if the Candian Rebellion of 1837 was won? For this POD there was some kind of British atrocity which conveniently happened at the start of the rebellions which acted as a rallying cry to gather support, and the US militarily backed the rebels as well. By late 1838/early 1839 Upper and Lower Canada gained independence (with British recognition) under the protection of the US, and it'll request annexation shortly before Texas does.

A quick and bad map I made to show North America after Canadian independence. (and I forgot to remove the Ontario-Quebec border in Ruperts Land).

How would this effect Northwest Territory and Rupert's Land, Oregon territory, the Atlantic provinces, The Mexican-American war, Alaska, the Civil War, the number of states in the southwest (I'd assume there would be a slave south California), the division of Texas, and the modern day?
 
I think Quebec would hold out independence, but end up rather dependent on the US. Probably a protectorate later on. Upper Canada would probably see another migration of loyalists off to Manitoba and the Maritimes. The Maritimes would probably tie together quickly and stick close to Britain. Might get fully joined to the UK. Rupert's Land might well end up being sold, depending on how BC goes. The British might fight harder for them.
 
I can't see Upper Canada successfully breaking away from Britain. Remember these were the rebels that retreated because they thought some of they fellow rebels died while they were in fact reloading. . .

Also in a larger context, the rebellion in Upper Canada was little more than just another riot by angry farmers in a time when riots were pretty damn common in Upper Canada.
 
I can't see Upper Canada successfully breaking away from Britain. Remember these were the rebels that retreated because they thought some of they fellow rebels died while they were in fact reloading. . .

Also in a larger context, the rebellion in Upper Canada was little more than just another riot by angry farmers in a time when riots were pretty damn common in Upper Canada.

True, but cut off by Lower Canada the British can't hold on to it very well. Maybe they can send something via Churchill, but it won't be secure at all.
 
That much territory unquestionably in the North, held by an anti-slave population, would really set the South off. One of the things delaying the "War Between the States" was the balance of new states north-south. Especially given Canadian's anti-slavery stance, this would be blocked by Southerners as long as possible.

EDIT: I only saw the first two posts.
 
True, but cut off by Lower Canada the British can't hold on to it very well. Maybe they can send something via Churchill, but it won't be secure at all.

Perhaps, but I honestly think that the Upper Canada garrison was just about adequate to suppress Mackenzie's revolt. Lower Canada's rebellion depends entirely on if the United States is willing to support them. I am pretty sure Martin Van Buren would rather want to stick to his isolationist policy.
 

katchen

Banned
King Nazar, your lower half is betraying your upper half. As your lower half half points out, unemployment is shooting through the roof due to the Panic of 1837. Frankly, it is the supression of the Rebellion of 1837 that has Americans kicking themselves over a missed opportunity for the next seven years of economic depression and giving rise to the meme of "manifest destiny". A more successful "Mackenzie's Rebellion just means that the meme had time to gather steam while the country can actually do something about it.
If (and this is our POD) Lower Canada is still independent in January 1838 with the St. Lawrence River frozen over we will start to see a lot of pressure from New York (listen up, Ol Kinderhook!) New England, and Pennsylvania to for Heaven's sakes help those poor freedom fighters out and take over Upper Canada! And the Southern states will be clamoring for annexation of Texas, Rio Grande and New Mexico as slave states to balance it out, as well as expansion to California and perhaps Sonora and Sinaloa and Zacatecas and it's silver mines. Manifest Destiny emerges in full flower seven years early. And Martin Van Buren must surf this wave just as a later William McKinley would have to surf the eave of war with Spain IOTL.
 
If the Americans attack and try their hands at the Maritimes that might get the British involved fully.
 
Don't see how the US and the Canadians can possibly win unless there's majority support for the rebellion in Canada and they're both willing to wage a war that last for 6-8 years or however long it takes for the British to get tired of stomping all over the Eastern seaboard and Great Lakes. Needless to say, I find that very unlikely.
 

katchen

Banned
Don't be so sure of that. The British may already be sick of trying to stomp Americans after losing one war and fighting another to a draw. As British colonies go, Canada is somewhat marginal. The West Indies sugar colonies are far more profitable, as is India. And Australia and New Zealand and Cape Colony and Natal are looking far more promising as places where poor English and Irish can resettle under assisted passage schemes than Canada, where land is actually becoming short. Ontario is filling up and lines of communication to the prairies are not yet established.
The only real vital interest Great Britain has in North America is the fish of the Grand Banks. And Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are staying loyal. So will Great Brtain fight very hard to keep Upper and Lower Canada if it means a major committment of troops? I think not. Some sort of purchase arrangement will be negotiated with the United States.
 
It would need a careful balance.

If the loss is too dramatic the British might be whipped into a fury and go all out.

If it is too messy than it might just be settled as status quo.

You need a loss big enough for the British to go 'what the hell are those men dying for over there?' but small enough not to charge nationalist sentiment and a desire for revenge.
 
Don't be so sure of that. The British may already be sick of trying to stomp Americans after losing one war and fighting another to a draw. As British colonies go, Canada is somewhat marginal. The West Indies sugar colonies are far more profitable, as is India. And Australia and New Zealand and Cape Colony and Natal are looking far more promising as places where poor English and Irish can resettle under assisted passage schemes than Canada, where land is actually becoming short. Ontario is filling up and lines of communication to the prairies are not yet established.
The only real vital interest Great Britain has in North America is the fish of the Grand Banks. And Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are staying loyal. So will Great Brtain fight very hard to keep Upper and Lower Canada if it means a major committment of troops? I think not. Some sort of purchase arrangement will be negotiated with the United States.

The UK was at the peak of its historical power and supremacy in the years 1815-1865. Imagining the US could defeat England without a strong coalition such as the one that supported the american revolution is nonsense.

Imagining that the UK would neglect a minor power (the US of the time) or a major power to snatch away parts of the british empire without fighting back is also nonsense.
 
None of that is true.

Great Britain was not at the peak of their power in 1837.

Note that Great Britain's Army was tiny at this time, less than 50,000 and rotting (as the Crimean War would soon prove). Britain could not ship every soldier in the empire to Canada.

Britain's peak strength was 1803 to 1815. In 1837, it would take Great Britain years to summon an army large enough to suppress a revolting Canada (assuming the nation was fully supportive of independence), much less the US.

During the American Revolution in 1775-83, Great Britain & Ireland outnumbered the US 7-1 in population, when the US had no established central government, no army and a large percentage of the US population was loyalist or ambivalent.

During the War of 1812, the ratio was 3-1.

By 1837, the populations were nearly even and the United States was a lot closer. Twenty years later, the US mobilized nearly a million soldiers at any given time for four years of Civil War. There is no way Britain could win a land war.

1812 was the last time that Britain might even challenge the US in a land war on North America, they certainly could not dominate. The demographics were permanently altered by this point.

Great Britain's only strategy would be to use the navy to assault the coasts until the US got tired of the war.

However, this would not help much to retake Canada. The Canadians would not care if New York or Philadelphia were being shelled.
 
True, but cut off by Lower Canada the British can't hold on to it very well. Maybe they can send something via Churchill, but it won't be secure at all.

Thing is, the British Army didn't need to fight rebels in Upper Canada. Loyalist militias would be far more popular than rebel ones....
 
Top