Treaty of Paris WI: A Different US-BNA Boundary

The American revolution was a fundamentally different war to 1812 though.
There Britain saw itself as the bad guy, it was a massivly unpopular war. When France joined the war sympathy for the Americans vanished (they were no longer nice Brits fighting for liberty and all that, they were arch traitors alliged with the high anti-democratic evil) but things were too far gone.

With 1812 it was the Americans trying to unjustly conquer Brits who wanted to remain free. The strategic loss of Canada may be somewhat acceptable but abandoning British people would not be. Britain owns the sea, it could let the American economy fall to bits then pick up the pieces later.

The only ASB thing here is saying that that a US victory in these conditions (having all of Canada at the start) would be such. If (going beyond the present PoD) the War of 1812 would begin with America alreeady owning all of Canada, it would be for Britain at the very best a compelety frustrating long stalemate. They would lack any foothold in the continent, raids and naval blockades didn't gain them anything IOTL and in ARW, with a mcuh weaker stalemate. At best, they would not gain anything, at worse, they could lose major chunks of the British West Indies (precious colonies that the USA would very much gain, thank you), depending on how much good or bad the US Navy is during the early period of the war.

:rolleyes:
This misses the point. There wouldn't be a war if America owned Canada. Just theoertically speaking assuming Britain wakes up one day and decides to invade the US.
There's no way America stands a chance of gaining the west indies- both politically and militarily.
 

General Zod

Banned
With 1812 it was the Americans trying to unjustly conquer Brits who wanted to remain free. The strategic loss of Canada may be somewhat acceptable but abandoning British people would not be. Britain owns the sea, it could let the American economy fall to bits then pick up the pieces later.

Too bad that IOTL, with a much better border and hence strategic situation, they utterly failed to do so. Without a decent strategic foothold on the continent if they lose Quebec it would br much worse. Raids were getting them nowhere, naval blockade can take forever snce USA are completely self-sufficient as foodstuffs go, they don't have an industry lacking commodities, and New England shall be much more tolerant tio endure the war's harships if the USA has got Canada, and they were obliged to focus most of their war potential against Napoleon in the first part of the war or utterly exausted from a generation of wars with France afterwards. The loss of Canada is trivial in these circumstances (it confirms the outcome of the ARW) and the plight of the United Empire Loyalists is utterly trivial as well. London has abandoned them once, they shall do it again. They shall ask the USA to write some worthless promise about their treatment in the peace treaty, but they will come to naught as it happened in 1783: the UEL shall have choose, again, rither become republican Americans, or emigrate, again. The British Empire still huge, with plenty of space to resettle stubborn Royalists: Ireland, South Africa, Australia. Pick and choose.

This misses the point. There wouldn't be a war if America owned Canada. Just theoertically speaking assuming Britain wakes up one day and decides to invade the US.

This misses the fact that the USA would declare war, again: over British blockades, impressment, and yes "we want sugar-rich colonies" Manifest Destiny expansionism.

There's no way America stands a chance of gaining the west indies- both politically and militarily.

Sure they do. PoD: America wins Canada in the ARW. Butterfly: the Federalist Party stays in power longer and keeps stronger influence when they don't. This causes the young USA to develop their regular Army, Navy, and militias. When the war happens, the President has good Armed forces at his command, so the US Navy seize the BWI while Britain is focused on France, and defeats Britain's early counterattacks. London writes off North America as a lost cause, signs peace, and refocuses on Napoleon.
 
Sure they do. PoD: America wins Canada in the ARW. Butterfly: the Federalist Party stays in power longer and keeps stronger influence when they don't. This causes the young USA to develop their regular Army, Navy, and militias. When the war happens, the President has good Armed forces at his command, so the US Navy seize the BWI while Britain is focused on France, and defeats Britain's early counterattacks. London writes off North America as a lost cause, signs peace, and refocuses on Napoleon.

America seizing the West Indies at this time is most definitely Alien Space Bats. I dont think you understand just how wide the naval gap was and how valuble the West Indies were to Britain. It is on par with Vietnam seizing Guam during the Vietnamese War.
 
Too bad that IOTL, with a much better border and hence strategic situation, they utterly failed to do so.
They did to an extent.
But the main reason they didn't entirely was that they were enjoying success with what little forces they did have in the Americas.

naval blockade can take forever snce USA are completely self-sufficient as foodstuffs go, they don't have an industry lacking commodities,
A lack of a industry is quite true. Britain can't totally destroy America economically as it can a few decades down the line.
Being self-sufficient in food is quite irrelevant, I'd think even Britain would be that at this time.
Trade though is where countries make their money and money is what makes countries run.

This misses the fact that the USA would declare war, again: over British blockades, impressment, and yes "we want sugar-rich colonies" Manifest Destiny expansionism.

I don't think so. Even assuming a butterfly net that ensures other events remain the same America wasn't stupid. They aren't going to declare war on Britain when they've nothing to gain. IOTL they felt they had a good chance of 'liberating' Canada in a American Revolution round 2.
With there being no Canada to be liberated they can only challenge Britain at sea which as isot the terribe says is a crazy idea. There's a big difference between privateers enjoying a bit of success against British merchants and the American navy actually posing a threat to the British.
 

General Zod

Banned
They did to an extent.
But the main reason they didn't entirely was that they were enjoying success with what little forces they did have in the Americas.

In such a situation, they would not have any such success on land. And by 1814-5, Britain was utterly sick and exausted of a generation-long war with France, they were not going to prolong another one substantially in ordser to keep up the embargo only to cover the butts of a few Royalists in Canada, when it is largely lost already.

A lack of a industry is quite true. Britain can't totally destroy America economically as it can a few decades down the line.
Being self-sufficient in food is quite irrelevant, I'd think even Britain would be that at this time.
Trade though is where countries make their money and money is what makes countries run.

My point about this is that the only time Britain has been able to win a war decisively by blockade alone was when it staved Germany in WWI. America successfully endured a much longer war with the British Navy just
a generation before, therefore Britain cannot use naval blockade to reverse a decisive land defeat that kicked them out of Canada.


I don't think so. Even assuming a butterfly net that ensures other events remain the same America wasn't stupid. They aren't going to declare war on Britain when they've nothing to gain. IOTL they felt they had a good chance of 'liberating' Canada in a American Revolution round 2.
With there being no Canada to be liberated they can only challenge Britain at sea which as isot the terribe says is a crazy idea. There's a big difference between privateers enjoying a bit of success against British merchants and the American navy actually posing a threat to the British.

America seizing the West Indies at this time is most definitely Alien Space Bats. I dont think you understand just how wide the naval gap was and how valuble the West Indies were to Britain. It is on par with Vietnam seizing Guam during the Vietnamese War.

You may have a better point about this. Maybe they would use a privateer undeclared war to retaliate British blockade and impressment.
 
Well at least the General is admitting that the basic motive for 1812 was naked greed by the US.;) He is vastly overestimating the power of the US at the time. Also as usual for an extreme nationalist he has double standards on the behaviour of humans. Presuming that Britain will abandon its citizens while Americans will support a long war for imperial expansion no matter what the cost.

Steve
 

General Zod

Banned
Well at least the General is admitting that the basic motive for 1812 was naked greed by the US.;)

If you want to say so... I would call it "completing the outcome of the ARW", but then again, I have no hypocrisy about expansionism being a positive force in many cases, depending on the outcome. IMO the US system was, and is, vastly superior to British parliamentarism, so yes.

He is vastly overestimating the power of the US at the time.

The same power of the US that kicked the Redcoats out in the 1770s and fought the rematch to a draw in the 1810s. I accept the rebuke on the naval war, but I refuse it as it concerns the land war. The omnipotent British Empire has consistently failed to win a land war on the American continent in both engagements. I take that outcome and reason out the effects of better starting conditions for the US from having the Ontario peninsula.

Also as usual for an extreme nationalist he has double standards on the behaviour of humans.

Which nationalist, since I'm Italian ? My geopolitical sympathies are totally devoid from real-life nationalism in its usual sense, most of the cases. America, Germany, United Europe, Roman Empire ... :confused::confused: Heck, I even root for the British Empire, albeit not against the Yankees or the Reich or the EU.

Presuming that Britain will abandon its citizens

They have already done so in 1783. I see nothing to indicate that the United Empire Loyalists or the Quebecois are more vital or precious to them in 1815 than in 1783. They made the UEL relocate from the 13 colonies to Canada in 1783, they shall made them relocate from Canada to Ireland or Australia or South Africa in 1815.

while Americans will support a long war for imperial expansion no matter what the cost.

To them, it would be the second round of their war of independence/national unification. And yes, they have endured such a long war in rather worse conditions in 1776-1783 and shall endure another similar one in 1861-1865. So I conclude, yes, raids and naval blockade cannot win this war for the British if they get their butts kicked out on the continent.
 
The same power of the US that kicked the Redcoats out in the 1770s and fought the rematch to a draw in the 1810s. I accept the rebuke on the naval war, but I refuse it as it concerns the land war.
The US didn't kick the redcoats out in the the 1770s though. There were so, so many other factors that led to the US coming out independant.
And 1812 was undoubtedly a British victory, the peace treaty terms said status quo but that doesn't mean the war was a draw.

The omnipotent British Empire has consistently failed to win a land war on the American continent in both engagements. I take that outcome and reason out the effects of better starting conditions for the US from having the Ontario peninsula.
There hasn't really been many wars between Britain and the US to say that. Just because Norway never had a war with the USSR you can't really argue Norway would have won such a war (just a straight fight, no NATO or anything).


My point about this is that the only time Britain has been able to win a war decisively by blockade alone was when it staved Germany in WWI. America successfully endured a much longer war with the British Navy just
a generation before, therefore Britain cannot use naval blockade to reverse a decisive land defeat that kicked them out of Canada.
Blockades have being a major part of success in many other wars than WW1.
Also the American revolution was a rebellion. Not a proper war. There wasn't really any American trade and industry to cut off.
Britain wouldn't just rely on a blockade though to liberate Canada, it could and would land troops and with sea dominance they could support them.

But anyway, this is all getting silly. If ASBs give all of NA to the US then 1812 wouldn't happen. Its all moot.
 

General Zod

Banned
Blockades have being a major part of success in many other wars than WW1.

But none was won by them or raids alone.

Also the American revolution was a rebellion. Not a proper war. There wasn't really any American trade and industry to cut off.

Yes, but my point about this was, if the Yankees a could endure the hardships of the ARW to liberate themselves, they could and would endure a blockade for the time necessary to secured a liberated Canada for themselves at the peace table, in order to complete their national unification.

Britain wouldn't just rely on a blockade though to liberate Canada, it could and would land troops and with sea dominance they could support them.

They failed to achive any decisive advantage by that strategy both in the ARW and the War of 1812. At New Orleans, they got their butts handed to them. Without an established strategic foothold on the continent in Canada, the outcome of New Orlans would just repeat again and again. How many defeats of that kind before the British Parliament, exausted after a generational war with France, decides that the Canadian Royalists can go to Hell ?

But anyway, this is all getting silly. If ASBs give all of NA to the US then 1812 wouldn't happen. Its all moot.

About this, I concur at this point. But I was also arguing about a different scenario: An US Ontario peninsula makes the US conquest of Canada quite easy, and if that happens, the British are not going to ever reconquer it by sea power, espeically not in the conditions of 1812-1815.

Lets' say that if the US leave the ARW with full possesion of continental British North America (and I heartily contest it would be ASB at all, with the right PoD just before or during the ARW), it rather more likely that the emboldened USA would cast its expansionistic eye on the Spanish Empire and intervene in the Wars of Independence of Latin America.

However, if we go with the original PoD (the US gets the Ontario Peninsula in 1783), the War of 1812 happens on schedule, since the US would want the rest of Lower Canada, Upper Canada, and the northwest territories.
 
Last edited:
Top