US gets southern Ontario in Treaty of Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
At that point in time, what was the relative political & economic strengths of the Hudson's Bay Company & North West Company? I think they carried a lot of weight, didn't they? HBC had trading posts from Labrador to BC.

Would their economic impact have played a role?

I think the fur trade would be enough to have Britain at least try and keep some semblance of control over what territory they had left in TTL.

Without the Great Lakes, the Northwest Company might be strangled in the cradle, leaving the Hudsons Bay Company with a complete monopoly over the fur trade.

Everything's going to have to be moved north however. New trading posts and settlements will need to be established along the Ottawa River, the Mattawa River, and Lake Nipissing to maintain some semblance of the fur trade. This coupled with the timber industry should be enough to keep some British presence in the region (though much smaller than OTL). I`d wager that a desire to at least try to hold onto western British North America might lead to the construction of canals along the route (similar canals were being built in England in OTL at this time).

A few canals bypassing rapids on the Ottawa River, coupled with a canal connecting Trout Lake to Lake Nipissing would be enough to allow for boats to travel all the way to Sault Ste. Marie. Come the Napoleonic Wars and the timber from that region is going to be in high demand by the RN.

If the UK decides to invest in these canals, then they`re going to fight hard for a better border in the west. Perhaps gaining a bigger chunk out west in order to guarantee passage through Sault Ste. Marie. I wonder if as time progresses they won`t try to build canals to connect Lake Superior with the Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg following the old portage routes?

One wonders how valuable holding on to Ruperts Land would be for the British. I wonder if it would be enough for them to reconcile themselves to the idea of a predominantly Francophone Canada. Maybe, eventually they make a trade with the people of Quebec and adopt a more conciliatory position. All of Western Canada is opened to French immigration and refugees from Revolutionary France are settled en masse in the region. Further deals are struck with local tribes and Metis groups and before long Britain has control over the OTL Canadian west. Sure it's hardly "British" but the people of Quebec recognize the benefits of British rule. There just isn't the Anglo-french antagonism of OTL in TTL's Canada out of pure necessity.

I guess it's just fun to imagine an alternate commerce route that cuts across Northern Ontario from Montreal to Winnipeg.
 

Driftless

Donor
A few canals bypassing rapids on the Ottawa River, coupled with a canal connecting Trout Lake to Lake Nipissing would be enough to allow for boats to travel all the way to Sault Ste. Marie. Come the Napoleonic Wars and the timber from that region is going to be in high demand by the RN.

If the UK decides to invest in these canals, then they`re going to fight hard for a better border in the west. Perhaps gaining a bigger chunk out west in order to guarantee passage through Sault Ste. Marie. I wonder if as time progresses they won`t try to build canals to connect Lake Superior with the Lake of the Woods and Lake Winnipeg following the old portage routes?

I guess it's just fun to imagine an alternate commerce route that cuts across Northern Ontario from Montreal to Winnipeg.

Building canals in many of the areas north and just west of Lake Superior would be technically difficult I think. While there are lakes everywhere, the hard granite of the Canadian Shield is at ground surface for much of the area. Soil depth is measured in inches, rather than feet. The myriad lakes occupy low spots and faults and cracks scoured out by the continental glaciers. Beautiful country...:)

The cost of blasting and building canals in some of that are in the 1780's could be astronomical. Other areas to the east, it might work well.
 
Forgot about that...

Another thought...with a greater need to settle the west, and secure Rupert's land, I'd imagine that a transcontinental railway would be even more necessary. Perhaps in TTL the UK and other groups help finance a railway connecting Montreal to Manitoba in the 1830's?

HOWEVER...back to Anglo-US relations...

First off...let's say that in TTL the UK does decide to invest in opening up the Ottawa-Mattawa-Nipissing-French River-Lake Huron route to keep the fur revenues from Rupertsland up and also to facilitate the timber trade. This would probably spur American Canal building attempts. Seeing the need to secure Southwestern Ontario, Washington might decide to forgo working on a Virginian Canal like he did in OTL and instead focus on building an earlier version of the Erie Canal. If the US can get that working it might butterfly the entire War of 1812 away.
 
Could someone post a map of the borders?

Ask and ye shall receive.

OB.jpg
OB.jpg

Note that the vast northwest area of Ontario, including the north shores of Lake Huron and Lake Superior, is excluded. That area would be considered part of "Prince Rupert's Land", the domain of the Hudson's Bay Company. There's a broad connection of this area to Quebec. The extension of the border across Lake Huron wasn't defined, so the fate of Manitoulin Island remains open.

In theory Canada can still grow to the west; but with the lower Great Lakes effectively closed off, maintaining a connection is much harder. There could be a water route via the Ottawa River and Lake Nipissing; there's one short portage. But that's also along the border with the U.S.

OTOH, the U.S. had little interest in northern Ontario or the Prairies. So I don't see this affecting the 1818 treaty that established the 49N border.

So the Prairies may lay fallow for a long time. Perhaps they would be settled from the west, via British Columbia? Two nations: "Columbia" in th west, and "Canada" in the east? The OTL connection between eastern and western Canada is pretty thin, and drops off to almost nothing in western Ontario; ATL it would be non-existent for much more distance.

In the U.S. - "Ontario" would becoma a state in the 1820s, probably. I think it would be settled a bit faster.

There would of course be no War of 1812. The northwestern Indians, lacking any British backing, would submit or retreat west. This cripples the political careers of Andrew Jackson, Richard M. Johnson, and William Henry Harrison.

Possibly the acquisition of West Florida will be put off till Spain cedes the whole territory, probably a few years later than OTL. This could lead to states of East and West Florida, divided by the Apalachicola. West Florida would be the panhandles of OTL Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, and OTL Louisiana east of the Mississippi and north of Lake Ponchartrain.

West Florida would be admitted to statehood to balance Ontario. The Underground Railroad would have to run further.

The alt-Welland Canal between Erie and Ontario will be later. Ontario's later development may be slowed. Its connection to the larger world passes through another country.

OB.jpg
 
Another point that hasn't been touched on is that, while it will likely butterfly away the War of 1812 and a big sticking point of American-British relations - with Ontario and a good chance for much of OTL Western Canada to fall into American hands, I think the USA wouldn't be AS keen to declare war for Quebec and the Maritimes - in addition to likely aborting Canada, it would give a HUGE boost to the OTL Northern states.

Not in terms of numbers mind you - as others pointed out, it would likely be balanced off by Turning West/East Florida into states - but because with firm control over the Great Lakes, it could serve as a waterway to make the OTL Erie Canal look tame, a Mare Nostrum for the Industrial Age. It would give a huge boost in trade and industry in all the states bordering it, which in turn would further boost the USA commercially.
 

Driftless

Donor
Great Lakes Shipping.... 1850

A later development to be sure, but supporting your point about the Great Lakes as an Inland Sea....

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1140.html

The first ship built in Chicago, the Clarissa, was begun in 1835. By 1847, 82 ships had been built in the city, the overwhelming majority of them schooners. Shipbuilding was of greatest importance in Chicago during the period 1850 to 1875, when Chicago was the busiest port city in the United States.
 
Another point that hasn't been touched on is that, while it will likely butterfly away the War of 1812...

This is not a butterfly effect - it is a knock-on. It is a predictable change in events, where both the OTL outcome and ATL outcome are predictable from earlier conditions. "Butterfly effects" are by definition unpredictable.

... with Ontario and a good chance for much of OTL Western Canada to fall into American hands, I think the USA wouldn't be AS keen to declare war for Quebec and the Maritimes...

ITTL, the main cause of the War (British support for the Indians against the U.S.) is gone. That's the issue that fired up the western Warhawks like Henry Clay. No one in the U.S. really cared about Quebec or the Maritimes.

- in addition to likely aborting Canada, it would give a HUGE boost to the OTL Northern states.

Not in terms of numbers mind you - as others pointed out, it would likely be balanced off by Turning West/East Florida into states - but because with firm control over the Great Lakes, it could serve as a waterway to make the OTL Erie Canal look tame, a Mare Nostrum for the Industrial Age.
OTL, the U.S. had free use of the Great Lakes for transportation, and there was in fact a lot of American shipping on the Lakes. US control of the whole shores of Ontario, Erie, and Huron doesn't make any real difference.

The Lakes also lack a water connect to the sea; the St. Lawrence is IIRC not navigable above Montreal until some years later. Also of course U.S. shipping has to pass through British controlled territory; and the river is frozen up every winter. And the St. Lawrence only reaches Lake Ontario; until the Welland Canal was built, there was no connection to the upper Lakes.

The great advantage of the Erie Canal was that it completed a water connection from the Hudson (and the Atlantic) to Lake Erie, above the Niagara Escarpment. Goods could be floated from Chicago to New York without reloading. That doesn't change ATL.

And by the 1850s, canal and river transport was being displaced by railroads.
 
Ask and ye shall receive.

There would of course be no War of 1812. The northwestern Indians, lacking any British backing, would submit or retreat west. This cripples the political careers of Andrew Jackson, Richard M. Johnson, and William Henry Harrison.

Following on from this...what does a border shift like this do to American/Native interactions?

I mean, in OTL, the British were right there across the St. Clair river to support the locals in the early-1790s and mid-late 1800s, up to 1815. ITTL, however the border is way up near Lake Nippissing so It's harder for the British to do any supporting.

Do the British offer to relocate the Iroquois allies to their Canadian lands? Would the Iroquois go that far? The Mohawks are one thing but the more westernly groups?

Do you see a cycle of Treaty/Clash/Warfare/Treaty/Native retreat/Settlement/Clash? Is this any different to OTL? I can see a *Tippecanoe/*Harrison rise in this TL.

David
 
What do the British want?

What would the price for *Southern Ontario be in this situation?

What would the British need to give up this land? What would make the deal sweet enough to sell to their own people?

Would they settle for land swaps in Mine and/or to the south of Tennessee?

Would they want something from the French?

if I remember correctly the OTL treaty giving up the North-West Territories cause the government to fall?
 
Does this require Rockingham to live longer?

If I remember correctly Rockingham generally wanted easy terms to end the war but Shelburne was both less convinced and more devious about the whole thing.

If Rockingham lived longer could he possibly just give away *Southern Ontario?
 
What would the price for *Southern Ontario be in this situation?

A couple more lost battles.

What would make the deal sweet enough to sell to their own people?

Next to no one lived there.

Would they settle for land swaps in Mine and/or to the south of Tennessee?

Of course not the south. And I don’t see any war that ends with the US getting Ontario but having done WORSE on the coastal north.

Would they want something from the French?

Separate treaty.
 
Impact on the Underfround railroad and American Civil War

What would the impact be on the Underground railroad and the American Civil War?
 
No additional price at all. As I indicated in my initial post, the British were so anxious to end the war that they were willing to grant it if only the US would insist on it.

But when the US insisted all of Canada, the British fired their guy who agreed with it.
 
But when the US insisted all of Canada, the British fired their guy who agreed with it.

There is a big difference between all of Canada and the Nipissing line. Again, I'll quote Bradford Perkins:

"In the last weeks of negotiations, the possibility of even more favorable boundaries almost silently disappeared. All of Canada had never been within their grasp. Although Franklin had asked for it and Oswald seemed sympathetic, neither Shelburne nor any of his colleagues ever considered it. However, Shelburne had repeatedly agreed to accept the Nipissing line. Strachey was authorized to accept that boundary, which was part of Jay's draft, but he was also directed to seek something better, perhaps the 'French boundary', as Shelburne called it. Strachey accomplished this with remarkable ease. Failing to see the importance of the area--the industrial heart of modern Canada--and gratified to receive so much other territory, the Americans retreated to the line of the Great Lakes without even being pressed to do so. It was a fateful act."
http://books.google.com/books?id=nv3BCrrx3aAC&pg=PA44
 
There is a big difference between all of Canada and the Nipissing line. Again, I'll quote Bradford Perkins:

"In the last weeks of negotiations, the possibility of even more favorable boundaries almost silently disappeared. All of Canada had never been within their grasp. Although Franklin had asked for it and Oswald seemed sympathetic, neither Shelburne nor any of his colleagues ever considered it. However, Shelburne had repeatedly agreed to accept the Nipissing line. Strachey was authorized to accept that boundary, which was part of Jay's draft, but he was also directed to seek something better, perhaps the 'French boundary', as Shelburne called it. Strachey accomplished this with remarkable ease. Failing to see the importance of the area--the industrial heart of modern Canada--and gratified to receive so much other territory, the Americans retreated to the line of the Great Lakes without even being pressed to do so. It was a fateful act."
http://books.google.com/books?id=nv3BCrrx3aAC&pg=PA44


You answered your own query. While he accepted the Nipissing line, he was directed to press for more, that was Westminster's preference.

Turn the question around...If the British had insisted on the entire province of Canada (ie keeping the entire NW above the Ohio), what would the Congressional response have been. Keep in mind that even the "French boundary" would actually have included the entire basin of the Great Lakes as the "Pays d'en Haut du Canada". Territory that at treaty signing was still occupied and controlled by the British and their native allies. Such a boundary though would have been difficult to enforce much less survey and would have no doubt required even further negotiations.

btw.. the Red River Valley is perfectly capable of being settled at this point in time with the same basic tools that would still be used in 1811. Initial settlement there was from the Bay. Up the Nelson River to Lake Winnipeg. It would be long and difficult. but the initial settlement in NS's northern counties (complete wilderness) was easily just as difficult and arduous given the lack of provisions and resources that were initially allocated. The Upper Canada settlements, like Ohio, were also initially cut from the wilderness. You could probably anchor about 2-5000 there but it would encompass the entire valley and easily spill up the Assiniboine...earlier adoption of the York Boat to facilitate commerce and trade through the Bay.
You could end up with a border further south in the West compensating for the loss of southern Ont. if the Nipissing Line is adopted.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Perkins is absolutely correct. The primary means of travel into the interior of North America at the time was through the Great Lakes. Early US control of this water way would have made Canada largely stillborn. It's likely that Anglophone loyalists would have either left Canada, perhaps for South Africa, or swallowed their pride and stayed in the US. Some may have settled in Quebec giving Montreal and the south bank of the St Lawrence a much more Anglo population but a truly dual Anglo-Franco Quebec is unlikely. Loyalists would not have wanted to share power with Catholics and the Quebecois would have been unhappy to have so many Anglos in their midst.

Without the Ottawa peninsula and with fewer Anglo loyalists the interior of North America goes to the US by default.

Benjamin
So, the U.S. would have a land border with Alaska in this TL?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There is a big difference between all of Canada and the Nipissing line. Again, I'll quote Bradford Perkins:

"In the last weeks of negotiations, the possibility of even more favorable boundaries almost silently disappeared. All of Canada had never been within their grasp. Although Franklin had asked for it and Oswald seemed sympathetic, neither Shelburne nor any of his colleagues ever considered it. However, Shelburne had repeatedly agreed to accept the Nipissing line. Strachey was authorized to accept that boundary, which was part of Jay's draft, but he was also directed to seek something better, perhaps the 'French boundary', as Shelburne called it. Strachey accomplished this with remarkable ease. Failing to see the importance of the area--the industrial heart of modern Canada--and gratified to receive so much other territory, the Americans retreated to the line of the Great Lakes without even being pressed to do so. It was a fateful act."
http://books.google.com/books?id=nv3BCrrx3aAC&pg=PA44
What exactly is the French boundary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top