US manages to conquer Canada in 1812, what really happens next?

Rstone4

Banned
I presume this shifts the political balance in the US against the slave o crat power

Yes, because by the compromise of 1820 The idea was one slave state for one free state. So with all that open Canadian land for "Free states" the southerners would be eyeing Texas and mexico and saying "Those guys are really disordered right now..." Might push the mexican-American war really early. and If done in the 1820s before mexico has really stabilized a larger chunk of land might be annexed. California, pre-gold rush, will be far more open to slavery since the major anti slavery move in California was the fear of huge armies of slaves (or Chinese) stripping out the gold. In the 1820s California was only a farming land in some places.

The expanded slave power and the non requirement for a compromise of 1850 would delay the civil war a bit longer. But the growth of slavery might accelerate the development of the abolition movement. If there were a balance of northern and southern states, how would Stephan Douglass's plan for a rail road change things since his plan for a rail road lead to the Kansas Nebraska act which lead to bleeding kansas, John brown, which lead to Harper's ferry.


Also, how would this effect the election of 1824 and 1828 and the birth of the Democrat party? If the northern canadian "states" are pro Republican would Jackson feel cheated enough in 1824 to create his own party for 1828?

butterflies abound!
 
But even one generation is twenty-five years. That's a lot of time to pay for a highly expensive standing army to hold down a territory which (from the New England states' perspective) was won in a pointless war against a country that was already reasonably friendly. I'm not saying that it would be impossible for the United States to hold Canada but I don't think it would be as trivial as you seem to believe.

It might be 25 years today (it was considered 20 when I was young) but what would a generation be back in the 19th Century?

I'm not sure how much the significantly smaller Canadian population would actively resist American rule. If the peace treaty guarenteed property rights (I think that was one of the points of the treaty of Guadelope-Hidalgo, that it honored the land grants of the Californios.) then there would be no obvious reason to rise up in rebellion against DC.

I'm not convinced it would be that difficult to absorb Canada in 1812. Now 1912 would be another matter.
 
You also have to consider the severe punitive steps that the British will take once the Napoleonic wars end - the Royal Navy could well burn every city on the Eastern Seaboard, if they had the will, and what that means for the future development of the US.

A significantly impoverished US would be a much less attractive destination for immigrants.
 
It might be 25 years today (it was considered 20 when I was young) but what would a generation be back in the 19th Century?

I'm not sure how much the significantly smaller Canadian population would actively resist American rule. If the peace treaty guarenteed property rights (I think that was one of the points of the treaty of Guadelope-Hidalgo, that it honored the land grants of the Californios.) then there would be no obvious reason to rise up in rebellion against DC.

I'm not convinced it would be that difficult to absorb Canada in 1812. Now 1912 would be another matter.

A generation would probably be around 20- that's the time it'd take for Canadians who never didn't know Canada as a part of the US to start going out and about.

If the US guaranteed property rights of the Canadians(and did not launch any reprisals against UELs), I don't see why there would be a reason to rebel against American rule. For the vast, vast majority of Canadians, life would go on as it did under British rule, with no noticeable changes. Sure, a lot of people would rather not be Americans, but once the initial shock wore off, I doubt there would be cause for large-scale rebellion. A few guys might get together every couple years and take potshots at the militia, but beyond that, I don't think Canada would be difficult to quell.

You also have to consider the severe punitive steps that the British will take once the Napoleonic wars end - the Royal Navy could well burn every city on the Eastern Seaboard, if they had the will, and what that means for the future development of the US.

A significantly impoverished US would be a much less attractive destination for immigrants.

Why? By this point ATL, the British would've been bitten badly twice in living memory by the US. They're not stupid- I think it's more likely that they'd write off North America as a den of crazy people and move on. Especially once they've just had an incredibly hard-won peace. It's like the WAllies invading Eastern Europe in 1945 or America leveling Viet Nam in 1975- sure, it was possible, but most people would rather enjoy peace and wouldn't want to start another war.

As far as I know, the RN really doesn't *do* revenge- they do what's profitable. And a pointless adventure in North America (that would only lead to serious blowback) after the US beat the pants off of them twice isn't profitable. ONE War of 1812 was economically unlikely, considering the trade between the two nations. Two in a decade? No.

In fact, without Canada for Americans to gaze covetously at and Brits to worry about hordes of burgermunching invasion apes flooding into their territory, I think Anglo-American relations will be better for most of the later 19th Century and the Great Rapprochement would happen earlier than OTL.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Yes, because by the compromise of 1820 The idea was one slave state for one free state. So with all that open Canadian land for "Free states" the southerners would be eyeing Texas and mexico and saying "Those guys are really disordered right now..." Might push the mexican-American war really early. and If done in the 1820s before mexico has really stabilized a larger chunk of land might be annexed. California, pre-gold rush, will be far more open to slavery since the major anti slavery move in California was the fear of huge armies of slaves (or Chinese) stripping out the gold. In the 1820s California was only a farming land in some places.
Except the US doesn't have the force projection to invade Mexico, let alone hold bigger than OTL chunks of it.

The first railroads built in the US were in New England in 1826, for a comparison and none of that would be remotely enough to ship and supply troops to such far off locations.

The logistics don't allow for it.

Also, I don't even think the US has the population to be sending all those settlers west, now that Canada has been opened up.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The RN tried that at Baltimore, you know

You also have to consider the severe punitive steps that the British will take once the Napoleonic wars end - the Royal Navy could well burn every city on the Eastern Seaboard, if they had the will, and what that means for the future development of the US.

The RN tried that at Baltimore, you know.

Didn't work.

Best,
 

Rstone4

Banned
Except the US doesn't have the force projection to invade Mexico, let alone hold bigger than OTL chunks of it.

The first railroads built in the US were in New England in 1826, for a comparison and none of that would be remotely enough to ship and supply troops to such far off locations.

The logistics don't allow for it.

Also, I don't even think the US has the population to be sending all those settlers west, now that Canada has been opened up.

Unless I am grossly mistaken, and I could be, How many rail roads OUTSIDE of new england did the USA have in 1845? It was my understanding that General Taylor went down to the disputed zone on foot (or hoof) and marines landed via naval vessels.

I was very much under the impression (reading a book about James Polk which mentioned the mexican war, but not great details) that it was a war much like the war of 1812, that is, army guys marched or sailed into war.

If I am mistaken, ok, but, If i am not, then it would not have any bearing on the time line.

Also, wouldn't the addition of Canadian population make up for the the people who would move into canada by having others move into other places?
 
In the short run the US could probably annex portions of Canada (Upper Canada sure, parts of the Maritime provinces sure) but in 1812 they stood next to no chance of annexing all of it.

Nor really was there much incentive.

Realistically I could see the US taking bits around what is the modern Windsor Corridor easily, but anything out West, anything in Quebec and the Maritimes, not a chance. Too easily defended by the British, not enough value to justify the conquest, and not rich enough to be seen as worth the trouble when so much unused and unsettled land is out West.

Besides, if you think the RN is going to just sit back and allow its main source of timber to be taken from it you're mad.
 
The reality is that even if Kansas came in as a slave state it wouldn't last. The economics of slave labor basically meant that west of the Mississippi you had it hanging on in Missouri, but rapidly fading by the time of the ACW. Texas had some cotton growing but also a large anti-slave population, Arkansas was an odd duck. Any states with a large enough population to be states by 1860 west of the Mississippi north of Texas will be economically unviable for slavery, and even if Kansas is "border ruffianed" into being admitted under the Lecompton constitution the majority of the population will be either abolitionist or neutral, and Kansas will end up being a Union "border state" at worst.

One reason that the ACW happened more or less when it did was because the writing was on the wall for the South. The North had way more population than the south so the House was controlled by free states even if split between Republicans & Democrats. If you look at the states admitted 1860-1875 you see that they were all states that would never be slave so the senate was going to be shifting so even a "solid south" could not hold the process hostage. If anything a Canada that is going to come in with states in the 1820-1840 time period (even if Quebec is independent) means that the shift in the senate comes sooner if anything.

You WILL NOT see the USA take Cuba, just not happening prior to 1860 from a military standpoint let along a political one. Even if you take more of Mexico south of the Rio Grande, why would you it would be slave? Only if the settlers are primarily pro-slavery/slave owners AND the Mexicans are totally disenfranchised.

With the land area of Canada (+/- Quebec) its just not possible to maintain the 1 slave state/1 free state statehood deal for long.
 
I'm thinking that New England, or at least elements therein, would be avid supporters of turning the Canadian provinces into states straight-off, if for no other reason than to shift the balance of power of the legislature in their favor.
 

Rstone4

Banned
The reality is that even if Kansas came in as a slave state it wouldn't last. The economics of slave labor basically meant that west of the Mississippi you had it hanging on in Missouri, but rapidly fading by the time of the ACW. Texas had some cotton growing but also a large anti-slave population, Arkansas was an odd duck. Any states with a large enough population to be states by 1860 west of the Mississippi north of Texas will be economically unviable for slavery, and even if Kansas is "border ruffianed" into being admitted under the Lecompton constitution the majority of the population will be either abolitionist or neutral, and Kansas will end up being a Union "border state" at worst.

One reason that the ACW happened more or less when it did was because the writing was on the wall for the South. The North had way more population than the south so the House was controlled by free states even if split between Republicans & Democrats. If you look at the states admitted 1860-1875 you see that they were all states that would never be slave so the senate was going to be shifting so even a "solid south" could not hold the process hostage. If anything a Canada that is going to come in with states in the 1820-1840 time period (even if Quebec is independent) means that the shift in the senate comes sooner if anything.

You WILL NOT see the USA take Cuba, just not happening prior to 1860 from a military standpoint let along a political one. Even if you take more of Mexico south of the Rio Grande, why would you it would be slave? Only if the settlers are primarily pro-slavery/slave owners AND the Mexicans are totally disenfranchised.

With the land area of Canada (+/- Quebec) its just not possible to maintain the 1 slave state/1 free state statehood deal for long.

I am thinking of slave cowboys and a ranching economy. The california missions were damned near slavery and they were doing ok-ish.
 

katchen

Banned
A very interesting scenario, Timmy811, and one I haven't thought of before.

I agree; I don't think that the United States at the time had such a political culture as to authorise a large standing army. Wartime expenditure to defeat an enemy that can be reasonably portrayed as the aggressor is one thing; peacetime expenditure on a standing army big enough to keep down Canada is another. In 1812 it wasn't so long ago that the American people had overthrown their government because they thought its taxes were too high; if the federal government tries to keep doing this, I foresee an ugly, bleak future for the USA. Perhaps if the American War of Independence was longer, bloodier and harder-fought this might be an option… but with a PoD in the 19th century? Unlikely.

However, the situation isn't as bad for the USA as it might be. Most of Canada was unpopulated wilderness at the time, so if the Americans act intelligently (i.e. don't try to police and occupy the unpopulated areas, only deal with the populated areas) they might well be able to hold down the few tens of thousands of Canadians. {edit} That is, if they do maintain a large standing army despite what I said before. I don't mean that the USA can somehow hold down Canada without a standing army.

I'm not so sure, Alstein, that the American Civil War would be the same in this scenario. The South can argue that the North has a huge area of land to settle and make into free states, so it would be difficult for the North to keep the number of slave states as far down as they kept it IOTL.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom's reaction to the loss of the Thirteen Colonies—far larger and wealthier than Canada—was fairly lukewarm IOTL. By the time the American Civil War might feasibly happen, Canada will have been lost for at least three or four decades, and the idea of reclaiming it will be like that of reclaiming the Thirteen Colonies; the War of 1812 will be seen in the UK as just the second stage of the American Revolution, when the last of the North American colonies became independent from the UK. So I doubt that the UK's wish to regain Canada will be strong enough to fight against the USA (a major target of British investment) and for the Confederacy (whose ideal of slavery is hated in Great Britain) if the South secedes—and if the North secedes (taking Canada with it), the UK is likelier to intervene on the rebels' side than on the slave-holding USA's side.
You said "keep the number of slave states down". Does that mean that there had been plans afoot around this time to have more, smaller slave states in the South instead of the states we have today?Like two states apiece where Alabama and Mississippi now stand?
 

Deleted member 67076

Unless I am grossly mistaken, and I could be, How many rail roads OUTSIDE of new england did the USA have in 1845? It was my understanding that General Taylor went down to the disputed zone on foot (or hoof) and marines landed via naval vessels.

I was very much under the impression (reading a book about James Polk which mentioned the mexican war, but not great details) that it was a war much like the war of 1812, that is, army guys marched or sailed into war.

If I am mistaken, ok, but, If i am not, then it would not have any bearing on the time line.

Also, wouldn't the addition of Canadian population make up for the the people who would move into canada by having others move into other places?
Plenty. The USA had over 2100 miles of track by 1840.

There were already railroads stretching from New England to North Carolina and rails began to be developed in the Midwest.
 

Rstone4

Banned
Plenty. The USA had over 2100 miles of track by 1840.

There were already railroads stretching from New England to North Carolina and rails began to be developed in the Midwest.

But how does that help deploy troops to Mexico? They would likely take boats down the Ohio and then offload in NO and walk to Texas.
 

katchen

Banned
Yes, because by the compromise of 1820 The idea was one slave state for one free state. So with all that open Canadian land for "Free states" the southerners would be eyeing Texas and mexico and saying "Those guys are really disordered right now..." Might push the mexican-American war really early. and If done in the 1820s before mexico has really stabilized a larger chunk of land might be annexed. California, pre-gold rush, will be far more open to slavery since the major anti slavery move in California was the fear of huge armies of slaves (or Chinese) stripping out the gold. In the 1820s California was only a farming land in some places.

The expanded slave power and the non requirement for a compromise of 1850 would delay the civil war a bit longer. But the growth of slavery might accelerate the development of the abolition movement. If there were a balance of northern and southern states, how would Stephan Douglass's plan for a rail road change things since his plan for a rail road lead to the Kansas Nebraska act which lead to bleeding kansas, John brown, which lead to Harper's ferry.


Also, how would this effect the election of 1824 and 1828 and the birth of the Democrat party? If the northern canadian "states" are pro Republican would Jackson feel cheated enough in 1824 to create his own party for 1828?

butterflies abound!
It could balance out. Because at this time, Mexico is going through it's (guerilla) war for independence. And Mexico has not yet abolished slavery. It's an excellent time(1814-1815) for the US to intervene and take over Mexico just like Thomas Jeffferson wants the US to do (In fact Father Hildago was attempting to escape to the Unied States when he was apprehended by the Spanish in Coahila--in another TL, he might make it leading to other things....). Morelos and Mexico's crillos are simply persuaded to accept a place as American states rather than as fully independent. The US can also take over Central America, although how it divides it up remains to be seen. And Cuba. And Jamaica and the Bahamas and some of the Leeward and Windward Islands if he US is still at war with Great Britain when the war with Spain breaks out.
 
Top