US takes Canada

Because... Britian was a French ally in 1799? :confused:

No, read the POD suggested; Britain exchanges Quebec for other territories, thus, during the Quasi-War, Quebec is French soil.

I don't think the US would want Quebec, and I don't think they could take Nova Scotia. (NB... just maybe.) The Americans didn't even have a claim to Oregon in 1812, nor could any plausible American victory in Canada compel the Brits to give theirs up.

Quebec's a barganing chip, nothing more. Without control of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there's little point in keeping Quebec and while NB's a posibility, it's doubtful the U.S. would keep it if they could get something more valuable for it, along with the political disposition of the area.

They were actually reasonably nice to the civilians early on ("Inhabitants of Canada..." and all that) since they expected them to flock to the American colours en masse. By the time they sacked York in 1814 it was clear to all parties that the degree of niceness with which the American Army treated the Canadians was pretty much irrelevant.

York was April, 1813, and probably did more to create ill will in Upper Canada than anything else. Probably cost the U.S. any chance of popular support in the region. Had the Army conducted itself better at York, coupled with victory, it might have swayed some of the locals towards the U.S.

That all went to crap the minute they started looting and set fire to the parliament building. April 1813 is early enough in the war to make allies. It was also early enough to kill any chance of popular support.


Why would the Company sell to them? (EDIT: After an 1812 victory, OK, maybe. But not apropos of nothing.)

Yes, not only victory in 1812, but also possesion of Upper Canada as part of the settlement. If Upper Canada isn't part of the settlement, there's no reason to make an offer for Rupert's Land.

BC was far, far closer to Bombay than it was to Halifax in the early 19th C. The ownership of the interior changes little.

But an Oregon surrounded by U.S. territory is of little value to Britain, isn't it? (Again, assuming victory in 1812, possesion of Upper Canada, purchase of Rupert's Land, et al)


Yeah - but while Montreal + Quebec City does more-or-less = Quebec, it certainly doesn't = Halifax.

Canada in this instance refers to the Colony of Canada (present day PQ, roughly).

No, they're not taking Nova Scotia, but Canada (by 1775 definition) with a better planned and executed opperation (and also better conduct by the occupying force) was a possibility, especially if a victory could have been secured at Quebec.

After Montgomery's capture of Montreal, James Livingston and Moses Hazen were able to recruit a full regiment each of Canadian continentals. (1st Canadian and 2nd Canadian respectively, which served thoughout the war)

Problems arose when Montgomery departed Montreal for Quebec and left David Wooster in command of the garrison occupying Montreal. At first, Wooster was on pretty good terms with the locals.

Then he started !@#$ing everything up:

-Promised American ideals, then started jailing Loyalists and threatening "enemies of the revolution". (Going zealot...not a good sign.)

-Disarmed several communities. (Ah, crap...)

-Attempted to force local militia members to surrender their Crown commissions. (Uh, guys used to leading and would be the leaders of would-be volunteer regiments is just a bad idea.)

One thing that wasn't his fault was his lack of hard coin to pay for goods, which didn't help inspire confidence in the locals. He didn't have it, and he should have. The expedition was poorly planned and this was one of a number of missteps.

In theory, yes, but in practice it's more likely to present an opening for the Royal Navy to head south. In 1844 America will lose.

Wouldn't have happened before 1845 at the earliest, for one thing.

For another, the Royal Navy wasn't feeding the British people. American agricultural exports were. Sure, the Royal Navy has the upper hand at the outset, but why does everyone assume that just because the American navy was small, they wouldn't build it up durring the course of a war?
Especially if they have OTL's 1812 as a reference.

Another thing to consider, Britain wasn't without it's enemies and colonial rivals in Europe.

You don't suppose the Dutch or French or Spanish wouldn't make a jump at some of Britain's territories while they're otherwise predisposed?

When the Great Famine hits Ireland and the Irish revolt, which is more valuable to Britain: Oregon or Ireland?

The Royal Navy has an edge in the begining, but the British army has to slug it out with the officer corps that fought the ACW, led by the incredibly capable Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor.

This isn't 1812 redux. 1812 provided a lot of hard lessons for the U.S. but those lessons are valuable.

Do you think the British are just going to float up the Chesapeake again and torch DC a second time?

That the American army was anywhwere near as crappy and poorly led and diciplined as it was in 1812?

That a decade or so removed from 1837 rebellions, The U.S. couldn't have found some supporters in Canada itself?

I'm not saying the U.S. is going to win it in a walk, but odds are in their favor:

Britain's got to ship all it's troops and supplies to North America.

The U.S. has all it's troops and supplies (both in massive quantities) in the theater already.

The U.S. has vast resources to exploit all in theater.

Britain has resources in theater, but getting to them could be a problem.

The U.S. will build up it's navy and will be able to build to parity, or more likely, force supperiority in theater.

The whole Royal Navy can't come to the Atlantic. They're big for a reason: they've got an empire to police and protect.

The U.S. Navy? Whole thing can stay on station mauling would be blockade forces in the Atlantic close to safe ports, to rearm, refit, repair and redeploy.

The assumption of Britian as an automatic win is absurb.
 
US victory in War of 1812 - US Wank

POD #1 - General X is in charge of US Army before war. General X is dynamic enough to implement points below.
POD #2 - NO EMBARGO ACT - Instead Acts of Preparedness are passed
with no embargo act, Mew England is not hurt and might give war a try in 1812.

The acts of preparedness center around the fact that the US will not be able to match the Brits on the ocean and only chance would be to take Canada.

Acts of preparedness
1.) Internal improvements - National road started 4 years earlier, spur of National road to reach Ft. Dearborn. Eerie canal started in 1808 after it was proposed. It will not be finishedm but it will have a start.
2.) Increase Army - Could the active US Army be increased to 15000? 20000 would be better, but not feasible.
3.) Training - West Point and the active Army train on effective tactics for Canadian offensive invasion. State militias drill for defense tactics.

Could the plan be similar to 1862 book, where the main American force starts from Detroit and goes to Toronto?

4.) US stores supplies for just such an invasion.
5.) Cheap land for increased settlement in Ohio and Michigan to go along with the National road. This will also deal with Indian problem, where settlers come in, Indians are pushed out.
6.) Instead of Atlantic Navy - smaller vessels are made for Great Lakes. Larger troop and supply transports are made as well.

1812 - First US offensive takes Upper Canada, US able to hold on for rest of war. British are taken by surprise. US makes other advances in Quebec and along the Maine NB border.

British effectivly blackade east coast. Brits are unable to make any sizable landings or raids.

A big game of chicken ensues. US has Canada minus Quebec and Halifax, Brits have blockade.

At the treaty of Ghent, us gets Upper Canada and NB to the St John river. US pays for land in purchase. The Canada Purchase proposal is what brought the Brits to the table. US buys Upper Canada and that part of NB. Rupert's land is untouched.

For this to happen, US has to roll sevens all of the time. US has to have leadership at the military, in Congress, and President to prepare for such a war.

Could they have started preparing at first sign of trouble earlier in the 1800's? Could thee have been a dynamic general X like Arnold?
 
No, read the POD suggested; Britain exchanges Quebec for other territories, thus, during the Quasi-War, Quebec is French soil.

Oh... I thought they were all separate PODs. My bad. :eek:

Quebec's a barganing chip, nothing more. Without control of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there's little point in keeping Quebec and while NB's a posibility, it's doubtful the U.S. would keep it if they could get something more valuable for it, along with the political disposition of the area.

Agreed.

York was April, 1813, and probably did more to create ill will in Upper Canada than anything else. Probably cost the U.S. any chance of popular support in the region. Had the Army conducted itself better at York, coupled with victory, it might have swayed some of the locals towards the U.S.

That all went to crap the minute they started looting and set fire to the parliament building. April 1813 is early enough in the war to make allies. It was also early enough to kill any chance of popular support.

I didn't realise York was so early... but my point still stands: the American Army was walking on eggshells for the first year of the war, trying to get as much popular support onside as possible. That number turned out to be... three dudes. Popular support is a no-show, and by the time they went back to scorched-earth at York everybody knew it.

Yes, not only victory in 1812, but also possesion of Upper Canada as part of the settlement. If Upper Canada isn't part of the settlement, there's no reason to make an offer for Rupert's Land.

Granted. In that circumstance the Company probably will sell to the Yanks.

But an Oregon surrounded by U.S. territory is of little value to Britain, isn't it? (Again, assuming victory in 1812, possesion of Upper Canada, purchase of Rupert's Land, et al)

Just like the Falklands, Cyprus, or Nova Scotia ITTL? Oregon would stay British until they found a convincing reason it wouldn't. ("It's all the way over there" is not a convincing reason.)

Canada in this instance refers to the Colony of Canada (present day PQ, roughly).

No, they're not taking Nova Scotia, but Canada (by 1775 definition) with a better planned and executed opperation (and also better conduct by the occupying force) was a possibility, especially if a victory could have been secured at Quebec.

After Montgomery's capture of Montreal, James Livingston and Moses Hazen were able to recruit a full regiment each of Canadian continentals. (1st Canadian and 2nd Canadian respectively, which served thoughout the war)

Problems arose when Montgomery departed Montreal for Quebec and left David Wooster in command of the garrison occupying Montreal. At first, Wooster was on pretty good terms with the locals.

Then he started !@#$ing everything up:

-Promised American ideals, then started jailing Loyalists and threatening "enemies of the revolution". (Going zealot...not a good sign.)

-Disarmed several communities. (Ah, crap...)

-Attempted to force local militia members to surrender their Crown commissions. (Uh, guys used to leading and would be the leaders of would-be volunteer regiments is just a bad idea.)

One thing that wasn't his fault was his lack of hard coin to pay for goods, which didn't help inspire confidence in the locals. He didn't have it, and he should have. The expedition was poorly planned and this was one of a number of missteps.

That's the problem, though - taking Canada was always a pretty shoestring operation. Having the man in Montreal be nicer only helps a little - it was always going to come down to who won the campaign on the river, and having Montreal contribute enough troops to change the outcome of that is pretty much impossible. And the battle at Quebec wasn't even close, and making it close turns the expedition into a huge undertaking that the fractious, ill-equipped pre-Declaration* Americans couldn't manage - they had problems closer to home.

*Seriously! Up until 1777 or so the Americans didn't have a victory of significance to their name - apropos of nothing taking the North-West anchor of the British position on the Continent is a little out of their league.

Wouldn't have happened before 1845 at the earliest, for one thing.

...Yes, because we all know about the 1844-5 economic miracle in the US. :confused:

For another, the Royal Navy wasn't feeding the British people. American agricultural exports were. Sure, the Royal Navy has the upper hand at the outset, but why does everyone assume that just because the American navy was small, they wouldn't build it up durring the course of a war?
Especially if they have OTL's 1812 as a reference.

Because in 1845 the British agricultural market was all about the free trade.

And the war won't last long enough to build a navy. You may recall what actually happened in 1812: some American privateers captured some merchantmen and sank some ships one-on-one, while the Americas Squadron ran up and down the seaboard at will, sinking anything that moved and landing troops all over.

Another thing to consider, Britain wasn't without it's enemies and colonial rivals in Europe.

You don't suppose the Dutch or French or Spanish wouldn't make a jump at some of Britain's territories while they're otherwise predisposed?

This is the Age of the two-power standard, remember? The Royal Navy can take you and any friend you care to bring along.

When the Great Famine hits Ireland and the Irish revolt, which is more valuable to Britain: Oregon or Ireland?

...Why do they need to care about Ireland? :confused: They didn't IOTL when they weren't facing a war.

The Royal Navy has an edge in the begining, but the British army has to slug it out with the officer corps that fought the ACW, led by the incredibly capable Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor.

And the British Army is led by the men who fought Boney. Also it's professional, whereas the American Army... uh... exists?

This isn't 1812 redux. 1812 provided a lot of hard lessons for the U.S. but those lessons are valuable.

Do you think the British are just going to float up the Chesapeake again and torch DC a second time?

I'd be glad to hear your explanation of who's going to stop them.

That the American army was anywhwere near as crappy and poorly led and diciplined as it was in 1812?

That a decade or so removed from 1837 rebellions, The U.S. couldn't have found some supporters in Canada itself?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*snerk*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Canadian History Lesson Time!

The '37 in Lower Canada was all about Responsible (eg, Self-) Government. The men involved were not anti-British so much as anti-Colonial Government, and by 1841 the issues involved had been dealt with. The leader of the '37 in Lower Canada had been pardoned in 1845; within three years he'd be sitting in the Assembly. The one thing the Patriotes were not was pro-American; they wanted better representation for French-Canadians and the idea of getting sucked under by the US appaled them.

The '37 in Upper Canada, by contrast, was pro-annexation. It also involved about 400 men and was put down like the drunken riot it was*. It's really not a good sign when your "uprising" is outnumbered by the troops rallied overnight to stop you. In 1845 everyone involved was either a) in exile in the US, b) serving jail time for the "rebellion", or c) pretending the whole mess never happened. If you think the category c people will be of much assistance to the invasion, I direct you to my opening line.

*Fun fact: the man in charge of stopping them was colonel James FitzGibbon, of Laura Secord fame. Cool! :cool:

I'm not saying the U.S. is going to win it in a walk, but odds are in their favor:

Britain's got to ship all it's troops and supplies to North America.

The U.S. has all it's troops and supplies (both in massive quantities) in the theater already.

What troops and what supplies? In the Mexican-American War they outfitted 75,000 men. That's not exactly Great Power material there.

The U.S. has vast resources to exploit all in theater.

Britain has resources in theater, but getting to them could be a problem.

This isn't going to be WWI - the ability to strip the gears of your economy isn't an issue. Besides which, if it did the resources of the British Empire vastly trump the resources of the Eastern US, and can be accessed easily.

The U.S. will build up it's navy and will be able to build to parity, or more likely, force supperiority in theater.

The whole Royal Navy can't come to the Atlantic. They're big for a reason: they've got an empire to police and protect.

The U.S. Navy? Whole thing can stay on station mauling would be blockade forces in the Atlantic close to safe ports, to rearm, refit, repair and redeploy.

You can't build a navy overnight, and the Two-Power Standard is there for a reason - whatever happens, the RN can deal. The American Navy will lose fleet engagements and it will be unable to stop the RN from doing whatever it choses to. Sure, it may notch up a few 1812-style victories but Britannia ruled the waves in 1812 and it will rule them still in 1845.

(Again, if nothing else, by the time the US has had time to build new ships so will the RN and there's nothing like a war to get the old Admiralty purse-strings loosened.)

The assumption of Britian as an automatic win is absurb.

Certainly. But the assumption of an American win is even more absurd. Something like 1814 seems the most likely outcome, since the Brits really have nothing to gain and the Americans will quickly realise they have a lot to lose.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
The US could take Canada in a lustful embrace around 1880 if Britain kinda procrastinates with independence, but Britain is a go-getter about that kind of thing and the US was still feeling kinda schizophrenic about the civil war.
 
Top