Because... Britian was a French ally in 1799?![]()
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.