US Victory in War of 1812?

By victory, I mean that the US achieved their strategic goal of capturing lower Canada. How would they do it, what would the peace treaty look like, and what would the effects be?
 
How? By not bungling everything (well, next to) like OTL.

Peace treaty'd probably include all of what Canada was, likely minus Rupert's Land and maybe minus Newfoundland & Labrador.

Effects? Manifest Destiny like no one's business. Ownership of some of Canada means the U.S. will either colonize or purchase the rest of what it is today.

And because the southern states would raise all kinds of cotton-based heck, they'd be basically assured equal land in the south (read: All Mexico) and Caribbean (Cuba's a state or two, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and maybe even Liberia's a state).
 
False. Contrary to popular belief, the American goal was not the annexation of Canada, filled with diehard loyalists, but instead the use of it to get all of their other demands, such as the end of impressement etc.
 
False. Contrary to popular belief, the American goal was not the annexation of Canada, filled with diehard loyalists, but instead the use of it to get all of their other demands, such as the end of impressement etc.

If this were true then why did the US insist on continuing the war despite learning in August 1812 that the British had ordered a stop to impressment?
 
As always when the question of Yankee success in invading Canada comes up, I want to know what the attitude of Franco-Canadians would be. I get conflicting impressions; some Quebecois would be loyal to Britain at some times, others would be disgruntled.

If then Yankees are holding control of a good part of Canada, there is an opportunity, should the French-Canadians choose to pursue it, to either join the Union as a state or more, or to secure independence under some US protection. What I don't know is how likely Canadiens would be to take that chance. I guess it probably depends on the exact decade this alternate invasion is taking place--here one wonders just what was the state of Anglo-French relations in the British North American possessions in 1812.

If the French Canadians were feeling upset with British rule, then an obvious strategy for the Yankees would have been to foment rebellion, join invading US forces to insurgent Quebecois ones, and cut Upper Canada off from the sea by controlling the Saint Lawrence River. If Quebec had no intention of going back under British rule after the war, it would still be possible to negotiate Britain retaining Upper Canada, with transit agreements through Quebec--but it would also be possible for the Americans to insist that Upper Canada not be developed as a potential military threat to the USA or Quebec's western frontier (assuming Quebec becomes an allied independent republic and not a US state).

I'd think that under these circumstances, the main reason Quebec would not simply join the Union as a state would be if there was bigotry in the USA or the perception of Yankee bigotry in Quebec, based on the language and religious differences. If Quebecois felt they were going to be OK in the Union, I suspect that while there might be some grumbling among American bigots, on the whole they'd be welcomed in. But there is some question in my mind as to what their perceptions would be!

And if in fact the British rulers had more or less won over Quebecois loyalties by 1812, then this whole strategy of holding any part of Canada permanently would be ill-conceived anyway; while doubtless some French-Canadians would have allied with the Yankees it might be that most would not, and trying to hold any part of Canada, Anglo or French, would be fraught with difficulty and danger. If that were the case, then the notion of taking Canada only to temporarily hold it as a hostage for better relations in other spheres is the only sound one.
 
And interesting account of the War of 1812 can be found on YouTube. It's a Canadian produced documentory about the conflict starting from the American Revolution to the end of the War of 1812. This is a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0SUidXnuA

I learnt quite a bit from that, which surprised me somewhat. Normally all I see in regards to the War of 1812 on YouTube is American stuff that focuses on Impressment, sometimes the arming of the Indian tribes, then brief mentions of the burning of York, a whole deal on the burning of Washington, a few naval skirmishes and then a jump to the Battle of New Orleans. I learn more about the war from that series of clips than I had learnt from watching dozens of American stuff about the war.

Anyway, in the third part it talks about the Canadiens' being loyal to the British, being revolted by the French Revolution, fearing American subjugation of their culture and way of life and their determination to defend their home from American invasion. So with the Canadiens' being content with life under British rule and fearing what domination of their way of life would come under American rule I dont think there was ever a chance of Quebec joining the US.
 
And interesting account of the War of 1812 can be found on YouTube. It's a Canadian produced documentory about the conflict starting from the American Revolution to the end of the War of 1812. This is a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0SUidXnuA

I learnt quite a bit from that, which surprised me somewhat. Normally all I see in regards to the War of 1812 on YouTube is American stuff that focuses on Impressment, sometimes the arming of the Indian tribes, then brief mentions of the burning of York, a whole deal on the burning of Washington, a few naval skirmishes and then a jump to the Battle of New Orleans. I learn more about the war from that series of clips than I had learnt from watching dozens of American stuff about the war.

Anyway, in the third part it talks about the Canadiens' being loyal to the British, being revolted by the French Revolution, fearing American subjugation of their culture and way of life and their determination to defend their home from American invasion. So with the Canadiens' being content with life under British rule and fearing what domination of their way of life would come under American rule I dont think there was ever a chance of Quebec joining the US.

Other comments in other threads I've seen tend to back you up on this, which is why I was keeping the option of an independent Quebec open. The US, if it is militarily victorious in the north, would want some way to parley its success into a permanent advantage. One would be to seize Canadian territory--which will evidently be fraught with the danger of ongoing discontent. If the Americans are wise enough to see that, then one fallback is to negotiate a status for Quebec that weakens the British position in the north.

If they liked the Bourbons so much, perhaps an arrangement can be reached where the dynasty gets parked in Montreal pending an eventual restoration in France; then Quebec by treaty remains a French duchy with a cadet line remaining in Montreal as Duc while the senior heir returns to Paris. By treaty, Quebec itself is largely demilitarized and so are British holdings to the West; reciprocally the USA agrees to low levels of military preparation from the Quebec border westward as both British and US presence moves that way.

Events in Europe would therefore have continual disturbing effects in North America; every time the French regime changes, the status of Quebec gets thrown into question. Presumably when Charles X takes the French throne someone closely related to him becomes Duke of Montreal; then assuming the revolution of 1830 happens as OTL and the house of Orleans takes the French throne, Quebec's ties to France get severed as the senior Bourbon surviving arrives to be the French Pretender in exile--well, perhaps he doesn't take refuge in America after all. OTL the rise of the House of Orleans in 1830 was the end of all Bourbon French monarchies though later generations of royalists held on to hope of a Bourbon restoration; with the house having a refuge in Canada these might be more of a real possibility.

It could be that meanwhile, the Quebecois change their minds about supporting the Bourbons, depending on how the house conducts itself in Canada. Meanwhile too, the relation between Britain and the USA is also shifting; Quebec's independence depends on the treaty, imposed by Yankees in 1812, holding. It could be that Americans will think they have a better chance later at taking Canada and violate it, or that the Quebecois denounce it and rejoin the British system, tossing out the Bourbons (and triggering another round of war with the Americans--or perhaps the Yankees are astute enough not to go to war if the outcome doesn't seem too immediately threatening).

With the treaty holding and France evolving much as OTL, the eventual early 21st century outcome might be that Quebec remains an independent Duchy, perhaps renaming itself a Kingdom eventually as all hope of a Bourbon restoration in France is lost. To be compatible with its British and American neighbors the country will have evolved into a constitutional duchy/monarchy. Canada forms as a British Dominion around it.
-----
Alternatively, another possible Yankee solution would be to take only limited territory from their 1812 conquests, say a salient of Quebec to give the USA a strategic frontage on the Saint Lawrence. That way the Americans threaten to cut off the river in case there is some subsequent major confrontation between Britain and the US. But otherwise, the British dominions are left free to develop as they choose.

One possible outcome of that would be a major backfire of the intent compared to OTL. OTL, eventually the US/British border was gradually demilitarized. But with Americans choosing to rely on a threat to protect their interests westward, the British might seek to counter it with as much force as they can muster, leading to the ongoing militarization of the long US/Canada frontier. Perhaps that border would not be mostly a simple latitude, but would be frequently contested thus adjusted into a complex curve reflecting the local geography and the outcomes of a series of armed struggles.

If that happens, I'd look to a lot more British intervention in every American crisis, notably any possible Civil Wars; vice versa Americans (if not shattered by such divide-and-rule maneuvers) will take advantage of every moment of distraction and weakness that Britain suffers. It could be that come the early 20th century and a possible great power showdown filling in for OTL WWI, the Americans will automatically take whichever side opposes Britain!
 
My guess is the most likely formula is an Independent Quebec (possibly with Cuban 1900 Platt Amendment watered down overtones) and taking Rupert's Land. But upper Canada has, as was already mentioned too many Loyalists. All depends on how much victory was achieved, and if there was no successful invasion elsewhere as is very likely attempted.

The famous cartoon circa turn of the century where Cuba and other ripe apples are being waited upon by a lanky Uncle Sam to fall has an apple written on it in the background named Canada.
 
False. Contrary to popular belief, the American goal was not the annexation of Canada, filled with diehard loyalists, but instead the use of it to get all of their other demands, such as the end of impressement etc.

different parts of the country wanted different things. The west wanted Canada occupied and the Brits driven out so they would stop arming the natives. The north wanted impressment stopped so that normal sea trade would resume, and were rather disgruntled when impressment stopped but the war continued. The south absolutely did not want Canada occupied, since it would add more free states to the Union (even back then, the great divide was apparent)...
 
If this were true then why did the US insist on continuing the war despite learning in August 1812 that the British had ordered a stop to impressment?

The British never stopped impressment they revoked the Orders of Council which required American merchant ships bound for Europe to put in at a British port and pay customs duties. The British proposed a Peace Treaty based on this repeal the US counter-proposed a treaty based on the ending of the practice of impressment this was consequently rejected by the British.

To the OP while it is quite possible an American occupation of Canada could have brought on annexation it is likely other objectives would have to have been accomplished(the south wanted Florida to balance Canada. New England would have been dead set against annexation preferring to trade Canada for reparations. The south would only consent if either Texas or Florida could be grabbed from the Spanish. The west would probably be the only region unaminously n favor of annexation.
 
Top