USA wins the War of 1812

The seniority lists called. They want to laugh at your idea of having Perry go there. Or a good replacement to Dearborn, for that matter.

Which is a shame, because Perry is the kind of man you want. Same with Harrison.

But both are way too junior to for an Important Project of this sort, particularly before the ancient relics like Dearborn are proven to be worthless.

Easy enough to get rid of him personally if his health is that bad, however. That should make things at least less bad.

Perry's not as far fetched as it initially may seem as service on the Lakes was seen as a low prestige, backwater posting. Most officers (Chauncey included) wanted to fight the Royal Navy on the Atlantic, not piddle around in Lake Ontario with tiny boats and such.

As for a feasible replacement for Dearborn, both Harrison and John Armstrong Jr. are well within the range of possibility. I have a hard time seeing Harrison, the Hero of Tippacanoe being regarded as too junior for such an operation. IIRC in OTL his name was considered to lead the expedition up to Detroit. Armstrong's definitely the lesser of the two, but he had a good grasp of the overall strategic situation as well as half decent command characteristics. Had he not become Secretary of War in 1813 I think he would've made a half-decent commander. As he was a major force in determining US strategy, I could easily see him volunteering himself to lead the attack on Kingston in the absence of Dearborn.

I have a hard time imagining him saying "Oh well, I guess we should just abandon Upper Canada." - and even if he says it, London accepting it instead of using it as a reason to find someone who will retake it from the pesky Americans.

Makes a big change in the war, and Prevost may well do what you said - but the response to those changes and his actions may not lead to more American success.

Looking at how things work out in North America, not final treaties, as what influenced those is unfamiliar to me. Most of what I know is on the naval side of things.

The thing is, if you look at the allocation of British troops in North America, Upper Canada was effectively written off from day 1. For the entire war the bulk of the British forces in North America were sitting in Quebec and the Martimes with only roughly 30% being stationed in Upper Canada. Furthermore Prevost proved to be incredibly reluctant in providing reinforcements hinting to me that he saw Upper Canada as a "lost cause". Should Kingston Fall, I think his immediate tactical response would be to fortify Quebec and hope to hold off the Americans until reinforcements can arrive. Considering that there is a much larger conflict going on in Europe at the time (War of the 6th Coalition) I don't see London having a big problem with this. Add into this a more fruitful armistice and earlier negotiations and the War of 1812 becomes just that a short victorious war for the Americans with little actual territory changing sides. Sure Britain's pride is a bit wounded, but now she's free to concentrate on Napoleon...
 
Perry's not as far fetched as it initially may seem as service on the Lakes was seen as a low prestige, backwater posting. Most officers (Chauncey included) wanted to fight the Royal Navy on the Atlantic, not piddle around in Lake Ontario with tiny boats and such.

As for a feasible replacement for Dearborn, both Harrison and John Armstrong Jr. are well within the range of possibility. I have a hard time seeing Harrison, the Hero of Tippacanoe being regarded as too junior for such an operation. IIRC in OTL his name was considered to lead the expedition up to Detroit. Armstrong's definitely the lesser of the two, but he had a good grasp of the overall strategic situation as well as half decent command characteristics. Had he not become Secretary of War in 1813 I think he would've made a half-decent commander. As he was a major force in determining US strategy, I could easily see him volunteering himself to lead the attack on Kingston in the absence of Dearborn.

This may be true. But I do think the fact that the best men for this are also low on the seniority list is going to be a problem - if you play up Lake Ontario as a big deal, it sounds more attractive to Chauncey and others higher up.

The thing is, if you look at the allocation of British troops in North America, Upper Canada was effectively written off from day 1. For the entire war the bulk of the British forces in North America were sitting in Quebec and the Martimes with only roughly 30% being stationed in Upper Canada. Furthermore Prevost proved to be incredibly reluctant in providing reinforcements hinting to me that he saw Upper Canada as a "lost cause". Should Kingston Fall, I think his immediate tactical response would be to fortify Quebec and hope to hold off the Americans until reinforcements can arrive. Considering that there is a much larger conflict going on in Europe at the time (War of the 6th Coalition) I don't see London having a big problem with this. Add into this a more fruitful armistice and earlier negotiations and the War of 1812 becomes just that a short victorious war for the Americans with little actual territory changing sides. Sure Britain's pride is a bit wounded, but now she's free to concentrate on Napoleon...

As opposed to sending a relatively miniscule force to get back at the Americans AND deal with Napoleon.

The War of 1812 is a sideshow, it is not a strain on British resources to manage both.

If Upper Canada was more threatened, it would be worth more effort - given how ineffectively it was assailed OTL, there's not much reason to put much effort into parrying those thrusts.
 
As opposed to sending a relatively miniscule force to get back at the Americans AND deal with Napoleon.

The War of 1812 is a sideshow, it is not a strain on British resources to manage both.

If Upper Canada was more threatened, it would be worth more effort - given how ineffectively it was assailed OTL, there's not much reason to put much effort into parrying those thrusts.

The problem with reinforcing Lower Canada with the intention of gaining Upper Canada is that in TTL it simply won't get done. Without Brock, command of the British Army in the region falls to George Prevost (see the Battle of Plattsburgh in OTL 1814). He's just as indecisive and cautious as his American counterparts. Should Prevost's attempts to negotiate a settlement fail and the war drag on into 1813, I don't see the British driving the Americans from Upper Canada with Prevost in command. The British are going to need new commanders as well if their offensive is going to succeed.
 
The problem with reinforcing Lower Canada with the intention of gaining Upper Canada is that in TTL it simply won't get done. Without Brock, command of the British Army in the region falls to George Prevost (see the Battle of Plattsburgh in OTL 1814). He's just as indecisive and cautious as his American counterparts. Should Prevost's attempts to negotiate a settlement fail and the war drag on into 1813, I don't see the British driving the Americans from Upper Canada with Prevost in command. The British are going to need new commanders as well if their offensive is going to succeed.

And so new commanders are sent, if necessary.

Britain is a big country, it can handle the unexpectedly lucky US.
 
Well, for starters the real war goals of the United States were not to annex Canada.

Re-writing history 200 years after the fact?


To quote Thomas Jefferson: "The conquest of Canada will be a mere matter of marching."

The US would never have given Canada back. Just like the former northern half of Mexico.
 
Re-writing history 200 years after the fact?


To quote Thomas Jefferson: "The conquest of Canada will be a mere matter of marching."

The US would never have given Canada back. Just like the former northern half of Mexico.

Jefferson thinking taking Canada would be easy is not the same thing as taking and holding Canada being a war aim.

I'm not saying it wasn't, but that quote doesn't prove it one way or another.
 
Re-writing history 200 years after the fact?


To quote Thomas Jefferson: "The conquest of Canada will be a mere matter of marching."

The US would never have given Canada back. Just like the former northern half of Mexico.

This is the same Jefferson who predicted the USA would be always and forever a great farming society.......:rolleyes:
 
Well there was a thread that was written by Zach of a Napoleonic victory. Napoleon basically builds his navy,does not invade Spain or Russia. His navy defeats the British navy and prepares to invade Great Britain. So for the US to invade Canada successfully you need these conditions:
1. Have Adams start a buildup in the Navy and army after the Quasi War with France. Jefferson also decides to increase military spending after the Barbary wars.
2.Napoleon does not invade Russia and Spain and focuses on building his navy.
3. Napoleon deals a devastating naval defeat to the point the British Royal Navy becomes a shell of its former self and face invasion.
4. The US with its larger army and navy to invade Canada. The Quebecois will possibly defect to the American side with a deal that after the war they will be returned to France or receive complete autonomy.
5. Have Isaac Brock killed early in the war.
6. The state militias will not get involved at all.
7.With the Quebecois on their side when it looks like the British are being invaded by Napoleon,the big advantage will be cutting Upper Canada from the Sea by controlling the Saint Lawrence River.
8. Instead of burning York down. The US army would occupy it.

With these conditions an invasion of Canada would be much smoother for the US. The big problem would be Quebec. My guess is France would take it back or Quebec becomes part of the Union but is given much autonomy. The other problem would be the loyalist. If Britain is defeated by Nappy and its empire much taken away would the loyalist go back to a Britain a shell of its former self and in chaos. My guess you would expect a loyalist uprising a couple years down the line.
 
If that's what it takes for the US to do more than "less humiliatingly", it really is impossible.

#5 and #8 are believable. But #3 for instance is probably undoable and #1 unbelievable (specifically, Jefferson spending money on a useful military instead of his gunboat fetish).
 
Jefferson thinking taking Canada would be easy is not the same thing as taking and holding Canada being a war aim.

I'm not saying it wasn't, but that quote doesn't prove it one way or another.


It does prove it, as does the US treatment of all conquests in the 1800's. i.e. - keeping them permanently.

I know it's hard to admit, but the US lost, and Canada is an independent nation as a result.
 
It does prove it, as does the US treatment of all conquests in the 1800's. i.e. - keeping them permanently.

I know it's hard to admit, but the US lost, and Canada is an independent nation as a result.

It proves...nothing. Jefferson wasn't in the government at the time, after all.

And what? No one is having trouble admitting the US lost.
 
I still wish to see what some scenarios might be imagined if Canada hadn't survived 200 years ago. "Fearless Leader" seems to think the only important thing is to say "We didn't want Canada anyway." Sour grapes.

The fact that the US wanted to absorb Canada permanently was never the important point. That is beyond debate anyway. I am looking for ideas on what a Canada-less world would have looked like.

Peace, Elf. Just come up with ideas that go with the original idea if you wish to reply.
 
I still wish to see what some scenarios might be imagined if Canada hadn't survived 200 years ago. Elf seems to think the only important thing is to say "We didn't want Canada anyway." Sour grapes.

The fact that the US wanted to absorb Canada permanently was never the important point. That is beyond debate anyway. I am looking for ideas on what a Canada-less world would have looked like.

Peace, Elf. Just come up with ideas that go with the original idea if you wish to reply.

Um.....but Elf's totally right, and many in the US did indeed want to merely use Canada as a bargaining chip, not permanently absorb it. It's NOT beyond debate if it's constantly cropping up, you know?

Stop having your obvious nationalism cloud your reading comprehension. :)
 
WI the US won the War of 1812 and annexes Canada?

How would this affect world history? What would the territory that would have become Canada look like today?


If memory serves, the U.S. DID win the War of 1812.......
and unless some serious POD is going on, the U.S. had a standing army per Constitution of only 25,000......
there is no way the U.S. could hve annexed anything larger than Rhode Island,
 
If memory serves, the U.S. DID win the War of 1812.......
and unless some serious POD is going on, the U.S. had a standing army per Constitution of only 25,000......
there is no way the U.S. could hve annexed anything larger than Rhode Island,

This wasn't constitutional. A Federalist America might well have had the military force to take Canada.

But then you'd ask why Anglophillic America would want to go tow ar with the UK...
 
Re-writing history 200 years after the fact?


To quote Thomas Jefferson: "The conquest of Canada will be a mere matter of marching."

The US would never have given Canada back. Just like the former northern half of Mexico.

Look, if you want to base your alternate history scenario off some fantastical version of the War of 1812 based on poor scholarship and blind Canadian nationalism you're more than welcome to. Forgive me for trying to inject some realism into the thread....:rolleyes:

On a more serious note though, do some research and give me some sources that prove me wrong and I'll be more than happy to change my tune. However I do think that once you examine the wealth of primary and secondary source material on the subject you'll find that I'm right. Who knows? You may actually learn something along the way.

I still wish to see what some scenarios might be imagined if Canada hadn't survived 200 years ago. "Fearless Leader" seems to think the only important thing is to say "We didn't want Canada anyway." Sour grapes.

The fact that the US wanted to absorb Canada permanently was never the important point. That is beyond debate anyway. I am looking for ideas on what a Canada-less world would have looked like.

Peace, Elf. Just come up with ideas that go with the original idea if you wish to reply.

Now to add something constructive to this thread: As both myself and other posters have pointed out in prior posts, Canada was never in any serious danger during OTL's war of 1812. Not only was annexing Canada never a serious US war aim, but the USA also lacked the means by which it could achieve such a war aim. So in order to have the United States annex Canada in the early 19th century you're going to need a point of divergence that comes much earlier which provides the USA with both the desire and means to annex Canada and completely drive the British out of North America... Such a POD would have to come considerably earlier. Perhaps during the revolutionary war with America doing considerably worse and holding a much bigger grudge against Britain?
 
Top