Vermont joins Canada

What if the Vermont Republic, in getting frustrated by NY's blocking of their entry to the USA, was successful in Ethan Allen's attempt to rejoin Britain and become part of Canada? Would the War or 1812 still be a stalemate (thus solidifying Vermont as Canadian) and result in no change or is it possible the US wins it in negotiations?
 
Canada gains another ice-free port on the Atlantic Coast.
How many more Lobsters could Canada pull out of the Bay of Fundy?
How quickly could they built a railroad to the coast?
How much freight would bypass Montreal on its way to NH ports?
..... especially during winter months?
How man more French-Canadians would migrate south to work in NH mills?
Would the Catholic Church send monks and nuns and priests to teach, nurse and spiritually guide those FC living in NH?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Vermont isn't on the Atlantic.

The evidence suggests the reality behind this was simply the Vermonters trying to get leverage over the Continental Congress and the British deluding themselves; really seems a stretch.

Best,
 
Vermont isn't on the Atlantic.

The evidence suggests the reality behind this was simply the Vermonters trying to get leverage over the Continental Congress and the British deluding themselves; really seems a stretch.

Best,

While I agree it was a ploy by Ethan Allen, what makes you think the British Governor was in any way "deluding [him]self"? One can certainly imagine a scenario whereby the Governor calls his bluff...
 
British aligned Vermont might get easily overrun by the US in an ATL 1812 war.

It will definitely be a war aim, but Britain's position on Lake Champlain is now far more secured and any potential invasion will almost certainly have to use lake traffic to ferry supplies. Also, northern New York is far more threatened being flanked on three sides and the British are much closer to Boston and Albany. Given that the OTL war was a wash and given the problems both sides had with logistics I'd think that it suffers an invasion early and the Americans get thumped/have a minor victory occupying much of the south followed by a British invasion towards Albany which may/may not succeed.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
While I agree it was a ploy by Ethan Allen, what makes you think the British Governor was in any way "deluding [him]self"? One can certainly imagine a scenario whereby the Governor calls his bluff...

Throughout the Revolution, the British expected far more from the Loyalists than they ever would or even could deliver; there was a similar pattern regarding internal conflict smong the Americans during the 1812-15 conflict, and even as late as 1861-62, when the British war planners were earnestly convincing themselves that Maine would have welcomed a British expedition in the event of war.

Best,
 
Throughout the Revolution, the British expected far more from the Loyalists than they ever would or even could deliver; there was a similar pattern regarding internal conflict smong the Americans during the 1812-15 conflict, and even as late as 1861-62, when the British war planners were earnestly convincing themselves that Maine would have welcomed a British expedition in the event of war.

Best,
Can you provide any evidence for all these assertions?
And also citation that the Governor negotiating with Mr Allen was deluded as you originally asserted and did not really answer.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Can you provide any evidence for all these assertions?
And also citation that the Governor negotiating with Mr Allen was deluded as you originally asserted and did not really answer.
Evidence like citations or simply additional detail?

Detail:

During the revolution, the British strategy of an offensive in the south foundered on the reality the Loyalist population was incapable of maintaining, much less taking control, of any of the southern colonies, even when backed by the available British expeditionary forces; include the reality the economic and demographic strength of the Revolution was in the Mid-Atlantic region and New England, and it is made clear the British had forgone any attempt at conquest of the strategic center of gravity of the Revolutionary movement and was instead embarking on a strategy that was fatally misplaced on reliance of the loyalists.

During 1812-15, the idea that even with the at times tepid support of the US war effort by some parts of New England, Prevost's invasion would have any result other than bringing New England more firmly into the war; historically, that's exactly what happened, from Vermont eastwards.

During the 1861-62 crisis, the British plan to invade Maine, which was expected to accept such, in an attempt to gain control of the GTR segment from Portland to Monteeal. That's discussed in Bourne, complete with multiple quotes from British war planners that make their level of misunderstanding regarding Maine's loyalty to the US cause plain, to almost astronomical heights.

Best,
 
Evidence like citations or simply additional detail?

Anything that that backs up
1 ) your assertion that the UK was only relying on Loyalist support
2 ) your assertion that said support would never be adequate
3 ) your assertion that the UK was blind to said inadequacy
4 ) your assertion that those involved with the Vermont negotiations were deluded
 
Anything that that backs up
1 ) your assertion that the UK was only relying on Loyalist support
2 ) your assertion that said support would never be adequate
3 ) your assertion that the UK was blind to said inadequacy
4 ) your assertion that those involved with the Vermont negotiations were deluded

Currently reading The March of Folly, which has an entertaining examination of the British perspective between 1763 and 1783. That would take care of 2 (although there are much better, more recent, and shorter sources) and does an excellent job addressing 3.
 
Currently reading The March of Folly, which has an entertaining examination of the British perspective between 1763 and 1783. That would take care of 2 (although there are much better, more recent, and shorter sources) and does an excellent job addressing 3.
Any pertinent passages for the lazy readers amongst us?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Anything that that backs up
1 ) your assertion that the UK was only relying on Loyalist support
2 ) your assertion that said support would never be adequate
3 ) your assertion that the UK was blind to said inadequacy
4 ) your assertion that those involved with the Vermont negotiations were deluded

The negotiations between Haldimand and the supposed "Vermont separatists" (which seems much more accurate in this case than "Loyalists") began in 1779-80, which was, after all, three years after Saratoga and two years after French entry into the war, which means that Haldimand et al are considering trying to sustain a separatist state south of the border after losing an entire British army in the same theater and at a time during the war where the possibility of a French combined arms expedition landing somewhere between Nova Scotia and Georgia.

So:

1. Haldimand had (IIRC) 3,000 British regulars and 4,000 German mercenaries to defend essentially everything from Quebec to Montreal, and operate in support of the supposed Vermont separatists; by definition, given the results of Saratoga, the separatists (supposed Loyalists) would have to defend themselves against the Americans, not the British;
2. Saratoga would seem to answer the question re Loyalists in Vermont and northern New York;
3. Again, after Saratoga, expending any British resources in the northern theater beyond simply defending the Canadas seems rather blind;
4. The British in the northern theater had literally just seen a British army surrender in the field to the Americans; seems rather delusional to expect a second offensive in the same theater was particularly thoughtful strategy.

Best,
 
Anything that that backs up
1 ) your assertion that the UK was only relying on Loyalist support
2 ) your assertion that said support would never be adequate
3 ) your assertion that the UK was blind to said inadequacy
4 ) your assertion that those involved with the Vermont negotiations were deluded

1. It would be a mistake to say that the British were only relying on Loyalist support; of course they weren't. But they did expect to find more Loyalists than they actually did. In fact it was hoped that Loyalist militias might rise up and take control of parts of the colonies on their own once the British Army was present. Advisors to the North Ministry coming over from the colonies constantly overestimated the number of loyalists, either due to telling them what they wanted to hear or maybe the "Nixon was elected? But nobody I know voted for him!" effect.

2. Even if the British had been stupendously successful during the early phase of the war, encouraging loyalists, 90% of the fighting would have still wound up being done by British regulars; there just weren't enough battle-ready loyalists.

3. It's kind of obvious. In 1774 they thought there weren't enough rebels for the revolt to happen in the first place, or if it did that it would be confined to New England.

4. I don't think there's any historian who thinks that the Vermonters were negotiating with the British in good faith. Most agree that it was a ploy to keep the British army out of Vermont for the duration of the war and to extract concessions from the Continental Congress.
 
I am glad there's been spirited discussion by knowledgeable people on this topic. One clarification I want to make is that the Haldimand affair was not a mere ploy to force the hand of the Americans for two reasons- one it was not openly disclosed as one would assume for a ploy to force Congress to come to terms, it was attempted to be done in secret; and secondly it was used to attack personally Ethan Allen by NY, if it had been just a ploy he would have defended himself with such a defense to their accusations of impropriety.
 

Puzzle

Donor
Since I grew up in Saratoga and visited Fort Ticonderoga as a child, I was really shocked to learn later that Ethan Allen contemplated switching sides. The whole Vermont secession movement is really glossed over in the New York high school curriculum and it's not really emphasized at any of the pretty solid museums in the region. I only learned about it reading the excellent Conquered into Liberty which had at least one or two chapters on it as I recall.
 
Since I grew up in Saratoga and visited Fort Ticonderoga as a child, I was really shocked to learn later that Ethan Allen contemplated switching sides. The whole Vermont secession movement is really glossed over in the New York high school curriculum and it's not really emphasized at any of the pretty solid museums in the region. I only learned about it reading the excellent Conquered into Liberty which had at least one or two chapters on it as I recall.
I grew up in Saratoga, too! Small world
 
Top