Vermont Rejoins the British Empire

More Specifically Canada. Basically when the Republic of Vermont was trying to gain statehood, Congress wouldn't do so because they still recognized it as part of New York. Apparently there were talks within the Republic of rejoining Britain so what would happen if they did, can the British possibly hold on to this bit of land, would we see a new war between Britain and the US?
 
More Specifically Canada. Basically when the Republic of Vermont was trying to gain statehood, Congress wouldn't do so because they still recognized it as part of New York. Apparently there were talks within the Republic of rejoining Britain so what would happen if they did, can the British possibly hold on to this bit of land, would we see a new war between Britain and the US?
I doubt they would actually go through with it, and if they did they would get 1812'd
 
I doubt they would actually go through with it, and if they did they would get 1812'd
Explain? 1812 was status quo ante bellum. If the Americans actually wanted to annex anything, they would have to fight the British for quite a bit longer... and Napoleon won't be a thing forever.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I doubt Vermont would go through with it. If they did, Britain would accept at once, since it would be a huge boon as far as pride is concerned ("rebels seeing the error of their ways, graciously welcomed back-- look at how noble we are, welcoming them as brothers, and look at how impotently those other upstarts rage at it").

If it did happen, the USA isn't really in a position to successfully invade. Under these circumstances, Vermont isn't a state trying to throw off the British, and attempts to capture it will meet the same fate as attempts to capture Canada. Indeed, the USA will be "1812'd" if it tries. By which I mean: they'll get their asses kicked, and after that it's status quo ante. (Because the British war goal here -- keep the USA from conquering Vermont -- would be substantially more attainable than "keep the thirteen colonies under our control against their will".)

ETA: Also, to underscore @TC9078's point, Napoleon won't be a factor at all, in this scenario. These events take place prior to 1791 (Vermont's OTL entry into the Union). The French Revolution is a thing, but Britain's commitment to that matter is still far more limited at this stage than its commitment to the Napoleonic wars in 1812. Long story short: if Vermont decides to go through with this, the USA is best served by just accepting it. Attempts to force the matter won't end well for the USA.
 
Last edited:
Vermont wasn't trying to join the British/Canada. It was simply leverage over the Continental Congress and the British deluding themselves. (Even into the Civil War, British war planers thought Maine would weclome them in the event of War between it and America.)
 
I co-sign what others have said not to mention that invading Vermont (full of hills/mountains) wouldn't be easy for the fledgling American Army of the 1790s.
 
Many Vermonters were inclined toward neutrality during the War of 1812. HMS Confiance was actually built with Vermont timber and the British base at Ile aux Noix was supplied, in large part, by Vermont farmers.

If the British win decisively during the War of 1812 and, specifically, Prévost pulls off Wellington's plan for the Lake Champlain-Hudson River corridor, then Vermont could readily fall under British military control.
 
What is it to be 1812'd? To accomplish nothing in the face of a numerically inferior opponent?
I mean, Britain/Britain's native allies controlled the Northwest in all but name, and the US took all of it. The US also accomplished all of its goals in the war
 
Explain? 1812 was status quo ante bellum. If the Americans actually wanted to annex anything, they would have to fight the British for quite a bit longer... and Napoleon won't be a thing forever.
The British essentially owned the entire northwest territory prior to 1812, after 1812 they controlled none of it. That hardly seems status quo to me.
 
The British essentially owned the entire northwest territory prior to 1812, after 1812 they controlled none of it. That hardly seems status quo to me.

But per the Treaty of Paris after the Revolutionary War, the Americans legally controlled the Northwest, if they didn't in practice. The results of 1812 was more an enforcement of the prior treaty to avoid another war and so Britain could focus on Europe, not the US taking the land, even if the latter was what essentially happened.
 
A well treated returning Vermont to the British fold, can this be used as the fulcrum to pry New England away from the US in 1812?
 
A well treated returning Vermont to the British fold, can this be used as the fulcrum to pry New England away from the US in 1812?

Doubt it, it would probably increase hostility even more so, since Britain's essentially tearing off a piece of what the US sees as part of New York. Besides unless the War of 1812 goes dramatically differently, assuming it occurs at all, there's no way Britain could reclaim all of New England.
 
What is it to be 1812'd? To accomplish nothing in the face of a numerically inferior opponent?
It's a bit more than that. To be 1812'd is to attempt to invade a numerically inferior opponent, fail miserably, and then declare that the war was a draw because although your invasion failed, the invaded party did not bother to take any territory off you in the peace settlement.
 
Top