War of 1812 is avoided, later potential of American annexation?

I have been working on my TL Victoire De La République, and one topic I have struggled with is Canada. With no Napoleon (dies in 1799 during his coup), the War of 1812 doesn't occur. The Federalists still dominate up to 1820, thus avoiding any war.

Since nobody brought it up yet, this bit doesn't follow. The Federalists were extremely limited to basically just New England in terms of electoral success, and had been on a downward trajectory well before 1812. Hell, they only won the Presidency once without George Washington, in 1796, and then just barely. The War of 1812 could be avoided even without a Federalist President, but I wouldn't expect another one after Adams.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
I have been working on my TL Victoire De La République, and one topic I have struggled with is Canada. With no Napoleon (dies in 1799 during his coup), the War of 1812 doesn't occur. The Federalists still dominate up to 1820, thus avoiding any war.

My question is: will America go to war later on with Britain over Canada? What will be potential effects? From my research, it seems that a lot of American settlers went to Upper Canada for, well, settlement. This was snuffed out in 1812 when they were pushed back to America. So, no War of 1812, meaning American settlers still pour into Canada. Can a Texas like scenario thus form? Would like to hear y'all's thoughts on this.

The lesson the War of 1812 taught Americans was DON'T MESS WITH BRITAIN!! Absent this, I think it is conceivable that the U.S. might have had a go at Canada at some point in the future when they actually could have taken her on, successfully. Basically, the thrust south to Texas and Mexico in general, was a direct consequence of the War of 1812. Arguably, the survival of Canada was dependent on this redirection of American expansionist energies, and satisfaction of American demand for land, elsewhere. So, if Americans continue to settle the Louisiana Territory, I suspect by the 1830's they might well have been in a much better position to successfully take on Britain in Canada, even without any Napoleon to absorb most of Britain's military strength. True, Britain would still have naval superiority, and would be able to pummel the American East Coast, but, not nearly with the same overwhelming advantage she had in 1812.

Thus, Americans might still be focused on heading North, rather than South, for expansion, absent the drubbing they took in the War of 1812. And, we might, instead, have a very different "War of 1832", in which the U.S. would have an overwhelming population advantage all along the Canadian frontier. I suspect the British might well have had to cede much of Canada to the U.S. under these circumstances. Basically, Canadian independence from the U.S. has largely been more a matter of psychology, than anything else, since the 1830's, or so. The U.S. has been in a position to readily annex Canada anytime they wanted to, as Theodore Roosevelt asserted when he was a young man. Canada has avoided this, essentially, by giving the U.S. anything they asked for, so, invasion of Canada was deemed unnecessary.
 
Since nobody brought it up yet, this bit doesn't follow. The Federalists were extremely limited to basically just New England in terms of electoral success, and had been on a downward trajectory well before 1812. Hell, they only won the Presidency once without George Washington, in 1796, and then just barely. The War of 1812 could be avoided even without a Federalist President, but I wouldn't expect another one after Adams.

+1
 
Since nobody brought it up yet, this bit doesn't follow. The Federalists were extremely limited to basically just New England in terms of electoral success, and had been on a downward trajectory well before 1812. Hell, they only won the Presidency once without George Washington, in 1796, and then just barely. The War of 1812 could be avoided even without a Federalist President, but I wouldn't expect another one after Adams.

For my TL, the right set of circumstances allow the Federalists to at least continue up until 1820. Here's basically what happens:

Adams realizes that he is unpopular with the Federalists after negotiating a peaceful deal in the Quasi War. He steps down, and the Federalists pick someone they actually like (who this could be, I haven't decided.)

Aaron Burr is unable to convince enough voters to vote for the DR Party, and thus certain states like New York vote Federalist. This allows the Federalists to continue up to 1804. After a long series of events (which I want to refrain to save for my TL) the Federalists live up to 1820.

Hopefully that seems somewhat realistic.
 
Without the War of 1812 uniting Canada maybe it's more amalgamated and the U.S. may pick off a piece or two.

The idea that the War of 1812 created a Canadian identity and that without it individual bits would become Americanised and end up joining the Union seems to keep popping up but I think it's fundamentally erroneous. While in OTL that's what happened anyone who spends 5 minutes on here should be aware that in AH different things can happen and identities can form in different ways. Just as a distinct Californian identity built up around the Gold Rush, the dust bowl etc. formed time would still lead to a distinct Anglo-Canadian identity forming and in the absence of serious British mismanagement it would almost certainly be built around Membership of the British Empire and not being Americans.

However what about Quebec, while it is always going to have a distinct identity from the rest of North America, religion and language ensure that, without the vague threat of the US encouraging both Anglo and Francophone Canadians to forge a joint identity Quebecois separatism may develop earlier and more strongly.
 
For my TL, the right set of circumstances allow the Federalists to at least continue up until 1820. Here's basically what happens:

Adams realizes that he is unpopular with the Federalists after negotiating a peaceful deal in the Quasi War. He steps down, and the Federalists pick someone they actually like (who this could be, I haven't decided.)

Aaron Burr is unable to convince enough voters to vote for the DR Party, and thus certain states like New York vote Federalist. This allows the Federalists to continue up to 1804. After a long series of events (which I want to refrain to save for my TL) the Federalists live up to 1820.

Hopefully that seems somewhat realistic.

Well, I'll grant that 1800 was closer than people tend to realize, and that it'd only take about 5 of NY's 12 electors flipping to let the Feds win. The issue is that subsequent elections weren't even close, with the exception of 1812, when the Federalists basically threw their weight behind a New York Democrat while Madison was really unpopular. One important point is that the Federalists clearly had some deep-seated structural and organizational problems as well as the sectional issues. The D-Rs effectively pioneered partisan platforming and sophisticated electioneering in order to challenge the Washington and Adams administrations, and the Federalists were never quite organized enough to compete for control of Congress. Hell, despite being pidgeonholed into the Northeast, the Feds couldn't even win Vermont after 1800, not even in 1812, so that's another issue.

Bottom line, I could see the Federalists keeping on until 1820 - I mean, they almost did IOTL despite the Hartford stigma. But they'd have increasingly longer odds against winning the Presidency, and Congress is right out - they never came close after 1800 there, either. As such, even during Federalist Administrations, they'd have to cut deals with Northern Democrats to get anything done.
 
Gotta love the board Canadians thinking the will of God and Queen Vicky will keep the massive industrial, population and military advantage of the USA from washing over a weaker Canada like a flood.
 
Gotta love the board Canadians thinking the will of God and Queen Vicky will keep the massive industrial, population and military advantage of the USA from washing over a weaker Canada like a flood.

What massive industrial (parity in the 1890's), population (1880) and military (1942) advantage?

As others have said the Anglo-US parity point is sometime between 1880 and 1918 depending on the details, before then the advantage lay with the British Empire.
 

Jerry Kraus

Banned
What massive industrial (parity in the 1890's), population (1880) and military (1942) advantage?

As others have said the Anglo-US parity point is sometime between 1880 and 1918 depending on the details, before then the advantage lay with the British Empire.


The advantage is local, in North America. It's still not that easy to transport massive forces across the Atlantic Ocean, it was a lot harder in the nineteenth century. So, yes, if Britain had been directly adjacent to Canada, and a part of North America, she could probably have fought off U.S. attacks well into the twentieth century. However, as it was, massive British reinforcements would have been necessary to overcome the ten to one population and industrial advantage of the U.S. over Canada. True, the British fleet was much larger than the American, but, it couldn't have been entirely diverted to the North American theater without grave risks to the security of other parts of the Empire, and perhaps a hundred thousand or more British troops might have been required at short notice in North America, to fight off the Americans, by the 1830's and 1840's. Why do you think they invested so heavily in the fortifications at Kingston, Ontario? The British were well aware they were very vulnerable indeed, by the time they started to amalgamate the Canadian colonies into a single nation, that's precisely why they did it.

Now, if we're talking about a global world war for world dominance, yes, the British do indeed, have the advantage over the U.S. until around the time of the First World War.
However, I'm just talking about North America, and the ability of the U.S. to dominate and invade Canada. Which, by the mid-nineteenth century was well within the power of the United States, and, it was highly questionable if the British could stop it, despite their clear naval superiority. Of course, Americans had a sufficient industrial base to build a much bigger navy, if they'd really wanted to, by this time. But -- and this just confirms the strong position America was in -- they didn't really need a strong navy, they were comparatively unassailable in the mid-nineteenth century. If not, why didn't the British just take them over? Do you think the British were simply being nice about it?

As to the "British Empire", it was only Brits and Hessians fighting in the Revolutionary War, and only Brits in 1812. Were you really expecting massive troop levies in Calcutta and Bombay to support a British defense of Canada in 1832?
 
The advantage is local, in North America. It's still not that easy to transport massive forces across the Atlantic Ocean, it was a lot harder in the nineteenth century. So, yes, if Britain had been directly adjacent to Canada, and a part of North America, she could probably have fought off U.S. attacks well into the twentieth century. However, as it was, massive British reinforcements would have been necessary to overcome the ten to one population and industrial advantage of the U.S. over Canada. True, the British fleet was much larger than the American, but, it couldn't have been entirely diverted to the North American theater without grave risks to the security of other parts of the Empire, and perhaps a hundred thousand or more British troops might have been required at short notice in North America, to fight off the Americans, by the 1830's and 1840's. Why do you think they invested so heavily in the fortifications at Kingston, Ontario? The British were well aware they were very vulnerable indeed, by the time they started to amalgamate the Canadian colonies into a single nation, that's precisely why they did it.

Before 1860 and post 1870 the US effectively didn't have a standing army, there wouldn't be a horde of trained and disciplined US forces crossing the border on day one so all that was needed was sufficient fortresses that the Canadian militia could hold off the tiny US Army until British reinforcements had arrived. Then you'd have much larger numbers of fresh US volunteers* going up against British regulars. I'm fairly confident of the result.

Now, if we're talking about a global world war for world dominance, yes, the British do indeed, have the advantage over the U.S. until around the time of the First World War.
However, I'm just talking about North America, and the ability of the U.S. to dominate and invade Canada. Which, by the mid-nineteenth century was well within the power of the United States, and, it was highly questionable if the British could stop it, despite their clear naval superiority. Of course, Americans had a sufficient industrial base to build a much bigger navy, if they'd really wanted to, by this time.

A US that in 1880's decided that they really wanted to go toe to toe with Britain and started a Tirpitz esque military build up before going to war could probably do it. The OTL US military pre-WW1 would have got stomped. Militaries do not spring into life overnight because you suddenly need them. They take years or ideally decades to build up, prior to 1914 the US (sensibly) did not carry out such a build up and there was no real domestic support for one.

But -- and this just confirms the strong position America was in -- they didn't really need a strong navy, they were comparatively unassailable in the mid-nineteenth century. If not, why didn't the British just take them over? Do you think the British were simply being nice about it?

They weren't being "nice about it". 1783 had taught Britain that she couldn't occupy the US and post 1812 there wasn't anything worth fighting over, northern Maine would have been nice but it frankly it was less profitable than China, India or Africa and not worth the bother.

As to the "British Empire", it was only Brits and Hessians fighting in the Revolutionary War, and only Brits in 1812. Were you really expecting massive troop levies in Calcutta and Bombay to support a British defense of Canada in 1832?

No but Caribbean troops would have been used and there would almost certainly have been Cape and Australian contingents post 1860. Also Indian troops would have been used for extra-Indian colonial policing freeing up British troops for the main front, as happened in repeatedly post 1857. The Empire was a significant boost to the military power of the UK and extended the period of British advantage by about a decade imho.

*who has the US Civil War showed wouldn't be ready for combat until 3-6 months after the start of the War.
 
So, it seems like the general consensus is: a definite possibility, but not the most likely.

Now, let us discuss the big elephant in the room, which was mentioned by someone in this thread. What about Quebec? What are the results of no War of 1812 for her, and American settlement in Upper Canada?
 
There were a lot of American settlers,
there were Canadians who went south too, in fair numbers. The one book I have on the War of 1812 notes that former Americans fought for Canada, and vice verse. So many that the author titled the book "The Civil War of 1812'. The author notes that the US/Canadian border was more theoretical than real in the minds of both places, and people moved across it at will. The war went a long way to solidifying the border in people's minds. If the war defined Canada as a real nation in the minds of Canadians, it did it for the US too...
 
So, it seems like the general consensus is: a definite possibility, but not the most likely.

Now, let us discuss the big elephant in the room, which was mentioned by someone in this thread. What about Quebec? What are the results of no War of 1812 for her, and American settlement in Upper Canada?
My thinking is as followed:

Without the War of 1812, Upper Canada reaches a point where a near-majority of the population are American. Either during a local rebellion (e.g. the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837) and/or during a large war where the UK is distracted (e.g. the Crimean War), Upper Canada separates from British North America, and joins the United States. Britain probably doesn't care enough to do a large intervention and may decide to cut their loses and demand reparations instead, such as the ceding of northern Maine to British North America and acknowledgement of British control of the Oregon region.

The Maritimes (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island) become the administrative centre of BNA due to them being predominantly English. Eventually, Canada is formed for the same reasons as OTL (American encroachment and consolidation of debt) and Lower Canada/Quebec becomes significantly more important, to an extent where the elected Prime Ministers of Canada come predominantly from Quebec, unless some form of anti-French apartheid is introduced (an idea that isn't as outlandish as one would think, if the Orange Order takes power in TTL Canada). As there is no chance of a Canadian Atlantic-to-Pacific Railroad, British Columbia remains a British colony rather than joining Canada, but Newfoundland and Labrador may be integrated much sooner.

So, to actually answer your question, here are three scenarios, from most likely to least likely:

1. Quebec becomes the dominant member province of Canada. Quebec separatism is non-existent, and Quebec regionalism (rather than nationalism) is mainstream political opinion. Later on, Quebec-dominated Canada will look for autonomy and patriation of the Constitution much sooner, and may eventually become a republic after peacefully cutting ties to the British Empire. In a reversal of OTL, Canada may face a pro-British, Anglophone separatist crisis.

2. The Maritimes and Quebec strike an uneasy political balance between them. Similar to power-sharing in OTL modern African nations, there is an unspoken agreement that the Head of Government will alternate between a Francophone and an Anglophone. Canada remains part of the British Commonwealth for the economic benefits, but everybody knows the Francophone majority aren't really all that interested in helping the British with anything, including wars.

3. The Orange Order asserts itself early on in Canadian electoral history, and make it harder for Francophones to exercise their democratic rights. The Heads of Government are almost exclusively British and from the Maritimes, and forced assimilation into English culture is implemented in Quebec. This can't last forever, and Quebec may rebel to become an independent republic aligned with the United States. The Maritimes remain part of the Commonwealth and the British Empire regardless if Quebec's separation succeeds or not (and assuming the US doesn't invade).
 
Canada remains an afterthought to the Brits, and regional identities form rather than Canadian ones. Americans flood over gopd chunks of OTL Ontario and the Praries, ans beyond a doubt, everything West of the Rockies is American. So too will he a good chunk of everything West of Lake Superior, whatever the Hudson Bay Company hasn't claimed.
 
To keep the loyalties of the Americans, all Britain has to do is treat the Americans well. For context, here is OTL's American immigration to British North America:

Code:
1781-1790 50,000
1791-1800 50,000
1801-1810 50,000
1811-1820 5,000
1821-1830 2,000
1831-1840 8,000 
1841-1850 30,000 
1851-1860 60,000
1861-1870 10,000
1871-1880 30,000
1881-1890 30,000
1891-1900 70,000
1901-1910 458,000
1911-1920 625,000
1921-1930 198,000

The ones from 1781-1790 are mostly Loyalists, but the remainder isn't. By 1914, most Albertans, British Columbians, and Manitobans were at least partially American. Yet, the closest any part of Canada came to annexation in the late nineteenth century was a petition in BC signed by about 100 people. This is because the government was wholly functional and respectful of the colonies' rights (and gave them increasing responsible government over time, starting with the Constitutional Act of 1791), in contrast to the totally dysfunctional Mexican government which spurred moves for annexation. Hell, without the War of 1812, the informal oligarchies that emerged in the Canadas (like the Family Compact) won't emerge, which will make the BNA governments more acceptable to Americans than OTL. By and large, most American immigrants weren't very political - they just wanted the land and a good government.

Some divergences include even warmer *Canada-US relations and even more Americanized *Canadian culture. But American annexation isn't any more likely, as the descendants of non-Loyalist Americans have no real inclination to desire American annexation. Having more of them won't change that.
 
Indeed. I'm not sure why some assume a weaker British American or "confederal Canadian" identity in the area means a stronger US American one as opposed to a stronger provincial one.
 
One thing people have missed is the American Military. The War of 1812 was the wake up call the US needed to realize that having no Federal military and relying on State raised Militia that couldn't operate outside of their state was a bad idea.

Also, we have to take in to account how this would affect the wars the US had with the Native population, specifically Tecumsehs coalition. Also, the longer you delay the war, the less willing GB will be to defend Canada as the Fur Trade becomes less profitable. And I do believe a war is inevitable as the US war hawks wanted a round 2 if their Independence war and GB will probably want to redeem themselves if pish cines to shove. Honestly I expect a more Tense US GB relationship TTL because neither party will have learnt the futility of Fighting a war against eachother and looking to keep the peace such as OTL. Also, I don't expect Canada to be willing to just join the US because fear of a US invasion is what helped unite the colonies in the first place. The key quality BNA had that defined it was a paranoia of a American Invasion.

Also if the US does annex any part of modern Canada, it would be in Ruperts Land, the thinly populated drainage basin of the Hudsons bay owned by the HBC. The HBC's lease ended in 1870 and GB gave it to Canada because they didn't want the US to have it. If Canada doesn't form hy then I can see the US potentially buying it or a part of it if relations have cooled off by then. They also could demand a chunk if they happen to win a war that takes place the Fur Trade becomes practically unprofitable. If they do thus I can see BC becoming independent instead of joing the US and the UK trying to buy Alaska from Russia inorder to halt American expansion.

But that's if you wanna do a US leaning TL. In the other direction I still see Canada forming but it is even more divisive than OTL between French Catholics and Anglo Protestants and between the St-Lawrence region and the Maritimes. Britain, also being more aggresive in its satnce to the US, also doesn't just fold in Border negotiations and so Canada can have part of Northern Maine and the Border can be further south, and the B.C could potentially include the Alaskan Arm.

Obvioisly I would prefer the version with a bigher Canada, because I'm a proud Canadian and I'm tired of every AH scenario of just either gorgetting we exist or just have America absorb us with no effort because reasons.
 
Top