What if the British had kept New Ireland from Maine after the War of 1812?

[The Gunslinger]

Generally this is my thought as well, and save for the Montreal to St. John rail line actually being built and having an ice free port sooner. Now that changes some things for Canada when it comes to Confederation, but for the US I'm not sure how much really changes overall unless there's other territorial concessions elsewhere.

Exactly. This only affects Canada, and even then not overly profoundly. An earlier rail link to the coast is a huge windfall for the tiny port of St. John and it might get as big as Halifax and rival the main city of the Maritimes. The other thing that changes is that with its economy now firmly tied to Canada, it could potentially spur a slightly earlier Confederation, or less opposition to it, as Nova Scotia might feel more locked out of a greater economic union while New Brunswick reaps the benefit.

There are always butterflies, but due to demographics and geography Canada has a pretty clear trajectory for most of the 19th century and I don't think this does enough to change those.

 

[Flashman]

To be honest, I don't think anything significant changes. It's just "what if the U.S lost their territorial dispute in Maine with Britain" but bigger.

It's certainly a little more significant than that, since the territorial dispute basically only implicated a stretch of the northwoods

 

[Belisarius II]

I think that article overstates how "easy" a concession New Ireland would be. Even if the territory itself was insignificant, for the US to concede it at all would be to abandon their negotiating position of status quo ante, and if the British had been able to force them away from that position, they had far more extravagant demands in mind elsewhere that they'd be far more likely to insist on than this. So in a scenario where they take northern Maine they also take a lot more than just northern Maine.

If the British kept New Ireland the Americans would keep Canada north of Lake Eire, between Detroit, and Buffalo. The Americans would be getting the better of the deal. The British would have more secure communications between Quebec, and Nova Scotia, and the Americans would settle all the lands around Lake Erie.

 

[Belisarius II]

What if the U.S. won some equally inconsequential land from the British and they decided to trade the two.

Or what if New Ireland is the price to pay for official recognition of America's annexation of West Florida.

At the end of the war that's just what they did. They traded territory each was occupying. The Americans held the land north of Lake Eire, which was more valuable. The British couldn't trade anything for West Floridia because they didn't own it, it belonged to Spain.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

At the end of the war that's just what they did. They traded territory each was occupying. The Americans held the land north of Lake Eire, which was more valuable. The British couldn't trade anything for West Floridia because they didn't own it, it belonged to Spain.

Yes, they traded the land back. But I mean trade preexisting land so that they each get new territories.

Couldn't Britain have undercut the Spaniards by saying, "oh, we'll let you keep their land all right, if you let us keep your land." Like, sneakily.

 

[Belisarius II]

Yes, they traded the land back. But I mean trade preexisting land so that they each get new territories.

Couldn't Britain have undercut the Spaniards by saying, "oh, we'll let you keep their land all right, if you let us keep your land." Like, sneakily.

Well, I understand, but the Americans were in physical possession of parts of West Floridia, and were willing to give it back to Spain, at least for the time being. What would they gain by giving up part of Maine for something they thought they'd eventually take anyway? Interestingly after the Battle of New Orleans the British shifted their Gulf Coast operations to West Florida. They captured a fort opening the way into Mobile Bay. The next round of fighting would've been fought around Mobile, and Pensacola. Of course, all this happened after the war was over, so nothing would've mattered. What a tragedy to die for nothing, because of the slow communications of day.

 

[TRH]

If the British kept New Ireland the Americans would keep Canada north of Lake Eire, between Detroit, and Buffalo. The Americans would be getting the better of the deal. The British would have more secure communications between Quebec, and Nova Scotia, and the Americans would settle all the lands around Lake Erie.

But this is alternate history, where the Americans will never win at the Thames if it happens at all. Next you'll propose a timeline where the Confederates still lose or something ASB like that.

 

[Belisarius II]

But this is alternate history, where the Americans will never win at the Thames if it happens at all. Next you'll propose a timeline where the Confederates still lose or something ASB like that.

When did he say that?

 

[TRH]

When did he say that?

He didn’t it’s just genre convention, like how China never succeeds and Japan never fails in timelines. The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War are always Ameriwanks, while the ACW and the War of 1812 are always Ameriscrews.

 

[NotedCoyote]

He didn’t it’s just genre convention, like how China never succeeds and Japan never fails in timelines. The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War are always Ameriwanks, while the ACW and the War of 1812 are always Ameriscrews.

Occasionally, though, the ACW is an Ameriscrew used as a set-up for an Ameriwank, like in Timeline-191 where losing to the Confederacy (twice) eventually sees a US that includes not only the former Confederacy, but also Cuba, parts of Mexico, and all of Canada. Even in scenarios that see the Confederacy last until the modern day, the US often grabs parts (or all) of Canada or bits of Central America or the Caribbean as a sort of consolation prize. It seems to be an unwritten rule of alternate history that the United States will always become revanchist if it loses so much as an inch of undeveloped woodland, and even hundreds of years later will be willing to organize its entire economic prowess toward recovering that inch of woodland, or better yet, every bit of the continent that's attached to that bit of woodland.

The War of 1812 is often used for lazy WI Ameriwank scenarios too. I've lost count of the number of maps I've seen where the US has blobbed across all of Canada with the point of divergence being "The US wins the War of 1812", ignoring the fact that a status quo peace is probably the best the US could have hoped for given how incredibly outside of their weight they were fighting, and how poorly prepared they were for the fight that they'd started. Sometimes Quebec (with its modern day borders, of course) is graciously allowed to remain independent.

If the UK had held onto northern Maine at the end of the War of 1812 and there had been no other changes to North America's borders, I don't think that it would start off a multi-generational national vendetta. The biggest difference, as others have said, is that the Maritimes are likely to get a substantial economic boost, which will probably see them a little more populous and a good deal more prosperous once Canada comes together at the end of the 19th century.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I don't who y'all are kidding that there would be a territory swap between this and peninsular Upper Canada. America didn't even really have that territory, there was a big punitive raid in 1814 meant to discourage the locals but that was about it, they promptly went home to Detroit when it was done. If America tries to strong arm Britain into a concession or swap they're going to get told to pound sand. Britain still had a force on the Niagara, captured two warships there and captured both frigates on Lake Huron. It's either concessions to Britain, or white peace unless America makes way bigger gains than they did historically.

 

[John Farrier]

The War of 1812 is often used for lazy WI Ameriwank scenarios too. I've lost count of the number of maps I've seen where the US has blobbed across all of Canada with the point of divergence being "The US wins the War of 1812", ignoring the fact that a status quo peace is probably the best the US could have hoped for given how incredibly outside of their weight they were fighting, and how poorly prepared they were for the fight that they'd started.

Agreed. Even if the US is able to somehow take Upper and Lower Canada during the first year of the war through incredible good luck and Isaac Brock somehow dying at the outset, it still won't be able to hold Canada. The Royal Navy will still hold Halifax and continue to strangle the American economy and ravage coastal areas. Even in this scenario, the best possible American outcome is a British promise to permanently do away with impressment of American sailors and permit American neutral shipping.

America was incredibly fortunate to get out of that war with status quo ante bellum.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I’m perfectly happy with the Eddy Rebellion succeeding during the Revolutionary War and Nova Scotia west of the isthmus becoming the 14th colony. As it stands the region as it is now is half-hearted, neither does America possess the entire peninsula, nor does Canada reach its "natural borders". So either American victory in the ARW or British victory in the War of 1812 (both wrt the Maritimes specifically) is desirable imo

 

[NotedCoyote]

America was incredibly fortunate to get out of that war with status quo ante bellum.

Really, a status quo ante bellum was always the most likely outcome, though the UK could have done better in the final peace agreement if it had been more motivated. America lacked the military strength to impose any sort of punishing terms on the UK or to keep any territory it took, and the UK, with its focus on Napoleon and its treasury having endured a long period of war against France, lacked the desire to put in the leg-work it would have needed to impose any sort of punishing terms on the US, and wasn't really interested in taking and holding any substantial amount of territory when that would delay a return to profitable trade.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Just why didn't the U.S. seek some sort of co-belligerence with France, anyway? At least to gain access to ports to operate from. Second Raid on Whitehaven...

U.S. in European war or Europeans attack U.S. mainland pre-1900?

Feels like John Paul Jones' raid on Whitehaven, two years after the Revolutionary War started, was the only time the U.S. and any European power directly fought each other before World War I. How could we get a situation where the U.S. launches naval attacks on Britain during the War on 1812...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[Flashman]

Just why didn't the U.S. seek some sort of co-belligerence with France, anyway? At least to gain access to ports to operate from. Second Raid on Whitehaven...

U.S. in European war or Europeans attack U.S. mainland pre-1900?

Feels like John Paul Jones' raid on Whitehaven, two years after the Revolutionary War started, was the only time the U.S. and any European power directly fought each other before World War I. How could we get a situation where the U.S. launches naval attacks on Britain during the War on 1812...

www.alternatehistory.com

I'd imagine it's because America wasn't particularly fond of Napoleon

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Really, a status quo ante bellum was always the most likely outcome, though the UK could have done better in the final peace agreement if it had been more motivated. America lacked the military strength to impose any sort of punishing terms on the UK or to keep any territory it took, and the UK, with its focus on Napoleon and its treasury having endured a long period of war against France, lacked the desire to put in the leg-work it would have needed to impose any sort of punishing terms on the US, and wasn't really interested in taking and holding any substantial amount of territory when that would delay a return to profitable trade.

That is another thing which seems commonly missed in the outcomes discussion. Had Britain actually been interested in turning around and taking more punitive measures in North America, there wasn't much the US could have done to stop them. Indeed in 1814 things swung pretty much the right way for the US to get away with the status quo, and even mildly greater British success at say, Lake Champlain, would likely have caused a domino effect as Britain could take a much harsher tone in negotiations. Enough to redraw the border on the Saint Lawrence and get New Ireland at least.

 

[JackLumber]

Really, a status quo ante bellum was always the most likely outcome, though the UK could have done better in the final peace agreement if it had been more motivated. America lacked the military strength to impose any sort of punishing terms on the UK or to keep any territory it took, and the UK, with its focus on Napoleon and its treasury having endured a long period of war against France, lacked the desire to put in the leg-work it would have needed to impose any sort of punishing terms on the US, and wasn't really interested in taking and holding any substantial amount of territory when that would delay a return to profitable trade.

I wouldn't say most likely considering the Americans by the end of the war were flat broke and if for any reason the British decided to keep going things would of only gone down hill.

 

[NotedCoyote]

I wouldn't say most likely considering the Americans by the end of the war were flat broke and if for any reason the British decided to keep going things would of only gone down hill.

I agree that America could hardly have done better than they did when it came to outcome, and there aren't many possible scenarios in which the British get a worse outcome. That said, I do think that there were a number of factors that made the British keeping on with the war unlikely once the Americans were willing to accept a status quo peace, and once the need for impressment was more or less passed. Even with Napoleon defeated, the UK had been at war for over a decade, at enormous expense, and the government had little appetite for more. From the commencement of hostilities, the only real goal the British had with the War of 1812 was for it to be over without them losing prestige or territory. They had little interest in conquest, and while they would have liked to have established a buffer state, they weren't prepared to expend a whole lot of extra effort for it.

 

[Cool-Eh]

I'm gonna assume this area is ceded because of better British negotiating AND all other terms of peace are the same.

If America doesn't hold a grudge then nothing major changes for a long while. The would certainly be attached to the colony of New Brunswick, and later becomes part of Canada. TTL Canada is therefore slightly larger and has a few thousands more people from the start. The possibility of a Canadian railway through the area is an interesting one, and TTL Canada could be better off , or just different in several ways because of it. But America will be relatively unaffected until the butterflies flap. I don't know who be eventually an OTL American from northern Maine must have done something significant that influenced the trajectory of the nation. He will be a Canadian TTL and not play that role, and American history will diverge from there.

More interesting to ponder is what happens if America does hold a grudge. The war of 1812 was pretty much a draw, but one in which both sides could claim victory. The USA tried and failed to conquer Canada, British success. Burnt down the white house, point Britain. Halt to impressment of americans into the royal navy (which the uk didn't need any more after the end of the napoleonic wars, point USA. Successfully defence of New Orleans, point Andrew Jackson America. No territory changed hands.
TTL even this relatively unimportant tract of wilderness (as far as London and Washington may be concerned) would clearly mark the war as an American defeat. One that needs to be avenged...

This could lead to another war between the US and UK within a few decades time. Perhaps America supports or intervenes in the Canadian rebellions in the 1830's.

Either Canada (in part or in whole) is conquered at this time or not. But as time passes it becomes harder and harder to defend.

Either way Anglo-American relations are in the toilet. when the ACW roles around British recognition of and support for the confederacy is likely.