WI: Britain doesn't withdraw from the Great Lakes region?
- Thread starter Gwachiko
- Start date
-
- Tags
- great lakes jay treaty
Would the US succeed in taking the region in this alternate War of 1812 or would it be a stalemate like in OTL?
They won in the western territories during the Revolution, and a war for the Great Lake Regions is less favorable to the Brits than defending Canada, so...
Either way I think it's likely that the British will pull back within the decade as Americans start to pour into the area. Not pulling back will almost certainly lead to another war in short order, something that doesn't help the British in any way.
Would the American immigrants pull a Texas in the region if the British don't withdraw voluntarily?
The war favours whoever is starting in the area due to logistics. If Britain has forts, the Americans have to take them and given their supply issues in OTl, I'm not sure they'd be any better with a less secure supply train. The war will be won or lost on the lakes though. And those are pretty much just a coin toss.
Britain isn't Mexico. The Canadians let a lot of Americans settle in Upper Canada, but they were extremely choosy with who they let settle there. the ones they didn't want would be told to leave.
The British forts in the region didn't do so well during the Revolution though.
Lusitania
Donor
A British North America with the great lakes could become a competitor for German immigrants. Plus depending on how the British choose to to settle the area it could resist American encroachment. Offer free passage to British citizens plus encourage French to move west instead of migrating south into US. The Americans would be moving west too but would have an area almost the size of the 13 colonies to fill by time they reach British area.
Would British just let anyone settle in their territory I think not. Also while native Americans had no chance against the Americans things would be different against the British.
British-American war in the early 1800s probably but the US would be weaker and British stronger. So I believed a stalemate would result in any war between the two powers.
Would British just let anyone settle in their territory I think not. Also while native Americans had no chance against the Americans things would be different against the British.
British-American war in the early 1800s probably but the US would be weaker and British stronger. So I believed a stalemate would result in any war between the two powers.
Well... obviously. They were fighting an insurgency that crippled their supply lines and zones of control. That's not so much an issue when they have firm control over Canada and better relations with the Indians than the Americans do. It's no guarantee they win, but it's a far cry from the situation during the Revolution.
Brunaburh
Gone Fishin'
I think it's a mistake to assume that every American in 1800 had an ideological commitment to the state. Prior to mass public education, it was rather more difficult to indoctrinate individuals into state ideology, and most Americans would just accept British rule, especially as they had chosen it by migrating. The US/Canada border has always had migration across it, both ways, and neither side has ever developed an immigrant political minority in favour of changing status.
The actual threats to Canada came from their indigenous Metis population.
Instead of an "insurgency," they're fighting an actual nation state that views, as the Americans did throughout the 18th century, the Great Lakes region as necessary to their future. Not sure this is better.
Personally, there would have to a distinct change in strategy to do differently, which has larger ramifications - it might well mean reinforcing, and further investing the Great Lakes - which could be a wonder for the local economy to have that money being spent, but certainly would be provocative. It would probably mean a stronger Canada and Great Lakes - and potentially an early 2nd Welland Canal and St.Lawrence Seaway. (The idea of the Great Lakes being the Fortified Shipyard of the Empire is a fun one).
But that is a distinctly active approach, and as said before, could provoke an earlier war. If partnered with alliances with the Native Americans, then it might be warned off (interestingly, it could lead to stronger natives, GL investment might lead to local gunpowder and weaponry production increasing, leading to stronger native groups).
So based on the idea that the rationale for not withdrawing is a different more active Canadian strategy, perhaps assuming that American hostility in favour of Revolutionary France is an inevitability, and that Britain can benefit from a strong Canadian-based fleet to out-build the French, and forts to allow Britain to out-flank any American action (more of a stick than carrot strategy for peace).
A side effect is probably an impact on the Republican/Federalist parties if I have my treaties right, and America continuing to impede debt collection from British Creditors and confiscating Loyalist estates. (Oh look, people who have a bone to pick, good loyal Lakers.)
Whilst not the intention at the time, it also creates a stronger platform for seizing Louisiana, via Lake Michigan/Chicago River. The "River War" might be an interesting side-show, with Lakers having to develop a Brown Water Navy.
---
Sorry, I went a bit off on one there, but TL;DR - I think the WI requires a major strategic PoD, which for me only sounds like a more militant and intimidating stance in America, with some happy accidents in the Napoleonic War. All in all a tougher nut to crack, making any war with the US a tougher job for America.
But that is a distinctly active approach, and as said before, could provoke an earlier war. If partnered with alliances with the Native Americans, then it might be warned off (interestingly, it could lead to stronger natives, GL investment might lead to local gunpowder and weaponry production increasing, leading to stronger native groups).
So based on the idea that the rationale for not withdrawing is a different more active Canadian strategy, perhaps assuming that American hostility in favour of Revolutionary France is an inevitability, and that Britain can benefit from a strong Canadian-based fleet to out-build the French, and forts to allow Britain to out-flank any American action (more of a stick than carrot strategy for peace).
A side effect is probably an impact on the Republican/Federalist parties if I have my treaties right, and America continuing to impede debt collection from British Creditors and confiscating Loyalist estates. (Oh look, people who have a bone to pick, good loyal Lakers.)
Whilst not the intention at the time, it also creates a stronger platform for seizing Louisiana, via Lake Michigan/Chicago River. The "River War" might be an interesting side-show, with Lakers having to develop a Brown Water Navy.
---
Sorry, I went a bit off on one there, but TL;DR - I think the WI requires a major strategic PoD, which for me only sounds like a more militant and intimidating stance in America, with some happy accidents in the Napoleonic War. All in all a tougher nut to crack, making any war with the US a tougher job for America.
The Americans can think whatever they want, but it won't affect the situation on the ground: Britain starts with the forts, America does not. If the British lose the war and the border shifts north, America can actually claim that the lakes are theirs and they'll fill with American settlers. If the war goes the other way and Britain wins, it fills up with Brits and Anglo-Canadians and America loses its claim (unless they opt for another war down the road).
They may even win this alternate contest, but if America already had opinions that made them willing to go to war in the first place... what's different other than where the armies start? The war being fought over different issues won't change the status of the US economy when it comes under blockade, it won't change New England's stance on the war, or the American ill-preparedness when it comes to conquest.
I'm not sure why these forts are the key to victory, given that Britain took the forts in the 7 Years War, and America seized several in the American Revolution.
I think this is assuming there's no agency for anyone but the British. Britain decides to keep territory it ceded to America. And the only difference in American policy is that it has the same forces as OTL? We don't see a bipartisan consensus between seizing the American west? Why not? The financial elite had huge sums of money invested in western land grants, and New York, Pennsylvania, and New England voters were all moving west to settle that land.
Of course, maybe Britain in the 1790s or 1804 can handle a war with a more mobilized America . . . But maybe there's a reason Britain looked at this in OTL and concluded an accommodation with America is better?
I think this is assuming there's no agency for anyone but the British. Britain decides to keep territory it ceded to America. And the only difference in American policy is that it has the same forces as OTL? We don't see a bipartisan consensus between seizing the American west? Why not? The financial elite had huge sums of money invested in western land grants, and New York, Pennsylvania, and New England voters were all moving west to settle that land.
Of course, maybe Britain in the 1790s or 1804 can handle a war with a more mobilized America . . . But maybe there's a reason Britain looked at this in OTL and concluded an accommodation with America is better?
While I take your point, query whether we should presume Americans will just shrug and accept British rule, given, err, the American War of Independence.
Historically the British didn't evacuate certain posts/forts post the War of Independence or the War of 1812 (hence how we got the Arostook Crisis) and only did so once it became clear they couldn't wring anything out of keeping them beyond a certain point/it became more cost efficient to do so. We can assume American policy here is different, and it might eventually be one of the grievances which leads to a *not1812 War with Britain at some point as people in New England and the South look towards proper westward expansion.
However, they might not see certain forts/posts worth fighting over and could just negotiate with the British over the issue.
As to handling a war, well I think that all things being equal and barring some major military preparedness POD's, the US wouldn't stand much of a chance taking on an undistracted Britain.
On some border regions this wouldn't be an issue. You'd still have people who remembered the way the borders and posts switched hands in the French and Indian War and the Revolution, and so were pretty transient in their allegiance. When the British took Mackinac Island in 1812 most people shrugged and swore allegiance to the Crown. Since much of the region in question is partially settled frontier I don't imagine the vast majority of settlers would decide to uproot their entire lives vs. swearing allegiance to the Crown again for convenience sake.
They key to winning the war will always be only the lakes, the forts are just an edge for hanging on to what you've got. I don't see a more prepared America though. America was pushing for war with Britain for over a decade but never lifted a finger to put that into action, and even when was declared America still pulled back from the War Department's initial expenses on troops and supplies with their clinging to the Jeffersonian ideal. Who's going to be the one who suggests paying more taxes to support this army? And if it's anything like Michigan, people were reluctant to invest in it until ownership had been decided and secured, so the elites probably just move those $$$ elsewhere.
We do need more clarity on what exactly Britain sits on to form an opinion on American policy. I don't think it's likely that they just occupy the forts in the first place, they either did well enough in the Revolution that ownership is uncontested, or they'll settle through arbitration as OTL.
Brunaburh
Gone Fishin'
The American revolution was a case of a minority of people, initially a very small minority, fighting to liberate the place where they were born from what they considered to be unacceptable colonial occupation. Most Americans did just shrug and accept British rule OTL, in any case. I saw a statistic saying only 6.5% of the US population was directly involved, including those who fought on the British side, I've no idea how accurate it is, but it would surprise me if it were any higher. Revolutions and uprisings occur in very specific situations, where both both opportunity and unacceptable conditions exist. People don't usually just rise up on principle the moment they fancy it.
The situation of people who have knowingly and deliberately moved into British territory, in a continent which was full of places to go that were not British territory, would be different. There is a very easy safety valve for people who feel "foreign" rule is oppressive, don't move into foreign territory. Of course, there may be many who would welcome or take advantage of a US invasion, should one occur, but I don't think you'd be looking at a revolutionary situation.
Why do you assume it's a minority, given that it consistently outnumbered the loyalists and controlled all thirteen colonies' legislatures?