WI: Britain doesn't withdraw from the Great Lakes region?

My strong suspicion is that there ever was a Canadian province of Michigan that Detroit would have been the capital, Lansing may not ever come to be.

It could yes, but perhaps something on Saginaw Bay or Port Huron would be more defensible. I mean it doesn't have to be the largest city.
 
A few items of context:

1) Britain is tied down with Napoleonic era Coalition Wars in Europe all through the period under discussion. It is still true that if Americans go jingoistically to war, they will suffer for it, but OTL War of 1812 shows the worst Britain is likely to be able to do.

2)Britain did not sit in her forts in violation of the Treaty defining US borders and independence for the hell of it or because they just could; the USA had obligations under that treaty which we did not fully carry out either, and occupation of the border forts were a form of leverage to try to get us to live up to those obligations more. What we owed Britain and defaulted on were pledges to treat British property fairly and to protect the rights of Loyalists to the British cause in the ARW. The fact that the several state governments could not be counted on or compelled to obey these obligations was one of the driving forces behind developing a stronger Federal government with a Federal judiciary that could override state supreme court rulings; apparently by 1795 HMG was satisfied that Americans were going to comply with the obligations, or anyway were less noncompliant and they'd gotten the best they could get, and withdrew from the forts.

To say the British do not withdraw from the forts is to say one of two things:

A) the USA does not comply with the Treaty of Paris obligations, for any number of reasons--perhaps we don't reform the Articles of Confederation regime radically (I am convinced on the whole we could get along under the Articles, with very moderate revision) and we cannot get the state governments to stop treating British property and persons and Loyalist/Tories unjustly--though if we did limp along with the Articles we'd have to address at least some of the many problems the Federalists perceived by strengthening the Congress government somehow, and tacking on a Federal judiciary, or at least the Congress Assembled asserting itself to impose revisions on noncompliant state governments would be called for. Vice versa even with the new Constitution or some alternate third option--Federal or Unitary Monarchy, some other federal republican or unitary republican form of government, whatever--we might have the means to enforce national compliance but decide we don't have the will--screw the British! Yankee noncompliance is a red flag to the British, telling them we are not to be trusted, but they already knew that OTL and took only limited measures; even serious jingoistic talk from our war hawks might not alarm them into really drastic action to defend BNA further or still less into a preemptive strike.

B) Uncle Sam aka less anachronistically Cousin Jonathan does comply as OTL, by whatever means we develop--US circuit courts as per OTL that British subjects or former Loyalists can appeal to for redress, a stronger Congress Assembled that sits on the states until they cry uncle and comply, whatever. And then the British faithlessly fail to follow through with withdrawal from the fortresses.

A puts the moral ball a bit more in the American court, but with the distractions of the Napoleonic period, I don't think Britain will do a lot more defend their territories, relying on balance of terror to deter rash Yankee actions. B puts it against Britain, showing them as faithless and grasping, and thus would weaken the Federalist Anglophilic position and strengthen the Democrat-Republican Francophilic position. Since OTL the reluctance of the New Englanders to be involved in the War of 1812 was a factor, putting Britain into a more dubious and dangerous light by their own behavior might serve to lower New English objections and raise their stake in the war, while intensifying the outrage others felt, tipping the political balance toward Hawks earlier and more strongly.

In terms of who wins and who loses an earlier version of the War of 1812, the factor of the forts themselves is there to be considered; I suspect they will have some importance but not in themselves major decisive importance. The other category of variables is elements that evolved over time OTL being at a less developed state earlier. Every year between 1795, our effective POD year after which British behavior differs from OTL, and 1812, is a year in which US population grew, and additional territories were settled and developed. Each passing year also involved the further weakening of Britain's key allies, the Native American tribes. The tribes are the true significance of the British forts; the forts were the means of major contact between HMG and the various peoples, their arsenal and coordinating leadership. To take the forts is to defeat the various Native alliances surrounding each--not utterly and finally to be sure since survivors can flee and reform elsewhere. In fact the War Hawks pushing for the 1812 war OTL believed the British government went on with a policy of both arming and directing Native resistance to Federal power even after withdrawing from the forts. This might not have been a fully just and accurate description of the true situation but it was certainly true that considerable amounts of guns and ammo were delivered to western frontier Native peoples by British traders, with or without alliance and coordination.

So, the earlier the Yankees strike, assuming they strike first (and I don't think British policy would favor a preemptive attack on their part) the lower a population they have to assemble, the less developed US industries are, the less advanced settlements they have for starting points, while they face both fortified and occupied British forts and a larger less decimated and atomized (but also perhaps more traditionally divided and disunited) mass of Native peoples. But OTOH they may be more united in their cause against widely perceived British outrages; they might have a more workable plan that they stick to tenaciously. And meanwhile instead of launching their war right at the moment that Napoleon finally gets mauled due to overreach and the British can foresee the possibility of being done with him and turning more resources westward, rather any earlier strike finds Britain more bogged down with no end in sight. To be sure the Coalition Wars are plural because it was not uncommon for the two sides to make truces that would last from months to several years in which active warfare was at lower intensity and the struggle turned to back room diplomatic maneuvering, or rather continued that; in one of these truces HMG might resolve to zip across the Atlantic and give the Yankees a good smackdown. But that leaves them vulnerable to Napoleon taking advantage of British distraction to grab some major wins and weaken the Coalition against him; I don't think the full measures available OTL after 1813 are available to Britain before then; this gives the Americans a chance at a more spectacular victory.

OTL all that was won was a stalemate, in which the Americans did get some things they wanted, but the British had been able and willing to concede most of those without war, whereas other benefits such as decimation of the Native American position would come with time anyway. We can regard it as a costly victory, or as an unnecessary fit of pointless bloodshed, with equal justice; Britain too may regard it as a successful defense of her essential interests against a unilateral Yankee aggression. God seemed to fight on the side of the defense no matter who was defending--except the Native Americans who were shattered.

The question of whether either side would do spectacularly better in an earlier war where Britain still holds the forts at the outset is a matter for wargamers and time line writers to fight out amount themselves I suppose!
 
During the wars for the Ohio: 1774- 1811 A number of British leaders in N America did disagree with the Treaty of Paris and supported the Shawnee & their allies. I hesitate to call these Brits renegades, perhaps loyal opposition? In any case they did what they could to get arms and food to the Shawnee & Co, for their fight against the enroaching settlers between the Ohio and Lake Erie. If a larger number of Brit leaders had followed this course I wonder if it would have filled the goal of the OP of this thread?
 
A) the USA does not comply with the Treaty of Paris obligations

I do want to make a point that this point is already true, both failed to hold up their end of the deal, Britain through inaction, America through action.

Hence the Jay Treaty. It went to arbitration, but if the British Sentiment is unlike OTL (again, one of the potential PoDs), then according to Marshall Smelser America is likely to be the worse of it.

However, I think I'm clear on the position that the UK behaving differently relies on different politics. It could be that Loyalists who have had their lands confiscated become incredibly influential in the UK, to the point of changing British behaviour, not so much as to agitate it, but to push to ensure that BNA is not just ready for a war, but ready to win a war. That sort of sentiment would reject the Jay Treaty, and would probably lead to more seizures of property in the USA from Loyalists, perhaps leading to potential banditry from now-impoverished loyalists, as well as increasing the size of groups like the Nassau Militia (formerly the Butlers Rangers of New York).

Heck, the Jay Treaty barely passed anyway, so it could be that Britain doesn't leave the forts because the Americans don't want it. It could be as simple as more aggressive seizures of Loyalist property post-war, leading to banditry that nowadays would be considered terrorism, the leads to a souring of public opinion against the Federalists, leading to a 18-12 vote that fails the Jay Treaty anyway.

In the meantime, Britain finds a way to borrow more money, and uses that to invest in BNA as a source of ships and sailors for the Napoleonic Wars, using the larger dispossessed Loyalist population as the key.
 
My strong suspicion is that there ever was a Canadian province of Michigan that Detroit would have been the capital, Lansing may not ever come to be.

Lansing was indeed made the capital because of the result of the War of 1812. So you're likely quite correct in the assumption that Detroit would have been the capital.

In the 1790's there were few if any permanent Michiganders. British and Fr. Canadian traders and that's about it. What settlement that existed remains in the SE of Ohio and a few forts in the actual valley.

I'm well aware of that. Permanent European settlement didn't really take off until the opening of the Erie Canal. Though it was hardly uninhabited.
 
Top