So do not sure what you would need to change to stop the British from giving it in the Paris Treaty or eventually being out settled by Americans down the line. But of Brittan did and cooperated it into BNA/Canada , how would that change the developments of the Great Lakes Region? Note, I am assuming that America would still have access to Lake Michigan at the very bottom through OTL Indiana and Illinois territory but that would still put 3/4 of the lake inside British lands and all Superior. Of course Lake Erie and Ontario would likely still be a international boundary.
WI: Britain Keeps Michigan and Wisconsin Territory If America Still Goes Independent?
- Thread starter Ganon
- Start date
I think Britain keeping that would have detrimental effects on Anglo American relations. One thing that comes to mind there was the Webster ashburton treaty. Maybe that would be an issue that was not ironed out. Perhaps also the British territory south of the 49th parallel remains in Britain to the ire of America
Question - was this as a result of a request from the colonial administration in Québec? As a way of getting Westminster to honor the Quebec Act, 1774?
I don't see how being "out settled" by Americans would matter. Tons of Americans settled in Western Canada. They very quickly became loyal Brits. I think a lot of Americans who have lived their whole lives in the US can't imagine anyone American ever not being highly nationalistic, but that's just because of a sheltered upbringing. While only a small minority of Americans moved abroad over the last couple of centuries, those that did typically have found themselves questioning a lot of the assumptions they were raised with, including the American exceptionalism mentality.
Last edited:
America isn't going to "outsettle" the Brits in the area. There will no doubt be Americans in the area, much like there was in Upper Canada, but they weren't exactly chomping at the bit to join the USA. And in OTL, Michigan and Wisconsin only began to get in earnest after Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were filled, by then there be a lot of Brits in the area.
If 1812 still happens the western campaign is going to be a little different because the Brits are going to be on their home turf right out of the gate.
If 1812 still happens the western campaign is going to be a little different because the Brits are going to be on their home turf right out of the gate.
It depends on if this alt-Treaty of Paris butterflies something like the Jay Treaty of 1794, which conferred most favored nation status and allowed local Natives, American, and Canadian citizens to freely pass between the two countries for commercial purposes. Obviously economic realpolitik suggests this is inevitable, but if this version of the Treaty of Paris keeps Anglo-American relations substantially cooler for longer, well...
With the majority of the St. Lawrence watershed in British hands, I think unilateral British/Canadian development of the St. Lawrence Seaway would be accelerated to its economic benefit. Detroit could easily compete with Toronto and prevent its eclipse of Montreal as Canada's First City. Michigan and Wisconsin would be a favorable sites for lumber industry per OTL. I imagine like the planters to Nova Scotia before them, many Yankees would be pulled to the shores of Michigan and Wisconsin via the Erie Canal for the abundant good land, regardless of which side of the border it was on.
I think there will be some Americans who cross the border north, but I think you'll see a lot more Brits and Anglo-Canadians there who in OTL went to the USA. From about 1836-1880 Ontario's growth wasn't spectacular largely because it got filled up and the surplus went south, but with an additional Avenue for growth it's going to send them west while it's economy grows from the extra local trade. I honestly think this Canada is going to far more British than OTL due to the endless influx of British people helping maintain their culture in Canada.
If the St. Lawrence canal gets built, Montreal will be the hub of Canada and won't get supplanted by Toronto, and Detroit might take the reins of second city by eating away at Toronto's western economic hinterland. Even Kingston is going to get a significant boost and be vying for power with Toronto.
That's if the canal gets built. The OTL reason for not building the canal is still there, and more western territory hasn't changed that.
Wisconsin and Michigan seems a bit much...now Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula (basically just drawing the international border down Lake Michigan, instead of Superior), that seems better. In either case, Superior becomes a British lake, the way Michigan is an American one OTL.
-The natural port of Duluth may allow for quicker Canadian settlement west toward otl Winnipeg?
-The westward "shadow" of British settlement may extend far enough to bump into French claims on the upper Mississippi River. At any rate, US migration westward may extend further west before turning north.
-This southern extension of BNA could easily include Minneapolis-St. Paul, and might very well push/allow for Canadian settlement as far south as the Missouri River (depending on US settlers moving up it).
-The natural port of Duluth may allow for quicker Canadian settlement west toward otl Winnipeg?
-The westward "shadow" of British settlement may extend far enough to bump into French claims on the upper Mississippi River. At any rate, US migration westward may extend further west before turning north.
-This southern extension of BNA could easily include Minneapolis-St. Paul, and might very well push/allow for Canadian settlement as far south as the Missouri River (depending on US settlers moving up it).
I think it's more plausible for this to happen with the War of 1812 going better for the British. It's hard to see a situation where the Brits are in a position to hold Michigan and Wisconsin without also having the patriots lose the ARW, but pretty easy to have a War of 1812 where the Brits get more of the Great Lakes but don't reconquer the rest of the USA.
Michigan frankly seems doable though, especially if the British don't abandon Detroit under the Jay Treaty. The Maumee Swamp and St. Joseph Rivers could be fortified pretty easily and were barely settled for decades. I do think if the British have some presence in the Missisippi watershed, both parties would want the Mississippi/Great Lakes-St. Lawrence to be open for commercial purposes.
Edit: As a Michigander I freely admit to bias, however.
Last edited: