WI: Canadians had supported unification with America in the war of 1812

There may be disturbances and few attacks but nothing concrete. You need to remember what foces US sent into Canada. That not going to change. Poorly led and ill equipped state militia. Up against much larger British army. While some American wank supporters are all hollering that USA going to win my $$ still on New York State militais being soundly defeated and wiped out.

Yes, because the US certainly wouldn’t build up its army in preparation for a war with a Britain with enough troops to make “A matter of marching” completely unfeaaible rather than mostly unfeasible...
 

Lusitania

Donor
Yes, because the US certainly wouldn’t build up its army in preparation for a war with a Britain with enough troops to make “A matter of marching” completely unfeaaible rather than mostly unfeasible...
But the US does not have an army in 1812. It relies on states and territories to defend the country with their militia. In case of war of 1812 there was a lot of opposition to the war since many people did not want to fight the British. That still going to be the same. Then when Congress does declare war and president agrees the individual states start gathering their state militia. Only few states actually did that not every state and people from Maryland did send their militia to invade Canada, no state of New York was primary state since it bordered Canada. So there was no preparation.

This was one of the primary lessons plus having properly trained officers that the Americans learned.

So yeah the Americans will not build up its forces. Because it does not have any.
 
But the US does not have an army in 1812. It relies on states and territories to defend the country with their militia. In case of war of 1812 there was a lot of opposition to the war since many people did not want to fight the British. That still going to be the same. Then when Congress does declare war and president agrees the individual states start gathering their state militia. Only few states actually did that not every state and people from Maryland did send their militia to invade Canada, no state of New York was primary state since it bordered Canada. So there was no preparation.

This was one of the primary lessons plus having properly trained officers that the Americans learned.

So yeah the Americans will not build up its forces. Because it does not have any.
Not in this timeline though. They will have witnessed their worst fears of British colonial subjugation come true, and the increased occupation will be successfully propagandized as a looming invasion, the Loyalists will have realized the error of their ways too. The Legion may actually never have been disbanded if Britain came into Canada with a heavy hand after the Revolutionary War.

The First Bank's charter failed to renew by one vote in each house of Congress, so in this timeline Madison and the Congress may even be able to rely on the Bank of the United States to fund war efforts.

This isn't Ameriwank (well not much of one), this is Britano-nerf.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Not in this timeline though. They will have witnessed their worst fears of British colonial subjugation come true, and the increased occupation will be successfully propagandized as a looming invasion, the Loyalists will have realized the error of their ways too. The Legion may actually never have been disbanded if Britain came into Canada with a heavy hand after the Revolutionary War.

The First Bank's charter failed to renew by one vote in each house of Congress, so in this timeline Madison and the Congress may even be able to rely on the Bank of the United States to fund war efforts.

This isn't Ameriwank (well not much of one), this is Britano-nerf.

In your scenario the Britain you talk about would of gone about the ARW differently and would of been harsher and committed additional troops, and resources to the war. iOTL It stopped the war because the USA wanted to have a alliance with the USA and trade with it in order to concentrate on the French. So in your scenario that reasoning does not exist and it will continue fighting in the ARW, Maybe even keeping part of the 13 colonies. So then the USA becomes independent later it has reason to fear British intentions and authorizes US Federal government to fund and train an army.

So we cannot have it both ways the British cant decide to try and be US buddy and setup good trade relations and both countries benefit from trade and be belligerent to the USA.
 
In your scenario the Britain you talk about would of gone about the ARW differently and would of been harsher and committed additional troops, and resources to the war. . . .
So we cannot have it both ways the British cant decide to try and be US buddy and setup good trade relations and both countries benefit from trade and be belligerent to the USA.
The premise I started on was expressed by others: that Britain learned the wrong lessons from the ARW.
 

Lusitania

Donor
In which case there won't be War of 1812 because everything is different. For example, there might not be a Louisiana Purchase since Britain might have it etc etc.
But unfortunately the premise with many questions are that everything changed except the one fact. I would even state that a belligerent Britain would of blocked the sale of French Louisiana to the USA and also would be arming Tecumseh and his Indians to stop American movement into the Ohio valley.

Where as one poster did put forward several possibilities to have the BNA colonist angry at the British government but even in those cases the majority f dissatisfied people leaving British Isles would of gone to the USA instead of BNA anyway.
 
But unfortunately the premise with many questions are that everything changed except the one fact. I would even state that a belligerent Britain would of blocked the sale of French Louisiana to the USA and also would be arming Tecumseh and his Indians to stop American movement into the Ohio valley.

Where as one poster did put forward several possibilities to have the BNA colonist angry at the British government but even in those cases the majority f dissatisfied people leaving British Isles would of gone to the USA instead of BNA anyway.
Which is why I agree that that premise is implausible at best and said why.
 

Lusitania

Donor
True, but this thread stipulates a War of 1812, so it is shoehorned in.
Yes war of 1812 happens and the extra British army in Canada destroys the American militia that try to invade. Nothing else also changes. uS has no army only uses militia which is poorly trained and ill equipped plus badly led. The segment of the population who are angry at the British government cause problems but are not the majority and are not in the local militia. American coast still gets attacked by British navy which has also devastated the American ships.
 
If there were on-the-ground support for American annexation in 1812 the US would likely have taken at least part of Canada if not pushed for much of OTL Western Canada. I think the question becomes how it came about in the ATL considering that for decades Canadian identity had roots in being 'not American'. And Canadians really dislike jokes about annexation and being 8 potential states for good reason.
 
True, but this thread stipulates a War of 1812, so it is shoehorned in.
The point being that the greater the support for unification wanted by the OP the more shoehorning the War of 1812 in becomes ASB.
Plenty of posters have laid out attempts that result in larger numbers of British American / Canadien rebels but these attempts end up changing the foundation of the War of 1812 too much for it to be a similar war around that time. And none seem to result in unification actually happening.
 
Top