WI: No war of 1812?

What and miss the fun? It just shows that Canadians can be as nationalistic and bullheaded as we Americans.

I would say that while Canadian annexation by the US is not a given without a War of 1812; no war makes this outcome far more likely.

Benjamin

It is difficult to find a Canadian history textbook taught in schools that treats the War of 1812 in a detached and professional manner. The worst of the textbooks are quite jingoistic (for the British, not for the Canadians) leaving the impression that the Americans were evil and that the British put them in their place. One of my history textbooks outright says that Britain could have but was not interested in conquering the USA and rather decided to spare the Americans in order to build a friendship with them.
 
Last edited:
I know a lot of the Canadians on these boards don't like the idea of being Americans, but that nationalism is a direct result of the War of 1812. Without it Canada does not exist.

Not at all. Canada as Canada might not exist (and that is what could have happened all the way to the Confederation itself, 1812 or not). It might even be several Canadas.

But the Loyalist and French areas are already on a strong divergence course with the USA, nobody trusted them. The war of 1812 was just a confirmation of the obvious. So while Canada might not exist, the US is not annexing those areas unless it literally gets Britain to sell them.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. Canada as Canada might not exist (and that is what could have happened all the way to the Confederation itself, 1812 or not). It might even be several Canadas.

But the Loyalist and French areas are already on a strong divergence course with the USA, nobody trusted them. The war of 1812 was just a confirmation of the obvious. So while Canada might not exist, the US is not annexing those areas unless it literlaly gets Britain to sell them.

That's kind of what I meant. By "Canada" I was referring to the nation we know and love today.

While the Loyalists did mistrust the US there were still strong familial and economic ties binding the two regions together. There are some similarities here between with the post-Civil War South and/or the post migration Mormons. Both of these groups had equally strong reasons to mistrust the US but they eventually became integral parts of the nation. Without the War of 1812 many regions of what would become Canada have more reasons to do the same.

@Mike - American textbooks are just as bad in many cases. The War of 1812 is one of those wars where everyones a winner! (and a loser...but don't tell the US or Canada.)

Benjamin
 
While the Loyalists did mistrust the US there were still strong familial and economic ties binding the two regions together. There are some similarities here between with the post-Civil War South and/or the post migration Mormons. Both of these groups had equally strong reasons to mistrust the US but they eventually became integral parts of the nation. Without the War of 1812 many regions of what would become Canada have more reasons to do the same.

What makes the US more attractive than Britain? Especially for people who already mistrust the US?

The Mormons and the rebels didn't have Britain supporting them. That's the difference.

The best you can hope for is a Texas scenario while Britain is preoccupied somewhere else and won't have time to do a number on coastal USA in return.
 
What makes the US more attractive than Britain? Especially for people who already mistrust the US?

The Mormons and the rebels didn't have Britain supporting them. That's the difference.

The best you can hope for is a Texas scenario while Britain is preoccupied somewhere else and won't have time to do a number on coastal USA in return.

Contrary to popular belief in Canada, the War of 1812 did not cement Canadian nationalism, nor did it cement hatred or mistrust of the USA even among French-Canadians at the time. Within a generation of the War of 1812, elements in Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) were already advocating for annexation to the USA, which lead to the Rebellion of 1837. In Lower Canada, Louis-Joseph Papineau and his Parti Patriote movement advocated for annexation to the USA and went to the USA to gather up support. He was very popular in Lower Canada. His efforts failed when the USA, thanks to British bribery, declared itself neutral in the conflict between Britain and its NA colonies. However, Britain was spooked enough that, despite successfully putting down the rebellion, it saw fit to grant responsible government to its NA colonies, which was what the colonies had wanted, out of fear that the colonies would once again agitate for absorption into the USA.
 
Contrary to popular belief in Canada, the War of 1812 did not cement Canadian nationalism, nor did it cement hatred or mistrust of the USA even among French-Canadians at the time. Within a generation of the War of 1812, elements in Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) were already advocating for annexation to the USA, which lead to the Rebellion of 1837. In Lower Canada, Louis-Joseph Papineau and his Parti Patriote movement advocated for annexation to the USA and went to the USA to gather up support. He was very popular in Lower Canada. His efforts failed when the USA, thanks to British bribery, declared itself neutral in the conflict between Britain and its NA colonies. However, Britain was spooked enough that, despite successfully putting down the rebellion, it saw fit to grant responsible government to its NA colonies, which was what the colonies had wanted, out of fear that the colonies would once again agitate for absorption into the USA.

Elements is the key word there. Even during the War there were "elements" that didn't want to fight the Americans, some out of defeatism and others out of their republicanism.

About the rebellions, keep in mind the context. The Family Compact and the Chateau Clique (both corrupt Tory groups which had control over the government and culture). As well as the issue of republicanism. The rebels were more motivated to change these system's within the colonies, to fight corruption, and adopt republican forms of government, not so much "I LOVE AMERICA!!!" It was disdain for the British that led Papineau to go to the USA and call for annexation.

The Rebellions of 1837, like the War of 1812, is one step towards a distinct and autonomous Canada, since the British did offer some greater autonomy following the rebellion. The War of 1812 got the ball rolling though. A distinct identity=/=hatred of US.

There has always been minor elements within Canada that wanted to be absorbed by the USA. One writer (forget his name) hated the French Canadians, and wanted to be annexed just so the Protestant/English majority could assimilate the French/Catholics in Quebec. Minority is another key word.
 
The last chapter in my recent Neither Victor nor Vanquished: America In the War of 1812 examines an alternate history where the America and Britain avoid the War of 1812, and consequently the rise of Andrew Jackson. It projects a less expansive version of the Republic.
 

katchen

Banned
John Loewens claims in "Lies My Teacher Told Me" that the War of 1812 did more than cement American nationalism. It also cemented American racism and racial consciousnes. Prior to the War of 1812 it was possible to find communities in the Northwest where whites, African-Americans and Native Americans lived together and even intermarried in peace and harmony.
According to Loewens, the War of 1812 (which the British fomented by backing Tecumseh, it must be said) brought all that to a screeching halt. 1812 was what made whites in the Northwest define Native Americans as The Enemy and insist on their removal--and that meant "half breeds" as well.
So what if Detroit was British Michigan and Wisconsin as Canadian provinces (unless as people are saying, Canada ultimately is annexed to the US) with Chicago and Toledo OH as border cities would be a small price to pay for a less racially conscious US, at least in the North, where escaped slaves could find real sanctuary and where native Americans and freedmen would be assimilated and have the same civil rights as anyone else instead of being discriminated against and irelegated to tiny reservations.or in the case of freedmen, urban ghettos.
 
If your looking for a POD try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe–Pinkney_Treaty. The Monroe-Pinkney Treaty was written up to settle most of the grievances between the British and Americans at the time, however they could get over the big hurtle of impressment. The British thought fighting Napoleon was more important than not impressing US personnel and so the treaty was never signed. A few things can help the treaty be signed, first no Napoleon or a temporary peace with him (these weren't too terribly uncommon) so the impressment bit can be solved. Or have someone other than Jefferson be president, he felt like he was getting the short end of the stick with the watered down treaty of OTL and didn't sign, get a softer POTUS in and you might just prevent (or delay) war.
 

katchen

Banned
Sure. If Monroe and Grenville had kept negotiating until after Lord Nelson destroyed the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar, impressment would have been a dead issue and the British would have given in on impressment and Jefferson likely would have submitted the treaty for ratification.
But there would still have been the problem of Tecumseh and the British.
 

Asami

Banned
Sure. If Monroe and Grenville had kept negotiating until after Lord Nelson destroyed the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar, impressment would have been a dead issue and the British would have given in on impressment and Jefferson likely would have submitted the treaty for ratification.
But there would still have been the problem of Tecumseh and the British.

" The negotiations were begun on 27 August 1806, and the treaty was signed on 31 December 1806."

The British didn't care, even after Trafalgar, because the treaty was negotiated in late 1806, a full year after then.
 
Without the war of 1812, America is still going to be expansionist, and would not have given up on the dream of an American Canada. Even without the war, the conquest of Florida, Creek War, and Seminole Wars - or some variant thereof - still happen anyway, if in a slightly different fashion. Canada could become American depending on one variable, American population pressure. Canada only had a population on the order of 70,000; within a few generations, Canada could become American-dominated if Americans are let into the territory. From there could Canada actually become part of America? Depends on how Britain swings, though it's difficult to imagine without a war.
 
We should remember that the American Revolution was the first major defining moment for 'Canadian' nationalism.

The loyalist exodus to Canada started after the rebellion long before the War of 1812.

And by 1838 OTL, the "Family Compact" of "United Empire Loyalists" and their cronies had made themselves thoroughly unpopular in both Upper and Lower Canada, resulting in the rebellions of that year.

The War of 1812 had established Canadian identity strongly enough that the rebellions fizzled out and there was no question of entering the U.S. as an alternative. It gave all Canadians a serious reason to oppose the U.S., not just the Tory exiles, and probably reinforced the Compact's dominance.

But without 1812, there would be much less national distinction between Canada and the U.S. Eventually the UEL's antipathy becomes an archaic irrelevancy and even sooner it becomes just another courthouse clique.

When discontent boils over... the outcome could be radically different from OTL's 1838.
 
Like Spitfire said, the War of 1812 was far more important for the national identity of Canada than for the US. There is very little chance that the US would fracture sans the War of 1812. It had already passed its three most important national tests.

1. It was smart enough not to get screwed by France and Spain in the Treaty of Paris.

2. Its first President did not become a dictator.

3. The change of party and ideology after the election of 1800 proceeded without violence or major problems.

On the other hand without the War of 1812 Canada would not have developed a national identity. US immigration and trade would have continued to bring the two regions closer together and without the war Britain would have largely ignored its acres of snow. Resentment between the French and Anglo Canadians would have continued to grow. Overall, Canada would have moved ever closer to the US and by the 1830s or so it is very likely that Canada (at least the English speaking portions) would be seeking a much closer relationship with the US.

Of course to avoid the War of 1812 Britain must cease arming the Native Americans of the Northwest Territory and cease impressement and recognize that Britons now living in the US were indeed US citizens. In return the US could open its ports to allow Britain to purchase war supplies and stop the rhetoric against Canada.

If this is done the US can focus on defeating Tecumseh and snatching Florida. More than likely the next war for the US will be against Spain over Florida and Texas (an area Americans were already moving into). Jackson could still gain fame in these conflicts and become President.

No War of 1812 greatly reduces the secessionist rhetoric coming out of New England. The issue that maddened New England was the decline in seaborne trade with Britain. No War of 1812 means increased profits for New England, thus no need to gripe.

I know a lot of the Canadians on these boards don't like the idea of being Americans, but that nationalism is a direct result of the War of 1812. Without it Canada does not exist.

Benjamin
Why would this last statement be the case..... Nothing you've said actually supports that supposition.

It makes the prospect marginally more plausible but does not make it inevitable. Which is what most people find so offensive.

Its far more likely that the BNA will still develop within the BE as it did in OTL but without the reinforced distrust of the American republic to the south. All this means is that US political influence might be greater earlier... but it does not generally speaking need to lead to annexation as you suggest.

the two have existed side by side for more than 2 centuries with nothing on the horizon to suggest that the two will ever be anything else, even though now American influence is more pervasive than ever it was.


This is not all because of the War of 1812 you know, but it did play its part in the early political formulation of the BNA provinces.
 
Why would this last statement be the case..... Nothing you've said actually supports that supposition.

It makes the prospect marginally more plausible but does not make it inevitable. Which is what most people find so offensive.

Its far more likely that the BNA will still develop within the BE as it did in OTL but without the reinforced distrust of the American republic to the south. All this means is that US political influence might be greater earlier... but it does not generally speaking need to lead to annexation as you suggest.

the two have existed side by side for more than 2 centuries with nothing on the horizon to suggest that the two will ever be anything else, even though now American influence is more pervasive than ever it was.


This is not all because of the War of 1812 you know, but it did play its part in the early political formulation of the BNA provinces.

The notions isn't inconceivable so long as there is American settlement north of the Canadian border. Within a few generations - or even sooner - the Americans would outnumber the Canadians, causing the odds of annexation to go up. The question is, why go north to an already somewhat populated Canada instead of heading out west to wide open American land? Maybe parts of Ontario, or something west of it, are grabbed by Americans; however, this is entirely dependent on the vagaries of American population pressure.
 
The notions isn't inconceivable so long as there is American settlement north of the Canadian border. Within a few generations - or even sooner - the Americans would outnumber the Canadians, causing the odds of annexation to go up. The question is, why go north to an already somewhat populated Canada instead of heading out west to wide open American land? Maybe parts of Ontario, or something west of it, are grabbed by Americans; however, this is entirely dependent on the vagaries of American population pressure.

There is also the question of the British letting the Americans in at all, even if what would become Canada is in some sort of dire need of more settlers why would they let them come from a overtly hostile America?
 
Top