Since thats 1820's, probably completely unrecognisable if it exists at all. Besides it only really had life breathed into it after Texas.
AHC/WI: Decisive UK victory in the war of 1812
- Thread starter Gloss
- Start date
Since thats 1820's, probably completely unrecognisable if it exists at all. Besides it only really had life breathed into it after Texas.
Now there is that as well......which would change everything unrecognisably and is too hard to predict. Something reasonably resembling Adams-Onis would be best but isn't a guarantee. An Anglo-Spanish alliance isn't out of the cards, but would be difficult to maintain long term post 1820 without changes in Spain as well.
I really don't see where the UK is going to find the amount of people need to properly settle the area, plus the idea that Britain would be willing to pay to garrison all those border areas seems weird. Doesn't seem the UK has those resources and I don't see why they would think the gamble is worth to begin with.
By 1840 the US was already deeply settled in Indiana and Illinois.
The Monroe doctrine wasn't even a thing at time so I doubt it would exist in the first place.
The population of the US grew constatly through sheer local growth and without much immigration, I don't see how this is going to stop without Soviet Union style collapse or some sort of massive and implausible civil war, so the US is going to keep expanding without really being delayed much, surely not even by a decade for the land they didn't lost.
I'm frankly skeptical of the workability of any native buffer state even for a few years, IMO they would be quickly integrated with other Canadian colonies.
"The Professor, post: 16601419, member: 1581"]It resulted from OTL score draw of a war so might not necessarily have been the case ATL. My point being that borders have a reason for why and how they are drawn.
As it is another poster has explained why parallels began to be used in North America to my satisfaction.[/QUOTE]
That is not an arguement in your favour. The reasoning that established it for us still apply even here. The British after a decisive win have an even stronger position if they didn't decide the matter after the war in the first place.
As it is another poster has explained why parallels began to be used in North America to my satisfaction.[/QUOTE]
That is not an arguement in your favour. The reasoning that established it for us still apply even here. The British after a decisive win have an even stronger position if they didn't decide the matter after the war in the first place.
A decisive defeat for the US likely means a higher number of casualties. That's going to impact local growth. Immigration will be impacted as well. Also, a civil war is not as implausible as you may think. As I mentioned, backlash over the war will at least cause lots of friction between sides. Opposition to the war was considered as treason by some. And with stronger voices of opposition, what do you think will happen then?
It can work since the US isn't likely to do much against them. Yes, perhaps at some point it might integrate into Canada once the US recovers and becomes strong enough to now challenge British North America (or the US conquers them, whatever happens)... but how long do you think that may take to happen? Consider then the buffer state might becomes the new destination for tribes opposing the US. Suppose the Civilized Tribes are still expelled from the southeast. Do you think they wouldn't flee instead to the buffer state... or ally with them if they still move west?
There were hundreds of thousands of Brits and thousands of Canadians who ended up in the United States, instead they'll be funneled towards Canada. A HUGE percentage of America's growth was through immigration, by 1840 roughly 40% of the major port cites (New York City, New Orleans, etc) were foreign born. The territory in question wasn't even settled in the time period in question. By the time that Americans trickle north from the Ohio River into northern Indiana and Illinois the Canadians will have been trickling south from Michigan and the lakes. Americans will be flooding the same areas they went to OTL first. The northward migration only happened after all the better land further south. The Canadians will use the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes as a highway and go west. They'll have the easier time than the Americans.
I personally don't think there will be an Indian buffer state. I think the Brits punt them down the road at Ghent and we wind with Upper Canada 2.0.
After the establishment of any native protectorate settlement outside territory in the south delineated by treaty will likely be perceived by the masses as less desirable. The natives will be seen as hostile and they will be beyond official American protection. The Mississippi valley if it remains American won'have these detractors and will thus be more desirable in the immediate term. Migration from the Isles to NA amounted to about 250,000 during the 1820's. Roughly in equal measure to both BNA and the US. Many of those that end up in UC and subsequent migrants in the 1830's would re-migrate west and south to the US from BNA as farmland in UC became less available and at a reasonable price compared to the US. Most of this was initially to the adjacent areas of NE (industrialization) and Michigan alongside New Englanders as farmland at reasonable prices became more available. This will happen under British/UC auspices instead this time. Thus local manpower and resources of UC will be available to draw upon by the British garrisons. There probably administered from York in the first place. By the time the issues regarding the confederacy and its continued viability come to a head in the late 30's or the 40's the Americans will also have the question of Texas. Migration to NA should continue in the same proportions to both BNA (because more land will be perceived to be available and it's probably in UC's interest to promote it to secure their future growth. It could even persist into the early 40's when migration across the Atlantic becomes more than just a predominantly Anglo-Irish affair. By then the British will be well established and entrenched in the the lower peninsula and on all the choicest harbours of lake Michigan to the west facilitating increased trade and influence with the natives.
You also have the natives of the SW. Are they forcibly located west of the Mississippi or do they voluntarily relocate to the refuge of their former allies in the NW Confederacy.
You also have the natives of the SW. Are they forcibly located west of the Mississippi or do they voluntarily relocate to the refuge of their former allies in the NW Confederacy.
Last edited:
I saved it because I love itSaves me a bunch of time trying to find it.
I did say it wouldn't last much beyond mid century. During the 20's its eminently doable. Less so in the 30's 40's but there is probably enough inertia to keep it largely status quo until at least then.
Last edited:
No it's not going to impact local growth, it's just not physically possible to kill that many Americans with the type of warfare in this era.
A civil war is not implausible, what's implausible is one so strong to stop a trend going for 3 decades by now.
I don't know how to phrase, but you can't remove the growth just because, there are reasons for it existing and simply having civil wars isn't going to change that more so when the scenario present isn't that plausible to begin with, yes friction would exists, New England could declare independence and be re-annexed forcefully etc etc. this isn't going to kill hundreds of thousands of people or decrease fertilty rate, this is not a world war scenario.
It isn't about the US, but about the functionality of such a state and its usefulness for the Brits, the Brits themselves would soon find the land the states encompasses to be good land for further settlement especially with the USA expanding demographically in the region as well and 50k people forcefully removed from the Souther United States isn't going to fix that either, how much population would this area have anyway?
What do you mean by that exactly? US didn't experience much migration until 1830.
Sure, although by then foreign born population was still less than 10%, less than Modern USA anyway. You aren't going to shift that many people and even if you shift all post 1820-1840 immigration you aren't going to lower US population by more than 1 million by 1840 and that's the worse case scenario.
No it wasn't but it would soon be, by 1840 it was already fully settled.
Michigan ok, but I'm not sure how they are going to settle Illinois or Indiana not in any large amount, the US by 1840 had already more than 1 million people in both states, around the population of all the Canadian colonies around the same time, the Canadians would have to fuel most of the settlements with migration from Europe and that's not possible at such speed.
IMO there is no reason the Brits would try to keep a undefensible border by annexing land south of Michigan for no reason other than piss the americans off and waste their money and resource for something they OTL though of giving off to natives to maintain the fur trade, Canada isn't going to be able to just replace US expansion by just somehow taking the few migrants US had until 1840, when they already fully settled both Illinois and Indiana.
Not sure if that's what others suggested as British landgrabs, but I don't get why the UK would be ok with taking 40 km wide strip of land to cut of Illinois from the lake Michigan but allow the US access to the pacific, it's illogical.
The British could take all the territory in the map, but a lot of it would almost certainly end up being settled by people from the USA. The USA had a huge demographic explosion in the late 18th/early 19th century, the biggest proportionally in its history - and that's just counting the natural birth rate, not immigration. No way the British are going to be able to keep lots of Americans out of those territories, even if they get lots of their own settlers.
This isn't necessarily an insuperable problem for Britain and Canada, though. In OTL quite a few Americans settled in Canada, and Canada was able to assimilate them. In this scenario, internal tensions in the US might even create a lot of disgruntled northerners who are fed up with a southern-dominated USA and are willing to become British subjects.
This isn't necessarily an insuperable problem for Britain and Canada, though. In OTL quite a few Americans settled in Canada, and Canada was able to assimilate them. In this scenario, internal tensions in the US might even create a lot of disgruntled northerners who are fed up with a southern-dominated USA and are willing to become British subjects.
That's actually a good way to settle the territory for Canada, although I wonder if those settlers aren't going to get weird ideas in Canadian's heads about total self-rule or similar heresies.
Michigan and Wisconsin were late to the party when it comes to becoming states Michigan in the 40's and Wisconsin in the 60's I think when they had enough settlement. Settlement in Indiana and Illinois was south to north. here it's not as desirable for the very reasons I noted earlier,. Progress northward when it occurs I'll be far slower. Northern settlement in these states was expedited and accelerated by Chicago's establishment initially as a port but even more so as a railroad hub between east and west. That won't be until at least the 40's. By then it will be too late sine Anglo Canadian and British Immigrants will be firmly established. St. Louis will probably replace it as the central hub linkinking east and west. Migration instead of northwest from the Ohio to Chicago and points NW, . Will be west to St. Louis and the llower Missouri to KC instead. Missouri will replace Illinois as the dominant Midwest industrial driver.
Americans will come of course, initially in smaller numbers but later as immigrants. Political reform in the dominions is probably earlier as a result. The Dominions will likely be essentially independent in all but name by the late 50's out of necessity.
In 1840, the vast majority of those people would be settled in the south, along the banks of the Ohio river, and it thinned out as you went further north. Canada would settle its portion through immigration from Europe via the construction of the ST. Lawrence canal. Once that happens, there's going to an unprecedented boom in Canadian settlement. Upper Canada could easily have 2x the population of OTL, virtually all of it coming from the British Isles. They'll trickle west and occupy Detroit and towns along rivers and bays elsewhere in the lakes. Detroit will act exactly like York did for Upper Canada and act as a hub for commerce and industry for everything west, Chicago will likely do the same when it's founded. By the time Indiana and Illinois are filled up, that tiny strip north of the Kankakee River will be dotted with towns and villages full of Anglos.
Canadian demographics will be totally changed by the construction of the canal. There will be far greater settlement, and Britain/Canada will control the extremely lucrative mining on the UP. They'll absolutely be able to replace the lost American settlement and then some.
What I was initially saying was that if the circumstances that lead to a 1812 like war and resultant British victory were different then one cannot state that the ATL border decision will be "OTL plus a parallel further south" without explaining WHY.
Gunslinger explained why parallels would still be used in the ATL. It was an explanation I was previously lacking. It explained WHY.
So being told again that I'm wrong when I've already agreed with another poster why I was wrong is redundant. Especially when I was only wrong about the use of parallels.
(Edited for less stridence)
Last edited:
Out west was entirely empty it was far from something they thought of as important, this is not true of the great lakes of which control was top priority