Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2017 14:49:51 GMT
What if: United States wins the War of 1812?
The US war aims were to conquer Canada and end British interference with US merchant ships. In our timeline the invasion of Canada was a failure, and Britain cancelled the blockade of France and the orders to search neutral ships for Royal Navy deserters of its own volition after Napoleon was defeated. But let's suppose instead that the US succeeds in both its aims, conquering Canada and forcing the UK to back down over the blockade.
Preventing interference by foreign warships with the ships of neutral powers was one of the reasons the US went to war in 1812.
The victory at sea would probably not have far-reaching effects. It's unlikely that Britain would renounce the idea of blockades entirely just because they failed to impose one in this specific case. It's possible that they might decide to maintain a larger peacetime navy with more warships in American waters, since the US Navy had proven itself to be a threat. Bear in mind that in our timeline, the vast majority of the British fleet was fighting France, and only a small fraction could be spared to face the Americans. In this alternative timeline that policy would be seen in hindsight to have been a mistake.
One unfortunate consequence of a US victory might be to reduce the effectiveness of the West Africa anti-slavery patrol. Britain started this in 1808, ordering a squadron of ships to cruise off the African coast and intercept slave ships of all nationalities, confiscating them and freeing the slaves on board. While this was seen as a humanitarian and even noble endeavour, it was also, undeniably, high-handed interference with the rights of neutral shipping - exactly the sort of thing the United States went to war in 1812 to prevent Britain from doing. A Royal Navy which had suffered a humiliating defeat might be less self-confident about imposing its own morality on the ships of other nations - especially American-owned slave ships. Then again, perhaps their defeat in 1812 might make them even more vigorous and high-handed in an effort to avenge their humiliation.
A US victory at sea in 1812 would also make their actions in 1861 even more ironic, assuming the American Civil War still happened in this timeline. The US Navy imposed a blockade of its enemy, and even started stopping and boarding British civilian ships on the high seas and arresting Americans found on board - exactly the things they'd gone to war to stop the British doing in 1812! Still, while trying to justify this turnaround might cause embarrassment for alternate-timeline Americans on their version of the Internet, it's unlikely that the US Navy would act any differently. Necessitas non habet legem.
The US invasion of Canada in 1812 was defeated at the Battle of Queenston Heights; but what if the Americans had won?
Turning to the conquest of Canada, this would have more far-reaching effects. Before the war, American politicians had expected the Canadians to rise up against the British and join the USA willingly; they were sadly disappointed. The problem was that Canada's population in 1812 was made up of two main groups, neither of which had any reason to like the United States.
The first was the original Canadiens, the French settlers: they had been given a generous peace settlement (by 18th-century standards) by the British government which allowed them freedom of religion and other rights. While the US constitution certainly talked about separation of Church and State, to the Roman Catholic French Canadians of 1812 the United States appeared to be an aggressively Protestant nation, under whose rule they would be a small and despised minority instead of holding a privileged position.
The second group was the English-speaking Canadians - and a very large proportion of these were Loyalists, or their descendants, who had fled the United States after the War of Independence to escape reprisals against those who'd backed the losing side. Such people had absolutely no reason to welcome the United States invading their new homes after it had already driven them out of their old ones!
A US government that won a decisive victory in the war of 1812 would thus be faced with the problem of holding down a large rebellious population. Of course they already had experience of doing that with their black slaves and the Native Americans; but the Canadians were white, which to the early 19th century mindset would make a big difference. It's possible, of course, that after a few years the Canadians would become accustomed to their new status and learn to accept it, and become loyal US citizens. The other possibility is that the US government would be forced to resort to suppressive measures in the occupied territories - a permanent standing army, press censorship, a political police force arresting opponents, etc. While these would certainly be justified as "temporary emergency measures", it's hard not to think that they would have a negative affect on the US political culture in general, and America would become a less free society where the State had greater coercive power from an early date.
In the long term, the acquisition of Canada would add a large population of Roman Catholics from the start of US history. This could affect the position of later Catholic immigrants such as the Irish, who might face less discrimination in consequence. There would also be a greater majority of non-slave states in the Union, which would have far-reaching effects. I can imagine the South trying to block the granting of statehood and citizenship to Canada for as long as possible, to preserve their grip over the US Senate and prevent the creation of an abolitionist majority in Congress. If and when such attempts failed, it might trigger a Southern secession and civil war two decades earlier than in our timeline.
Fort Ross, the Russian outpost in California until 1841. Would a USA with more territory to digest north of the Great Lakes be slower to reach the Pacific?
American expansion westwards might be slightly slower than in our timeline, since they would have more territory to fill up to the north, and also no spur of competition to reach and claim the Oregon Territory before the British did. It's remotely possible that the Russians or Mexicans might have time to establish a firmer foothold along the Pacific coast, preventing the US from ejecting them: on the other hand, the US in this timeline would probably be militarily stronger, so would have no problem in winning a Mexican-American or even Russian-American war.
The loss of Canada might focus British attention more onto India and Australia than in our timeline, but is unlikely to have a hugely negative effect. As long as North America was still willing to buy British exports and sell food and raw materials in return, the British government was unlikely to care what flag they flew. The UK had supported the independence of the South American nations and resisted any attempt by other European powers to re-subjugate them, and there's no reason they wouldn't be willing to go along with a similar policy in the north.
One possible long-term effect is that in this timeline, Britain would have less reason to avoid disputes and clashes with the United States, because they would not have Canada and its long southern land border as a potential hostage. Then again, the cordial Anglo-American relations that began after the 1860s or so had much more to do with a shared language, culture and trade links than with considerations of power politics, so would be unlikely to change.
There would certainly be differences in the 20th century too - Britain would be short by four elite divisions in the First World War, and American draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War might have to flee to Bermuda or Jamaica instead of Canada. But by that stage the timelines would probably have diverged too far to make predictions meaningful...
Article was posted on quora and was called: What might have happened if the US had won the War of 1812?
The US war aims were to conquer Canada and end British interference with US merchant ships. In our timeline the invasion of Canada was a failure, and Britain cancelled the blockade of France and the orders to search neutral ships for Royal Navy deserters of its own volition after Napoleon was defeated. But let's suppose instead that the US succeeds in both its aims, conquering Canada and forcing the UK to back down over the blockade.
Preventing interference by foreign warships with the ships of neutral powers was one of the reasons the US went to war in 1812.
The victory at sea would probably not have far-reaching effects. It's unlikely that Britain would renounce the idea of blockades entirely just because they failed to impose one in this specific case. It's possible that they might decide to maintain a larger peacetime navy with more warships in American waters, since the US Navy had proven itself to be a threat. Bear in mind that in our timeline, the vast majority of the British fleet was fighting France, and only a small fraction could be spared to face the Americans. In this alternative timeline that policy would be seen in hindsight to have been a mistake.
One unfortunate consequence of a US victory might be to reduce the effectiveness of the West Africa anti-slavery patrol. Britain started this in 1808, ordering a squadron of ships to cruise off the African coast and intercept slave ships of all nationalities, confiscating them and freeing the slaves on board. While this was seen as a humanitarian and even noble endeavour, it was also, undeniably, high-handed interference with the rights of neutral shipping - exactly the sort of thing the United States went to war in 1812 to prevent Britain from doing. A Royal Navy which had suffered a humiliating defeat might be less self-confident about imposing its own morality on the ships of other nations - especially American-owned slave ships. Then again, perhaps their defeat in 1812 might make them even more vigorous and high-handed in an effort to avenge their humiliation.
A US victory at sea in 1812 would also make their actions in 1861 even more ironic, assuming the American Civil War still happened in this timeline. The US Navy imposed a blockade of its enemy, and even started stopping and boarding British civilian ships on the high seas and arresting Americans found on board - exactly the things they'd gone to war to stop the British doing in 1812! Still, while trying to justify this turnaround might cause embarrassment for alternate-timeline Americans on their version of the Internet, it's unlikely that the US Navy would act any differently. Necessitas non habet legem.
The US invasion of Canada in 1812 was defeated at the Battle of Queenston Heights; but what if the Americans had won?
Turning to the conquest of Canada, this would have more far-reaching effects. Before the war, American politicians had expected the Canadians to rise up against the British and join the USA willingly; they were sadly disappointed. The problem was that Canada's population in 1812 was made up of two main groups, neither of which had any reason to like the United States.
The first was the original Canadiens, the French settlers: they had been given a generous peace settlement (by 18th-century standards) by the British government which allowed them freedom of religion and other rights. While the US constitution certainly talked about separation of Church and State, to the Roman Catholic French Canadians of 1812 the United States appeared to be an aggressively Protestant nation, under whose rule they would be a small and despised minority instead of holding a privileged position.
The second group was the English-speaking Canadians - and a very large proportion of these were Loyalists, or their descendants, who had fled the United States after the War of Independence to escape reprisals against those who'd backed the losing side. Such people had absolutely no reason to welcome the United States invading their new homes after it had already driven them out of their old ones!
A US government that won a decisive victory in the war of 1812 would thus be faced with the problem of holding down a large rebellious population. Of course they already had experience of doing that with their black slaves and the Native Americans; but the Canadians were white, which to the early 19th century mindset would make a big difference. It's possible, of course, that after a few years the Canadians would become accustomed to their new status and learn to accept it, and become loyal US citizens. The other possibility is that the US government would be forced to resort to suppressive measures in the occupied territories - a permanent standing army, press censorship, a political police force arresting opponents, etc. While these would certainly be justified as "temporary emergency measures", it's hard not to think that they would have a negative affect on the US political culture in general, and America would become a less free society where the State had greater coercive power from an early date.
In the long term, the acquisition of Canada would add a large population of Roman Catholics from the start of US history. This could affect the position of later Catholic immigrants such as the Irish, who might face less discrimination in consequence. There would also be a greater majority of non-slave states in the Union, which would have far-reaching effects. I can imagine the South trying to block the granting of statehood and citizenship to Canada for as long as possible, to preserve their grip over the US Senate and prevent the creation of an abolitionist majority in Congress. If and when such attempts failed, it might trigger a Southern secession and civil war two decades earlier than in our timeline.
Fort Ross, the Russian outpost in California until 1841. Would a USA with more territory to digest north of the Great Lakes be slower to reach the Pacific?
American expansion westwards might be slightly slower than in our timeline, since they would have more territory to fill up to the north, and also no spur of competition to reach and claim the Oregon Territory before the British did. It's remotely possible that the Russians or Mexicans might have time to establish a firmer foothold along the Pacific coast, preventing the US from ejecting them: on the other hand, the US in this timeline would probably be militarily stronger, so would have no problem in winning a Mexican-American or even Russian-American war.
The loss of Canada might focus British attention more onto India and Australia than in our timeline, but is unlikely to have a hugely negative effect. As long as North America was still willing to buy British exports and sell food and raw materials in return, the British government was unlikely to care what flag they flew. The UK had supported the independence of the South American nations and resisted any attempt by other European powers to re-subjugate them, and there's no reason they wouldn't be willing to go along with a similar policy in the north.
One possible long-term effect is that in this timeline, Britain would have less reason to avoid disputes and clashes with the United States, because they would not have Canada and its long southern land border as a potential hostage. Then again, the cordial Anglo-American relations that began after the 1860s or so had much more to do with a shared language, culture and trade links than with considerations of power politics, so would be unlikely to change.
There would certainly be differences in the 20th century too - Britain would be short by four elite divisions in the First World War, and American draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War might have to flee to Bermuda or Jamaica instead of Canada. But by that stage the timelines would probably have diverged too far to make predictions meaningful...
Article was posted on quora and was called: What might have happened if the US had won the War of 1812?
and by that time there would probably be little chance of regaining lost Canadian lands. What might be more likely possibly would be say supporting Texans who desired to stay independent of the US or Mexico if/when it was attacked by the US. [Preferably with a considerably less incompetent Mexico leader that Santa otherwise it could be very messy. 
]