What would be the consequences of Canada falling to the USA in the ARW?
- Thread starter Boom22
- Start date
They already did to Jamaica, at least...though oddly that was a small amount-most went to Canada, the Bahamas, Bermuda (essentially giving most of the island groups their population's ancestors today) , and Britain.
I personally suspect most go to Britain initially, then a speedier colonization of Australia with them beyond convicts.
The Sandman
Banned
Hmm. One big issue is going to be Halifax. I just don't see the Continental Army being able to take it in the war; it's too well fortified and too far away from any reasonable staging point. So it's going to be a major sticking point in a postwar situation where both Upper and Lower Canada went to the US; the British can probably hold out for halfway decent peace terms in exchange for giving it up. This means they keep Bermuda at a minimum, and may be able to get the Bahamas back in exchange for withdrawing from the Maritimes.
I agree I think Upper and Lower Canada would be occupied but not the Maritimes. Question: Would the Brits and the French support a Canadian rebellion in the future?
Did not know about the US invasions of the Bahamas. Read some on it and it seems it was mainly a raid for gunpowder and other weapons.
And it did not involve the whole Bahamas but just Nassau island. Clever plan.
The Canadian Loyalist would have gone to UK. I do not think that many would have gone to Jamaica since Jamaica was mainly set up has a plantation system.
Central America was no place for loyalists.
It seems some British settled in parts of Honduras and Nicaragua and had mixed with the natives. These became known has Miskitos.
They had good relations with the British government.
But there also were groups that the British had deported from the less Antilles to Honduras that later on helped the Spanish keep the British out.
These were know has the Garifuna.
Seems the Spanish took them in.
Got information from this site. Recommend you read it since information like this is hard to find.
http://www.bjmjr.net/afromestizo/honduras.htm
Canada falling to US might see an independent Québec. Afterall, the US could use allies.
Why does everyone always assume Quebec would want to be allies with the USA? Quebec was quite happy with British rule and was ecstatic that the Brits didn't force their religion or language on them, I don't think the USA would be so kind even in it's early days.
I would think even the people in Québec preferred to rule themselves then be ruled.
And it seems Québec and the US do have history.
Well at the beginning of the war Nova Scotia was poorly defended. Had Benedict Arnold set his sights on Halifax instead of Quebec he might have very well succeeded. That opens up the question of were the British would go when forced out of Boston?
Eurofed
Banned
In my own TL, political butterflies in the British Parliament cause a version of the Quebec Act to be voted that is as harsh on Quebec as the rest of the Intolerable Acts were on the 13 colonies. As a result, Quebec eagerly joins the Patriots in 1774-75. Its rebellion butterflies Nova Scotia in doing so as well. Halifax is conquered by the Rebels early on.
Exactly.
In my TL, the stronger Rebellion causes an earlier end of the ARW (peace negotiations in 1779, peace traty in 1781) but it also butterflies France and PSain to it it earlier in, in 1777 and 1778, respectively. The USA gain B & B in the peace treaty, Florida is gained later in the ATL equivalent of the War of 1812 and US intervention in the Latin American Wars of Independence rolled into one.
In my TL, the Iroquois side with the Patriots, which changes substantially the relationship between the US and the native tribes towards an assimilationist pattern. Some features of the Jay Treaty are included in the 1781 peace treaty.
IMTL, Washington s butterflied into a third term, which kills the Alien and Sedition Acts, and paves the way to a very long Federalist dominance. They pour a lot of investment into the military and infrastructure development, which substantially accelerates the westward movement, even if Americans move north as well.
Indeed, the XYZ Affair escalates into full-fledged Franco-American War. The USA takes French Caribbean, Hispaniola (including a largely depopulated Haiti after a complex succession of black revolutionaries, French, and American conquests), and Louisiana. Texas is left alone because America intervenes militarly to support Simon Bolivar instead (which makes the Latin American revolutionaries pro-US, and paves the way for Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia to become US protectorates and join the US later). Texas is gotten later in a way much similar to OTL, alongside California, Rio Grande, both pro-US secessionist republics like Texas, the Southwest, and northern Mexico.
OTOH, the larger US Navy is kept more busy by the wars with France, Britain, and Spain, so the butterflies are neutralized on this one.
Perhaps, but the War of 1812 still happens over Rupert's Land. However, the larger and more efficient US Army & navy kick the British off Rupert's Land and take Jamaica and Guyana.
Exactly, which makes the likes of Simon Bolivar turn eager supporters of joining the American experiment. Since ITTL America has less racist qualms over Latin Americans (Romance Catholics and Natives have been among the Founding Fathers), say hello to the US states of Venezuela and Colombia.
The USA support the South American patriots, but fail to do so for Mexico as well. Although they could well have done the reverse, they are not yet so strong that they can fight Britain and Spain and support all the Latin MAerican patriots at once. Mexico still gets its indepence on its own, and escapes American influence, which means the Mexican-American war unfolds much like OTL, only greater American settlement makes California and Rio Grance follow texas, and America grabs northern Mexico (and turns the rest into a protectorate).
As it concerns the Loyalists, IMTL they scatter between South Africa (no, they don't become Drakas), Australia, Ireland, initially. The West coast is too remote and unsettled to be a proper destination, Jamaica absorbs a few (but the island was already heavily settled as a plantation economy, so its absorption capacity of settlers would be limited), as do the British Honduras. However, in the 1810s, Britain conquers Rio de la Plata and Chile, and that's where the majority of the UEL go in the end.
Seems reasonable - at the very least, peninsular Nova Scotia is never being taken except by negotiations at the ned of the war.
The Brits - probably if relations with the US deteriorate that much. The French - no, they gave up their stake in Quebec in 1757 and haven't looked back since. (Well, maybe, in the event of a war, but it would be akin to them supporting the Irish in a war with GB - for strategic reasons only and utterly without a personal or moral stake in the matter.)
...What? Halifax had less of a garrison than Quebec City, sure, but it's also, oh, a couple thousand miles of howling wilderness further away. Arnold barely managed to get his army to Quebec intact, and his troops were literally days away from saying "screw this I'm going home". There's no way he could take Halifax.
And @ the thread in general: Loyalists would predominantly a) go to Bermuda; b) go to Britain; c) stick around. They went to Canada mainly because it was relatively very close. Without that, many more will probably stay.
Eurofed
Banned
True. OTOH, it is almost surely going to be taken that way.
True, with the caveat that really, a Quebec anti-US rebellion is only slightly more likely than New England secession. The early US Constitution gives a truckload of autonomy to a minority that is local majority in a state.
Point taken. But I bet my chances on a successful Eddy's Rebellion ITTL, which would bring at least Acadia in the bosom of the Rebellion, and even build up a credible threat to British rule in peninsular Nova Scotia, if the British are not quick to man Halifax.
Are the Patriots going to let them stay ? I doubt it. There was very little tolerance for the Tory fifth column after the ARW in the 13 (now 15) Colonies. And B&B are almost surely lost to America ITTL.
67th Tigers
Banned
Well, if Canada has gone then the large reinforcements sent there OTL would go to Boston. Overall, taking Quebec could harm the Whigs as it further disperses their forces and in fact concentrates the Government forces.
While it's within reason to assume the US ends up with Upper and Lower Canada, and what became New Brunswick, I think it's ASB to think the U.S. would gain Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay colony unless they gave up something they occupied in return (and I don't see what they would give up). Realistically speaking, the U.S. Navy is going to be shite compared to the British one for a long, long time to come, and those regions are certainly holdable by naval force alone. Britain might sell them eventually (particularly the HBC) but probably not for at least 50 years.
It's an open question if a U.S. constitution could even be settled with Quebec in the union. Considering how much squabbling there was during the Articles era even with the states broadly culturally similar, adding one so different into the mix makes the wrangling even more tortured. The U.S. probably will end up with all of Oregon country however, except maybe Vancouver Island which could end up an autonomous British colony.
In general, the area we call "Canada" will probably have a lower population. Settlement in much of it IOTL was driven to the high levels it was because there was nowhere better to go. With a lot more open frontier, much of OTL Canada will likely be the last areas of "frontier" settled by Americans. We certainly won't see anything like the Toronto megalopolis form. I'd expect over large swaths of Canada, the population will end up being Francophone, simply because the settlement from the south will be slow enough that the Francophone populations moving down the Saint Lawrence may have time to establish themselves. It's even possible the Prairies could end up francophone, although I think settlement coming up from North Dakota and Montana will be logistically easier than across the forests of Manitoba.
It's an open question if a U.S. constitution could even be settled with Quebec in the union. Considering how much squabbling there was during the Articles era even with the states broadly culturally similar, adding one so different into the mix makes the wrangling even more tortured. The U.S. probably will end up with all of Oregon country however, except maybe Vancouver Island which could end up an autonomous British colony.
In general, the area we call "Canada" will probably have a lower population. Settlement in much of it IOTL was driven to the high levels it was because there was nowhere better to go. With a lot more open frontier, much of OTL Canada will likely be the last areas of "frontier" settled by Americans. We certainly won't see anything like the Toronto megalopolis form. I'd expect over large swaths of Canada, the population will end up being Francophone, simply because the settlement from the south will be slow enough that the Francophone populations moving down the Saint Lawrence may have time to establish themselves. It's even possible the Prairies could end up francophone, although I think settlement coming up from North Dakota and Montana will be logistically easier than across the forests of Manitoba.
Eurofed
Banned
About Nova Scotia, I think the main issue would be whether the Patriots manage to raise a serious following in the colony, either before or after Eddy succeeds in securing Acadia/NB. If they do, I don't see Britain being able to keep it at the peace table. If not, Britain can keep it. I agree that Britain ought to be able and keep NFL without too much effort. About Rupert's Land, no chance. The loss of Upper and Lower Canada makes it strategically untenable in the long run for Britain. First of all, it makes it *much* harder for Britain to defend it in the War of 1812, if it still happens (which it might easily do, with Rupert's Land taking the place of U/L Canada as a war aim). America would need to make an even more crappy performance in the war than IOTL, in order to fail seizing it. Even if the war doesn't happen, Britain would lack the demographic base to settle it properly with loyal people, and the economic base to make it profitable when the fur trade declines, while it would get relatively swamped by American farmer settlers more and more as the West gets colonized. Within 30-50 years at the very most, they would be forced to sell it. Ditto for the Pacific Northwest. The more the Frontier gets West, the lesser Britain can hold Rupert's Land by "naval force alone". Trying to keep it from Hudson's Bay ports while Americans go in from the South and East through their railways would be a logistical nightmare.
People always harp about "cultural differences", but they forget that there were Catholics in the Constitutional Convention, as well as sizable non-English and Catholic minorities in the 13 Colonies. At the very most, Quebecker representatives are going to insist about getting a "this constitution doesn't say what it doesn't say" safeguard clausle for their language and Church, which the other Framers shall concede without too much fuss, precisely because it changes nothing for the balance of power in the end. Otherwise, the seigneurs were not really different in their interests and viewpoints from the Southern planters elite, apart from the slavery issue, nor the Montreal and Quebec City trader elites from their Boston and New York counterparts.
True.
This can be easily balanced from the more abundant immigration to America filling up those areas too, whereas large-scale non-British immigration to BNA was a relatively late phenomenon IOTL, because the British Empire did not encourage European immigration nowhere as much as America. With more land to settle, more immigrants may come. Also "northern" states and territories can get developed faster if they are fully integrated economically and politically with America. E.g. I can totally see a northern intercontinental railroad route being built earlier than OTL.
That's foolish. Southern Ontario is climatogically and resourcewise not really different from southern Midwest and upper New York, and full integration with those areas would develop it even faster than OTL.
I can quite easily see a lot of Francophone settlers spreading around more than OTL, but they would rub shoulders with a lot of Anglo immigrants, too. At the very most, Ontario and the Prairies shall become and remain linguistically mixed. That is going to help integration of Francophones in American society, however.
Last edited: