An Alternate History of the War of 1812

Great Debates
1

I’ve been working on this for most of the morning, but some of it isn’t nailed down too well, so please bear with me. I made a few factual changes in American and Canadian history; small enough to be plausible, but sufficient to cause major differences later on.

Changes:
-----Stephen van Rensselaer III elected Governor of NY instead of being offered command of the Army
----------Battle of Queenston Heights not bungled
-----Isaac Brock dies of fever as a boy
----------Upper Canada not defended properly
----------General Sheaffe more cautious in defense, does not rally Canadians

As Canadian forces suffer setbacks, and Canadian civilians feel less allegiance to their nation, American commanders capture large cities and territories, aided by U.S. immigrants, a perception of ill-treatment by the British, French, and Indians (who start fighting for the Americans when they see what’s going on, and assured that they will have better treatment under American government than the Crown), and humane and merciful treatment of prisoners and enemy combatants.

British invasion of Louisiana is never even planned, as GB armies and navies suffer decisive losses and opt instead to attempt to hold Toronto and New Brunswick. Americans take New Brunswick, offering Canadians the option of leaving the province or swearing allegiance to the US, causing a massive increase in pro-US sentiment. Andrew Jackson never takes a large part in the war, instead serving as a lieutenant in the occupation (not destruction) of York (now Toronto).

Greater American successes on the St. Lawrence River lead Mohawks to back U.S. instead; Laura Secord’s warning is never received, and Beaver Dams is taken. With naval support, Fort Niagara falls to Colonel Boestler, and British communications and supply movements are almost entirely cut off.

American occupation of much of the heart of Canada, combined with friendly treatment of civilians by officers, leads to softening of anti-American feelings and resignation towards defeat.With Great Britain’s somewhat indifferent reaction to the loss of many of their settlers and history of stern treatment by Governors, native Canadians are indignant at their cavalier dismissal; Americans begin to be perceived as liberators from rule by a distant, uncaring, imperial, undemocratic power.

As the final blow, elections for local government are scheduled by American military governments: any Canadian officer who does not accept American control may not vote, but other members of the Army can; in addition, tribes on Canadian land are dealt with as sovereign peoples as a deliberate contrast with former British policies. Pro-American officials are easily put in place, with few ill feelings towards them.

Great Britain cedes Canada to the US in December of 1814, beginning to see that they can no longer be an empire if the colonies are treated harshly. In return, President Madison pays $500,000 for various damages (I’ll improve this later).
Canadians, with large numbers of American immigrants and sympathetic Indians, quickly assimilate into the US. I don’t know how I’ll handle land given to the tribes, since I probably can’t get independent nations even with Americans trying to be more generous than the British, but it shouldn’t be an issue.

Much of New Brunswick (St. John River split?) joins with Maine and separates from Massachusetts in 1815, with a combined population of 300,000?, named Columbus, with 8 representatives; the rest, along with Novia Scotia and Prince Edward Island, is brought into the Union as Acadia in 1821. Ontario and Quebec are split up into Ontario (western half of Ontario), Michigan (Lower peninsula plus Quebec up to northern edge of New York), Mackinaw (UP plus 80% of rest of Ontario), Quebec (northern third of Quebec), and Montreal (rest of Quebec), although I haven’t researched this very well yet. At this point, it’s just guessing, as the changes I’ve made completely alter the national scene after the war.

Canadian Dopers in particular, what do you think? Is this even remotely plausible, given the changes I made and some artistic license*?

*-Bearing in mind that as the outcome of the war and events during it change so drastically, a lot of other things are going to shift as well, like Canadian identity, attitudes towards the U.S., American politics with a new view of regionalism, etc.

2

Boy those Americans sure are a swell bunch of freedom loving liberators freeing a population from tyranny. Could you at least make the whole Manifest Destiny apparent?

As well, seeing how the Quebec Act of 1774 irritated enough Americans to use it as ammunition against the British Crown in 1776 I’m not sure how easily your United States would assimiliate Lower Canada.

3

To explain the changes some more:

Stephen van Rensselaer was running for Governor of New York shortly before the war started, but was offered the position of control of the Army center. Since he was a major in the militia at the time, he would either have to decline the post, and lose respect, or take it; either way, he couldn’t be governor. He took it, but a) wasn’t an experienced commander, and thus wasn’t very good, and b) wasn’t respected by his men. van Rensselaer later faced a fortified British position at Queenston Heights, Ontario, and was badly defeated in his attempt to take it. Had somebody else in his position done so, it would have been a strong blow against Canada, raising the American morale and hurting the Canadian/British.

Isaac Brock defended Upper Canada very aggressively; his successor was much less talented. Had General Sheaffe been in command, Canadian naval superiority and land victories would have been badly hurt; after Brock was killed at Queenston Heights, Sheaffe took command, but was very unpopular and not terribly successful.

These changes were aimed at two things: one, increase American military successes and morale, and two, decrease Canadian morale and prevent a national identity from coalescing. I think these two personnel alterations would have enabled the U.S. armies to defeat Canadian, British, and Indian forces much more often, and as a corollary, occupy far more of Canada than actually happened. Ideally, this would form a sort of snowball effect: more victories leads to a greater impetus and base for further attacks, and those attacks would enable American forces to hold more of Canada. The most important thing afterwards was engineering a peaceful political situation in Canada; the point is to have American settlement of Canada and incorporate it into the U.S., not have a twenty-year occupation and much bitterness on the part of the occupied.

4

I was trying to come up with some way for Canadians not to hate Americans, and to be open to the possibility of joining the Union. I admittedly hadn’t thought about how this would affect
Manifest Destiny, but I bet that acquiring Canada would fuel efforts to annex all of North America.

I’m hoping to build up resentment from Canadians against the Crown, possibly by making Simcoe a much less sympathetic Governor. This might create a history of anger against the colonial rulers, but I agree that it’s a problem.

5

Well it is your alternative history. It just seems that you’ve stacked the deck to make it impossible for the US not to loose. They now have better commanders, better battle results, fewer opponents, no mention of New England threatening to succeed and they get to liberate a population at odds with a remote tyrannical Crown.

I mean really, how could they not win?

6

Some of your assumptions are far-fetched. For example, while recent American immigrants were found in significant numbers in some areas, much of the population of Canada were unlikely to support American conquest due to being French (one of the quarrels the colonies had with Britain in 1776 was the “lenient” treatment of the French in Canada by the Brits), United Empire Loyalists (refugees from the American Revolution and their children, who had at best a strong dislike of the US), or Indian (much better treated by Brits than Americans) and foreseeing no significant change in American attitudes just because of a successful conquest.

You would need to significantly increase US military capability and leadership while significantly decreasing British same, significantly increase US support of the war (New England in particular was practically neutral), significantly improve US attitudes towards the French and the Indians, and significantly degrade British treatment of the same while adding a new mistreatment of the rest of the inhabitants. More of an exercise in fantasy than a legitimate alternate history hypothesis IMHO.

7

There was a very good reason for not mentioning New England: I didn’t look at American attitudes toward the war at all, and thus completely missed it. I will definitely need to address that. Plus, it’s not so much that the population is at odds with Britain as that they’re significantly less enamored of them than in our history.

The Battle of NO was in response to a planned British invasion of Louisiana, which I removed because the British needed to concentrate their forces in Canada.

I tried to address that by having American commanders and politicians try to be friendlier in deliberate opposition to increasing desperation by the British, though the last part is pretty weak. I also think that the tribes might be just a bit opportunistic when seeing that the Americans are doing much better, and that they might well need to have a much better relationship with the U.S. if the war keeps progressing as it has been.

I think they might be appeased to some extent by the treatment of New Brunswick, which is what the British actually did with Maine, and where I got the idea in the first place.

I think a more successful war would get a lot more support, quite frankly.

Well, I’m also trying to have some fun here.

Keep in mind that this is not a finished product.

8

Eric Flint already beat you to it in 1812: The Rivers of War.

Flint’s history departs from the “real” one when Sam Houston receives a minor wound at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend–instead of the grievous one that haunted his life. The War proceeds within familiar broad outlines. The Brits don’t burn the Capitol & some details of the Battle of New Orleans are different.

Later books in the series promise bigger changes. A powerful Sam Houston (adopted by the Cherokee in “real” history) has plans that may avoid the Trail of Tears. And cooperation among various Native Americans, African Americans & other Americans might even prevent the Civil War. (The sequel is only out in hardback & I’ve been resisting it.)

As a fan of Sam Houston, I enjoyed the book immensely. And Flint’s world sounds like a lost opportunity to this Texan. (Bonus: His characters are less cardboardy than those in other alt histories.)

Have any Canadians written Alternative Histories about Canada?

9

But a reason the Americans fought the war was because of a perception that Britain was “allowing” the tribes to raid the Northwestern part of the US. Why would those tribes accommodate the US?

I think you’d be better off having Tecumseh die of fever in 1811 leaving Brock without a reliable ally when attacking/tricking Detroit in 1812. That way you can at least keep the appearance of a struggle to win instead of what sounds like a one way ticket to victory.

Consider that the British had roughly 6,000 troops in the colony with little chance to provide more. The US on the other hand had the logistics, man power and resources that should’ve made victory almost inevitable but didn’t.

10

One of the problems with the scenario is that after the fall of Napoleon, the Brits can bring in large numbers of troops and a ridiculous level of naval superiority. Given the geography of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I don’t see how the US is going to take them after 1814. The US navy with its large frigates can face down British frigates just fine, but if the RN brings in a couple squadrons of Ships of the Line the Americans simply can’t compete. The USS Constitution is so badly outmatched by the HMS Victory that her captain would be utterly insane to get within cannon range of the bigger ship. Just for reference, a RN 74-gun two-decker sank a French frigate with a single broadside during the Battle of the Nile. The US super-frigates would have been tougher than that somewhat smaller French ship, but Victory had 108 guns on three decks, many of them heavier than anything to be found on a 74. It’d be like trying to fight an Abrams with a Bradley using just the guns, no anti-tank missiles.

So with strong naval support, a pro-British populace, and substantial reinforcements for the redcoats possibly including the Duke of Wellington in command, explain just how the Brits are going to lose New Brunswick after Napoleon is defeated?

11

The Brits can bring in lots more troops, but I’d think they would seriously consider whether they really want to try so hard to retain their second batch of colonies. Also, I’m pretty sure I said somewhere that the actual treaty is signed at the end of 1814. Apart from that, you’re pretty much right.

Looking back on it, I think I am pretty unrealistic in assuming that the citizens of Ottawa and Quebec would just roll over and become Americans after they were conquered. ISTM that it might be better to have the British cede some of Canada to the U.S. in return for retaining a presence in North America and siphoning off some of the more vehement British support in the land America got.

The basic point of alternate history is to change one (or at most, two) things and see what happens; I think I’m reaching too far in trying to make all of Canada a part of the U.S. I’ll try to post a revised, more realistic version as soon as possible.

One of the most interesting parts of the aftermath, aside from states being made from conquered Canada, is the effect this would have on the slavery balance in Congress. Everything I’ve read makes me inclined to think that de jure Americans in Canada are not going to be happy about making concessions to the South for their ‘peculiar institution.’

12

Conquering Canada is an easy scenario to construct, really, if you change a few minor military issues.

Placating its citizenry’s a different matter; you’re either taking over Loyalist-dominated English, who are viciously anti-American, or Quebecois, who would rapidly become anti-American after losing the protection of the Quebec Act. There is, really, **no action at all ** that could realistically (or even mildly unrealistically) be taken by American commanders or politicians that would have placated Canadian resistance. Canada was, after all, a nation largely created by people who didn’t like the Revolution.

The long term question would therefore have been how long it would take to beat/settle the resistance out of Canada. Eventually Ontario, Quebec et al. would have become U.S. states, but not before a substantial about of unrest, oppression and resentment was played out.

13

It would make for a more interesting alternate history if the Americans win in the short term but get clobbered eventually. Exploit the resentment following the 1824 election of John Q. Adams (throw in a “corrupt bargain” reference), possibly civil war with Andrew Jackson leading the charge, then a surprise alliance between Britain and Spain (who want Florida back) and you’ve got a real potboiler with plenty of opportunity for roman a clef satire of the current President-son-of-a-President. The Texas Revolution starts a few years early and though they fend off a Mexican invasion, the resultant Republic of Texas has no intention of joining the weakened United States, which has lost most of its gains in Upper and Lower Canada and seen Washington D.C. burned for the second time. Texas has the problem of escaping slaves (to the South) and the northern states, including New England, are willing to sign independent though unconstitutional treaties with Britain (another nullification crisis) in an effort at neutrality. Americans attempt to foster and exploit republic sentiment in Quebec to soften the northern line (“help us and we’ll stand on guard, strong and free, against the Crown”). The decisive battle-lines begin to form on the Plains of Abraham, American troops and Quebec republicans against Quebec- and Empire Loyalists, with Indian tribes on each side and control of the Saint-Lawrence river in the balance. British resupply ships wait to the East, laden with supplies that, if delivered, will feed an unstoppable spear-thrust into Vermont, New York and Pennsylvania. They must either sail past Quebec to the relative safety of Montreal or return to the Atlantic before the USS Constitution can reach the Gulf and trap them, four days hence. Provisional President Jackson sends the word to General Winfield Scott to march on Quebec and the die is cast…

14

Damn, dude! You’re welcome to your idea; given that post, I’ve no doubt you have far more talent at writing than I do.

In my scenario, though, Jackson is a nobody, since the Battle of New Orleans never happened; perhaps if bits of Canada are admitted as states in time, though, Quincy Adams could either be accused of being unpatriotic in courting Canadian voters (which could in turn create a backlash and give him electoral votes in those parts of Canada, as well as more of the Northeast), or maybe the increased victory in 1814 could condemn New England all the more, and some of the former Federalists are too disgusted to vote for him. With Jackson’s votes gone, however, there might either be a split between Crawford and Clay, or Clay’s support of the war might get him the lion’s share. Given those divisions, I think it’s more likely that the race would have been an even more bitterly and closely divided three-way split, with each candidate having very strong support. There could be a similar ‘corrupt bargain’ for Canada in this case, with Clay promising to give the former provinces autonomy (which probably won’t work, unfortunately, if they’re states) in return for their votes and the Presidency, or Clay promising the northeastern states additional land from occupied Canada.

This sort of development could get the developing American political system clobbered; instead of two parties, you’ve got substantial regions with very different views.

15

Thanks, but I’m lazy. I never did get around to writing my own alternate-history in which the Trent Affair spins out of control and Britain attacks the Union. His attention divided, Lincoln is forced to cede western territories to get British troops to stop staging attacks from Canada and loses the 1864 election to McClellan, who lets the Confederacy go its own way. Britain, knowing it can’t possibly hold onto Canada with a sparse population (the Americans will just absorb it sooner or later) encourage the underground railroad to grow into an underground superhighway, basically depopulating the South of blacks and causing its eventual economic collapse. The former slaves are sent west to build the railroad, with promises of large land parcels and life forever free. By the late 20th century, the western provinces of British Columbia and Alberta have a Negro-majority population with a cultural distrust (carefully indoctinated by the British and eventually Eastern Canadians who secure independence in 1877 - ten years behind “schedule”) of Americans. The idea of the world’s longest undefended border is inconceivable - Canadian military units are stationed at intervals along the 49th parallel and the Columbia river (the official southern border of the western territories, as forced on Lincoln) and Avro Arrows (Mark VI) patrol the skies, playing peek-a-boo with F-18s. Sure, things have gotten better since Canadians and Americans allied to help Britain during the World Wars and the formation of NATO, but Canada is constantly agitating for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, by virtue of its small but effective nuclear arsenal, supported by a network CANDU reactors and a thoroughly ramped-up and aggressive military. There’s hints of secession in the West, though, helped along by racial unrest. BC is derisively nicknamed “Black Columbia” in the Eastern press. Everyone has guns, and eventually, someone uses one…

My point is that it’s not enough to write an alternate history where the author thinks if only, everything would be much better. A good story has everything going (reasonably plausibly) completely to Hell and making the reader think “Whew, we really dodged a bullet, there.”

Anyway, that’s my two pence.

16

Well, a world where Hitler gets a scholarship to art college and becomes a painter and thus we avoid WWII, and a new era of peace and prosperity ushers in just isn’t very interesting.

Conflict and things going to hell are interesting. Peace isn’t. Especially peace that seems shoehorned in by the author. What is more interesting is a scenario where Hitler goes to art school and disappears from history and things go to hell anyway. You’d still have Japanese adventurism, you’d still have the wobbly Weimar Republic, you’d still have Franco and Mussolini. A fascist Germany seems pretty likely. But Hitler was an idiot, what if you got a cunning fascist who thought long term and wanted to die in bed after a long and despotic life?

It’s perfectly valid to imagine a scenario where the US decisively wins the War of 1812 and annexes Canada, but in real life the US was relieved to return to the status quo ante. The war did establish that Britain wasn’t going to take back the wayward colonies any time soon, but it also cemented the existance of British North America.

You have to admit, the fact that Canada wasn’t eventually anschlussed into the US is pretty surprising when you think about it, what with manifest destiny and all. Sure, there were lots of loyalists up there that had been run out of the US during independence, but there’s nothing to stop those guys from being run back to Britain after the annexation of Canada. The US has always had a heck of a lot more people than Canada. And of course Canada as a country didn’t exist, as has been stated there were no Canadians yet, just Indians, Quebeckers, and Colonials.

17

I don’t know much about the War of 1812-1814, but I have a few questions and comments.

Why would you split Upper and Lower Canada? Keep in mind that these two provinces were very sparsely populated at the time. Most of the population of Lower Canada was in the Saint Lawrence valley (even though I believe there were a few Loyalists in the Eastern Townships, north of the Ottawa river and maybe in the Gaspé peninsula, but don’t quote me on that last one), and Upper Canada consisted of a few small cities (apparently the population of York – Toronto – was 700 people in 1812). I don’t see how splitting this almost unpopulated territory really helps.

As well, and as RickJay and Bryan Ekers already said, you’d find out that the inhabitants would be for the most part not very interested in joining the United States. Forget about the Loyalists: they moved to Canada because they didn’t want to be part of that country. With the Canadiens (which is how the French-speaking population was called at the time; most of the English speakers considered themselves as British), you might have a slightly better chance, since most of their elites wanted a level of self-rule that Britain wasn’t ready to offer them yet (see Parti canadien, even though this article isn’t very long), and there were a few republican movements. But they’d also figure out soon enough that they couldn’t keep the French language and Catholic religion in the US, so you’d lose their support. In other words, keeping order in your new states (or territories) might be a challenge.

18

That part I was just making up as I went along, since I didn’t want to have enormous states.

19

I thought the same thing.

Except that Flint’s 1812 was primarily centered in the southern states (Mississippi Territory for the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, New Orleans for (obviously) the Battle of New Orleans, and DC/Baltimore for Houston’s defense of the Capitol). The only thing that might step on Captain Carrot’s toes would be the Battle of the Chippewa that introduced a couple of characters in Flint’s book, and Captain Carrot only seems to mention Ft Niagara as preface. So there’s plenty of room to write a story that involves none of the same historical characters.

I will say that Flint made a good point in his Afterword for 1812. Good alternate histories blossom out of a single “what if.” Right now Captain Carrot is looking at five changes. It’s one thing to posit “look how much would have changed from something so small being different.” Quite another to make so many changes that the only reaction is “no surprise that the outcome changes when all of the conditions are different at the start.”

20

Except for possibly changing Simcoe, which isn’t really a viable alteration, how do I have five changes? I count two: Rensselaer is governor of New York instead of a major commander of American forces, and Isaac Brock dies of fever as a boy (which he nearly did do anyway, so it’s not a stretch) instead of defending Upper Canada.