And presumably if i’m not smart enough to think:
“Hmmmm… i wonder where this guy’s supply lines are…” 
Well, I can think of all kinds of alternative scenarios for the War of 1812… but most of them have things coming out a lot worse for the U.S.!
The War of 1812 was a dumb, unnecessary (but probably inevitable) war. You had a superpower (England) behaving like a superpower (arrogantly) and an upstart nation spoiling for a fight. The end result: a sloppy, badly managed war that didn’t help either side and COULD have spelled utter dissaster for the U.S.
It’s extremely difficult to imagine an alternative scenario in which the U.S. captures and holds onto Canada. It’s a lot easier to imagine an utterly beaten, bankrupt U.S. fragmenting.
Looks like the US invaded Canada in self defence 
Also I’m a bit foxed about Louisiana, the ‘Lousiana Purchase’ became official in 1803 and involved a lot more than Louisiana.
What does ‘a bit foxed’ mean and why are you it?
‘a bit foxed’ is British for ‘I am rather puzzled’
It looks to me as if the Lousiana deal was set up in 1800 and became public knowledge in 1803.
If that is the case then ‘admitting’ Lousiana to the USA in 1812 is a bit problematic as it already belonged to the USA.
Possibly it was given statehood in 1812
Louisiana was indeed admitted as a state April 30, 1812. Being a U.S. possession and being a state are two very different things, as citizens of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the District of Columbia can attest.
Indeed, we forget how different Louisiana was, simply because it did eventually become integrated into the United States. But for decades after statehood, laws were published in English and French, and trials could be conducted and legislators could debate in French.
The parallels between Louisiana and Quebec perhaps shouldn’t be overstated—Louisiana was always more polyglot, with a large population of slaves and “free persons of color”, as well as Spaniards and English-speakers. The intermediate stage after French rule was Spanish rather than British. And the population was smaller.
But they do suggest that admission of the French Canadians to the American polity wouldn’t have been impossible, in the far-fetched event that we had ever been in a position to proffer it.
One of the interesting things about the War of 1812 is that slavery played almost no part in debate about it. The arch-Southerner Calhoun supported the war, and most New Englanders opposed it. Kentuckian Henry Clay was a leading “War Hawk”, and Thomas Jefferson famously argued that the occupation and annexation of Canada would be “a mere matter of marching”.
Had Jefferson been right, it might have been a case of “Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it”. The concept of a “sectional balance” didn’t really enter American politics until the Missouri Compromise of 1820, but the prospect of annexing Canadian territory might have forced it to the fore several years sooner.
There were two deals—one between Spain and France, and one between France and the United States. The former was negotiated in 1800, and widely rumored, but not consummated nor acknowledged publicly until after the latter had also been negotiated and announced in 1803.
As you note, the Northern merchants who were (in theory) the main victims of British naval harrassment were the Americans least likely to support war with England!
Upon hearing that an American merchant ship had been boarded by the Brits and some of her sailors taken captive, a Boston merchant would probably shrug. Was he happy about it? Of course not, but he figured that was just one of the costs of doing business. If you asked him what should be done,m he probably would have said the U.S. needed to start building its own Navy, a Navy strong enough to enforce American interests. But that would be a long, slow process, and in the meantime, it seemed best not to rile the British. After all, British control of the seas wasn’t an altogether bad thing even for the U.S. (it meant that piracy, for instance, was pretty much a thing of the past).
It was Southerners and Westerners who became outraged by such stories. To them, British actions were outrageous, even though they cost Southerners and Westerners little or nothing. It was as much a matter of pride and honor for them as much as anything else.
Dude, I’m a Yank & I was just goggling at the OP.
-
The 1770’s revolutionaries succeeded through terrorizing their Loyalist neighbors. The Treaty of Paris can be understood as the Crown recognizing that anything short of surrender of all territories to the west of the rebels was going to be followed by further violence and terror against British subjects. The Crown gave up and pointed them toward Spanish territory.
-
The Anglophone inhabitants of Acadia & Upper Canada were in part descended from Loyalists who had fled the Revolution.
-
The French Canadians, of course, probably knew the United States of America was conceived as an anti-Francophone project. Their cousins were being overrun in the West by Yanks.
So in what way do you think Canadians would take the side of the Yanks?