Smaller America, what's next?

[brick24alpha]

Some years ago in another thread I asked what would happen if the 'Northwest Territory" remained under British control, focusing mostly on the intimidate post American Revolution period.

What I am wondering is how a smaller US and larger British North America would shape two particular events: The War of 1812 and the American Civil War/Slavery debate.

With the War of 1812 a larger British North America would of course be a harder target to attempt to occupy, but how would the American political situation change as a result? Would the chances of a independent New England emerging from the Hartford Convention talks be increased? If so would New York and Pennsylvanian be more inclined to join with New England?

The second point is the American Civil War, which with a smaller US I don't see happening to the same extent. IF it happens. How the slavery debate plays out depends very much on what happens in the War of 1812 as without New England the abolitionist movement would be much weaker. Not to mention America expansion would have a more southerly direction then historically, into Mexico more with British having influence over much more of the continent.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Some years ago in another thread I asked what would happen if the 'Northwest Territory" remained under British control, focusing mostly on the intimidate post American Revolution period.

What I am wondering is how a smaller US and larger British North America would shape two particular events: The War of 1812 and the American Civil War/Slavery debate.

With the War of 1812 a larger British North America would of course be a harder target to attempt to occupy, but how would the American political situation change as a result? Would the chances of a independent New England emerging from the Hartford Convention talks be increased? If so would New York and Pennsylvanian be more inclined to join with New England?

The second point is the American Civil War, which with a smaller US I don't see happening to the same extent. IF it happens. How the slavery debate plays out depends very much on what happens in the War of 1812 as without New England the abolitionist movement would be much weaker. Not to mention America expansion would have a more southerly direction the historically, into Mexico more with British having influence over much more of the continent.

The Hartford convention will not advocate secession, the most vocal people advocating it were specifically not invited. But the federalists are going to make huge waves regardless. They were extremely opposed to the 3/5 rule of slavery as well as consecutive presidents serving from a single state. And given that in OTL they released these demands just as news of Ghent was arriving and the Battle of new Orleans, here they'll be releasing at a time when America has just been hammered by a loss in the war.

The sale of confiscated Indian land by the government was a big source of revenue and its loss will be felt acutely if not right away, then in the following decade.

And I strongly suspect with northward expansion sealed off they double down on filibustering in Mexico and claim that the Louisiana Purchase extends all the way to the Rio Grande. Expect a lot more backing in that part of the world as well as continued influence in Florida. When Spain finally comes to the table there's a good chance that Texas is involved in the bargain (for a price).

Britain is going to be cutting costs like crazy post war and so I expect Britain comes to the table with America over pieces of the old Northwest that they don't feel like garrisoning and exchange it to America for promises of peace and a withdraw of their claim to Oregon (recently purchased from Spain).

But now you have an America that is very hemmed in in the north and has just made a big purchase of land on the gulf coast. Depending on how the intervening decades go there could very well be a civil war and I suspect that it will be over northern secession and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the rump Indiana/Illinois will be what the war is fought over (nominally free regions with deep ties to the south).

I should also add the Britain will NEVER take that much of the old northwest, probably Michigan, a sliver of northwestern Ohio and some portion of Indiana/Illinois, depending on how Ghent goes.

 

[Westphalian]

Just a detail, but AFAIK at least in the 19th century, the British accepted that the treaty line of Greenville (1795) would be the southeastern border of the NWT and not claimed either by the UK or a Native state.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Just a detail, but AFAIK at least in the 19th century, the British accepted that the treaty line of Greenville (1795) would be the southeastern border of the NWT and not claimed either by the UK or a Native state.

There were tens of thousands of Americans living beyond the Grenville Line OTL, I think the British will just let the Americans keep it, because I doubt britain would want to forcibly evict them all at gunpoint.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Brits didn't have the manpower or will power to garrison the Ohio country sufficiently well to prevent American settlers from sneaking over the border. So they would. At which point, they either have to 'ethnically cleanse' the area (leading to war with the US) or give up.

I just don't see Britain being able to hold that land - unless they can settle it well enough with their own people. Which is difficult, at best.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Brits didn't have the manpower or will power to garrison the Ohio country sufficiently well to prevent American settlers from sneaking over the border. So they would. At which point, they either have to 'ethnically cleanse' the area (leading to war with the US) or give up.

I just don't see Britain being able to hold that land - unless they can settle it well enough with their own people. Which is difficult, at best.

We couldn't stop Americans settling in Upper Canada either, yet we didn't lose it.

Those Americans who didn't "move on" into MI and WI seem to have settled down readily enough as British subjects. There seem to have been a lot of people whose first "allegiance" was to good farm land, and weren't too particular whether the title deeds were issued in the name of a Congress or a King.

 

[Tyr]

The Brits didn't have the manpower or will power to garrison the Ohio country sufficiently well to prevent American settlers from sneaking over the border. So they would. At which point, they either have to 'ethnically cleanse' the area (leading to war with the US) or give up.

I just don't see Britain being able to hold that land - unless they can settle it well enough with their own people. Which is difficult, at best.

I doubt every settler was a committed American nationalist.
If britain allows them to be there (perhaps after the fact) and treats them well then most frontier settlers wouldn't be too bothered which nation technically has jurisdiction

 

[The Gunslinger]

I think people underestimate Britain in the northwest. Simply having a group of Indian nations that's power hasn't been totally shattered will be a big disincentive to settlement.

Between that and British control of Detroit means the British can exercise a lot more power cheaply than they could OTL. But a lot of this depends on where the border ends up, as it gets closer to the Ohio and further from the lakes British power projection decreases and gets more expensive. I suspect they wouldn't push further more than some combination of the Maumee-Wabash-Illinois River system, far enough from the Ohio that settlers won't be coming across in any great numbers and close enough to Detroit that administration won't be too much of a hassle.

I'd be curious to see how the settlement of Michigan goes. In OTL there were several Upper Canadians who owned well over a million acres of land around Detroit from the pre-Jay Treaty days and they'll want those titles recognized. But Upper Canada always seemed to suffer from a lack of surveyors so settlement might be a little stalled. BUT, Michigan had to compete heavily with cheaper, more available/accessible land from Ohio and Indiana in the period and here they won't. And the fact that Upper Canada absolutely learned it's lesson by this point in time about the creation of crown/clergy reserves (probably the biggest problem in the sale of land OTL) means that it should technically be easier to get land in Michigan than much of Upper Canada.

In addition to this, there was a massive slowdown in land sales in western Upper Canada when York was declared the capital over London. But here there will be a new 'metropolis' added to the region of Detroit and I suspect that this causes a mini boom of land sales in the region. I'd expect earlier and faster growth in London, Windsor and Amhurstberg.

Just some thoughts.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I doubt every settler was a committed American nationalist.
If britain allows them to be there (perhaps after the fact) and treats them well then most frontier settlers wouldn't be too bothered which nation technically has jurisdiction

Brtiain probably still passes the Alien laws and makes it much more difficult for Americans to aquire land in British territory. But there a ton of British settlers who offloaded in New York before coming west in OTL, and I suspect that at least a few of these (if not many) will be welcomed with open arms.