What if the United States actively supported the Patriotes in the 1837 rebellion, leading to a war with Great Britain. What would be the end result? An American Canada perhaps?
US intervention in 1837 rebellion
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
Considering how lukewarm the support was for the rebellion at home I suspect that American involvement stiffens the back of those opposed to the uprising. The British hammer comes down and the revolution is suppressed even more than it was OTL.
I suspect that there wouldn't be a war and that relations would probably just be cool between between Britain and America for the next little while.
But if there is a war we'll have dozens of pages of pointless arguing between board members saying that their side would for sure win the conflict.
I suspect that there wouldn't be a war and that relations would probably just be cool between between Britain and America for the next little while.
But if there is a war we'll have dozens of pages of pointless arguing between board members saying that their side would for sure win the conflict.
The UK might let the US off with just relinquishing it's claims on the Oregon territory.
TFSmith121
Banned
Not really seeing Martin Van Buren as a war leader...
Not really seeing Martin Van Buren as a war leader...
best,
What if the United States actively supported the Patriotes in the 1837 rebellion, leading to a war with Great Britain. What would be the end result? An American Canada perhaps?
Not really seeing Martin Van Buren as a war leader...
.jpg)
best,
To be honest the rebellion had such little popular support and was crushed so quickly there wouldn't even be time for the US to mobilize to support them. Van Buren was already showing American sympathy by declaring neutrality in the affair (and by extension granting the rebels belligerent status) and there was a reason the Hunters Lodges were able to recruit and operate from within the US in 1838.
If you somehow got the events of the rebellion to last longer or be more successful there might be time for a US intervention, but I'm skeptical. You'd need a big push for the US to go to war with Britain in the period.
If you somehow got the events of the rebellion to last longer or be more successful there might be time for a US intervention, but I'm skeptical. You'd need a big push for the US to go to war with Britain in the period.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Parti Patriote won the regional election
The Parti Patriote won the regional election in 1834 in Lower Canada pretty handily; 3/4ths of the vote,or something like that ... If Papineau et al had forced a confrontation over some issue in 1835, and the British had (in their inimitable way) over-reacted, that could have led to a wider nationalist movement in Lower Canada and perhaps in Upper Canada, as opposed to what was at heart a political reform type of movement...
If the crisis breaks out 18 to 24 months earlier, there is a very different man in the White House than there was historically when the Patriotes rose...
Best,
The Parti Patriote won the regional election in 1834 in Lower Canada pretty handily; 3/4ths of the vote,or something like that ... If Papineau et al had forced a confrontation over some issue in 1835, and the British had (in their inimitable way) over-reacted, that could have led to a wider nationalist movement in Lower Canada and perhaps in Upper Canada, as opposed to what was at heart a political reform type of movement...
If the crisis breaks out 18 to 24 months earlier, there is a very different man in the White House than there was historically when the Patriotes rose...
Best,
Last edited:
Nope. No way is Britain taking over territory well populated with Americans.
Slivers of Northern, and possibly eastern Maine? possibly. The US/BNA border dropped from 49 degrees to 48? possible.
Any existing state? Nope.
This is the most likely, IMO. Britain gets firm title to everything west of the mountains and north of Mexico (which still reaches to northern California).
What if the United States actively supported the Patriotes in the 1837 rebellion, leading to a war with Great Britain. What would be the end result? An American Canada perhaps?
A replay of the war of 1812, I am afraid... In the end, I don't think England willmpush dor any territorial compensations, but just the idea of having Washington burned down twice in a row might make the US a great deal more isolationist. The great looser in this scenario would be the Munroe Doctrine.
Considering now New England was pro-British and had an effective cease-fire with them during the War of 1812, I doubt the British would see any need to punish them. Better to have them as friendly neighbors rather than violent tenants. The New Englanders made up most of the Continental Army, hadn't they?
Saphroneth
Banned
Well, a replay of 1812 with the British undistracted this time.
It's an interesting point in history, since the shell-firing rifled gun has come in but steam power and rifle-muskets haven't. Everyone's using percussion muskets.
Here's the complete list of US ships of force (i.e. bigger than sloops):
Frigates:
Independence(Razee frigate, used to be a 74)
Brandywine
Potomac
Constitution
United States
Guerriere
Java
Hudson
Constellation
Macedonian
John Adams
Ships of the line:
Washington (74)
Franklin (74)
Columbus (74)
Pennsylvania (140, literally just launched and without most of her guns until 1842)
Delaware (74)
Ohio (74)
North Carolina (74)
To give some idea of scale, this is a list of British ships of the line. It is not all ships of the line, it is just ships of the line still in service in 1837 captured during the Revolutionary or Napoleonic Wars.
Implacable (74)
Genoa (74)
Christian VIII (80)
San Josef (110)
Beschermer (54)
Malta (84)
Donegal (76)
Spartiate (80)
Canopus (80)
Ca Ira (80)
Frankly the naval issue is pretty one sided, as might be expected.
The land battle, though - this is more a question of doctrine differences than anything. The British have adopted open order drill to a significant extent by this point, but it's all caplock percussion muskets all the way. One of the significant changes might be that the old Brown Bess muskets don't get destroyed in the OTL fire in I think 1840, and will instead be converted (as planned) to percussion earlier.
More like you have just made an enemy out of america for eternity, and the US fight the British to the ends of the Earth
Saphroneth
Banned
Why the heck is it always that way around? Why does the US intervening in a rebellion in Canada result in eternal US enmity for the British?
Probably the red border there, that was the British claim and there was no reason they couldn't have pushed it in a peace treaty.
Iffy I would think. Doable perhaps but iffy.
Completely agreed. No way they can chop off an existing state. It's beyond their resources.
There's all sorts of slivers of territories that might change hands. The northern shore of Lake Superior, the Red River Basin, Oregon, and British claims in Maine. I honestly think that they'll push for the south bank of the St. Lawrence too since this is the second war in 25 years.
I'd be curious to see what happens with Texas in such a timeline. Would Britain more openly back Texas to prevent US expansion or would the USA try and snatch it up faster after defeat?
I'd be curious to see what happens with Texas in such a timeline. Would Britain more openly back Texas to prevent US expansion or would the USA try and snatch it up faster after defeat?
Why 'iffy'?
The 49th parallel boundary only when from (just west of) Lake Superior to Oregon.
In 1837, there is, for all intents and purposes no white settlement between, say 47 and 49 degrees.
Fargo and Grand Forks were both settled in the 1870s (2 decades after the 'war'), and Duluth is south of either line.
(Heck, even Fargo would be (barely) in the US with a 47 degree border.)
48 or 47 degrees ought to be entirely doable, IF the British wanted to push.
Of course, the 'iffy' part might well be 'why would they want to'.