If the United States successfully took Canada in the War of 1812, it would’ve solved all future problems with the British government over border disputes and completely avoided the the San Juan Islands incident with the Pig War (yes, that’s a real thing that actually happened)
@@t.n.h.ptheneohumanpatterna8334 "they were british colony when the americans rebeleed" No shit, sherlock. I was saying, they should have rebelled along with us. 🙂
I honestly think the US in this timeline would let in everyone who wants to escape WW1. I think this deserves a part 2 explaining what you and other commenters think would happen in WW1.
This would happen more because we have more open land and we need people to help settle it. The population would be 2 or 3 times the size it is today possibly reaching half a billion to almost a full one billion maybe.
@eidoneverchoosen1171 imagine the US having more people than Europe, and because of the new population big companies wouldn't go to China and India for cheap labor.
@@mrsillytacos well their be out sourcing those jobs because population must be maintained in having jobs something any corrupt politicians who try to fight it would be challenged way more. Especially if the USA remains non intervention with the rest of the world which be good because then their be no excuse of rhe USA should not be in other nations with the military. Instead their be nations who probably beg for economic trade and or weapon arms to be sold to them.
I think they might have joined Germany. This would read as Brittish Aggression, and Russia would have collapsed sooner because they were on two fronts, should the Entente Codiale still be in effect, allowing Germany to focus even more on France and England. Eventually, France would capitulate like in the Franco-Prussian War, and Brittain would be pissed off.
During World War I the United States would have probably been completely neutral in this timeline. The national anthem for the United States in this timeline would probably be “America The Beautiful.” The Battle Hym of The Republic wouldn’t have been written in this timeline because John Brown wouldn’t have fought to free slaves because slavery would have been abolished way earlier in this timeline. I brought this up because “The Battle Hymn of the Republic had inspiration from what John Brown was fighting for.
Nah I could see that Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare during world war 1 might trigger America to join the entente, due to the sinking of American trading ships and as well as the loss of American lives on passenger ships
I've just come across your channel and I have to say that I absolutely LOVE how you go through the war like it's historical fact, presenting it in a way similar to a documentary and not going off too much on a half dozen different possibilities. You have an idea on how the war and politics go, and you present it so well.
@@Videntis.History we still can. it is after all our MANIFEST DESTINY! We simply gotta get Canada a more pro American leader and we do just take them like Germany and Austria lol
He sort of alluded to it, being much more isolationist and capable of trading and perpetuating the economy fairly decently within the US itself. Though the Zimmerman telegram might shake things up, if the British were not on as good of terms, they might not have told the US about it and Mexico might have been more inclined to fight and join Germany due to the US taking more in this timeline. (Considering that within our own timeline, we captured and held Mexico City within 16 months, perhaps the US would just steam roll them and hold them under martial law to ensure that Germany doesn't try pushing through.)
@@gramblidge Yeah but to me I honestly feel like this is the best alternate history video I could ever find on the topic of this question but another thing I also imagine would happen is that given how much more bigger America would be in this timeline I think it would have to be slightly more pro immigrant do to the fact that white settlers wouldn’t be enough to settle all the land so there definitely could be more populations of immigrants coming to the United States of this timeline Edit: actually a possible idea for how we could get America and Britain to heal in terms of relationship is for Britain to have taken land in the americas to fill a similar purpose to what Canada did since in real life the British did try and failed to take Argentina as a colony mesning chances are if they lost Canada they might actually invest into Argentina and having it as a colony in place of Canada
America would likely treat Quebec quite harshly similar to the Hispanics in New Mexico in our timeline. What I see happening is America annexing more of northern Mexico after the Mexican American war which occurs in a similar timeframe to create a balance between free and slave states. As for Alaska I don't see Russia selling it with the British not owning Canada but probably America seizing Alaska during the Russian civil war to prevent it from being in communist hands
The Woonsocket French were treated very well and other French Americans are still influential today in the Ohio valley and Louisiana, the French Americans were treated well and I doubt the Quebecoise will be mistreated
They're very white. They'd be fine. Some would hold their language against them but that's about it. For all the atrocities Canada has committed against the first nations, I shudder to think of the US's track record applied here.
doubtful. We would have attempted to anglicize Quebec, just like we did with New Orleans and Louisiana, but, generally, we find more kinship with French speaking people than with Spanish speaking people. I see Quebec taking a similar path as Louisiana.
This one was pretty neat. I enjoyed how during Madison presidency, you didn’t gloss over the slavery issue where I’m other alternate histories it would either lead up as the exact same like in our timeline only both sides are larger or how it was quickly dealt with early on with no repercussions, with the way how you believed he’d deal with it being more reasonable. I think that at least within the mainland, there would’ve been fewer states seceding since steps would’ve been taken to have it dealt with slavery before, along with the fact that the buildup wouldn’t have been as severe due to it happening earlier. Instead I’d imagine smaller rebellions in most of those southern, with mostly the deep southern and some of the Caribbean islands being the only states to try and leave, especially with Virginia being one of the two main cultural centers of the south(other being South Carolina), and then decided to stick with the Union. With Quebec, I would actually agree with you on how they would go about. Ecpecially with how they treated other groups, my only gripe here is that Quebec French population is to large for it to be ignored, in which I do expect the occasional rebellion at the beginning parts of the occupation, until either they reached an understanding after a they dealt with them enough for them to not be an active force against the English speakers. Finally when it comes to them go the isolationist route, I can’t really see it unless it was the type of policy they had in OTL, but to me I feel that after acquiring so much they would be just emboldened to do more, especially with the business and economic interests that Western Europe and especially England had with the rest of the Americas. Still really like this one and glad that these manage to come in so quickly.
The democrat-republicans were isolationist and if they held power for a while I think they would shape America to stay out of European politics and Africa. I agree that Quebec would be difficult and it may retain pockets of French culture and language but the majority would become Americanized. I’m glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for the nice comment
@@Videntis.History oh no I’m not disagreeing with you there, this was early enough that I’m sure that most of Quebec would be assimilated into the broader American culture. I also agree with the isolationism since for the most part that’s what happened in our timeline, but I feel as though that would mean they’d be more focused and active on keeping the Europeans out of the Americas in comparison to how they were pretty lenient with them in OTL, and also I believe the isolation wouldn’t extend to them wanting stay out of trade, especially as there would still be a good amount of ideological diversity within the party.
Interesting take. As a Canadian, we're taught that we won the War of 1812, likey because rhe defender in a war wins even if the result is a stalemate. I'd like to see the opposite of this in a video, a decisive Canadian/Britis victory.
For me an American we won the war in stopping the British gang pressing amercian me into the royal navy for me that is a win. Before 1812 the British kept forcing America men to fight for the royal navy against France as if we still colonies to the crown of British empire. While I personally like if canada was part of the USA only because we finally including Canada be fully self sufficient to relay on our own nations resources not far off lands I. The middle east and asia and Europe. Maybe the USA get actual good health care if it was bigger too.
@@eidoneverchoosen1171Objectively the US lost the war. Our goal was to annex Canada, Britain’s goal was to defend it. In the end, though most battles were victories for the US, we couldn’t conquer Canada so we lost
@@eidoneverchoosen1171Impressment had stopped before the end of the war so can not be attributed to it additionally impressment only occurred because the US was illegally housing deserters from the Royal Navy while some actual Americans did get caught in the crossfire the majority were British deserters. The US also failed to achieve its second official war goal which was to end British support of native groups not only did British support not end but the US was also forced to accept some basic rights for the natives (though these were later revoked). The US Navy was reduced to a single ship and the Whitehouse was burned. The US lost.
Great video! My only nitpick is that Mobile Alabama isn’t pronounced “mo-bile” as in a mobile phone, but “mo-beel” named after the Maubilla Amerindians
And Penobscot is puh naab skuht. Haiti is the French half of the island of Hispaniola. The Spanish half is the Dominican Republic today and was called Santo Domingo, same as the capital, under Spain. Overall, an interesting alternative history.
Hail Columbia or My Country Tis of Thee but probably since America is a lot more anti-European in this timeline and to distance themselves from the British, Hail Columbia is the most realistic option.
This is really interesting. I think you're mostly right on the southern slavery issue. Slavery would have "officially" ended but in reality it would have been a more brutal sharecropper situation. Especially if rich plantation owners moved slaves to the Caribbean before the cutoff date.
Agreed about the more brutal sharecropper issue. It would have still been a quasi-state of slavery. Still, in this timeline that system would have probably ended way earlier than our current timeline due to the reforms to come from it like it did in our timeline.
Great Video. One point to note is that Kentucky never joined the Confederate States, just like some other slaves states (Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware), in our timeline. Per this timeline, West Virginia would not likely have become a state, as West Virginia was mostly made up of counties loyal to the Union. Your map does reflect it, but it could have been mentioned. Also, I think that due to the War of 1812 going as you had mentioned, I think it is likely that Napoleon would have been able to hold onto power after the Battle of Waterloo. It's likely that his dynasty would have been overthrown for another republic at some future point. However, I also think it's possible that the USA would have maintained its strong economic ties with France as a minimum. Because of this, I still think the USA would have been an important trading partner to France during WWI, and with unrestricted German submarine warfare, it's possible the USA might have been dragged into the conflict. (In our timeline) WWI kicked off in the summer of 1914, but the USA wouldn't even declare war on Germany until early 1917, but still took about another year before the USA actually fielded its own army. I still think things would have happened much like it did before. Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 with the slogan that he kept us out of the war. He won, and then we declared war shortly into his 2nd term.
That’s a good point. I though Kentucky joined the confederates so thanks for letting me know. I don’t know how close France and America would be, but this ww1 may have been France vs England and Germany so who knows
🤓:Missouri was kind of a special case. In public at least, the governor wanted to be neutral and not help either side. Behind the scenes he was secretly communicating with the Confederacy. Lincoln forced the issue and demanded that Missouri support the Union and provide troops for the war. The governor and other pro Confederacy government officials ended up fleeing Union troops that marched on the state capitol. As a government in exile, they voted to join the Confederacy. Meanwhile, a new pro Union governor was installed by the remaining state reps and the government in exile was ignored. This mess is why Missouri seems to be randomly assigned to the Union or Confederacy on every civil war map.
@@neuf1720 Both states were claimed by the CSA, as well as the territories primarily consisting of the modern states of Arizona and New Mexico. However, those states were never DeFacto parts of the CSA, but they would have been accepted into the CSA along with other states like Maryland, Delaware.
@@Videntis.History Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but never formally seceded. The Confederates did try to set up a shadow government in Kentucky when they invaded, but they got the boot.
Interesting take. A few things I have a hard time with: Slavery. It was already in full growth mode by late 1810's early 1820s. Cotton was crucial in the overall development of the US. Without it the northern textile industry doesn't happen as quickly/early. Something I think you under looked was the impact of owning all this new space earlier. Manifest destiny is established in 1820s. From sea to shining sea. I don't know if it is possible for the total US population to grow faster than it actually did. 1820 population was 9.6M, 1860 it was 31.4M. Because of this, I don't think there are nearly as many white settlers in Texas as in our time if we take your previous changes. The carribean, Toronto, Montreal, Columbia Territory (Oregon territory + British Columbia), so much amazing new land is opened up. I think overall there is a good chance Mexico retains Texas to California. If they do, they are so much wealthier.
that doesn't solve Mexico's own underlying issues. Giving a country without a proper system of government more land wouldn't help that much, especially due to how undersettled these lands would have been for more time. The allure of the gold rush and eventually oilfields if the US hasn't annexed these territories by the early 1900's, the new oilfields would definitely drive up 'interest' in these lands.
You don't necessarily need slavery to have a cotton boom. There would still be plenty of people around to do the agricultural work, and if cotton makes money, which it would, people are going to find a way to exploit it.
In my idea about the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, how much wide the effect of its survival do you think it will be? Of course, I already mentioned about Austria-Hungary being the one that unify Germany and the Ottoman Empire might joined the Thirty Years' War and seized Vienna. But will the survival of the Commonwealth allowed Napoleon III to remain in power as the Emperor of the French? Will it also contributed to the Ottoman Empire's survival somehow? Will Russia still existed? Will Circassia be an independent nation? What will happened to the the Crimean Khanate? Is the Second Mexican Empire be a thing here? I see no reasons why these events cannot happened as the consequences of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania is still being around.
As the US would likely have maintained friendly ties to France in this timeline, and as WW1 would not have likely kicked off as it did in our timeline due to the butterfly effect and how unlikely the course of events were that led to the specific timeline we had, I'd propose the following; somewhere between 1916 and 1920, Austro-Hungary would likely collapse in on itself in a civil war, as attempts to pacify and unify the country's minority states (the whole united kingdoms of AH idea), would ultimately fail, thanks primarily to tensions in serbia. This would lead to multiple European states attempting to intervene in the conflict, and ultimately declaring war on one another. I do think that the factions would be slightly different, with Italy remaining with the Central Powers, and the Ottoman Empire ending up on the side of the Entente, if only due to the different situation at hand, and the Austrians being in more a position to concede their border disputes with Italy in exchange for the hope of retaining the rest of their empire. This places more pressure on France, and they may call to the US for aid. Including in the press. While the US would remain primarily isolationist, there would probably be a major effort made for general aid and supply, as well as some volunteer forces. The war would probably last as it did in our timeline, with a slightly stronger and more stable Russia, and Germany may find itself engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare as they did OTL. Which might still sink some US ships. Which... well, the US joins the war, because we all know how that song and dance goes. After the war, things are a bit more complicated, but if Russia descends into civil war as they did OTL, the anti-communist forces probably come out with a stalemate situation in-part, with a Poland-Ukraine union, an independent finland, an independent / anti-communist siberia, and the USSR still holding core Russian territory. Further down the timeline, I'd expect a further right-wing England, given their lack of gains from the war, and possibly a communist germany?
Considering Greenland was a Danish colony at the time; and Madison doctrine in the alternative timeline. The new United States probably could be more likely to buy out Greenland than invade it. That is if the government does well with the management of wealth and resources in hands of the Americans.
I think it would also be fun to think that with more land taken by Mexico by the US, Mexico would be unable to quell rebellions and rise ups resulting in an early Federal Republic of Central America that the US would take an interest in. Would probably be something similar like the US in the Philippines after the Spanish American war, of Spanish, Native and American influences.
I’m not sure if you know this but, the Federal Republic of Central America had already peacefully seceded and collapsed before the US-Mexico war ever happened. The only rebellions that sought independence from Mexico and weren’t caused by American settlers were Rio Grande and Yucatán
America in WW1, in my opinion, would try to prevent any fighting on its continent as part of the Monroe Doctrine: the US would want to keep the continent under her control somehow. Things would change with the Zimmerman Telegram, and I think that the UK would still intercept it and tell the US about it. Why ? Convinience. It would be very convenient for the Entente to have this massive America on their side. So, it would basically go a bit like in OTL.
Yeah that could happen, but who knows how much would change because of napoleon but if everything went the same, they probably would have sided with the entente
The US would likely be in the entente, but not for Britain's sake. More likely they would join to support France and that would cause problems in of itself. With US/UK relations strained at best or fractured at worst would they put aside their issues to help France or would the entente fracture. Also, if there is bad blood between the two, would the us have believed the uk about the Zimmerman note. Mexico even after recieving it knew it couldn't stand against the US, even if Germany supported them, and with even more of their more prosperous territory gone, it wouldn't want to do anything. The Zimmerman note probably would have been left as a footnote in history, much like all things britain tried to do to pull the US into the war, but that's a whole other level of issues entirely.
This is just what I think. But I don't think Germany would have done Zimmerman Telegram. Because in this scenario USA and Britain didn't really like eachother so USA wouldn't have traded with Britain. Meaning there is no need for Germany to do Zimmerman Telegram.
@@daneolson1483 well the US didn't believe the UK in real life, but then the German ambassador basically admitted that it was real, causing the US to get involved
A great video would be What if Napoleon won the Napoleonic Wars, maybe winning against Russia or just avoiding it in the first place, or taking Egypt as he planned before becoming Emperor
I'd love to see you continue this idea! I'd love to see it become a series! also, I can see your James Madison being something plausible 👍🏾 I do like James Madison
@@Videntis.Historypart deux - The Pan-American Union where USA unites all the Americas in one grand semi-cosmopolitan federal union from North American including Greenland down to the southernmoat tippy tip of South America and all the islands in and around
As a resident of Davenport Iowa I love that there is a battle of Credit Island. My only thought is the island where the Rock Island Arsenal now resides would be a better and more strategic prize.
The Canadian historiography on this war goes a bit different. Not knocking the US historiography either, I think your points about impressment are valid- However, Canadians view it as 1- US was the one that declared war with the blatant intention of annexing the British North American colonies (Canada). Refer to "Manifest Destiny". 2- The US was soundly pushed back from achieving said objectives during its failed invasions of Upper and Lower Canada. 3- Although the causus belli of impressment was there, the real de-facto US raison-d'etre for going war (annexation of British North America) was not achieved, therefore the US lost since its objective was indeed to annex Canada- which they did not achieve.
American here. My knowledge of pre-20th century history is not as sharp as I’d like it to be, but I’ve always just been under the impression that manifest destiny was more about the idea of a contiguous Union from coast to coast (“from sea to shining sea”) than it was about domination or unification across all of North America. Present day Mexico exists south of the Gulf below Texas/California/etc. as a comparison. Correct me if I’m off on this, but did America really desire to gobble up all of Mexico and Canada (in a serious sense beyond just the fantasies of some politicians & generals let’s say)?
I love how some American's only ever talk about how "Britain wasn''t being very nice to us" whilst ignoring the fact that Napoleon had taken all of continental Europe and thus had huge resources at his disposal, and he wanted to conquer Britain too. Meanwhile, whilst Britain is fighting for its very existence and to free the rest of Europe, the US refuses to stop trading with (i.e. AIDING) Napoleonic France. So if the USSR had taken all of the land around the US and was seriously threatening the existence of the US, would you want the UK to trade with and supply the USSR with huge levels of supplies? Seriously, just imagine that instead of Napoleon it had been Hitler, and the US was supplying the Nazi's after they've taken continental Europe. Do you still see it as perfectly cool? Is Britain really the "bad guy" for imposing the blockade in order to help prevent its own demise. The US put money above Britain's survival, so Britain put its navy above the US's complaints. This American perspective is so unbelievably one sided. As for kidnapping sailors, most of them were actually British sailors that had ran away to the US. Would you accept your soldiers defecting during WW2? Probably not, right? Much love to the USA, but this needed to be said.
That’s a stupid comparison both the UK and France were trying to keep America neutral by bribing them or threatening them. In fact, the US almost declared war on France instead, but saw the UK as the bigger threat since they were literally kidnapping American sailors and trying to limit America from free trade.
From what I've read, Hideyoshi wanted to take Beijing by the end of 1592 and the rest of the Great Ming and make Go-Yozei emperor of China. Hideyoshi also wanted to enfeoff his subordinates in Korea and China, with an area around Northern Zhili probably being controlled by the central government. If some things changed in the timeline like the earlier death of Yi Sun-sin, Hideyoshi somehow avoids executing Hidetsugu, an earlier decline of Ming by some means like Zhang Juzheng dying earlier, and etc. Its likely they'd face a situation similar to the Ming-Qing transition, and they'd have to be accepted by the Chinese people. Hideyoshi himself was a megalomaniac and wanted to impose the Japanese culture amongst his new subjects, but the Japanese would likely have to sinicize further. I believe he could denationalize the people of Korea and assimilate them into Japanese society (which would be heavily influenced by Chinese culture). The Japanese would likely be seen as yet another subgroup of the Han, just like the Cantonese or Hakka. Many Japanese would probably settle in the Mainland, and some mainlanders would be sent to Japan for forced labor. Although Hideyoshi attempted to prevent his troops from committing atrocities against the locals, its likely it would continue in both China and Korea, just as it did in real life. Hideyoshi would also attempt to conscript locals for his conquests of China after taking Beijing. A new Japanese-led dynasty claiming the Mandate of Heaven from the Ming would happen. The emperors would still be puppets of Hideyoshi though, and its likely Hideyoshi's descendants would continue ruling China 'til an event similar to the Meiji Restoration. Hideyoshi would keep this dynasty more open to trade with foreign powers and wouldn't impose isolation or sakoku like the Tokugawa. If Hideyoshi lived longer, its likely that the Battle of Sekigahara and the Tokugawa Shogunate would be prevented, with an adult Toyotomi clan member to watch over Hideyori. There would be influence from the Japanese language to the Chinese languages and vice versa, while Korean would likely die out as an identity. There is a lot to speculate for this though.
@yuuki6712 in that universe Japan would be able to drag China in the Meiji Restoration. My guess that everything over the Liaoling peninsula would be Japan Proper.
Great video. An interesting follow-up would be if Britain conquered and colonized Patagonia. There was talk of it in the 1800s and if they'd lose Canada, they could send the loyalists there. A anglophile country on the southern end of South America would've been interesting.
SUCH AN AMAZING VIDEO 1812 is a weird and nuanced topic. A lot of loyalists that lost in 1776 went up to Canada and did not want to lose against the United States again, a lot of Canadians have always been very connected to the US and 40,000 Canadians volunteered in the civil war. The idea that it was the British and not the Canadians is very touchy because the 1791 constitution was the first step in a long journey to a unique Canadian identity and most Upper Canadians would have considered themselves Canadians who happened to be subjects of the British crown rather than British citizens. The idea of Canadian independence predates the war.
What if Jospeph Ferdinand became king of Spain, Philip of Anjou became king of Sicily and Naples, and Charles of Austria gained control of the Spanish Netherlands and Milan.
Also: the part you keep calling "Cape Breton" is, in fact, Prince Edward Island, which was a separate colony and entered Confederation as a province of that name. Cape Breton is the large two-lobed island at the north end of Nova Scotia, of which it is a part. And I highly doubt it would have been admitted as a separate state, given its population, unlike the imperial constraints that enabled it to enter Confederation as an actual province, despite the fact that as many people live in my building in Toronto as live in PEI.
@@thatguywhosenameyoukeepmis9450 But historically Americans rarely changed the names of Royal connotations (cities, even entire states have royal names, not to mention a good bit of counties)
I kinda disagree with neither side winning because Britain was on the defense and they successfully defended their land which in my opinion is a win, it was America that wanted the land and they failed to do so
America wanted Britain to stop the practice of impressment of its Sailors, to stop the British from interfering with its trade, and to stop them from influencing the Native Tribes in the Northwest Territory. The potential of gaining Canada would've just been a cherry on top, but in the end the United States achieved all three of the former goals. So hence: Yes, neither side really won.
With the slavery issue, I’m not sure whether some “end slavery in 20 years” proposal would’ve been the working compromise as portrayed here. Surely this deadline, let alone *any* deadline, would’ve evoked hostility from southern states, rather than meekly accepting “ah well, I guess we’ll have to let our slaves free in 20 years”. Not saying they would immediately fight (when there’s a still a war with England), but I could imagine - Doesn’t even get passed (would southern congressmen really vote for such a thing???) - 20 year pause gets passed, but no outright ban (which more truely kicks can down road, and be accepted by southerners) - Future president repeals it with southern support (though exceedingly unlikely if Madison is in from war popularity)
I highly doubt Canadian would flee to Britain, and in this timeline British focus would be the defences of Canada not invading the US. So battle of New Orleans would not happen. Maybe in this timeline because of the danger of losing Canada the Duke of wellington would have been sent to Canada with reinforcements which means Napoleon stays in power in France.
I think if they lost, many Canadians would want to go back to England but if lord Wellington went to the US things would be much harder for America and they probably wouldn’t win
Many wouldn't to cape Town south Africa and turn south Africa into an eventual white English-speaking colony much more.stable then real life south Africa.
Nonsense. The historic UELs did not go back to England in the real timeline. Why would settlers born and bred in the new world displace themselves to another aiien continent rather than reach an accommodation roughly where they alfeady lived? People moved around the great lakes, migrated west and southwest. Whothe hell went all the way back to England other than military regulars?
England probably would've given full support to the Confederacy. In reality, they kept a steady trade with the South. If the U.S. had won in 1812, England would've been more openly supportive of the South. In reality, Grant negotiated a post-war arbitration with England over their support of the South, resulting in a $14 million payment to the U.S. In the alternative timeline, things would've been more clearcut during the war, and more nations would've been pulled into the conflict. The Civil War could've potentially expanded to become the World War I.
I actually believe this would happen as their was a rumor queen Victoria hated the united states of America a strong US would scare the British. The Russian empire and a strong France empire would probably side with us. In real life Russia sent in the far east and black sea fleets in.the event British empire declared war on the USA and the usa had created the first iron clad ships though few in number at the time could challenge the royal navy a little more. Had this happen an British alliance may form between the USA Russia and France creating an alternative allies alliance Britain may drag much of Europe into the Civil War Turing the American civil war into world War 1. In the end we would win win war but it might Last a little longer on account the British jumped into the fight many American men ans boys would did all in effort to preserve the Union of the USA in fact their a chance the confederate states hald in the war might rejoin the union in the belief the British are only helping them so the British can reconquer the southern states and the Civil War become a fight for to free the slaves and upolding state rights to a fight for freedom from the USA Old enemy the British empire who be seen as trying to finish and recapture the American colonies they lost. This might put the British on the side of Central powers, so the USA be on the allies side qith France and Russia with Britian unwilling to side with Russia and France on account they would never forgive them for siding with the Union of the USA. If the central powerstill lose in the great war of 1914 britan may turn to fascism. And side with the nazi of germany.
I think its time to make that part two. Your like goal is nearly there and i want to see if america can be more nicer with many immigrants that want to leave their countries before the first world war and maybe if the second world war happens, maybe America can benefit with more people and more resources to help the allies.🙂
Honestly, if the USA took Canada in the War of 1812 it would have avoided a lot of issues with Britain over border disputes and in my opinion likely would have made up for the further souring of relations an American victory would have caused. I think British-American relations would have warmed in the late 19th century mostly the same way in this timeline (especially since we would have been good friends with France and French-British relations warmed very quickly after Napoleon) and therefore I think this America would still side with the Entente in WW1. Although, interesting idea, Mexico might have been more interested in accepting the Zimmerman telegram in this timeline with more land to potentially reclaim so this timeline might see Mexico join the Central Powers. In which case even more of Mexico might have been annexed in the Treaty of Versailles.
In this alternate ww1 I think the USA would probably had stayed out with one exception being a deal with Germany being if Germany won they would give Danish Greenland to America this might even extend to supplying Germany although Denmark didn’t get involved in ww1 I believe that with this even bigger urge to expand the USA might ask Germany to attack them in exchange for something idk.
Das Amerika ausgerechnet ihrem einstigen Unterdrücker Großbritannien der im Krieg von 1812 sogar das Weiße Haus Niederbrannte geholfen haben, ist völlig Unverständlich! Die U.S.A hätten besser Kanada erobern sollen, und im 1.Weltkrieg auf deutscher Seite stehen müssen!
"The UK" in this war was mostly colonial detachments - forces explicitly dedicated to the colonies, commanded by local administrators. It was only late in the war that some reinforcements from Europe were sent. After the defeat of Napoleon, it was discussed to send Wellington stateside, but Wellington himself argued against it. With the end of the war against Napoleon, the entire point of the War of 1812 was moot - it had been triggered to no small degree by measures the UK had taken to fight Napoleon - pressing sailors to man the Royal Navy, and searching ships for contraband that might help France. After years of fighting, it wouldn't have been worthwhile to continue a war they'd never wanted in the first place. On the other hand, had the US refused to negotiate, the situation would have looked quite differently. As it was, the whole thing was little more than an inconvenient side show trying to distract its focus for the UK.
Yeah a thing to bear in mind was that for Britain the war of 1812 at least compared to the napoleonic wars was pretty much a historical version of a video side quest for them sure they were involved but it was a secondary thing compared to napoleon and we all know what he was like
@@francoisdaureville323 Nah, those were the colinial detachments only. The real interesting thing is what would have happened had the US refused to negotiate and Wellington had indeed come to America with his troops and the Royal Navy.
Without Polk, the Mexican American war would never have occurred as we know it, and Polk only came to the scene under Jackson's wing, and Jackson was able to get into politics as a war hero because people weren't happy with the government about the war's anticlimactic result.
This is US is so overpowered, Japan would be a complete idiot to attempt Pearl Harbor in this timeline. Also this superpower greater US would’ve definitely gobbled up the Philippines, Hawaii and probably way more than in OTL
Japan insane warminger military leaders who wanted to conquer the world would still do that. Sure ir be stupid and insane but Japan government still believe they were a divine people destiny to conquer the world which in teak life was untrue as their is no way they could conquer the world.
@@Videntis.History a gradual consolidation of states to take place in centuries… with the starting provinces in the Canadas becoming states by the 1860s
You could have ended the alternate war, in the interior, right at the beginning when Montreal was captured. As Wellington said when he told the British to make peace, warfare in North America (pre-railroads, or, at least, roads) is decided by whoever controls the waterways. In the actual battle of Plattsburg, the British regulars won handily on land but were forced to withdraw since the Americans won the battle on the lake, so the British had no way to resupply. By taking Montreal using the Lake Champlain route, you've cut off Upper Canada from British supplies and reinforcements (and also eliminated the only route for loyalist refugees to flee), so British forces in Upper Canada would have quickly surrendered. There'd still be fighting with Tecumseh but without British guns he'd have been far outmatched. After Montreal, the place to go is Quebec City, since that's the only place a new British army could enter from. As for the Maritimes though, you've got to get the US Navy to win a battle against the British at sea (not in a lake), because without such a victory you need to resupply an American army overland, which wasn't possible for either side in the real war.
Wellington said what he said because the point of the war was moot. Most of the grievances the US had declared war about ceased to be relevant with the defeat of Napoleon. Neither was there any more need to search ships for contraband aiding France, nor was there a need to press sailors. Had Wellington instead indeed moved stateside, along with naval support, the conflict would have been quite different fighting battle-hardened veterans of the Napoleonic wars than fighting some colonial detachments. And the US Navy would likely have been turned to tinder rather quickly, even if Nelson was dead - Collingwood was still around.
2 things. #1 how many Americans even know this war even happened ? #2 how many even know America started the war because they think it's there inherent right to rule the world ?
I think they still would have sold it, one motivating factor to sell it was simply Russia at the time needed money. They just never wanted to give it to the English/Canada because they didn't like Britain, the US was just the most probable interested buyer at the time. So assuming Napolean still happened I think Russia selling Alaska to the US is still something that happens, although maybe with a bit more eagerness pititioning to sell on the US part because of a renewed sense of manifest destiny in the region on their part
You could just go back a few decades and wish the revolutionaries lost the American Revolution to the Loyalists. You would have gotten the same result.
@@drmodestoesq Britain never would have merged the “American” colonies and “Canadian” colonies into one giant dominion, the cons would outweigh the pros.
@@drmodestoesq Britain organized a lot of their colonies under one government, for example South Africa or as you said Australia. The problem with uniting British America under one government would create a diverse, populous, and HUGE mass of land that would be a headache to govern and maintain. You would have people identifying with the British crown mainly concentrated what is in now Canada, the revolutionaries remaining throughout the 13 colonies who I doubt would just accept British dominance, and then you would have the Quebecois and various native tribes wanting nations of their own (There were British plans to actually build a federation of native tribes around what is now the American state of Michigan). Add this to the peoples living in the territories that we “would have gotten anyways” along with other non British settlers from Europe living in their colonies that the British would not bother subjugating like the American government did and you have this complete mess of a nation. The closest the British could get to a giant North American nation under the British crown would be an uneasy Confederation of peoples who simply don’t want to be in the same country. The British also wouldn’t let their subjects go into “reckless” wars against Mexico or considering the Louisiana purchase never happens a French Louisiana. So yeah, a giant American nation under British oversight and policy would not turn out very well. Edit: This was probably the longest comment I’ve ever written XD
I wish you did a better job with drawing in new states to fill in the Heartland. But I can see how no 49th parallel would've significantly altered the addition of new states exceot I still think larger more all encompassing states could've formed like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, but poor Minnesota lol. I've just recently stumbled upon your channel and I have to say; stellar content! I cannot say how much of a breath of fresh air it is to talk alternate history without it being the same rehashed conservative talking points about the abolition of slavery and expansion into Mexico being much more realistic rather than an irredentist painting. Keep up the good work though, hopefully you evolve into the next WhatIfAltHist without "the living in my moms basement vibes".
I suppose this alternate history would have America not acquire Hawaii, due to ties with Britain, thus Pearl Harbor likely not happening, so the US would stay neutral during WW2, possibly leading to the Japanese Empire not collapsing.
well maybe, it just depends on if WW1 even happened. Another comment pointed out that if Napoleon remained in power or even remained longer, things could have gone completely differently in Europe.
Even if Pearl Harbor wasn’t attacked the USA would’ve gotten involved in the Pacific Campaign eventually and Japan knew that, their war goal was never to conquer the USA as it was to just cripple them enough to negotiate a more favorable peace deal. Not like they would’ve kept that Empire anyways to be honest, Japan just didn’t have enough resources and manpower to stabilize an Empire that big across so many different Ethnicities and Cultures- It was bound to break apart and destabilize.
That’s a Big what if…. Manifest destiny would have almost certainly seen the US expanding into the Pacific and even if we didn’t get our hands on Hawaii, we would inevitably come into conflict with Japan.
I honestly believe that if in the wars they implemented the slave draft/ban then slavery could have ended much sooner and you'd have skipped reconstruction. It was a storied method of integration for a nation to accept slaves as combatants on the reward of not just their pension but their freedom. Similarly when done right those former slaves tended to integrate more naturally as their merit of being defenders of the soil makes their blood part of the national blood. Of course Africans and slaves were a part of these wars but it wasn't an issue pushed for its full value in politics and it could have been. Maybe slavery would have ended 60 years earlier?
I got one. How could you move across Paradox Games in a realistic and sound way from the days of the Roman Republic to a United World Government exploring and colonizing planets in space.
@@Videntis.History I can buy you the games if you want. You need Imperator: Rome, Crusader Kings III, Europa Universalis IV, Victoria III, Hearts of Iron IV, and Stellaris. Although you would have to tailor Stellaris to fit how you think exploration in space would go and you would need a mighty powerful computer to run it in the most realistic portrayal possible. So you might go without Stellaris or just briefly in terms of colonizing the solar system maybe starting on Proxima and Alpha Centauri.
I'm just curious what happened in this timeline to convince the bootheel not to join Missouri 😂 In our timeline, one of the landowners there wanted to be a part of Missouri (since it became a state 15 years before Arkansas) and managed to convince the government.
I think America would have a break from conquest for a decade or two after Canada. Absorbing that region would be expensive and time consuming. Troops would needs to be stationed and capitalists would need to redirect Canadian goods to other Europeans. Britain may take them, but a lot of businesses and territories would need to be subsidized till the economy levels out. Maybe they could have gone for the Caribbean. This video is awesome
We _did_ win the War of 1812. We won almost every single battle in the entire war. One building in one coastal town getting burned down does not change that fact.
Ha absolute nonsense, America DIDNT win otherwise it would have annexed Canada! The UK overwhemingly ruled the seas back then, wrecking havoc and seizing hundreds of US ships and that kept back the American navy in their ports. Therefore the British WON that war having successfully defended Canada and that burnt down White House symbolises not to mess with the Brits!
Incorrect. The war of 1812 was a US invasion of British North America (modern day Canada) the intention was for the US to quickly capture and annex the territory while Britain was preoccupied with Napoleon. While the officially cited reasons for the US invasion was stopping British impressment of ‘Americans’ into the Royal Navy and an end to British support for native groups the real reason was obviously a land grab. During the war the US had some early victories due to the invasion being a surprise attack but US forces were quickly repelled by Canadian militias and British garrison forces once actual British armies arrived (though still secondary armies as Napoleon was a bigger priority) the US began rapidly losing the US Navy was reduced to a single ship and the whitehouse was burned. As for the official reasons for the impressment of ‘Americans’ was actually the Royal Navy recapturing deserters whom the US was housing and had ended before the war was finished. British support of native groups did not end and the US was forced to recognise some basic rights for the natives (the US later revoked these rights). The US definitively lost.
I think the only unrealistic part here is the "No Two-Term tradition". The tradition was started by the ever-glorified Washington, and cemented by Jefferson's willing retirement in 1808. The U.S. being at War would not change that this early, plus Madison was really close with Washington, and wouldn't want to tarnish his reputation by running for a third term.
Understandable that an anglophone would think that Quebec francophones would assimilate with a couple anglo-americans moving there. But at 900k peoples in 1850, Quebec had more population than Georgia, Noth Carolina, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Louisianna, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Texas, etc… And I doubt that, having to choose between the northern snow states and the new one from old Louisianna, Quebec would have attracted a lot of people! ;-) Plus, as a US states and not a british colony, post revolution France would have represent a lot more immigrants to US… mostly in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Louisianna! Nice video though! :-)
Note to self, build a time machine and give the Americans the ability to build automatic rifles, smokeless gunpowder, and armored vehicles that would terrify the British then supply them with future tech that would instantly make slavery non economical and insight that would prevent future Indian-american wars and genocide.
News Flash! If you invade a country, and they repel you, and burn down your capital building, and then you sign a peace treaty - You didn't win or tie- you LOST 😂
Really? The United States burnt York, repelled the British offensives (Plattsburgh, Baltimore, and New Orleans), and even gained land at British allies' expense? Yes, the United States DID win. 😂 A well-established author wrote it as,, "continental predominace" from the United States. The British couldn't trade with the natives like they used to. 😌
Videntis: let me know what you think the national anthem would be? Daniel, an intellectual: it would be a song unwritten, in this timeline, undoubtably titled "flip em the bird"
@Nostradamus it was a state that was only around for about a year in the territory if the papal dtates after a revolution that forced Pius IX into hiding and eventually into sicily, they didnt last long though as france, spain, and austria promptly curbstomped the young republic. There is little information about it since it only lasted a year or so, but it had a pretty large impact on the unification of Italy for what it was.
great video. Regarding WWI, we have to look at following points: *The UK would lose not only a major colony (Canada) but also a possible ally (the US), they would propably search for other allies beside Portugal. Prussia would be possible because the English Royals were Germans themselfes *You already hinted it, the USA would be more isolationist and wouldn't interfere in the struggle for China and Japan. The Europeans could found proper colonies in these areas *Because of the diplomatic ice age between the USA and the UK (and the lack of Canada), the under see telegraph cable between the Americas and the UK would be installed later or not at all. possible alternatives would be a direct link to the Bretagne or a link via Iceland and Norway. *The prolonged Napoleonic wars and its results would mean a larger portion of German and Italian refugees into the US *A weaker Mexico and stronger US would discourage a possible war participant to send an equivalent to the Zimmermann telegramm. *An isolotionist USA propably wouldn't even fight the barbary pirats (that early) as they are busy populating and industrializing Canada and Cuba.
If the United States successfully took Canada in the War of 1812, it would’ve solved all future problems with the British government over border disputes and completely avoided the the San Juan Islands incident with the Pig War (yes, that’s a real thing that actually happened)
They should have just joined us in the American Revolution; they're basically the same country anyway. lol 🙂
Pig war sounds like over simplified
@@neutrino78x they were british colony when the americans rebeleed
@@t.n.h.ptheneohumanpatterna8334
"they were british colony when the americans rebeleed"
No shit, sherlock.
I was saying, they should have rebelled along with us. 🙂
@@neutrino78x im not sherlock im a dog
I honestly think the US in this timeline would let in everyone who wants to escape WW1. I think this deserves a part 2 explaining what you and other commenters think would happen in WW1.
This would happen more because we have more open land and we need people to help settle it. The population would be 2 or 3 times the size it is today possibly reaching half a billion to almost a full one billion maybe.
@eidoneverchoosen1171 imagine the US having more people than Europe, and because of the new population big companies wouldn't go to China and India for cheap labor.
@@mrsillytacos well their be out sourcing those jobs because population must be maintained in having jobs something any corrupt politicians who try to fight it would be challenged way more. Especially if the USA remains non intervention with the rest of the world which be good because then their be no excuse of rhe USA should not be in other nations with the military. Instead their be nations who probably beg for economic trade and or weapon arms to be sold to them.
I think they might have joined Germany. This would read as Brittish Aggression, and Russia would have collapsed sooner because they were on two fronts, should the Entente Codiale still be in effect, allowing Germany to focus even more on France and England. Eventually, France would capitulate like in the Franco-Prussian War, and Brittain would be pissed off.
@@eidoneverchoosen1171Most of Canada is geographically uninhabitable. Most people live by the border. But oil is oil 🦅🦅🦅
During World War I the United States would have probably been completely neutral in this timeline. The national anthem for the United States in this timeline would probably be “America The Beautiful.” The Battle Hym of The Republic wouldn’t have been written in this timeline because John Brown wouldn’t have fought to free slaves because slavery would have been abolished way earlier in this timeline. I brought this up because “The Battle Hymn of the Republic had inspiration from what John Brown was fighting for.
Hail Columbia is also an option.
@@k9er596 True, but it’s strange to have a national anthem that doesn’t have the name of the country it’s about.
I agree but I think hail Columbia would become the national anthem
@@Videntis.History I could see that because of how long it had been used and the significance of it.
Nah I could see that Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare during world war 1 might trigger America to join the entente, due to the sinking of American trading ships and as well as the loss of American lives on passenger ships
I've just come across your channel and I have to say that I absolutely LOVE how you go through the war like it's historical fact, presenting it in a way similar to a documentary and not going off too much on a half dozen different possibilities. You have an idea on how the war and politics go, and you present it so well.
A blessed Timeline doesn’t ex-
Yeah I wish
@@Videntis.History we still can. it is after all our MANIFEST DESTINY!
We simply gotta get Canada a more pro American leader and we do just take them like Germany and Austria lol
Not blessed for brittain
@@Videntis.History right?
Blessed to Americans, absolutely Blursed to everyone else
Honestly I would be down for a part two where this goes into the modern day just to see how it would effect modern American politics as a whole
He sort of alluded to it, being much more isolationist and capable of trading and perpetuating the economy fairly decently within the US itself. Though the Zimmerman telegram might shake things up, if the British were not on as good of terms, they might not have told the US about it and Mexico might have been more inclined to fight and join Germany due to the US taking more in this timeline. (Considering that within our own timeline, we captured and held Mexico City within 16 months, perhaps the US would just steam roll them and hold them under martial law to ensure that Germany doesn't try pushing through.)
@@gramblidge
Yeah but to me I honestly feel like this is the best alternate history video I could ever find on the topic of this question but another thing I also imagine would happen is that given how much more bigger America would be in this timeline I think it would have to be slightly more pro immigrant do to the fact that white settlers wouldn’t be enough to settle all the land so there definitely could be more populations of immigrants coming to the United States of this timeline
Edit: actually a possible idea for how we could get America and Britain to heal in terms of relationship is for Britain to have taken land in the americas to fill a similar purpose to what Canada did since in real life the British did try and failed to take Argentina as a colony mesning chances are if they lost Canada they might actually invest into Argentina and having it as a colony in place of Canada
Another idea to think about in the meantime: What if the Habsburgs won the Brother's War agaisnt Prussia and they were the ones that united Germany.
I second this. 👍
@@AmericanImperium1776 I thought I recognize you brother. You should look up the husky sapphie the pomsky; she has A potty mouth.
@@savagedarksider2147 Okay, Thanks, 👍
Cursed timeline
@@peoplesrepublicofbeesechur7179 More like Blessed timeline. God Save Karl Von Habsburg the Blessed!
America would likely treat Quebec quite harshly similar to the Hispanics in New Mexico in our timeline. What I see happening is America annexing more of northern Mexico after the Mexican American war which occurs in a similar timeframe to create a balance between free and slave states. As for Alaska I don't see Russia selling it with the British not owning Canada but probably America seizing Alaska during the Russian civil war to prevent it from being in communist hands
The Woonsocket French were treated very well and other French Americans are still influential today in the Ohio valley and Louisiana, the French Americans were treated well and I doubt the Quebecoise will be mistreated
@@Kanamethealfr Are there any French speaking communities in the US, that still have French as first langauage?
They're very white. They'd be fine. Some would hold their language against them but that's about it. For all the atrocities Canada has committed against the first nations, I shudder to think of the US's track record applied here.
doubtful. We would have attempted to anglicize Quebec, just like we did with New Orleans and Louisiana, but, generally, we find more kinship with French speaking people than with Spanish speaking people. I see Quebec taking a similar path as Louisiana.
wrong. russia sold it because they were broke after the crimean war. they wouldve done it either way
This one was pretty neat. I enjoyed how during Madison presidency, you didn’t gloss over the slavery issue where I’m other alternate histories it would either lead up as the exact same like in our timeline only both sides are larger or how it was quickly dealt with early on with no repercussions, with the way how you believed he’d deal with it being more reasonable.
I think that at least within the mainland, there would’ve been fewer states seceding since steps would’ve been taken to have it dealt with slavery before, along with the fact that the buildup wouldn’t have been as severe due to it happening earlier. Instead I’d imagine smaller rebellions in most of those southern, with mostly the deep southern and some of the Caribbean islands being the only states to try and leave, especially with Virginia being one of the two main cultural centers of the south(other being South Carolina), and then decided to stick with the Union.
With Quebec, I would actually agree with you on how they would go about. Ecpecially with how they treated other groups, my only gripe here is that Quebec French population is to large for it to be ignored, in which I do expect the occasional rebellion at the beginning parts of the occupation, until either they reached an understanding after a they dealt with them enough for them to not be an active force against the English speakers.
Finally when it comes to them go the isolationist route, I can’t really see it unless it was the type of policy they had in OTL, but to me I feel that after acquiring so much they would be just emboldened to do more, especially with the business and economic interests that Western Europe and especially England had with the rest of the Americas.
Still really like this one and glad that these manage to come in so quickly.
The democrat-republicans were isolationist and if they held power for a while I think they would shape America to stay out of European politics and Africa. I agree that Quebec would be difficult and it may retain pockets of French culture and language but the majority would become Americanized. I’m glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for the nice comment
@@Videntis.History oh no I’m not disagreeing with you there, this was early enough that I’m sure that most of Quebec would be assimilated into the broader American culture. I also agree with the isolationism since for the most part that’s what happened in our timeline, but I feel as though that would mean they’d be more focused and active on keeping the Europeans out of the Americas in comparison to how they were pretty lenient with them in OTL, and also I believe the isolation wouldn’t extend to them wanting stay out of trade, especially as there would still be a good amount of ideological diversity within the party.
Not sure if I had been Mandela Effected, but America did win the War of 1812
@@marcmarc4776Survived is more accurate
Interesting take. As a Canadian, we're taught that we won the War of 1812, likey because rhe defender in a war wins even if the result is a stalemate. I'd like to see the opposite of this in a video, a decisive Canadian/Britis victory.
For me an American we won the war in stopping the British gang pressing amercian me into the royal navy for me that is a win. Before 1812 the British kept forcing America men to fight for the royal navy against France as if we still colonies to the crown of British empire. While I personally like if canada was part of the USA only because we finally including Canada be fully self sufficient to relay on our own nations resources not far off lands I. The middle east and asia and Europe. Maybe the USA get actual good health care if it was bigger too.
@@eidoneverchoosen1171Objectively the US lost the war. Our goal was to annex Canada, Britain’s goal was to defend it. In the end, though most battles were victories for the US, we couldn’t conquer Canada so we lost
@@eidoneverchoosen1171Impressment had stopped before the end of the war so can not be attributed to it additionally impressment only occurred because the US was illegally housing deserters from the Royal Navy while some actual Americans did get caught in the crossfire the majority were British deserters.
The US also failed to achieve its second official war goal which was to end British support of native groups not only did British support not end but the US was also forced to accept some basic rights for the natives (though these were later revoked).
The US Navy was reduced to a single ship and the Whitehouse was burned.
The US lost.
Please, continue the Alexander videos. They were extremely interesting and easily the best videos I've ever seen on the subject.
I would like to but the last one did bad so I may revisit the topic in the future, but not at the moment
Great video! My only nitpick is that Mobile Alabama isn’t pronounced “mo-bile” as in a mobile phone, but “mo-beel” named after the Maubilla Amerindians
And Penobscot is puh naab skuht.
Haiti is the French half of the island of Hispaniola. The Spanish half is the Dominican Republic today and was called Santo Domingo, same as the capital, under Spain.
Overall, an interesting alternative history.
*Finally, someone says it.*
I think hail Columbia would have been the most likely anthem as historically speaking it was the unofficial anthem 1931.
yeah, I agree. Its a shame that people don't hear it much today
@@Videntis.History ruclips.net/video/hKWIOmqdZP8/видео.html&pp=ygUPIGhhaWwgQ29sdW1iaWEg 😉
It might need to be changed when the country Columbia becomes a thing
@@oilybat3269 colombia*******************************************************
Hail Columbia or My Country Tis of Thee but probably since America is a lot more anti-European in this timeline and to distance themselves from the British, Hail Columbia is the most realistic option.
This is really interesting. I think you're mostly right on the southern slavery issue. Slavery would have "officially" ended but in reality it would have been a more brutal sharecropper situation. Especially if rich plantation owners moved slaves to the Caribbean before the cutoff date.
I still think its a net postive depending on if jim crow laws still take effect.
Agreed about the more brutal sharecropper issue. It would have still been a quasi-state of slavery. Still, in this timeline that system would have probably ended way earlier than our current timeline due to the reforms to come from it like it did in our timeline.
Great Video.
One point to note is that Kentucky never joined the Confederate States, just like some other slaves states (Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware), in our timeline.
Per this timeline, West Virginia would not likely have become a state, as West Virginia was mostly made up of counties loyal to the Union. Your map does reflect it, but it could have been mentioned.
Also, I think that due to the War of 1812 going as you had mentioned, I think it is likely that Napoleon would have been able to hold onto power after the Battle of Waterloo. It's likely that his dynasty would have been overthrown for another republic at some future point. However, I also think it's possible that the USA would have maintained its strong economic ties with France as a minimum.
Because of this, I still think the USA would have been an important trading partner to France during WWI, and with unrestricted German submarine warfare, it's possible the USA might have been dragged into the conflict.
(In our timeline) WWI kicked off in the summer of 1914, but the USA wouldn't even declare war on Germany until early 1917, but still took about another year before the USA actually fielded its own army. I still think things would have happened much like it did before. Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 with the slogan that he kept us out of the war. He won, and then we declared war shortly into his 2nd term.
That’s a good point. I though Kentucky joined the confederates so thanks for letting me know. I don’t know how close France and America would be, but this ww1 may have been France vs England and Germany so who knows
🤓:Missouri was kind of a special case. In public at least, the governor wanted to be neutral and not help either side. Behind the scenes he was secretly communicating with the Confederacy. Lincoln forced the issue and demanded that Missouri support the Union and provide troops for the war. The governor and other pro Confederacy government officials ended up fleeing Union troops that marched on the state capitol. As a government in exile, they voted to join the Confederacy. Meanwhile, a new pro Union governor was installed by the remaining state reps and the government in exile was ignored. This mess is why Missouri seems to be randomly assigned to the Union or Confederacy on every civil war map.
Both Missouri and Kentucky were accepted into the CSA, hence 13 stars on the battle flag, but both were also occupied by USA troops the whole war.
@@neuf1720 Both states were claimed by the CSA, as well as the territories primarily consisting of the modern states of Arizona and New Mexico.
However, those states were never DeFacto parts of the CSA, but they would have been accepted into the CSA along with other states like Maryland, Delaware.
@@Videntis.History Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but never formally seceded. The Confederates did try to set up a shadow government in Kentucky when they invaded, but they got the boot.
i love the style of alt hist where it is told almost as if it was true history, like watching a history documentary from another timeline.
nice vid.
AMAZING production quality! You've got potential.
Thanks so much
Interesting take. A few things I have a hard time with: Slavery. It was already in full growth mode by late 1810's early 1820s. Cotton was crucial in the overall development of the US. Without it the northern textile industry doesn't happen as quickly/early. Something I think you under looked was the impact of owning all this new space earlier. Manifest destiny is established in 1820s. From sea to shining sea. I don't know if it is possible for the total US population to grow faster than it actually did. 1820 population was 9.6M, 1860 it was 31.4M. Because of this, I don't think there are nearly as many white settlers in Texas as in our time if we take your previous changes. The carribean, Toronto, Montreal, Columbia Territory (Oregon territory + British Columbia), so much amazing new land is opened up. I think overall there is a good chance Mexico retains Texas to California. If they do, they are so much wealthier.
that doesn't solve Mexico's own underlying issues. Giving a country without a proper system of government more land wouldn't help that much, especially due to how undersettled these lands would have been for more time. The allure of the gold rush and eventually oilfields if the US hasn't annexed these territories by the early 1900's, the new oilfields would definitely drive up 'interest' in these lands.
You don't necessarily need slavery to have a cotton boom. There would still be plenty of people around to do the agricultural work, and if cotton makes money, which it would, people are going to find a way to exploit it.
In my idea about the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, how much wide the effect of its survival do you think it will be? Of course, I already mentioned about Austria-Hungary being the one that unify Germany and the Ottoman Empire might joined the Thirty Years' War and seized Vienna. But will the survival of the Commonwealth allowed Napoleon III to remain in power as the Emperor of the French? Will it also contributed to the Ottoman Empire's survival somehow? Will Russia still existed? Will Circassia be an independent nation? What will happened to the the Crimean Khanate? Is the Second Mexican Empire be a thing here? I see no reasons why these events cannot happened as the consequences of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania is still being around.
As the US would likely have maintained friendly ties to France in this timeline, and as WW1 would not have likely kicked off as it did in our timeline due to the butterfly effect and how unlikely the course of events were that led to the specific timeline we had, I'd propose the following;
somewhere between 1916 and 1920, Austro-Hungary would likely collapse in on itself in a civil war, as attempts to pacify and unify the country's minority states (the whole united kingdoms of AH idea), would ultimately fail, thanks primarily to tensions in serbia. This would lead to multiple European states attempting to intervene in the conflict, and ultimately declaring war on one another.
I do think that the factions would be slightly different, with Italy remaining with the Central Powers, and the Ottoman Empire ending up on the side of the Entente, if only due to the different situation at hand, and the Austrians being in more a position to concede their border disputes with Italy in exchange for the hope of retaining the rest of their empire.
This places more pressure on France, and they may call to the US for aid. Including in the press. While the US would remain primarily isolationist, there would probably be a major effort made for general aid and supply, as well as some volunteer forces.
The war would probably last as it did in our timeline, with a slightly stronger and more stable Russia, and Germany may find itself engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare as they did OTL. Which might still sink some US ships. Which... well, the US joins the war, because we all know how that song and dance goes.
After the war, things are a bit more complicated, but if Russia descends into civil war as they did OTL, the anti-communist forces probably come out with a stalemate situation in-part, with a Poland-Ukraine union, an independent finland, an independent / anti-communist siberia, and the USSR still holding core Russian territory.
Further down the timeline, I'd expect a further right-wing England, given their lack of gains from the war, and possibly a communist germany?
Wait shouldn't the map be Greenland to Panama.
Considering Greenland was a Danish colony at the time; and Madison doctrine in the alternative timeline. The new United States probably could be more likely to buy out Greenland than invade it. That is if the government does well with the management of wealth and resources in hands of the Americans.
@@the_dragon_gamer8850*Looks at American Government*
Yeah we wouldnt have done that.
@@CloseingStraw97 do you really think the US government was always like it was after Nixon? lol
I think it would also be fun to think that with more land taken by Mexico by the US, Mexico would be unable to quell rebellions and rise ups resulting in an early Federal Republic of Central America that the US would take an interest in. Would probably be something similar like the US in the Philippines after the Spanish American war, of Spanish, Native and American influences.
Or break away states from Mexico petition to join the US. A more militant past would probably see the US control all the way to panama.
I’m not sure if you know this but, the Federal Republic of Central America had already peacefully seceded and collapsed before the US-Mexico war ever happened. The only rebellions that sought independence from Mexico and weren’t caused by American settlers were Rio Grande and Yucatán
America in WW1, in my opinion, would try to prevent any fighting on its continent as part of the Monroe Doctrine: the US would want to keep the continent under her control somehow. Things would change with the Zimmerman Telegram, and I think that the UK would still intercept it and tell the US about it. Why ? Convinience. It would be very convenient for the Entente to have this massive America on their side. So, it would basically go a bit like in OTL.
Yeah that could happen, but who knows how much would change because of napoleon but if everything went the same, they probably would have sided with the entente
The US would likely be in the entente, but not for Britain's sake. More likely they would join to support France and that would cause problems in of itself. With US/UK relations strained at best or fractured at worst would they put aside their issues to help France or would the entente fracture.
Also, if there is bad blood between the two, would the us have believed the uk about the Zimmerman note. Mexico even after recieving it knew it couldn't stand against the US, even if Germany supported them, and with even more of their more prosperous territory gone, it wouldn't want to do anything. The Zimmerman note probably would have been left as a footnote in history, much like all things britain tried to do to pull the US into the war, but that's a whole other level of issues entirely.
This is just what I think. But I don't think Germany would have done Zimmerman Telegram. Because in this scenario USA and Britain didn't really like eachother so USA wouldn't have traded with Britain. Meaning there is no need for Germany to do Zimmerman Telegram.
@@daneolson1483 well the US didn't believe the UK in real life, but then the German ambassador basically admitted that it was real, causing the US to get involved
@@8vantor8 When one of your ambassadors say, 'Oh the UK are correct, it is REAL.' 🦭
🤡for that Ambassador he shouldn't have said anything. lol
This was amazing thank you
Amazing video as always! You always knock it out of the park!
Thanks so much
Dream on yank!😂
@@c602 *Mind your Uncle Sam, dixie boy.*
this is some of the best maps ive ever seen great job , you 100% deserve more recognition
A great video would be What if Napoleon won the Napoleonic Wars, maybe winning against Russia or just avoiding it in the first place, or taking Egypt as he planned before becoming Emperor
Finally! I found exactly the video I need!
I'd love to see you continue this idea! I'd love to see it become a series!
also, I can see your James Madison being something plausible 👍🏾 I do like James Madison
Wow! That was a really good video!
Glad you liked it!
now this type of animation and narration is the shit nostradamus, easy top 10 history channels if you can at the very least keep this up.
I hope I make it to the top 10, but I gotta stay patient
@@Videntis.History maybe some background music would make this even better
@@jokerknarkern *I disagree, it could become distracting.*
Really would like to see a second video about this topic. Thank you it was really cool to watch
wish you would make a part 2 about this alternative world
I need to see how this video does, but part 2s normally don’t do as well
@@Videntis.Historypart deux - The Pan-American Union where USA unites all the Americas in one grand semi-cosmopolitan federal union from North American including Greenland down to the southernmoat tippy tip of South America and all the islands in and around
As a resident of Davenport Iowa I love that there is a battle of Credit Island. My only thought is the island where the Rock Island Arsenal now resides would be a better and more strategic prize.
The Canadian historiography on this war goes a bit different. Not knocking the US historiography either, I think your points about impressment are valid- However, Canadians view it as 1- US was the one that declared war with the blatant intention of annexing the British North American colonies (Canada). Refer to "Manifest Destiny". 2- The US was soundly pushed back from achieving said objectives during its failed invasions of Upper and Lower Canada. 3- Although the causus belli of impressment was there, the real de-facto US raison-d'etre for going war (annexation of British North America) was not achieved, therefore the US lost since its objective was indeed to annex Canada- which they did not achieve.
American here. My knowledge of pre-20th century history is not as sharp as I’d like it to be, but I’ve always just been under the impression that manifest destiny was more about the idea of a contiguous Union from coast to coast (“from sea to shining sea”) than it was about domination or unification across all of North America. Present day Mexico exists south of the Gulf below Texas/California/etc. as a comparison. Correct me if I’m off on this, but did America really desire to gobble up all of Mexico and Canada (in a serious sense beyond just the fantasies of some politicians & generals let’s say)?
I love how some American's only ever talk about how "Britain wasn''t being very nice to us" whilst ignoring the fact that Napoleon had taken all of continental Europe and thus had huge resources at his disposal, and he wanted to conquer Britain too. Meanwhile, whilst Britain is fighting for its very existence and to free the rest of Europe, the US refuses to stop trading with (i.e. AIDING) Napoleonic France.
So if the USSR had taken all of the land around the US and was seriously threatening the existence of the US, would you want the UK to trade with and supply the USSR with huge levels of supplies? Seriously, just imagine that instead of Napoleon it had been Hitler, and the US was supplying the Nazi's after they've taken continental Europe. Do you still see it as perfectly cool? Is Britain really the "bad guy" for imposing the blockade in order to help prevent its own demise. The US put money above Britain's survival, so Britain put its navy above the US's complaints. This American perspective is so unbelievably one sided.
As for kidnapping sailors, most of them were actually British sailors that had ran away to the US. Would you accept your soldiers defecting during WW2? Probably not, right?
Much love to the USA, but this needed to be said.
TRUE
That’s a stupid comparison both the UK and France were trying to keep America neutral by bribing them or threatening them. In fact, the US almost declared war on France instead, but saw the UK as the bigger threat since they were literally kidnapping American sailors and trying to limit America from free trade.
An idea: What if Toyotomi Hideyoshi conquered Korea and China in the Imjin War?
There is a guy called
Possible History who did that scenario well
I added it to my list
From what I've read, Hideyoshi wanted to take Beijing by the end of 1592 and the rest of the Great Ming and make Go-Yozei emperor of China. Hideyoshi also wanted to enfeoff his subordinates in Korea and China, with an area around Northern Zhili probably being controlled by the central government. If some things changed in the timeline like the earlier death of Yi Sun-sin, Hideyoshi somehow avoids executing Hidetsugu, an earlier decline of Ming by some means like Zhang Juzheng dying earlier, and etc. Its likely they'd face a situation similar to the Ming-Qing transition, and they'd have to be accepted by the Chinese people. Hideyoshi himself was a megalomaniac and wanted to impose the Japanese culture amongst his new subjects, but the Japanese would likely have to sinicize further. I believe he could denationalize the people of Korea and assimilate them into Japanese society (which would be heavily influenced by Chinese culture). The Japanese would likely be seen as yet another subgroup of the Han, just like the Cantonese or Hakka. Many Japanese would probably settle in the Mainland, and some mainlanders would be sent to Japan for forced labor. Although Hideyoshi attempted to prevent his troops from committing atrocities against the locals, its likely it would continue in both China and Korea, just as it did in real life. Hideyoshi would also attempt to conscript locals for his conquests of China after taking Beijing. A new Japanese-led dynasty claiming the Mandate of Heaven from the Ming would happen. The emperors would still be puppets of Hideyoshi though, and its likely Hideyoshi's descendants would continue ruling China 'til an event similar to the Meiji Restoration. Hideyoshi would keep this dynasty more open to trade with foreign powers and wouldn't impose isolation or sakoku like the Tokugawa. If Hideyoshi lived longer, its likely that the Battle of Sekigahara and the Tokugawa Shogunate would be prevented, with an adult Toyotomi clan member to watch over Hideyori. There would be influence from the Japanese language to the Chinese languages and vice versa, while Korean would likely die out as an identity. There is a lot to speculate for this though.
@yuuki6712 in that universe Japan would be able to drag China in the Meiji Restoration. My guess that everything over the Liaoling peninsula would be Japan Proper.
Great video.
An interesting follow-up would be if Britain conquered and colonized Patagonia.
There was talk of it in the 1800s and if they'd lose Canada, they could send the loyalists there.
A anglophile country on the southern end of South America would've been interesting.
A good idea i just had is if the Plague of Justinian never happened and how that would change his conquests and the future of the Mediterranean
Good idea, added it to the list
SUCH AN AMAZING VIDEO 1812 is a weird and nuanced topic. A lot of loyalists that lost in 1776 went up to Canada and did not want to lose against the United States again, a lot of Canadians have always been very connected to the US and 40,000 Canadians volunteered in the civil war. The idea that it was the British and not the Canadians is very touchy because the 1791 constitution was the first step in a long journey to a unique Canadian identity and most Upper Canadians would have considered themselves Canadians who happened to be subjects of the British crown rather than British citizens. The idea of Canadian independence predates the war.
What if Jospeph Ferdinand became king of Spain, Philip of Anjou became king of Sicily and Naples, and Charles of Austria gained control of the Spanish Netherlands and Milan.
the fact that you added Tulair lake to California is a nice touch.
Also: the part you keep calling "Cape Breton" is, in fact, Prince Edward Island, which was a separate colony and entered Confederation as a province of that name. Cape Breton is the large two-lobed island at the north end of Nova Scotia, of which it is a part. And I highly doubt it would have been admitted as a separate state, given its population, unlike the imperial constraints that enabled it to enter Confederation as an actual province, despite the fact that as many people live in my building in Toronto as live in PEI.
Maybe the Americans would have renamed Prince Edward Island as Cape Breton to remove the Royal connotations with the name?
@@thatguywhosenameyoukeepmis9450 But historically Americans rarely changed the names of Royal connotations (cities, even entire states have royal names, not to mention a good bit of counties)
If they won, i won’t be waiting a month for my stuff to arrive from canada 😂
The video actually shows the real Cape Breton Islands joining with Prince Edward Island
loneprimate - if you live in a building with 175,000 tenants, you might wanna consider moving...
Canadians: burn down the white house.
Americans: Yeahhhh let’s call it a draw.
I kinda disagree with neither side winning because Britain was on the defense and they successfully defended their land which in my opinion is a win, it was America that wanted the land and they failed to do so
America wanted Britain to stop the practice of impressment of its Sailors, to stop the British from interfering with its trade, and to stop them from influencing the Native Tribes in the Northwest Territory. The potential of gaining Canada would've just been a cherry on top, but in the end the United States achieved all three of the former goals. So hence: Yes, neither side really won.
Very interesting what if videos, im definitely subscribing.
With the slavery issue, I’m not sure whether some “end slavery in 20 years” proposal would’ve been the working compromise as portrayed here. Surely this deadline, let alone *any* deadline, would’ve evoked hostility from southern states, rather than meekly accepting “ah well, I guess we’ll have to let our slaves free in 20 years”.
Not saying they would immediately fight (when there’s a still a war with England), but I could imagine
- Doesn’t even get passed (would southern congressmen really vote for such a thing???)
- 20 year pause gets passed, but no outright ban (which more truely kicks can down road, and be accepted by southerners)
- Future president repeals it with southern support (though exceedingly unlikely if Madison is in from war popularity)
You should make part 2 of this scenario
The British could also rationalize their loss of their American territories as just the inevitable conclusion of the American revolution.
Great video, lots of insight here.
Can i suggest one, what if Austria would help France in 1870
Really liked this. Good work
I highly doubt Canadian would flee to Britain, and in this timeline British focus would be the defences of Canada not invading the US. So battle of New Orleans would not happen. Maybe in this timeline because of the danger of losing Canada the Duke of wellington would have been sent to Canada with reinforcements which means Napoleon stays in power in France.
I think if they lost, many Canadians would want to go back to England but if lord Wellington went to the US things would be much harder for America and they probably wouldn’t win
Many wouldn't to cape Town south Africa and turn south Africa into an eventual white English-speaking colony much more.stable then real life south Africa.
Nonsense. The historic UELs did not go back to England in the real timeline. Why would settlers born and bred in the new world displace themselves to another aiien continent rather than reach an accommodation roughly where they alfeady lived? People moved around the great lakes, migrated west and southwest. Whothe hell went all the way back to England other than military regulars?
Really liked how you did this video. Looking forward to seeing more!
England probably would've given full support to the Confederacy. In reality, they kept a steady trade with the South. If the U.S. had won in 1812, England would've been more openly supportive of the South. In reality, Grant negotiated a post-war arbitration with England over their support of the South, resulting in a $14 million payment to the U.S. In the alternative timeline, things would've been more clearcut during the war, and more nations would've been pulled into the conflict. The Civil War could've potentially expanded to become the World War I.
I actually believe this would happen as their was a rumor queen Victoria hated the united states of America a strong US would scare the British. The Russian empire and a strong France empire would probably side with us. In real life Russia sent in the far east and black sea fleets in.the event British empire declared war on the USA and the usa had created the first iron clad ships though few in number at the time could challenge the royal navy a little more. Had this happen an British alliance may form between the USA Russia and France creating an alternative allies alliance Britain may drag much of Europe into the Civil War Turing the American civil war into world War 1. In the end we would win win war but it might Last a little longer on account the British jumped into the fight many American men ans boys would did all in effort to preserve the Union of the USA in fact their a chance the confederate states hald in the war might rejoin the union in the belief the British are only helping them so the British can reconquer the southern states and the Civil War become a fight for to free the slaves and upolding state rights to a fight for freedom from the USA Old enemy the British empire who be seen as trying to finish and recapture the American colonies they lost. This might put the British on the side of Central powers, so the USA be on the allies side qith France and Russia with Britian unwilling to side with Russia and France on account they would never forgive them for siding with the Union of the USA.
If the central powerstill lose in the great war of 1914 britan may turn to fascism. And side with the nazi of germany.
I could see France and Great Britain supporting the south and Prussia and Russia supporting the north.
I think its time to make that part two. Your like goal is nearly there and i want to see if america can be more nicer with many immigrants that want to leave their countries before the first world war and maybe if the second world war happens, maybe America can benefit with more people and more resources to help the allies.🙂
Made it for the countdown 🙌
thanks so much
Honestly, if the USA took Canada in the War of 1812 it would have avoided a lot of issues with Britain over border disputes and in my opinion likely would have made up for the further souring of relations an American victory would have caused. I think British-American relations would have warmed in the late 19th century mostly the same way in this timeline (especially since we would have been good friends with France and French-British relations warmed very quickly after Napoleon) and therefore I think this America would still side with the Entente in WW1. Although, interesting idea, Mexico might have been more interested in accepting the Zimmerman telegram in this timeline with more land to potentially reclaim so this timeline might see Mexico join the Central Powers. In which case even more of Mexico might have been annexed in the Treaty of Versailles.
looks cool
Thanks
Great job , great video
In this alternate ww1 I think the USA would probably had stayed out with one exception being a deal with Germany being if Germany won they would give Danish Greenland to America this might even extend to supplying Germany although Denmark didn’t get involved in ww1 I believe that with this even bigger urge to expand the USA might ask Germany to attack them in exchange for something idk.
Das Amerika ausgerechnet ihrem einstigen Unterdrücker Großbritannien der im Krieg von 1812 sogar das Weiße Haus Niederbrannte geholfen haben, ist völlig Unverständlich! Die U.S.A hätten besser Kanada erobern sollen, und im 1.Weltkrieg auf deutscher Seite stehen müssen!
Gosh that big blue map is so beautiful!
I’m still to this day am surprised that the UK was able to (let alone want to bother) fighting the USA while fighting Napoleon
American incompetence leaders wise, there was no reason other then that for their defeat.
Well the usa was fairly young and lacked military experience.
That's what being a superpower allows you to do I guess
"The UK" in this war was mostly colonial detachments - forces explicitly dedicated to the colonies, commanded by local administrators. It was only late in the war that some reinforcements from Europe were sent. After the defeat of Napoleon, it was discussed to send Wellington stateside, but Wellington himself argued against it. With the end of the war against Napoleon, the entire point of the War of 1812 was moot - it had been triggered to no small degree by measures the UK had taken to fight Napoleon - pressing sailors to man the Royal Navy, and searching ships for contraband that might help France. After years of fighting, it wouldn't have been worthwhile to continue a war they'd never wanted in the first place. On the other hand, had the US refused to negotiate, the situation would have looked quite differently. As it was, the whole thing was little more than an inconvenient side show trying to distract its focus for the UK.
Yeah a thing to bear in mind was that for Britain the war of 1812 at least compared to the napoleonic wars was pretty much a historical version of a video side quest for them sure they were involved but it was a secondary thing compared to napoleon and we all know what he was like
Possibly the best video
Very fun timeline! Well done.
Now show us "WHAT IF THE BRITISH HAD WON THE WAR OF 1812?"
@@francoisdaureville323 Nah, those were the colinial detachments only. The real interesting thing is what would have happened had the US refused to negotiate and Wellington had indeed come to America with his troops and the Royal Navy.
Without Polk, the Mexican American war would never have occurred as we know it, and Polk only came to the scene under Jackson's wing, and Jackson was able to get into politics as a war hero because people weren't happy with the government about the war's anticlimactic result.
This is US is so overpowered, Japan would be a complete idiot to attempt Pearl Harbor in this timeline. Also this superpower greater US would’ve definitely gobbled up the Philippines, Hawaii and probably way more than in OTL
Japan insane warminger military leaders who wanted to conquer the world would still do that. Sure ir be stupid and insane but Japan government still believe they were a divine people destiny to conquer the world which in teak life was untrue as their is no way they could conquer the world.
Subscribed! How have I not discovered this gem of a channel sooner?
19:47 I think the northern most states would just be territories
That’s fair but at some point they would become states idk when though
@@Videntis.History a gradual consolidation of states to take place in centuries… with the starting provinces in the Canadas becoming states by the 1860s
Well done on this timeline. 👏
You could have ended the alternate war, in the interior, right at the beginning when Montreal was captured. As Wellington said when he told the British to make peace, warfare in North America (pre-railroads, or, at least, roads) is decided by whoever controls the waterways. In the actual battle of Plattsburg, the British regulars won handily on land but were forced to withdraw since the Americans won the battle on the lake, so the British had no way to resupply. By taking Montreal using the Lake Champlain route, you've cut off Upper Canada from British supplies and reinforcements (and also eliminated the only route for loyalist refugees to flee), so British forces in Upper Canada would have quickly surrendered. There'd still be fighting with Tecumseh but without British guns he'd have been far outmatched. After Montreal, the place to go is Quebec City, since that's the only place a new British army could enter from. As for the Maritimes though, you've got to get the US Navy to win a battle against the British at sea (not in a lake), because without such a victory you need to resupply an American army overland, which wasn't possible for either side in the real war.
Wellington said what he said because the point of the war was moot. Most of the grievances the US had declared war about ceased to be relevant with the defeat of Napoleon. Neither was there any more need to search ships for contraband aiding France, nor was there a need to press sailors. Had Wellington instead indeed moved stateside, along with naval support, the conflict would have been quite different fighting battle-hardened veterans of the Napoleonic wars than fighting some colonial detachments. And the US Navy would likely have been turned to tinder rather quickly, even if Nelson was dead - Collingwood was still around.
2 things. #1 how many Americans even know this war even happened ? #2 how many even know America started the war because they think it's there inherent right to rule the world ?
Most likely Russia would not have sold Alaska since Britain did not threaten to seize it
I disagree, the land was underutilized and they would be worried America would just conquer it from them so a sale makes sense
There's also a high likelihood of conflicts in Europe forcing Russia to sell its territories in North America
I think they still would have sold it, one motivating factor to sell it was simply Russia at the time needed money. They just never wanted to give it to the English/Canada because they didn't like Britain, the US was just the most probable interested buyer at the time. So assuming Napolean still happened I think Russia selling Alaska to the US is still something that happens, although maybe with a bit more eagerness pititioning to sell on the US part because of a renewed sense of manifest destiny in the region on their part
This is great. I'm looking forward to a follow-up.
This map is beautiful. I really wish that this is how things went.
You could just go back a few decades and wish the revolutionaries lost the American Revolution to the Loyalists. You would have gotten the same result.
@drmodestoesq most likely they would be very similar to Canada and still be under the commonwealth in general so notreally.
@@drmodestoesq Britain never would have merged the “American” colonies and “Canadian” colonies into one giant dominion, the cons would outweigh the pros.
@@Ihni2000 Name one "con." Australia is all one nation. Britain didn't divide it in half.
@@drmodestoesq Britain organized a lot of their colonies under one government, for example South Africa or as you said Australia. The problem with uniting British America under one government would create a diverse, populous, and HUGE mass of land that would be a headache to govern and maintain. You would have people identifying with the British crown mainly concentrated what is in now Canada, the revolutionaries remaining throughout the 13 colonies who I doubt would just accept British dominance, and then you would have the Quebecois and various native tribes wanting nations of their own (There were British plans to actually build a federation of native tribes around what is now the American state of Michigan). Add this to the peoples living in the territories that we “would have gotten anyways” along with other non British settlers from Europe living in their colonies that the British would not bother subjugating like the American government did and you have this complete mess of a nation. The closest the British could get to a giant North American nation under the British crown would be an uneasy Confederation of peoples who simply don’t want to be in the same country. The British also wouldn’t let their subjects go into “reckless” wars against Mexico or considering the Louisiana purchase never happens a French Louisiana.
So yeah, a giant American nation under British oversight and policy would not turn out very well.
Edit: This was probably the longest comment I’ve ever written XD
Great video I love it
could you do something along the lines of "what if John Brown's slave rebellion succeeded?"
Yeah that’s interesting
Oof, that might burn some butts.
I wish you did a better job with drawing in new states to fill in the Heartland. But I can see how no 49th parallel would've significantly altered the addition of new states exceot I still think larger more all encompassing states could've formed like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, but poor Minnesota lol. I've just recently stumbled upon your channel and I have to say; stellar content! I cannot say how much of a breath of fresh air it is to talk alternate history without it being the same rehashed conservative talking points about the abolition of slavery and expansion into Mexico being much more realistic rather than an irredentist painting. Keep up the good work though, hopefully you evolve into the next WhatIfAltHist without "the living in my moms basement vibes".
I suppose this alternate history would have America not acquire Hawaii, due to ties with Britain, thus Pearl Harbor likely not happening, so the US would stay neutral during WW2, possibly leading to the Japanese Empire not collapsing.
well maybe, it just depends on if WW1 even happened. Another comment pointed out that if Napoleon remained in power or even remained longer, things could have gone completely differently in Europe.
Even if Pearl Harbor wasn’t attacked the USA would’ve gotten involved in the Pacific Campaign eventually and Japan knew that, their war goal was never to conquer the USA as it was to just cripple them enough to negotiate a more favorable peace deal. Not like they would’ve kept that Empire anyways to be honest, Japan just didn’t have enough resources and manpower to stabilize an Empire that big across so many different Ethnicities and Cultures- It was bound to break apart and destabilize.
That’s a Big what if…. Manifest destiny would have almost certainly seen the US expanding into the Pacific and even if we didn’t get our hands on Hawaii, we would inevitably come into conflict with Japan.
I honestly believe that if in the wars they implemented the slave draft/ban then slavery could have ended much sooner and you'd have skipped reconstruction.
It was a storied method of integration for a nation to accept slaves as combatants on the reward of not just their pension but their freedom. Similarly when done right those former slaves tended to integrate more naturally as their merit of being defenders of the soil makes their blood part of the national blood.
Of course Africans and slaves were a part of these wars but it wasn't an issue pushed for its full value in politics and it could have been. Maybe slavery would have ended 60 years earlier?
I got one. How could you move across Paradox Games in a realistic and sound way from the days of the Roman Republic to a United World Government exploring and colonizing planets in space.
I’ve never played a paradox game before, I love watching them but idk how I would do that
@@Videntis.History I can buy you the games if you want. You need Imperator: Rome, Crusader Kings III, Europa Universalis IV, Victoria III, Hearts of Iron IV, and Stellaris. Although you would have to tailor Stellaris to fit how you think exploration in space would go and you would need a mighty powerful computer to run it in the most realistic portrayal possible. So you might go without Stellaris or just briefly in terms of colonizing the solar system maybe starting on Proxima and Alpha Centauri.
@@Videntis.History If you briefly go into Stellaris, you don't have to show as much.
Fascinating analysis, thank you for sharing!
Thanks
I'm just curious what happened in this timeline to convince the bootheel not to join Missouri 😂 In our timeline, one of the landowners there wanted to be a part of Missouri (since it became a state 15 years before Arkansas) and managed to convince the government.
I think America would have a break from conquest for a decade or two after Canada. Absorbing that region would be expensive and time consuming. Troops would needs to be stationed and capitalists would need to redirect Canadian goods to other Europeans. Britain may take them, but a lot of businesses and territories would need to be subsidized till the economy levels out.
Maybe they could have gone for the Caribbean. This video is awesome
I would imagine this version of America siding with Germany to claim Jamaica, take Hawaii, and invade Mexico.
Why would they side with Britain
@@Videntis.History Sorry, meant Germany
Why would they invade Mexico?
Make a part two to this video
We _did_ win the War of 1812.
We won almost every single battle in the entire war. One building in one coastal town getting burned down does not change that fact.
Ha absolute nonsense, America DIDNT win otherwise it would have annexed Canada! The UK overwhemingly ruled the seas back then, wrecking havoc and seizing hundreds of US ships and that kept back the American navy in their ports. Therefore the British WON that war having successfully defended Canada and that burnt down White House symbolises not to mess with the Brits!
keep telling yourself that
My passport says United States of America, so ya, I will keep telling myself that because it is fact.
@@shlacked2690 …it’s literally a fact. Look up the major battles from that war, and the US won almost every single one of them.
Incorrect.
The war of 1812 was a US invasion of British North America (modern day Canada) the intention was for the US to quickly capture and annex the territory while Britain was preoccupied with Napoleon.
While the officially cited reasons for the US invasion was stopping British impressment of ‘Americans’ into the Royal Navy and an end to British support for native groups the real reason was obviously a land grab.
During the war the US had some early victories due to the invasion being a surprise attack but US forces were quickly repelled by Canadian militias and British garrison forces once actual British armies arrived (though still secondary armies as Napoleon was a bigger priority) the US began rapidly losing the US Navy was reduced to a single ship and the whitehouse was burned.
As for the official reasons for the impressment of ‘Americans’ was actually the Royal Navy recapturing deserters whom the US was housing and had ended before the war was finished. British support of native groups did not end and the US was forced to recognise some basic rights for the natives (the US later revoked these rights).
The US definitively lost.
Very good
I think the only unrealistic part here is the "No Two-Term tradition". The tradition was started by the ever-glorified Washington, and cemented by Jefferson's willing retirement in 1808. The U.S. being at War would not change that this early, plus Madison was really close with Washington, and wouldn't want to tarnish his reputation by running for a third term.
I get where your coming from but I disagree
With what part?
@Nostradamus No probs, just pointing out my disagreements.
Impressive very nice, glad to see someone else seeing it happen in a similar way.
Understandable that an anglophone would think that Quebec francophones would assimilate with a couple anglo-americans moving there. But at 900k peoples in 1850, Quebec had more population than Georgia, Noth Carolina, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Louisianna, New Jersey, Michigan, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Texas, etc…
And I doubt that, having to choose between the northern snow states and the new one from old Louisianna, Quebec would have attracted a lot of people! ;-)
Plus, as a US states and not a british colony, post revolution France would have represent a lot more immigrants to US… mostly in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Louisianna!
Nice video though! :-)
Please part 2!
Hail Columbia is an option for the alternate National anthem.
I like it
In this timeline, West Virginia would likely never become a state, which is crazy to think about.
They anthem could probably be Hail Columbia
Yeah good song choice
Note to self, build a time machine and give the Americans the ability to build automatic rifles, smokeless gunpowder, and armored vehicles that would terrify the British then supply them with future tech that would instantly make slavery non economical and insight that would prevent future Indian-american wars and genocide.
News Flash! If you invade a country, and they repel you, and burn down your capital building, and then you sign a peace treaty - You didn't win or tie- you LOST 😂
Really? The United States burnt York, repelled the British offensives (Plattsburgh, Baltimore, and New Orleans), and even gained land at British allies' expense? Yes, the United States DID win. 😂
A well-established author wrote it as,, "continental predominace" from the United States. The British couldn't trade with the natives like they used to. 😌
Videntis: let me know what you think the national anthem would be?
Daniel, an intellectual: it would be a song unwritten, in this timeline, undoubtably titled "flip em the bird"
what if the Roman republic of 1849 wasn't crushed by the Austrians and french?
What was the Roman republic? I’m unfamiliar with it
@Nostradamus it was a state that was only around for about a year in the territory if the papal dtates after a revolution that forced Pius IX into hiding and eventually into sicily, they didnt last long though as france, spain, and austria promptly curbstomped the young republic. There is little information about it since it only lasted a year or so, but it had a pretty large impact on the unification of Italy for what it was.
great video. Regarding WWI, we have to look at following points:
*The UK would lose not only a major colony (Canada) but also a possible ally (the US), they would propably search for other allies beside Portugal. Prussia would be possible because the English Royals were Germans themselfes
*You already hinted it, the USA would be more isolationist and wouldn't interfere in the struggle for China and Japan. The Europeans could found proper colonies in these areas
*Because of the diplomatic ice age between the USA and the UK (and the lack of Canada), the under see telegraph cable between the Americas and the UK would be installed later or not at all. possible alternatives would be a direct link to the Bretagne or a link via Iceland and Norway.
*The prolonged Napoleonic wars and its results would mean a larger portion of German and Italian refugees into the US
*A weaker Mexico and stronger US would discourage a possible war participant to send an equivalent to the Zimmermann telegramm.
*An isolotionist USA propably wouldn't even fight the barbary pirats (that early) as they are busy populating and industrializing Canada and Cuba.