The War of 1812 actually ran until 1815. It was about the USA, not yet 50 years old, asserting itself in North America. Researching the conflict led me to feel that it was also effectively a 'rematch' between the Americans and the British who still held vast swathes of North America. Following the British defeat in the American War of Independence (1776-83), thousands of Americans who had remained loyal to the British fled northwards, this included slaves who were granted their freedom. This was despite the fact that slavery persisted in the regions which would become Canada, until 1834. It did mean there was a free black population especially to the eastern side of British North America.
The American invasion of the British territory both overland and across the Great Lakes, did have some successes and secured towns such as Detroit. However, the invasion was undermanned and rather poorly commanded meaning that the impetus soon ran out. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 and again in 1815, the British government was able to refocus its efforts away from Europe. In this alternative, the invasion was better planned and supplied and as a result much of the areas settled by Europeans have been overrun by American forces. However, distance and terrain eventually prevent a total conquest of all of the territory under British control at the time.
It is envisaged that the conquered areas are annexed to the USA either in the extension of existing state and territories or by the creation of the new territories, i.e. the organisation of a region before it becomes a US state. It might be argued that given the rows between states of the USA, especially around the Great Lakes, that there would not have been the extension of existing states. However, given the terrain, especially the land between the lakes, it seemed more feasible than having small fragments of new territories. In this alternative by 1815, the USA would have had greater control around the Great Lakes and along both shores of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
It is assumed that those who could not bear to live under US rule would have fled to the interior of Upper and Lower Canada making use of the trading stations that had been developed to handle the fur trade. Those most likely to have fled would have been those families of Loyalists and the black population especially if their families had found freedom in Canada fleeing the USA after the American War of Independence. It seems feasible that they would have been treated as runaway slaves and hauled back to those deemed their owners in the USA.
The pattern of laws around slavery varied quite considerably from state to state, but the recovery of escaped slaves was permitted at the time even from states which themselves did not have slavery. In addition, it is interesting to note that even as slavery was being eroded in some of the northern states, laws permitting indentured labour continued, notably for former slaves or their children up to a certain age.
Especially given that some leading individuals in the USA at the time wanted to introduce slavery to the Great Lakes region, while they were unsuccessful, I have assumed that they found it easier in the conquered territories taken from British control. Anger at the Loyalists does not seem to have declined much in the thirty years since the end of the American War of Independence so I felt it probable that Loyalists taken in the Canadas - and in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which had actually received more Loyalist refugees than the other regions - would be punished by being put into indentured labour. I imagined they would be especially sent to aid the development of the new US states. Kentucky had become a state in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, Ohio in 1803 and Louisiana in 1812.
I particularly became interested in Louisville as a destination for those Canadians captured in this war. In part because Kentucky was more distant from the conquered lands and because Louisville was known very much as a slave trading city and an important link in the trade between the so-called Upper South, i.e. those states south of the Mason-Dixon line but north of the northern borders of the states running east-west from Texas to South Carolina and the Lower/Deep South.
Dealing with the aftermath of the invasion and the selling into slavery and indentured labour of Canadians became the focus of this novel. I decided on using two families - Daniel and Mehitable Jarvis and their children, George and Charlotte and Cyrus and Madeleine Hartwood and their sons Lysander and Pharas. Daniel is a master cabinet maker in York (nowadays Toronto) who employs Cyrus as his journeyman. Both men are part of the York militia so are drawn into the fight against the invading Americans. I found a great resource on the York militia which really helped my story: The War of 1812 Project: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:War_of_1812 While Madeleine and the Hartwood children escape northwards into the less populated areas of Upper Canada, Cyrus and the Jarvises are captured, separated and shipped to Kentucky.
It is important to know that the Jarvises are white, Cyrus is black and Madeleine is mixed-race with one black grandparent and three white. At the time much was made of categorising races and there was a plethora of terms for different categories of mixed race people for example mulatto, quadroon and octaroon. On the 'drop of blood' principle even someone with one great-great-grandparent who was black, i.e. a hexadecaroon, would be considered black and thus could be enslaved even if all their other relatives had been white. It seemed important to explore these aspects and note that while indentured labour was bad, slavery was worse.
Immediately this led me to worry about whether people would say I was not permitted to write black or mixed race characters especially in a story set when slavery was in force. Not to do so would have led to a very distorted story and it would almost have been as if I was ignoring that experience. In addition I reflected that while commentators might say I could not get 'inside the head' of a black person or indeed as a man write two women as main characters. I would argue that the same kind of charges could be laid against anyone in 2024 writing about anyone in 1813, not matter what their own or the characters' race. I do accept that me writing the story especially of Cyrus Hartwood is going to accept some readers and commentators, but the alternative was either to produce a very skewed novel that would have looked to be brushing certain aspects under the carpet or to have abandoned the novel entirely.
Much of the action takes place in the rural areas between the towns and especially in the Canadian sections interaction with the indigenous peoples who had settlements and had established routes that the European settlers made use of. The characters cover a great distance going through terrain from northern Kentucky to the northern shores of Lake Huron and I was keen to make sure that the plants and wildlife they encountered were authentic for each area. It did become apparent, especially for the sections in Kentucky and Ohio, how climate change has already altered this and trees, for example, that in 1813 would only have been found in more southern latitudes in the USA have now crept much further north.
This then is the background of the novel. It rotates between the perspectives of the four adults to show different elements of the conflict and its consequences. As such it is very much an adventure story as each of the characters seek to escape American control and keep their children safe. I have tried to reflect how brutal and cheap life was, and how assiduous Americans were in trying to recapture what they felt was theirs. While my alternate history novels are often adventure stories, it is unusual for me to write family dramas, but I enjoyed writing this one. I hope you will enjoy reading it and looking at your own views of how different North America might have been if this often forgotten war had gone down just a slightly different path.
