How could the USA have lost in the War of 1812? Could England have allied with Spain and stirred up the native Indians, for example? Or could different generals give a different plausible outcome? If we had lost, would America be smaller in size today, or would we have simply won the War of 1912?
America looses in 1812
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Issac Brock
I am sure the British and their Indian allies would have fared much better is General Issac Brock wasn't killed near Niagara Falls in 1812.
I am sure the British and their Indian allies would have fared much better is General Issac Brock wasn't killed near Niagara Falls in 1812.
Issac Brock
I am sure the British and their Indian allies would have fared much better is General Issac Brock wasn't killed near Niagara Falls in 1812.
I am sure the British and their Indian allies would have fared much better is General Issac Brock wasn't killed near Niagara Falls in 1812.
Redbeard
Banned
tom said:
1809:
Napoleon is hit by a stray bullet at Wagram (fired by private Schickelgruber, but neither he nor the world will ever know), and instead of a battle won by the French through a combination of bravery and masterful ledership, it is a battle lost by the French and with horrendous casualties. All of Europe soon hails the victorious Archduke Charles and as the other Europeans join the Habsburg cause France is soon run over in the winter campaign of 1810.
1812:
With "Boney" done with and the balance resurrected on the continent for the time being the British have idle resources to follow issues elsewhere. In America they in short follow a "no more Mr. nice guy" policy and in a series of incidents incl. what is practically a blockade of North American ports, the USA is seriously intimitated. The American government, void of strong allies, apart from distance, wisely tries to avoid a direct confrontation, but nevertheless soon finds itself in a practical state of war with Great Britain. For some reason or another the British do declare war however and lands several armies on the mainland, one of them led by the competent commander known from the 1807 siege of Copenhagen and the campaign in 1808-09 Portugal and Spain - Lieutenant General Wellesley. In a series of battles Wellesley and the small but highly professional British Army smashes the US Army, burns down Washington and forces a reunification into His Majesty's reign. The former American colonies are formally recognised as a part of the United Kingdom, but with wideranged rights and own Parliaments (incl. taxing rights). Hard core nationalists flee west into the mountains and forrests, but most stay and enjoy the prosperous and peaceful times that follow...
Well apart from some occasional raid on remote villages and towns from rebel mountain men, but that is all very far from the major cities and fertile soils where most live.
As the first decades of the 19th century passes on the biggest issue of the future appears to be the abolitionist cause, which in Britain itself and in the northern provinces of His Majesty's America have strong support. More and more Englishmen and Northerners are demanding a much more active policy against slavery while in the south the plantation owners prepare to defend their interests.
In the mountains the scattered remnants of the nationalist movement have heated discussions over whether to support the southernes or that is just too far from the original declaration of independence.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Not likely, Redbeard.
The grievance that led to war was the Royal Navy's efforts to blockade Napoleonic Europe. No Napoleon and no war, no War of 1812.
Had the war been lost badly, as it could have been, we could assume a loss of fishing rights, perhaps a third of Maine, and most of Indiana/Illinois and all of Michigan and Wisconsin lost. Then we could also assume a dramatic change in the US's posture in the world. For one thing, all the free settlers would have had to go elsewhere, quite probably doing real harm to southern unity on slavery. Likely Kentucky and Tennessee become much less interested in slavery, perhaps Alabama and Mississippi divided on a north/south basis with the northern one also free. Inevitably a revenge war would take place, with the US having a substantial fleet and army.
Needless to say, secession would become much less likely, given a powerful military(50 to 100 thousand) at the president's disposal.
Around the early 1840s I would predict an increasing stream of settlers, if not earlier, into the lost Midwest, putting the Indians under heavy pressure. Most likely when war emerges, the Royal Navy can establish a blockade and win any fleet action, but a substantial US Navy and harbor fortifications obstructs many landing attempts. Meanwhile, the US Army not only crushes the Indians but takes most of Canada. The British, in effect, are sending forces in piecemeal, and lose much of their standing force early. Further, their entire army is probably little stronger than the US, and is scattered around the world.
If this erupts during the 1848 crisis, the great Indian Mutiny(India, not here), or the Crimean War, England likely cedes everything gained in 1812 and probably parts of Canada or even substantial reparations. The grudge would last even longer, especially if the British felt they only lost due to treachery on the part of an attacker while they were already heavily engaged.
If not, it still goes the way of the US, for UK is not fighting a long and expensive war, with US privateers no doubt wrecking havoc, all for an Indian buffer zone. In this case, the US in effect STILL gains what it lost plus likely a few bits more of land. Perhaps ALL of Oregon territory.
Either way, there is bad blood for a long time.
One could also postulate a long border war after 1812, with the Indians being hit hard early and the British increasingly taking losses for what was nothing more than a buffer state. Truthfully, although much better than the US, Canada and UK were still prone to dump the natives whenever it was convenient.
Developments in armaments are up to you folks.
The grievance that led to war was the Royal Navy's efforts to blockade Napoleonic Europe. No Napoleon and no war, no War of 1812.
Had the war been lost badly, as it could have been, we could assume a loss of fishing rights, perhaps a third of Maine, and most of Indiana/Illinois and all of Michigan and Wisconsin lost. Then we could also assume a dramatic change in the US's posture in the world. For one thing, all the free settlers would have had to go elsewhere, quite probably doing real harm to southern unity on slavery. Likely Kentucky and Tennessee become much less interested in slavery, perhaps Alabama and Mississippi divided on a north/south basis with the northern one also free. Inevitably a revenge war would take place, with the US having a substantial fleet and army.
Needless to say, secession would become much less likely, given a powerful military(50 to 100 thousand) at the president's disposal.
Around the early 1840s I would predict an increasing stream of settlers, if not earlier, into the lost Midwest, putting the Indians under heavy pressure. Most likely when war emerges, the Royal Navy can establish a blockade and win any fleet action, but a substantial US Navy and harbor fortifications obstructs many landing attempts. Meanwhile, the US Army not only crushes the Indians but takes most of Canada. The British, in effect, are sending forces in piecemeal, and lose much of their standing force early. Further, their entire army is probably little stronger than the US, and is scattered around the world.
If this erupts during the 1848 crisis, the great Indian Mutiny(India, not here), or the Crimean War, England likely cedes everything gained in 1812 and probably parts of Canada or even substantial reparations. The grudge would last even longer, especially if the British felt they only lost due to treachery on the part of an attacker while they were already heavily engaged.
If not, it still goes the way of the US, for UK is not fighting a long and expensive war, with US privateers no doubt wrecking havoc, all for an Indian buffer zone. In this case, the US in effect STILL gains what it lost plus likely a few bits more of land. Perhaps ALL of Oregon territory.
Either way, there is bad blood for a long time.
One could also postulate a long border war after 1812, with the Indians being hit hard early and the British increasingly taking losses for what was nothing more than a buffer state. Truthfully, although much better than the US, Canada and UK were still prone to dump the natives whenever it was convenient.
Developments in armaments are up to you folks.
WI the British force under Gen Ross which landed and burned Washington, D.C. in 1814, stayed on and occupied the infant USA's capital city instead of OTL re-embarking with Adm Cochrane's flotilla soon after ? Also, WI Tecumseh and his Indian confederation had managed to win the Battle of the Thames in 1813, and if the British forces on their forays into the South were able to successfully incite a large-scale slave insurrection or liberate and arm enough slaves ?
The worse the USA could expect in a defeat would be no battle of New Orleans. The USA declared war on the UK and the criteria for victory or defeat was America's. The failure to conquer Canada places the war on the defeat side of the ledger. From the UK's point of view, the war was a distraction from the real war in Europe. Admitidly the distraction was a very costly one but the UK's policy was to force the USA to the negotiating table and bring the war to a quick end. A shorter war would represent a British victory and if short enough, no battle of New Orleans.
The War of 1812 was a defeat for America in as much as they failed to gain their stated objectives and a victory for Britain in as much as they didn't loose anything of obvious value.
The Cause of the Wo1812 was the British pratice of press-ganging American sailors on the assumption they were escaped Royal Navy men. (the fact they spoke English was enough justification) There was a blockade to certain extents and several merchantmen were impounded but then again the French were doing the same. (the Berlin and Milan decrees) The Americans were angry at Our high-handedness but also wanted Canada.
They failed to gain Canada through a combination of Militia stubborness and poor leadership but the British Army did their best to hand it over on several occasions. The one real military victory of the Wo1812 was New Orleans and that was an American victory against the much-vaunted Napoleonic veterans.
Ref the force burning Washington and then retreating - Mother Nature played a hand in that one, there was a tornado striking the next day! (other than that, there was no-one to negotiate with). Also, the British weren't in the Wo1812 to conquer, the invasions of American mainland were mearly intended to drive the Madison government to the peace table - we were more interested in European affairs.
As a British man born a hundred years too late (as the name may suggest) nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear an American admitting defeat!
Although the real 'victory' the Americans took from the Wo1812 (other than New Orleans and Lake Earie) was the belief they could stand up to and fight anyone who interfered in their 'Manifest Destiny' - a lesson the rest of the world soon learned.
The Cause of the Wo1812 was the British pratice of press-ganging American sailors on the assumption they were escaped Royal Navy men. (the fact they spoke English was enough justification) There was a blockade to certain extents and several merchantmen were impounded but then again the French were doing the same. (the Berlin and Milan decrees) The Americans were angry at Our high-handedness but also wanted Canada.
They failed to gain Canada through a combination of Militia stubborness and poor leadership but the British Army did their best to hand it over on several occasions. The one real military victory of the Wo1812 was New Orleans and that was an American victory against the much-vaunted Napoleonic veterans.
Ref the force burning Washington and then retreating - Mother Nature played a hand in that one, there was a tornado striking the next day! (other than that, there was no-one to negotiate with). Also, the British weren't in the Wo1812 to conquer, the invasions of American mainland were mearly intended to drive the Madison government to the peace table - we were more interested in European affairs.
As a British man born a hundred years too late (as the name may suggest) nothing gives me greater pleasure than to hear an American admitting defeat!
Although the real 'victory' the Americans took from the Wo1812 (other than New Orleans and Lake Earie) was the belief they could stand up to and fight anyone who interfered in their 'Manifest Destiny' - a lesson the rest of the world soon learned.