US victory in war of 1812 american gains

Depends on how great a victory. Presumably all of continental British North America is on the table (Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Rupert's Land).
 
They extend the U.S. northeast up to the border of the St. Lawrence River. I'm surprised America didn't conquer that region IOTL.
 
At the very least, I saw them getting the Ontario Peninsula and the northern shore of Lake Superior. Perhaps also concessions regarding the Pacific coast and Maine's borders. Britain gets to keep the French-speaking Quebec and Gaelic speaking Acadia.
 
No Land Gains

I think that the best possible scenario for the US in the War of 1812 is that the British agree to end impressment and compensate ship owners for seizures prior to the outbreak of the war.

Even if the US takes Upper and Lower Canada, from Lake Huron to Quebec City, I don't see how it would be possible to capture Halifax.

If the US does manage to seize most of Canada, that won't stop the Royal Navy from laying off the US coast and raising hell indefinitely. The US can capture Canada, but it can't hurt Britain itself. Britain, however, can attack the US directly.

I suppose that it might be possible for peace negotiators to set a fixed western boundary for British Canada--say, the western end of Lake Superior. Britain might agree to make no claims west of that point. But it's pretty far fetched.

If you want an American Canada at this point, then the best means of producing one would be Napoleon winning rather than losing on the Continent.
 
They extend the U.S. northeast up to the border of the St. Lawrence River. I'm surprised America didn't conquer that region IOTL.

As has been noted in a number of other threads, the st. Lawrence makes a horrible border. All the major cities in Quebec are on the north bank of the st. Lawrence, so if the us conquered the south bank, they'd just be donquering indefensible farmland.

US conquering new Brunswick and nova Scotia, sure. But, in that case the border would be the OTL quebec-new Brunswick border not the st. Lawrence.

Of course it is also possible that the us could conquer all of the st. Lawrence valley including Quebec city and Montreal, but there's no reason they'd just conquer the south bank unless they couldn't get naval superiority on the river, and if they couldn't get naval superiority of the river, they couldn't hold the south bank against the guns of Quebec city and montreal
 
At the very least, I saw them getting the Ontario Peninsula and the northern shore of Lake Superior. Perhaps also concessions regarding the Pacific coast and Maine's borders. Britain gets to keep the French-speaking Quebec and Gaelic speaking Acadia.

OK, at the time of the war of 1812, there was no "Acadia", it was already "nova Scotia", and I don't think nova Scotia's ever been majority Gaelic speaking. Certainly there are gaelic-speaking communities in cape Breton, but most of mainland nova Scotia was settled by English and scots-speaking Scots rather than Gaelic speakers, as far as I know (I studied way too much nova scotian history back when I was in school there)
 
If the US was able to pull off a win from this conflict, which is somewhat unlikely versus a negotiated peace, then the most you would see would probably be the claiming of the Ontario Peninsula to secure the Great Lakes. The possibility of the Americans threatening Quebec is remote, and the possibility of gaining Halifax in any conflict in this period is about as likely as the US setting foot on the moon at the same time, the poor road infrastructure and the dominance of the Royal Navy is too much to overcome.

So in an absolute best case scenario you've got everything west of Kingston most likely in American hands. Much further and its easier for the British to defend with a population which is not friendly to American interests and is not likely to be desired by the Americans in the first place.
 

Driftless

Donor
To make gains into western Ontario, the US would need to defeat the British at both the Mackinac Straits (Battle of Fort Mackinac) and in the Mississippi Valley ( Battle of Prairie du Chien). The British militarily controlled Northern Michigan and Wisconsin at the OTL end of the war. (neither side had all that many soldiers in that part of the frontier)
 
All this is quite theoretical since in this age the Royal Navy has the means to turn to ashes any US coastal city. So even if the US army had had the advantage on the continent (which they were far from), Britain has the means to reestablish balance and force a status-quo treaty.
 
All this is quite theoretical since in this age the Royal Navy has the means to turn to ashes any US coastal city. So even if the US army had had the advantage on the continent (which they were far from), Britain has the means to reestablish balance and force a status-quo treaty.

Also during this time period, some of the wealthiest and most important regions were the Eastern coast cities that the British could turn to ashes. I'm not sure if the U.S. would like to pay the price of burned-out cities for quelques arpents de neige.
 
Yes. Basically the brits could do to US coastal cities what they did to Copenhagen.

This war was a no-win game for the US. It was much much too soon. And Britain was far far stronger. It had the means to ruin and asphyxiate the US if It wanted to.
 
Well this is a thread about US gains in 1812, no reason why the Americans can't take a good deal of Canada and have their coastal cities burnt. That technically fulfills the requirements.
 
Yes. There is this very good reason : if their main coastal cities are destroyed, they are no longer able to sustain a war and to keep whatever conquest in Canada (if they ever were able to conquer any canadian territory, which was not the case in OTL).

You have the right to be a US nationalist expansionist. But the point in this forum is also about being realistic.

The US in 1812 can not conquer Canada if you don't fulfill the condition of some kind of meltdown of the british power.
 
Yes. There is this very good reason : if their main coastal cities are destroyed, they are no longer able to sustain a war and to keep whatever conquest in Canada (if they ever were able to conquer any canadian territory, which was not the case in OTL).

You have the right to be a US nationalist expansionist. But the point in this forum is also about being realistic.

The US in 1812 can not conquer Canada if you don't fulfill the condition of some kind of meltdown of the british power.

Which as we have seen, has more to do with Britain's European situation than what the early US can ever hope to achieve.
 
I think the best case scenario for America is that America gets the southern Ontario peninsula. New Brunswick won't happen, and even Kingston falling is doubtful and Montreal was most assuredly not happening with the American army present.

And any scenario where America is winning risks Britain doubling down in the theater and driving them back.

The OTL peace treaty was probably about as good as it gets unless America does much, MUCH better than OTL.
 
What land does the U.S. get from winning the war of 1812 .

It really does depend on what happens, exactly. Reminding me of a scenario I've thought about doing recently, I can *possibly* see the U.S. taking much of the southwest Peninsula in Ontario(including today's "Golden Horseshoe" area), but it would be rather costly for us Yanks and we'd probably suffer a bloodbath or two just holding on to it, at least until the fighting ends.

In fact, we might even have to let Britain take a certain few parts of the Northwest Territory(namely, the UP of Michigan & northern Wisconsin, including the Iron Range in what was to be Minnesota IOTL) especially if they and their Native allies still end up being in control of those areas as in OTL.
 
All this is quite theoretical since in this age the Royal Navy has the means to turn to ashes any US coastal city.
That's a bit of an exaggeration; they quite famously failed to take Baltimore (to say nothing of New Orleans) when they tried, and other cities have similar fortifications. And of course, the British would have to actually be sufficiently interested in such a campaign to do so; Canada is not that important.

But a major American victory probably requires the Napoleonic Wars to go on longer, anyway.
 

Driftless

Donor
It really does depend on what happens, exactly. Reminding me of a scenario I've thought about doing recently, I can *possibly* see the U.S. taking much of the southwest Peninsula in Ontario(including today's "Golden Horseshoe" area), but it would be rather costly for us Yanks and we'd probably suffer a bloodbath or two just holding on to it, at least until the fighting ends.

In fact, we might even have to let Britain take a certain few parts of the Northwest Territory(namely, the UP of Michigan & northern Wisconsin, including the Iron Range in what was to be Minnesota IOTL) especially if they and their Native allies still end up being in control of those areas as in OTL.

The British held Prairie du Chien ( at the mouth of the Wisconsin River) and Fort Mackinac (near the juncture of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron.) at the close of fighting in 1814. One of the key passage points was the portage (at OTL Portage, WI), a 3km flat canoe carryover between the Fox & Wisconsin Rivers. It had been something of a highway between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley for 17th & 18th Century French Canadian Voyageurs & Explorers. To your point, the British militarily controlled what is now northern & western Wisconsin, the Upper Pennisula of Michigan, Minnesota, and at least the northeastern part of Iowa. That's a bigger chunk of land than the southwestern pennisula of Ontario. That includes the northern 700 miles/1100 km of the Mississippi and huge area of highly productive farmland ( of course back then it was mostly woods, oak savanna, and prairie)

*edit* instead of Minneapolis/St Paul, you could have seen St Anthony (from the falls of the Mississippi)/L'Œil du Cochon (Pig's Eye Landing) if the OTL Twin Cities area remained as primarily French-Canadian settlements - or ??? if the British anglicized the area more.
 
Last edited:

Lateknight

Banned
That's a bit of an exaggeration; they quite famously failed to take Baltimore (to say nothing of New Orleans) when they tried, and other cities have similar fortifications. And of course, the British would have to actually be sufficiently interested in such a campaign to do so; Canada is not that important.

But a major American victory probably requires the Napoleonic Wars to go on longer, anyway.

That's true I can't really think of any American or European war in 1800s were the British navy when around conquering cities, it seems by that time shore batteries(of equveilent tech) were a more then acceptable defense against navies.
 
Top