Canada Wank (YACW)

[stevep]

Originally Posted by foresterab

Why do I have this image of a group of sharks (with Royal colors flying)swimming around a hapless USA ?


Nice work Dathi

foresterab, Dathi

Its starting to look very much that way. I'm going to have trouble getting that image out of my mind now.

I'm wondering also about how the US government, once the Lakes campaign fails, shuffles regulars [I presume?] west to 'free-up' Kentucians to attack the British in the west and north of the Ohio. While they are in the front line and hence potentially the most exposed, some of them might be wondering why the formal army is doing the garrison work to allow them to do the fighting.

Suspect that fairly soon there's going to be a lot more pressure to come to terms. Militarily and economically the costs are growing.

Would I be right in suspecting that OTL Ross's replacement was a General Pakenham?

Steve

[Brasidas]

Originally Posted by stevep

I'm wondering also about how the US government, once the Lakes campaign fails, shuffles regulars [I presume?] west to 'free-up' Kentucians to attack the British in the west and north of the Ohio. While they are in the front line and hence potentially the most exposed, some of them might be wondering why the formal army is doing the garrison work to allow them to do the fighting.

I'm still a bit confused as to the makeup of american forces at the time. When I think of "regulars", I think of long-serving, pre-war forces. The state militia's not a federal animal, though. Do these garritroopers have any useful training regimine for acting as a field force? They're simply regulars by way of having a service obligation for the duration, without the caveats of the state-level forces, right?

I'm getting rather curious about the presumed New Orleans attack in this TL, Dathi. How prepared were the States in OTL? With St. Louis having fallen and the British-aligned forces at the end of a rather long supply line, I'd think there'd be an escalation at the southern port there to keep the British presence on the Missippi line tentative.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by stevep

I'm wondering also about how the US government, once the Lakes campaign fails, shuffles regulars [I presume?] west to 'free-up' Kentucians to attack the British in the west and north of the Ohio. While they are in the front line and hence potentially the most exposed, some of them might be wondering why the formal army is doing the garrison work to allow them to do the fighting.

To some extent, the 'National Guard' level of militia is interchangeable with the regular army in terms of terms of service and training. And, in any case, the Kentucky militia has always been at about that calibre of soldier (from most of what I've read, anyway), the biggest problem OTL was that they only signed up for 3 month hitches. If you look at what Johnson's men did in OTL's Battle of the Thames, for instance, that was a manoeuver that the regulars would have been hard pressed to match.

One reason for 'shifting' people is to minimize the distance from 'home', especially for militia. Pennsylvanians in Ohio are likely to have higher morale than if they were shipped all the way out to southern Illinois, say. Also, the Kaintucks have been doing a lot of the small garrison/mounted patrol kinds of duty in southern Indiana and in Ohio that would be needed in southern Illinois - they're well trained in precisely the sort of soldiering needed there. The Pennsylvanians can sit garrison the forts on the Ohio border, freeing some of the Ohians to take over the Kentucky mobile patrols, say.

Originally Posted by stevep

Suspect that fairly soon there's going to be a lot more pressure to come to terms. Militarily and economically the costs are growing.

Yes, indeedy.

Originally Posted by stevep

Would I be right in suspecting that OTL Ross's replacement was a General Pakenham?

Steve

That's the one!

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Brasidas

I'm still a bit confused as to the makeup of american forces at the time. When I think of "regulars", I think of long-serving, pre-war forces. The state militia's not a federal animal, though. Do these garritroopers have any useful training regimine for acting as a field force? They're simply regulars by way of having a service obligation for the duration, without the caveats of the state-level forces, right?

See my comment to Stevep, above. There aren't any (well, many) traditional militias being raised. All the new militia are for at least a year (nominally) and trained to decent standards. Admittedly, some of the garritroopers are forgetting that drill is meant to train for fighting...

Originally Posted by Brasidas

I'm getting rather curious about the presumed New Orleans attack in this TL, Dathi. How prepared were the States in OTL? With St. Louis having fallen and the British-aligned forces at the end of a rather long supply line, I'd think there'd be an escalation at the southern port there to keep the British presence on the Missippi line tentative.

The US is being VERY distracted. They know they have to provide some extra support, but they don't have Andrew Jackson to light a fire under people. They were pretty hideously unprepared until AJ showed up, AFAIK.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

One reason for 'shifting' people is to minimize the distance from 'home', especially for militia. Pennsylvanians in Ohio are likely to have higher morale than if they were shipped all the way out to southern Illinois, say. Also, the Kaintucks have been doing a lot of the small garrison/mounted patrol kinds of duty in southern Indiana and in Ohio that would be needed in southern Illinois - they're well trained in precisely the sort of soldiering needed there. The Pennsylvanians can sit garrison the forts on the Ohio border, freeing some of the Ohians to take over the Kentucky mobile patrols, say.

Ok, that makes sense of the manouver.

That's the one!

That sounds ominous for the American position on the lower Mississippi, epsecially given what you say about a lack of a certain Jackson. Not to mention with the more prominent French Catholic presence in the Canadian resistance and the American position looking far worse the local French in the south are likely to be more inclined to side with the British.

Could be that a crushing defeat there plus open rebellion in New England [if not necessarily military] are the far from substantial straws that finally break the camels back and bring the Americans to accept their lost?

Steve

[Grimm Reaper]

You just created a disaster for Great Britain.

Following the debacle in Russia France was offered generous terms including the Rhine as France's border, the Allies ceding Belgium, southern Holland, the German territory west of the Rhine and parts of Switzerland to France and only Napoleon refused to consider it.

If the new French government accepts then France is much stronger, not to mention infighting among Prussia and Austria over spoils since Prussia's Rhenish reward just vanished.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

You just created a disaster for Great Britain.

Following the debacle in Russia France was offered generous terms including the Rhine as France's border, the Allies ceding Belgium, southern Holland, the German territory west of the Rhine and parts of Switzerland to France and only Napoleon refused to consider it.

If the new French government accepts then France is much stronger, not to mention infighting among Prussia and Austria over spoils since Prussia's Rhenish reward just vanished.

Grimm

I don't think so. Working from memory but pretty certain that was what was offered the previous autumn, late 1813. By the spring of 1814 I think it was off the table plus since Napoleon still rejected it and went down fighting it would be a fairly moot point anyway. The Bourbons have been returned to power by the allies so have no claims on any territory France held before they were overthrown. They might get slightly more favourable terms as Napoleon was defeated earlier and there's no chance of a revival with him being dead. Or this might mean that the allies feel less need to be generous to them. However would expect something fairly similar to the historical peace terms. Might be a few tweaks. Have suggested that possibly Britain might secure more of the Grand Banks Fisheries for instance.

Steve

[AuroraBorealis]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

You just created a disaster for Great Britain.

Following the debacle in Russia France was offered generous terms including the Rhine as France's border, the Allies ceding Belgium, southern Holland, the German territory west of the Rhine and parts of Switzerland to France and only Napoleon refused to consider it.

If the new French government accepts then France is much stronger, not to mention infighting among Prussia and Austria over spoils since Prussia's Rhenish reward just vanished.

yup probably in the short run anyways... and its probably birthed nominally some kind of Franco-Austrian alliance as well, With Spain and its other Bourbon satellites tied to Britain and the west for certain. It does depend on the peace settlement. Murat and Beauharnais were trying to gain the Austrian favour as well to preserve their position. Prussia may very well lose much of its Rhenish gains but not the entirety and then again so does Bavaria.

Prussia will be a Russian satellite

So how much of the return to prewar status quo are we likely to see.

thats of course if that bargain isn't off the table at this point.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Battle of New Orleans



In the first week of September, General Ross pulls his men out of Chesapeake Bay, and heads with them to Jamaica where various British forces are being assembled. He has with him the 5000+ men he had had in the Chesapeake bay, and meets with other forces assembled there. While it does take some time to assemble this group, they do NOT have to wait for London to decide on and send a new commander. [OTL, Pakenham did not arrive until after the attack he was supposed to be leading had already started.] Given the reduced danger to the Maritimes (since New England is now not at all a threat), many of the troops stationed there are sent either into Canada or south to join Ross's expedition. All in all, Ross is able to accumulate 10,000 men in Jamaica by the beginning of October. His first act on arriving at Jamaica (before the whole force is assembled) is to send a medium sized force to West Florida – firstly to Pensacola, where the group coordinates with the Red Stick Creeks and the Pensacola garrison, and then, augmented with some of those local forces, heads to Mobile, specifically Fort Bowyer at the mouth of the bay on the 15th of September. Since the winds were right, a coordinated attack from both land and sea was possible, and the fort was soon taken. [OTL Andrew Jackson had just upgraded the defences of Fort Bowyer. Since he's not around, General Flournoy didn't get around to it in time. (Flournoy's still in charge, because all the attention is focussed in other theatres, and there wasn't anyone really obvious to replace him with.) Also, the Allied forces are much larger (the Red Sticks are in much better shape, there were more forces at Pensacola, and Ross and Cochrane moved south much faster). In addition, the OTL attack was attempted a few days earlier when the wind was in the wrong direction to allow naval support.] With the fort gone, the city of Mobile is rather exposed and it surrenders relatively quickly.


With Ross in Jamaica early enough to do some planning, and with time to consult with Spanish officials, naval officers, and other army officers, the lack of the required small boats is discovered. The army officers assumed the navy was supplying them, some naval officers assumed the army was, some officers of both branches assumed the locals would have them. Since a major part of the proposed attack plan involved sending thousands of men on small boats through the waterways around New Orleans, a shortage of boats could have been a disaster [and was OTL]. While the main force is getting organized, a task force is given the job of supplying boats, buying them locally around the Caribbean, buying them, whatever it takes.


[note that OTL, the lack of small boats and not having control of Mobile severely restricted the British options for attacking New Orleans. Here they have much better options, can move more men and cannon and ammunition much more easily.]


The British forces set sail, and land near New Orleans on the 12 of November 1814 [one month earlier than OTL]. Being better prepared, and having more options open to them, they are able to move their forces, including several heavy cannon from the warships in against New Orleans in a week. Due to the speed of advance, there is not enough time for the Americans to prepare elaborate dug-in defences, [OTL the landing was 12 December and the final battle 8 January]. Flournoy sent desperate messages off for reinforcements, but there is no time for them to arrive before the battle [unlike OTL, where groups from Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi all made it to the battle in time. Some had, admittedly set out before the British landed, but they won't have even started off with the earlier British invasion, iTTL.] Flournoy proposes to increase the numbers of defenders by arming the local free blacks – free men of colour. The whites complain loudly and bitterly, and he backs down. [OTL, Jackson armed them anyway] The lack of strong defensive works means that the attack is less of a defensive dream than OTL, and the British overrun the American lines fairly quickly since they have a 3-1 advantage [OTL, with armed blacks and the various reinforcements, Jackson had a bit more than 4000 well dug in, facing some 5-6000 British. Here, we have 3000, in much worse positions against 9000 (as more of the British force was able to be concentrated at once), and the British have far more cannons and ammunition]. Casualties are high, about a thousand killed wounded for each side, but the defensive line is pierced and New Orleans is open to attack. The Louisiana legislature quickly votes to surrender, and as Flournoy was captured with his men, there is no one to countermand the surrender.


With New Orleans in hand, the British are easily able to defeat in detail groups of Kentuckians, Tennesseeans and Mississippians who arrive separately, and Lousiana is now in British hands.

[RCAF Brat]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Battle of New Orleans

<snip>

Ouch.

New Orleans might be enough to get the Yanks to (finally) give up. Now it is time to start cutting their losses before they are completely overrun and occupied.

I wonder how this is going to go over at the peace negotiations? Or in Washington/wherever the Congress is cowering?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by RCAF Brat

Ouch.

I agree

New Orleans might be enough to get the Yanks to (finally) give up. Now it is time to start cutting their losses before they are completely overrun and occupied.

Again think this is likely. Especially since with the mouth of the Mississippi in British hands supplying the western regions and exporting their trade is far, far more difficult. As a number of American posters have said on this board before access to the Mississippi is vital to the development of its hinterland.

I wonder how this is going to go over at the peace negotiations? Or in Washington/wherever the Congress is cowering?

Suspect a few war hawks are being rather unpopular with growing numbers of their electorate. [Higher taxes, continued military losses, foreign and coastal trade largerly destroyed, continued territorial gains by their opponents, virtual secession by New England]. I suspect war weariness will be growing rapidly.

The only problem I can see with the scenario is that Dathi has pretty much said New England becomes independent but given the collapse of the US position its difficult to see their demands not being met. Unless someone in Washington really loses it in a fit of anger.

Good update again Dathi.

Going to be interesting when peace discussion really start off.

Steve

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by RCAF Brat

Ouch.

Glad to see another commenter. Thanks.

Originally Posted by RCAF Brat

New Orleans might be enough to get the Yanks to (finally) give up. Now it is time to start cutting their losses before they are completely overrun and occupied.

Yup. Actually, there really isn't much way for the Brits to take and hold MUCH more than they do. The only State they are conquering is Louisiana, and it's not thoroughly 'American' yet. Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri were all territories with at most 20k people, and for Indiana and Illinois the areas where most Americans had so far settled is staying in the US. Missouri was the most populous of the territories - but again, it was the least 'American' of them. Trying to take AND OCCUPY Ohio or Kentucky, where there are lots of people would be self-defeating.

Originally Posted by RCAF Brat

I wonder how this is going to go over at the peace negotiations? Or in Washington/wherever the Congress is cowering?

There isn't going to be a lot of negotiation. The actual treaty gets hammered out in a week or so, once the negotiators receive instructions that let them negotiate on compatible terms (mostly the US surrendering, but they do hold out for some figleaf compromises).

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by stevep

Especially since with the mouth of the Mississippi in British hands supplying the western regions and exporting their trade is far, far more difficult. As a number of American posters have said on this board before access to the Mississippi is vital to the development of its hinterland.

Not difficult, the word you're looking for is expensive. Also 'western' has a totally different meaning than it did a month ago....

Originally Posted by stevep

Suspect a few war hawks are being rather unpopular with growing numbers of their electorate. [Higher taxes, continued military losses, foreign and coastal trade largerly destroyed, continued territorial gains by their opponents, virtual secession by New England]. I suspect war weariness will be growing rapidly.

Politics is in total chaos. The warhawks are very popular AND very unpopular. People want the lost land back - but they hate the taxes. It's a mess. There is a LOT of unpleasantness and hatred, and some of it will be ... misdirected.

Originally Posted by stevep

The only problem I can see with the scenario is that Dathi has pretty much said New England becomes independent but given the collapse of the US position its difficult to see their demands not being met. Unless someone in Washington really loses it in a fit of anger.

New England hasn't seceded, and isn't planning to, exactly, although she will be forced into it soonish. New England is not a British ally and is not represented at the peace conference. The rest of the US is not really prepared to listen to the demands of 'bean-eating surrender monkeys', as it were, and I'm not precisely sure how it will play out, yet.

Originally Posted by stevep

Good update again Dathi.

thanks

Originally Posted by stevep

Going to be interesting when peace discussion really start off.

Steve

As I said in the last post to RCAFBrat, the negotiations are going to be quick when they start, so mostly you're going to see the final result, with a few footnotes.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

As I was reading through the history of the war, especially in the southern theatres, I was totally amazed at how incredibly effective Andrew Jackson was. I strongly dislike the man, being crude and violent and arrogant and overbearing - his later refusal to obey the Supreme Court is, IMO, entirely consistent with the man's personality.

On the other hand, the number of things that he did for the US in this war is astounding. While he did not beat the British single-handedly, it really is amazing just HOW MUCH of the US success is directly due to him.

Defeat of the Red Sticks? AJ. The Georgians had at least as many forces, with much better logistics, but it was AJ who led, organized, and won all the major battles.

Pensacola. AJ

Mobile defence. The British were repelled at Fort Bowyer. Why, because AJ had just ordered the defences upgraded.

New Orleans. From his personal leadership and charisma, to the rough-shod over-riding of locals wishes (arming blacks, e.g.) to the organizing and digging of the extensive defensive works, to his appeal to the westerners, which led more Kentucky and Tennessee defenders to be there than there might otherwise have been. In all of these cases, he was directly responsible for major factors that led to the successful defence of New Orleans.

If any other general had been in place, New Orleans might very well have fallen to the British, even if they took horrible losses (and even if it didn't matter, because the peace was already signed).

Andrew Jackson was absolutely astounding (sometimes in a positive sense, sometimes in a negative one), but you sure can't ignore the man!


Being able to remove him by his succumbing to an OTL wound that was almost fatal, made the TL a whole lot easier!

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Peace Treaty



The word of the disaster in New Orleans reaches Washington just before Christmas. The President and cabinet meet over the Christmas holidays, and taken with the other troubles[1], they decide that peace must be reached immediately on whatever terms can be got. That decision is not reached without some acrimonious debate, but there really isn't much other choice. So in the first week of January, a courier ship is sent post-haste to Ghent with instructions to seek peace on whatever terms the British are prepared to offer. Word doesn't reach London quite as fast, but the decision there is easier. They offer basically uti possidetis, with minor adjustments. So both sides are finally ready to come to an agreement. The treaty is signed on 14 February 1815

1. The US recognizes East and West Florida as Spanish, with the exception of extreme northeastern Florida, where St. Augustine and immediate environs are to be annexed to Georgia.
2. The US returns the Louisiana purchase to Spain, which then transfers it to Britain – for considerations to be determined later, but include a British guarantee of the Spanish possession of the Floridas.[2]
3. An Indian protectorate consisting of that portion of Ohio north of the Maumee river, and also a strip 10 miles wide to the south of that river; Indiana territory north of 39°30 and west of the Treaty of Greenville line; Illinois territory north of 38°30 from the Wabash to the Mississippi, with a strip of land, to be determined, around the bottom of Lake Michigan, to be ceded to Britain. [3]
4. The disputed border in northern Maine is settled according to the British claim.
5. Spain and Britain are to determine their new boundary between Louisiana and New Spain by a future joint committee.
6. Britain gets a chunk of northern New York, starting with a strip 20 miles wide on the south bank of the St. Lawrence, then running across at 44°40 . [4]
7. The US is to have no naval ships whatsoever on the Great Lakes or Lake Champlain. Any built ships can be sold to the British, or destroyed under the eyes of British observers. [5] The new US border is 3 miles from the US shore instead of in the middle of the lakes.
8. The US apologises for starting the war, Britain apologises for arming slaves.
9. The US is to pay an indemnity of $3M to Spain. [6]
10. The US is to recognize the rights of the Indians in her south west (mostly OTL's Alabama and Mississippi), and the British and Spanish guarantee those rights.[7]

Note that the British get basically everything they actually want, but yield on several minor points, so the US has SOMETHING they can point to.


–
1 Not only is this major military defeat coming on top of the New England crisis, but the US financial situation is sagging and in danger of collapse. There are too many US Tnotes in circulation, they are starting to lose value, and inflation is picking up. If the war continues, the US just isn't going to be able to finance it, really.


2 Britain maintains the Louisiana purchase was invalid, as the Treaty of San Ildefonso was invalid and thus territory wasn't Napoleon's to sell. The US refuses to agree to this, but recognizes that the British have it by right of conquest, if nothing else.


3 The wording on the clause about the Indian Protectorate is chosen very, very careful. Britain guarantees the independent governance of the Protectorate, but who actually holds sovereignity over the land is deliberately left vague. The Indians, of course, believe they do. The Americans are left with the fig-leaf claim that they hold sovereignty, and the situation is de jure almost identical to before the war. De facto, of course, anyone can see that isn't the case. The Brits know that the Indian protectorate is in their pocket and don't really care whose it is 'officially', as long as it is EFFECTIVELY theirs.


4 (the British wanted a wider strip, and 44°30, but the Americans pushed hard for the smaller area). This does give them Ogdensburg and Plattsburgh, which the British WERE going to have.


5 The British wanted the US forts dismantled, but the US wasn't prepared to budge on that.


6 The US had (some) cause to declare war on Britain, and she's also losing most of her Northwest and West to Britain. The war on Spain, however, was essentially unprovoked – and Spain isn't gaining any new territory, just getting (most of) her rightful territory back. The indemnity or reparations are partly in compensation for the US attacking Spain, and partly a 'purchase' of the St. Augustine area in northeast Florida. The US had tried to get Britain to pay for the Louisiana Purchase land they're getting, but the Brits countered with a demand (for the exact same amount) of reparations. The end result was both monetary claim and counter claim were dropped, and neither appears in the treaty.


7 note that WHAT those rights consist of is not stated, so this clause is essentially meaningless – but the British can point to it as defending their Indian allies, while not actually doing much of anything. Verbal assurances given to the American negotiators let them know that the British have no intention of interfering unless the US gets really, REALLY obnoxious with the Creeks, etc. While is is not written into the treaty, it is understood that Spanish Florida (East and West) will welcome any fleeing Indians and blacks, so there is a bit of a) a safety valve, b) a reserve of hostile anti-US residents. So as long as the US only cheats the 5 civilized tribes, she can get away with it...


Edit: The strip of land in northern Ohio along the Maumee is NOT part of the protectorate, it's part of British Michigan. Oops, sorry.

Also, the territorial adjustments in New York (Britain getting the south bank of the St Lawrence and Plattsburg), are all Britain gets in New York. In particular, Fort Niagara is returned, which with the gain of St. Augustine, lets the US spin the treaty as being not nearly as bad as abject surrender, even if there's no possible way to spin it as a 'win'.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Not difficult, the word you're looking for is expensive. Also 'western' has a totally different meaning than it did a month ago....

I would say both difficult and expensive. Given the difficulty of hauling stuff by land at this time as compared to river transport. Was talking largerly of areas like Kentucky and western Tennessee along with neighbouring areas. British and allied forces may not fully control the west bank of the Mississippi but the pretty minimal American presence os going to disappear pretty quickly.

Politics is in total chaos. The warhawks are very popular AND very unpopular. People want the lost land back - but they hate the taxes. It's a mess. There is a LOT of unpleasantness and hatred, and some of it will be ... misdirected.

I was thinking there could be a lot of back-biting and allocation of blame. Most of the people are going to be very unhappy about the defeat, especially such a heavy and dramatic one. The failure of the attacks against Florida and the war with the Indians especially will rankle. Going to be a lot of accusations thrown backwards and forwards. Could be very interesting times in US politics the next few years as well as disruptive and destructive.

New England hasn't seceded, and isn't planning to, exactly, although she will be forced into it soonish. New England is not a British ally and is not represented at the peace conference. The rest of the US is not really prepared to listen to the demands of 'bean-eating surrender monkeys', as it were, and I'm not precisely sure how it will play out, yet.

I have a feeling the preceding point about post-war relations in American could be a BIG factor in that forcing.

As I said in the last post to RCAFBrat, the negotiations are going to be quick when they start, so mostly you're going to see the final result, with a few footnotes.

I could see things being over fairly quickly once the log-jam breaks. Suspect that Britain might still offer fairly moderate terms and possibly returning some lands in return for a quick peace. Unless the American determination to prolong the war so long as really pissed off significant figures in London. However going to be some interesting questions with the exact relationship of the Indians, the armed blacks and the Spanish v American claims in Florida. The latter are going to want some Caribbean coast but could be denied. Coupled with points like fishing rights and traffic along the Mississippi.

Steve

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by stevep

I would say both difficult and expensive. Given the difficulty of hauling stuff by land at this time as compared to river transport. Was talking largerly of areas like Kentucky and western Tennessee along with neighbouring areas. British and allied forces may not fully control the west bank of the Mississippi but the pretty minimal American presence os going to disappear pretty quickly.

Brits have the west bank of the Mississippi, US has the east bank. Both sides have free traffic up and down the river during peacetime, which will be the case for some time. It's only once you get to the ports at the river mouths that there is a major change. With the British controlling the mouth of the Mississippi and the Spanish (with British help) controlling the mouths of the minor rivers (pearl, apalachicola (sp), etc.) American exports will be charged an export or transit duty (I'm not sure what such thing would be called).

So, it's suddenly more expensive to export anything from west of the Appalachian Mountains, but internal trade and transport isn't anymore difficult than it was before. Note that iOTL and iTTL most exports even from Ohio went down the Mississippi. Note that this will be a great revenue source for the British, and, eventually, help with the debt problem.

I figure the Brits (and Spanish) are going to charge a transit fee of, say 5%, on 'Allied' shipping through those river ports (British, Spanish, Indian), while the American shipping will be charged rather more. In the immediate aftermath of the war the charge might be up to 40% of value, depending on the product.

The American presence (as a US presence as opposed to foreign settlers settling on British land) west of the Mississippi is now gone. However, the US will fairly heavily settle the land in Kentucky and Tennessee and Ohio that they do have.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Brits have the west bank of the Mississippi, US has the east bank. Both sides have free traffic up and down the river during peacetime, which will be the case for some time. It's only once you get to the ports at the river mouths that there is a major change. With the British controlling the mouth of the Mississippi and the Spanish (with British help) controlling the mouths of the minor rivers (pearl, apalachicola (sp), etc.) American exports will be charged an export or transit duty (I'm not sure what such thing would be called).

So, it's suddenly more expensive to export anything from west of the Appalachian Mountains, but internal trade and transport isn't anymore difficult than it was before. Note that iOTL and iTTL most exports even from Ohio went down the Mississippi. Note that this will be a great revenue source for the British, and, eventually, help with the debt problem.

I figure the Brits (and Spanish) are going to charge a transit fee of, say 5%, on 'Allied' shipping through those river ports (British, Spanish, Indian), while the American shipping will be charged rather more. In the immediate aftermath of the war the charge might be up to 40% of value, depending on the product.

The American presence (as a US presence as opposed to foreign settlers settling on British land) west of the Mississippi is now gone. However, the US will fairly heavily settle the land in Kentucky and Tennessee and Ohio that they do have.

Dathi

Just to clarify my last post was written pretty much simultaneously with your one on the peace terms. Only just noticed your post. Hence I was talking about the situation while the fighting was going on and possibly afterwards.

Agree that the best way is for the British [for the Mississippi] is to allow passage but with a transit fee. It will make US development of its lands more expensive and hence less slower and as you say supply some funds to help with the huge war debts Britain will face. However doesn't make things impossible for the Americans but does mean their economy west of the Appalaitians are heavily dependent on British and Spanish good will. Which makes the costs of a new war far greater for the western Americans.

Know I've hinted this before but what's the situation with the fisheries please? Their very important economically. Also if the US has made concessions here not only is it good for Britain/Canada but it will deeply upset New England, which could help bring things to a head there.

Steve

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by stevep

Know I've hinted this before but what's the situation with the fisheries please? Their very important economically. Also if the US has made concessions here not only is it good for Britain/Canada but it will deeply upset New England, which could help bring things to a head there.

Steve

Actually, I don't think that fisheries were a significant item of discussion. I found a reference that said that even during the British blockade, American fishing vessels were not molested. If there was little or no interference with fishing vessels in the midst of the war, I don't think the matter of fisheries will come up in the peace talks.

Also, unlike some other wars (like the Franco-British wars in North America), fishing wasn't one of the stated war aims for either side.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if British naval patrols on the Grand Banks conducted more severe inspections of US flagged vessels, but if so it may not even be official policy - and hey, you KNOW those guys are smuggling SOMETHING.... Still, boats are going in and out and bringing fish home, which is what really matters to the fishermen.

OTL, even the initial British positions, which were pretty tough, didn't include any restrictions on fishing rights. iTTL, where they are pushing the US so hard on land, they might, MIGHT even give them more generous terms - but that's not in the treaty. Actually, what's going to happen, I've just decided, is that when New England breaks off, the initial thought is that New England succeeds to all American fishing rights on the Grand Banks, etc., as they were the majority of the fishing fleet. But, to keep the US happy (OK, to keep them from boiling over) they'll allow the rest of the US the same rights..

None of this is set in stone, so if you think I should change something, let me know, either here or by PM. You know I'll at least consider it.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

OK, let's see if the map posts

Green is effectively neutral New England (still part of the US, for now)

Gold is Spanish.

The blue spots at St. Louis and Fort Osage didn't get removed when I expanded the red (British) area. Ignore them.

Note Spain has all of East and West Florida back except for losing St.Augustine. (Yes, the 'Florida parishes' of OTL's Louisiana should probably be gold Spanish, not red British.)