British annex Louisiana during War of 1812

[Zardust]

Why couldn’t britain just keep the land they got? I mean they put all yhat effort to get it. I don’t see why given might is right that they’d just keep it

Because matters of practicality and diplomacy come into such things-in 18th and 19th century wars, warring powers would often occupy more than what they wanted, to give them negotiating clout when it comes to the final peace treaties. Beside which, the UK is an ocean away and pushing too far inland into a still sparsely understood landmass is harder for Britain than the US, whose base of operations is not on another continent or on the side of an ocean.

For the UK as a sea going power, an entity from New Oreleans to St Louis is much more defensible and able to be supplied than a territory running all the way upto Canada, and an independent Native puppet state somewhere in Montana is only vaguely Britains problem-other than arming it, it can look after itself.

 

[Zardust]

I agree that Manifest Destiny would be on hold. Still, I think there would be at least some American resistance and guerilla warfare so Louisiana, especially north of St. Louis, would become effectively no-mans-land over time. That said, I don't think Britain really wanted much to do with the US itself, or else I think there would've been far more battles of The War of 1812 fought in the USA. While they could grab Louisiana, I don't think it's likely since there was seemingly little desire for it.

I mean, Louisiana in its entirety is not desirable for the reasons ive suggested, but New Orleans and St Louis? They are two of the most important locations in early 19th century North America, one is the primary sea port for the entire Mississippi, and one is strategically location on the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri

 

[AlternateEagle]

Because matters of practicality and diplomacy come into such things-in 18th and 19th century wars, warring powers would often occupy more than what they wanted, to give them negotiating clout when it comes to the final peace treaties. Beside which, the UK is an ocean away and pushing too far inland into a still sparsely understood landmass is harder for Britain than the US, whose base of operations is not on another continent or on the side of an ocean.

For the UK as a sea going power, an entity from New Oreleans to St Louis is much more defensible and able to be supplied than a territory running all the way upto Canada, and an independent Native puppet state somewhere in Montana is only vaguely Britains problem-other than arming it, it can look after itself.

Ok but logically speaking, you can't march an army through territory that precarious. I don't see the British giving it back to anyone else because the Spanish are dealing with multiple revolutions and couldnt enforce their own territory they had let alone some new one the brits handed to them. The U.S. would simply just take it back. The natives too are too weak to handle themselves,

 

[DJ03]

Ok, how would that work? Spain was a spent force. By 1819 Spain had conceded both the Louisiana Purchase, and all of Florida.

they could convince the americans to pay to repurchase it 🤪

 

[unprincipled peter]

I mean, Louisiana in its entirety is not desirable for the reasons ive suggested, but New Orleans and St Louis? They are two of the most important locations in early 19th century North America, one is the primary sea port for the entire Mississippi, and one is strategically location on the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri

Control of St Louis means control of upper Louisiana. You can't control it if a hostile nation surrounds it (Illinois to the east and upper LA to the west. The road to upper LA (from USA) runs through St Louis. If you're keeping SL, might as well keep upper LA.

Control of the oceans does not equal control of the Mississippi. They are 2 different types of naval vessels. Control of New Orleans means control of goods coming and going, but river traffic can be impeded by forts at places like Memphis or Vicksburg. Hence, SL can be isolated navally. A backup ground route is needed to maintain communications, and for that, you need the whole territory.

 

[Daylight Savings]

I'd also say that if the Americans keep the east bank of the Mississippi, there's no way for another power to hold St. Louis long term. Land routes west of the river are always going to be more tenuous than east. And so long as the Americans can throw up artillery anywhere along the thousand mile journey from New Orleans to St. Louis you're not going to be supplying it by river.

 

[dfl_90]

Control of St Louis means control of upper Louisiana. You can't control it if a hostile nation surrounds it (Illinois to the east and upper LA to the west. The road to upper LA (from USA) runs through St Louis. If you're keeping SL, might as well keep upper LA.

Control of the oceans does not equal control of the Mississippi. They are 2 different types of naval vessels. Control of New Orleans means control of goods coming and going, but river traffic can be impeded by forts at places like Memphis or Vicksburg. Hence, SL can be isolated navally. A backup ground route is needed to maintain communications, and for that, you need the whole territory.

As a native of St. Louis, I feel obliged to mention that the abbreviation for St. Louis is STL and not SL.

 

[Belisarius II]

Control of St Louis means control of upper Louisiana. You can't control it if a hostile nation surrounds it (Illinois to the east and upper LA to the west. The road to upper LA (from USA) runs through St Louis. If you're keeping SL, might as well keep upper LA.

Control of the oceans does not equal control of the Mississippi. They are 2 different types of naval vessels. Control of New Orleans means control of goods coming and going, but river traffic can be impeded by forts at places like Memphis or Vicksburg. Hence, SL can be isolated navally. A backup ground route is needed to maintain communications, and for that, you need the whole territory.

Since the Americans already controlled St Louis, and all the surrounding territory, and both banks of the Mississippi up and down its length no one's going to take it away. 1815 is just too late to reverse the Louisianna Purchase.

 

[Belisarius II]

The Mississippi is actually defendable compared to Florida, and open war with Spain was not desirable for the US, considering the dismay of the Patriot War.


They don't need to strengthen their position? Do you think the American representatives were living in a dream world in 1783 when they demanded the entire old Northwest? The discussion isn't whether the Indian buffer state will survive, and the British could very well just cleave off the areas with minimal American settlers.

View attachment 839398

No, it was realistic because everyone could see that the Americans were going to be the ones to settle those lands in the next two generation. British settlers weren't going to do it, and nether were the French, or Spanish. But that wasn't the concern of the British negotiators, all they cared about was that they couldn't make their own claims good, so they ceded them to the Americans. If they gave up the 13 Colonies, the land they'd won in 1763 south of the Great Lakes up to the Mississippi had to go to.

 

[Belisarius II]

they could convince the americans to pay to repurchase it 🤪

That's funny. The Spanish cede it to the French, who sell it to the Americans, who pay for it was a British loan. Then the British lay claim to it and cede their claim to Spain who wants the Americans to pay for what they already occupy again. What would really make it more absurd would be the Americans paying Spain with another British loan.

 

[OxSpace]

everyone could see that the Americans were going to be the ones to settle those lands in the next two generation.

Everyone could except for America's benefactors...

all they cared about was that they couldn't make their own claims good, so they ceded them to the Americans

Yet the British still held onto many of the forts along the Great Lakes & old NW til the Jay treaty, 13 years after the ToP.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

While American settlers would likely expand westward this does not mean the American state can expand westward. Perhaps the USA is just struck by plain bad luck. The fact that it’s easier for the USA to expand westward does not mean it will. On another note this happens in a lot of threats, the idea that the expansion if the USA is inevitable. This makes a lot of threads very similar and quite frankly it’s against the prompt

 

[unprincipled peter]

While American settlers would likely expand westward this does not mean the American state can expand westward. Perhaps the USA is just struck by plain bad luck. The fact that it’s easier for the USA to expand westward does not mean it will. On another note this happens in a lot of threats, the idea that the expansion if the USA is inevitable. This makes a lot of threads very similar and quite frankly it’s against the prompt

exactly. Losing a war badly, and having half its territory ripped away, could be the start of a bad slide.

People act as though USA is destined, no matter what, to be the incredible wank it was in OTL. Given all the incredible, but real, circumstances that allowed OTL, it is the odds on favorite to happen. But longshots win on occasion. After losing a major war, USA is not going to be the same as when it went into the war.

 

[OxSpace]

The fact that it’s easier for the USA to expand westward does not mean it will. On another note this happens in a lot of threats, the idea that the expansion if the USA is inevitable.

People act as though USA is destined, no matter what, to be the incredible wank it was in OTL.

It does seem to be quite common on this forum in regards to American exceptionalism. I do think there was a level of determinism in American politics to prevent the Union from falling by all means necessary, but I also think people don't realize how easily the American experiment could fail.

 

[Belisarius II]

I'd also say that if the Americans keep the east bank of the Mississippi, there's no way for another power to hold St. Louis long term. Land routes west of the river are always going to be more tenuous than east. And so long as the Americans can throw up artillery anywhere along the thousand mile journey from New Orleans to St. Louis you're not going to be supplying it by river.

While American settlers would likely expand westward this does not mean the American state can expand westward. Perhaps the USA is just struck by plain bad luck. The fact that it’s easier for the USA to expand westward does not mean it will. On another note this happens in a lot of threats, the idea that the expansion if the USA is inevitable. This makes a lot of threads very similar and quite frankly it’s against the prompt

By 1783 thousands of American setters were already in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennesse. Alabama was also being settled. The Proclamation Line was one of the major issues leading up to the Revolution. Settlers were moving over the line before the Revolution. The 1763 Treaty had ceded all the land south of the Great Lakes, north of Florida, and east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. The boundary of Florida was in question, but the Mississippi wasn't. Spain had claims but how would France find a space to squeeze themselves in between the Spanish, and the Americans? If they did it would've caused an immediate conflict with the Americans.

Whatever the Treaty said American settlers would push to the Mississippi, and from there they needed access by treaty or force to the Port of New Orleans to sustain their economies. Any major power holding New Orleans could strangle the American Economy. Once the Americans had control of the city, they would never give it up. If that means a long hard war that would be fine because there was no acceptable alternative. The Alternative would be American being a dependency of Great Britain.

 

[GullibleCynic]

It does seem to be quite common on this forum in regards to American exceptionalism. I do think there was a level of determinism in American politics to prevent the Union from falling by all means necessary, but I also think people don't realize how easily the American experiment could fail.

Otto von Bismarck (supposedly) — 'God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.'

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

By 1783 thousands of American setters were already in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennesse. Alabama was also being settled. The Proclamation Line was one of the major issues leading up to the Revolution. Settlers were moving over the line before the Revolution. The 1763 Treaty had ceded all the land south of the Great Lakes, north of Florida, and east of the Mississippi to Great Britain. The boundary of Florida was in question, but the Mississippi wasn't. Spain had claims but how would France find a space to squeeze themselves in between the Spanish, and the Americans? If they did it would've caused an immediate conflict with the Americans.

Whatever the Treaty said American settlers would push to the Mississippi, and from there they needed access by treaty or force to the Port of New Orleans to sustain their economies. Any major power holding New Orleans could strangle the American Economy. Once the Americans had control of the city, they would never give it up. If that means a long hard war that would be fine because there was no acceptable alternative. The Alternative would be American being a dependency of Great Britain.

You're not wrong! But American settlers don't immediately rise up to join the USA, and can in fact be integrated. Added to that states can, and often do, fail to achieve their strategic objectives.

 

[Zardust]

You're not wrong! But American settlers don't immediately rise up to join the USA, and can in fact be integrated. Added to that states can, and often do, fail to achieve their strategic objectives.

Precisely. Many of the non Hispanic population of Texas were American, and yet Texas tried to exist as a seperate state for a decade before it joined the US. Having a common ancestry (if you can even make that argument with the US of all places) with the USA or anywhere else doesn't mean that much, or Canada, Australia and New Zealand would still be taking their orders from London

 

[Ana Luciana II]

Possibly better treatment of Native Americans in Louisiana but still settlement still disease still disruption of ancient Native practices and religions.

 

[Zardust]

I also think people don't realize how easily the American experiment could fail.

Very much so. People, even on this thread, talk about the westward movement of people across the Americas as an inevitably, the demographic manifestation of Manifest Destiny.

But that is arguably a post facto explanation.

It happened because circumstances allowed it to happen. Change the circumstances, yoy change history.

In reality, fhe mass movement of people out west didn't meet a viable entity that pushed back-either an established state apparatus (you can suggest Spain, or latterly Mexico ), but anyone who knows about the level of control those states existed on their northern American possessions in the early 19th century would tell you how weak an example that was), or a force willing to repel them, nor an adverse change in the culture or reputation of the US, to stop them

Have British forces encamped, possibly fortified, on the banks of the Mississispi, have formal British/Canadian borders pushed considerably south of reality, have a British backed and armed native state somewhere out west, have Brits controlling the commerce of the river, and above all have the US widely known to have been humbled by its former master?

You bet things will change.

The willingness of people to head out west under the dubious auspices of the US, to say nothing of the willingness of people to cross the ocean to the US at all, is certainly reduced. The enduring loyalty of settlers who arrived in the now British territories to the clearly defeated loser that is post war America is not garunteed either.