British annex Louisiana during War of 1812

[The Gunslinger]

• New Orleans, or Orleans, was the first Mississippi steamboat.[3] Launched in 1811 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for a company organized by Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, her designer, she was a large, heavy side-wheeler with a deep draft.[1][4][5] Her low-pressure Boulton and Watt steam engine operated a complex power train that was also heavy and inefficient.[1]
• Comet was the second Mississippi steamboat.[6] Launched in 1813 at Pittsburgh for Daniel D. Smith, she was much smaller than the New Orleans.[7] With an engine and power train designed and manufactured by Daniel French, the Comet was the first Mississippi steamboat to be powered by a lightweight and efficient high-pressure engine turning a stern paddlewheel.[8]
• Vesuvius was the third Mississippi steamboat.[9] Launched in 1814 at Pittsburgh for the company headed by Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, her designer, she was very similar to the New Orleans.[10]
• Enterprise, or Enterprize, was the fourth Mississippi steamboat.[11] Launched in 1814 at Brownsville, Pennsylvania, for the Monongahela and Ohio Steam Boat Company, she was a dramatic departure from Fulton's boats.[1] The Enterprise - featuring a high-pressure steam engine, a single stern paddle wheel, and shoal draft - proved to be better suited for use on the Mississippi compared to Fulton's boats.[1][12][13] The Enterprise clearly demonstrated the suitability of French's design during her epic voyage from New Orleans to Brownsville, a distance of more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km), performed against the powerful currents of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.[14]
• Washington was launched in 1816 at Wheeling, West Virginia, for Henry Shreve and partners.[15] George White built the boat and Daniel French constructed the engine and drivetrain at Brownsville.[16] She was the first steamboat with two decks, the predecessor of the Mississippi steamboats of later years.[12] The upper deck was reserved for passengers and the main deck was used for the boiler, increasing the space below the main deck for carrying cargo.[12] With a draft of 4 feet (1.2 m), she was propelled by a high-pressure, horizontally mounted engine turning a single stern paddlewheel.[12] In the spring of 1817, the Washington made the voyage from New Orleans to Louisville in 25 days, equalling the record set two years earlier by the Enterprise, a much smaller boat.[17][18]

So where are the military steamers that they're fighting the British with? There's the Demologos outside of New York, but she never saw any action and a proper steam warship wouldnt be reattempted until 1837.

I also question the survivability of a paddle wheeler in an open battle. What's more likely is light craft backed up by gun boats more akin to what was happening during the Chesapeake Campaign.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

The people living in that vast area are American citizens, the people moving into the region are Americans, and the American Government is never going to cede it to anyone else. The British would have to except an endless state of war with the United States to try to impose this. What the British would be trying to do would be ending American expansion, and no political faction, or party would accept that. So, if they want the War of 1812 to go on till 1830 or longer go right ahead. The Americans are just going to keep on coming. Is it worth it to the British to fight an endless war to control the fur trade in the Great Plains?

Why would the USA want eternal war with the UK? Their ideology might drive them into it but that can change. If the cost may be perceived as too great, especially after a huge loss, then ideology will be forced to adapt

 

[Zardust]

The people living in that vast area are American citizens, the people moving into the region are Americans, and the American Government is never going to cede it to anyone else. The British would have to except an endless state of war with the United States to try to impose this. What the British would be trying to do would be ending American expansion, and no political faction, or party would accept that. So, if they want the War of 1812 to go on till 1830 or longer go right ahead. The Americans are just going to keep on coming. Is it worth it to the British to fight an endless war to control the fur trade in the Great Plains?

There were, as someone posted, upwards of 700k US citizens in Alberta alone at one point.

The US didn't march in, and they integrated

 

[Daylight Savings]

There were, as someone posted, upwards of 700k US citizens in Alberta alone at one point.

The US didn't march in, and they integrated

The counterpoint to this is all the Americans who went to Texas or Hawaii and didn't integrate. There are other factors at play than just a willingness or unwillingness to integrate. Like in Texas, one major issue would be the abolition of slavery. Modern Louisiana and Arkansas were prime cotton country and you can bet that in 2 decades migrants from the American south to those areas are not going to be thrilled about the inability to cash in on a profitable market.

 

[TerenceofGod]

If Lower Louis is given to Britain sad to say the US will be forced to slowly or even never move West.

People seem to forget how Dependent the US was to British Trade to fuel their economies, and after the Napoleonic Wars the absolute Supremacy of the Royal Navy in the World Ocean.

The US goes to war for Louis, Britain blockades them and probably skirmish in the border areas. The British could park an army of 30k in STL and Canada each and supply them by ship from Jamaica and Vancouver respectively. The US will need overland routes passing the Appalachians over 100 kms of frontier, they will not be able to sustain any army larger than 10k for any useful amount of time, until the railroads are built.

 

[Fulano]

Everyone could except for America's benefactors...

Yeah, Spain didn't want it because they knew that, if the Thirteen Colonies grew up too strong, it could represent a problem for them in the future (thing that it happened).
And France didn't want it because they knew a botched border meant the Thirteen Colonies and the UK would have to fight again to set matters. Thing that would benefit France as such conflicts would have kept the UK busy in that continent while France did their own thing in Europe. Thing that, more or less, happened with the War of 1812, but not at the level France wanted.

 

[tallthinkev]

The people living in that vast area are American citizens, the people moving into the region are Americans, and the American Government is never going to cede it to anyone else. The British would have to except an endless state of war with the United States to try to impose this. What the British would be trying to do would be ending American expansion, and no political faction, or party would accept that. So, if they want the War of 1812 to go on till 1830 or longer go right ahead. The Americans are just going to keep on coming. Is it worth it to the British to fight an endless war to control the fur trade in the Great Plains?

Maybe I could have put that a little differently, if people want to settle in a British controlled area, they would have to obey British law

 

[carbon1923]

1812. Napoleon dies of a stray peice of shrapnel. France collapes to a internal power struggle and a new coalition. The next day Congress, not knowing the war in Europe is basicly over, declares war on Britian. Their offensive forces get smashed by the Canadian defence.

Britian responses by sending the main army, who land at New Orleans and New York. The French settlers join the British in mass due to heavy discrimination from the Anglo "nobility" Americans, who came in and basicly took all the best land for themselves, without compensation.

The North-East, already not wanting this war, secede from the Union and declare neutrality, not wanting the British army to occupy them. Britian recognises the new nation of New England. The now economicly crippled US is forced to peace.

As the terms of peace, New Orleans and Lower Louisiana become new Britiah colony, with fierce support from the locals who fear the Americans returning. Upper Louisiana is broken up between the native groups who are supported and "uplifted" by Britian, who can trade with the locals for resources rather then need to colonise the area for them.

What's left of the US devolves into a purely substance farming slave nation, who become a pariah in the international community due to their insistence on keeping slavery. The remaining northern states leave one by one, becoming independent nations without slavery.

Britian keeps of trucking, comes out of WW1 better then in OTL due to their American colonies being richer and more supportive. WW2 doesn't happen due to Corporal Hitler dying to a New Orleans artillery shell. The future Nazi party fail to win any elections without his Charisma and the democratic German government is able to see Germany to a prosperous future as a friend to the rest if Europe. France keeps on burning from protests and riots. Stalin dies to a assassin, and his successor decides that picking a fight with the West is a bad idea.

Over time all the "evil" nations see the true prosperity and peace that the blessed British Empire represents and they become democratic nations, united in peace, prosperity and tea.
Expect the rump US who still insist on keeping slavery, don't drink tea and never stop ranting about how they will defeat Britian and manifest their destiny, whatever that may be.

It's kinda hard to do anything when you refuse to industrialise in order to keep agricultural slavery as the top economic driver. Now if only someone would buy their products.

 

[Belisarius II]

Why would the USA want eternal war with the UK? Their ideology might drive them into it but that can change. If the cost may be perceived as too great, especially after a huge loss, then ideology will be forced to adapt

What loss? They never would've accepted those terms. At the end of 1814 the British wanted to end the war for obvious economic, and political reasons. Asking for terms that you know are impossible for the other side to accept only means the war will go on. The British have no strategic reason to try to take the middle of the North American continent. The economic advantages are far outweighed by the costs of defending a vast area against a relentless assault of a reginal power. Holding Canada is one thing, it has a population that supports you, and as long as the St Lawrence is open it can be reinforced over the relatively short crossing of the North Atlantic.

The American efforts to invade Canada were at a disadvantage because of problems with States allowing the use of their militias outside of the U.S. The New England States wouldn't even allow their militias to fight under Federal control. None of those problems pertained to the West. All political parties supported the Westward movement. The Trans-Appalachian States needed control of the Mississippi to survive, so they were never going to accept another power taking the west bank of the river. The British would have to fight their way upstream into hostile territory, with a single supply base subject to enemy attack.

The sea route to New Orleans is much longer than to Quebec, and there are no local support systems. The Indian tribes east of the Mississippi have all been defeated, and the those on the west bank that haven't been subdued don't want to be ruled by the British any more than by the Americans. All they see are a bunch of new White Men in fancy uniforms promising them that White settlement will stop. They're never going to believe that. Besides most of the tribes from Missouri south have already been pushed back from the river.

 

[Belisarius II]

So where are the military steamers that they're fighting the British with? There's the Demologos outside of New York, but she never saw any action and a proper steam warship wouldnt be reattempted until 1837.

I also question the survivability of a paddle wheeler in an open battle. What's more likely is light craft backed up by gun boats more akin to what was happening during the Chesapeake Campaign.

So, you don't think they could order a few for a campaign in 1815-16? Just as in the Civil War a paddle wheeler can have cotton, or wood protection around the paddles. A paddle wheeler gun boat can have guns on deck pointing forward and can also have a ram. All of those things are options. In 1815 the British have no ocean-going steam ships, and there are no shipyards in New Orleans that can build them. Now I'm waiting for an endless debate about how steam ships couldn't fight that early in history, or that the British are the overwhelming favorites to win any arms race of steamboats because their the number one industrial power of the 19th Century.

 

[Belisarius II]

1812. Napoleon dies of a stray peice of shrapnel. France collapes to a internal power struggle and a new coalition. The next day Congress, not knowing the war in Europe is basicly over, declares war on Britian. Their offensive forces get smashed by the Canadian defence.

Britian responses by sending the main army, who land at New Orleans and New York. The French settlers join the British in mass due to heavy discrimination from the Anglo "nobility" Americans, who came in and basicly took all the best land for themselves, without compensation.

The North-East, already not wanting this war, secede from the Union and declare neutrality, not wanting the British army to occupy them. Britian recognises the new nation of New England. The now economicly crippled US is forced to peace.

As the terms of peace, New Orleans and Lower Louisiana become new Britiah colony, with fierce support from the locals who fear the Americans returning. Upper Louisiana is broken up between the native groups who are supported and "uplifted" by Britian, who can trade with the locals for resources rather then need to colonise the area for them.

What's left of the US devolves into a purely substance farming slave nation, who become a pariah in the international community due to their insistence on keeping slavery. The remaining northern states leave one by one, becoming independent nations without slavery.

Britian keeps of trucking, comes out of WW1 better then in OTL due to their American colonies being richer and more supportive. WW2 doesn't happen due to Corporal Hitler dying to a New Orleans artillery shell. The future Nazi party fail to win any elections without his Charisma and the democratic German government is able to see Germany to a prosperous future as a friend to the rest if Europe. France keeps on burning from protests and riots. Stalin dies to a assassin, and his successor decides that picking a fight with the West is a bad idea.

Over time all the "evil" nations see the true prosperity and peace that the blessed British Empire represents and they become democratic nations, united in peace, prosperity and tea.
Expect the rump US who still insist on keeping slavery, don't drink tea and never stop ranting about how they will defeat Britian and manifest their destiny, whatever that may be.

It's kinda hard to do anything when you refuse to industrialise in order to keep agricultural slavery as the top economic driver. Now if only someone would buy their products.

Fascinating fantasy.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Perhaps the only thing more unstoppable than the westward drive of the USAmericans is Belisarius' insistence of their unstoppability.

I think this thread is like the War of 1812: neither side able to impose their will. It has gone the way of so many WI threads. Instead of simply accepting the OP scenario as a possibility, which it is, no matter how unlikely, the thread is derailed by endless arguing about whether it is possible.

 

[Intosh]

Perhaps the only thing more unstoppable than the westward drive of the USAmericans is Belisarius' insistence of their unstoppability.

I think this thread is like the War of 1812: neither side able to impose their will. It has gone the way of so many WI threads. Instead of simply accepting the OP scenario as a possibility, which it is, no matter how unlikely, the thread is derailed by endless arguing about whether it is possible.

I liked also this thread but before accepting the OP scenario as a possibility, when the OP didn't present a substantial timeline of events, somebody need to build one, which I tried to do and probably continue to do in the next days.

Say the British are more successful in taking over Louisiana from the U.S. What would a Louisiana under their control look like? Would America retaliate again, with a third American-British war? Would America entertain the idea of holding an exiled Napoleon?

Because we don't know how big is the British Louisiana and we don't know how the War of 1812 was win by the British and why.

 

[GullibleCynic]

I think some authors and readers need timelines to be at least somewhat likely in order to engage with them. Others only need them to be at all possible, regardless of likelihood.

Prioritizing the first perspective makes absolute sense from a narrative perspective. Prioritizing the second make sense from historical perspective. After all truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction needs to make sense.

Is it at all possible that Britain could have taken all of the Louisiana purchased territory after the war of 1812? Yes, there is some sort of timeline that would allow that to take place. However, a reasonable person could conclude that there's less than a 1% chance of that timeline ever occuring, and thus not particularly worth engaging with, though there'll probably be some quibbling there.

I try to see this vagueness as an opportunity. Your mileage may vary

 

[unprincipled peter]

I liked also this thread but before accepting the OP scenario as a possibility, when the OP didn't present a substantial timeline of events, somebody need to build one, which I tried to do and probably continue to do in the next days.



Because we don't know how big is the British Louisiana and we don't know how the War of 1812 was win by the British and why.

Normally, I would agree with you, but I don't think it is ultimately necessary. I agree that the OP is a bit skimpy on flesh on the bones. However, it a simple concept: the gulf strategy has gone well for the British, and at the end of the day, they hold the Louisiana Territory. Perhaps they've taken NO and Natchez, trading Natchez/Mississippi for STL/Missouri. It is not necessary to narrate the order of battle to come up with the final product. The USA has lost bad enough to lose Louisiana. I interpreted the OP as leaving the USA as reasonably intact. There's plenty of room for exploration of what would happen to USA after a definitive loss, but no one really wanted to go there. The big difficulty is producing the reason why Britain is so set on keeping the territory, but if we simply accept it as a given, the discussion can proceed from there.

 

[GullibleCynic]

As for the question of American settlers in British Louisiana, I think the situation varies here as well. We have two primary examples, Texas and Ontario. In Texas American settlers eventually broke away and joined the US, in Ontario they ended up mostly content as British subjects.

I think this means that it is possible for the Brits to successfully integrate the Americans into Louisiana depending on their social policies. It is also quite possible that they fail, American settlers eventually agitate for Louisiana to join the US.

Imagine if the British set up a couple of well-regulated crossings up and down the Mississippi. They could then offer American settlers parcels of land and escorts to those lands in exchange for registering with the government and an oath of loyalty to the monarch. Some Americans would never agree to that last stipulation, but plenty wouldn't care. And it's the ones that wouldn't agree to that stipulation though most likely be causing problems in the future anyway.

Just build some roads and eventually some trains so the farmers can sell their goods at market, keep the taxes fairly low, ensure some amount of representation, and it seems like there's a viable path forward to integrating most of the American settlers.

How likely is this? You need a fairly forward-looking governor, which has happened, but not all that often.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Texas is not a good example. The governing country was weak and unstable. There's not much Mexican presence in Texas, and it is far from the governing authority. The neighboring country (USA) was in a period of glorious expansion (non existent, here) The entire process was mismanaged.

Louisiana is going to be more like Canada. The hub is going to be New Orleans, where there will be a strong British presence until the enterprise gets off the ground. Immigration will be mixed USAmerican, and migration directly from Europe. Eventually, there might be another American Revolution, this time in the west. Or there might be Dominion status ala Canada.

 

[The Gunslinger]

So, you don't think they could order a few for a campaign in 1815-16? Just as in the Civil War a paddle wheeler can have cotton, or wood protection around the paddles. A paddle wheeler gun boat can have guns on deck pointing forward and can also have a ram. All of those things are options. In 1815 the British have no ocean-going steam ships, and there are no shipyards in New Orleans that can build them. Now I'm waiting for an endless debate about how steam ships couldn't fight that early in history, or that the British are the overwhelming favorites to win any arms race of steamboats because their the number one industrial power of the 19th Century.

I don't think they could build them, they've got no way to pay for them. And even if they did, America would would come to terms long before it ever hit the water. On top of that, New England is going to explode in first six months of 1815 if there isn't peace.

 

[Brunaburh]

I think this is possible, but in steps. The UK taking the lower Mississippi, say up to Natchez, is totally plausible. Britain then enters into a system of alliances with native groups along the Mississippi and controls all river traffic down the Mississippi. From there, we saw a gradual spread north of British power, which leads to renegotiations, armed or unarmed.

 

[tallthinkev]

Where could the boarder be, somewhat close to a OTL straight line from Alabama to Illinois? The US would still become a rich and powerful country, on a par with at least Russia?