ahmedali
Banned
I mean if it ends satisfactorily to everyone but the British
Here I see the angry British deciding to focus their anger on the United States and destroy it severely
And then they rejoin them
could the british have really retook the Americana colonies and occupied America if they wanted to, in 1812?
- Thread starter jennifer1122
- Start date
Here I see the angry British deciding to focus their anger on the United States and destroy it severely
And then they rejoin them
Britain did not care Without N 1812 would not happen. The most the UK might have do'ne in 1812 was take bits of Maine or the NW or set up obstacles to US expansion After Spain the UK knows the difficulty of holding vast numbers of hostlie people down by an occupation we have just seen France fali at lt
They did in OTL. The border between Maine and New Brunswick wasn't settled for some time.
I think that it's theoretically possible, but not realistic in any sense. It would be such a monumental undertaking and such a massive expense for such a long period of time that it could never be justified. It's easier to saw off the frontier and fill it with loyalists than to keep angry American states oppressed for decades on end. It would be an albatross around Britain's neck because any potential enemy would always know that an American rebellion is waiting to distract Britain at every opportunity.
It was also theoretically possible during the Revolution and it didn't happen.
Assuming everything goes amazing for the British-
1812: as per OTL
1813: Britain captures Fort Meigs, Sacketts Harbor gets sacked, American army destroyed in northern New York
1814: New Orleans falls, Baltimore sacked, Britain advances down Lake Champlain, American efforts to retake Fort Meigs fails
1815: ??? Where do you go from here? The campaign in the Old Northwest has stretched British logistics to the absolute limit in the region and one American sea victory on Lake Erie can implode the whole campaign, and you can't advance any further because of said logistics. You can come down Lake Champlain and take a stab at Albany, but you're getting away from the Lake and your logistics once again stretch to the point of collapse. You've got New Orleans, but there's nothing you can really do with it to strike hard at America, so you probably just chill, maybe poke away at the Gulf Coast. You've got control of Lake Ontario, so maybe you push across the Niagara, or attack Oswego if the Americans are starting to build a new squadron there, again... nothing special. New York City is too well defended to attack, Boston is willing to sign a separate peace with you, so where do you hit next? You can burn your way up and down the South Atlantic Coast, but you already just spent two years burning Virginia and Maryland and America just kind of sat and watched. You could probably conquer Long Island, in a campaign, but you're already threatening Albany.
And the whole time you're doing this America is trying to make peace. And if you look at how slow the campaign is going you're looking at at least another ten years of slow and painful conquests. So the government is going to ask why not just take what they offer and quit?
It was also theoretically possible during the Revolution and it didn't happen.
Assuming everything goes amazing for the British-
1812: as per OTL
1813: Britain captures Fort Meigs, Sacketts Harbor gets sacked, American army destroyed in northern New York
1814: New Orleans falls, Baltimore sacked, Britain advances down Lake Champlain, American efforts to retake Fort Meigs fails
1815: ??? Where do you go from here? The campaign in the Old Northwest has stretched British logistics to the absolute limit in the region and one American sea victory on Lake Erie can implode the whole campaign, and you can't advance any further because of said logistics. You can come down Lake Champlain and take a stab at Albany, but you're getting away from the Lake and your logistics once again stretch to the point of collapse. You've got New Orleans, but there's nothing you can really do with it to strike hard at America, so you probably just chill, maybe poke away at the Gulf Coast. You've got control of Lake Ontario, so maybe you push across the Niagara, or attack Oswego if the Americans are starting to build a new squadron there, again... nothing special. New York City is too well defended to attack, Boston is willing to sign a separate peace with you, so where do you hit next? You can burn your way up and down the South Atlantic Coast, but you already just spent two years burning Virginia and Maryland and America just kind of sat and watched. You could probably conquer Long Island, in a campaign, but you're already threatening Albany.
And the whole time you're doing this America is trying to make peace. And if you look at how slow the campaign is going you're looking at at least another ten years of slow and painful conquests. So the government is going to ask why not just take what they offer and quit?
They specifically left secession off the table, but they left it open for debate because there was to be another convention in six months time.
As far as a separate peace is concerned, Caleb Strong was straight up negotiating with the British to pull Massachusetts out of the war. If the war drags on, he pulls the trigger on that.
Britain was gearing up stay for the long haul with their occupation of Castine. They even got the locals to swear allegiance to the crown.
The US was at that point in time still filled with loyalists or indifferent to the idea of the US.
If the BE levied an effort equal to that they gave towards France, then it most probably ends with US Unconditional surrender. The War of 1812 was primarily a Naval War and US Treasury and Industry was bleeding to death, through the choking of trade, if you pair that with a Land War, and make it last some 10 years, I could see whatever territory the BE occupies choose to remain BE, rather than clamor for a return to the defeated and bankrupt Republic.
If the BE levied an effort equal to that they gave towards France, then it most probably ends with US Unconditional surrender. The War of 1812 was primarily a Naval War and US Treasury and Industry was bleeding to death, through the choking of trade, if you pair that with a Land War, and make it last some 10 years, I could see whatever territory the BE occupies choose to remain BE, rather than clamor for a return to the defeated and bankrupt Republic.
OTOH, claiming parts of northern Maine is one thing but actually fighting for it is another and IOTL the British weren't as determined to hold onto these small bits of woodland as the Americans were. There was a similar land dispute in northern New Hampshire and the British backed down because they decided it wasn't worth a fight.
Indeed, it would also fully sabotage the suggestions some here of New England seceding (they were not planning to, the Democratic-Republicans just said it to discredit them) if the British only took land from the states that did so much trade with the British and who made it so that the Federal Army and the forces of other states had to divert around them if they wanted to invade Canada. I remember reading old timelines once where the British gave the New Englanders (in Decades of Darkness) the Maritimes (maybe) and Michigan’s lower peninsula to increase relations, or when the Pacific states seceded (In His Own Right) they were offered up British Columbia and Vancouver and became their own Dominion. I do not suggest any of these happening, but in a way it is like how the British were willing to give the independent colonies way more land than the French of Spanish wanted them to have. Good fences make good neighbors the US was a good trading partner, except when slave owning Francophile Planters ran the government. Which was often, give how Virginians made up all of the original two term presidents, with the Adams each getting only one term each. I believe Jefferson only got the electoral vote because of the population of slaves being added, and if he didn’t win he would have pushed for revolt. Anyways, point is the British would not want to piss off the people of New England by punishing the only ones who had really been effected by their ships and sailors being seized (The French did it with hundreds of ships for the profit, plus they didn’t really buy much from the Americans) and yet who were still willing to be reasonable and not shut off all trade entirely.
The British did fight for it, and won during the War of 1812. If anyone was indifferent towards the area it was the Americans because they never contested the region and never tried to get win it back with force of arms during the war. The Castine expedition was extremely successful and occupied everything north of the Penobscot River with almost no loss of life and no opposition other than one desultory half-hearted battle when the British first arrived.
Yes they could, but they would need a WW1 or American Civil War level of commitment.
Without railroads and under a blockade the US will struggle to move troops and resources in quantity from one region to another, so the first thing the British need is to blockade the US and take the less populated fringes of the country, much like they did in OTL but in a bigger scale, attack the territories, capture the state of Louisiana, take the northern part of Maine. Also, there are many tribes that were willing to ally with the British, if the British support the indians and bring more men of their own they could bring even more tribes to their coalition. In the end the British coffers would be dry, but if they are willing to pay the price Britain can bring the US down after a couple of years. Also, if the British are willing to accept less draconian terms they could win much faster than in the case of total subjugation.
Without railroads and under a blockade the US will struggle to move troops and resources in quantity from one region to another, so the first thing the British need is to blockade the US and take the less populated fringes of the country, much like they did in OTL but in a bigger scale, attack the territories, capture the state of Louisiana, take the northern part of Maine. Also, there are many tribes that were willing to ally with the British, if the British support the indians and bring more men of their own they could bring even more tribes to their coalition. In the end the British coffers would be dry, but if they are willing to pay the price Britain can bring the US down after a couple of years. Also, if the British are willing to accept less draconian terms they could win much faster than in the case of total subjugation.
Speaking of Coalitions, the British are still at war with France, or at least have not finished of Napoleon yet. Their ships, men, and resources are going to need to compete with the desires of the domestic interests in the UK, and it needs to not make the other European powers think the British have a split attention. Then again, most of them got constantly bulldozed by Napoleon until the end.
If Britain's only concern is the US, then yes, they can absolutely destroy the American state. A plan for this was made if I am not mistaken, but rejected due to ethical and political concerns. Just take your big fleet, sail it down the coast and annihilate every American city you come across. From Boston to New Orleans, blow them all to smitherines. Harry every coastal village, every hamlet in sight of shore. Just go full Ghengis Khan on the Americans, killing their people, destroying their cities, torching their fields. I don't see the United States being able to bear this rate of attrition for long and they'd probably have to capitulate after a few years.
Of course, why you would want to do this is beyond me. You essentially destroy the land you intend to conquer, undoing generations of effort largely on part of your own government to bend this land into a European mold. Ruling over a pile of ashes is stylish, but not profitable. And of course, the OTL British had better things to do than commit genocide half a world away at this point - like retaking Europe from Napoleon. Even in a peacetime situation, this would have drawn a lot of resistance from other European players. The French would be outraged at such heinous attrocities, and wouldn't that be a lovely reason for war?
So, yeah, Britain could have absolutely crushed the USA, but not at good value for money and not with the international situation being at it was. Or frankly, the domestic one. The British felt some kinship with their colonies, and would not take kindly to such measures either.
Of course, why you would want to do this is beyond me. You essentially destroy the land you intend to conquer, undoing generations of effort largely on part of your own government to bend this land into a European mold. Ruling over a pile of ashes is stylish, but not profitable. And of course, the OTL British had better things to do than commit genocide half a world away at this point - like retaking Europe from Napoleon. Even in a peacetime situation, this would have drawn a lot of resistance from other European players. The French would be outraged at such heinous attrocities, and wouldn't that be a lovely reason for war?
So, yeah, Britain could have absolutely crushed the USA, but not at good value for money and not with the international situation being at it was. Or frankly, the domestic one. The British felt some kinship with their colonies, and would not take kindly to such measures either.
A full scale war in the Americas would stretch British finances. 19th century Europe was a nest of vipers someone would take advantage of the British weakness most likely the Prussians to get more concessions out of France