Disastrous War of 1812

Johnnyreb

It's unlikely the War would have gone on for 3 or 4 more years. The Brits had no particular war aims and their military policy was simply to raid and burn, preferably shipyards. They had a far more important war to deal with.
The Americans had to ask for peace, in OTL the US government was bankrupt.

By the way, yankee war aims were to stop the Royal Navy searching their ships and pressing American sailors. Officially they didn't achieve these, although unofficially it happened. As I understand it, Canada wasn't official. There has always been a sector of US public life that thinks the Canadians want to be part of the US. When the militia marched, Washington had to go along with it.

Rather than carry on a war when you can't pay any more troops, the end effect might have been that the US put all or part of the Louisiana Purchase on the market. I can't see the British would have interfered: As I said they had a more important war, but perhaps even more significant, there has always been great deal of sympathy for the "cousins" in the UK - at least until the 1950s
 

wkwillis

British citizens had the right to reside in the US. They were allowed to immigrate to the US with no restrictions at all. They didn't pay income taxes and they paid damned little other taxes and those were pretty much for stuff like schools.
Of course, if they wanted to pay the much higher British taxes they were perfectly welcome to mail in their British income taxes to the nearest British consul.
 

Wozza

wkwillis said:
British citizens had the right to reside in the US. They were allowed to immigrate to the US with no restrictions at all. They didn't pay income taxes and they paid damned little other taxes and those were pretty much for stuff like schools.
Of course, if they wanted to pay the much higher British taxes they were perfectly welcome to mail in their British income taxes to the nearest British consul.
Click to expand...

I think the number of British citizens who paid income tax was rather small you will find.
The sort of people who might have found the standard of amenities in the United States somewhat below what they were used to.
 

Darkling

Wozza said:
It already was. Very few Peninsular veterans were at the war, they had been sent to North America.
Click to expand...

Most of the regiments at Waterloo were Peninsula veterans (over 75% of the infantry battalions present).

There were also more Peninsula veteran battalions present at Waterloo than were sent to America in 1814 (or were in America during the course of the war).
 

wkwillis

Wozza said:
I think the number of British citizens who paid income tax was rather small you will find.
The sort of people who might have found the standard of amenities in the United States somewhat below what they were used to.
Click to expand...
Yeah. America wasn't really of interest to Britain as a colony. Too many uppity colonists to give the peasants ideas. It was a usefull place to send your bastards and second sons and ambitious sons in law to cut down trees to clear the land, using up any dangerous ambition and energy.
 

Zyzzyva

It's actually not too hard to make the UK win. This was, after all, a 30 year old frontier republic vs the biggest empire in the world that was in the proccess of staring down Europe. Anyhow...

-Brock doesn't die at Queenston. Admittedly, he was asking for it, but if he got injured bad enough to not lead the charge at the battery to its inevitable end, and he remained the general of Upper Canadian forces, the war would have almost definitely turned out better for the British.

-Tecumseh doesn't die at the Thames. It might not help the Britsh a lot, but if he's alive at the treaty, the indians (and the British, by exxtention) might do better.

-Prevost (or Brock, see point 1) dosn't lose all nerve at Plattsburg. Britain gets the Champlain/Richeleu valley at least.

-Britain uses it's naval superiority more effectively and raids more up and down the coast. Don't just stop at Wasington! If you win at Baltimore, burn Richmond too! And New York! And Philidelphia!

-The Kentucky Militia refuses to cross state lines. (Well, they actually did this, at times). The rest go home at the new year when their contracts run out. (ditto)

-Andrew Jackson & William Henry Harrison die of heart attacks on Jan 1, 1812.

-Hull is kept in charge after Detroit. (OK, this would never happen, but while we're dreaming...)
 

Paul Spring

If the British couldn't capture Baltimore, why would they be able to take New York or Philadelphia, which were larger and probably better defended?
 

Zyzzyva

They don't need to take them. They just need to burn them to the ground. :D

IIRC, Baltimore held out because it had forts. Where are you going to fortify New York? Staten Island?
 

fhaessig

hexicus said:
Wasn't there an Austrian/Russian heading towards Waterloo anyway? Maybe neither a French nor British victory at Waterloo.
Click to expand...


Short form : No.

Sligthly longer. There was a Prussian army heading for waterloo. They even did get there. The Austrian army was in southern Germany, nowhere near Belgium and the russian army was several month away, at its best speed.

Napoleon's plan was to try to fight the coalised armies before they could get together, if he had to have a chance. He failed because Blutcher had given his word to Wellington and trusted him, even against the advice of all the other prussian officers. Remove Wellington....
 

Paul Spring

Zyzzyva said:
They don't need to take them. They just need to burn them to the ground. :D

IIRC, Baltimore held out because it had forts. Where are you going to fortify New York? Staten Island?
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, you generally need to capture a city before you can burn it down completely, at least until you invent aerial bombardment or really long range artillery. New York had at least one fort on one of the small harbor islands, and a number of other places that could be quickly fortified. If the British really wanted to bombard it, they could probably smash their way in with a large fleet and do some damage to New York's waterfront, at the cost of having a large portion of their fleet sunk or badly damaged. Overall, more damage to the British than the Americans.

Also, Baltimore had the forts AND a US army/militia force that stopped the British troops east of the city, inflicting heavy casualties including the expedition's commander, who was killed. The British realized that they couldn't capture Baltimore by land, so they tried to break in by sea, and failed at that as well.
 

Zyzzyva

Just out of curiosity...

Why did you fight like mad bastards for Baltimore, and abandon your capital to the tender mercies of the marines?
 

Paul Spring

Zyzzyva said:
Just out of curiosity...

Why did you fight like mad bastards for Baltimore, and abandon your capital to the tender mercies of the marines?
Click to expand...

Baltimore was a lot larger and more important to the US overall than Washington at the time. The US central government was weak and Washington had no other function than the government headquarters. As long as the President, cabinet, and most other government officials escaped capture and set up in another city, the temporary loss of Washington did no real damage to the US. Baltimore, on the other hand, was one of the largest US port cities at the time, and economic hub, some industry, and probably 30 or 40 times as many people as Washington did.
 

kingdobbs

Zyzzyva said:
Just out of curiosity...

Why did you fight like mad bastards for Baltimore, and abandon your capital to the tender mercies of the marines?
Click to expand...

It all comes down to strategic importance.

Baltimore in the early 1800s was one of the largest US cities and one of its busiest ports (fourth behind Boston, Philadelphia and NYC in 1790; third behind only Philly and NYC in 1800, 1810, and 1820, and second behind NYC in 1830, 1840 and 1850; it was also the second city of the US, again behind NYC, to reach 100K population). Losing it would be just as bad as losing New Orleans, New York or Philadelphia in 1814.

Washington? It was a small port on the Potomac, with only about 8000 people (about 1/5th of whom were slaves), whose only reason for existing was a handful of federal buildings. Considering that the British didn't even try to HOLD Washington after it was set aflame, I think they had a good idea of its strategic importance.

And it's not as if we simply let the British wander in unopposed and start setting stuff on fire. Though, judging by the accounts of the Battle of Bladensburg, in which the US got freakin' routed despite superior numbers, the case could be made ;).
 

Zyzzyva

Plaese excuse me for Moloboizing, but:

wikipedia said:
On August 25, the advance guard of British troops marched to Capitol Hill; they were too few in number to occupy the city, so Ross intended to destroy as much of it as possible. He sent a party under a flag of truce to agree to terms, but they were attacked by partisans from a house at the corner of Maryland Avenue, Constitution Avenue, and Second Street NE. This was to be the only resistance the soldiers met. The house was burned, but the soldiers were infuriated, and the Union Jack was raised above Washington.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top