Effects of an outright win in the 1812 War

[Georgie Porgie]

I know that the possibility of a US / UK win of the 1812 war is a popular discussion point here, but I want to look at the effects if either country had had an outright win. I don't really mind how the victory happened, just that it happened.

US Win
This would be a defeat of the British blockade of the NE ports and a US Army in Canada (York and possibly Quebec taken). For the sake of arguement lets assume that a British army + loyal colonists was defeated in a series of battles.

What happens next?
How does this affect future US policy with regards to Mexico? Do the Americans try for greater gains and try to take the Sugar isles from the Brits?

UK Win
The UK sucessfully blockades the eastern seaboard, leading to towns / cities surrendering. The Canadian forces (with or without American Indian support) march south into Ohio. The British forces take New Orleans and General Jackson is soundly dubbed when trying to re-take the city.

What happens next?
Do the Brit's colonise the areas west of the Missisippi? Do they keep New Orleans? What now the Monroe Docorine? How do the Americans recover from a lose?

 

[Simon]

The UK sucessfully blockades the eastern seaboard, leading to towns / cities surrendering. The Canadian forces (with or without American Indian support) march south into Ohio. The British forces take New Orleans and General Jackson is soundly drubbed when trying to re-take the city.

What happens next? Do the British colonise the areas west of the Mississippi? Do they keep New Orleans? What now the Monroe Doctrine? How do the Americans recover from a loss?

Doubtful, IIRC the British had either already agreed to stop or actually already stopped impressing sailors before the war so that just mostly left the trade issues. The British would have to know that trying to take Louisiana would be too much to bite off, likewise that the very reason that New Orleans would be so attractive, control of the Mississippi and its trade and transport, would make it important enough for the US to want it back and likely precipitate a future conflict. One idea I thought about was if it was a major British victory for them to try and argue that the Treaty of San Ildefonso was made under duress and therefore null. The US has to return Louisiana to Spain with France being forced to re-pay the purchase price. One of the provisions though is that New Orleans becomes a free port, a Leghorn (Livorno) of the Americas if you will, and that the Mississippi is opened up to international traffic to try and keep everyone if not happy then at least vaguely satisfied.

The main thing that the British will be aiming for is an independent Indian state under their protection in the north-east, what was then the Indiana Territory. The British still initially tried for it in our timeline's Treaty of Ghent but they didn't have a chance, here it's much more likely and makes a handy way to reward their allies whilst also helping secure the border. Ohio is already a state, Michigan and Indiana are already territories and about to become states only four years later so they're out which leaves the northern Illinois Territory which was made up of the modern day state of that name plus Wisconsin, and small parts of north-eastern Minnesota and north-western Michigan. Considering that Illinois itself became a state only six years I think it's fairly safe to assume that it was fairly well settled and not really an option. A nice compact nation made up of Wisconsin, the bit of north-western Minnesota around the Great Lakes and Upper Michigan would be a sensible size though I think.

Of course there's going to be friction between the US and the Indian state and also them and Spain over Louisiana, if manifest destiny is anything to go even with the Mississippi as a solid border I doubt the Americans would be very satisfied at being blocked off from the west after a while. Sets up a possible Spanish-American war in the future that's much earlier than our one. Wonder how a longer US ownership of Cuba might affect things, especially if it's pre-Civil War. Hell, with a possible conflict with a foreign power to expand westward that's likely to throw the American Civil War off by itself.

As for the Monroe Doctrine I don't think much if anything would change. It was originally proposed to the US by Britain but the Secretary of State at the time decided to make a unilateral statement rather than the joint one that had been suggested. Even then it was the Royal Navy that actually enforced the doctrine for a long time. The British loved it since it meant they could reap the vast rewards of trade and commerce in South America, look up British informal Empire, whilst not having to worry about the costs of actually running the place or that some other state will start claiming parts of it and then exclude them from it.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Read my TL.

 

[Shevek23]

Indeed read Dathi's TL for a British win.

I normally wouldn't jump in with an American win, because that's the sort of thing I would think too many fanboys would do--but actually I can't name a single timeline, good or bad, that explores US victory in the War of 1812.

I'm no war buff, so this might be completely unsound strategically, but I have the notion that if the Americans could seize control of Quebec and Montreal, and merely hold their own on the Lakes, that would be game over for Canada as we know it--the western, lakeside Loyalist region would be cut off and forced to eventually come to terms. I'm told that this would not be a particularly easy strategy for US to try because the Quebecois were not disloyal to Britain, whereas the US probably would not be able to promise them integration into the US system on even terms with a straight face. Therefore the key to a full-on US victory might lie somewhere else--in defeating the British/Loyalist forces in detail on the Lakes for instance.

So I don't know just what it would take, but barring ASB miracles, such as victory through invention of advanced ship types that render the RN obsolete, achieving it can only be relative to the limited will and ability of Britain to deploy her full strength to slap down the Yankee gnat. I'd think then that the earlier the US victory, and the sharper, the better (from an American POV, not a Canadian one obviously!) If the Americans appear to be formidable and clever early on, and gain vital points quickly with no embarrassing setbacks, I guess Britain might write off Canada.

What happens next, I expect, is the region north of the lakes is incorporated, perhaps with a period of occupied status first, into the US state system, and the wider regions to the west are lumped into US territories. The question of the northern boundary is interesting because Rupert's Land, the Hudson Bay Company's vast concession, might not be handed over; perhaps the British negotiators make it clear the HBC should be left alone or they might be back in force? Alternatively the Americans might claim the whole continent up to the Pole (and the boundary with Russia of course) but agree to let the HBC operate autonomously as before, as a US tenant as it were, provided it agrees to inspections to verify no accumulations of armed force to attempt to retake the lost territories. Eventually such an arrangement might run afoul of US judicial review, but the Supreme Court would probably have to rule the HBC has special rights per the peace treaty.

I don't know how resistant Anglo and francophone former British subjects would be to having US citizenship imposed on them. The Native allies would surely suffer badly.

But no, I don't think the USA will necessarily go from the conquest of Canada to trying to steal every British possession in the Western Hemisphere. The sugar islands are very valuable, and the RN would be in its element protecting them; such a scheme would mean the Americans set out to build a navy that can break the RN. It would be far easier to just get distracted into filling in the vast continental empire the Yanks have managed to grab.

If the peace settlement turns the Maritime provinces over to incorporation in the USA too, then the Americans have totally secured their northern flank. This might make us even more adventurous to the south.

But filling in what we already have would occupy a lot of time and attention.

 

[NHBL]

Depends on the magnitude of the win, and where

A US win is much like the Japanese planned for a win in World War II, in the sense that Britian almost can not loose IF the popluation is behind a drive for total victory. The American win can only come at the peace table because Britian wants peace more than they want whatever the USA is demanding. If the USA takes too much at the peace table, then the stage is set for more future hostilities, as the USA is recognized as a future threat.

At one point, I started playing with a timeline where the USA smashed the British in Canada, then at Washington, due to the discovery of the Minie ball, and some serious preparation. Evn then, Britiasn has the resources for a prolonged war against a smaller county.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Actually, a US win is 'easy'. OTL, they ended up with effective control of the Lakes. If they had taken Kingston, and held it, they could have totally blocked British supply and support in *Ontario. While taking Lower Canada/Quebec is probably beyond the strength of the US, Upper Canada is well within their grasp.

Iotl, both sides ran the war pretty incompetantly, and if either side had been on the ball, that side could have done much better.

Remember that you cant get warships from the ocean to Lake Ontario, nor from Ontario to Erie. You have to build them on site. Once the US got full control of the Lakes, it would have been very, very difficult for the Brits to recover.

Could the Brits have trashed much of the eastern seaboard? Yes. Could they have taken eg New Orleans? Yes. But trying to invade overland from Quebec into Ontario without waterborne supply would have been really, really tough, and i doubt the Brits would have been willing to spend the blood and money to do so.

OTOH, if Britain took New Orleans and eastern Maine, while losing Ontario, would that be a win or a loss for the US?


Another thing would have been to deal with the US militia. Otl, the NY militia marched to the border, AND THEN REFUSED TO CROSS!!! Claiming that State militias were to be used only within the state. Clarifying that little point would have helped the US effort immensely. Either only use the subset of militia willing to actually be of use, or put the under Army discipline. Either way could work.


Obviously, that wasnt the sory I wanted to tell, soyant Canadien, tu sais, but it would be easy to write.

 

[BWeber]

Alternate Scenarios for US/BR Victories

In chapter 7 of Neither Victor Nor Vanquished (Potomac Press, 2013), I sketched out four scenarios based on relative advantages in Generalship and the length of the British involvement is the European Napoleonic Wars. In all four cases, after action reports by the victorious generals: Brock, Wellington, Harrison, and Pike describe the key military operations and various territorial conquests. This exercise helps imagine how much the War of 1812 could have mattered to the future shape and directions of America and Canada had the war not ended in a virtual stalemate.

 

[Elfwine]

Iotl, both sides ran the war pretty incompetantly, and if either side had been on the ball, that side could have done much better.

IOTL, the British met their defensive objectives pretty successfully. They don't need to invade the US, because they're not fighting with the intent of taking US territory.

Remember that you cant get warships from the ocean to Lake Ontario, nor from Ontario to Erie. You have to build them on site. Once the US got full control of the Lakes, it would have been very, very difficult for the Brits to recover

And the US doing so is goign to be monstrously difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least that the American commander there was too cautious to try to take out the British fleet (meanwhile the British commander doesn't need to take out the American fleet for the issue of keeping things secure to be successful for him).

Could the Brits have trashed much of the eastern seaboard? Yes. Could they have taken eg New Orleans? Yes. But trying to invade overland from Quebec into Ontario without waterborne supply would have been really, really tough, and i doubt the Brits would have been willing to spend the blood and money to do so.

And the US taking Ontario would not be a piece of cake without some pretty substantial changes.

OTOH, if Britain took New Orleans and eastern Maine, while losing Ontario, would that be a win or a loss for the US?

How is Britain losing Ontario? How is the US forcing Britain to accept that when it has very little to make Britain regret simply committing the effort to drive the Americans out?

Another thing would have been to deal with the US militia. Otl, the NY militia marched to the border, AND THEN REFUSED TO CROSS!!! Claiming that State militias were to be used only within the state. Clarifying that little point would have helped the US effort immensely. Either only use the subset of militia willing to actually be of use (1), or put the under Army discipline. Either way could work.(2)

1) What subset of militia is that?

2) And then they all promptly mutiny.

But assuming this is met from the American side - are they going to actually be able to beat the British? That's - to repeat a phrase of mine in this - easier said than done.

Obviously, that wasnt the sory I wanted to tell, soyant Canadien, tu sais, but it would be easy to write.

But much harder to make plausible. The US does not have the kind of military - on land or sea (or lake) to win the war.

Ontario has a problem of leadership (material is probably in the US's favor and manpower is good enough), the US army is consistently (not always, but consistently) lacking leadership, material, and manpower - and the US on the whole (meaning the gub'mint) doesn't have the revenue to support this.

Britain, on the other hand, has - after Napoleon is taken care of - substnatial forces that can be sent to push the issue. Even if Ontario is temporally in American hands, what good does that do while the US is losing Washington and along the coast?

None.

 

[katchen]

I agree that the issue here is to a large extent one of logistics. And there are two areas of strategy in which the US could have done far better than it did.
Firstly, it would not have been difficult for the US to field several forces of frontiersmen who could canoe down some of the rivers leading to Hudson's Bay in enough strength to take the forts of Rupert's Land, which the British do not hold with very much strength at all at this point. Rather like John Rogers Clark's force taking the Ohio Valley in 1777. Take Ft. Mackinac and St. Ignace from Ft. Dearborn, then send a force down the Nottoway or whatever the river to Moose Factory and Ft. Rupert and Ft. George. is called (the name escapes me at the moment), take Sault Ste. Marie, then Nipigon House, then down the Albany River to Ft. Albany. A larger force goes up the Mississippi to the Minnesota, up the Minnesota to portage to the Red River of the North to Lake Winnepeg to take Norway House. Because half that force goes up the Saskatchewan River to take Edmonton House and far away Ft. Chipaweyan and the other half down the Hayes River to take Oxford House, York Factory (the headquarters for Hudson's Bay Company, and Ft.Churchill and Ft. Severn.That way, no matter how the rest of the war goes, Rupert Land passes into American hands.
The second question is this:
Steamboats are now beginning to ply the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, as well as the Hudson River, regularly. Can steamboats bearing cannon--the first self-propelled steam gunboats,, be a game changer on Lake Erie and Lake Huron? Can a steam gunboat or two take Detroit? If so, how far up the Thames can one get?
Can a steam gunboat be brought to Lake Ontario and can one make a difference in capturing Kingston, Upper Canada? Can enough and well enough armored steam gunboats be built on Lake Champlain to bombard and make a difference in taking Ft. Chambly on the Richileu River? If so, Can steamboats, perhapas pushing barges help an American army take Sorel and cut off Montreal? Trois Riviers? Quebec? Doubtful. Riviere de Loupe, Rimouski and Mont Joli, very doubtful.
But Upper Canada. There, I could see steamboats making a big difference indeed. And Montreal to the Ottawa River.
So I could see an American victory giving the US control of North America from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico to the Rocky Mountains. But is the most powerful empire in the world finished with North America? And is Hudson's Bay Company out of business? No on both counts. They just take the line of least resistance and go "round the back" to the Pacific Coast to where the US has not gotten to yet.
Look to Lord Selkirk to start his colony, not on the Red River, but on Puget Sound. And for it to prosper, with convict labor if need be. And for the British to get California to the Colorado River in 1821. And Chile south of the Bio Bio River and Argentina south of 32 degrees.
And since there are likely not enough beaver, mink and ermine to satisfy the demand for trapped fur in Greater Oregon Country by the early 1820s, I would look to the Hudson's Bay Company to trap these animals alive and release them in southern South America---and in Australia and Tasmania. In the 1820s, nobody cares about the environmental impact of introduced species. And nobody knows that silk hats are going to make beaver hats obselete within 10 years anyway.

 

[Tom_B]

Black Hawk Up

I started a TL called Black Hawk Up where Britain is largely (though not completely) victorious in the War of 1812 https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=54335

 

[Elfwine]

I agree that the issue here is to a large extent one of logistics. And there are two areas of strategy in which the US could have done far better than it did.
Firstly, it would not have been difficult for the US to field several forces of frontiersmen who could canoe down some of the rivers leading to Hudson's Bay in enough strength to take the forts of Rupert's Land, which the British do not hold with very much strength at all at this point. Rather like John Rogers Clark's force taking the Ohio Valley in 1777.

George (not John) Rogers Clark had maybe a couple hundred men. That's not very much strength either.

So I'm kind of uncertain that the US can easily raise say a couple thousand. On paper, yes, but in reality, not so much. Its recruiting difficulties in the War of 1812 are not minor.

Take Ft. Mackinac and St. Ignace from Ft. Dearborn, then send a force down the Nottoway or whatever the river to Moose Factory and Ft. Rupert and Ft. George. is called (the name escapes me at the moment), take Sault Ste. Marie, then Nipigon House, then down the Albany River to Ft. Albany. A larger force goes up the Mississippi to the Minnesota, up the Minnesota to portage to the Red River of the North to Lake Winnepeg to take Norway House. Because half that force goes up the Saskatchewan River to take Edmonton House and far away Ft. Chipaweyan and the other half down the Hayes River to take Oxford House, York Factory (the headquarters for Hudson's Bay Company, and Ft.Churchill and Ft. Severn.That way, no matter how the rest of the war goes, Rupert Land passes into American hands.

Ambitious plans that would some point have British opposition interfering with their chances of success - just as George Rogers Clark had to retake after a British counterstroke some of the areas he was successful at, and never did take Detroit.

Only here, the American riflemen are much further from home and American supply bases, and without the friendly help from the natives (meaning the French settlers rather than "Indians"/First Nations) that was quite important for Clark's success thirty-five odd years earlier.

The second question is this:
Steamboats are now beginning to ply the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, as well as the Hudson River, regularly. Can steamboats bearing cannon--the first self-propelled steam gunboats,, be a game changer on Lake Erie and Lake Huron? Can a steam gunboat or two take Detroit? If so, how far up the Thames can one get?

Obviously this is not conclusive proof, but its rather relevant: OTL, the commander on Lake Champlain purchased a half finished steamship as part of his attempts to build up his fleet.

It was finished as a sailing ship.

I think that's significant in answering how the navy will take to this.

Can a steam gunboat be brought to Lake Ontario and can one make a difference in capturing Kingston, Upper Canada? Can enough and well enough armored steam gunboats be built on Lake Champlain to bombard and make a difference in taking Ft. Chambly on the Richileu River? If so, Can steamboats, perhapas pushing barges help an American army take Sorel and cut off Montreal? Trois Riviers? Quebec? Doubtful. Riviere de Loupe, Rimouski and Mont Joli, very doubtful.
But Upper Canada. There, I could see steamboats making a big difference indeed. And Montreal to the Ottawa River.

Armored? We're talking steamboats with iffy engines and not only weighing them down with cannon and a host of naval stores but adding armor?

That's going to be a floating slug.

 

[Dave Howery]

when you read about the war, you get the impression that the Brits didn't really have a lot of ambition for it, or all that many goals for it. If they had won at Baltimore or New Orleans and essentially won the war, I wonder if they might not just settle for their 'Indian state' and maybe some minor border adjustments in Maine or around the Great Lakes. They didn't really seem to have serious plans for such things as reversing the LA Purchase or taking whole states from the USA... mostly, they just wanted to be done with it all...