No War of 1812

[Cylon_Number_14]

I was just about to start this topic myself...

So thank you guys for starting the discussion while I was too lazy!

Anyways, what about the fate of Andrew Jackson? I know that OTL between the Battle of New Orleans and the Election of 1824 he had a rather impressive political career as judge and governor, but would he be presidential material without the war?

 

[Solomaxwell6]

So thank you guys for starting the discussion while I was too lazy!

Anyways, what about the fate of Andrew Jackson? I know that OTL between the Battle of New Orleans and the Election of 1824 he had a rather impressive political career as judge and governor, but would he be presidential material without the war?

IIRC, he really achieved prominence and notoriety in the Seminole Wars, and against the Red Sticks during the War of 1812. Both would still happen (the latter was a conflict tied into the War of 1812, but I wouldn't say it'd really be part of it). He loses out the prestige gained defense of New Orleans, yes, but there could've easily been some replacement for that; if he doesn't have to worry about defending New Orleans, he'd probably spend that time in the Midwest killin Injuns, as they say. So, yes, I think he would still have an appropriate military career.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

It may well make a future war between Britain and the United States more likely possibly over the Canadian border or intervention in the American civil war. Having experienced a rather pointless war whichj no one won, both countries were more reluctant to let things come to a head i.e the Trent incident and sensible voices prevailed.

British support for the Monroe Docrine may ha ve been less likely except Britain supported it for ulterior motives anyway

As for avoiding the war. The Federalists win power and Britain ends the pressing of American seamen or better still a federalist government declares war on Napoleon

 

[danwild6]

No War of 1812 may lead to American defeat in Mexico as everyone from Winfield Scott to Zachary Taylor cut their teeth in the War of 1812 so you probably don't see the US Army reach the level of professionalism that it did in OTL.

 

[stevep]

The War of 1812 (any Canadian readers, please provide insight!), as I understand it, was a defining series of events in terms of a Canadian sense of nationality. See, for example, the second verse of "The Maple Leaf Forever", which has the lyrics "From Queenston's Heights to Lundy's Lane..." which are sites of battles in this war, located in the vicinity of Niagara Falls.

Without this war, I suspect the above conjecture is approximately correct: more Americans wind up moving into what we know now as Ontario (and possibly even southeastern Manitoba) such that the area north and west of, let's say, Parry Sound has more of an affinity for Washington than Ottawa. In time, that influence rolls west, ultimately making the "54° 40' " slogan less unrealistic. Indeed, today, Vancouver might well be an American city, as would be Winnipeg. The dividing line between the British and American spheres of influence would probably run along that 54° 40' parallel east to maybe the longitude of Manitoulin Island in the uppermost Georgian Bay, where it would drop due south.

A major ripple effect: Canadian confederation might be delayed significantly--say, until the 1880s or 1890s. Indeed, I could see Rudyard Kipling going north from Vermont to Montreal, and ultimately perhaps becoming PM of a truncated Canada.

1940LaSalle

That's one possibility but the opposite could occur as well. A large number of people from America settled in what's now Ontario prior to 1812, swearing an oath of loyalty in return for land. As far as I'm aware they stayed loyal during the war and later of course were fully integrated. Without the war such settlement would probably have continued while land was available but no reason barring some clash or bad government why they shouldn't fully integrate. This could see a significantly stronger Canada.

If there was a later conflict and US forces occupy the region for a period of time you might find some collaborating with them - more than any would do with an occupying force - but a lot would depend on the behaviour of the occupying troops. A few incidents could easily alienate the localsand people who have lived in the region for a decade or more and have good relations with their neighbours would probably largely side with them more than an occupying army. Not to mention that immigrants often have a stronger national identity than native born populations, possibly in part because they feel the need to prove their loyalty.

As such if there was a clash at a later point, say over the Oregon border in the 30's-50's it would be rash to assume that more than a few people of American origins would betray their adopted nations. Barring any period of tension between them and their neighbours.

Your right that from what I have read the war was significant in forming a stronger Canadian identity. This might well have occurred as a result of a later conflict, especially if say the US tries to attack at a period when Britain is distracted by events elsewhere. The Canadians would have to play a very significant role in their own defence until substantial aid could arrive from Britain so you might see a later but stronger national development.

The other factor in this would be how long the conflict lasted and how bitter it was. Prior to about 1870 barring major distractions elsewhere or serious internal division in Britain, Britain would 'win' although how clear that would be and how much destruction could be caused to both sides would depend on the circumstances. A long conflict, with heavy destruction on both sides and possibly increasing devastation will leave much greater bitterness between the two sides than a relatively short and bloodless conflict.

Steve

 

[Solomaxwell6]

It may well make a future war between Britain and the United States more likely possibly over the Canadian border or intervention in the American civil war. Having experienced a rather pointless war whichj no one won, both countries were more reluctant to let things come to a head i.e the Trent incident and sensible voices prevailed.

British support for the Monroe Docrine may ha ve been less likely except Britain supported it for ulterior motives anyway

As for avoiding the war. The Federalists win power and Britain ends the pressing of American seamen or better still a federalist government declares war on Napoleon

Ah, but what about Carleton Island? 31 homes speak English instead of Canadian because of our Glorious Conquest of the island! Sounds like a victory to me! :-D

No War of 1812 may lead to American defeat in Mexico as everyone from Winfield Scott to Zachary Taylor cut their teeth in the War of 1812 so you probably don't see the US Army reach the level of professionalism that it did in OTL.

Nah. Mexico was doomed. Scott was an extremely talented officer, even before really gaining experience in the War of 1812. There's also the Black Hawk War and Seminole Wars for officers to begin gaining experience. Almost definitely a bigger Tecumseh's War, too. Desertion rates were very low in the US Army, and high in Mexico. Mexico had high political instability. About the only advantage Mexico had was that it was able to fight a defensive war.

 

[Wolfhound]

No War of 1812 may lead to American defeat in Mexico as everyone from Winfield Scott to Zachary Taylor cut their teeth in the War of 1812 so you probably don't see the US Army reach the level of professionalism that it did in OTL.

I'd say that West Point academy providing a highly professional officer corps had a lot to do with tht.

 

[stevep]

Nah. Mexico was doomed. Scott was an extremely talented officer, even before really gaining experience in the War of 1812. There's also the Black Hawk War and Seminole Wars for officers to begin gaining experience. Almost definitely a bigger Tecumseh's War, too. Desertion rates were very low in the US Army, and high in Mexico. Mexico had high political instability. About the only advantage Mexico had was that it was able to fight a defensive war.

And in 30+ years a lot of butterflies have fluttered. By that time the US might be as unstable as Mexico. or Britain, not wanted to see slavery expanded by a state that's also taking of expansion against it - if there's any 54 or fight crap - could end up allied to Mexico. Or many other things too numerous to mention.

Steve

 

[Solomaxwell6]

And in 30+ years a lot of butterflies have fluttered. By that time the US might be as unstable as Mexico. or Britain, not wanted to see slavery expanded by a state that's also taking of expansion against it - if there's any 54 or fight crap - could end up allied to Mexico. Or many other things too numerous to mention.

Steve

Oh, certainly. But whenever trying to make a prediction, we have to ignore butterflies as best we can. I mean, if you think about it, any sort of prediction more than a couple of years after a POD is meaningless. So we make do the best we can.