Lucius Verus
Banned
Canada was seen as a secure source of timber for the Empire, which was seen especially after Napoleon's attempt to block-aid Scandinavian timber vital to the supremacy of the royal navy and the isle's security.
US victory in war of 1812 american gains
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Canada was seen as a secure source of timber for the Empire, which was seen especially after Napoleon's attempt to block-aid Scandinavian timber vital to the supremacy of the royal navy and the isle's security.
The British tried and failed at Baltimore, but IF the Americans had more success in Canada then the British could have responded with much greater force.
Cochrane's fleet had 19 ships, mainly smaller ships (such as the rocket and mortar ships). At the time Britain had 113 ships of the line (100 plus cannon) plus a myriad of other ships. With the end of the blockade of Europe these ships could have been sent to settle scores with the US.
I feel it unlikely that they would have bombarded the costal towns and cities (as they did to Algiers the following year) a blockade similar to the one on France would have sufficed.
The Earl of Liverpool could have whipped British public opinion against the US saying they had sided with Napoleon and was threatening the Navy by taking the forests it relied on for timber. I think that given the proper motivation Britain could have waged a naval and economic war against the US that would have brought it to its knees within a year.
Cochrane's fleet had 19 ships, mainly smaller ships (such as the rocket and mortar ships). At the time Britain had 113 ships of the line (100 plus cannon) plus a myriad of other ships. With the end of the blockade of Europe these ships could have been sent to settle scores with the US.
I feel it unlikely that they would have bombarded the costal towns and cities (as they did to Algiers the following year) a blockade similar to the one on France would have sufficed.
The Earl of Liverpool could have whipped British public opinion against the US saying they had sided with Napoleon and was threatening the Navy by taking the forests it relied on for timber. I think that given the proper motivation Britain could have waged a naval and economic war against the US that would have brought it to its knees within a year.
Yes, that's how Baltimore got destroyed. Wait...
The accepted rule is that 1 shore gun is worth 3 ship guns. Firing from a stable platform helps a lot.
American victory
first of all, the US did win political and diplomatic victory. From then on the British treated the United States as a dangerous opponent not to be underestimated and took great pains the rest of the 19th Century to avoid war, even when on several occasions American policy made such a war likely (54-40 Affair, during the Civil War, Juan Fernandez Island aka the Pig War)
The issues of taking American sailors at sea, and the blockade that hurt American trade with Europe were moot points by the defeat of Napoleon. Considering that at one point the British burned the US capital, occupied most of Maine, captured Detroit and Chicago (well what would be Detroit ad Chicago) and seriously threatened two major US ports (Baltimore and New Orleans) they were stopped by American military victories. True the invasion of Canada failed due to incompetence, but just as importantly the British counter invasion failed as well.
Considering the the British were a military super power in comparison to the United States in 1812, that is a pretty creditable achievement. It also gave the US a national anthem, a Navy worthy of respect and laid the basis for a competent professional US Army. No small achievements.
Make no mistake, the US did not win military victory, but war is not just a matter of military achievement. Just ask the North Vietnamese who outlasted the US until we withdrew and let our ally fall a mere 2 years later.
Also remember that the War of 1812 eliminated effective organized Native American resistance in both what we call the Old South and the Midwest for all time, and both groups of Native Americans were essentially British clients. That was a clear cut American military victory, and laid the groundwork for full scale settlement in the Midwest, and the Indian removal (Trail of Tears) to come in the Old South. Florida while difficult was really just mopping up (granted it took nearly 25 years, but it was achieved without British interference).
So I call that a win ultimately as it lays the continued basis for American Expansion for the remainder of the 19th Century (except for a nasty timeout during the Civil War)..
Now if you are talking how the US can win an outright military victory over the British that is worth a separate post.
first of all, the US did win political and diplomatic victory. From then on the British treated the United States as a dangerous opponent not to be underestimated and took great pains the rest of the 19th Century to avoid war, even when on several occasions American policy made such a war likely (54-40 Affair, during the Civil War, Juan Fernandez Island aka the Pig War)
The issues of taking American sailors at sea, and the blockade that hurt American trade with Europe were moot points by the defeat of Napoleon. Considering that at one point the British burned the US capital, occupied most of Maine, captured Detroit and Chicago (well what would be Detroit ad Chicago) and seriously threatened two major US ports (Baltimore and New Orleans) they were stopped by American military victories. True the invasion of Canada failed due to incompetence, but just as importantly the British counter invasion failed as well.
Considering the the British were a military super power in comparison to the United States in 1812, that is a pretty creditable achievement. It also gave the US a national anthem, a Navy worthy of respect and laid the basis for a competent professional US Army. No small achievements.
Make no mistake, the US did not win military victory, but war is not just a matter of military achievement. Just ask the North Vietnamese who outlasted the US until we withdrew and let our ally fall a mere 2 years later.
Also remember that the War of 1812 eliminated effective organized Native American resistance in both what we call the Old South and the Midwest for all time, and both groups of Native Americans were essentially British clients. That was a clear cut American military victory, and laid the groundwork for full scale settlement in the Midwest, and the Indian removal (Trail of Tears) to come in the Old South. Florida while difficult was really just mopping up (granted it took nearly 25 years, but it was achieved without British interference).
So I call that a win ultimately as it lays the continued basis for American Expansion for the remainder of the 19th Century (except for a nasty timeout during the Civil War)..
Now if you are talking how the US can win an outright military victory over the British that is worth a separate post.
Could the US win military victory
The short answer is no, not unless somehow Napoleon conquered England in 1805 (some amazing luck is need and is possibly an ASB requirement).
The other option is that somehow Napoleon does better against Russia (not necessarily due to battlefield victory), manages to catch and destroy Wellingtons field Army before 1811 in Spain, and in effect has so drained British reserves of money and manpower that it cannot divert serious resources to deal with the Americans.
Then, perhaps, sheer weight of numbers allows incompetently led American regulars and militia to overwhelm the Canadians ... and only if the Canadians lack any serious British Army stiffening (see above for what the requirements are).
The US Army of 1812 had good officers (Winfield Scott for example), but at the start was led by officers notable for their political influence rather than competence. It took 2 years of embarrassment before the US Army was trained effectively enough to fight the British to a stand still at Lundys Lane and slaughter them at New Orleans. So the only way to conquer Canada before 1814 is if the Canadians are basically left to stand alone and even then it is pretty likely to be a campaign marked by embarrassments and incompetence that wins only due to numbers.
However, regarding the naval picture inland... the US won the two naval battles that mattered most... at Lake Erie and at Lake Champlain. One gave US dominance to the line of communications to points west which was decisive in the late war period (the US took back Detroit and Chicago after all and crushed Tecumseh as supplies dried up), while an impressive naval race developed on Lake Ontario, ensuring stalemate there.
Lake Champlain was the decisive victory that eliminated the ability of the British to supply the drive south. So where it mattered in terms of Canada, the US achieved naval dominance. This means that the US has a supply line going from Pittsburgh (which became an industrial town directly because of the need to support the US Navy on the Lakes), plus it has the Hudson River leading right to Lake Champlain. So the logistical path is there.
By 1814 the US is likely to still have the needed military professionalism.
The real problem is money. The US government was funded by tariffs primarily at this time, and the Royal Navy blockade has dried that up. So victory requires that the US government some how figures out how to raise the needed money to continue. If Lower Canada is taken in the early war in spite of incompetence, then the US government might have the needed credit worthiness to borrow effectively and continue the war fiscally.
A lot of requirements overall.
But of course assume somehow the US takes Lower and Upper Canada, it still has to figure out what to do with the French speaking Canadians who are going to be tough to incorporate into a United States, and of course the sons of the Loyalists who fled the United States after the Revolution are hardly going to be happily incorporated into the United States.
So conquest is just part of the problem
The short answer is no, not unless somehow Napoleon conquered England in 1805 (some amazing luck is need and is possibly an ASB requirement).
The other option is that somehow Napoleon does better against Russia (not necessarily due to battlefield victory), manages to catch and destroy Wellingtons field Army before 1811 in Spain, and in effect has so drained British reserves of money and manpower that it cannot divert serious resources to deal with the Americans.
Then, perhaps, sheer weight of numbers allows incompetently led American regulars and militia to overwhelm the Canadians ... and only if the Canadians lack any serious British Army stiffening (see above for what the requirements are).
The US Army of 1812 had good officers (Winfield Scott for example), but at the start was led by officers notable for their political influence rather than competence. It took 2 years of embarrassment before the US Army was trained effectively enough to fight the British to a stand still at Lundys Lane and slaughter them at New Orleans. So the only way to conquer Canada before 1814 is if the Canadians are basically left to stand alone and even then it is pretty likely to be a campaign marked by embarrassments and incompetence that wins only due to numbers.
However, regarding the naval picture inland... the US won the two naval battles that mattered most... at Lake Erie and at Lake Champlain. One gave US dominance to the line of communications to points west which was decisive in the late war period (the US took back Detroit and Chicago after all and crushed Tecumseh as supplies dried up), while an impressive naval race developed on Lake Ontario, ensuring stalemate there.
Lake Champlain was the decisive victory that eliminated the ability of the British to supply the drive south. So where it mattered in terms of Canada, the US achieved naval dominance. This means that the US has a supply line going from Pittsburgh (which became an industrial town directly because of the need to support the US Navy on the Lakes), plus it has the Hudson River leading right to Lake Champlain. So the logistical path is there.
By 1814 the US is likely to still have the needed military professionalism.
The real problem is money. The US government was funded by tariffs primarily at this time, and the Royal Navy blockade has dried that up. So victory requires that the US government some how figures out how to raise the needed money to continue. If Lower Canada is taken in the early war in spite of incompetence, then the US government might have the needed credit worthiness to borrow effectively and continue the war fiscally.
A lot of requirements overall.
But of course assume somehow the US takes Lower and Upper Canada, it still has to figure out what to do with the French speaking Canadians who are going to be tough to incorporate into a United States, and of course the sons of the Loyalists who fled the United States after the Revolution are hardly going to be happily incorporated into the United States.
So conquest is just part of the problem
having the easy ability
to make heated shot helps a lot too
while a lot of US forts were only barely or partially finished by 1812, they were for the most part pretty formidable works in the face of attack from the sea.
The US was also working on practical submarines and steam powered gunboats, which could have been pushed harder if the need became more pressing. Both would have a significant force multiplier effect
http://casebook.thewarof1812.info/Articles_files/Fulton/dissertation.html
That assumes a lot of British political will that historically was not present.
The British had a debt in OTL of 893 million pounds in 1815, and strong demands were being made to end the very high taxes (especially income taxes) caused by a generation of war. While not a lot of prizes were making into American harbors, American warships and privateers were inflicting serious merchant marine losses on British trade. Double and triple deckers are not terribly effective for blockade duty or escorting convoys. So really what matters are the number of frigates and smaller ships, and those will be taking steady losses from storm and combat so will still be expensive.
Also the British have been essentially conscripting men into the fleet for a generation as well, and its one thing to do so when the Emperor is threatening to cross the channel, it is very much another thing to draft men into service to fight a war against what many English consider cousins.
So the political will is the decisive factor here on both sides.
A useful link regarding the British economic situation 1812 and after
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/distress/distress.htm
there are better sources, but they are books I have read and thus can't link to
Last edited:
That's the great irony with The War of 1812 - for all the grandstanding from Americans, Canadians and Brits about it, we all tend to forget that all sides waged the war fairly halfheartedly and incompetently.
I repeat my point from before though as far as gains - the British might cede the Ontario Peninsula to the USA, as they would have even been willing to cede it during the Revolutionary War.
The Northern Shore of the great lakes may be ceded with it. Not much point in keeping it without Ontario.
The big one though remains the West - the British lose nothing in ceding it at this point, and they may be willing to let the Americans have the Prairie and Oregon if they agree to let the Brits keep Ontario/Quebec/etc.
Either way, I expect the British to get a hefty cash settlement as part of the treaty - the USA gets more land to settle, the Brits offhand indefensible and mostly unsettled land, along with I assume enough money to make a dent in paying for the Napoleonic Wars, and both sides come away getting to call it a "victory".
The idea that the UK would let the young, weak and rather loose federation that the USA was in 1812, snatch away its territories at will is very biased.
This was not the british way of acting. The british would not let at the hands of such an untrustable player the control of such strategic ressources as those Canada provided to Britain.
Like it of not but the US was not a great power and had no possibility of winning a war against the Royal Navy. In the end, the dominant naval power wins. And that's particularly true for a country likéthe US so dependant on naval communications given its relative isolation to the economic heartland of the world.
This was not the british way of acting. The british would not let at the hands of such an untrustable player the control of such strategic ressources as those Canada provided to Britain.
Like it of not but the US was not a great power and had no possibility of winning a war against the Royal Navy. In the end, the dominant naval power wins. And that's particularly true for a country likéthe US so dependant on naval communications given its relative isolation to the economic heartland of the world.
Yes, and you don't need to wait that long. The heart of the US was on the coast.
It is just not rational to risk such a cost (the ruin of this heart of the US) for a lesser gain.
The US had enough room for expansion westward so it did not need to go after Canada for conquest.
This kind of thread looks too much like anachronic expansionism from late 20th century people dreaming of having the ressources of all north America, from the polar circle to Venezuela's oil included.
It is just not rational to risk such a cost (the ruin of this heart of the US) for a lesser gain.
The US had enough room for expansion westward so it did not need to go after Canada for conquest.
This kind of thread looks too much like anachronic expansionism from late 20th century people dreaming of having the ressources of all north America, from the polar circle to Venezuela's oil included.
Being a Canadian i might feel bias but I'm inclined to think yes lol... but mostly for the, at the time, highly strategic resources we gave, more then anything else (IE Timber)...
Bear in mind that large parts of that economic heartland of the world were supporting that revolution, but weren't doing a whole lot about the War of 1812.
TFSmith121
Banned
Something else to keep in mind:
Something else to keep in mind:
Historically, Ghent was signed (December, 1814), New Orleans was fought (January, 1815), the Treaty was ratified (February, 1815), and all parties in London and Washington were happy the conflict was over when the 100 Days began in March, 1815...
And of course, Napoleon had (originally) abdicated way back in April, 1814, which predated New Orleans, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain AND Baltimore (both in September, 1814), which sort of makes clear the British war effort in the Americas had not actually gotten much more effective on the offensive after he went into exile than it was before, either. Just ask Downie and Ross ... and, eventually, Pakenham and Gibbs.
The above also makes the point that no matter what, events in Europe and the Mediterranean were ALWAYS more important to the British (and, in fact, all the European imperial powers) than any attempt at forcing a lasting political settlement through force or arms in the Western Hemisphere.
The Atlantic has that effect...
Best,
Something else to keep in mind:
Historically, Ghent was signed (December, 1814), New Orleans was fought (January, 1815), the Treaty was ratified (February, 1815), and all parties in London and Washington were happy the conflict was over when the 100 Days began in March, 1815...
And of course, Napoleon had (originally) abdicated way back in April, 1814, which predated New Orleans, Plattsburgh/Lake Champlain AND Baltimore (both in September, 1814), which sort of makes clear the British war effort in the Americas had not actually gotten much more effective on the offensive after he went into exile than it was before, either. Just ask Downie and Ross ... and, eventually, Pakenham and Gibbs.
The above also makes the point that no matter what, events in Europe and the Mediterranean were ALWAYS more important to the British (and, in fact, all the European imperial powers) than any attempt at forcing a lasting political settlement through force or arms in the Western Hemisphere.
The Atlantic has that effect...
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
But other than destroying the Federalists,
But other than destroying the Federalists, that unhappiness didn't achieve much...
Best,
But other than destroying the Federalists, that unhappiness didn't achieve much...
Best,