US victory in war of 1812 american gains

[Matteo]

Remember Washington august 1814 ? And the brits self-restrained themselves because they were responsible players that knew that the conflict would come to an end, that both countries had a common interest in trading and cooperating, and that it had anyway the means to contain the US.

The brits could do to US cities what they did to Copenhagen. They also had the means to organize defence of canadian territories and force any US occupation troops
to retreat given the difficulties of logistics.

Denying it is just out of touch bombastic nationalism.

You may enjoy it the same way as some british imagine Britain had could also have conquered the whole of what is today latin America or some french imagine Napoleon could have conquered the Ottoman empire and India if he had defeated Russia.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Yeeaaaaah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't see anyone being unreasonable here except you.

Burning down every coastal city? Seriously? When did this ever happen, anywhere, ever, on the scale you're talking? When did the British ever freaking do that? The 'burning' of Washington (really: a few key buildings in the 'city') was a direct response to the American burning of York/Toronto. They did not decide to do so on a whim, they did so because it had been done to them.

And now the Royal Navy is going to lay strategic waste to the entire Eastern Seaboard on a scale not seen IOTL until World War II?

What the fuck man?

Copenhagen 1807
Cadiz 1797 (ok they failed to take the city but it was severely damaged)

The RN could do what is asked if it was necessary. It was never really necessary in the war of 1812.

 

[ManintheField]

Copenhagen 1807
Cadiz 1797 (ok they failed to take the city but it was severely damaged)

The RN could do what is asked if it was necessary. It was never really necessary in the war of 1812.

Thing is, he isn't just talking about rolling in and knocking over one city. He's talking about ALL of them, along a continental coastline.

I seem to be having memory issues because I don't remember Copenhagen being a part of a wider campaign that reduced Europe's seaports to ashes.

 

[Faeelin]

Can Britain really supply tens of thousands of men and tons of ships across the Atlantic Ocean? And will there be domestic support for this British jihad?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Copenhagen 1807
Cadiz 1797 (ok they failed to take the city but it was severely damaged)

The RN could do what is asked if it was necessary. It was never really necessary in the war of 1812.

Thing is, he isn't just talking about rolling in and knocking over one city. He's talking about ALL of them, along a continental coastline.

I seem to be having memory issues because I don't remember Copenhagen being a part of a wider campaign that reduced Europe's seaports to ashes.

Can Britain really supply tens of thousands of men and tons of ships across the Atlantic Ocean? And will there be domestic support for this British jihad?

Copenhagen was a city of 100,000 people in 1800. By 1810 only New York was of a similar size in the USA. Baltimore, Boston and Charleston amount to around 100,000 combined.

It really wasn't a huge deal to bombard the US coastal cities. If the Britain could maintain 40,000 troops and almost 80 ships in the AWI in 1776 then it could easily do so in 1812 when the situation was less challenging (at sea)

It just did not want to or did not have to.

 

[Matteo]

Thing is, he isn't just talking about rolling in and knocking over one city. He's talking about ALL of them, along a continental coastline.

I seem to be having memory issues because I don't remember Copenhagen being a part of a wider campaign that reduced Europe's seaports to ashes.

Not necessary all : several of them would be enough.
They target one. They bomb with the RN which had a firepower as strong as any of Napoleon's field armies.
Then the troops land and finish it.
Then they re-embark.

Then they target another city 1 or 2 month later.
... etc.

One does not need tens of thousands of soldiers to do it.

Just consider what 20 or 25 ships of the RN could do. Just consider the Copenhagen case instead of remaining in a State of denial.

The brits did not commit strongly in this war. And however, they won almost all engagements that occured.

They were much much stronger and basically unbeatable without a strong enough coalition threatening its heart in the british isles. By 1812, absolutely no other navy was a match to the RN. It never enjoyed such a crushing superiority.

 

[Just a Rube]

The brits did not commit strongly in this war. And however, they won almost all engagements that occured.

Which is part of the point! The British didn't commit so strongly to any war to go on a major "lets burn all the things campaign." Indeed, they didn't in the War of 1812 beyond some limited burning of Washington, a small, lightly defended town. Why would the British commit that strongly to a war with the US, especially considering that they didn't really even in the Napoleonic Wars (burning a couple of cities over the course of a generation doesn't really count). You can't just say "the British would commit more" without justifying why the British would commit so much more strongly.

Besides, the most vulnerable coastal cities were in the North, which the British were hoping to detach from the US. And contra your claim, amphibious assaults had a very mixed track record during the war. Washington was burned, but Baltimore repelled an attack, and New Orleans turned into a complete fiasco. It's not like the Napoleonic Wars provide an abundance of examples of successful amphibious campaigns either; Toulon and the Anglo-Russian invasion of the Netherlands were both failures.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Which is part of the point! The British didn't commit so strongly to any war to go on a major "lets burn all the things campaign." Indeed, they didn't in the War of 1812 beyond some limited burning of Washington, a small, lightly defended town. Why would the British commit that strongly to a war with the US, especially considering that they didn't really even in the Napoleonic Wars (burning a couple of cities over the course of a generation doesn't really count). You can't just say "the British would commit more" without justifying why the British would commit so much more strongly.

Besides, the most vulnerable coastal cities were in the North, which the British were hoping to detach from the US. And contra your claim, amphibious assaults had a very mixed track record during the war. Washington was burned, but Baltimore repelled an attack, and New Orleans turned into a complete fiasco. It's not like the Napoleonic Wars provide an abundance of examples of successful amphibious campaigns either; Toulon and the Anglo-Russian invasion of the Netherlands were both failures.

But the OP has the Americans running amok in Canada - it's the response to this that has to be considered not the OTL attitudes.

 

[Nialironarm]

Why would Britain be happy to cede territory to the United States?

I can't think of any time when Britain gave up existing colonies to anyone, let alone to a minor country which launched a war of aggression against it when it was fighting for survival in Europe.

I think that the OTL settlement of the war of 1812 was about the best the US could hope for.

I think more US success early on would have just resulted in a longer and more damaging war that the US couldn't hope to win.

 

[Lateknight]

Why would Britain be happy to cede territory to the United States?

I can't think of any time when Britain gave up existing colonies to anyone, let alone to a minor country which launched a war of aggression against it when it was fighting for survival in Europe.

I think that the OTL settlement of the war of 1812 was about the best the US could hope for.

I think more US success early on would have just resulted in a longer and more damaging war that the US couldn't hope to win.

They gave up half of Oregon on the threat of war Britain. I mean Britain was strong but wasn't strong everywhere and until they made nice with the French they didn't have any real peer allies.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

But the OP has the Americans running amok in Canada - it's the response to this that has to be considered not the OTL attitudes.

Well we can't have the British running amok seratim torching the Eastern Seaboard in turn. It wasn't the British modus operandi or desirable considering they had to either capture those ports as bases or trade with them after the war.

The British only bombarded Copenhagen as a means to prevent the Danish fleet from falling into French hands after all, it wasn't as though in response to the Continental system they went around torching every sea-port in Europe.

TBH for Britain to get more invested in the war you'd need a POD with Napoleon captured in December 1812, which might then rouse British ire towards the Americans who attacked them unexpectedly, which then frees up considerably more strength for the British to operate with in North America.

 

[TFSmith121]

Maine, Oregon, the Ionian Islands, the Balearics,

Why would Britain be happy to cede territory to the United States?

I can't think of any time when Britain gave up existing colonies to anyone, let alone to a minor country which launched a war of aggression against it when it was fighting for survival in Europe.

I think that the OTL settlement of the war of 1812 was about the best the US could hope for.

I think more US success early on would have just resulted in a longer and more damaging war that the US couldn't hope to win.

Maine, Oregon, the Ionian Islands, the Balearics, Heligoland, various boundary changes and adjustments, WeiHaiWei, etc.

The British played the negotiation game as well as anyone; Britain had strengths in the 1800s, but Britain's strengths were, in a very real way, limited ... And by the end of the Napoleonic wars (which came after the end of the Anglo-American war, of course), Britain had been at war almost non-stop for almost 40 years. Tends to diminish the desire to engage in additional campaigns, especially 3,000 miles across the Atlantic...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

The other issue is that by 1815 and afterwards,

Which is part of the point! The British didn't commit so strongly to any war to go on a major "lets burn all the things campaign." Indeed, they didn't in the War of 1812 beyond some limited burning of Washington, a small, lightly defended town. Why would the British commit that strongly to a war with the US, especially considering that they didn't really even in the Napoleonic Wars (burning a couple of cities over the course of a generation doesn't really count). You can't just say "the British would commit more" without justifying why the British would commit so much more strongly.

Besides, the most vulnerable coastal cities were in the North, which the British were hoping to detach from the US. And contra your claim, amphibious assaults had a very mixed track record during the war. Washington was burned, but Baltimore repelled an attack, and New Orleans turned into a complete fiasco. It's not like the Napoleonic Wars provide an abundance of examples of successful amphibious campaigns either; Toulon and the Anglo-Russian invasion of the Netherlands were both failures.

The other issue is that by 1815 and afterwards, the power trying to blockade/bombard another power with ocean-going ships is going to run into more and more of this ugly duckling and her sisters and daughters and grand-daughters, which presents a tactical and operational problem to any power considering a close blockade, much less the bombardments of coastal cities...

The technology is very new in 1815, of course, but it just gets better and better over the remainder of the century...

Best,

 

[thekingsguard]

Hey guys, the British have a navy! Let's tell George Washington and the Continental Congress we might as well pack in it, they simply can't be beaten!

Oh wait...

The British might've ceded Ontario peninsula to the US? That's interesting. Where have you read that one?

As a possible scenario here:

-US wins one or more clear battles in or around Canada
-US gains west of the Lake of the Woods, but agrees to pay HBC ₤300,000 for it, and makes a sweet deal to the British for the lumber and furs. This will help the British pay down their debts, employ Americans, and compensate the British for the lost land. A future treaty clarifies the ambiguous wording which essentially yields Manitoba and everything north and west of it to the US. Thus the US gains 3-5 states plus one or more territories out of it.
-maybe the US gets an island? Bermuda? Bahamas?
-Canada still exists, begins forming its own identity like OTL, just with the eastern part of Canada: Ontario (peninsula up to French River/Lake Nipissing), Manitoulin (north of this Ontario, up to the 49th parallel, west to our Marathon, Ontario), Opasquia Territory (west of 86°22' W to 95°9′12.2″W and north to Nelson River, and having a shore along Hudson Bay), Quebec (northern border is 49° N to Lac St Jean, into the Saguenay river, and thence into St Lawrence, and including OTL southern Quebec; western border is OTL), New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia are OTL; Newfoundland is its own colony as is Labrador. East Quebec would be a line from the northernmost point of Lac St Jean due north, an all the land east thereof not in Labrador. The remaining land is Hudson Bay Territory. Eleven subdivisions - 9 provinces, 2 territories. Anyone up for a map?

It was one of the real blindspots of the Treaty of Paris. The Americans wanted it, the Brits were willing to cede it. The French though left it out because they wanted a future sticking point between the US and the British. Mission accomplished if the War of 1812 is any sign.

That's a good treaty idea you have too, but I still don't think Canada would form ITTL. It's more likely you end up with three separate British dominions - Quebec, Acadia and Ontario.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Not a bad idea, but a few problems.

As a possible scenario here:

-US wins one or more clear battles in or around Canada

The US would need at a minimum uncontested control of both Lake Erie and Ontario (only possible by seizing Kingston, which is highly unlikely) as well as completely routing the British army for anything resembling a military victory so one or more victories would simply not cut it.

-US gains west of the Lake of the Woods, but agrees to pay HBC ₤300,000 for it, and makes a sweet deal to the British for the lumber and furs. This will help the British pay down their debts, employ Americans, and compensate the British for the lost land. A future treaty clarifies the ambiguous wording which essentially yields Manitoba and everything north and west of it to the US. Thus the US gains 3-5 states plus one or more territories out of it.

The British are parting with some valuable real-estate way to cheaply here, and in a spot where they historically controlled pretty much everything to boot.

At most you could have the US end up with the Ontario peninsula from OTL's Pickering to Wasaga Beach with a great US victory. Not much further north from there.

-maybe the US gets an island? Bermuda? Bahamas?

About as likely as the US setting foot on the moon.

-Canada still exists, begins forming its own identity like OTL, just with the eastern part of Canada: Ontario (peninsula up to French River/Lake Nipissing), Manitoulin (north of this Ontario, up to the 49th parallel, west to our Marathon, Ontario), Opasquia Territory (west of 86°22' W to 95°9′12.2″W and north to Nelson River, and having a shore along Hudson Bay), Quebec (northern border is 49° N to Lac St Jean, into the Saguenay river, and thence into St Lawrence, and including OTL southern Quebec; western border is OTL), New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia are OTL; Newfoundland is its own colony as is Labrador. East Quebec would be a line from the northernmost point of Lac St Jean due north, an all the land east thereof not in Labrador. The remaining land is Hudson Bay Territory. Eleven subdivisions - 9 provinces, 2 territories. Anyone up for a map?

Canada would be a vastly different spot. You'd by necessity have a creation of the Province of Canada much earlier (with Kingston as a city competing with Montreal and Quebec as an Anglophone center) since keeping a truncated 'Ontario' seperate doesn't really make much sense when the most important economic sectors now fall within the same broad geographical area.

For where 'Canada' would end up as, union between 'Quebec' and the Maritimes might come quicker in this scenario if Britain invests in an earlier trans-provincial railway and the provinces merge out of economic necessity, but otherwise you most likely do end up with two separate dominions.

 

[galveston bay]

Copenhagen 1807
Cadiz 1797 (ok they failed to take the city but it was severely damaged)

The RN could do what is asked if it was necessary. It was never really necessary in the war of 1812.

Copenhagen was 1801, and it wasn't an attack on the city. It was an attack on the Danish fleet and if Nelson hadn't literally turned a blind eye it would of failed.

the assault on Cadiz in 1797 failed. It succeeded brilliantly though in 1702 and in 1587. Attacks on Cadiz in 1625 was an embarrassing failure, the attacks in 1640, 1656 and 1669 were more of the nature of cutting out expeditions

But all of them, including the successes, did very little damage to the city in any incidence.

American 1st and 2nd system coastal defense forts were pretty impressive... Fort McHenry was one. Most of these forts located in the Southern States put up creditable resistance in the Civil War against heavier guns, steamships and ironclads.

Seacoasts defenses were very strong against the warships in the Age of Sail. At best a sailing ship is going to make a speed not much faster than a walk while in a harbor, giving land batteries which don't have to contend with such things a rolling, and have effectively unlimited ammunition available plus furnaces to heat up shot a serious advantage. I don't readily recall a single instance of a city surrendering to a fleet except Copenhagen, and Nelson's are pretty rare. There was only one.

Washington DC in 1814 had no fixed defenses at all and its garrison were a few marines, some navy personnel at the Navy yard (which fought until overrun at Bladensburg), and a lot of untrained and ineptly commanded militia.

At Baltimore that same militia was better led and had nice (albeit hastily) dug entrenchments to fight behind and thus did to the British what American militia typically did when fighting behind entrenchments... inflicted serious British losses.

So the Royal Navy, even though it brought American coastal trade to a standstill (a key way of moving goods at the time with out crappy roads), blockaded most harbors to the point of uselessness (thus cutting off American income from tariffs, the key way the government was funded), and occasionally inflicted damage to undefended towns and villages did not have the desire or the ability to successfully assault a defended city.

Keep in mind DC in the 1812 was a glorified village... Georgetown was a bigger city and so was Alexandria. The big seaports were very well defended by forts like Fort McHenry and had large and often reasonably well trained militia available.

So no, the RN is not going to lay waste to American coastal cities.

 

[galveston bay]

The other issue is that by 1815 and afterwards, the power trying to blockade/bombard another power with ocean-going ships is going to run into more and more of this ugly duckling and her sisters and daughters and grand-daughters, which presents a tactical and operational problem to any power considering a close blockade, much less the bombardments of coastal cities...

The technology is very new in 1815, of course, but it just gets better and better over the remainder of the century...

Best,

Fulton came up with a practical submarine too.. Napoleon turned it down (which shows what a landlubber he was) but the US Navy was looking at it. Basically an improved turtle of Revolutionary War fame

link to that in an earlier post of mine in this thread

 

[TFSmith121]

Yep - there's a reason the British gave up on the

Fulton came up with a practical submarine too.. Napoleon turned it down (which shows what a landlubber he was) but the US Navy was looking at it. Basically an improved turtle of Revolutionary War fame

link to that in an earlier post of mine in this thread

Yep - There's a reason the British gave up on the whole "close blockade" concept when they did...

Best,

 

[606jae]

if the negotiations in Ghent had went on until news of New Orleans arrived would the British been willing to give the US any land in Canada that was in American hands at the time.

 

[TRH]

if the negotiations in Ghent had went on until news of New Orleans arrived would the British been willing to give the US any land in Canada that was in American hands at the time.

I kind of doubt it; they went in hoping for more than status quo ante, so to come away with less would probably be too much to accept.