US victory in war of 1812 american gains

[EnglishCanuck]

the St Lawrence River is great to defend Canada, but does not lead into US territory. Lake Champlain is what you need to invade the US, and then advance south along the Hudson (which is what the Battle of Lake Champlain prevented)

The Americans held Lake Erie and a naval arms race was underway (the Americans were even working on a double decker) on Lake Ontario so those are out while Lundys Lane and Niagara in 1814 by that apparently spent American force were a bloody draw as US and British regulars found they were evenly matched (finally after 2 years for the Americans)

The US Army on this front was actually finally a capable and dangerous force, as General Drummond openly admitted.

That massive army has to eat while its in Maryland, and while reasonably prosperous, this region of Maryland is not the breadbasket found further north. It was mainly tobacco plantations and supported a decent but not overly large population. As to state governors, Cochrane had been raiding Maryland shore villages and farms for a year already, so the locals are getting pretty angry about it already.. but angrier at the British.

So once the British have Baltimore and Washington, then what? Neither is the most important region of the US in terms of taxes, food production, productivity or wealth. Those would be either further north or further south. Philadelphia and the Delaware River valley, or New York and its environs, or Boston for what served as industry at this date as well as wheat and corn, while further south for the wealthier cotton and tobacco plantations (and wealth).

So once this army eats everything up, while under pretty steady harassment (which had already become a problem for British naval parties)

As to the capital, Congress and the President escaped and would easily make for either Richmond or Philadelphia. Most of the records made it out too. The British burned some buildings and a lot of furniture plus a nice naval yard when DC fell. But that was it. Ross complained about lacking cavalry and artillery. While this is a region known for just about every gentleman being an excellent rider, and Virginia is right next door. Not up to charging a British square but ideal for harassing foraging parties and wagon trains.

So this army isn't going anywhere.

It is also notable that the Hartford Convention and New England calls for secession ended after the burning of Washington, because they felt it was their capital too.

And then a few months latter, should this army stay through the winter, Napoleon escapes from Elba and the British have traded Maryland for a renewed threat from the "Monster"

And still haven't conquered the US or likely brought it to terms.

Meanwhile Brown and Scott have recovered, still have a decent army in New York, while there is no threat to New Orleans (a far more important place) and what have the British really gained? Other than occupying the north woods of Maine and part of Maryland, burned down Baltimore (Cochrane really wanted that) and Washington, they hold nothing of decisive value. Neither the industrial heartland (such as it is) or the really valuable cotton production territory to the south.

And American privateers are still capturing large numbers of British merchantmen, and the costs of the war continue to go up

A few problems with a heroic continued American resistance, the loss of both Baltimore and Washington is a blow to American pride and paints an (untrue but it is about perception) picture the British could go and seize another city if they so desire. The government has been forced to flee the capital and the British are still tightening the blockade (while privateers are not significantly hampering any British operations). Meanwhile the longer the British stay in Maryland and near Virginia the more the very planter elite are going to want peace since the British would be accepting runaway slaves into their ranks and ruining that plantation system. The American Army meanwhile, despite a bloody stalemate at Lundys Lane cannot launch another invasion of Canada. While there is an arms race on the Great Lakes, the Americans are no closer to winning on Lake Ontario than they were last year.

Meanwhile blockade tightens, there are very few offensive options left to the US and there will be discontent from all sides of the country over the running of the war. What possible reason would Madison have to decide to continue the war?

Also one cannot assume that in this alt 1814 Napoleon would still escape, much less do better than he did historically in the 100 Days. So barring that (which didn't slow the war considerably in North America OTL) it's not correct to assume there will be another distraction in Europe.

Again, this would more than likely force peace, there's far too few reasons to continue the war from the American perspective and the British, who have instead taken an eye to ending the war here, would be seeking probably less harsh terms that at first at Ghent OTL[1], so I again sincerely doubt Madison would decide he must risk a continued war.

[1] Well they might insist on Maine and some of the North West, but the Indian Confederacy idea is still a no go.

 

[TRH]

Snip

Okay...so your argument is that the sacking of the capital would actually hurt American morale? I'm not sure any society in history has actually reacted like that, especially not against an enemy who they'd won their independence from only a generation earlier.

I used a smiley, but I'm at least half serious here. Did losing a capital stop the Spanish? Or the Russians? Or the Austrians in 1805 and 1809? I'd say the only one making a strawman regarding American morale here is you. And how is the blockade getting any tighter? America's been closed off to foreign trade for six, seven years already. "Alright, now the wheels come off" is just as arbitrary an assumption as anything galveston has argued.

 

[TFSmith121]

The war in North America was OVER before the 100 Days...

Also one cannot assume that in this alt 1814 Napoleon would still escape, much less do better than he did historically in the 100 Days. So barring that (which didn't slow the war considerably in North America OTL) it's not correct to assume there will be another distraction in Europe.

The war in North America was OVER before the 100 Days...


And the British lost at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh, Baltimore/North Point/Ferry Branch/Fort McHenry, AND New Orleans between NI's abdication and his return from Elba.

• Napoleon I abdicated (for the first time) in April, 1814;
• Chippawa/Chippewa fought in July, 1814
• Lundy's Lane fought in July, 1814
• Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh was fought and won by the US in September, 1814;
• North Point/Fort McHenry/Ferry Branch/Hampstead Hill (i.e. Baltimore) was fought and won by the US, also in September, 1814;
• Treaty of Ghent signed December, 1814;
• Battle of New Orleans fought and won by the US in January, 1815;
• Treaty of Ghent ratified by US Senate February, 1815 (war is over, if you want it...)
• Napoleon escapes from Elba in March, 1815;
• Waterloo fought June, 1815;
• Napoleon I abdicates second time in July, 1815. Off to Saint Helena...

So the whole "if only the British didn't have to fight the French, they would have rolled over the US" trope is, to be blunt, somewhat belied by the historical evidence.

Not to inject historical reality or anything, but still...

Best,

 

[TRH]

The war in North America was OVER before the 100 Days...

He was specifically discussing a scenario in which the war's end is delayed by months, and Baltimore falls somehow. I think supplying the 20,000 or however many troops necessary for that is harder than he admits, but if you handwave that, then it the continuation seems possible.

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, but if the war in Europe does not end on

He was specifically discussing a scenario in which the war's end is delayed by months, and Baltimore falls somehow. I think supplying the 20,000 or however many troops necessary for that is harder than he admits, but if you handwave that, then it the continuation seems possible.

Okay, but if the war in Europe does not end on schedule, then where do an extra 20,000 British soldiers come from?

And if it does end on schedule, then the reality that the British lost pretty much continually in 1814 and 1815, between NI's first abdication and his return from Elba, then apparently all the troops the British could sustain for expeditionary warfare in this period against the US are the roughly 5,000 who (historically) were available for Maryland and the roughly 10,000 who (historically) were available for Louisiana (and Pakenham's force for New Orleans included a significant percentage of the survivors of Ross' force for Baltimore).

Basically, its Operation IMPERIAL HANDWAVIUM no matter what...

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Okay...so your argument is that the sacking of the capital would actually hurt American morale? I'm not sure any society in history has actually reacted like that, especially not against an enemy who they'd won their independence from only a generation earlier.

I used a smiley, but I'm at least half serious here. Did losing a capital stop the Spanish? Or the Russians? Or the Austrians in 1805 and 1809? I'd say the only one making a strawman regarding American morale here is you. And how is the blockade getting any tighter? America's been closed off to foreign trade for six, seven years already. "Alright, now the wheels come off" is just as arbitrary an assumption as anything galveston has argued.

The blockade wasn't exactly tight in 1812-1813 due to the ongoing needs in Europe, by 1814 the British were capable of putting far more resources into the blockade, and from what I have read the American trade revenue only dropped to absurdly low levels in 1814, so that is how I'm measuring the effectiveness of the blockade here.

The fall of the capital and a major coastal city would send a pretty jarring message about the British capabilities (even if they couldn't necessarily follow it up) which just might encourage peace. I'm not saying the Americans are going to collectively shit themselves and cower before British might, what I am saying is that it would probably be a fairly convincing argument that continuing the war is probably not worth it.

That is literally all I am proposing, that the suggested plan is well within British capabilities to potentially carry out and that it would probably make peace. Nothing more.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The war in North America was OVER before the 100 Days...


And the British lost at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh, Baltimore/North Point/Ferry Branch/Fort McHenry, AND New Orleans between NI's abdication and his return from Elba.

• Napoleon I abdicated (for the first time) in April, 1814;
• Chippawa/Chippewa fought in July, 1814
• Lundy's Lane fought in July, 1814
• Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh was fought and won by the US in September, 1814;
• North Point/Fort McHenry/Ferry Branch/Hampstead Hill (i.e. Baltimore) was fought and won by the US, also in September, 1814;
• Treaty of Ghent signed December, 1814;
• Battle of New Orleans fought and won by the US in January, 1815;
• Treaty of Ghent ratified by US Senate February, 1815 (war is over, if you want it...)
• Napoleon escapes from Elba in March, 1815;
• Waterloo fought June, 1815;
• Napoleon I abdicates second time in July, 1815. Off to Saint Helena...

So the whole "if only the British didn't have to fight the French, they would have rolled over the US" trope is, to be blunt, somewhat belied by the historical evidence.

Not to inject historical reality or anything, but still...

Best,

Blame Galveston bay for the Napoleon comment, I'm pointing it how it didn't really effect the outcome of the war in North America.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Okay, but if the war in Europe does not end on schedule, then where do an extra 20,000 British soldiers come from?

And if it does end on schedule, then the reality that the British lost pretty much continually in 1814 and 1815, between NI's first abdication and his return from Elba, then apparently all the troops the British could sustain in the for expeditionary warfare in this period are the roughly 5,000 who (historically) were available for Maryland and the roughly 10,000 who (historically) were available for Louisiana (and Pakenham's force for New Orleans included a significant percentage of the survivors of Ross' force for Baltimore).

Basically, its handwavium no matter what...

Best,

There is no "extra" 20,000 troops. In theatre the British had nearly 40,000 (give or take) by 1814. My suggestion here is for an alternate British strategy in 1814.

However, once again you just haven't read my posts.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, the British lost

Blame Galveston bay for the Napoleon comment, I'm pointing it how it didn't really effect the outcome of the war in North America.

Yeah, the British lost even when they (supposedly) didn't have to worry about the French...glad you agree.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

What strategy would that be?

There is no "extra" 20,000 troops. In theatre the British had nearly 40,000 (give or take) by 1814. My suggestion here is for an alternate British strategy in 1814.

However, once again you just haven't read my posts.

What strategy would that be?

• Prevost and Downie (KIA) had ~14,000 at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh and lost;
• Ross (KIA) had 5,000 at Baltimore and lost;
• Pakenham (KIA) and Gibbs, (also KIA) had ~10,000 at New Orleans and (also) lost.

All of the above occurred after NI's first abdication and before he returned to France from Elba.

Smith, Stricker, and Armistead had some 14,000 between North Point, Hampstead Hill, and the harbor defenses that defeated the British (twice, Fort McHeny and Ferry Branch)...

The British could not, obviously, put enough men ashore anywhere significant (New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, or Boston) to outnumber the defenders...

The entire "British" element of the Allied army at Waterloo (1815, again, and no war in the Western Hemisphere or anywhere else) numbered all of 31,000, and that included 6,000 KGL...so how do they get 20,000 British troops to the US in 1814, again?

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Yeah, the British lost even when they (supposedly) didn't have to worry about the French...glad you agree.

The British lost the war of 1812? Amusing.

What strategy would that be?

As per usual go back and read.

• Prevost and Downie (KIA) had ~14,000 at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh and lost;
• Ross (KIA) had 5,000 at Baltimore and lost;
• Pakenham (KIA) and Gibbs, (also KIA) had ~10,000 at New Orleans and (also) lost.

As much as I hate always repeating myself in 1812 threads about this but Prevost was not defeated at Plattsburgh, Downie was. There is a humongous difference.

Smith, Stricker, and Armistead had some 14,000 between North Point, Hampstead Hill, and the harbor defenses that defeated the British (twice, Fort McHeny and Ferry Branch)...

The British could not, obviously, put enough men ashore anywhere significant (New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, or Boston) to outnumber the defenders...

So how'd Jackson get himself outnumbered at New Orleans then? How'd Stuart manage to lose Washington outnumbering the British attackers?

so how do they get 20,000 British troops to the US in 1814, again?

Again 40,000 +/- in theatre by 1814. Don't blame me for the numbers established historically.

My only suggestion has been they be used differently and in a different strategy, yet apparently that's too much to consider

 

[TFSmith121]

They lost every battle in US territory in 1814-15

The British lost the war of 1812? Amusing.

They lost every battle in US territory in 1814-15.



As per:

• Napoleon I abdicated (for the first time) in April, 1814;
• Chippawa/Chippewa fought in July, 1814
• Lundy's Lane fought in July, 1814
• Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh was fought and won by the US in September, 1814;
• North Point/Fort McHenry/Ferry Branch/Hampstead Hill (i.e. Baltimore) was fought and won by the US, also in September, 1814;
• Treaty of Ghent signed December, 1814;
• Battle of New Orleans fought and won by the US in January, 1815;
• Treaty of Ghent ratified by US Senate February, 1815 (war is over, if you want it...)
• Napoleon escapes from Elba in March, 1815;
• Waterloo fought June, 1815;
• Napoleon I abdicates second time in July, 1815. Off to Saint Helena...

So, again, the whole "if only the British didn't have to fight the French, they would have rolled over the US" trope is, to be blunt, somewhat belied by the historical evidence.

As is the possibility of the British deploying 20,000 troops into US territory in 1814-15, since they didn't manage to do so historically, even after Napoleon was obliging enough to abdicate, seems rather doubtful they could if the French were still in the fight...or even if the French were not, since, in fact, the British did not deploy 20,000 troops into US territory in 1814-15, when the French were, in fact, not in the fight...

The largest expeditionary force the British managed was Prevost's, who blanched at attacking Macomb's 3,500 or so on the Seneca, even before Downie et al got killed, sunk, or captured at Lake Champlain.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

They lost every battle in US territory in 1814-15.

So, again, the whole "if only the British didn't have to fight the French, they would have rolled over the US" trope is, to be blunt, somewhat belied by the historical evidence.

Oh that is just not true.

But that was a cute attempt though.

As is the possibility of the British deploying 20,000 troops into US territory in 1814-15, since they didn't manage to do so historically, even after Napoleon was obliging enough to abdicate, seems rather doubtful they could if the French were still in the fight...or even if the French were not, since, in fact, the British did not deploy 20,000 troops into US territory in 1814-15, when the French were, in fact, not in the fight...

Actually when you crunch the numbers
14,000 (Prevost)
5,000 (Ross)
700 +/- (Sherbrooke)

19,700 total offensive forces deployed in fall 1814 minus defensive forces in theatre.[1]

They practically did. And this of course doesn't count the forces shipped to New Orleans.

Had they been concentrated in a different manner they might have achieved more decisive results.

The largest expeditionary force the British managed was Prevost's, who blanched at attacking Macomb's 3,500 or so on the Seneca, even before Downie et al got killed, sunk, or captured at Lake Champlain.

Prevost didn't even attack, he saw the naval defeat, engaged in skirmishing then packed up and went home. There wasn't really a land battle so the continuous claims of the Americans 'repulsing' the British on land are greatly exaggerated.

I mean we could always go into fights like 2nd Lacolle Mills, Chrysler's Farm, Chateauguay, or Stoney Creek where the American forces certainly did attack inferior British forces, yet we never do [2]

[1] Nor does it take into account garrison troops or reinforcements and is based purely off abstract number counts so this number may be high or it may be low but a general estimate that offensive forces to not exceed 20,000 nor are under 18,000 seems about right.

[2] Of course one could always blame this on the atrocious American commanders, but at Plattsburgh you had Prevost so neither is saying much, save that unlike the American commanders Prevost was not compelled to retreat through battle. Still doesn't say much for Prevost though.

 

[TFSmith121]

You have suggested the British could sustain

You have suggested the British could transport, deploy, and sustain a 20,000-strong expeditionary force in US territory in 1814; please explain when and where.

Thanks

 

[Matteo]

Because Britain already did it, and even more, during the american revolution war.

Just to have fun, could you please explain yourself how the US, given the poor state of their military organization and logistics, could sustain a strong force in Canada for a long time ?

 

[Nialironarm]

It sometimes seems that the suggestion that anyone could do better, at any time, against the US is ASB.

At the same time the US would be able to annex British North America, Mexico and central America to the Columbian border just by deciding to do it.

For the US to gain territory in the war of 1812 things would have to be very different from OTL.

If this is possible then a British victory following major PODs is also possible.

It is not ASB to suggest that Britain might find the will to pursue the war until victorious.

 

[Matteo]

It is not ASB to suggest that Britain might find the will to pursue the war until victorious.

You're right. On the contrary, what is ASB is to think that, by 1812/1815, Britain would give away significant chunks of Canada to the US after the first setback.

The american revolution war gives the realistic conditions for defeating Britain in north America and forcing it to abandon territories : having Britain facing a coalition with strong naval forces and the british homeland facing a very serious risk of invasion.

 

[Saphroneth]

You're right. On the contrary, what is ASB is to think that, by 1812/1815, Britain would give away significant chunks of Canada to the US after the first setback.

The american revolution war gives the realistic conditions for defeating Britain in north America and forcing it to abandon territories : having Britain facing a coalition with strong naval forces and the british homeland facing a very serious risk of invasion.

It's also worth pointing out, of course, that the Americans have both advantages and disadvantages in 1812 compared to 1780.
In the Revolutionary War, they weren't really a country yet - and that means both good things and bad things. Good is that an insurgency (which they were) is a nebulous thing which is hard to pin down and kill, bad is that an insurgency can't win a war on its own either.
In 1812, the war has become conventional, and that means that the US is more vulnerable to actually being hurt than the continental congress ever was.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

You have suggested the British could transport, deploy, and sustain a 20,000-strong expeditionary force in US territory in 1814; please explain when and where.

Thanks

My suggestion for an alternate British strategy in 1814 is on page 5. Should take 20 seconds to find it and maybe 5 min to read it.

Happy reading.

 

[galveston bay]

I will get back to this later today after work but don't forget, a sizable portion of those troops used at New Orleans were the same troops used at Baltimore

plus most of the fleet and all of the transports