War of 1812 - American defeat?

General Mosh

In this forum's opinion, is an American defeat possible in the war of 1812 (with a POD after the start of the war), and if so, what would be the consequences (as in peace treaty)?

I think its possible for the US to lose, as the war was pretty much a draw, and the British Empire was ahead for quite a while (they even burned down the white house). So, I think its quite possible for the British to win the war. But I'd like to hear your opinions, so go ahead!
 

Stonewall

Banned
I'm not too well-read on British history of the napoleonic time, but as I understand England was much more focused on fighting Napoleon rather than the U.S. I think unless the conflict in Europe is resolved faster England won't be pressed to focus on the war in the U.S as little more than a distraction.
 

TRH

Beedok said:
I would definitely call OTL possible. Not always plausible, but it works in this case.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me you're one of those Canadian nationalists who think that the primary American war aim in 1812 was to take over Canada...
 

Elfwine

Siding with Beedok. That aside, define defeat.

Losing territory? Britain doesn't want to take US territory.
 

Elfwine

Umbric Man said:
Bollocks. Tell that to the guys who wanted to form New Ireland out of northern Maine.
Click to expand...

And what guys are those?

Because as someone who has spent (several years ago) some time reading on the War of 1812, I have never seen that mentioned as relevant to British policy.
 

General Mosh

Elfwine said:
Siding with Beedok. That aside, define defeat.

Losing territory? Britain doesn't want to take US territory.
Click to expand...
I think that Britain would take Maine, a fairly underdeveloped area with plenty of natural resources. But defeat doesn't have to be losing territory. But just America having to concede defeat in general.
 

Beothuk

Stonewall said:
I'm not too well-read on British history of the napoleonic time, but as I understand England was much more focused on fighting Napoleon rather than the U.S. I think unless the conflict in Europe is resolved faster England won't be pressed to focus on the war in the U.S as little more than a distraction.
Click to expand...

maybe Napoleon could get sick and die invading Russia. He could break his hip or leg or something in Lithuania crossing the Nieman. Europe would be a lot more relaxed between 1812 and Britain could afford to send more men and focus on their North American territories.

Something to consider would be the effect of a greater British presence in NA on the support and arming-of Tecumseh's confederacy. If the Americans are defeated, maybe Britain succeeds in facilitating the creation of an Indian buffer state in North America.
 

Elfwine

TRH said:
If that's the case, would you mind expounding a bit as to what Britain's America policy was at the time? It certainly doesn't seem consistent with their behavior later on in the 19th Century, and no one was interested in my War of 1812 DBWI, so I'd appreciate some more information on the matter.
Click to expand...

"America is not important."

Britain is rather preoccupied, and impressment was not targeted at Americans - it was (in theory, and I leave it to the uncertain honesty of RN officers to say how much in practice) about British deserters.

I haven't really read anything from the British POV on the events leading up to it, however - I've read several American-centered books, and I have one somewhere (probably buried in a stack of books) on the Canadian side of things, but not so much on the British.

But there doesn't seem to be a full fledged policy either favorable or hostile, although the repeal of Orders in Council seems to suggest not pursuing conflict.

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/brit_embargo.html

Although I find it unlikely that Britain's manufacturing economy was "in shambles" when total exports went up from 37.5 million pounds in 1804-1806 to 44.4 million in 1814-16.

Compared to 21.7 million in 1794-1696.

Pig iron production has nearly quintuppled between 1788 and 1811 (68,000 tons to 325,000).

Not exactly a struggling economy there.
 
Komnenos002

Komnenos002

Elfwine said:
At least from wiki, you have . . . the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia, taking territory in a contested area between Canada and the US.

Wow, I am overwhelmed by the evidence that Britain wants to seize US territory.

Smiley not needed.
Click to expand...

Taking contested territory after the two nations are already at war.

It's not so much governmental policy, as it is one measly provincial governor targeting the enemy of his country.
 

Elfwine

Komnenos002 said:
Taking contested territory after the two nations are already at war.

It's not so much governmental policy, as it is one measly provincial governor targeting the enemy of his country.
Click to expand...

Precisely. At most the Crown/Parliament is approving it by not disapproving it, from what has been presented so far.
 
Komnenos002

Komnenos002

Is there any desire in Britain to actually seize territory on a more . . . grand . . . scale? My understanding was that trading with the USA was more profitable than owning the land in question, and the British knew this.

It seems more likely that American defeat would lead to recognising British claims over disputed lands yet unsettled in the east.
 

Tripwire

If the British won, they would almost certainly take the disputed part of Maine and control of the Great Lakes, which would probably mean the Michigan peninsula. Beyond that the British aren't interested in territory that would likely tie them down into future wars with the United States.
 

Darkling

After the British had seen off the American offensive Prevost was informed he should pursue the "restoration of Detroit and the whole of the Michigan country to the Indians" and "the maintenance of Fort Niagara and as much adjacent territory as is deemed necessary".

The occupation of Eastern Maine was essentially peaceful and the inhabitants agreed to surrender and await whatever fate the peace treaty brought, given the Maine boundary was still open to debate it is quiet likely there would have been alterations there in any acknowledged American defeat.
 

jkarr

id imagine a decisive american defeat would have alot of effect on how far west they expand the the oregon dispute...even if britian takes nothing in 1814, they can use it to leverage the americans later
 

Darkling

jkarr said:
id imagine a decisive american defeat would have alot of effect on how far west they expand the the oregon dispute...even if britian takes nothing in 1814, they can use it to leverage the americans later
Click to expand...

Britain actually "captured" Fort Astoria, after it had already been sold to the North West Company, and thus handed it back because of Ghent, sort of.

So if the Northwest company is on the ball I imagine the final disposition of this area might be dealt with in the ATL Treaty of Ghent.
 

Georgie Porgie

An American lose would not necessarily see the USA becoming British again, but rather that that New England becoming a break away unit with strong ties to England ( lower tariffs etc).

In addition it could mean a Native American state to the West of the Ohio or Missisippi.

It would mean that Western Canada will eventually be much lower than Vancover as Washington state would not contest the boarder.

It may well also lead California to become part of the Empire after breaking from Spain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top