War of 1812 Prolonged

[Baron von Feldspar]

It would solve the argruement of who won the War of 1812, us or the damn Yanks. Writing from a city, Toronto, that was burned by US invaders.

An independent New England is going to be interesting. It is going to be something like an extralarge American Hong Kong. Will the majority of US overseas trade be continued to carried in New England hulls. What continues to set apart New England from the rest of the states is that it was more industrialized and more mercantile. With out New England could the US ever win against the Confederacy.

 

[67th Tigers]

It would solve the argruement of who won the War of 1812, us or the damn Yanks. Writing from a city, Toronto, that was burned by US invaders.

An independent New England is going to be interesting. It is going to be something like an extralarge American Hong Kong. Will the majority of US overseas trade be continued to carried in New England hulls. What continues to set apart New England from the rest of the states is that it was more industrialized and more mercantile. With out New England could the US ever win against the Confederacy.

More to the point, there will never be a CSA. Without NE, the remaining free soil states (and there may be even less than OTL, depending on how much of Louisiana Canada gains) can't hope even to stop Kansas etc. from being slave states.

Any secessionist war is likely to be the other way round, New York, Pennsylvania etc. leaving.

 

[danwild6]

Contrary to what many people are posting 1815 isn't going to be a cake walk for the Brits for a number of reasons.

1. Unlike at the start of the war, in 1815 the US now has a large professional army, with capable commanders.

2. New England succession is highly unlikely and has been over exaggerated ever since the end of OTL's war of 1812 for political purposes.

3. As demonstrated at New Orleans and Baltimore Washington is the exception not the rule.

4. Their isn't going to be any conquest of upstate New York without control of Lake Champlain, which won't be possible until 1816 at the earliest.

5. The US possessed control of Lake Erie which means the US will have the initiative in the upper great lakes.

6. Sackett's Harbor had already been identified as the target for the main British offensive in 1815 and when they landed the American army would be their to greet them.

Sorry guys but it was more than war weariness that convinced Britain to accept peace.

 

[scourge]

I bet Jackson ends up with more victories under his belt .

 

[DAv]

Contrary to what many people are posting 1815 isn't going to be a cake walk for the Brits for a number of reasons.

1. Unlike at the start of the war, in 1815 the US now has a large professional army, with capable commanders.

2. New England succession is highly unlikely and has been over exaggerated ever since the end of OTL's war of 1812 for political purposes.

3. As demonstrated at New Orleans and Baltimore Washington is the exception not the rule.

4. Their isn't going to be any conquest of upstate New York without control of Lake Champlain, which won't be possible until 1816 at the earliest.

5. The US possessed control of Lake Erie which means the US will have the initiative in the upper great lakes.

6. Sackett's Harbor had already been identified as the target for the main British offensive in 1815 and when they landed the American army would be their to greet them.

Sorry guys but it was more than war weariness that convinced Britain to accept peace.

Don't forget that Britain had control of Maine at this time. America would need to dislodge them there in order to gain any sort of advantage in the east.

 

[67th Tigers]

Contrary to what many people are posting 1815 isn't going to be a cake walk for the Brits for a number of reasons.

1. Unlike at the start of the war, in 1815 the US now has a large professional army, with capable commanders.

2. New England succession is highly unlikely and has been over exaggerated ever since the end of OTL's war of 1812 for political purposes.

3. As demonstrated at New Orleans and Baltimore Washington is the exception not the rule.

4. Their isn't going to be any conquest of upstate New York without control of Lake Champlain, which won't be possible until 1816 at the earliest.

5. The US possessed control of Lake Erie which means the US will have the initiative in the upper great lakes.

6. Sackett's Harbor had already been identified as the target for the main British offensive in 1815 and when they landed the American army would be their to greet them.

Sorry guys but it was more than war weariness that convinced Britain to accept peace.

1. Not that large, the limit was 35,735 offrs and ORs, and there was trouble filling up the Army (in all probability, the US Regular Army in 1814 had ca 20,000 men). Nor were they particularly well trained by European standards.

2. It really wasn't, the British were effectively already treating it as a seperate body.

3. New Orleans had it continued probably would have ended up being a British victory, albeit a bloody one.

4 and 5. The RN were outbuilding the USN by a long way over the winter of 1815. Had another campaign season started, the RN certainly would have regained control of the Lakes, especially since ships could now be spared from fighting France.

6. That's good for the British, it gives them a chance to siege the main US Army.

The 1815 campaign season would have been the first one where the British could apply their main force to the US, and they could still fight Waterloo, since the Army at Waterloo is almost entirely non-peninsula troops (6 of the British bns were peninsula troops, 3 of those had been at New Orleans ISTR). IRL the British demobilised a body of men 7 times the size of the US Army in 1815.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

We seem to be forgetting the main reason the British had for ending the war. As I noted, they had won and Canada was secure. They didn't need to do more nor did they have any reason to believe that the US would be a problem for decades to come(it wasn't).

 

[danwild6]

1. Not that large, the limit was 35,735 offrs and ORs, and there was trouble filling up the Army (in all probability, the US Regular Army in 1814 had ca 20,000 men). Nor were they particularly well trained by European standards.

They were well trained to defeat British regulars in the open field ala Chippewa and Baltimore

2. It really wasn't, the British were effectively already treating it as a seperate body.

Irrelevant and not entirely accurate.

3. New Orleans had it continued probably would have ended up being a British victory, albeit a bloody one.

A laughable statement. The British General was dead the main army was shattered. The force then "threatening" Jackson's army was across the river with no way of crossing and even if they could've gotten at Jackson it would've been severely outnumbered. Sorry man you can add all the time you want to the battle you are not going to change the outcome.

Besides using that logic I could say had the Niagara campaign in 1814 lasted longer the US would've destroyed the British army in Upper Canada.

4 and 5. The RN were outbuilding the USN by a long way over the winter of 1815. Had another campaign season started, the RN certainly would have regained control of the Lakes, especially since ships could now be spared from fighting France.

Completely unrealistic in 1814 Port Dover the only British held port on Lake Erie was destroyed by American forces. At the Battle of Lake Champlain the entire British squadron was captured. On Lake Ontario the US was constructing two 114-gun first raters in addition to two large frigates. The US would have had parity on Lake Ontario in 1815

6. That's good for the British, it gives them a chance to siege the main US Army.

Assuming Yeo can be convinced into committing against Sacketts harbor(he had two prior experiences attempting this neither of which worked out as he planned.

The 1815 campaign season would have been the first one where the British could apply their main force to the US, and they could still fight Waterloo, since the Army at Waterloo is almost entirely non-peninsula troops (6 of the British bns were peninsula troops, 3 of those had been at New Orleans ISTR). IRL the British demobilised a body of men 7 times the size of the US Army in 1815.

"Not even I can conquer from Canada without control of the Great Lakes". You can send all the men you want but without naval mastery of Lake Champlain, Ontario and Erie they're not much of a threat.

 

[danwild6]

We seem to be forgetting the main reason the British had for ending the war. As I noted, they had won and Canada was secure. They didn't need to do more nor did they have any reason to believe that the US would be a problem for decades to come(it wasn't).

Well actually Britain had not secured Canada as the US held naval superiority in both Lake Champlain and Lake Erie and thus could attack both Canada's at will.

 

[danwild6]

Don't forget that Britain had control of Maine at this time. America would need to dislodge them there in order to gain any sort of advantage in the east.

Maine is a bargaining chip and of little strategic importance. No need to waste troops there.

 

[67th Tigers]

They were well trained to defeat British regulars in the open field ala Chippewa and Baltimore

At North Point (Baltimore), the US lost, the British smashed the US defenders completely. It was the failure of the RN bombardment force to neutralise Ft McHenry that caused them to withdraw.

At Chippawa, Scott's regulars (who had been drilled well, and were probably the only such force the US had) fought with roughly a 2:1 numerical advantage against the 1/1st and 100th, but had only a 1.75 casualty ratio, indicating the CEV was close on 1.0, so this force had achieved parity of quality with British garrison troops.

A laughable statement. The British General was dead the main army was shattered. The force then "threatening" Jackson's army was across the river with no way of crossing and even if they could've gotten at Jackson it would've been severely outnumbered. Sorry man you can add all the time you want to the battle you are not going to change the outcome.

Lambert was alive and simply assumed command (he was very good, see his performance later at Waterloo), the 93rd had suffered heavily, and in effect the British force had lost one of it's battalions.

The 85th found the US commander had managed to spike the guns on the west bank, and the powder blown. By the time he'd got the guns into action the main attack had floundered. Had the British wished to the attack the next day, they could have had a battery of heavy guns enfilading the US defenses, they'd have been untenable.

Besides using that logic I could say had the Niagara campaign in 1814 lasted longer the US would've destroyed the British army in Upper Canada.

Seems highly unlikely.

Completely unrealistic in 1814 Port Dover the only British held port on Lake Erie was destroyed by American forces. At the Battle of Lake Champlain the entire British squadron was captured. On Lake Ontario the US was constructing two 114-gun first raters in addition to two large frigates. The US would have had parity on Lake Ontario in 1815

By the opening of the 1815 season, the British would have 3x liners on the Lake Ontario, so they win that (the US liners were at least 2 years from completion).

Lake Champlain is directly connected to the Atlantic via the St Lawrence and Hudson, which is why it was so important. Once spring came a major RN squadron could sail straight in from England.

Lake Erie is probably in American hand for the 1815 campaigning season.

"Not even I can conquer from Canada without control of the Great Lakes". You can send all the men you want but without naval mastery of Lake Champlain, Ontario and Erie they're not much of a threat.

This was well known by the British, which was why a primarily defensive strategy was adopted in the west after 1814.

 

[DAv]

Maine is a bargaining chip and of little strategic importance. No need to waste troops there.

So an important American territory isn't worth bothering about? Even if the British feel that they could use it to march south to New England?

 

[danwild6]

At North Point (Baltimore), the US lost, the British smashed the US defenders completely. It was the failure of the RN bombardment force to neutralise Ft McHenry that caused them to withdraw.

Ah no, the British were repulsed at North Point. The fact that the Royal Navy even had to bombard Fort Mchenry is proof of that.

At Chippawa, Scott's regulars (who had been drilled well, and were probably the only such force the US had) fought with roughly a 2:1 numerical advantage against the 1/1st and 100th, but had only a 1.75 casualty ratio, indicating the CEV was close on 1.0, so this force had achieved parity of quality with British garrison troops.

Wrong again the British had the numerical advantage against Scott at Chippewa as Scott was leading only one portion of the Left Division

Lambert was alive and simply assumed command (he was very good, see his performance later at Waterloo), the 93rd had suffered heavily, and in effect the British force had lost one of it's battalions.

Lambert wasn't the commanding general. Sir Edward Pakenham the Duke of Wellington's brother-in-law was the commanding general and was killed at New Orleans.

The 85th found the US commander had managed to spike the guns on the west bank, and the powder blown. By the time he'd got the guns into action the main attack had floundered. Had the British wished to the attack the next day, they could have had a battery of heavy guns enfilading the US defenses, they'd have been untenable.

Yeah and Andy Jackson was just going to wait for that huh. Man you really need to educate yourself. John Lambert knew that he was in an exposed position as the Americans controlled the Mississippi. Thats why Lambert withdrew in the first place.

By the opening of the 1815 season, the British would have 3x liners on the Lake Ontario, so they win that (the US liners were at least 2 years from completion).

If Isaac Chauncey had one skill in life it was ship building. Example the Mohawk and the Superior both 50+gun frigates were laid down and launched in no more 36 days. Two additional frigates were nearing completion with two first rated ships already laid down before the end of the year.

Lake Champlain is directly connected to the Atlantic via the St Lawrence and Hudson, which is why it was so important. Once spring came a major RN squadron could sail straight in from England.

Totally incorrect Lake Champlain connect with the St. Lawrence via the Richelieu a narrow shallow river by North American standards. Ships had to be broken up transported over land then reassembled.

 

[danwild6]

So an important American territory isn't worth bothering about? Even if the British feel that they could use it to march south to New England?

Well strategically its not. The British could just as easily attack from the sea as from Maine. Maine is a bargaining chip thats all.

 

[67th Tigers]

Ah no, the British were repulsed at North Point. The fact that the Royal Navy even had to bombard Fort Mchenry is proof of that.

The RN were always going to bombard Ft McHenry.

The British inflicted more casualties, captured a considerable number of Americans, scattered the remainder and held the field. That generally constitutes a successful engagement

Wrong again the British had the numerical advantage against Scott at Chippewa as Scott was leading only one portion of the Left Division

Scott had 1,700 men (1st Brigade) against 950 men (the 100th, and a small detachment of the 1/1st), the larger force won, although the ratio of casualties would imply rough parity in troop quality (as might be expected). The 1/8th and the Canadian Militia were engaged against the US 3rd Brigade instead.

Lambert wasn't the commanding general. Sir Edward Pakenham the Duke of Wellington's brother-in-law was the commanding general and was killed at New Orleans.

No, but he held the same rank as Pakenham (Maj Gen, or General d'Brigade in French ranks), and was next senior. On Pakenham's death, command of the expeditionary division was transferred to him.

Yeah and Andy Jackson was just going to wait for that huh. Man you really need to educate yourself. John Lambert knew that he was in an exposed position as the Americans controlled the Mississippi. Thats why Lambert withdrew in the first place.

He withdrew as the attack had failed. He withdrew back a whole 700m and sent orders to prepare for another attack. The sloop bearing the ceasefire order arrived next morning, forestalling it.

If Isaac Chauncey had one skill in life it was ship building. Example the Mohawk and the Superior both 50+gun frigates were laid down and launched in no more 36 days. Two additional frigates were nearing completion with two first rated ships already laid down before the end of the year.

However, it's a good job neither ever saw combat. Their hulls were so weak they couldn't even bear the weight of their own armament ISTR.

Totally incorrect Lake Champlain connect with the St. Lawrence via the Richelieu a narrow shallow river by North American standards. Ships had to be broken up transported over land then reassembled.

The river is fairly navigable, small frigates operated in it. The stoppage point is St. Johns-Chambley, which required frigates etc. to be lightened to cross (i.e. they landed all their stores and armament, sailed through the rapids and rearmed on the other side)

This may (or may not) interest you: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Give-Up-Ship-Myths/dp/0252031792

 

[danwild6]

The RN were always going to bombard Ft McHenry.

The British inflicted more casualties, captured a considerable number of Americans, scattered the remainder and held the field. That generally constitutes a successful engagement

No it was a last ditch attempt to force the surrender of the city after the failed assault at North Point.

Scott had 1,700 men (1st Brigade) against 950 men (the 100th, and a small detachment of the 1/1st), the larger force won, although the ratio of casualties would imply rough parity in troop quality (as might be expected). The 1/8th and the Canadian Militia were engaged against the US 3rd Brigade instead.

No Scott's 1300 men were attacked by the 100th foot(900-950 men), the 1st battalion of the 1st Royal Regiment of Foot(450-500 men)supported by the 8th king's own regiment of foot(900-950 men). Bear in mind that these units had arrived from Europe after being refitted so were at or near full strength while Scott's units weren't even at half strength.

No, but he held the same rank as Pakenham (Maj Gen, or General d'Brigade in French ranks), and was next senior. On Pakenham's death, command of the expeditionary division was transferred to him.

Yeah after Pakenham was killed after the battle was lost. Sorry man but you're not making your point.

He withdrew as the attack had failed. He withdrew back a whole 700m and sent orders to prepare for another attack. The sloop bearing the ceasefire order arrived next morning, forestalling it.

Right, word hadn't even reached New York at that time, but even so that was after he had already after he withdrew his forces form the American battery on the west bank of the Mississippi and was no longer threatening the American position from that quarter.

However, it's a good job neither ever saw combat. Their hulls were so weak they couldn't even bear the weight of their own armament ISTR.

I don't know American frigates have an unmatched track record during the War of 1812. I'm sure you've heard of the USS Constitution.

The river is fairly navigable, small frigates operated in it. The stoppage point is St. Johns-Chambley, which required frigates etc. to be lightened to cross (i.e. they landed all their stores and armament, sailed through the rapids and rearmed on the other side)

I don't know about that as the British had to construct HMS Confiance at Ile aux Noix.

This may (or may not) interest you: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Give-Up-Ship-Myths/dp/0252031792

Yet another kill joy author reminding everyone of what they already knew. Yes truth is the first casualty of war, on both sides.

 

[67th Tigers]

No it was a last ditch attempt to force the surrender of the city after the failed assault at North Point.

The British won at NP and continued to advance. However, this force was not meant to be the main attack. The British forces advanced to just shy of the US works, then demonstrated there, while the RN bombarded Ft McHenry. With McHenry still in US hands, there was little point in 4,000 British Infantry attacking 15,000 entrenched US militia.

No Scott's 1300 men were attacked by the 100th foot(900-950 men), the 1st battalion of the 1st Royal Regiment of Foot(450-500 men)supported by the 8th king's own regiment of foot(900-950 men). Bear in mind that these units had arrived from Europe after being refitted so were at or near full strength while Scott's units weren't even at half strength.

None of these were from Europe.

The 1/1st had been in the West Indies since 1801, and was sent to Quebec to recruit back to strength in 1811.

The 1/8th King's (no "Own") had been in British North America since 1808, and had suffered major losses during a period of garrison duty in the West Indies before moving to Nova Scotia to recruit some strength back.

The 100th has raised in 1804 and sent to BNA in 1805, with half the regiment (271 men) drowning en route when their ship floundered.

All three were low priority garrison units on establishment of ca 500 men before the war, and were considerably down on that strength. They'd recruited some strength back in BNA by enlisting Canadians (and Americans, concepts of nationalism were different then).

The 1/1st (one wing) and 100th totalled 950 men (including attached artillery etc.), while Scott's 1st brigade had 1,700 men (again, including attached artillery etc.). The 1/8th and Canadian Embodied Militia totalled about 900 men and faced the 3rd Bde. The US 2nd Bde was unengaged in the fighting.

Yeah after Pakenham was killed after the battle was lost. Sorry man but you're not making your point.

No, the next man simply steps up. This wasn't a feudal warrior culture. The next man in this case was Lambert. Ross was killed at North Point, but the next in line of command stepped up and continued the advance.

Right, word hadn't even reached New York at that time, but even so that was after he had already after he withdrew his forces form the American battery on the west bank of the Mississippi and was no longer threatening the American position from that quarter.

However, it did reach NO, via a RN sloop. Such is the vagueries of wind powered sail...

I don't know American frigates have an unmatched track record during the War of 1812. I'm sure you've heard of the USS Constitution.

With 28" heavy sidewalls? Yes, and I'm aware how difficult it was to build and arm her. There's a huge difference between the well built Constitution (3 years to build) and a piece of rubbish thrown together in a month.

Constitution and her ilk were really 4th Rates, rather than "frigates". However, there was a huge variation in the size and capabilities of vessels called frigates.

I don't know about that as the British had to construct HMS Confiance at Ile aux Noix.

She's a very heavy warship though, a "36" with 24pdrs, the very top end of the 5th Rate. Nothing that heavy could make it down the Richelieu, 6th rates or sloops probably could.

 

[67th Tigers]

FYI, British Troop reinforcements from Europe in 1814

To Canada: (from Wellington's Army) 1/3rd, 1/5th, 1/6th, 1/9th, 1/39th, 57th, 76th, 1/82nd, 1/88th and 2 Batteries, (from UK garrison): 4/1st, 16th, 1/27th, 1/37th, 1/58th and 2 Btys, (from Bentinck's Army) 1/21st, 1/58th and 1 bty, (from West Indies) 1/90th and 97th.

To Nova Scotia: (from Wellington's Army) 3/27th, 29th, (from UK garrison) 7/60th, 2/93rd, (from Bentinck's Army) 1/62nd

To the Chesapeake: (from Wellington's Army) 1/4th, 85th, 2 btys, (from UK) 2nd Bn, RM, (from Bentinck's Army) 1/21st, 1/44th, 1 bty

To Louisiana: (from Wellington's Army) 14th Light Dragoons, 1/7th, 1/40th, 1/43rd, 3/95th, (from Cape Colony) 1/93rd, (from West Indies) 1st WI, 5th WI (from Army of the Low Countries) 1 bty

 

[danwild6]

The British won at NP and continued to advance. However, this force was not meant to be the main attack. The British forces advanced to just shy of the US works, then demonstrated there, while the RN bombarded Ft McHenry. With McHenry still in US hands, there was little point in 4,000 British Infantry attacking 15,000 entrenched US militia.

Okay so after the American militia fought a delaying action at North Point but where not as you said "smashed".

The 1/1st had been in the West Indies since 1801, and was sent to Quebec to recruit back to strength in 1811.

The 1/8th King's (no "Own") had been in British North America since 1808, and had suffered major losses during a period of garrison duty in the West Indies before moving to Nova Scotia to recruit some strength back.

Some confusion I didn't say 1/8th King's the entire regiment was present at the battle. I believe the entire regiment was present(fairly unusual for the war of 1812)

The 100th has raised in 1804 and sent to BNA in 1805, with half the regiment (271 men) drowning en route when their ship floundered.

All three were low priority garrison units on establishment of ca 500 men before the war, and were considerably down on that strength. They'd recruited some strength back in BNA by enlisting Canadians (and Americans, concepts of nationalism were different then).

Okay I see your point

The 1/1st (one wing) and 100th totalled 950 men (including attached artillery etc.), while Scott's 1st brigade had 1,700 men (again, including attached artillery etc.). The 1/8th and Canadian Embodied Militia totalled about 900 men and faced the 3rd Bde. The US 2nd Bde was unengaged in the fighting.

Scott's entire forced including artillery and dragoons was 1300 strong. 1/1st and 100th(950 men) an addition to the 8th Kings regiment of Foot(? men).

No, the next man simply steps up. This wasn't a feudal warrior culture. The next man in this case was Lambert. Ross was killed at North Point, but the next in line of command stepped up and continued the advance.

Yeah but Lambert ordered a retreat

However, it did reach NO, via a RN sloop. Such is the vagueries of wind powered sail...

Perhaps but even if the attack did take place it was by no means sure of success. But I do have too ask if Lambert received word of peace why did he then sail to attack Fort Bowyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Bowyer

With 28" heavy sidewalls? Yes, and I'm aware how difficult it was to build and arm her. There's a huge difference between the well built Constitution (3 years to build) and a piece of rubbish thrown together in a month.

Yeah but you could easily say better built in a month than a year ala USS America(3 years in her case)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(1782)

Time is really irrelevant, materials are what counts.

Constitution and her ilk were really 4th Rates, rather than "frigates". However, there was a huge variation in the size and capabilities of vessels called frigates.

Quite true.

She's a very heavy warship though, a "36" with 24pdrs, the very top end of the 5th Rate. Nothing that heavy could make it down the Richelieu, 6th rates or sloops probably could.

Okay so a major RN squadron could not sail directly from England into lake Champlain then.

 

[DAv]

Well strategically its not. The British could just as easily attack from the sea as from Maine. Maine is a bargaining chip thats all.

So it can't be used as a staging post for entreching on American teritory and expanding Britain's influence?