A different 1812

[The Gunslinger]

Well, I got thinking... What if Britain beat the USA. I figure Britain keeps the Oregon and most of New England, maybe Michigan and some other stuff out west. But what I was wondering is how the war with Mexico would go, if there would even still be one. I can see the USA ending up with Texas. So... will there be another war, and will the United States be trapped with the Atlantic?

Any thoughts?

[David S Poepoe]

I don't see any particular reason that Britain, winning the War of 1812, would want to annex New England. There is nothing worst than annexing a bunch of people who don't like you. Establishing a solid claim to the Oregon Territory sounds alright, and most likely.

Regarding the war with Mexico, I think it is entirely likely given the concept of "Manifest Destiny". By the 1840s or 50s the British too might be willing to toss in the towel over Oregon. The Texan War of Independence directlt ties into the Mexican-American War, even without it - if Texas never revolts or is annexed by the US - the constant influx of settlers into California would till interest in that territory from Mexico to the US.

There were some US Congressmen, I keep on thinking about Thomas Hart Benton, that considered the Rocky Mountains as the natural limit of the United States. Gold had a way of changing such ideas.

[Norman]

Let me just add here that I thought we did lose the war. Sure we won a number of isolated sea battles, the Battle of New Orleans, and the seige at Fort McHenry. But we lost almost everything else and they did enter our capital and try to burn the White House.

[greatness]

Well we burned down york,(Toronto), which became the reason for them to burn down the Whitehouse as retalation.

[Wendell]

Let me just add here that I thought we did lose the war. Sure we won a number of isolated sea battles, the Battle of New Orleans, and the seige at Fort McHenry. But we lost almost everything else and they did enter our capital and try to burn the White House.
One may find it remarkable that the young Union survived that aspect of the war. Then again, New England was considering secession when it was all over. That said, the U.S. won the war, though without many objectives achieved.

[LordKalvan]

IMHO, GB might promote secessionists ambitions of New England, and create an useful ally in the area. They might be willing to annex Louisiana, and New Orleans, though. Or again to create a new republic there. The western border of USA would not be at the Rockies. I wonder also what will happen with Florida here.

When Texas time comes, there are two obvious plots for GB (in particular for a GB which is still considering herself the Mistress of north America): support an independent Texas (might be tricky, but it might be done. And promote immigration from Europe, to create a nation with no tie to the USA) or support Mexico, which is easier (and the price might be paid just a bit later on, when California gold is discovered). In both cases, there is even a moral justification: keep slavery out of Texas. This would be likely to be a very different world, with GB much more present (and dominant) in NA, and in the Pacific too (there's no doubt that Hawai'i would be annexed very soon in TTL)

[JimmyJimJam]

IMHO, GB might promote secessionists ambitions of New England, and create an useful ally in the area. They might be willing to annex Louisiana, and New Orleans, though. Or again to create a new republic there. The western border of USA would not be at the Rockies. I wonder also what will happen with Florida here.

When Texas time comes, there are two obvious plots for GB (in particular for a GB which is still considering herself the Mistress of north America): support an independent Texas (might be tricky, but it might be done. And promote immigration from Europe, to create a nation with no tie to the USA) or support Mexico, which is easier (and the price might be paid just a bit later on, when California gold is discovered). In both cases, there is even a moral justification: keep slavery out of Texas. This would be likely to be a very different world, with GB much more present (and dominant) in NA, and in the Pacific too (there's no doubt that Hawai'i would be annexed very soon in TTL)
Wouldnt it just be more profitable for GB to focus on conquering and developing parts of the Empire that are actually worth it, like India and Africa, as opposed to faraway places with technologically advanced, rebellious populations?

[Alratan]

[quote[Wouldnt it just be more profitable for GB to focus on conquering and developing parts of the Empire that are actually worth it, like India and Africa, as opposed to faraway places with technologically advanced, rebellious populations?[/quote]

They would be (note, the British Empire did very little conquoring itself). It propably wouldn't cost that much more to maintain hold on New Orleans, given its utillity for the British Caribean possessions. If Oregon is merged into Canada, then it shouldn't be any more rebelious than OTL British Columbia (i.e. not). Then, the only remaining differences costs are sponsoring the New England seccessionists and the independance of Texas, and in thee cases you are not opposing rebellious technologically advanced populations but sponsoring them, playing the part of France in the American revolution by aiding them against the hegemony of an overbearing power.

[Tielhard]

It depends on how jolly splendid you want the result to be for the British otherwsie known as how bad you want it to be for the USA

Probable

I seem to remember the British courting the Southern States in the war of 1812 and being received favourably? How about the Carolinas and points south returning to the crown?

If I were the British I would want Michigan quite badly they can then control all of the Great Lakes and have no incentive to demilitarise them.

Reparations including ships for British war expenditure.

Possible

Unopposed claim to the whole of what will become Oregon territory.

Restrictions on US westward advance enshrined in treaty.

Unlikely but fun

There is also the possibility of a Cherokee homland as a British protectorate.

Restrictions or destruction of US whaling and sealing fleets.

[mishery]

Possible

Restrictions on US westward advance enshrined in treaty.



...and this leads to a later war? US settlers move into British land and become the majority in some areas and demand unification with the US? Starting with a few low level local declarations that escalate into war?

Mixed in with the California goldrush?

[Tielhard]

I just noticed I posted this in the wrong 1812 thread sorry. However, as mishery has replied I may as well continue.

First point, yep I agree with your suggestion it is the most probable course of events. However perhaps the size of the reparations is so large that when combined with the restrictions it causes a US depression large enough to discourage both inward investment and immigration and the US fails to grow.

Second point, what happens during the ATL analogue of our Gold Rush of 1849 is difficult to assess. In all probability gold is not found until much later as the US Western advance and hence the number of people in Alta California is far lower reducing the probability of a find. There will be far fewer Americans in Alta California unless the gold is found very late say 1890+. Hence whilst there may be a Gold Rush it will be fuel from the British colonies; NSW, Victoria, Oregon, NZ and BC. There will be fewer miners overall. We may get a situation where the Hispanic population remains in control. We may get the Britsih born asking the authorities in Oregon to take over and provide protection and legal authorities. If the Sydney Ducks or similar hold say we may get a bid for independence. If the Americans try for American territory or state status they may succeed depending on numbers but a short civil war resulting in either a Mexican crack down or British occupation is more likely.

[LordKalvan]

It depends on how jolly splendid you want the result to be for the British otherwsie known as how bad you want it to be for the USA


Unlikely but fun

There is also the possibility of a Cherokee homland as a British protectorate.

.
This would be quite nice, and quite in accordance with British policies too. A Cherokee homeland (or maybe even something better: take a leaf from The Two Georges, and have the Five Civilised Nations getting a homeland) would be the best bulwark against American settlers moving West.
Which is why I would also anticipate a Texas and a California dominions.
It would be a way of keeping the imperial interest under control, and avoid spending heaps of money through direct administration.

[philjd]

Just wondering how the political and social outlook would have been if these had joined the Empire (both considered it).

The US, stretching from East to West, but both Northern and Southern boundaries 'protected' by Imperial territory... Would it bring paranoia and thus a militaristic outlook causing future problems or would it be much more 'monroe' and hence peaceful as no fights with the Mexicans (and probably no filibustering also) - knock on in the civil war (would it still happen...)?

regards
Phil

[wkwillis]

If Britain cut a deal with Napoleon, he gets Europe and the Med, they get the Americas? Then the British could have done better than they did in OTL.

[Straha]

perhaps the US coudl be restricted to the original 13 colonies?

[Darkling]

perhaps the US coudl be restricted to the original 13 colonies?

They were already beyond that by 1812 (by 1783 actually).

[Straha]

They were already beyond that by 1812 (by 1783 actually).
Well what I meant is that the british would take enough land to restrict the US to the 13 colonies.

[Darkling]

Assuming Britain gets Oregon then getting California is possible, in OTL the local populace approached the British Consul and said that they were planning to oust the governor and declare independence is the British would offer them protectorate status.

A Britain with a land border with the region and more interest in North American affairs might very well agree to this (once Gold is discovered Britain, or some man on the spot, will look for a way to gain control of California anyway).

[Nicole]

Perhaps a small New England (they wouldn't trust the Yankees so they wouldn't let them have, say, New York) and a Indian Confederation in Wisconsin?

[Straha]

Perhaps a british raj in mexico leading to canada's louisianan and mexican provinces making Canada the most powerful nation in NA?

[Darkling]

Well what I meant is that the british would take enough land to restrict the US to the 13 colonies.

They would have to push the US out of land already occupied with people, that might be doable along the edges like in Maine (where British actions in the war seem to indicate they were quite willing to take over the area, unlike in New Orleans where it was announced that the area was by no means certain to retained by the Crown),up state New York and parts of the Northwest territory.

However the areas outside the original 13 were already beginning to fill up.

Ohio had a population of around 250,000.
Kentucky 400,000
Tennessee 240,000

So Britain has to displace or occupy 1 million people who are located away from the sea (although along river sin most cases).

I don't think Americans would automatically revolt when entering British territory (an idea being pushed here but disproved by Canada IMO) to settle but taking their houses into British territory against their will is probably going to result in mischief especially given the numbers and geography involved.

Now doing as you suggest at the Revolution is certainly possible but by the war of 1812 the horse had already bolted.

Then again I came up with a timeline when the US got reintegrated into the Empire over two hundred years so who am I to judge. :)

[Straha]

Fine. What abotu having britain opt to take mexico in the 19th century?

[DoleScum]

First point, yep I agree with your suggestion it is the most probable course of events. However perhaps the size of the reparations is so large that when combined with the restrictions it causes a US depression large enough to discourage both inward investment and immigration and the US fails to grow.

Would the British want to impose reperations which are so heavy that they cripple the US economy? Given Britain's hegemony in 1815 she could afford to be generous and badly needed access to the US market to pull her own economy out of the depression of the closing years of the Napoleonic war. Also the 1812 War had been hugely unpopular with Britains commercial and industrial interests, for whom the US was a very important market. It never pays to bankrupt your best customers

We may get the Britsih born asking the authorities in Oregon to take over and provide protection and legal authorities. If the Sydney Ducks or similar hold say we may get a bid for independence. If the Americans try for American territory or state status they may succeed depending on numbers but a short civil war resulting in either a Mexican crack down or British occupation is more likely.

Perhaps a good comparison from OTL is the Witwatersand gold rush in South Africa but with the added dimension of a second power being envolved.
Palmerston certainly would not have shy'd away from protecting the rights of Britons in Mexican territory and this may have envolved into a full blown war.
Possibly we could see the incident being a vehicle for Anglo-American rapproachment as a coalition force goes into Mexico to protect the rights of their respective populations?

[DoleScum]

I don't think Americans would automatically revolt when entering British territory (an idea being pushed here but disproved by Canada IMO) to settle but taking their houses into British territory against their will is probably going to result in mischief especially given the numbers and geography involved.

A good point, during the period between 1783 and 1812 large numbers of Americans did settle in Canada, enough for the British authorities there to be worried about the possability of war and for Prevost to recommend that no more than 1/3 of the militia could be considered as loyal in the event of an American attack.
If impressment and the constant migration accross the Amero-Canadian boarder show anything, it is that American identity in this period was far less distinctive. Many Americans still saw themselves as being 'sort of' British and many Britons also continued to view the US as part of the British world.

I like the idea of Americans instantly reaching for their guns at the possability of being placed under the British jackboot.... wonder if I could sell this to Mel Gibson.....?

[Tielhard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tielhard

First point, yep I agree with your suggestion it is the most probable course of events. However perhaps the size of the reparations is so large that when combined with the restrictions it causes a US depression large enough to discourage both inward investment and immigration and the US fails to grow.



Originally Posted by DoleScum

Would the British want to impose reperations which are so heavy that they cripple the US economy? Given Britain's hegemony in 1815 she could afford to be generous and badly needed access to the US market to pull her own economy out of the depression of the closing years of the Napoleonic war. Also the 1812 War had been hugely unpopular with Britains commercial and industrial interests, for whom the US was a very important market. It never pays to bankrupt your best customers

I don't think I agree with much of what you are Suggesting DoleScum. Heavy reparations would float the short term economy of the British just as well if not better than trade. Once the Napoleonic Wars are over they have lots of new markets so why worry about the USA then. Cheap ships taken from the USA's merchant fleet and large parts of her commodity stocks would keep British commercial interests happy. As for your statement "It never pays to bankrupt your best customers" it depends what you are trying to achieve. In the worst case scenario for the USA (the best for British) which is what I was thinking about when I first posted to this thread, it is reasonable that someone has seen the fall of the Empire in the rise of the USA. Therefore the British will be much more interested in ensuring that the Americans fail to benefit from the rest of the continent than simply making money out of them. Although they will want to do that too, restrictions on trade with other nations in the peace treaty perhaps?

[Zyzzyva]

One of the big differences is that the UK won't be so quick to give in to the US over Canadian land. Upper Maine joins New Brunswick. So does the Red River Valley, and Oregon. Alaska goes straight from Russia to Canada.

[Paul Spring]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the British take large pieces of land from the US around the great lakes, etc, they will still have to deal with the fact that lots of people will be moving into those areas from the US - probably a lot more than are going to be moving in from Canada or Britain itself. A lot of their North American territories are going to end up being largely populated by people who think of themselves more as American than British.

[Zyzzyva]

That happened in Upper Canada anyhow, and even in '37 we didn't even think about going to the states.

[Tielhard]

PaulSpring,

I have a map of the ethnic origins of American Citzens for the mid-1800s one of the largest concentrations of British born Americans is around Rochester and the Eerie canal. There is another significant concentration in Michigan. If these were British territories it is likely that even more Britons would remove there. Furthermore if the USA were to be restricted by treaty from expanding then depending on the numbers involved migrants could either be ejected by the milllitia or inculcated with British values. Also if there were more attractive (i.e. less cold) bits of Canada to emigrate to it is likely that the tide of emigrants from Britain and perhaps Ireland too would be more likely to go there than the USA which as a result of a more substantial loss in the War of 1812 than in OTL will no longer be seen as quite the place it was before the war.

[philjd]

The US is not a weathly, even moderately so, nation at this time, any affordable reparations would, in the scale of the British Economy would be very very small.

regards
Phil

[The Gunslinger]

Talk about being raised from the dead. I started this thread right around this time last year, and it only comes alive now...

[AuroraBorealis]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the British take large pieces of land from the US around the great lakes, etc, they will still have to deal with the fact that lots of people will be moving into those areas from the US - probably a lot more than are going to be moving in from Canada or Britain itself. A lot of their North American territories are going to end up being largely populated by people who think of themselves more as American than British.

Actually not..... I had read somewhere that during the '20's nearly 100,000+ came to BNA almost as many as to the USA much of the best lands were used up or occupied, so many simply moved on to the US which had far more land readily accessible....
or more to the point, lands that the US was more willing to push the Natives off of. During the 30's you will get the onset of the trans Atlantic migration, with large numbers still arriving in BNA as much as in the US. So I don't buy the arguement that Americans would be the predominant force to occupy these lands if they were to come to the British. If anything they are largely going to be from the established colonies, Britain and Europe itself, not the US. the US is far from densely settled even in the lands east of the Mississippi. and west of the Appalachians. If need be there is not going to be any real population pressure to move west if there is say a political impediment to it until the interior states are at least as settled as the seaboard states.

[Paul Spring]

Actually not..... I had read somewhere that during the '20's nearly 100,000+ came to BNA almost as many as to the USA much of the best lands were used up or occupied, so many simply moved on to the US which had far more land readily accessible....
or more to the point, lands that the US was more willing to push the Natives off of. During the 30's you will get the onset of the trans Atlantic migration, with large numbers still arriving in BNA as much as in the US. So I don't buy the arguement that Americans would be the predominant force to occupy these lands if they were to come to the British. If anything they are largely going to be from the established colonies, Britain and Europe itself, not the US. the US is far from densely settled even in the lands east of the Mississippi. and west of the Appalachians. If need be there is not going to be any real population pressure to move west if there is say a political impediment to it until the interior states are at least as settled as the seaboard states.

By the 1820s Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were settled enough to be states, and Michigan followed within a few years. They weren't densely settled, but they were more densely settled than most parts of Canada. No matter how you look at it, at least half of the settler population of everything south of the Great Lakes is going to come from the US - and that's a very conservative estimate.

The same thing is probably going to be true later on for the northern plains states, and also the Oregon territory. OTL the British gave up control of the southern part of the Oregon territory because the vast majority of the people settling there were from the US. In an ATL with a weaker US, Britain will probably control the whole territory, as they would the area around the Great Lakes and the prairie provinces, but they will have to face the fact that a large portion of the population (50% or greater) will not come from Britain or British territories, and won't think of themselves as "British". That's hardly an insurmountable obstacle - in OTL a large portion of the settlers in the Canadian prairie provinces especially came from the US, and they ended up just as Canadian as the other provinces.

[AuroraBorealis]

By the 1820s Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were settled enough to be states, and Michigan followed within a few years. They weren't densely settled, but they were more densely settled than most parts of Canada. No matter how you look at it, at least half of the settler population of everything south of the Great Lakes is going to come from the US - and that's a very conservative estimate.

The same thing is probably going to be true later on for the northern plains states, and also the Oregon territory. OTL the British gave up control of the southern part of the Oregon territory because the vast majority of the people settling there were from the US. In an ATL with a weaker US, Britain will probably control the whole territory, as they would the area around the Great Lakes and the prairie provinces, but they will have to face the fact that a large portion of the population (50% or greater) will not come from Britain or British territories, and won't think of themselves as "British". That's hardly an insurmountable obstacle - in OTL a large portion of the settlers in the Canadian prairie provinces especially came from the US, and they ended up just as Canadian as the other provinces.

Michigan in 1810 had a population less than 5000 by 1830 it was only 28,000
settlement in the northwest in this period largely confined to the states of the Ohio River and in the Trans-mississippi ( Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas, all three out drew settlers from the northern tier of the northwest.) largescale settlement in Michigan does not occur until the '30's, Wisconsin...'40's. Arguably the preference for settlement will be in the lands further west which are more easily accessible. These will be along the lines that are most easily accessible and that will be the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Arguably Michigan and Wisconsin are far more accessible from UC than they are from the rest of the US, at least until the opening of the Erie Canal anyways.

In a TL where Britain obtains control of Michigan and a protectorate over the Indian lands of say Wisconsin this will be even more so, but the effect is still not going to be felt to any great extent until the 30's. Arguably those people that Came to BNA and then moved on to the US instead in O"TL will no doubt simply settle in first Michigan and then in Wisconsin as the Br. authorities obtain clear title from the natives. They will not allow settlement until that is done given that the Natives have been their allies in this War of 1812.

As to settlement on the prairies except for the Red river settlement , there was not largescale settlement until the '90's largely because of its physical separation from the settled areas by the expanse of the Cdn shield. This will not be the case here. Settlement will progress westward through Michigan from UC to Wisconsin and then into the Upper Red river. probably as fast as it did in OTL but almost assuredly from Br/BNA or European sources. As I stated earlier a great many people initially migrated to BNA and simply moved on to the US because of the greener pastures there. That will not be the case. Far more of them will remain in BNA, as many of those that went to the US will arguably simply move to a Br. Michigan and Wisconsin instead. this could even lead to a more northerly BNA version of the Oregon trail. say accros s the Upper missouri, though I am not sure where they would cross the Rockies. There are no easy passes there. This will make for a larger pool of BNA settlers to draw on in the push to settle the prairies than in OTL. Greater Br sponsored settlement ( non-american ) in Michigan and Wisconsin will fuel greater Urban growth and Industrialisation in the U and LC because they will provide a larger market for their goods as well as those of Britain.


The Selkirk settlement will likely be larger in this TL ( encompassing the entire Red and Assiniboine River basins and might even be in Michigan instead of Manitoba. The initial Settlers there were recruited from Scotland, not the US. If the grant is larger there will be a larger Scottish/British presence and eventually Metis presence. If the British are given clear title to the entire Red River, as was posted by someone else in conjunction with pressing to the fullest their claims in Oregon, then argueably the the border parallel in the west across the prairies will be drawn further south than OTL. Those lands are after all unsettled for the most part in the aftermath of 1812 and there is no point quibbling over virtually empty space. If more land is available for settlement...more French Cdns will be drawn west than to the N.Eng mill towns. Others could be drawn to a faster growing Montreal fueled by the larger market to the west.

I am sorry but I have to reject in its entirety your suppositions that the British would be overwhelmed by Americans moving west. It did not occur in OTL largely because there was substantial land available for the taking in the trans-Mississippi and then the Far west.. This will be the still the same in this TL. There will be an initial aversion to moving to Br. terr. in the aftermath of this war and there will be no need to be seeking terr. to settle in the north.
they will simply push west and Sw a little earlier in this TL. Earlier confrontation in Texas perhaps and even California. of Course this really depends on the outlook of the Br. in this TL, though it should not be radically altered as long as the American and Br. gov'ts continue to follow the pragmatic compromise course that they did OTL. There is no reason to assume they will not either.. Unless NEng succeeded or something..which changes the picture dramatically, that is only going to occur if the war were to have gone overly long, something that the Americans could not have sustained simply for financial reasons. Its possible though I suppose but the suggestion that a more favourable adjustment in Northern Maine is obtained seems a bit more likely. the N. Englanders would have to be pretty annoyed with Washington to succeed, and they would have to do it while the War was in progress to get away with it unless New York goes with them.

[Paul Spring]

You raise good points about British Michigan and Wisconsin offering a good natural migration route westward and attracting more immigration direct from Britain.

However, I still think that many of the British territories would get a considerable influx of immigrants from the US along with immigrants directly from Britain or from eastern Canada. The natural population increase from new births alone was enough to drive American settlement constantly westward. In OTL, people from the eastern US tended to prefer similar latitudes further west - for example, people from New England settled in northern New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and the northern strips of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois - people from Pennsylvania and New Jersey tended to settle in a belt running right through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois out to Missouri - people from Virginia tended to settle in Kentucky and the Ohio River Valley, etc. This then got mixed with immigrant groups, such as Germans and Scandinavians in several parts of the Midwest. Sometimes there was a lot of tension between the immigrants from the eastern US and the immigrants direct from Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw at least similar patterns in many areas even if more of the land is controlled by the British.

[AuroraBorealis]

You raise good points about British Michigan and Wisconsin offering a good natural migration route westward and attracting more immigration direct from Britain.

However, I still think that many of the British territories would get a considerable influx of immigrants from the US along with immigrants directly from Britain or from eastern Canada. The natural population increase from new births alone was enough to drive American settlement constantly westward. In OTL, people from the eastern US tended to prefer similar latitudes further west - for example, people from New England settled in northern New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and the northern strips of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois - people from Pennsylvania and New Jersey tended to settle in a belt running right through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois out to Missouri - people from Virginia tended to settle in Kentucky and the Ohio River Valley, etc. This then got mixed with immigrant groups, such as Germans and Scandinavians in several parts of the Midwest. Sometimes there was a lot of tension between the immigrants from the eastern US and the immigrants direct from Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw at least similar patterns in many areas even if more of the land is controlled by the British.

I am not saying that there would be no Americans, I am simply saying that they would play no larger a role than they did in OTL. Even after the War of 1812, there were Americans that were recruited to settle in UC but not in near the numbers of Brits that came to BNA. One of the pillars that the future defense of the colony was predicated on was massive immigration. From 1815-1834 403,000 left Britain for BNA, 269,000 went to the USA. Arguably even more would be sponsored or drawn to lands to the West of UC here, Michigan would probably even be administered as part of that province in the early days. Simply put, in the early days, Americans would simply be swamped by a flood of Brits that indeed did occur in OTL. Again I cannot suggest enough, with lands in the west and more favourable access westward
will almost certainly induce a great many of those people who came initially to to BNA and then moved on to the US will probably stay in TTL.

[DoleScum]

Heavy reparations would float the short term economy of the British just as well if not better than trade. Once the Napoleonic Wars are over they have lots of new markets so why worry about the USA then. Cheap ships taken from the USA's merchant fleet and large parts of her commodity stocks would keep British commercial interests happy.

I'm not sure how direct a link there would be between payment from the US government and the British Government and a boom in the British economy. I suppose the Government could use the subsidies to fund a slash in trade tariffs but how realistic is this given Britain's huge national debt in 1815. Wouldn't any reperaitons just disappear into debt repayment? Surely if the British had an ounce of sense they would not deliberately chose to ruin the economy of a nation on whom their manufacturers and merchants had traditionally relied on in favour of a short term cash injection?

As for your statement "It never pays to bankrupt your best customers" it depends what you are trying to achieve. In the worst case scenario for the USA (the best for British) which is what I was thinking about when I first posted to this thread, it is reasonable that someone has seen the fall of the Empire in the rise of the USA.

Ok I accept that in a worst (or best) case scenario, the British could have tried to destroy the US economy. However I don't except that this is a very likely prospect and I think that had the govenrment attempted something like this it would have been hugely unpopular at home given the huge amount of British capital tied up in American investments.

Although they will want to do that too, restrictions on trade with other nations in the peace treaty perhaps?

I think I stated earlier in the thread (or the other 1812 thread) that the British would certainly have sought some protection from the kind of economic blackmail that the Jefferson and Madison governments had attempted before the war.
The British would have had two main aims:
1. To leave the domestic US market open to British goods - So a trade agreement is written into the peace treaty whereby Britain is given 'most favoured nation' status in the US.
2. To shut American trade out of British Imperial ports, particulalrly in the West Indies and BNA, so the US is forced to sign a clause stating that it renounces all rights to trade in colonial ports, promises to co-operate in British attempts to detain smugglers and American access to the Newfoundland fisheries (secured in 1783) is revoked (as this was a major loophole by which American vessels carried goods into Canada)

[Wendell]

I have an unfinished map based on the premise of this thread. The current date is 1890. The nation in pink is the Dominion of Canada, the dark green in North America is the Confederation of New England, and gray is the United States: