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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by Tielhard

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]

Originally Posted by 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


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]

Originally Posted by Straha

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

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

[Straha]

Originally Posted by Darkling

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?