WI: British Outright Win 1812

What would be the consequences of British Forces winning an outright victory during 1812.

I assume taking New Orleans and sabotaging the American economy, probably leads to Louisiana coming under british control and an indian state in north america, but then what?

Can the british colonize Louisiana quick enough to hault american expansion?
If they can, what are the long term consequences.

A Canada Wank?

In an outright British victory they would have definitely assumed control over the entirety of the Great Lakes, likely moving the border down so they'd have the Michigan Peninsula, and grabbing all of the disputed part of Maine.

I'm not sure about the Louisiana thing, where is this coming from?

One thing the British do not want to do is tie themselves down in inevitable future conflicts with the United States, and so wouldn't be seeking to grab core territories or block US western expansion. They don't want to block western expansion anyway, because at this point in time the biggest British fear as far as the US is concerned is actually that the Eastern seaboard will industrialize and turn into a manufacturing and naval rival.

They thought that if the US's lands were mostly unsettled, the country would remain primarily agricultural, and thus would remain a massive import market for British manufactured goods, but not a competitor against British manufacturing. These goals of the manufacturers are more important for them than grabbing southern land for Canada, although of course they do want to protect Canada from the possibility of any future American invasion, which is why they'll insist on controlling the Great Lakes.

It seems more likely to me that the British may simply install government that is more willing to do their bidding. America is afterall a nation of gun owners and it was these gun owners who repelled the British in the 18th century. It isn't that long after the revolutionary war and I think most Americans wouldn't take too kindly to the British returning and there would most likely be a lot of bloodshed. Hardly seems worth it in the long run.

Sucrose said:

I'm not sure about the Louisiana thing, where is this coming from?

Click to expand...

that was the intention of the army landing at new orleans;
now i don't know if they planned to keep it or (probably) trade it for said disputed lands.

But thats what they wanted (and i don't see a puppet government being installed)

tonsofun said:

It seems more likely to me that the British may simply install government that is more willing to do their bidding. America is afterall a nation of gun owners and it was these gun owners who repelled the British in the 18th century. It isn't that long after the revolutionary war and I think most Americans wouldn't take too kindly to the British returning and there would most likely be a lot of bloodshed. Hardly seems worth it in the long run.

Click to expand...

This isn't the 20th century, it's pretty much impossible to topple the government of a nation without overrunning the entire country. And from what I know of British politics in the time period, only the absolute furthest of right-wing politicians would be entertaining ideas of re-taking the US, although if the US falls flat on its face during the war they would start talking about it more loudly. I would still doubt that's going anywhere.

Sucrose said:

This isn't the 20th century, it's pretty much impossible to topple the government of a nation without overrunning the entire country. And from what I know of British politics in the time period, only the absolute furthest of right-wing politicians would be entertaining ideas of re-taking the US, although if the US falls flat on its face during the war they would start talking about it more loudly. I would still doubt that's going anywhere.

Click to expand...

hes talking about vassalizing the us (which i still think is near impossible), not annexing it.
but your right, britain didn't want the us back, they made far to much $$$ on it then when they owned it.

But I do think they should have tried to curb US expansion.

PoeFacedKilla said:

hes talking about vassalizing the us (which i still think is near impossible), not annexing it.
but your right, britain didn't want the us back, they made far to much $$$ on it then when they owned it.

But I do think they should have tried to curb US expansion.

Click to expand...

But I told you, they won't. Trade and their manufacturing industry were the most important things to them. North America is a side-show at best. They don't want to get pulled into future wars there, except in defense of Canada.

I would not be so sure of it.

If the british were not interested in conquering north american for themselves, why then did they advance up to the present pacific coast of Canada rather than leaving what is today's western part of Canada available for a possible US expansion ?

Matteo said:

I would not be so sure of it.

If the british were not interested in conquering north american for themselves, why then did they advance up to the present pacific coast of Canada rather than leaving what is today's western part of Canada available for a possible US expansion ?

Click to expand...

I never said the British didn't want to expand Canada. They most certainly do. But not enough to drag themselves into a series of wars over it.

PoeFacedKilla said:

What would be the consequences of British Forces winning an outright victory during 1812.

I assume taking New Orleans and sabotaging the American economy, probably leads to Louisiana coming under british control and an indian state in north americga, but then what?

Can the british colonize Louisiana quick enough to hault american expansion?
If they can, what are the long term consequences.

A Canada Wank?

Click to expand...

See my tl, or a handful of others, like crown and tomahawk.