Can the 1812 war be adverted?
- Thread starter Redem
- Start date
Redem said:
Depends on the interpretation as to what actually caused it. The British had revoked the laws in council that was the reason the US gave for going to war, although news hadn't reached the US by the time the decision was taken. If you presume that was enough something that either delays the US Dow until the news reaches them or advances the British decision may have effects.
However there was a lot of suggestions that western and southern elements in the US were eager for conflict to conquer both the Canada's and also the Indian lands to their west. There were rumours that the British were assisting those Indians in resisting US expansion, although this could just have been propaganda.
Steve
As stevep said, and only two votes in the House would have prevented a declaration of war. Simply have someone in Great Britain realize that France was not negotiating in good faith with the US(they weren't) and then suddenly think "But that only makes it easier for them to clinch the deal"!
As people have said above, it would be quite easy to avoid the war-just a little more common sense on both sides, etc.
Without the 1812 War you dont get the 'White House' (if the story is true, that it was whitewashed to hide the burn marks after the British forces occupied the city).
It would also mean that the USA could claim that since independence no foreign military force had ever entered its territory (as far as I can remember no Mexican military forces entered the USA, only rebels/bandits). I also wonder if the UK-USA relationship might be a bit different, without 1812 there might be less of the remaining 'hostility' amongst some of our American brothers.
What about the US army? I seem to remember reading that before the 1812 War it only numbered something like 5,000 men (I've got a feeling I've read figures ranging from 2,000 to 10,000) and it massively increased during the war and though reduced afterwards was never that small again. Without the 1812 War, could the army remain a token force for much longer?
Without the 1812 War you dont get the 'White House' (if the story is true, that it was whitewashed to hide the burn marks after the British forces occupied the city).
It would also mean that the USA could claim that since independence no foreign military force had ever entered its territory (as far as I can remember no Mexican military forces entered the USA, only rebels/bandits). I also wonder if the UK-USA relationship might be a bit different, without 1812 there might be less of the remaining 'hostility' amongst some of our American brothers.
What about the US army? I seem to remember reading that before the 1812 War it only numbered something like 5,000 men (I've got a feeling I've read figures ranging from 2,000 to 10,000) and it massively increased during the war and though reduced afterwards was never that small again. Without the 1812 War, could the army remain a token force for much longer?
Canada may be different as there were concerns as to how committed the militia would be...until General Hull who performed so gutlessly at Detroit went far out of his way to antagonize them.
For instance, threatening vicious treatment of any Canadian militia fighting alongside the Indians, as if the militia would have veto power over senior British officers.
You might have London genuinely wondering how dependable the Canadians were, sans the proof of 1812, but without further war between London and DC this simply fades away by, say, the 1830s.
Were there any negotiations before then that might have seen slightly different decisions by London?
The US Army went from @2700 to @6300 between 1807 and 1812. It never passed 65,000, even on paper, during the war, which amounts to less than one percent of the total population. In comparison, in 1861 the US Army was 16,000 and 25,000 in 1898!
For instance, threatening vicious treatment of any Canadian militia fighting alongside the Indians, as if the militia would have veto power over senior British officers.
You might have London genuinely wondering how dependable the Canadians were, sans the proof of 1812, but without further war between London and DC this simply fades away by, say, the 1830s.
Were there any negotiations before then that might have seen slightly different decisions by London?
The US Army went from @2700 to @6300 between 1807 and 1812. It never passed 65,000, even on paper, during the war, which amounts to less than one percent of the total population. In comparison, in 1861 the US Army was 16,000 and 25,000 in 1898!
Early end to Napoleon
One way to prevent the War of 1812 would be to have Napoleon lose much earlier. One of the major factors in the DOW was the British impressment of American seamen. This was because the British Navy had to ramp up for the war and although the American Navy was not that great by today's standards the British were much worse. After all, when you have to recruit your sailors by paying people to shanghai them it doesn't say too much about your ability to keep people in the service.
One way to prevent the War of 1812 would be to have Napoleon lose much earlier. One of the major factors in the DOW was the British impressment of American seamen. This was because the British Navy had to ramp up for the war and although the American Navy was not that great by today's standards the British were much worse. After all, when you have to recruit your sailors by paying people to shanghai them it doesn't say too much about your ability to keep people in the service.
I suspect that ultimately things would work out more or less OTL, but the early 19th century would be somewhat different for the US. The Battle of New Orleans, even after the peace treaty, solidified American claims on the Louisiana Territory, which was a bit questionable since it derived from Napoleon's machinations with Spain, then the US. The British hadn't actually evacuated several forts in the American Midwest which it was supposed to do by the 1783 Treaty. Eventually the Americans would need to pressure the Brits to leave (probably no war though), but there could be some butterfly fall-out (greater Anglophobia in the US, greater suspicion of British and Canadian commerical activity, less amicable settlements of the various border disputes between 1818 and 1848). Less of an era of nationalism in the 1820s (not necessarily leading anywhere). Federalists would probably endure for another decade, though demographics were very much against them.
British impressment of US seamen was generally because of a difference between US and European definition of citizenship (US had residency, Europe Birth as a condition), combined with the virtual impossibility of telling apart British and US citizens (remember, they had only split what, thirty odd years before?). Not surehow you mean the RN was 'worse' - it was keeping up a permanent blockade of Europe, and had been for ten years, and the press was, unlike in mythology, aimed at getting hold of skilled seamen tha might otherwise be unavailable to the Navy - not about getting in any old gutter - rat that they could find. While the US Navy won a number of single ship duels with their super frigates (carrying twice the weight of metal of their british opponents, but also fought better in a number of cases), they couldn't stop a blockade (aided and abbetted by New England who supported the RN vessels off their coast) nor stop the RN putting ashore men pretty much where they pleased.
Stop the war? This may upset some of my cousins across the pond, but you need to convince Jefferson and Madison that the war is a bad idea - they were all for it, while the Brits were understandably more interested in fighting the superpower war they were in - the war of 1812 was more a nuisance than anything else.
Stop the war? This may upset some of my cousins across the pond, but you need to convince Jefferson and Madison that the war is a bad idea - they were all for it, while the Brits were understandably more interested in fighting the superpower war they were in - the war of 1812 was more a nuisance than anything else.
If the war with the Brits is avioded, the US might easily turn its eyes towards Spainsh holdings in North America. Florida, parts Texas, and the no-man's land between the land purchased in the Louisanna purchase and the later Texas annexation. Cuba at this point is probably not an option but come the late 1810s and the early 1820s treaty may not fall into play without the US facing a war that wounded the US pride.
Thande said:
Difficult, IMHO.
1759 was a rather low point for the french Navy. Choiseul has not yet taken the minitry of the Marine, let alone implemented his reforms. And Louis XIV had not been interested in naval affairs, not had the regent.
In order for France to have a chance to invade England, I think she must have a significant fleet. In order to do this, you need an earlier PoD. An idea which comes to Mind is Cassard. He was considered the finest french seaman by Dugay-Trouin. If instead of sending him to an asilum because he claimed the Money he was owned, Fleury takes a liking to Cassard and propose to to him the post of Admiral of France ( against the money, of course.. ), the french navy has a generation to develop before 1759.
fhaessig said:
I agree with this at a certain level....France was on the continent, and didn't need the level of seapower that England needed. England had a nice moat, and they had a vigorous economy.
JMO, but you'd have to go back a bit and find a way that England is tied to a continental power in some way, and gets its ass kicked.
England was so blessed with steel, coal, canals, a stable government, lots of shrewd business men with capital, and the guys who worked in the colonies and teritories..they just built up a mess of money that would ensure that they were on the cutting edge of most stuff until WWII.
Its obvious that England would have come up in some way shape or form.