DBWI: Mr. Madison's War is Delayed, Goes Sour

[Dean_the_Young]

I saw a trivia piece on the History Channel today on the topic of Mr. Madison's War, which pointed out the US was incredibly lucky in regards to the timing of Mr. Madison's War. Apparently, President Madison had been faced with a delima of whether to be a dove or a hawk on the issue of the British Impressment of American citizens. The History Channel noted that had President Madison waited even another year before declaring war, then there would have been the good chance that the US would not have managed to gain the highly advantageous Treaty of London while Britain was distracted by Napoleon, and may have seen Britain be able to move its veteran troops from the Continent and ship them over to the US. Considering how economically weak the US was by the end of the War in OTL, that hardly would have been a good thing.

So say Madison decides to be a voice of reason for a while longer, and the war is delayed a bit. How does the war go then? A draw? Utter annihilation/re-annexation as is the cliche in AH?

[Dave Howery]

it would have been the utter ruining of the US. Britain's navy would have blockaded the US ports, driving most of the country into poverty. And Britain's navy could land Britain's army anywhere it chose. I doubt they'd go after Washington DC (not much point to it really), but they could capture and loot all of the USA's port cities. And in the (completely lopsided) treaty that would follow, Britain would probably take Maine and New Orleans away, to cripple the US for all time...

[Douglas]

Hmmm...I'm not sure Dave is right, but I think Ontario and New Brunswick stay British, instead of becoming US states. The southern states exert more power for longer, and maybe don't feel the need to secede in 1856. No Confederacy probably butterflies into no American theater in the First and Third World Wars.

Lots of changes in other words.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by fenkmaster

Hmmm...I'm not sure Dave is right, but I think Ontario and New Brunswick stay British, instead of becoming US states. The southern states exert more power for longer, and maybe don't feel the need to secede in 1856. No Confederacy probably butterflies into no American theater in the First and Third World Wars.

Lots of changes in other words.

Aye. Perhaps, though, if the US hadn't been crippled like Dave suggest, the conservative influence of the South could have helped prevent the rise of the FWP (Farmer and Worker Party) that took off in the Plains and the labor movement, which Conservative European countries still insists on calling communists who must be destroyed. Despite the differences, Southrons still accuse of being a giant repeat of the French Social, or however you spell it with those accents.

[Wendell]

Well, I for one, am glad that the U.S. runs continuosly from the River Nueces to the Gulf of California today, with full control over everything in between. However, I think, in the circumstances presented by this challenge, the United States might collapse fully. Recall that the Old Northeast, the group of states colloquially called New England today, was very dependent on trade with the British at the time. One imagines that, if the war is going terribly, those then-five states might have rebelled against the United States. Of course, if the British had managed to take New Orleans, they may have managed too to cause a slave revolt across the Southeast, plaguing the fledgling U.S. even more.

[demonkangaroo]

Don't forget about Ohio, Michigan, and Superior. They would have surely been annexed, if such a war happened.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by demonkangaroo

Don't forget about Ohio, Michigan, and Superior. They would have surely been annexed, if such a war happened.

If the war goes badly and the northeast declares independence, I see them, as well as New York, New Jersey, and Penn joining them. At least the ones demon mentioned, at the time they were heavily influenced by New England. So we have an independent State in the old Northeast, possibly with an outlet to the west, and a reduced America, also with an outlet west (although threatened by Spain/Mexico and the UK), although reduced the south and part of the mid-atlantic region.

[Dean_the_Young]

Any less-than-nation-breaking alternatives? Britain is generally recognized aas making moderate treaties with other nations as a rule, and harsh peaces being the exception to the rule (such as the case with France in 1918).

Say the US decides to try seeking peace as soon as Napoleon is defeated, or a bit after. So long as Britain doesn't win a major battle (and the US had a few major defensive victories of its own, after all), perhaps something approaching status-quo antebellum could be reached. Maybe the US settles the Maine boundary dispute more in Canada's favor, with Britain getting that defensive strip they always wanted.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Any less-than-nation-breaking alternatives? Britain is generally recognized aas making moderate treaties with other nations as a rule, and harsh peaces being the exception to the rule (such as the case with France in 1918).

Say the US decides to try seeking peace as soon as Napoleon is defeated, or a bit after. So long as Britain doesn't win a major battle (and the US had a few major defensive victories of its own, after all), perhaps something approaching status-quo antebellum could be reached. Maybe the US settles the Maine boundary dispute more in Canada's favor, with Britain getting that defensive strip they always wanted.

depends on what the Brits did in the meantime. Everyone seems to think they'd go to capture Washington DC, but I find it unlikely, as the place really wasn't all that important except as a center of government... the Brits could do a lot more harm capturing NYC or Philadelphia, or any of the major port cities. OTOH, if the US suddenly realizes that France is out of the war, and England is looking across the Atlantic for revenge, they just might seek a peace treaty PDQ. I guess it all depends on just what the Brits demand... they would hold the whip hand. Barring a major US victory over the Brits on US or Canadian soil (something that seems very unlikely), the Brits can probably scare the US into a lopsided treaty....