Questions about a decisive British victory in the War of 1812

[Masky]

I've done some research and I plan on creating a timeline with a decisive British victory in the War of 1812.

When they win, ITTL, they create a British-owned Louisiana out of the more-or-less total area of OTL Louisiana Purchase, and an Indian Nation.

My first set of questions are about Louisiana. Is it plausible for it to survive and become an independent nation, free from the British AND the Americans, perhaps in a rebellion in the future? Could this nation have the potential to expand, perhaps intervening in an independent Mexico and acquiring territory?

Also, is it plausible for the Indian Nation to survive for a long time?

 

[Cymraeg]

I think that the main problem is that outside of New Orleans Louisiana is very sparsely settled. You’d have to increase the population quite a lot in a short space of time in order to fend off hungry looks and aggressive probes from the US. Although that might mean a British West Coast of America.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

My first set of questions are about Louisiana. Is it plausible for it to survive and become an independent nation, free from the British AND the Americans, perhaps in a rebellion in the future? Could this nation have the potential to expand, perhaps intervening in an independent Mexico and acquiring territory?

There are a number of timelines that feature a Francophone Louisiana as an independent nation. I think the key is to make it appealing for immigrants. For example, after a crushing defeat at the hands of Britain, the US faces a period of instability, which discourages would-be immigrants. Couple that with a large wave of people leaving France after the Napoleonic Wars (say for example, that there is no 100 days, the Bourbons are overthrown by a jacobite rebellion again and the Concert of Europe just sits idly by while France descends into civil war, as they are interested in keeping them weak) and you have your potential immigrants.

 

[RPW@Cy]

I've done some research and I plan on creating a timeline with a decisive British victory in the War of 1812.

When they win, ITTL, they create a British-owned Louisiana out of the more-or-less total area of OTL Louisiana Purchase, and an Indian Nation.

My first set of questions are about Louisiana. Is it plausible for it to survive and become an independent nation, free from the British AND the Americans, perhaps in a rebellion in the future? Could this nation have the potential to expand, perhaps intervening in an independent Mexico and acquiring territory?

If you mean the whole of the Louisiana Purchase, almost certainly not. What this probably guarantees is another war in 20-30 years time, as American settlers flood into the area along the Ohio and other rivers and revolt against British rule. How that war goes is anybody's guess - Louisiana is a lot closer to the US than Texas was during it's war of independence, but on the other hand the British Empire ain't Mexico - but a scenario where Britain loses most of the interior while retaining much of the Gulf coast is at least possible, and following the usual scheme of things this rump Lousiana would transition to self-governing dominion and fully independent state like Canada or Australia. One interesting twist - such a British Louisiana is likely to be overwhelmingly black as, especially after 1833, freed slaves from the West Indies are going to be the obvious source of new settlers. This will likely present interesting complications to adjoining US areas.

As Cymraeg has mentioned, keeping the whole of the Louisiana Purchase British even if only for a couple of decades means the Pacific coast almost certainly goes - and stays - British. In such a scenario "British Columbia" is probably going to stay outside Canada, being large enough and far enough away to make a good go of it on it's own.

Also, is it plausible for the Indian Nation to survive for a long time?

Almost certainly not. It will be lucky to much outlast Tecumseh's death.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Read my TL.

Sorry it's on hiatus, but i will get back to it eventually.


Basically, if Britain can control the Great Lakes, which were a near run thing, they can do MUCH better in the West, certainly getting Michigan, possibly parts of/much of otls indiana and illinois.

If Britain decisively defeats the US, and floods the area with settlers, they can likely keep the northern Louisiana - at least if they take New Orleans, too.

If the war had lasted much longer, the US's finances might well have collapsed. As it was, they had to cart bullion over the Appalachians to pay the army, and more importantly, the suppliers. And they didnt have enough gold for much more. If British victories in a couple of places followed are followed by US financial collapse, the US wouldnt be in any position to try again for a decade or more, which could give Britain time to take a firm hold of the area.

Settling tens of thousands of Napoleonic war vets in the new territories would be an excellent start.

 

[BWeber]

Brock's Petite Guerre

One of the alternative outcomes in my book, Neither Victor Nor Vanquished, is Brock's Petite Guerre. In this timeline, Brock wins the Battle of Queenston Heights and successfully prosecutes a campaign that secures the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys setting the stage for an amphibious attack on New Orleans. This British victory is predicated on Napoleon accepting a truce in 1813 --a scenario discussed in Jonathan North's The Napoleon Options, pp 147ff. This allows London to transfer substantial forces to North America much earlier in the War of 1812.

 

[The Gunslinger]

What would the British demands be in a more successful British prosecution of the war?

So far, I've read that Northern Maine was wanted as corridor between the Maritimes and Lower Canada, Northern New York state (specifically Sackets Harbour), the right to build warships upon the Great Lakes, Mackinac Island...

I imagine that they could get Michigan if Britain could win the Battle of Lake Erie and Proctor can bungle his way into a victory at Fort Meigs or Fort Stephenson. Wisconsin is probably doable as well given that Britain had it until the end of the war OTL and there were already some loyalists in place.

After that though, what else would they ask for? The proposed Indian State might get a green light, but would the borders be? My google fu is weak and everything I've read about it sounds vaguely nebulous.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I think that the main problem is that outside of New Orleans Louisiana is very sparsely settled. You’d have to increase the population quite a lot in a short space of time in order to fend off hungry looks and aggressive probes from the US. Although that might mean a British West Coast of America.

What about settling Napoleonic War vets in Louisiana?

 

[David T]

Let's look at the proposed British terms of August 1814:

"Within a week, Lord Castlereagh sent precise instructions which confirmed the worst fears of the Americans. The Indian boundary line was to follow the line of the Treaty of Greenville and beyond it neither nation was to acquire land. The United States was asked, in short, to set apart for the Indians in perpetuity an area which comprised the present States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, four-fifths of Indiana, and a third of Ohio. But, remonstrated Gallatin, this area included States and Territories settled by more than a hundred thousand American citizens. What was to be done with them? 'They must look after themselves,' was the blunt answer.

"In comparison with this astounding proposal, Lord Castlereagh's further suggestion of a 'rectification' of the frontier by the cession of Fort Niagara and Sackett's Harbor and by the exclusion of the Americans from the Lakes, seemed of little importance. The purpose of His Majesty's Government, the commissioners hastened to add, was not aggrandizement but the protection of the North American provinces. In view of the avowed aim of the United States to conquer Canada, the control of the Lakes must rest with Great Britain. Indeed, taking the weakness of Canada into account, His Majesty's Government might have reasonably demanded the cession of the lands adjacent to the Lakes; and should these moderate terms not be accepted, His Majesty's Government would feel itself at liberty to enlarge its demands, if the war continued to favor British arms. The American commissioners asked if these proposals relating to the control of the Lakes were also a sine qua non. 'We have given you one sine qua non already,' was the reply, 'and we should suppose one sine qua non at a time was enough.'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=lFClPeG-IowC&pg=PT212

See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp for the text of the Treaty of Greenville and http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/media/treatygreenvillemap.gif for a map of the Greenville line.

To insist on this 1795 line in 1814 seems amazingly unrealistic in retrospect, but remember that in 1814 "Britain and Indians still held Michilimackinac, Prarie du Chien on the upper Mississippi, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments." J. Leitch Wright, Jr., *Britain and the American Frontier 1783-1815* (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1975), p. 167.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sure - so were the Spanish in 1820 and the French in 1863

With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments."

With all due respect, time and distance repeatedly defeated efforts by European powers (Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal) to retain control of their colonies in the Western Hemisphere, as well as efforts to expand their holdings, in the Nineteenth Century.

All of the European powers had much more important issues closer to home, and could not devote the resources necessary to try and control the Americas when the Americans (north and south) did not want to be controlled; the Russians and Danes acknowledged they could not maintain control of territories in the Western Hemisphere in the face of opposition.

Wellington's message to Liverpool in November, 1815 is worth remembering:

"I confess that I think you have no right from the state of the war to demand any concession of territory from America. . .you have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory of the enemy on the point of attack.
The if this reasoning is true, why stipulate for the uti possidentis? You can get no territory; indeed the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any..."

The bottom line is that a European defeat of a Western Hemisphere power in the Nineteenth Century is - if not chiropterish - utterly a-historical, as witness the British in Argentina and the United States, the French in Haiti and Mexico, the Portuguese in Brazil, and the Spanish everywhere from Chile and Argentina to Mexico by the 1820s, and the Dominican Republic and Chile-Peru in the 1860s.

To be really blunt, trans-oceanic invasions and occupations against technically-peer competitors are impossible in the Nineteenth Century and just (barely) possible in the Twentieth...as witness the headaches of many a logistician.

Best,

 

[The Gunslinger]

With all due respect, time and distance repeatedly defeated efforts by European powers (Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal) to retain control of their colonies in the Western Hemisphere, as well as efforts to expand their holdings, in the Nineteenth Century.

All of the European powers had much more important issues closer to home, and could not devote the resources necessary to try and control the Americas when the Americans (north and south) did not want to be controlled; the Russians and Danes acknowledged they could not maintain control of territories in the Western Hemisphere in the face of opposition.

Wellington's message to Liverpool in November, 1815 is worth remembering:

"I confess that I think you have no right from the state of the war to demand any concession of territory from America. . .you have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory of the enemy on the point of attack.
The if this reasoning is true, why stipulate for the uti possidentis? You can get no territory; indeed the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any..."

The bottom line is that a European defeat of a Western Hemisphere power in the Nineteenth Century is - if not chiropterish - utterly a-historical, as witness the British in Argentina and the United States, the French in Haiti and Mexico, the Portuguese in Brazil, and the Spanish everywhere from Chile and Argentina to Mexico by the 1820s, and the Dominican Republic and Chile-Peru in the 1860s.

To be really blunt, trans-oceanic invasions and occupations against technically-peer competitors are impossible in the Nineteenth Century and just (barely) possible in the Twentieth...as witness the headaches of many a logistician.

Best,

But this was in OTL, where the British campaign against Plattsburgh and Baltimore were unsuccessful, parts of Canada were occupied and the Americans had seen victory on the Great Lakes.

If Britain was in control of large chunks of the American North/West, Canada safe from invasion, Wellington would probably change his tune. Nobody is suggesting a conquest of the United States and them returning to the British fold, but humbling them and making territorial concessions to British favour.

 

[magussprite]

I have been working on an ASB scenario much like this.

The punishing terms saw the USA lose the northern half of the Louisiana purchase, all of ohio, and cut off access to the Great Lakes for New York and Pennsylvania.

 

[Superman]

The problem with having an independent Louisiana, like others have already said, is that it was extremely sparesly populated, even more so than Canada. But, immigrants, especially from royalist France after the revolution or French loyalist Canadians living in British North America could increase the population. You're also almost definietly going to see Anglophone settlers from America and English Canada, which, in a best case scenario, could lead to a Canada-like bilingual situation. There's also the possibility of parts of Louisiana essentially becoming ATL's Texas, with settlers having been invited to fill up the sparesly populated area, but end up seceding and rejoining their original country.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Let's look at the proposed British terms of August 1814:

"Within a week, Lord Castlereagh sent precise instructions which confirmed the worst fears of the Americans. The Indian boundary line was to follow the line of the Treaty of Greenville and beyond it neither nation was to acquire land. The United States was asked, in short, to set apart for the Indians in perpetuity an area which comprised the present States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, four-fifths of Indiana, and a third of Ohio. But, remonstrated Gallatin, this area included States and Territories settled by more than a hundred thousand American citizens. What was to be done with them? 'They must look after themselves,' was the blunt answer.

"In comparison with this astounding proposal, Lord Castlereagh's further suggestion of a 'rectification' of the frontier by the cession of Fort Niagara and Sackett's Harbor and by the exclusion of the Americans from the Lakes, seemed of little importance. The purpose of His Majesty's Government, the commissioners hastened to add, was not aggrandizement but the protection of the North American provinces. In view of the avowed aim of the United States to conquer Canada, the control of the Lakes must rest with Great Britain. Indeed, taking the weakness of Canada into account, His Majesty's Government might have reasonably demanded the cession of the lands adjacent to the Lakes; and should these moderate terms not be accepted, His Majesty's Government would feel itself at liberty to enlarge its demands, if the war continued to favor British arms. The American commissioners asked if these proposals relating to the control of the Lakes were also a sine qua non. 'We have given you one sine qua non already,' was the reply, 'and we should suppose one sine qua non at a time was enough.'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=lFClPeG-IowC&pg=PT212

See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp for the text of the Treaty of Greenville and http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/media/treatygreenvillemap.gif for a map of the Greenville line.

To insist on this 1795 line in 1814 seems amazingly unrealistic in retrospect, but remember that in 1814 "Britain and Indians still held Michilimackinac, Prarie du Chien on the upper Mississippi, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments." J. Leitch Wright, Jr., *Britain and the American Frontier 1783-1815* (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1975), p. 167.

That's a large chunk of land with a large number of Americans on it. They asked for it historically, but even a broke, losing America would find that a hard pill to swallow. Do you think it's doable politically?

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, but how do you get to the "If Britain" point?

But this was in OTL, where the British campaign against Plattsburgh and Baltimore were unsuccessful, parts of Canada were occupied and the Americans had seen victory on the Great Lakes. If Britain was in control of large chunks of the American North/West, Canada safe from invasion, Wellington would probably change his tune. Nobody is suggesting a conquest of the United States and them returning to the British fold, but humbling them and making territorial concessions to British favour.

Okay, but how do you get to the "If Britain..." point?

That would seem be the most interesting question.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Short answer? No

That's a large chunk of land with a large number of Americans on it. They asked for it historically, but even a broke, losing America would find that a hard pill to swallow. Do you think it's doable politically?

Which is why the American delegation in Ghent said no, when asked, and before Hempstead Hill, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans.

The Argentines drove the British out in 1806 and 1807; the Haitians drove the French out in 1803; the South Americans drove the Spanish out - finally - in the 1820s; the Americans defeated British invasion armies three times in 1815, and drove the Spanish in 1819 in France; the Mexicans drove the French and Maximillian out in the 1860s, the Dominicans drove the Spanish out in the 1860s, and Chile and Peru fought off the Spanish in the 1860s....

Forget the politics; based upon all historical evidence, it was not doable militarily or economically.

Best,

 

[Simon]

Basically, if Britain can control the Great Lakes, which were a near run thing, they can do MUCH better in the West, certainly getting Michigan, possibly parts of/much of otls indiana and Illinois.

That's awfully ambitious, even if they achieve a decisive win I think cooler more rational heads would probably prevail and realise that if they ask for too much it's just storing trouble for later. Realistically I think the best they could get out of it would be an adjustment of the border in northern Maine plus what would become Upper Michigan and Wisconsin to become the Indian buffer state. This would however likely mean that the future Canadian-American border would likely run straight west from Duluth/Superior potentially chopping off a large section of Minnesota, the northern two thirds of North Dakota, the northern half of Montana, a fair part of the Idaho panhandle and the northern half of Washington. Would certainly make things on the west coast different. Other differences are possibly no Great Northern Railway to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or it still happens but as the second line that they built to compete with the Great Northern in our timeline. New Orleans is probably, against better judgement, claimed but lost later on.

 

[TFSmith121]

Remember, its still just "a few acres of snow"

That's awfully ambitious, even if they achieve a decisive win I think cooler more rational heads would probably prevail and realise that if they ask for too much it's just storing trouble for later.

Again, has anyone ever made a case for HOW the British is going to win a decisive victory in North America in this period?

Best,

 

[anotherlurker]

spain was bankrupt and ruined, france was stuck in europe, great britain was busy keeping france stuck in europe.

that's the reason all of those countries managed to "win".

 

[Hotpoint]

Again, has anyone ever made a case for HOW the British is going to win a decisive victory in North America in this period?

Turning that on it's head, if the overwhelming bulk of the British Army and Royal Navy had not been tied down in Europe how would the US have defeated a force several times the size of the one that did defeat them in the field for the most part?