Treaty of Ghent, 1817 (bigger, more secure BNA)

stewacide

Treaty of Ghent, November 1817. Principal points:
  1. The United States shall cede to His Britannic Majesty all claims to the following territories in perpetuity: a. all lands drained by the Saint John River and its tributaries b. all islands within Passamaquoddy Bay c. all lands within fifteen miles of the St. Lawrence River shore d. all lands and waters north of 41°45’ between the western shore of Lake Erie and the continental divide at the Great Stony Mountains.
  2. On Lakes Ontario and Erie the border between His Majesty’s possessions and the United States exists ten miles from the American shore, or equidistant between the two shores, whichever is the lesser.
  3. Merchant vessels of the United States shall enjoy free passage of Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, and their interconnecting waterways, for the purposes of internal United States commerce.
  4. His Majesty’s merchant ship shall likewise be accorded free transit of the Mississippi River and its tributaries the Illinois and the Missouri, and His Majesty’s civil government shall have the right to construct canal works at the Chicago Portage of the Illinois River on United States territory for that purpose.
  5. All Indian Nations in the territory of the United States shall be restored to their condition and possessions of 1811, and they shall retain the sovereign rights of trade and alliance they have always possessed, and shall suffer no prejudice for their alliance in the conflict hereby terminated.
  6. The United States recognizes the Spanish Empire in its possession of Florida.
  7. His Majesty shall retain the administration of New Orleans and its dependent territories, and the custom duties falling to, until it has been determined that the above articles have been enacted in good faith by the government of the United States.

altghentmap.png
 

GeneralInTheShell

why exactly is the treaty in 1817 and not 1815? When did the British take Louisiana? How can the British enforce this treaty?

--

This treaty will breed nothing but hate and anger.
 

Arrix85

General_Finley said:
why exactly is the treaty in 1817 and not 1815? When did the British take Louisiana? How can the British enforce this treaty?

--

This treaty will breed nothing but hate and anger.
Click to expand...

The war lasted longer? and the last clause is only temporary...

Them again, the criticism to be made is that how this makes BNA more secure? it's not like OTL's BNA was ever threatened again after the war of 1812.
 
Last edited:

GeneralInTheShell

Arrix85 said:
The war lasted longer? and the last clause is only temporary...

About the hate and anger being on the losing side always sucks, but this is not "Versailles" territory.
Click to expand...

why would it last longer? The British had the ability to assure all that they actually cared about would respected in 1814, they had no reason to press the war. The only way anything like this treaty would happen is if the war in Europe ended earlier and the British were able to defeat the United States earlier.
 

stewacide

1817 because the war went on a bit longer and the US negotiators had to bring themselves to sign it.

The details don't matter: it's basically a things-go-worse-for-the-US scenario. Some combination of Brock and Tecumpseh live, Harrison dies, British retain Lake Erie, Hartford Convention fully takes New England out of the War, no 100 days, British don't fail at Baltimore / sack more East Coast cities, and crucially they competently and successfully occupy New Orleans. Given the impending fiscal collapse of the US toward the end of OTL's war, and the threat of the union breaking up, I don't think such a treaty would be unthinkable.

Rather my aim is to design the best treaty from the Empires POV, one that gives them a strong hand going forward militarily and in terms of settlement, without over-extending themselves, and also giving the US reason to be nice about it (e.g. reciprocity in terms of Great Lakes / Mississippi transit, not insisting on an unsustainable Indian reserve in the American Midwest, etc.)
 

Arrix85

I thought you wanted to proceed by explaining how we got this treaty and then go forward, this is really not my cup of tea.
 

GeneralInTheShell

stewacide said:
1817 because the war went on a bit longer and the US negotiators had to bring themselves to sign it.

The details don't matter: it's basically a things-go-worse-for-the-US scenario. Some combination of Brock and Tecumpseh live, Harrison dies, British retain Lake Erie, Hartford Convention fully takes New England out of the War, no 100 days, British don't fail at Baltimore / sack more East Coast cities, and crucially they competently and successfully occupy New Orleans. Given the impending fiscal collapse of the US toward the end of OTL's war, and the threat of the union breaking up, I don't think such a treaty would be unthinkable.

Rather my aim is to design the best treaty from the Empires POV, one that gives them a strong hand going forward militarily and in terms of settlement, without over-extending themselves, and also giving the US reason to be nice about it (e.g. reciprocity in terms of Great Lakes / Mississippi transit, not insisting on an unsustainable Indian reserve in the American Midwest, etc.)
Click to expand...

Given all of what you have put forward, the war isn't going to last until 1817. If the Hartford convention takes New England out of the war it essentially means secession by the North and the war ends sooner.
 

stewacide

General_Finley said:
Given all of what you have put forward, the war isn't going to last until 1817. If the Hartford convention takes New England out of the war it essentially means secession by the North and the war ends sooner.
Click to expand...

Would New England formally resisting tax payments and recruiting really end the war suddenly? AFAIK the war was already being funded almost wholly by debt, and New England was essentially already out of the active fight. Hartford really only made formal what already existed.

Rather I'd think you'd need to wear down the Republican heartland in New York, Maryland, and the West. A more successful British campaign in the North would go some way, but I would think that intensified raiding along the Mid Atlantic coast and taking and holding New Orleans would be required for the US to cry uncle.
 

GeneralInTheShell

stewacide said:
Would New England formally resisting tax payments and recruiting really end the war suddenly? AFAIK the war was already being funded almost wholly by debt, and New England was essentially already out of the active fight. Hartford really only made formal what already existed.

Rather I'd think you'd need to wear down the Republican heartland in New York, Maryland, and the West. A more successful British campaign in the North would go some way, but I would think that intensified raiding along the Mid Atlantic coast and taking and holding New Orleans would be required for the US to cry uncle.
Click to expand...

It's not going to make the war suddenly end, but it isn't going to prolong it. A formal declaration by New England nothing less than an act of secession and would lead to a separate peace. The United States wasn't led by a bunch of blithering idiots. With New England out of the fight, the British clearly winning terms will be sought and they will be sought quickly. The War ends with New England gone, and claims one, two, three and maybe five likely forced upon the United States, but the rest won't happen.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

You could look at the tl in my sig for an example of an even more successful bna.

Basically, youve got to get canada significantly stronger, and you WILL have a rematch later.
 

jkarr

i also find the wording of the third clause interesting, where it mentions the us has rights to freely pass the lakes and rivers, for internal trade...but not external...so if they tried to use those areas to trade with the british territories, indian or others, what happens?
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

jkarr said:
i also find the wording of the third clause interesting, where it mentions the us has rights to freely pass the lakes and rivers, for internal trade...but not external...so if they tried to use those areas to trade with the british territories, indian or others, what happens?
Click to expand...

Especially since it specifically mentions lake huron which this us doesnt touch, but not michigan which it does. Moreover, it allows the us to build the shit and ship canal in chicago ... when chicago is just barely north of the border...

The text and map dont really work.
 

stewacide

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Especially since it specifically mentions lake huron which this us doesnt touch, but not michigan which it does. Moreover, it allows the us to build the shit and ship canal in chicago ... when chicago is just barely north of the border...

The text and map dont really work.
Click to expand...

I think you have your lakes mixed up.

Merchant vessels of the United States shall enjoy free passage of Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, and their interconnecting waterways, for the purposes of internal United States commerce.
Click to expand...

Transit of British territorial waters around the Michigan peninsula via Erie, Huron, and onward to the American enclave on Lake Michigan are what would be required to make use of the Lakes at their port in Indiana and onward to the Illinois. My thinking is that Royal Navy domination of the lakes, while allowing the US use of them, will keep the Yanks acquiescent.

Re: a settlement like this sticking, at the time the Michigan Territory (which I believe included the lands West of Lake Michigan as well) was almost totally uninhabited by Americans: the large majority of the population was French Canadian and native, most of the interior trade was conducted by Montreal based concerns. And it would be a long while yet before the value of modern-day Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. would be realised. At the time it would seem just vast unfarmable forest full of bloodthirsty indians and beavers.

Re: the small concessions in the East, the bit of Maine acquired was always claimed by the British and has essentially no population. It simply provides Canada a bit more strategic depth. The St. Lawrence strip for its part was a Federalist enclave and tied to BNA economically already. It's military value in the defence of Canada was so compelling it's a wonder the British ever settled for the OTL border to begin with.
 
Last edited:

stewacide

mrmandias said:
How does this not make British North America less secure? Much less secure, in fact?
Click to expand...

Because the Royal Navy and British merchant marine will have complete command of the lakes. They will be able to mass forces anywhere easily along the frontier, while any American attack would be a logistical nightmare through huge stretches of wilderness. This would be an ENORMOUS force multiplier for the British/Canadians in any potential conflict. Particularly once the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway are constructed which would be a bit sooner ITTL.

Edit -- At least until the railroads push through anyway.
 
Last edited:

mrmandias

stewacide said:
Because the Royal Navy and British merchant marine will have complete command of the lakes. They will be able to mass forces anywhere easily along the frontier, while any American attack would be a logistical nightmare through huge stretches of wilderness. This would be an ENORMOUS force multiplier for the British/Canadians in any potential conflict. Particularly once the Welland Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway are constructed which would be a bit sooner ITTL.

Edit -- At least until the railroads push through anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're making America much less satisfied with the postwar settlement and you're taking in large areas that already have substantial American settlement and will probably attract a lot more, while forcing even larger areas of America to depend on a now apparently hostile power for their trade (this isn't just New Orleans, either, the Great Lakes are a natural trade route for much of the Old Northwest). Creating greivances and hostilities does NOT increase one's security.
 

stewacide

mrmandias said:
Yes, but you're making America much less satisfied with the postwar settlement and you're taking in large areas that already have substantial American settlement and will probably attract a lot more, while forcing even larger areas of America to depend on a now apparently hostile power for their trade (this isn't just New Orleans, either, the Great Lakes are a natural trade route for much of the Old Northwest). Creating greivances and hostilities does NOT increase one's security.
Click to expand...

As I said above I don't think there was any notable American settlement yet in the Michigan Territory: in fact it was far more 'Canadian' in character. And those few American civilians along the St. Lawrence would likely just change allegiance and stay put, as they were almost totally isolated from the rest of the US anyway.

But I do agree the trick is to get the Americans on friendly terms again, and not hostile to Royal Navy hegemony. Americans seemingly had little trouble getting on friendly terms with Britain again after OTL 1812 and accepted Britain's domination of the high seas without challenge. If the US can live with the Royal Navy ruling the worlds oceans, so long as they didn't disturb American commerce, why couldn't the same attitude extend to the Lakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top