War of 1812 complete disaster for Britain
- Thread starter sampleswift
- Start date
Oh, I'm aware of the possibility of conflict between Napoleon and the USA. I'm just saying I don't think he'd start or provoke such a fight if he were still fighting the British. He could do better than in OTL and still be busy fighting them, which is why I said it depends.
Many anti-colonial movements in OTL drew inspiration from the American Revolution. I don't see anyone not inspired by the ARW in OTL drawing inspiration from a hypothetical American annexation of Canada. If you're talking about rival colonial powers trying to secure British colonies for themselves, if that happens, it's going to depend largely on how Britain does against Napoleon, rather than whether Canada becomes part of the USA vs remaining with the British Empire; although those two issues are not independent of each other.
I once thought that a Napoleonic re-establishment of French Louisiana was more feasible... but an awful lot of things would have to have gone differently for Nap in Europe and in the Caribbean for that to have happened, moving the POD back quite a few years. Not only would the Americans be pissed at losing New Orleans, they'd be terrified at the thought of having Nap as a neighbor - even the pro-French among the Democratic-Republicans. The British would be incensed, and the Spanish perplexed... came as quite a surprise to some of the Spanish in Louisiana to find that the place had de jure belonged to France again.
Lusitania
Donor
Ok again you assuming that France and Britain going to be at war forever.
His plans for a settler colony would of been during peace time with hundreds of thousands of French citizens in French Louisiana. If he established peace in Europe to France favor he would of wanted and huge French overseas empire. French Louisiana would of got his dream. I said 20-50,000 troops because he would of wanted to safeguard it from US and British attacks. He would not of transported them at once but as settlers moved there do too would French Administration and troops.
Lusitania
Donor
Wow again you keep missing my point. I talking about the perception that Britain is weak and people start saying that if it cannot defend instead against a two bit country in the new world it cannot defend itself against other powers. You understand now. Perception only not that the Indians going to attack or draw any inspirations from somewhere it not know about.
even if Napoleon wins in Europe Britain can still have a huge empire. France always going to have to worry about Russian, Prussian or Austrian wanting to be free of its dominance.
itbe more imperative that it win in NA for otherwise it not only lost in a Europe but to an upstart two bit country.
No, I’m assuming they’re not going to be at peace forever, a safe assumption given both British French actions at this time. Napolean’s goal could only work if a lasting peace could be worked out between him and Britain, and there seems little chance of that happening pre-LA Purchase. And without that Louisiana isn’t worth anything to the French.
Yes I understand that, but how would they get thousands of French citizens to immigrate to Louisiana, for a pioneer life? In 200 years of Franco/Spanish rule, they only established a few thousands of settlers, until the Americans started moving in. The British, and others only settled about 10% of the number of people in Canada that settled in the United States.
Here we go again
We're going again because it was reality. A British, or French Louisiana is an improbability.
There was a thread were the Peace of Amiens lasted 5 years. The War of the 3rd Coalition didn't start till 1807.
Well, at least you said "improbability" rather than "impossibility"... LOTS of improbable things have happened throughout history
Lusitania
Donor
The fact that French stopped sending colonist to New France was a political move not a reason to think France not capable of having and colonizing a settler colony. If the French had continued sending 5,000 settlers as year to New France which if it had political will was completely doable the British would of been dealing a population of 1 million instead of 60,000. Plus stretching to what is now Ontario.
therefore if peace continued or was negotiated and France still held Louisiana it would not sell it and over the next several decades populate it with French and other catholic Europeans.
Lusitania
Donor
Ah so if Napoleon not need to sell or have reason to sell to the US could we of had a different war of 1812? France vs US. Now that be interesting. Or would US fight both France and Britain?
I could see when war between France and Britain started again that British navy Attack French Louisiana. What would US do invade and try to attack the British???
No, I got your point about the perception of Britain, and I did address it. Not just by talking about anti-colonial movements. In my second response I said the bigger threat in terms of the rest of the empire was Napoleon. If rivals want to see how strong or weak Britain is when they decide whether or not the challenge it for colonies, they're going to look at how it fares against Napoleon. If they win against Napoleon, no one is going to want to end up like him, and if he defeats them, they're going to be seen as on the decline to say nothing of the direct effects of whatever he secures as part of his victory. That's true regardless of what happens in North America. You may not like or agree with the way I addressed your argument, but I did do it. And as I said before, I was not calling it plausible for the USA to win control of Canada in 1812 (it would require a POD years before the war and would still be a stretch even then), merely talking about what would the result. Losing Canada is not going to bring about the collapse of the empire. Keeping Australia or New Zealand or India or keeping the England, Scotland, and Wales together doesn't hinge on how the war of 1812 goes. Ireland is a bit more complicated because assuming the big fight for independence happens around the same time as in OTL, it's hard to see how the butterflies would affect it, but you'd probably still have the Ulster Protestants being largely unionist.
In short although it's difficult to get the USA to win all British possessions in mainland North America, that would not result in the collapse of the British Empire or the United Kingdom.
Man, let's not get this thread bogged down into who won the war.
Britain successfully defended its North American Colonies and got to burn down Washington, America got Britain to respect American laws on citizenship and the seas.
Biggest Loser - The Natives.
About how to make the American troops better:-
1. Axe Alexander Smyth.
2. focus on your medicine.
3. Downgrade Militia and upgrade regulars.
Britain successfully defended its North American Colonies and got to burn down Washington, America got Britain to respect American laws on citizenship and the seas.
Biggest Loser - The Natives.
About how to make the American troops better:-
1. Axe Alexander Smyth.
2. focus on your medicine.
3. Downgrade Militia and upgrade regulars.
Lusitania
Donor
But your question is not that simple. As all of us have identified you need a large pod much earlier in which states accept the need to have national army. That is a huge undertaking and one that be very hard unless there was a secondary conflict with say Spain in 1790s in which US got defeated and it’s militia found to be the reason.
but that introduces a huge amount of butterflies.
you medicine is not possible for people at time not even know why people got sick. That involves a whole different pod starting in Europe and again huge butterflies.
Yeah, but the decision to go to war couldn't be solely Jefferson's... and going to war against Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803 or thereabouts would be a tough sell, even to his own party...
Louisiana in the New Orleans area was developing into a slave labor driven plantation economy. The area is prone to the same type of illnesses they have in other semi tropical climates. Staple food production was low, food had to be imported. The area you want to settle for a White Settler, staple crop economy is up in Arkansas, and Missouri, and west from there. The area West of the Mississippi is drier then East of the River. Then you start entering the Great Plains, with the deep sod that needs deep plow farming to break the soil. This is very labor intensive.
It took generations to cultivate that hard land of harsh continental weather, with bitter cold, intense heat, tornados, hail, and wind storms that flatten crops for miles. Most of the land is dry, so you have to dig deep wells for water. This was the land of the Buffalo herds in their millions, and swarms of locusts. It also has roving bands of nomadic Indians, who will trade with trappers, and traders, but will kill settlers. There are good reasons the Americans settled the Pacific Coast first, and filled the middle of the country in later. Living in that wilderness was a hard life. Most people aged fast, died young, and broke. To this day there are reasons the Great Plains are a low population density area of the United States. The Coasts are richer, and more densely populated.
It's a hard life for Frenchmen used to their moderate climate, and rich soil. I'm painting a picture of a land that was very hard to settle, and cultivate. Not many people would be Eager to go live in a vast harsh wilderness.