AHC: make Britain reconquer the United States by military means

[El_Fodedor]

The rules of the TL are these:

1 - The POD has to be after the Treaty of Paris which celebrated the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783.

2- The war or wars of reconquest per se have to happen at least after the year 1800.

3- The reconquest has to be clear, turning all the previous Thirteen Colonies into part of the British Empire, no "puppet state" or "empire of influence" will be accepted, the United States must cease to exist as a sovereign nation.

4- Dominion status is on the table, as is American representation on the British Parliament.

5- Britain could use diplomatic and soft power tricks to sow divide between the colonies, but the reconquest should be primarily by means of war, even if fundamentally based on other economic, cultural and diplomatic realities.

 

[John Farrier]

I'm uncertain about British motivations to launch such a war of reconquest instead of simply breaking up the US into manageable client states. But a hard enough America-screw could make it weak enough for a conquest to be feasible. Let's try this sequence:

1. There's never a strong federal constitution written, but the US remains one country.
2. That country follows the Jeffersonian model of national defense (essentially not having one).
3. US efforts to break Native American power west of the Appalachians fail (St. Clair's Defeat gets repeated).
4. Louisiana remains either French or Spanish territory.
5. During the wars between France and Britain, British attacks on American neutral shipping and impressment lead to war.
6. US gets curbstomped due to a lack of military preparation, incompetent generals, and excellent warfighting by the British.
7. What national government exists in the US falls apart during that war and the American experiment is seen as an obvious political failure.

But even if all of these events happen, the real challenge would be, I suspect, summoning British motivation to actually subdue the interior of the prostrate United States. Would the British government be willing to pay for the occupation forces necessary to at least march and/or raft through through the interior? Maybe, if the French are defeated quicker. But would they even want Cousin Jonathan back in the family?

 

[El_Fodedor]

I'm uncertain about British motivations to launch such a war of reconquest instead of simply breaking up the US into manageable client states. But a hard enough America-screw could make it weak enough for a conquest to be feasible. Let's try this sequence:

1. There's never a strong federal constitution written, but the US remains one country.
2. That country follows the Jeffersonian model of national defense (essentially not having one).
3. US efforts to break Native American power west of the Appalachians fail (St. Clair's Defeat gets repeated).
4. Louisiana remains either French or Spanish territory.
5. During the wars between France and Britain, British attacks on American neutral shipping and impressment lead to war.
6. US gets curbstomped due to a lack of military preparation, incompetent generals, and excellent warfighting by the British.
7. What national government exists in the US falls apart during that war and the American experiment is seen as an obvious political failure.

But even if all of these events happen, the real challenge would be, I suspect, summoning British motivation to actually subdue the interior of the prostrate United States. Would the British government be willing to pay for the occupation forces necessary to at least march and/or raft through through the interior? Maybe, if the French are defeated quicker. But would they even want Cousin Jonathan back in the family?

Assuming the conflict happens in 1800 or a couple of years after, and that France suffering early defeats at the hands of its continental enemies cleaned the way for greater British commitment in North America, just how many men do you believe would be needed to subdue the United States?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Dominion status

The dominions were more independent than puppet states, so I don't think 'dominion status' fits what you want.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The rules of the TL are these:

1 - The POD has to be after the Treaty of Paris which celebrated the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783.

2- The war or wars of reconquest per se have to happen at least after the year 1800.

3- The reconquest has to be clear, turning all the previous Thirteen Colonies into part of the British Empire, no "puppet state" or "empire of influence" will be accepted, the United States must cease to exist as a sovereign nation.

4- Dominion status is on the table, as is American representation on the British Parliament.

5- Britain could use diplomatic and soft power tricks to sow divide between the colonies, but the reconquest should be primarily by means of war, even if fundamentally based on other economic, cultural and diplomatic realities.

It's very hard to see happening. By 1840 the USA had a larger population then the UK, it was a vast nation of many different climates with a strong and stable government. It is far away and difficult to project power into, combined with far easier and more lucrative targets for the British.

 

[El_Fodedor]

The dominions were more independent than puppet states, so I don't think 'dominion status' fits what you want.

They recognized the British sovereign as their overlord, which is different from states which were under the British sphere of influence due to trade and practical realities, like some Latin American ones during the 19th century.

What I meant is that it needs to be formal and not only a case of a small state bowing below a powerful one but without formal committing it's sovereignty by taking their king as theirs.

 

[El_Fodedor]

It's very hard to see happening. By 1840 the USA had a larger population then the UK, it was a vast nation of many different climates with a strong and stable government. It is far away and difficult to project power into, combined with far easier and more lucrative targets for the British.

Well, I agree with you, but the point is the war happening at least twenty to thirty years before the 1840 mark date.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Well, I agree with you, but the point is the war happening at least twenty to thirty years before the 1840 mark date.

The trick is, that makes it harder since moving the event closer to our latest possible POD. I'm not saying ASB or anything, but it is against almost every American trend of OTL. Hard to change.

 

[DennisMSullivan]

Could it happen with the War of 1812 going much, much worse for the U.S.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Obviously keeping the size of the USA down is going to help this task.

Amiens is an interesting PoD - the French had readied a fleet to sail for French N America; the British blocked it from departing, one of the several cassus belli on both sides that would lead to the resumption of hostilities. If the fleet departed and the French were able to completely regain control of Louisiana in a functional manner, then they won't sell it in 1803

 

[El_Fodedor]

Could it happen with the War of 1812 going much, much worse for the U.S.

They took the American capital, how much worse would it need to be, besides no Napoleon?

 

[Infinite-Monkeys]

I agree with what everyone said about how (early, keep the US small with no real army etc), but the why feels like the hardest bit.

I don't know enough about early internal US politics to know which PODS might achieve this but, I wonder if the answer might be a much more radical US, I know some parts of the early US governments were very pro-France, and more politically radical then the factions ended up in charge if you could have a cycle of radicalization that lead to full on support of the French Revolution politically, militarily, and socially (to the level of guillotinng old loyalists who seen as overly 'royalist' establishing atheism/a culture of reason etc). The British are a mixture of outraged (especially once British press get hold of some salacious stories about the fates of those purged), embarrassed by the behaviour of their former colony, and see an opportunity for a quick win to discourage revolutionary ideas elsewhere that's an awful lot easier then trying to invade France so invade and occupy the former colonies, with the French revolutionary government still in too much chaos to provide much opposition and other neighbours (e.g. Spain) quite happy to give Britain caut blanche to stop the revolution spreading to their own colonies.

 

[John Farrier]

Assuming the conflict happens in 1800 or a couple of years after, and that France suffering early defeats at the hands of its continental enemies cleaned the way for greater British commitment in North America, just how many men do you believe would be needed to subdue the United States?

Off the top of my head and loosely based on the sizes of the armies deployed during the War of 1812, I'd say at least 60,000 British troops. A much smaller number could occupy the major port cities, but subduing the interior would, as the British discovered during the War for Independence, require more.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Perhaps it could be done piecemeal?

The War of 1812 goes worse - New England (including at least New York) breaks off and becomes a British Dominion (maybe not at first, but it drifts that way), and Lousiana is returned to Spain.

The rump United States becomes politically unstable and falls under a series of successive regimes, that finally ends in a military dictatorship of sorts. This leads a number of states, including the Old Northwest, to break away and ask for British protection (cuz its going surprisingly well for New England). The Rump United States becomes even more radical and starts an offensive war agaisnt Britain to retake its rightful territory. Britain and it's allies counter attack and after a long drawout war, the US is pushed back from it's original gains. Meanwhile, Britain is able to strike of the Southern heartland of this America and begin to liberate the slaves and build connections with those who feel the current American government has grown despotic (and, even worse, incompitent!). Britain and allies finally fore the US into surrender - but the land is so devestated that Britain feels an obligation to stick around and help rebuild. Eventually the South is reintegrated into the British Empire as a new dominion.

Not particularly likely and it would take a pretty incompitent, but radical and vicious, regime to take control in the US after a period of internal instability. But it's probably the most reasonable scenerio.

 

[Board 3659]

They took the American capital, how much worse would it need to be, besides no Napoleon?

losing all of michigan and having tecumsehs confederacy exist

 

[Board 3659]

Maybe slavery is a far bigger issue and US goes to civil war earlier (After cotton gin is invented, slavery is banned despite an increase in profits from it; Just spitballing here)

 

[Wyrd]

The War of 1812 is the best opportunity for this.

A British minister suggested sending General Rowland Hill and 100,000 troops to the United States in 1815. There was also the possibility of sending the Iron Duke himself to North America as well. Napoleon's escape from Elba and Wellington's lack of enthusiasm for the plan ended it. However, even if the plan had gone ahead, its objectives were vague, which is why Wellington criticised it.

Here are a few conditions that are needed to get this plan into action:

Firstly, Napoleon can't escape Elba or cause trouble.

Secondly, the Americans need to do something to convince the British that they are a serious menace to Britain and need to be crippled. If American privateers actually threaten Britain, as opposed to being a mere nuisance, and carry out a massacre of civilians within the British Isles, this might persuade Britain. A few massacres of Canadians would also further inflame the British hatred of America.

Thirdly, the other European powers need to hate America as well or at least be indifferent to its fate. They could potentially help the Americans as they did before. Russia, in particular, was keen to use the War of 1812 as a way to weaken Britain. If the Congress of Vienna breaks down into fighting over the spoils of the Napoleonic Empire, this might help (or not if the British decide to commit more troops to the continent).

Within a few years, Wellington and Hill would drag the bloodthirsty Americans to the negotiating table. At the negotiations, Britain could demand American territory as prizes and create Indian and New Englander buffer states. However, it would take further wars for Britain to break and reconquer the United States.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

If the Americans for whatever reason feel upset about not getting Canada at the Treaty of Paris and keep trying to destabilise the province, then once conflict inevitably breaks out (whether in 1812 or, more likely, sooner), the Brits would have an incentive to reconquer the US.

Also -- though it may require a pre-Treaty of Paris POD -- it would help to get a bigger loyalist population in the US. Especially if the victorious rebels let success go to their heads and pass laws discriminating against former loyalists (e.g., by saying that only patriots and their descendants can run for political office), you'd have a large body of people predisposed to welcome a return of British rule. The main issue is threading the needle of making anti-loyalist discrimination onerous enough for them/their descendants to want the British back, but not so onerous that they all move to Canada.

 

[Drizzt]

A multi-step approach with the US getting a case of the dumb as well might just pull it of.
Start with the Decades of Darkness TL until after the New England Republic secedes and aligns itself with Britain. Then unlike in DoD canon have the US be thinking with it's balls too soon and too sloppily. Slave catchers violating New England and Canadian soil. Rattling the saber over Cuba, etc etc. while Europe remains at peace. Then at some point, say in 1822 when there's already been a few recent "incidents" a Filibustering expedition lands in Cuba, that the US gouvernment is foolish enough to support. Yada, yada, yada The British Empire, New England, Spain and a Tribal Confederation for good measure decide that enough is enough and join forces for an all out invasion.

 

[El_Fodedor]

And how long term do you believe would this reconquest be?

The most successful outcome would be one where the Thirteen Colonies end up integrated in a imperial federation framework in the future. The other extreme would be something like South Africa, which ended breaking up from it's dominion status and turning into a republic.

Somewhere in the middle you have places like Australia and Canada that are independent but still keep the British Crown.

Which one of these three scenarios would you believe more likely, assuming the British achieve success in reconquering the United States by military means somewhere at the start of the 19th century?

One may be quick to assume that if Britain couldn't keep Canada integrated this would mean that the Thirteen Colonies would be even harder, but maybe the sheer demographic reality of a reconquered colony that is now surpassing it's mother country would force London's hand into adopting a imperial federation framework.