A few of US WIs

Like the thread title says, here are just a couple of US-based what ifs I've been pondering.

1. What if the US lost the battle of New Orleans? From what I've learned, Jackson was left with only a token force to defend New Orleans, and he won because he bolstered his force with pirate mercenaries. It's not inconceivable that the pirates would take the money and sail away, leaving the US force at the mercy of the British. If that happened, what would become of the Louisiana Purchase and of US-British relations with a Hong Kong-esqe New Orleans around?

2. What if Grant had been captured at the battle of Belmont? Apparently he was nearly captured during his raid of Belmont (along the Mississippi River, adjacent to Columbus, KY), but saved when his horse tripped and fell, sliding down towards his boats. While it probably wouldn't lead to a Confederate victory in the ACW, how would it affect the war?

3. What if George Washington was killed during the French and Indian war? How would it have changed the French and Indian war itself (if he dies early on, the French could press their advantage and create a more costly war for the colonies), and later the ARW?

4. What if the Alamo had fallen in a matter of hours, not days? Would Santa Anna have been able to march on Washington-on-the-Brazos and capture the heads of the Texan Revolution? The only reason Sam Houston was able to win the battle of San Jacinto was due to the time the Alamo bought for him - would a Mexican-American war happen, and if so, who would win?
 
For number three, I doubt George Washington's death would mean much. He was apparently quite the inept general and was, at the time, little more politically than a Virginia aristocrat wanting to grab French land. In the case of Washington's death, the American people would probably idolize some other rebellious plantation owner as the savior of republicanism.
 
Did the British intend to keep New Orleans if they took it, especially since the peace treaty ending the war had already been signed?
 
Even with numerical superiotry the British would have had difficulty breaching Jackson's defences and assuming they did I doubt they would hold onto New Orleans, given the small size of Pakenham's force and the peace treaty.
 
Even with numerical superiotry the British would have had difficulty breaching Jackson's defences and assuming they did I doubt they would hold onto New Orleans, given the small size of Pakenham's force and the peace treaty.

Agreed. The pirates were land bound thanks to the US seizing their ships a couple months previously, so they couldn't just sail away. And they were fighting for pardons, not for money.

To get the pirates to not fight on the American side, that pardon deal need to fall though. Lafitte might fall ill at a crucial time or have been killed when the US seized the pirate ships. Jackson or the Louisiana legislature might reject the idea.

That might be enough for New Orleans to fall, but the Treaty of Ghent requires it to be returned.

A loss at New Orleans is not going to help Jackson's military or political career.
 
That might be enough for New Orleans to fall, but the Treaty of Ghent requires it to be returned.
No it does not. The Treaty of Ghent spells out the northern boundary of the USA in exquisite detail without a single word about the southern or western boundaries, Louisiana or New Orleans - because both the British and American delegations knew that there was going to be a battle over it soon.

That said, the British had no plans to keep it for themselves. They were going to hand it back to its legal owner, Spain.
 
And here my first thought wasn't What Ifs but Wisconsins. I'll give it a try

1) Greater Wisconsin exists including the UP, the original state line with Illinios that gives Wisconsin Chicago, and follows the Mississippi to its souce. Makes the state the major player in transportation networks and because of Chicago extremely corrupt.

2) The state continues to be the heart and soul of both the Progressive Movement and the Republican Parties with moderating influences on both.
 
For #2, some other Union general (Thomas, McPherson, Sedgwick, Reynolds, Kearny, Hancock, or the like) will eventually come to prominence and do what is required to defeat the Confederates. If the Union maintains the will to finish the job their superior resources will defeat the South.

For #4, the defeat of the Texians (as they styled themselves) merely postpones their eventual split from Mexico. The differences between the egalitarian Anglophone US immigrants and the aristocratic Spanish-speaking Mexican government cannot simply be papered over; sooner or later they will come to blows.

When they do the US may well use that as a handy excuse to invade and seize the territory for themselves; a standard modus operandus of the time. Or the Texians may voluntarily join the US, as happened in 1845 IOTL.
 
Top