Alternate Wars of 1812

[Michael E Johnson]

Under what circumstances could the War of 1812 have resulted in --


#1- The United States being totally defeated and reconquered by Great Britain.

#2- The United States conquering Canada and throwing the British out of the Upper Midwest.

#3- The United States winning and allying itself with Napoleon Bonaparte in thanks for the troops he sent to the Americas after deciding against the war with Russia.

#4 -The New England Confederation's alliance with Great Britain and hostile relations with the United States over its secession from the United States after it lost the war to Great Britain.


What options did I miss? What are the resulting worlds like? One thing seems likely- life for blacks and American Indians would have been better than OTL in option 1 and as bad or worse in options 2-4.Any and all ideas appreciated.

 

[Straha]

well a USA that has all of canada and the brit carribean would be able to smash the southern secessionists more decisively....

 

[Tetsu]

well a USA that has all of canada and the brit carribean would be able to smash the southern secessionists more decisively....

I doubt it. If that happened at all, I'm sure Britain would love the chance to undercut the USA. If it wins, not only do they get Canada back, but the nation that stole it in the first place is sliced in two.

 

[Hansmeister]

#2- The United States conquering Canada and throwing the British out of the Upper Midwest.

If the war had broke out a few years earlier while the British were too preoccupied with France to response effectively against our conquest of Canada. By the time they are able to send troops the US is already deeply entrenched and difficult to dislodge. Perhaps add a French victory at Trafalgar to make reinforcement limited.

 

[Cockroach]

If the war had broke out a few years earlier while the British were too preoccupied with France to response effectively against our conquest of Canada. By the time they are able to send troops the US is already deeply entrenched and difficult to dislodge. Perhaps add a French victory at Trafalgar to make reinforcement limited.

Lets see in order to make use of a French victory at Trafalgar you need to push this back by seven years, however at that stage the poms army is not tied down on the Iberian Penisular so there are some forces free to get to Canada and rout the US

 

[Paul Spring]

If the US had not gotten French help during the American Revolution, but had still managed to throw the British out after a longer and bloodier struggle, the US might have a larger standing army and a more disciplined militia. This might give the US the edge that it needed to conquer at least part of Canada.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

How about a very different War of 1812?

Napoleon refuses to sell or otherwise yield New Orleans, let alone the entire Louisiana Territory, and instead sends a small naval force and a substantial military there, possibly also a major population of settlers(50,000?).

The USA is forced to respond, expanding its military from 1802 to 1812, perhaps to include ten to fifteen thousand men. More importantly, Jefferson signs some kind of treaty with Great Britain(he actually checked and London was interested). Shortly after James Madison becomes President, matters hit a crisis, and the US enters the war after being guaranteed all of the French spoils, possibly Florida as well. In addition a small contingent of American volunteers(3000?) joins the Duke of Wellington in his Penninsular Campaign. Following the French debacle in Russia, Madison and Jefferson are utterly vindicated by their choice, and friendship/association with Great Britain becomes fashionable.

The US and GB join forces early in 1817 to establish the 'MADISON Doctrice' which effectively blocks the Spanish efforts to retake the lost colonies sooner, and then enjoy a joint economic effort in the Pacific(American whalers, etc). By the easy resolution of Oregon and British morale and material support against Mexico, the US embraces the Anglo-American Free Trade Association in 1853. The British endorsement of Lincoln and refusal to allow the South to receive aid hastens the collapse of the Confederacy, possibly Tennessee stays in the Union.

A key moment in 1873 was...

 

[MerryPrankster]

What makes you think the British would treat blacks and Indians better? The Brits sold a bunch of the black refugees that they took with them when they withdrew from the US into slavery in the sugar islands, which is a FAR nastier sort of slavery than was practiced in America (in America, the "masters" at least had some incentives NOT to work their slaves to death; the Caribbean folks did not, thanks to the continued slave trade).

 

[MerryPrankster]

And just look at the treatment of the Australian Aborigines to show how the British might have treated the Native Americans had they re-conquered the US.

 

[zoomar]

Sorry to disagree about the Indians, but with a British reconquest of the US, it is unlikely the population of the reclaimed colonies would grow as much as in OTL, mainly because the Empire might wish to limit the potential growth and size of a potentially restive area with a history of rebellion. Also, under British management, the Americans woud have had the urge for westward expansion much more severely and effectively curtailed by the crown and local governors. Also, American Indians were perceived by the British as a lot higher on the food chain than australian indigines. The Crown had a history of dealing with them as allies, and it is entirely possible that they would do this officially by establishing some of the tribes like the Iroquoian peoples as separate colonies or protectorates of the Crown, with Ango-American settlement in these areas strictly forbidden - especially when the "anglo-americans" we're talking about are uppity ex and new colonists.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Sorry to disagree about the Indians, but with a British reconquest of the US, it is unlikely the population of the reclaimed colonies would grow as much as in OTL, mainly because the Empire might wish to limit the potential growth and size of a potentially restive area with a history of rebellion. Also, under British management, the Americans woud have had the urge for westward expansion much more severely and effectively curtailed by the crown and local governors. Also, American Indians were perceived by the British as a lot higher on the food chain than australian indigines. The Crown had a history of dealing with them as allies, and it is entirely possible that they would do this officially by establishing some of the tribes like the Iroquoian peoples as separate colonies or protectorates of the Crown, with Ango-American settlement in these areas strictly forbidden - especially when the "anglo-americans" we're talking about are uppity ex and new colonists.

Doubtful that England would have such power, England is 3000 miles away and NO government could stop people simply walking west. Neither England or the American colonies had the troops. I think it would have been little different in that respect then OTL.

 

[zoomar]

Doubtful that England would have such power, England is 3000 miles away and NO government could stop people simply walking west. Neither England or the American colonies had the troops. I think it would have been little different in that respect then OTL.

Perhaps. But the Royal Navy and Port Authorities COULD stop a lot of the immigration from Europe to north america which created the population explosion and put additional impetus behind "manifest destiny". Also, while they perhaps couldn't stop people from walking west, they certainly would not be providing these people the benefits of government blazed trails and forts stationed with troops there for their protection. In this TL, maybe it would be the musket-armed Iroquois and Creeks manning British-built forts with legal authority to kill anglo-americans illegally entering their lands.

 

[Faeelin]

Perhaps. But the Royal Navy and Port Authorities COULD stop a lot of the immigration from Europe to north america which created the population explosion and put additional impetus behind "manifest destiny". Also, while they perhaps couldn't stop people from walking west, they certainly would not be providing these people the benefits of government blazed trails and forts stationed with troops there for their protection. In this TL, maybe it would be the musket-armed Iroquois and Creeks manning British-built forts with legal authority to kill anglo-americans illegally entering their lands.

Err, why would the British stop immigration?

 

[zoomar]

Err, why would the British stop immigration?

Good question. Would you want a restive, formerly independent and hostile nation now back under your control allowed to grow willy-nilly into the biggest and most populous part of your empire? Of course, the whole scenario of Britain reabsorbing the USA after 1812 is highly unrealistic, but if I were King and Parliament I would strongly consider moving loyalists back, deporting a large segment of the former US citizenry to Australia and elsewhere within the Empire, and doing whatever I could to stamp out any notion of American exceptionalism and independence, including limiting immigration by lots of religious sects and central europeans fleeing from their kings. I'd want a fairly small population of loyalist Englishmen in the cities along the coast to handle trade and commerce, while expanding my empire westward through assymetrical trade alliances with native people.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Perhaps. But the Royal Navy and Port Authorities COULD stop a lot of the immigration from Europe to north america which created the population explosion and put additional impetus behind "manifest destiny". Also, while they perhaps couldn't stop people from walking west, they certainly would not be providing these people the benefits of government blazed trails and forts stationed with troops there for their protection. In this TL, maybe it would be the musket-armed Iroquois and Creeks manning British-built forts with legal authority to kill anglo-americans illegally entering their lands.

Damn unlikely, it would be very difficult politically since many British citizens had reletives in North America and would not like to see the government arming Indians to kill their reletives.

 

[zoomar]

Damn unlikely, it would be very difficult politically since many British citizens had reletives in North America and would not like to see the government arming Indians to kill their reletives.

I'm not so sure about this. First, the Britain of 1815 did not have "citizens", it had "subjects" with a lot less political clout. Second, in this ATL, the inhabitants of the USA were former rebels, traitors, enemies, and in effect de facto allies of the great enemy Bonaparte. The British government was not shy about meeting out stern justice to Englishmen who rose against the crown, so if they actually sought to take over the USA, why should they care what relatives of conquered Americans who had unilaterally given up their rights as Englishmen thought? I still believe Britain would have seen it in the interest of Imperial harmony to defang and marginalize its new conquest as much as possible, and giving aid, recognition, and assistance to loyal allied Indian nations bordering the former USA would be a good way to do that.

The whole scenario of England reconquering the USA is highly unrealistic and implausible. But if they did, I don't think after two wars started by these upstarts they'd say "Welcome back to the empire, chums. Just do your own thing for the next 100 years and become the economic and geographic center of our Empire."

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The most likely outcome of such an effort is clear. After Napoleon destroys the Allies at Waterloo and hangs the Duke of Wellington, the British are forced to seek any terms possible with the Americans, up to and including the surrender of Canada, massive reparations, handing over of warships, and even surrendering British officers prominent in the execution of American political and military leaders to the US for summary trial/execution.

Of course, all this would do is free up enough resources that the British could negotiate an unpleasant treaty with Emperor Napoleon, as opposed to seeing Jerome Bonaparte, Protector of the British Isles.

As for deporting prominent Americans to Australia, all that does is greatly hasten the American movement westwards. Let @100,000 Americans join the rush for whatever reason and there won't be any surviving Indians east of the Mississippi for the British to back. As an example, I offer Kentucky which was effectively without white settlement in 1774, had less than 1000 in 1776, and over 300,000 in 1792. Needless to say the fate of Kentucky had been settled badly for the Indians by then.

And how would the British have been able to afford all this? This is the nation which twice, in 1801 and 1814, rushed to demobilize and gut the military, only to learn the war wasn't quite over. Imagine telling Parliament that massive taxation will be needed for the occupation of the Americans. How many troops do we need? Contingents of up to 10,000 proved unable to win important battles for very small(although vital) areas. To occupy the entire place could easily demand more men than Wellington had at Waterloo!

Now imagine this cost must be seen as being in addition to any of OTL British military costs. Double ick.

I could see some massive effort, perhaps if Napoleon was captured in 1812 by the Russians, but it would have been a disaster. Tens of thousands dead, shattering financial costs, and an ultimately independent and heavily armed and extremely torqued USA which would certainly take Canada right away in retribution. Imagine prominent British officers being told they can't travel safely to any nation on good terms with the US! (Reprisals, always have sad consequences).

 

[President Ledyard]

Britain could hobble the hell out of the emerging American republic and maybe even grab some pretty large chunks of territory (Michigan by force and New England by invitation perhaps) but reconquering the United States wholesale would be next to impossible, nevermind ruinously expensive. Even that early in the 19th century there are a lot of Americans with a lot of guns.

 

[Hansmeister]

Lets see in order to make use of a French victory at Trafalgar you need to push this back by seven years, however at that stage the poms army is not tied down on the Iberian Penisular so there are some forces free to get to Canada and rout the US

Well, If Britain is defeated at Trafalgar they wouldn't have free reign of the atlantic and might be more reluctant to ship large number of troops to North America from Britain due to (1) threat of hostile interception of transport fleet by Spanish-French fleet and (2) need to protect Britain from hostile invasion. Writing off Canada might be the more prudent course of action.

Additionally, France might actively help the US, as they did during the Revolutionary war, in order to give the British a bloody nose.