"Bloody Ban" Sent to Command in America in 1812

What if General Banastre Tarleton, the "Bloody Ban" of Revolutionary War infamy, had been appointed to command of British forces in America shortly after the outbreak of the War of 1812?

--Might we see a more energetic campaign by the British from an earlier date, Tarleton being fond of aggressive tactics?

--Would his appointment tend to reinforce American resolve during the war, perhaps leading to greater support for the war by the Northern States (some of whom, in OTL, gave lukewarm support at best and at worst, committed borderline treason)?
 
This is an interesting idea, I used to live within an hour of Cowpens and I've been to the battlefield multiple times. If the British do assign him to North America I imagine that he would attempt to run a brutal campaign against the United States. As many members of his Green Legion were former members of the revolutionary army, I imagine that he would work to increase the division within the US between anti-war and hawk groups. I also think we would see a few more city burnings ala DC and a vigorous scorched earth campaign in certain parts of the country, while quick raids in others. Tarlton was a cavalry commander with a ruthless streak so I imagine the war would be more violent and brutal sooner than OTL, and after his experience with Loyalist units I imagine he would try to get segments of America to defect to the British cause.
 
Well that all depends on exactly what role Tarleton gets when he gets to Canada. It's hard to see him replacing Isaac Brock or doing anything vastly different.

However I think I see an opening: Let's say that the Governor General of Canada, George Prevost's early attempt to negotiate an armistice with the Americans is poorly met by officials in London. Prevost is sacked as a result and is replaced by Tarleton who, though wanting to command forces in the Peninsular War, decides that commanding forces in Canada is better than nothing.

Tarleton would probably arrive sometime in 1813 and would certainly pursue a MUCH more aggressive course of action against the American forces, especially in and around Lake Ontario. This in and of itself could drastically change the course of the war.
 
This could be bad for Britain.
I don't know much about Bloody Ban but if he was too forceful and burned too many towns it could make a lot of Americans more supportive of the war. One of the big advantages for Britain was the general apathy many American states felt. Many states only sent token forces and told them not to cross the border.
If a lot of raids occur, especially into New York State and towns are burned this changes the nature of war. More Americans will be joining the militia's, militiamen will agree to cross the border, and more money is put up by the states to fund the war.
 
Well that all depends on exactly what role Tarleton gets when he gets to Canada. It's hard to see him replacing Isaac Brock or doing anything vastly different.

Well, Brock was agitating for a European posting at the time Tarleton would have been assigned to Canada in this ATL. So perhaps Brock is transferred out as Bloody Ban is transferred in. That puts Tarleton in complete and uncontested command of forces in Canada (which he would have had anyway...Brock was a Brigadier, and later, Major General while in Canada. Tarleton would be going in with the rank of full General...but it removes any possible clash between the two over tactics).
 
This could be bad for Britain.
I don't know much about Bloody Ban but if he was too forceful and burned too many towns it could make a lot of Americans more supportive of the war. One of the big advantages for Britain was the general apathy many American states felt. Many states only sent token forces and told them not to cross the border.

If a lot of raids occur, especially into New York State and towns are burned this changes the nature of war. More Americans will be joining the militia's, militiamen will agree to cross the border, and more money is put up by the states to fund the war.

Agreed. Indeed, especially if Tarleton ends up replacing Isaac Brock and Brock goes onto a European posting as he desired, it could well be a disaster for the Brits. Tarleton was nowhere near as good a general as Brock. He was far too rash and prone to charge into situations without doing proper recon. Where Brock saved Canada for Britain, Tarleton could well lose it, especially if he's riled the North up sufficiently to give wholehearted support to the war.
 
Agreed. Indeed, especially if Tarleton ends up replacing Isaac Brock and Brock goes onto a European posting as he desired, it could well be a disaster for the Brits. Tarleton was nowhere near as good a general as Brock. He was far too rash and prone to charge into situations without doing proper recon. Where Brock saved Canada for Britain, Tarleton could well lose it, especially if he's riled the North up sufficiently to give wholehearted support to the war.
Hmmm...


At the outbreak of the War of 1812, Moreau was offered by President Madison the command of the U. S. troops. Moreau was willing to accept, but the news of the destruction of the Grande Armée in Russia decided him to return to Europe.

How much chance does the US have of winning the war if it's Moreau v. Tarleton? :cool:
 

Art

Monthly Donor
Banastre Tarleton...

Is the equivalent of a George Armstrong Custer as a cavalry commander. I admit it took a Daniel Morgan to beat him, but what battles did he win against equivalent commanders? Do tell.
 
What if General Banastre Tarleton, the "Bloody Ban" of Revolutionary War infamy, had been appointed to command of British forces in America shortly after the outbreak of the War of 1812?


Why wasn't he sent in some capacity? That might be a way to approach the question.

He was young enough, active enough, prominent enough, and apparently in good with the government. However, IIRC, he asked for a posting to the Peninsular and was turned down. He didn't have in any active military role after the Revolution.

So, why didn't the military establishment use him after the ARW?

If you can determine why they didn't use him, you might have a good handle on how he'd handle himself during the war.
 
Why wasn't he sent in some capacity? That might be a way to approach the question.

He was young enough, active enough, prominent enough, and apparently in good with the government. However, IIRC, he asked for a posting to the Peninsular and was turned down. He didn't have in any active military role after the Revolution.

So, why didn't the military establishment use him after the ARW?

If you can determine why they didn't use him, you might have a good handle on how he'd handle himself during the war.

Actually, they did use him, or considered doing so. He was almost sent to India with Cornwallis to command the cavalry there in the years after the Revolution, but his politics (he was a Whig, and the government at the time was a Tory government) caused the appointment to be rescinded. He was put in command of British defense forces in southeastern Ireland in 1802 when it looked like Napoleon was going to try an invasion, and he was assigned to organize defenses in southwestern England when it looked like Nappy might invade in 1805.

As for why he didn't get the assignment to Spain which he had wanted, it seems, again, to have been due to his politics. He was originally a Whig, but shortly before the death of Pitt the Younger in 1806, with whom he had become friends, he had defected to the Tories. But, his own political opinions were always more aligned with the Whigs than the Tories, and he tried (unsuccessfully) to get back into the Whig Party. By that time, the ruling party was the Tories (after a brief interlude of Whig rule after Pitt's death), and thus, by going back to the Whigs, he cut himself off from both parties right at the time when the assignment to Spain might have been had.

So a POD might be that Tarleton remains loyal to the Whigs. As in OTL, Tarleton campaigns against Wellington, trying to get command of the Peninsular Army. However, Wellington still gets the assignment to Spain in 1809 as per OTL. A bitter Tarleton spends his time castigating Wellington in Parliament, until the fortuitous declaration of war by the United States is received. To shut Tarleton up and reward a loyal Tory, the Tory government promotes him to full General and grants him the command of His Majesty's forces in Canada. Tarleton accepts, and departs for America in July 1812, arriving there before August 1 of that year.
 
Actually, they did use him, or considered doing so.

So political considerations did trip him up? He was good enough for various home defense billets but not for overseas assignments where the glory could be earned?

So a POD might be that...

Works for me, so the question now is what Ban's personality, body, and needs are like in 1812. He was in his mid 20s during the ARW and near 60 by 1812, right? Has he mellowed? What is his health like? He lived out of saddle bags in the 1770s, will he need a wagon load of claret in 1812?

Others have already pointed out the great difference between commanding a body of light horse and commanding the defense of Canada. The OTL Ban didn't play the political game well enough to serve overseas, will the ATL Ban be politically savvy enough to balance all the factors and factions involved in the defense of Canada?

I can easily see a 1812 Tarleton who tries to act like the 1770s Tarleton but lacks the physical stamina and political acumen to pull it off.
 
Top