Britain and America - 1812?

Just a quick question; suppose that the War of 1812 was less of a sideshow (reasons not important), did Britain have any territorial ambitions in North America? If they'd been able/willing to commit more resources to tackling the young USA, and won a more decisive victory agains them, would they have enforced any territorial changes, or was it more about putting the US in their place and securing economic/military security in the area?

I know people have talked about Britain establishing a Native American state around the Great Lakes region, but I don't know how likely that is. Demilitarisation of the Great Lakes themselves is likely on the table, but what about the Ohio Territory? Did Britain still have any claim to any of it, or did they pretty much no longer care about it now that the USA was independent and flexing its muscles?
 
Just a quick question; suppose that the War of 1812 was less of a sideshow (reasons not important), did Britain have any territorial ambitions in North America? If they'd been able/willing to commit more resources to tackling the young USA, and won a more decisive victory agains them, would they have enforced any territorial changes, or was it more about putting the US in their place and securing economic/military security in the area?

I know people have talked about Britain establishing a Native American state around the Great Lakes region, but I don't know how likely that is. Demilitarisation of the Great Lakes themselves is likely on the table, but what about the Ohio Territory? Did Britain still have any claim to any of it, or did they pretty much no longer care about it now that the USA was independent and flexing its muscles?

I think Britain had largely given up on the idea by this time of reconquering any major portion of the United States by force. Many thought the US would collapse within years.

By 1812, no one thought this but there were still some whom believed they could win some border territories back in Maine/New Brunswick area but fighting a war over some timber was not a priority.

The British had only recently surrendered their fortifications in the Great Lakes per teh Jay Treaty. It is doubtful that they could/would try to reconquer that area as they had only indirect access. Ontario was still sparsely settled and there was no direct access to the area beyond canoes.

Demographically, the US was expanding westward at a great rate and Britain probably knew they had better things to do that make a permanent enemy over a battle that they won't win in the long run.

Much of the War of 1812 fell on Britain's continued impressments of American sailors. It was humiliating though Britain didn't consider their conduct odd. They did this to many nations (Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Portugal, the Ottoman) and didn't see why America was throwing a fit over this. They were legitimately surprised (and amused) when the US declared war (ironically after the Order in Council authorizing impressments had just been revoked after Percival's assassination).

The whole war was an expensive distraction for Britain, whom had more to lose than gain. Losing part of Canada was certainly possible, especially Ontario which was majority American-born. This would have truncated the nation permanantly.

Fortunately for Britain, the US was ill-prepared after 8 years of Jefferson's deliberate and malicious bungling of the military. Poor Madison was stuck with what he inherited (not much).

The US got to proclaim their "2nd War for Independence" while Britain didn't even stop their impressments until after the war.

All in all, it was a waste of time and money. The US economy was shattered and Britain wasted millions of pounds was forced to dispatch thousands of men to America (more sailors were utilized against America than they impressed).
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
There have been quite a few threads on this topic, so you might find those worthwhile to read (if you can avoid the unfortunate slide to bickering many fall into - guilty as charged).

From my understanding, Britain had no direct interest in territorial gains, as in, they had no interest in conquering territory directly, in such a way as to start a war. That isn't to say however that they wouldn't take territory as a form of reparation, or indirectly take territory (i.e. setting up a protectorate).

Now for the war in 1812, one of the biggest obstacles to either side in the war was the territorial familiarity of the other side. Whenever either side went on the offensive, because the other side had good positions, it almost always failed.

Where one side had the advantage, then it shifted - i.e. The Great Lakes, America had better bases, which gave them a great advantage in defence, whilst I don't think Britain had anything equivalent, but the did have fantastic shipbuilding abilities. On the flip side, Britain DOMINATED the sea, which was one of the reasons that cities like Baltimore, and DC were vulnerable, and that the naval war was where Britain was stronger.

With the Great Lakes, essentially they could push to have the USA respect (in treaty) a border for the Confederacy (not that one, the Indian one) - assuming it survived in any meaningful manner - if Britain signed the treaty, they may have a stake in ensuring it did survive.

This would mean that if the USA crossed the border in any manner military or administrative, without acceptable reason, that the British would have a legitimate cause for war, and were signed on to do so.

This does NOT mean however that settlers will respect this, which is where it gets messy. In order to ensure that settlers didn't just settle the territory, you'd need forts, and people to man them - and the Confederacy just couldn't. This (IMO) would mean that Britain would end up fortifying the frontier in exchange for the Confederacy allowing British colonists in, or in exchange for taxing the American settlers - which would lead to messy legal issues for both the USA and Britain, as the USA shouldn't have troops or lawmen there, in a treaty signed by law, but these settlers have American citizenship and may petition for help. A sensible settlement would be that the USA goes "Dude, you're not in my jurisdiction. You live on their land, you play be their rules". By the way, send that lovely food over here, we'll not tax you, and look at these lovely goods you can buy off us on the cheap!

This messiness means that the USA couldn't actively expand westwards as a government policy, but the settlers could - if that isn't suitably handled by the Confederacy, or the British, then the USA at some point could well take advantage of a weak period, or the settlers could, and any polities that emerge could join the USA, undoing the Confederacy.

Now shifting the war causes very lengthy discussions on the details typically - but my two cents have been that if there wasn't a freak storm to save DC, then that could cause some serious damage to the US in terms of morale, and in order for Britain to try and ask for anything beyond Maine, or reparations, they NEED to win on the Great Lakes, or successfully invade the South. I put my money on the lakes. Anything else, you need a very different war, with Britain being free to exert its full might on North America.

TL;DR The British need to win the lakes, if so, a Protectorate, with some complications could lead to Britain being the primary "authority" west of the Appalachians, besides Spain. (Not coloniser, it'll probably rely on free-settlers, which will be expected to at least pay lip service, if thye do anything of the sort). Anything more and IMO, they'd need a spectacular victory, that would require significant military investment to gain anything further.
 
Just a quick question; suppose that the War of 1812 was less of a sideshow (reasons not important), did Britain have any territorial ambitions in North America? If they'd been able/willing to commit more resources to tackling the young USA, and won a more decisive victory agains them, would they have enforced any territorial changes, or was it more about putting the US in their place and securing economic/military security in the area?

I know people have talked about Britain establishing a Native American state around the Great Lakes region, but I don't know how likely that is. Demilitarisation of the Great Lakes themselves is likely on the table, but what about the Ohio Territory? Did Britain still have any claim to any of it, or did they pretty much no longer care about it now that the USA was independent and flexing its muscles?

The native American Confederacy probably gets tossed out during negotiations (as per OTL) when the British realize they can get territory elsewhere. Tecumseh will be angry (if he survives the war), but he needs the Brits more than they need him so he can't much of anything.

I have a map of (what I feel) the maximum territory that the British will ask for in a crushing American defeat in 1812.

1) Northern/Eastern Maine
2) Northern New York state (including Plattsburgh and Sackett's Harbour as well as the South shore of the St. Lawrence River
3)The Niagara frontier
4)Ohio north of the Maumee River
5) A new border along the banks of the Wabash/Illinois River (which upon further inspection should be North of where I have it
6)A new border on the Missouri

Maine plays to the British strength at sea and is easily defensible using what resources they already posses. The additional territory in New York makes Lower Canada a lot easier to defend and makes the St. Lawrence a military/economic highway.

The west gets more tricky because it's hard to see in OTL they had clearly lost in the theater and still asked for it anyway. What I have outlined is what I feel the MOST they can get. They definitely wanted an outlet on the Upper Mississippi and a border along the Missouri was brought up.


So the British have all this swanky new territory, now what? In OTL they were extremely reluctant to anger the Americans and appeased them whenever possible to ensure the thriving trade with the United States. So, my strong suspicion is that this attitude probably prevails in victory just as it did in a draw. In addition to that, the British were notoriously cheap regarding defenses in North America, so that will likely also play a role. St. Louis sits where the Mississippi meets the Missouri, and this is a looooong way from the main source of British power in North America.

We probably see an alternate 1818 treaty where the British demilitarize he Great Lakes voluntarily to cut costs (the Americans are probably forbidden from building warships on the Great Lakes at Ghent), and the Brits probably give a good chunk of the North American frontier back to the USA when they realize how much time and effort it's going to cost to police the area. The area in red is a rough idea of what I see them offering up to the Americans (if the amount of concessions change, it's probably in favour of the Americans).

jghfjg.png
 
I know people have talked about Britain establishing a Native American state around the Great Lakes region, but I don't know how likely that is.
It would probably require a decisive victory on the UK's part as well as the realisation that taking territory from States in the east would only be storing up trouble for later so it being their one main demand. IIRC there have been a couple of threads in the past that have done something like this. Personally I think that considering settlement numbers at the time and how soon afterwards some of the Territories became States in our timeline the most that they could have reasonably got away with would be modern day Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Effectively gives control of Lake Superior to the British and excludes American shipping if desired. It could also throw up some interesting butterflies with regards to the drawing of the US-Canadian border if you wanted it to.
 
Some interesting ideas there guys! I think if I were to consider any kind of AH on the matter, the key to keeping America limited and the British a presence of force in North America would be to reduce the terms of any British 1812 victory to minimise animosity between the two. I'm not confident that in any future conflict the Brits would be able to pour too much into North America, especially with other European powers taking advantage of the cold relations between the USA and Britain.

Follow up question: What becomes of Louisiana? The purchase occurred in 1803 (news to me; I honestly thought it was after 1812, which made things simpler in my mind, but alas). Will the British request any concessions to do with Mississippi trade? Would they want any of the Louisiana Territory for themselves, or would they simply attempt to push the Canadian border farther south when the time comes?
 
Some interesting ideas there guys! I think if I were to consider any kind of AH on the matter, the key to keeping America limited and the British a presence of force in North America would be to reduce the terms of any British 1812 victory to minimise animosity between the two. I'm not confident that in any future conflict the Brits would be able to pour too much into North America, especially with other European powers taking advantage of the cold relations between the USA and Britain.

Follow up question: What becomes of Louisiana? The purchase occurred in 1803 (news to me; I honestly thought it was after 1812, which made things simpler in my mind, but alas). Will the British request any concessions to do with Mississippi trade? Would they want any of the Louisiana Territory for themselves, or would they simply attempt to push the Canadian border farther south when the time comes?

I think the British will tweak the border in the north. Any possession of the rest will almost certainly cause a future conflict (something they went deep out of their way to avoid OTL). If they win at New Orleans (doubtful, but possible), I think they might do a semi-retrocession of the Louisiana Purchase and make America re-buy the territory from Spain. Spain doesn't have the clout to defend it if they wanted to (see Florida a few years later) and Britain keenly wants to avoid war. America probably winds up with it regardless.
 
If Britain wins decisively at Baltimore, the momentum could've ultimately caused New England to declare independence/become a British protectorate and signal an earlier end to the war.
 
If Britain wins decisively at Baltimore, the momentum could've ultimately caused New England to declare independence/become a British protectorate and signal an earlier end to the war.

If Baltimore succeeds I doubt New England will be going anywhere. The cries for secession hadn't reached the levels they did by the end of the war (which were pretty tepid even then). But I'd be interested in the terms that Britain would push for with a win at Baltimore, Britain would have a knife to America's throat in that scenario.
 
Follow up question: What becomes of Louisiana? The purchase occurred in 1803 (news to me; I honestly thought it was after 1812, which made things simpler in my mind, but alas). Will the British request any concessions to do with Mississippi trade? Would they want any of the Louisiana Territory for themselves, or would they simply attempt to push the Canadian border farther south when the time comes?
I don't think they would try and insert themselves into Louisiana simply because they wouldn't have a secure footing, better to gain some kind of solid advantage that won't be most likely lost at some point in the near future. If they do manage to create an Indian protectorate buffer state in our timeline's Wisconsin to use my suggestion then I could easily see them trying for a border that ran from the most western point of Lake Superior at Duluth, perhaps allowing the US a short stretch of coast at the mouth of the St. Louis River where present-day Superior is to give them a port, west to Grayland on the Pacific coast.
 
Top