Britain takes territory during the war of 1812?

Taking land from Maine would have backfired, as New England was both supportive of the British and a large trading partner with them. I believe that apparently they would not support invading Canada, so forces from states further south had to curve around them. Then again, not like New Hampshire has the largest of borders with Canada.
 
Taking land from Maine would have backfired, as New England was both supportive of the British and a large trading partner with them. I believe that apparently they would not support invading Canada, so forces from states further south had to curve around them. Then again, not like New Hampshire has the largest of borders with Canada.

The putative state of Maine was officially apart of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts until 1820, and the war was actually one of the turning points in making it a state since Massachusetts neither had the ability or interest in defending it, neither did neighboring New Hampshire. There was a great urge to separate from Massachusetts and its entirely possible that the people might vote instead to join Canada if the US does worse than OTL.

That being said, the area claimed by Britain in Eastern Maine is sparsely populated today, let alone back then. It would be little more than the annexation of a few thousand people Massachusetts didn't care to defend.
 
Taking land from Maine would have backfired, as New England was both supportive of the British and a large trading partner with them. I believe that apparently they would not support invading Canada, so forces from states further south had to curve around them. Then again, not like New Hampshire has the largest of borders with Canada.

Nobody even bothered to try and liberate Maine, and Massachusetts was on the verge of signing a separate peace with with Britain. Maine's value, even among New Englanders, bordered on irrelevant. On top of that, the portion that Britain was most likely to get was extremely thinly populated.
 
The old fashioned way, by telling them their land title doesn't mean anything and that they won't protect them from those Indians over yonder. The Canadians were very choosy about the Americans they let settle there, there won't just be flood of settlers instantaneously. Besides which, all of the territory that Britain was likely to get wouldn't get settled by Americans for decades to come anyways, there was better land available elsewhere.

I didn't say they would settle instantaneously but if the British try to box America in they aren't going to be able to stop all the settlers who sneak over, at least not in an affordable way. How much money will the Louisiana Purchase make Britain anyway? Is that worth turning America into an enemy and ruining Britain's reputation?
 
I didn't say they would settle instantaneously but if the British try to box America in they aren't going to be able to stop all the settlers who sneak over, at least not in an affordable way. How much money will the Louisiana Purchase make Britain anyway? Is that worth turning America into an enemy and ruining Britain's reputation?

Well, they could just say the initial sale was invalid and finagle the return to Spain (Who would then sell it back to the Americans, most likely) in exchange for Spain conceding them some territory elsewhere. There's areas in Latin America that Britain might be interested in that Spain might conclude they're going to have a hard time holding if they want the force to reinstate stable rule elsewhere, and could use the American cash to refill her treasury. The US might grumble about being expected to pay again, but over the long term its something that likely slips into the memory hole.
 
I didn't say they would settle instantaneously but if the British try to box America in they aren't going to be able to stop all the settlers who sneak over, at least not in an affordable way. How much money will the Louisiana Purchase make Britain anyway? Is that worth turning America into an enemy and ruining Britain's reputation?

Britain never really wanted Louisiana, there was other things they wanted closer to Canada. But if America is going down in flames so hard that Britain grabs it in the negotiations it means that America suffered so grievously it will never be strong enough to take it back.
 
Nobody even bothered to try and liberate Maine, and Massachusetts was on the verge of signing a separate peace with with Britain. Maine's value, even among New Englanders, bordered on irrelevant. On top of that, the portion that Britain was most likely to get was extremely thinly populated.
Meaning that is Massachusetts did that and the British took land only frommthem of all people they would be fucking up relations with all of New England. Not as if they didn't have border disputes with New Nampshire as well, after all. Far better to keep New England strong when it is in the Union, and to focus on other areas. Plus looking a tad a map on ethnic backgrounds in the United States, the disputed areas might mostly be French speakers. I am unsure if the British would want even more of them attached to New Brunswick. Reminds me that a lot of settlers in Ontario were Americans. Not just Loyalists, but people who came afterwards simply for the land. I suppose there might be some Great Britain who will think back tot eh Revolution and blame thighs on Boston though, even if it is Southernors who pushed for the War of 1812. Probably others as well, but the Yankees actually sold stuff to t British, while the French seized their ships by the hundreds.
 
Britain never really wanted Louisiana, there was other things they wanted closer to Canada. But if America is going down in flames so hard that Britain grabs it in the negotiations it means that America suffered so grievously it will never be strong enough to take it back.

I've been focused on asking why HB of CJ thinks Britain would tear up the Treaty of Ghent just because they won the Battle of New Orleans, so in this case it isn't an issue of America going down in flames. The negotiations have already happened like OTL.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Sorry to come to the thread a little late.

There is a lot of discussion about what it would do or what it would not do but the central theme for the British in this war was that it was a war it did not want, was not interested in fighting to gain territory but one it fought to bring US to the negotiating table. The invasions or attacks on the US was about inflicting damage and forcing a peace.

As some have indicated a huge amount of raw materials were imported from US snd manufactured good exported to US and Britain needed the revenue and taxes.

So the first thing that needs to happen is the British mindset at outset of war needs to change. Trade between Britain and US needs to be much lower for the British not to cherish their trade with US over gaining pieces of wilderness.

Now suppose after ARW US turns anti British and antagonist towards it. Trade between the two be much lower. But then US be poorer because much if $$$ for industrialization came from Britain. So a different US declares war on Britain due to their blockading US trade with France and BNA is invaded with sufficient force.

Now we have a recipe for Britain to not only liberate BNA but also seize Territory in US. D even attempt to curtail its power by preventing it from expanding west.
 
Sorry to come to the thread a little late.

There is a lot of discussion about what it would do or what it would not do but the central theme for the British in this war was that it was a war it did not want, was not interested in fighting to gain territory but one it fought to bring US to the negotiating table. The invasions or attacks on the US was about inflicting damage and forcing a peace.

This is partially true. The negotiators at Ghent were perfectly prepared to take American territory, and the news that Washington had burned was enough to dishearten the American negotiators. Had the battle of Plattsburgh or Baltimore gone the other way, then the British would have continued demands for some territory at Ghent, and they probably would have gotten it as a justifiable cost of the war.

The only reason Britain didn't push for claims (and the government wanted to) was because continuing the war to the point of securing those claims by the winter of 1814 served no purpose. There was no reason to spend the blood and treasure.
 
Top