British Victory: War of 1812

[I Blame Communism]

Whatever else goes on in this topic, that's bullshit, and you know it. I'm American, delved into this subject enough times, and *I've* never heard of such a claim.

Well, we just saw that it exists, because somebody made it. And while I'll admit that I'm not an expert, the lie being around means it had to start somewhere, and American politicians in 1815 would have a very good reason to start it. And then you had the Era of Good Feelings. It's logic.

History isn't always logical and I may well be wrong (although the lie obviously does exist, it may be far more recent). However to say I am wilfully deceiving people is not only itself wrong, its also a low and unhelpful remark.

All versions of the war are in some aspects a lie by this point.

This is an extremely cynical view to take as a historian, that it is impossible to reconstruct anything from as late as the early 19th Century because of biased distortions. I see no reason why, based on all the available evidence, an account of the war fully faithful to all existing sources cannot be written.

And while there are a few, certainly, can you npoint out a few prominent lies in the usual Anglo-Canadian version?

 

[67th Tigers]

That's true, but when you can say that you successfully invaded your enemy's territory and burned down their capital city, I think you've earned the right to say you've won your war.

It was just a raid, not an invasion.

The US went to war partially to annex Canada. They failed in this, but there indeed were large border adjustments, all in the US's favour (as indeed every single 19th century border dispute was settled). By 1814 the British forces in BNA are so powerful it's just a matter of time and logistics; as long as the US can maintain a sufficient presence on the Lakes they can interfere with the British LoC's. If the British score a solid victory then New England, Pennsylvania and NY becomes a matter of marching.

The British also had a very powerful amphibious force off the US coast. It could hit anywhere at will, and did at Washington, New Orleans &c. Indeed, after New Orleans it secured Mobile Bay for Britain and could have kept smashing up US coastal areas indefinitely.

In the event of a total British victory, the main territorial losses will be much of the Michigan territory and at least part of Maine District (annexed to Britain) and the return of the Louisiana Territory to its rightful owner, Spain.

 

[Bill Cameron]

The US went to war partially to annex Canada.

67th,

Not annex, seize. There's a great difference.

Canada was meant to be a bargaining chip in negotiations, nothing more. The US wanted as little to do with francophone Catholics, Loyalists, and descendants of Loyalists as Britain wanted to do with the United Stated.

Canada was Britain's jugular. It was the only plausible way for the US to threaten what was a superpower and be taken seriously. Russia did much the same with India throughout the 19th Century. The idea wasn't to annex Canada or India, the idea was to threaten them in order to gain concessions elsewhere.


Bill

 

[Solomaxwell6]

And while there are a few, certainly, can you npoint out a few prominent lies in the usual Anglo-Canadian version?

War of naked American aggression? Please. Look up the Chesapeake-Leopold Affair, when a British ship boarded a neutral American ship, killing 3 and wounding another couple dozen. Your blockade in Europe wrecked international trade, horribly damaging the American economy (our embargo was ultimately just as bad, but was only in response to the blockade). Nine hundred American ships were seized as a result of that blockade.

If it's naked aggression to try to protect your own citizens and economy from foreign powers, then, yes, it was a war of naked aggression. But I see it as America trying to protect her own interests. And as others said, America wasn't even trying to gain Canada, just gain some concessions. You know, like having Britain stop stealing our ships. Or having them stop murdering our citizens. Small things like that.


Naked aggression my ass...

Edit: On topic, Britain had three goals. The main goal was getting full American cooperation in the economic warfare on the Continent. This means the American embargo would be continued for France, but would end for Britain. This would actually be good for America, too, as the embargo wrecked the American economy. Second was continuing impressment. American sailors would be basically forced into the Royal Navy, and RN deserters working in America would be sent back. Last was the creation of an Native American state. This would require some changes, since the British lost in the Midwest. Since we're assuming a decisive victory, we can assume Britain won those battles. So Britain now gets a nice puppet state in Ohio and Indiana.

 

[I Blame Communism]

War of naked American aggression? Please. Look up the Chesapeake-Leopold Affair, when a British ship boarded a neutral American ship, killing 3 and wounding another couple dozen. Your blockade in Europe wrecked international trade, horribly damaging the American economy (our embargo was ultimately just as bad, but was only in response to the blockade). Nine hundred American ships were seized as a result of that blockade.

If it's naked aggression to try to protect your own citizens and economy from foreign powers, then, yes, it was a war of naked aggression. But I see it as America trying to protect her own interests. And as others said, America wasn't even trying to gain Canada, just gain some concessions. You know, like having Britain stop stealing our ships. Or having them stop murdering our citizens. Small things like that.


Naked aggression my ass...

My wording was perhaps strong, because I was worked up over a very common and silly misconception, however if Britain was some sort of scourge of the seas, then why had we basically given you lot what you wanted just before the war? American recklessness and willingness to use war as a tool when diplomacy was perfectly adequate and could have gotten the necessary results caused the war, and America did not halt it after it was no longer being fought for anything in since the concessions it had a right to demand and had sought to gain had already been made.

Sure, America had legitimate grievances, but going to war to resolve a dispute which could easily be resolved by diplomacy is agression, and once your justification is gone (impressment), then agression is naked. It's a strong, a controversial, a genuinely debatable term, but it's not plain contrary to facts as the lie previously discussed, a British desire to "retake the colonies" is.

 

[KingIII]

Well, we just saw that it exists, because somebody made it.

He was asking whether there was support in Britain to have it happen. He never said it would or that it was avoided.

 

[I Blame Communism]

He was asking whether there was support in Britain to have it happen. He never said it would or that it was avoided.

True, but he said there "must" have been revanchists over here, and that he had this idea seems to me evidence that it is chucked around. I have heard it brought up in previous threads, on other forums, and in various places more less ambiguously, it's a misconception that annoys me, so I forcibly refuted it.

 

[DuQuense]

You do realize I hope that Canada was NEVER a part of the United States?

Of course you Are.
General Arnold Invited you to Join back in 1775. It is just you Canucks have been a little slow to accept the Invite.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Of course you Are.
General Arnold Invited you to Join back in 1775. It is just you Canucks have been a little slow to accept the Invite.

Word of the day: refuse!

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Of course you Are.
General Arnold Invited you to Join back in 1775. It is just you Canucks have been a little slow to accept the Invite.

thats because we have much classier soirees to attend

 

[Solomaxwell6]

My wording was perhaps strong, because I was worked up over a very common and silly misconception, however if Britain was some sort of scourge of the seas, then why had we basically given you lot what you wanted just before the war?

American recklessness and willingness to use war as a tool when diplomacy was perfectly adequate and could have gotten the necessary results caused the war, and America did not halt it after it was no longer being fought for anything in since the concessions it had a right to demand and had sought to gain had already been made.

Untrue. Britain was demanding American concessions until 1814. Britain only really supported the eventual status quo ante bellum Treaty of Ghent in mid-late 1814 because the public were too much against the war, and the Native American alliance broke apart.




Americans at the time thought that the US was facing utter economic collapse, and would slowly be brought back into the British sphere. The fear was even somewhat justified (they were facing economic collapse due to a chain of events instigated by Britain). So one of the reasons America went to war with Britain was to help re-establish independence. This is why the War of 1812 is occasionally known as the Second War of Independence. Americans weren't thinking "Oh shit, Britain wants to turn us back into colonies!" It was more like they were thinking "Oh shit, Britain wants to make us financiailly dependent on them!"

Honestly, war was almost inevitable. There was a slow meltdown of Anglo-American relations at the beginning of the 19th century. A whole ton of incidents, mostly caused by the English (because America had a lot of sympathy towards Napoleonic France, side effects of the Napoleonic Wars, international incidents like the Cheseapeake affair, impressment, British fears towards American expansion...) caused this. I mean, war wasn't definitely going to happen, but it was much more beneficial for America to start it on its own terms, rather than to wait for the British to attack first.



Going to respond a bit more in a little while, dinner's ready. But just posting this now so you have a chance to see it and respond.

To be fair, on the Britain winning the war thing, it's a bit ambiguous... Britain didn't really get anything out of the war, but America did. In terms of the military situation, Britain clearly won, but America won at the diplomatic table.

 

[BriefMortal]

I will garot the next person who says English when referring to Britain.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Untrue. Britain was demanding American concessions until 1814. Britain only really supported the eventual status quo ante bellum Treaty of Ghent in mid-late 1814 because the public were too much against the war, and the Native American alliance broke apart.

When you're fighting a war and militarily winning, you want concessions, obviously, but that's after the war starts. Britain had rescinded the impressment orders days before the war began. This news arrived in Washington after war had begun. America began the gung-ho war when diplomacy could have prevailed (it in fact did). Thsi was agression. It continued after its justification was gone. I repeat myself for emphasis.

Americans at the time thought that the US was facing utter economic collapse, and would slowly be brought back into the British sphere. The fear was even somewhat justified (they were facing economic collapse due to a chain of events instigated by Britain).

I don't know every in and out of the trade war, but Britain's goal was certainly got to break and re-colonise America, it was to prevent France gaining war materiel. The consequences for America were side-effects and America could have helped relieve them by negotiation rather than trying to get concessions by throwing troops at British territory.

So one of the reasons America went to war with Britain was to help re-establish independence.

If we're getting worked up over exact wording, this implies that Britain had sucessfully compromised America's sovereignnty by 1812. That's silly. We didn't even want to.

This is why the War of 1812 is occasionally known as the Second War of Independence. Americans weren't thinking "Oh shit, Britain wants to turn us back into colonies!" It was more like they were thinking "Oh shit, Britain wants to make us financiailly dependent on them!"

Then it doesn't really merit being called that and we shouldn't call it that at all, but I'm talking about all the people on the internet today who do think we wanted to "re-colonise" America.

And as I said, we didn't. If there hadn't been a Great French War, there wouldn't have been a blockade. It was a side-effect, not a goal, of British policy.

Honestly, war was almost inevitable. There was a slow meltdown of Anglo-American relations at the beginning of the 19th century. A whole ton of incidents, mostly caused by the English

Say it with me now. The British. The British. The British. The British.

(because America had a lot of sympathy towards Napoleonic France,

We didn't instigate your sympathy towards our mortal enemy, did we?

side effects of the Napoleonic Wars, international incidents like the Cheseapeake affair, impressment,

Impressment was a vlid complaint, but A) we ended it as I said and B) it wasn't our policy to kidnap Americans. This often happened because the RN was strapped for men and ruthless, but the official policy was to recover "deserters", including Britons naturalised as Americans.

British fears towards American expansion...) caused this.

We instigated the strong expansionist currents in American politics? And I agree that annexing Canada wasn't a main aim anyway.

I mean, war wasn't definitely going to happen, but it was much more beneficial for America to start it on its own terms, rather than to wait for the British to attack first.

Why on Earth would we have attacked? As you said yourself, diplomatically speaking the war ended up being more beneficial to America, by breaking the status-quo with the Indians around the lakes. We would rather the changes it brought on had never occured, and of course we needed all our resources to fight Napoleon, and were quite happy to accept a status-quo peace when we could have hung on, beaten Boney, and sent Wellington and a formidable army over to bring the USA to its knees... if we thought it would have been worth the expense.

Going to respond a bit more in a little while, dinner's ready. But just posting this now so you have a chance to see it and respond.

Very good of you.

To be fair, on the Britain winning the war thing, it's a bit ambiguous... Britain didn't really get anything out of the war, but America did. In terms of the military situation, Britain clearly won, but America won at the diplomatic table.

Definately.

I will garot the next person who says English when referring to Britain.

I feel you, man.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Hopefully this post will be a bit better constructed, since I have time to actually say everything I want.

When you're fighting a war and militarily winning, you want concessions, obviously, but that's after the war starts. Britain had rescinded the impressment orders days before the war began. This news arrived in Washington after war had begun.

I am aware of this. What's your point? If the news had arrived beforehand, it would've been one thing, and the war might not have started (or at least not started in the same way) but it didn't. A related point is that the old British prime minister was very anti-American (as opposed to the newer one, whose name I can't remember, who wanted to work with America). The news of his assassination would've only just reached Washington, if it had reached it at all by the time war was declared. So it certainly wasn't expected that the impressment issue would be resolved. I think you're thinking in 21st century instant communication terms. Remember, neither Britain nor America knew what the situation in the other nation was like. Even if Britain had gone to some absurd extreme to ease tensions and offered America thousands of pounds for all impressed soldiers, and things like that, America wouldn't have known, and war would've still been declared. So the impressment issue really isn't relevant to the declaration of war.

America began the gung-ho war when diplomacy could have prevailed (it in fact did). Thsi was agression.

While I agree the war was unnecessary and diplomatic discussions would be preferable (for more than one reason; America didn't even really stand to gain what it thought it did), hindsight is 20/20. Besides, impressment wasn't exactly America's only reason for entering the war. It wasn't even mentioned in America's declaration of war. You did kill our citizens, you know. That's kind of a big thing.

It continued after its justification was gone. I repeat myself for emphasis.

That's not how war works. Once you've let slip the dogs of war, you can't easily recall them. I for one can't really see this happening:

US Secretary of State James Monroe: Hey, King Britain, sorry about the whole invading Canada and killing a bunch of your dudes thing. You wanna have peace?
King Britain: Yeah, sure, it's all cool.
Monroe: Ooops. While we were spending weeks sending letters back and forth across the Atlantic, my guys burnt down York. Sorry about that!
Britain: S'okay.

I don't know every in and out of the trade war, but Britain's goal was certainly got to break and re-colonise America, it was to prevent France gaining war materiel.

By Macon's Bill, if Britain agreed to stop impressing American ships, we would've stopped trade with France. You didn't do that until it was too late.

The consequences for America were side-effects and America could have helped relieve them by negotiation rather than trying to get concessions by throwing troops at British territory.

With the new British Prime Minister? Probably. With the old one? Hell no. And war was declared before or within days after Washington heard about new guy's ascension. Washington had no reason to believe that old guy would negotiate, since he was rabidly anti-American, and had no reason to believe he would suddenly get assassinated. No president of America nor prime minister of Britain had been assassinated by that point. It was shocking.

If we're getting worked up over exact wording, this implies that Britain had sucessfully compromised America's sovereignnty by 1812. That's silly. We didn't even want to.

You didn't want to?

Before France's Continental System, Britain's Let's-Screw-France Policy (sorry, can't remember the name) and America's embargo were enacted, over half of our sea-bound exports were headed to Britain. Those screwed up trade, so when we re-established trade numbers might've been slightly different. Either way, that's a massive portion. Another huge portion went to Canada. Britain wanted to end our trade with the European mainland.

So who else would we trade with, selling that other less than 50% of our exports?

France? No, that's who Britain was trying to screw.

Russia? Nah, that was part of Napoleon's Continental System.

German states? Nah, that was also part of the Continental System.

Mexico?

Kongo, for god's sake?

Most of the other half of our goods would be headed straight towards Britain. A tiny market means demand drops, which means prices drop, and America's headed straight towards becoming slowly economically reliant on Britain, unless the restrictions were later eased. Even if that was only a side effect of what Britain really wanted, it was something that would've happened to some extent. America wasn't blind to this fact, and neither was Britain. This is why America was afraid of Britain dominating the continent once again, and I'm sure the Britain didn't exactly see this as a negative fact. I think given the economic crisis of the time, American fears were inflated even more.

Then it doesn't really merit being called that and we shouldn't call it that at all,

It's more an older term. I haven't actually seen people call it that anymore, just the War of 1812. I brought it up because it expressed the views of the time.

but I'm talking about all the people on the internet today who do think we wanted to "re-colonise" America.

Ah, okay. Yes, they're wrong.

And as I said, we didn't. If there hadn't been a Great French War, there wouldn't have been a blockade. It was a side-effect, not a goal, of British policy.

That doesn't make it any less real.

If a side effect of America's War in Iraq was that Americans intentionally shot and killed innocent British, took thousands more as slaves, and wrecked your economy, I'm sure you'd take exception. I doubt you'd shrug it off as "Well, yeah, they did it all intentionally, and it kinda fucks me and my people over, but it's not like it's their goal!"

We didn't instigate your sympathy towards our mortal enemy, did we?

Again, we had the same embargo for France as Britain. The British saw us as a threat because we were friendly with France, but we weren't actually doing anything with that friendship. Sympathy towards your mortal enemy does not give you the right to enslave, murder, etc.

Impressment was a vlid complaint, but A) we ended it as I said and B)

Again, invalid. It's easier to start a war than to end it, and the war had already started.

it wasn't our policy to kidnap Americans. This often happened because the RN was strapped for men and ruthless, but the official policy was to recover "deserters", including Britons naturalised as Americans.

Again, policy or not, it happened. Not with one American. Not with two Americans. With hundreds of Americans. With thousands of Americans. Plus 900 ships seized. Plus many others illegally searched. If they were naturalized as Americans, which we agree on, then you had no right to take them; they were no longer yours to take, and we were neutral.

We instigated the strong expansionist currents in American politics? And I agree that annexing Canada wasn't a main aim anyway.

Britain was annoyed at what was technically the illegal sale of Louisiana to America, not America having an eye at Canada. We were seen as a threat, particularly since we were friendlier at that point with your enemy.

Why on Earth would we have attacked?

Because you had already threatened it? The Macon Bill said we'd re-establish trade with Britain and France. If one nation stopped impressing our sailors, we'd stop trade with the other, until that nation stopped impressing. The idea was it'd end up better for both France and Britain to stop impressing our citizens. What had followed was Bonaparte saying "Yeah, Madison, I'll stop impressing your sailors. *snort, maybe a little giggle at his own cleverness*" but then not actually going through with it, to hurt the British economy at no cost of his own. Madison was skeptical, seeing through Napoleon's ploy, and prepared to back off and re-establish trade with Britain. So King Britain or the British prime minister or whomever said "Oh no you don't, America! You better give us trade, or we're going to attack you! *smug*" Now, we had already made plans to re-establish trade, but the threat had been made, and there was no way to retract it. We knew Britain was willing to attack, or at least threaten to attack, if things didn't go its way. So, our invasion of Canada was a pre-emptive strike. When economic and diplomatic pressure failed, we decided to try a different tact. And, no, it didn't work the way we planned, but it's not like Britain was innocent in all this.

As you said yourself, diplomatically speaking the war ended up being more beneficial to America, by breaking the status-quo with the Indians around the lakes.

I wasn't talking about the Native Americans. That land would've been ours soon enough anyway, by hook or by crook (we had purchased the land in treaty, plus the inexorable tide of settlers, means either the Native Americans leave peacefully or get crushed soon after... moral it was not, but that was the reality of the time). I was talking about America gaining Mobile, West Florida/Alabama (sorry, Spain!), and Britain agreeing to return any slaves it took. The Treaty of Ghent leaned towards the Americans, not just the effects outside the war.

We would rather the changes it brought on had never occured, and of course we needed all our resources to fight Napoleon, and were quite happy to accept a status-quo peace when we could have hung on, beaten Boney, and sent Wellington and a formidable army over to bring the USA to its knees... if we thought it would have been worth the expense.

That's not at all why Britain stopped the war. Not at all. Honestly, the men you were sending over to America was nothing compared to what was going on in France. It was because the average, run of the mill Brits thought to themselves "Wow, we're really being douchebags over in the colonies. Why are we sending our soldiers to fight and die against guys who really haven't done that much to us?" Popular opinion was massively against the war. That's why Britain decided to go to peace, and that's why it settled for a peace beneficial to America. You had achieved your basic aim (make sure America can't really re-establish trade with France) and defended Canada, so what would there be to gain by continuing the war?

 

[Zyzzyva]

So the Canadians have no business claiming they won, then.

Yes, the sack of Montreal was an American high-point.

Uh, wait...

Of course you Are.
General Arnold Invited you to Join back in 1775. It is just you Canucks have been a little slow to accept the Invite.

"Inhabitants of Canada! ... The army under my command has invaded your country and the standard of the United States waves on the territory of Canada. ... The United States offer you Peace, Liberty, and Security. Your choice lies between these, and War, Slavery, and Destruction. Choose then, but choose wisely..."

- William Hull

(Anyone else remember the documentary that used that as a voiceover to the title sequence?)

Oh, and Britain won. Our troops marched in triumph through the enemy capital, after which their subject allies (Italy, Naples, Warsaw, the USA, the Confederation of the Rhine) all surrendered as well. Allied Victory.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Yes, the sack of Montreal was an American high-point.

Uh, wait...

Were you thinking of the sack of Toronto?

 

[I Blame Communism]

Okay, Solomaxwell, you've assembled a very powerful body of evidence and I'm conceding many of your points. In the future I will not be so quick to label anything as "native agression". There are just a few points I want to clarify:

1) "Enslave"? I don't follow. Presumably this would entail Britain taking a free black American citizen (and I don't believe there were terribly many), cpaturing him, and sending him as a slave to Jamaica. This seems very unlike us by that time, as it smacks of the trade, which we had already outlawed with enthusiasm, and I also can't see it causing any real outrage in America.

2) I knew and agreed with everything you said in your final paragraph. that's why it wasn't worth the expense.

3) And finally... why do you feel the need to poison your own honourable victory in a debate by acting like an insensitive prick towards your opponent, calling him English when he is not and when I'm sure you know perfectly well that Scotsmen aren't fond of this, positively rubbing his face in your own offensive use of what you know is a complete fallacy?

You set out on this debate to prove me wrong on terminology that was inaccurate and offensive, and you won by using your vastly superior knowledge of the subject matter. I hope you'll realise that your terminology is inaccurate and offensive and that you're going to lose any debate about Britishness and Scottishness you get into with me, since I am both of those things and well-rehearsed in lecturing on them.

So, I'm sorry I attacked your country in such a fashion, and I'd like you to say sorry for denying the existence of both my countries so that we can call it quits. Thanks.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Were you thinking of the sack of Toronto?

Yes, because York was the capital of anything important.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Okay, Solomaxwell, you've assembled a very powerful body of evidence and I'm conceding many of your points. In the future I will not be so quick to label anything as "native agression".

You shouldn't really ever do so. Few wars are so simple. I recognize that my own side committed atrocities as well; the Sack of Washington was a reprisal for when we burned down York a year prior. We seized Mobile from Spain, which was neutral in the war. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that America was clean and innocent and blameless, I was just trying to show that there are very few black and white wars. Many can be justified from either side.

There are just a few points I want to clarify:

1) "Enslave"? I don't follow. Presumably this would entail Britain taking a free black American citizen (and I don't believe there were terribly many), cpaturing him, and sending him as a slave to Jamaica. This seems very unlike us by that time, as it smacks of the trade, which we had already outlawed with enthusiasm, and I also can't see it causing any real outrage in America.

I mean impressment. It isn't enslaving as in taking a black man and sticking him on a plantation or anything, but it amounts to the same thing. I consider any manner of draft to be a form of slavery, and impressment of American citizens into the British navy is even worse, since they aren't even being drafted into the military of their own country. I recognize that in theory, the British were really only supposed to take deserting British sailors, which isn't quite so bad, but that's not how it worked in practice, not by a longshot.

3) And finally... why do you feel the need to poison your own honourable victory in a debate by acting like an insensitive prick towards your opponent, calling him English when he is not and when I'm sure you know perfectly well that Scotsmen aren't fond of this, positively rubbing his face in your own offensive use of what you know is a complete fallacy?

You're right. I was a bit annoyed at being called out on what seemed like a minor matter, particularly when it was just a mistake, and BriefMortal contributed nothing else in that post. But that doesn't excuse me for being immature. I apologize.

Yes, because York was the capital of anything important.

Wasn't York the capital of Ontario (Lower Canada?) at the time? I apologize if I was mistaken. I know Ottawa wasn't the capital yet.

'course, you might be a bit teasing and saying Ontario isn't important, but I'm unsure. I can never tell with you Canadians.

 

[lothaw]

First of all, I don't think your average American knows how fortunate he or she is that this war we're discussing that took place nearly two hundred years ago, is the last foreign invasion of the mainland US.

Seems to me it was a rather phyrric victory for both sides. Neither side really acomplished their main objectives. The US invasion of Canada was a complete failure, while the attempt to set up an Indian nation around the great lakes was a failure.

From the US vantage point, this war was just as much about the attacks on our shipping as it was the legitimacy and expansion of our nation. We may not have beaten the British Empire decisively, but we did hold our own.

But the topic at hand is a decisive British victory. Tecumseh's Indian Confederation is almost a write in. Northern Maine would be sliced back into British North America for sure. Beating Harrison at the Thames and Brown at Chippewa and/or Lundy's Lane would acomplish both these at the bargaining table. If Ross successfully captured Fort McHenry, this would almost certainly force the US at the bargaining table under Britain's conditions.

Now let's just say for argument Jackson wins at New Orleans(which is arguable. Ross very well could've been in charge of this campaign had he not died at Fort McHenry, and might not have rammed his head against a brick wall), with their naval superiority, they captured Mobile and would've been able to approach Jackson's army from the north on open ground. Say what you will about Andrew Jackson, the army he had at New Orleans had to have been one of the most ragtag forces in history.

Quite possible had the Treaty of Ghent OTL been delayed Pakenham would've beaten him yet. If it happens along with the rest of what I've layed out, this would put the British in the position of declaring the Lousiana purchase illegal(which they protested at the time, but were busy with France), and could've returned the land to Spain under "British protection"

Had that happened, Manifest destiny would be dead short of another war against Britain. Heck, this might make for an interesting timeline anyways.