British Victory: War of 1812

[Grimm Reaper]

The British won the Napoleonic Wars(including the one with the US), ruled the seas, took whatever they wanted from the other European colonial powers and were the dominant power in Europe and the world for the next century.

Somehow they did not consider it a heartbreaking defeat that, on top of all that, in North America they had to settle for never fighting another war with the US, the ensured survival and security of Canada and eventually an unofficial and then very official partnership with the US.

 

[lothaw]

The British won the Napoleonic Wars(including the one with the US), ruled the seas, took whatever they wanted from the other European colonial powers and were the dominant power in Europe and the world for the next century.

Somehow they did not consider it a heartbreaking defeat that, on top of all that, in North America they had to settle for never fighting another war with the US, the ensured survival and security of Canada and eventually an unofficial and then very official partnership with the US.

No one's arguing that Britain won the Napoleonic Wars. Heck, I even once said the War of 1812 was a glorified subchapter of those said wars.

Now, the unoffical then official alliance is hindsight, but the reason the British signed Ghent, even before the all important victory at New Orleans, was simply the Empire had been at war on and off for nearly twenty years. Quite simply they were tired of it, and petty border skirmishes with a local power in North America wasn't worth it.

 

[KingMississippi]

Well if the declaration of war had been held some of the grievances of America toward Britain would have disappeared. It was an unpopular war in America and many blamed it on the industrialists in the Northeast and the pioneers in the West. The pioneers wanted land and an end to British "support" of let me be PC "Native Americans". The merchants wanted to end the poaching of American "neutral" trade and the impressment of sailors. The British had their reasons for both and even though I sometimes tend to look at America in the mindset of Decatur's famous (or infamous depending on how you look at it) quote of "Our country right or wrong" I can see some of the British reasoning. The British had to man their navy and they chose impressment. While that was the "draft" so to say at the time most sane men would not choose to be a member of the Royal navy if they had a choice. Flogging, poor rations, disease, no shore leave, combat, low pay (even prize money was pitiful for the ratings) all led to the lack of volunteers for the Royal Navy. When men were given the chance to desert they would and American merchant and naval vessels paid extremely well in comparison. In fact US naval ships paid more to sailors than equivalent jobs for most (in comparison to the relatively low pay for the sailors in comparison today). The whole issue with Constellation and the seizing of American sailors from a warship was over British sailors who actually deserted a British ship patrolling American coastal waters for French privateers leaving from American ports. By 1812 the press was a major sticking point in Anglo-American relations and PM Spencer Percevel was an ardent Britain-first leader. No chance of negotiated end of the press was possible. However when the Percevel was assasinated and Lord Liverpool replaced him there was a chance for reapproachment but due to the communications at the time America declared war before the news reached Washington.

 

[DuQuense]

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.

? What does Enslavement have to do with skin Color.? ?Or where the Slave is forced to Work?

Remembre America was founded by Indian, White and Black Slaves. [And in the 1830's~1850's a few Oriental Girls Smuggled in for the "White Slave Trade"]
As late as the 1770's American Courts were upholding the Right to capture and enslave Indians.

I do consider Impressment as Slavery. You are being compelled by Force Majest, To Work for some one, in a place you have not willing agreed to work, or willing agreed to work for.

 

[Dave Howery]

As has been pointed out here before --- The British did Win the War.

I'm never going to agree to that... mainly because I look at just what changed at the end of the war, and the answer is 'pretty much nothing.' Neither side gained territory or concessions, and neither side achieved it's goals (burning Washington was hardly a war aim, just something that happened). In any history book, that'd be considered a draw (I personally consider it a waste of time and lives). The US didn't get Canada, the Brits didn't get their big Indian buffer state. About all the war accomplished was putting an end to USA ambitions about Canada, and Britain pretty much gave up all hope of hindering the US's Manifest Destiny...

 

[Nae'Blis]

? What does Enslavement have to do with skin Color.? ?Or where the Slave is forced to Work?

Remembre America was founded by Indian, White and Black Slaves. [And in the 1830's~1850's a few Oriental Girls Smuggled in for the "White Slave Trade"]
As late as the 1770's American Courts were upholding the Right to capture and enslave Indians.

I do consider Impressment as Slavery. You are being compelled by Force Majest, To Work for some one, in a place you have not willing agreed to work, or willing agreed to work for.

How was the United States of America founded by White slaves? I thought it was founded by white slave owners like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

I'm never going to agree to that... mainly because I look at just what changed at the end of the war, and the answer is 'pretty much nothing.' Neither side gained territory or concessions, and neither side achieved it's goals (burning Washington was hardly a war aim, just something that happened). In any history book, that'd be considered a draw (I personally consider it a waste of time and lives). The US didn't get Canada, the Brits didn't get their big Indian buffer state. About all the war accomplished was putting an end to USA ambitions about Canada, and Britain pretty much gave up all hope of hindering the US's Manifest Destiny...

I would think that a status quo peace would be counted a victory for the defending power. For example a I would consider it a victory if in the Spanish American War the Spanish burnt down Washington and did not loose any land. Even if they did not gain any new territory, they were fighting not to gain territoy but to avoid loosing territory.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

I'm never going to agree to that... mainly because I look at just what changed at the end of the war, and the answer is 'pretty much nothing.' Neither side gained territory or concessions, and neither side achieved it's goals (burning Washington was hardly a war aim, just something that happened). In any history book, that'd be considered a draw (I personally consider it a waste of time and lives). The US didn't get Canada, the Brits didn't get their big Indian buffer state. About all the war accomplished was putting an end to USA ambitions about Canada, and Britain pretty much gave up all hope of hindering the US's Manifest Destiny...

Well, as I said before, at the diplomatic table, America won. They did in fact gain territory (Mobile, Alabama). That was taken from the Spanish, not the British, but still a clear American benefit from the war. America also obtained at least one concession from Britain: the British agreed to return slaves that ran to Canada (or something similar, I forget the exact terms). They ended up paying a fee instead, but it amounts to the same thing. Clearly a pro-American settlement.

In terms of war aims, both sides came out moderately happy. Britain defended Canada and disrupted Franco-American trade. America was able to stop impressment (would've happened anyway, but of course the war started before the news reached Washington), which was one of the main aims for the war, was able to firmly establish the Louisiana Purchase as its own, and maintained territorial integrity in the Midwest.

I'd say that who ultimately "won" could be argued from either side. There certainly weren't any losers (aside from Spain and the people that were killed...). Britain clearly dominated on the battlefield, but America won at the negotiating table. I'm not exactly sure how that happened...

 

[Zyzzyva]

Well, as I said before, at the diplomatic table, America won. They did in fact gain territory (Mobile, Alabama). That was taken from the Spanish, not the British, but still a clear American benefit from the war. America also obtained at least one concession from Britain: the British agreed to return slaves that ran to Canada (or something similar, I forget the exact terms). They ended up paying a fee instead, but it amounts to the same thing. Clearly a pro-American settlement.

In terms of war aims, both sides came out moderately happy. Britain defended Canada and disrupted Franco-American trade. America was able to stop impressment (would've happened anyway, but of course the war started before the news reached Washington), which was one of the main aims for the war, was able to firmly establish the Louisiana Purchase as its own, and maintained territorial integrity in the Midwest.

I'd say that who ultimately "won" could be argued from either side. There certainly weren't any losers (aside from Spain and the people that were killed...). Britain clearly dominated on the battlefield, but America won at the negotiating table. I'm not exactly sure how that happened...

Kinda like how France won the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars because they came out up Avignon, right?

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Kinda like how France won the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars because they came out up Avignon, right?

Okay, let's compare the two. I'm leaving out the dead and the cost of war, since that's natural in any war, regardless of winning or losing

American gains from the War of 1812:
Mobile, Alabama (although some Northerners like myself would say that's a loss )
Ultimately, a payment from Britain
End of impressment (one of its big war aims)
Stability in the Midwest

American losses from the War of 1812:
None

French gains from the Napoleonic Wars:
Avignon
Epic artwork (negligible gain, since he ended up exiled)

French losses from the Napoleonic Wars:
700,000,000 francs in war indemnities, some of which was actually going to build up fortresses in Germany along the French border
Military restrictions
Loss of French vassal states
Loss of status as premier European power


So, the American list is weighed entirely on the "gains" side while the French list is weighed very heavily on the "losses" side. How is that comparable, again?

 

[Sulayman]

That we still intended to subjugate America in 1812 is a myth spread by American politicians from 1815 onwards to give a heroic sheen to a war of naked American agression in which it received a sharp bloody nose and won only defensive battles of significance. It's a big fat lie.

I agree that there was no intention on the part of the British to resubjugate America. However it is an obvious exaggeration to say that the US received a "sharp bloody nose" in a war of pinpricks. Obviously it was beyond the power of Great Britain to conquer the United States. The war showed that British power was limited to small excursions that didn't penetrate far from the coastline. Any British force that got far from the support of the Royal Navy was doomed to share the fate of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga in 1777.

America likewise was too raw and undisciplined a power to take from Britain and hold any part of Canada. Brits make a mistake to think that the conquest of Cananda was an American war aim. What the invasion of Canada was supposed to achieve was a nice bargaining chip to use in peace negotiations. The Americans failed to achieve most of their war aims and so the war was a failure for them. It was not however a defeat. The main war aim - recognition of American rights on the seas - was achieved even before the war was began though unbeknown to the Monroe Administration.

Finally, while the US Army failed to cover itself with glory, the War of 1812 set the US Navy on the road to overwhelming naval supremacy which the United States will probably hold for a very long time to come.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

French gains from the Napoleonic Wars:
Avignon
Epic artwork (negligible gain, since he ended up exiled)

That's not epic artwork.

This is epic artwork:

 

[MadMc]

...it seems i have ripped open pandora's box with this thread

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.

Thank you for stayin on topic!
for all those who want to discuss:
after the british decisive victory and the founding of the Indian Nation, would the British backing and fear of crossing the border keep american settlers from just movin in anyways. I believe settlers would try not to cross into the nation (no US jurisdiction-no protection) we would still see a white minority in the country (those who refuse to leave after its founding)
I really like how this is playin out in my head, anyone have thoughts to add in?

 

[Solomaxwell6]

I believe settlers would try not to cross into the nation (no US jurisdiction-no protection) we would still see a white minority in the country (those who refuse to leave after its founding)
I really like how this is playin out in my head, anyone have thoughts to add in?

Honestly, I don't think that it would matter much unless the British were really assisting the Native Americans. The flood of settlers west was basically an inexorable tide. Consider, OTL, we had plenty of white settlers moving into what legally was Native American territory. That's how we got a lot of our land; we move in, the Native Americans complain, and so we either buy off some chief or another to legitimize the claim, or we boot them out by force. Within a few decades, the nation of Indiana or whatever will either be white majority, or a very large minority.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Honestly, I don't think that it would matter much unless the British were really assisting the Native Americans. The flood of settlers west was basically an inexorable tide. Consider, OTL, we had plenty of white settlers moving into what legally was Native American territory. That's how we got a lot of our land; we move in, the Native Americans complain, and so we either buy off some chief or another to legitimize the claim, or we boot them out by force. Within a few decades, the nation of Indiana or whatever will either be white majority, or a very large minority.

Well, yes, that's a given. But there's a difference between the US raping native tribe after native tribe and the US going after the Confederation of Indiana. For starters, if nothing else, the Indianans won't be as willing as the Mexicans to let Anglo settlers in, and the British would be backing them up.

Actually, now that you mention it, shoving the POD back to Prophetstown might be a good idea. You can keep the whole Shawnee-and-friends confederacy going (a big boon for the British) and if the POD is "Harrison catches a musket ball in the face" you've also reduced the competent leadership of the American army by 50% (Winfield Scott we'll just have to get rid of some other way).

 

[bobbis14]

Could you please make a TL where Detriot is absorbed into canada

 

[Darkling]

This POD much be one of the most mentioned and least discussed given how the threads always get sidetracked.


The obvious POD is Brock surviving Queenston Heights.

1813

Feb-March: Procter wades a campaign in Michigan and Western Ohio.
He manages to take and secure a point at Fort Miami and will later in year contest the area around the mouth of Sandusky against Harrison.

April: Forces under Brock repulses attack on York.

Early may: British forced to retreat in good order from the Niagara peninsula.

Late May: Brock leads sea born assault on Sacketts Harbour. The town is sacked and important shipbuilding supplies are carried off by the British. Along with the ship under construction (the Alt General Pike) being thoroughly destroyed.

Shortly thereafter the British and US fleets on Lake Ontario come to blows with the British taking a few enemy ships.

Early June: British use lake borne mobility to flank American forces on the British side of the Niagara at Forty Mile Creek.

Battle of Stony Creek results in the American force being destroyed.

Given British ascendancy on Lake Ontario, Brock is able to prevail upon Yeo to send additional men and material to the Lake Erie squadron.

Mid June : British retake fort George and thus expel American presence from British territory.

Late August: The British squadron on Lake Erie (here properly manned and cannoned) successfully takes the American squadron when Niagara and Lawrence are caught being moved over the sandbar at Erie.
* Or you can have the British win a stand up fight, since it was close run even with the poor state of the British fleet in OTL.

The British are now supreme on the Lakes.

When news of this reaches Harrison he abandons plans for an assault against Detroit and prepares a defensive action in South/EastOhio.

October Onwards: Brock takes forces from upper Canada and reinforces Procter in North West Ohio.

Late October: American attempt at Montreal is defeated.

November: Americans/Canadian collaborators cross the Niagara against the depleted forces Brock had left there.
They are unable to confront the British directly and instead put Newark to the torch, along with carrying off several loyal subjects of the crown.

December: A daring night raid by the British is unable to get into Fort Niagara whilst the troops stationed there are still in their beds.

The British take 29 guns, 7,000 muskets and a horde of clothing, 400 Soldiers and free several loyal subject taken hostage by the Americans.

Late December: The British retaliate in the burning of Buffalo along with taking Fort Schlosser.

January : Brock takes the bulk of his forces back into Canada, leaving the British supreme in Michigan, Northern Indiana, Western and Northern Ohio.
Procter now has a large native aiding him, with some raiding as far as
Kentucky.

April: Ship building gathers pace on Lake Champlain.

July: British successfully repulse the Americans from Fort Niagara, the US forces are forced into a dispirited retreat.

August: British take Sacketts harbour.

September: Sherbrooke accepts the surrender of Maine above the Penobscot.

British take Plattsburg and destroy American squadron on Lake Champlain.

British Takes Oswego.

November: Word of British victory on Champlain causes American negotiators to proceed upon the position of Uti possidetis.

Britain retains Maine above the Penobscot, The Niagara Peninsula, Northern New York ( possible a line running across at Sacketts harbour) and Maine above the Penobscot.

A British sponsored Indian state compromising Michigan territory, Northern Indiana and Northern Illinois, a tiny slice of Ohio. Roughly out to the Mississippi (the British probably get some of this directly).

This state would need to be recognised as being under British protection including having British forts on the land.

Probably also the US being treaty bound not to put warships on the Lakes they have access to.

 

[Tyr]

As said Britain won the war. If someone tries to mug you then giving him a bloody nose and getting home with everything intact counts as a victory.

The idea that the UK wanted to conquer the US- to say that no one wanted this is a bit of an exaggeration but not by far. There were some elder people sitting at home with maps and whatnot who were quite out of touch with reality and thought it would be a good idea but generally everyone thought that silly and undesirable.
The American revolution worked out very well for Britain, they still got to trade with the colonies and make almost as much money out of them as when they owned them but they also didn't have to pay for their upkeep which meant overall Britain earned more from a independent America than a colonial one (they may have actually made more from trade but this would just be down to natural growth of markets, not controlling the market would give a slight decrease).

Britain winning more...well the standard ones are -
*Free New England
*British New Orleans
*Spanish Louisiana
*Slight western border rearrangements in Britain's favour
*Big recognitions of native rights.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The British never ended impressment, they simply no longer needed to use it once the war was over in Europe.

 

[MadMc]

This POD much be one of the most mentioned and least discussed given how the threads always get sidetracked.


The obvious POD is Brock surviving Queenston Heights.

quote]

Thanks for your help!
as you could prolly tell from the name of the thread, 1812 isn't my strongpoint in history. It's gonna help me a ton for my TL

 

[67th Tigers]

The British never ended impressment, they simply no longer needed to use it once the war was over in Europe.

Never started it either!