British win 1812 unambiguously

samcster94

Banned
What is the impact of a War of 1812 where the British win, sign a treaty with pro-British terms, and there is no dispute like OTL???
 
I think the Britishould will realise that in the long run its better to have the US as a trade partner and buttress against other European colonial ambitions than long term rival. Upper Maine is likely ceded to the British, as are perhaps parts of the Louisianap purchase in the North. Some native buffer states may be established but overall the Brits wont compromuse US territorial integrity, though they may force the US to agree never to annex Spanish Florida. An indemnity is likely paid and a fee established for use of the Grand Banks fisheries but neither proviso is crippling.
 

samcster94

Banned
I think the Britishould will realise that in the long run its better to have the US as a trade partner and buttress against other European colonial ambitions than long term rival. Upper Maine is likely ceded to the British, as are perhaps parts of the Louisianap purchase in the North. Some native buffer states may be established but overall the Brits wont compromuse US territorial integrity, though they may force the US to agree never to annex Spanish Florida. An indemnity is likely paid and a fee established for use of the Grand Banks fisheries but neither proviso is crippling.
Florida staying Spanish sounds like an interesting idea in itself.
 
Florida staying Spanish sounds like an interesting idea.

I still think the US would take it eventually, and I'm someone who finds the idea of American exceptionalism/Manifest Destiny rather distasteful.

Given enough time, and enough distraction, any treatise stipulating that the Americans can't annex Florida is going to be thrown to the wind if the British can't be bothered enforcing it; all the US has to do is choose its moment, and given how turbulent geopolitics was in the 19th Century, there will likely be moments a-plenty.

Still, an America that fails to expand west in any meaningful way and focuses on the Spanish Caribbean is an interesting one.
 
I still think the US would take it eventually, and I'm someone who finds the idea of American exceptionalism/Manifest Destiny rather distasteful.

Given enough time, and enough distraction, any treatise stipulating that the Americans can't annex Florida is going to be thrown to the wind if the British can't be bothered enforcing it; all the US has to do is choose its moment, and given how turbulent geopolitics was in the 19th Century, there will likely be moments a-plenty.

Still, an America that fails to expand west in any meaningful way and focuses on the Spanish Caribbean is an interesting one.

Agreed: under the ATL it is possible that Florida plays out much like Texas with American (manifest destiny minded) settlers moving into northern British owned Florida and eventually causing a direct American-British controversy. Then with Britain unable/unwilling to enforce its ownership accepts a cash buy-out.
 
Any treaty cannot be too onerous, or America will discard it as soon as possible. Britain does not want a massive, populous, vengeful enemy right next to their remaining American territories.
 
I imagine there'd be some alliance with indigenous peoples, a fixed western U.S. boundary around the Mississippi, and some land taken for the British.

What do you mean a fixed Western boundary? The U.S. had already purchased lands far to the West of it. As well, what lands are we talking about them directly annexing?
 
Ooo a chance to use the map

Not my map btw, I just like it alot
 

Attachments

  • downloadfile.png
    downloadfile.png
    317.7 KB · Views: 972
Ooo a chance to use the map

Not my map btw, I just like it alot

This, I think is a far more likely scenario than the US ever accepting a permanent western boundary.

The British considered trying to force a return of Louisiana. Although the Americans were considering ceding eastern Maine, shifting the Canadian border south to cut out the Great Lakes, and giving up fishing rights off the Grand Banks in a worst-case scenario, a treaty giving up the southern portion of the Louisiana territory--well, the US would have needed an especially savage beating to make that a possibility.

I doubt that a beaten US would have made it to the Oregon Territory. Britain would have claimed it all and the US would not be in a position to dispute it.
 
Although the Americans were considering ceding eastern Maine, shifting the Canadian border south to cut out the Great Lakes, and giving up fishing rights off the Grand Banks in a worst-case scenario, a treaty giving up the southern portion of the Louisiana territory--well, the US would have needed an especially savage beating to make that a possibility.

This seems reasonable, and although less radical on a map I think it leads to much more interesting outcomes. What would the future of American industry be, if the Great Lakes were firmly in Canadian hands rather than American? How would the Civil War - or "peaceful" legislation like it - go, with the center of power shifted a few degrees south? It seems implausible at least to say that the USA would have turned out to be quite the industrial juggernaut that we saw in OTL, so by 1900 you've got a world that's essentially unrecognisable.
 
You might have a USA is less industrially powerful relative to OTL, but keep in mind the most martial and expansionist sections of the US were due south. And ITTL, they are going to be in the driver's seat.

Britain might win in 1812, but the US population was doubling every 20 or thirty years. If by 1850 they don't think they could take Britain, they'd focus all those energies on Mexico and Spain, perhaps enacting the CSA dream of a Caribbean slave empire.

What I'm emphasizing is that you almost certainly cannot permanently stunt the USA with a victory in 1812. There's too many other soft targets for them. The more you take, the scarier the vengeful south and rump North will be.
 
What I'm emphasizing is that you almost certainly cannot permanently stunt the USA with a victory in 1812. There's too many other soft targets for them. The more you take, the scarier the vengeful south and rump North will be.

Yes, but a Southern-oriented USA will begin to develop some serious problems as it grows into the nineteenth century - Egyptian and Indian cotton, as well as the obvious international issue of slavery, will be particular thorns in America's side. By sheer economic competition, not to mention political rivalries, the US and Britain are never going to see eye-to-eye, and I don't think a less-industrial USA is going to have a chance against Britain either at sea or in trade. Maybe you can't permanently stunt them on a map, but you can definitely take away a lot of what made America a nineteenth-century powerhouse.
 
Eh...I dunno. With a crushing victory, you take the great lakes and Maine, that hurts. But that leaves Pennsylvania, New York, and other states strong in industry. Northern capital will be redirected to places it can invest, and a lot of that will be in the South, which will be stronger industrially.

It just seems like a lose lose for the British if they push their luck too far. They don't have the population in Canada to hold off the USA long term, and no one else in the hemisphere has the power to stop the USA on the warpath. I could actually see Britain from the map above losing everything they gained and then some around the time of the IOTL US civil war, which will not be happening.
 
What is all this talk about stopping the move westward? Or even take Florida? The US always wanted Florida and to ensure it ownership of New Orleans. (And Spain would likely still sell it in due time. They still be collapsing like a house of cards.) Even in 1812, Americans wanted Texas and California. (Texas was highly desirable and even before the gold rush California there were the sea lion pelts that were worth their weight in gold in the China trade, plus California was practically paradise by 19th Century standards.)

Mexico also had a lot going against it, and was lucky it didn't balkanized in OTL. ALT, we can easily have the whole fall apart into a dozen, or so states.

In the end, the British didn't what the war and the public wanted the reopen of trade with America as soon as possible when Napoleon was beaten.

Any native 'buffer state' would likely be fill with British/Canadian setters and then into a Province of Canada. (They throw Tecumseh's Confederacy to the wolves, or end him themselves.)

Return Louisiana to who? Spain? They be losing they whole empire and fast as in OTL, or close to it. I doubt they what it, let alone deal with Americans living there.
 
Yeah. People here seem mainly trying to figure out how the British could cripple America, when the British just wanted us to stop selling sail cloth to Napoleon. Wrong time, wrong war.
 
Return Louisiana to who? Spain? They be losing they whole empire and fast as in OTL, or close to it. I doubt they what it, let alone deal with Americans living there.

The British position in 1814 was that the French sale of Louisiana to the US was illegal because it was made by an illegitimate government--Napoleon's.
 
Yeah. People here seem mainly trying to figure out how the British could cripple America, when the British just wanted us to stop selling sail cloth to Napoleon. Wrong time, wrong war.

In 1812, yes. But by late 1814, as the negotiators met at Ghent, the British wanted to hurt the US so badly that it could never threaten Canada again.
 
Top