British win the War of 1812 decisively

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

According to Gordon Wood's "The Empire of Liberty", the opening British demands during the Gent (or Ghent) peace conference that settled the war of 1812 were as follows:

"The British began with very tough terms—a permanent Indian reservation in the Old Northwest, American but not British demilitarization on the Great Lakes, cession of northern Maine, and access to the Mississippi River. The Americans rejected these terms outright and, to the surprise of the British, seemed unfazed by the news of the burning of Washington."

What would have been the effects of the British doing well enough militarily to wind up getting this? In 1814 IOTL, after the disasters of 1812 and 1813, the Americans got their act together and had a number of military successes.

 

[Wendell]

Access to the Mississippi certainly gives Washington some wiggle room to keep New Orleans...

 

[Sarthak]

According to Gordon Wood's "The Empire of Liberty", the opening British demands during the Gent (or Ghent) peace conference that settled the war of 1812 were as follows:

"The British began with very tough terms—a permanent Indian reservation in the Old Northwest, American but not British demilitarization on the Great Lakes, cession of northern Maine, and access to the Mississippi River. The Americans rejected these terms outright and, to the surprise of the British, seemed unfazed by the news of the burning of Washington."

What would have been the effects of the British doing well enough militarily to wind up getting this? In 1814 IOTL, after the disasters of 1812 and 1813, the Americans got their act together and had a number of military successes.

The Americans seemed ubnfazed because they got news of their victory in Baltimore and bladenburg. Clay was despondent and telling the delegation to accept any term as long as the us remained a viable state. Have Baltimore.go on the wayside and the Americans will probably take the terms.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Access to the Mississippi (canal from Lake Michigan to Illinois River?) plus reduced naval threat along the St Lawrence seaway may reduce the need for the Trent-Severn waterway. This access, plus British domination of the Indian Preserve, likely leads to greater development of the northern banks of the Great Lakes.

Demoralization of the US psyche is probably the biggest immediate effect, and this can massively affect the OTL timeline. Britain is going to be more aggressive, USA more submissive, in the western border dispute. Maybe say goodbye to the Oregon Territory, USA. Does USA rebound and still get aggressive vs Mexico? If not, say goodbye west coast, USA. Does a demoralizing loss exacerbate factional divide? Hello 2 USA's? earlier civil war?

IF the continued military success extends to New Orleans, and negotiations are not settled, look for Britain to increase demands. Louisiana may be taken by Britain, or returned to Spain.

Or, you may see more or less OTL, except without the old NW territory.

 

[The Gunslinger]

The Indian Protectorate lasts about exactly as long as it take for Upper Canada to fill up with settlers before it becomes Upper Canada 2.0, probably the mid-late 1820s. Canada will retain much more of its population as it migrates west instead of south in the long run.

The Federalists take the blame for not being pro-war enough and collapse as per OTL, but there's going to be much more lingering animosity instead of the Era of Good Feelings. I also wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the proposed amendments from the Hartford Convention gains actual traction even if it doesn't pass: the one concerning consecutive presidents from the same state. It might be enough to at least scuttle Monroe's 1816 run at the presidency even if it never becomes a de facto amendment.

Access to the Mississippi (canal from Lake Michigan to Illinois River?) plus reduced naval threat along the St Lawrence seaway may reduce the need for the Trent-Severn waterway. This access, plus British domination of the Indian Preserve, likely leads to greater development of the northern banks of the Great Lakes.

I think that Upper Canada build even *more* canals than OTL. There was a canal mania in OTL and an Upper Canada that has unfettered access to Europe is going to be much, much wealthier and populous than OTL. I wouldn't be surprised if they build the Trent-Severn in the 1820s and try and open up the interior of the colony.

Any canal from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi will probably be far into the 1830s. When it gets attempted, likely on the same route as OTL if they even build it. The elites in Montreal and York will want that trade going east, not south. And Britain's primary port on the Upper Mississippi will probably be in Minneapolis which eventually gets connected by rail because it's way too roundabout a trip to get there by canal from the Great Lakes.

 

[unprincipled peter]

The Indian Protectorate lasts about exactly as long as it take for Upper Canada to fill up with settlers before it becomes Upper Canada 2.0, probably the mid-late 1820s. Canada will retain much more of its population as it migrates west instead of south in the long run.

The Federalists take the blame for not being pro-war enough and collapse as per OTL, but there's going to be much more lingering animosity instead of the Era of Good Feelings. I also wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the proposed amendments from the Hartford Convention gains actual traction even if it doesn't pass: the one concerning consecutive presidents from the same state. It might be enough to at least scuttle Monroe's 1816 run at the presidency even if it never becomes a de facto amendment.


I think that Upper Canada build even *more* canals than OTL. There was a canal mania in OTL and an Upper Canada that has unfettered access to Europe is going to be much, much wealthier and populous than OTL. I wouldn't be surprised if they build the Trent-Severn in the 1820s and try and open up the interior of the colony.

Any canal from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi will probably be far into the 1830s. When it gets attempted, likely on the same route as OTL if they even build it. The elites in Montreal and York will want that trade going east, not south. And Britain's primary port on the Upper Mississippi will probably be in Minneapolis which eventually gets connected by rail because it's way too roundabout a trip to get there by canal from the Great Lakes.

I'm not connecting the dots to see what is driving your Canada on steroids. If a Mississippi trade route is nixed, the only thing that has changed from OTL is an Indian Protectorate instead of USA states/territory and the top of Maine added to Canada. Access to Europe from the east is exactly the same. Territory for settlement is exactly the same (except for upper Maine, which is not going to make any difference).

Development of upper Mississippi depends on what happens with the Louisiana Territory and Illinois/Wisconsin. By the time of the war, Illinois was already being settled. If it remains in USA hands, then probably so too does Wisconsin/Louisiana Territory. That puts an end to Minneapolis as a British port. If Britain keeps Illinois, it keeps Wisconsin. Louisiana is debatable. Unless it drives out the settlers of Illinois (which date back to French occupation), the region will get developed, and it will be connected to Canada, and it is only logical that the fairly easy canal/connection is from Peoria to Chicago.

There's way too much land for development outside the Indian Protectorate. the IP probably does get encroached (especially if Britain decides to settle Illinois), but 1820s is much too early.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I'm not connecting the dots to see what is driving your Canada on steroids. If a Mississippi trade route is nixed, the only thing that has changed from OTL is an Indian Protectorate instead of USA states/territory and the top of Maine added to Canada. Access to Europe from the east is exactly the same. Territory for settlement is exactly the same (except for upper Maine, which is not going to make any difference).

Development of upper Mississippi depends on what happens with the Louisiana Territory and Illinois/Wisconsin. By the time of the war, Illinois was already being settled. If it remains in USA hands, then probably so too does Wisconsin/Louisiana Territory. That puts an end to Minneapolis as a British port. If Britain keeps Illinois, it keeps Wisconsin. Louisiana is debatable. Unless it drives out the settlers of Illinois (which date back to French occupation), the region will get developed, and it will be connected to Canada, and it is only logical that the fairly easy canal/connection is from Peoria to Chicago.

There's way too much land for development outside the Indian Protectorate. the IP probably does get encroached (especially if Britain decides to settle Illinois), but 1820s is much too early.

If Britain wins the war, they're going to grab the south Shore of the St. Lawrence and build a canal there, probably completed before 1820 at a fraction of the cost of the Rideau. Once that happens, Upper Canada opens up dramatically earlier than OTL and you'll have ocean going vessels being able to go from London to Montreal, all the way to lake Michigan. The price of importing goods will fall like a stone and agricultural exports will all of a sudden be viable thus attracting many more farmers than OTL which will open the West faster. The lack of that canal severely handicapped Upper Canadian growth for the better part of two generations.

Britain likely wouldn't take Illinois, or at least much of it. If you draw a line due west of the Maumee River to the Mississippi, that's probably what they take. Cutting off American access to the western lakes. This is the area Proctor layed out in his vision of the original protectorate, and even went so far as to make everyone in the area declare an oath of loyalty because they had such long term plans for the area. And in the far west, Britain held on to Prairie du Chien (Wisconsin) even in OTL, so a world where the British are winning decisively they're going to be taking all these things into account.

 

[UnaiB]

@Lusitania

 

[Lusitania]

Interesting ideas. If the British do win in Baltimore as some have indicated it would change both the British and American positions.

the British had profited immensely from trade with US and one of the principal if not major source of capital for American industry had come from Britain.

there were always two different attitudes within Britain regarding the conclusion of war. On one side were those who wanted the war to end ASAP and both trade and investment continue. While another wanted to punish the upstart country for challenging the mighty British empire.

So let’s take the scenario that Britain performs much better and is able to inflict a major blow against US then I venture to state the British demands to end war would of been even harsher with not only removing American threat on the Great Lakes but to claim all the Great Lakes including as indicated south shore.

if the Americans refuse to grant British access to the Mississipi the British would follow up their previous attacks by capturing New Orleans and making it a free city ( bit of stretch).

The capture of New Orleans should force the Americans to accept the British demands and treaty of Ghent be infamous and hostile demands by the British. How British will be viewed by US and wether British capital will still flow into US is debatable. The politics and diplomacy by US be greatly affected.

you could see shunning of British and British goods (new Boston English party) or just shrug it off and continue business as usual. Do not see building of Erie Canal but we could see a British version not only opening Lake Ontario to sea but also connecting it to Lake Superior with Lake Erie only lake not linked by 1825. How much of the “reserve” remains under native control will be debatable but be more than iotl.

mas for western British demands I do not think they be as accommodating as iotl. With Oregon staying under British control and British limiting American settlement. All this could change if a more accommodating British government wished to try mend fences with US.

As for US the war could affect slavery and its spread with no Missouri compromise and an early civil war which could split the country into two. It will really depend on how well the US can shrug off the war and move on. Wether it learns from the war or the reactionary forces blame each other and refuse to modernize.

A lot of different reactions and outcomes could happen from a such a lopsided British victory. Will New England leave the union? That is another factor to consider.

 

[Aghasverov]

Read somewhere that if one unexploded British shell, found later in the powder magazine, had actually detonated instead of being a dud, it would've blown Fort McHenry sky-high....