Could the Americans have won the war of 1812?
- Thread starter KCammy
- Start date
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Yeah, but either way, the financial cost alone of supporting the war abroad was a major hassle for Britain to the point where an outside power (Russia) was pressuring the British to end the war so that they could focus on concerns in Europe. If Nappy was doing even better than OTL than the Russians wouldn't be the only ones telling the British to give the damned Americans what they want and come back to curbstomp the French.
So a minor slice of Canada (perhaps an expanded area in what would become Michigan or Maine) and the British actually genuinely slowing down on the impressment and funding the Indians to keep American expansion in check rather than the kinda half-assed, fingers-crossed agreements they made OTL? An "America Fuck Yeah" complete conquest of Canada would be implausible with the resources at hand.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Eh, the British didn't keep to their bargains too well OTL, getting something that is or resembles defeat might make them a bit more cautious with the Americans.
Snake Featherston
Banned
And if that happens, the new federal army will be off fighting the Indian confederacy rather than picking a fight while Britain is distracted.
And finding out that under a true general who understands how to put the hurt on US armies that they really *aren't* equipped to fight a huge Indian alliance......
Would like to see the basis for this (the "didn't keep to their bargains too well OTL").
Fearless Leader
Donor
Given that OTL's treaty of Ghent addressed none of the initiating causes for the War, considerably. I was kind of imagining a combination of OTL's Treaty of Ghent, the Rush-Bagot treaty, the Convention of 1818, with a few extra provisions regarding impressment and Native American affairs. Basically a "diplomatic omnibus" which would serve to effectively solve tensions between Britain and America a half decade or so earlier.
Earl_of_Somerset
Banned
I think the Best America could do is get a Border at the St.Lawrence with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Mayyyybbbbeeee...... PEI or Newfoundland
Also the Red River Colony, and we still would get our small portion of Louisiana territory which is in otl Canada
Mayyyybbbbeeee...... PEI or Newfoundland
Also the Red River Colony, and we still would get our small portion of Louisiana territory which is in otl Canada
Well, when the British have decided to stop impressing Americans in 1812, why should the Treaty of Ghent cover that?
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Well with the Americans anyway, as I recall their agreements stipulated an end to British funding of the Indians which the British continued to do anyway (Indians were too helpful as a proxy against the Americans).
And finding out that under a true general who understands how to put the hurt on US armies that they really *aren't* equipped to fight a huge Indian alliance......
Doesn't really matter, Tecumseh is doomed from the get go. He has to politically control an uneasy coalition which lacks the population, economic clout, and industry of America. He is reliant on British aid for arms, gunpowder, and ammunition in addition to whatever they can buy via the fur trade. They have to maintain an equitable sharing of hunting/farming land, fur trapping territory, and tradepost access while fending off other tribes that are backed by the Americans or simply don't like members of his coalition.
The US also has frothing racist psychopaths that are very good at fighting Indian wars
Snake Featherston
Banned
Doesn't really matter, Tecumseh is doomed from the get go. He has to politically control an uneasy coalition which lacks the population, economic clout, and industry of America. He is reliant on British aid for arms, gunpowder, and ammunition in addition to whatever they can buy via the fur trade. They have to maintain an equitable sharing of hunting/farming land, fur trapping territory, and tradepost access while fending off other tribes that are backed by the Americans or simply don't like members of his coalition.
The US also has frothing racist psychopaths that are very good at fighting Indian wars
Hence why I compared him to this guy:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/i_r/pope.htm
He'd be leader of the brief high tide of Indigenous America and then the Empire Strikes Back.
I was thinking more like Little Turtle or Pontiac's Rebellion.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
I've always kind of felt that both sides won the War of 1812. Not on the battlefield, of course, that was a clear British victory. But if you look at Ghent, both sides came out of the war well off (I don't remember the terms off the top of my head, but IIRC the US actually came out a bit better than the British). An actual military, rather than diplomatic, victory would be rather hard to pull off, though.
This is pretty much the only potential for victory. A much more successful Napoleon means Britain needs every soldier available. But the relatively small amount of resources Britain needs to fight the US means they'd have to be in really dire straits.
A professional army and navy in the US, which at the time was poor and had a low population, would still not be able to stand against Britain. A major difference besides the huge material discrepancies is experience. American soldiers and officers would get most of their experience fighting Native Americans, rather than a professional, modern army. The British had spent years fighting professional armies in Europe and had that kind of experience. A better funded and more professional military in America means we perform better, but still not nearly well enough to defeat Britain. At best, we hold them off until the British gets time to start shipping lots of assets from the Peninsular War to North America. The British don't want to maintain a war with the US long term. At the same time, they wouldn't have been amenable to things like the US annexation of Canada (although that particular demand tends to be overstated and wasn't official policy).
This is pretty much the only potential for victory. A much more successful Napoleon means Britain needs every soldier available. But the relatively small amount of resources Britain needs to fight the US means they'd have to be in really dire straits.
A professional army and navy in the US, which at the time was poor and had a low population, would still not be able to stand against Britain. A major difference besides the huge material discrepancies is experience. American soldiers and officers would get most of their experience fighting Native Americans, rather than a professional, modern army. The British had spent years fighting professional armies in Europe and had that kind of experience. A better funded and more professional military in America means we perform better, but still not nearly well enough to defeat Britain. At best, we hold them off until the British gets time to start shipping lots of assets from the Peninsular War to North America. The British don't want to maintain a war with the US long term. At the same time, they wouldn't have been amenable to things like the US annexation of Canada (although that particular demand tends to be overstated and wasn't official policy).
Fearless Leader
Donor
True, the end of the war in Europe made impressment a moot point during OTL's negotiations. However you raise a good point. Effectively TTL's treaty would be little different than OTL's Treaty of Ghent (perhaps with a few extra benefits for the Americans, non-territorial of course...). The only difference would be that it would be several years earlier and abort OTL's useless bloodshed.
Such a treaty would also have an interesting effect on the development of Upper Canada. In OTL, prior to the war, the cultural character of Upper Canada was largely American due to the policies of granting free land to all applicants, most of whom happened to be American. Given the American occupation of Upper Canada in TTL, coupled with America's "victory" one might see a significant population shift. In OTL, those areas of Upper Canada that were occupied by the Americans saw an exodus of "collaborators" following the American's retreat and the end of the war. With a prolonged American occupation of Upper Canada, I'd imagine that such a phenomenon would be writ large in TTL across the whole region.
The exodus of "collaborators" from Upper Canada, might put the British in a tough spot in TTL. Perhaps, in an effort to restore good relationships with their Native Allies and to ensure the defence of the rest of Upper Canada, they offer Tecumseh a chunk of what would become Southern Ontario (around Windsor) to create an Indian Confederacy? Though this would in no doubt antagonize the USA, proper negotiations and guarantees could lead to America accepting such a prospect in the aftermath of TTL's War of 1812.
Another thing to take into account would be that in TTL there would be no Hartford Convention, No burning of Washington DC, No Battle of New Orleans. The American experience would be undoubtedly altered...
Then there's this.
At worst this makes things a lot harder for the US to balance any gains. At best...
Well, I like Tecumesh. So
well, if you like Tecumseh, you could always come and read my TL
*Shameless advertising*
well, if you like Tecumseh, you could always come and read my TL
*Shameless advertising*
Will have to do that.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Though as I said his empire is unlikely to last beyond a full lifetime of his, if that. Indigenous Americans were as hard to unite for one cause as white Americans of the time were.
most of the (admittedly little) reading I've done on the war concludes that the war was a bloody draw, but the USA 'won' the peace... particularly when it came to the status of the Native Americans. The Brits wanted them to be considered as independent nations, more or less, and the Americans wanted them considered as dependents inside the national borders (particularly those inside the new LA Purchase). The USA flat out won this argument, not only for their own side, but the Brits eventually did the same in Canada. Once it came down to actual war, it's hard to see how the USA could have done better than they did, considering the odds...
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Absolutely. The reason I say "both sides won" was because Britain more or less did what it meant to do: make sure the US doesn't just overrun and annex Canada*. Issues like setting up a Native American buffer nation (to curb US ambition, not because Britain actually cared about the Amerindians) were just icing on the cake, something that could be done, and would be useful, but not an absolute necessary. In the end, Britain managed to get by without conceding anything of value, and managed to normalize relations with the US.
*As I said above, the idea of America waging a war of aggression to annex Canada is waaay overstated. It's possible to dig up quotes from individuals who wanted to annex Canada, but it wasn't the administration's policy, and it wasn't one of the reasons for the war declaration. However, if the war went absolutely beautifully, if everything went right for the US and wrong for Britain, major redrawing of the borders is a definite possibility. Hence why Britain couldn't afford to completely ignore it.