DBWI: Anglo-American War in the Early 19th Century?

[TRH]

Considering how amiable US-UK relations have been for the past century especially, it's easy to forget that much of the United States' early history saw the British putting quite a bit of effort into strangling the new country in the crib. In the 1790's and 1800's, we had British support for Tecumseh and other Native American tribes resisting the US government, restriction on American trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, and even an attack on an American warship on the pretext of capturing a Royal Navy deserter. Of course, the retaliatory American embargo managed to get the British to reverse a lot of these policies before things could really go pear-shaped, but what if it hadn't? Hell, what if it still had, but because of the distance between London and Washington the US government declared war on Britain before they could find that out? If there was a war between the two in, say, 1812, how would that go down?

Granted, the US hardly had an army worth mentioning back then, but what if the British overestimated what was there and pulled troops away from the Peninsular Campaign? Would Wellington's army have suffered for that, and if so, how much of a problem would it have been?

Of course, I don't think any of us needs to guess what the outcome of such a war would be, but how harsh would the British government have been on the Americans at a peace conference? Would they have forced the US to cede the Northwest Territories to Tecumseh and his confederates, maybe even guaranteeing the new border? Seems a bit extreme, but if London was really committed to crippling the US back then, then that would have been an awfully good start. Really, the way I see it, the ramifications of such a conflict would be entirely dependent on the whims of British policymakers, who certainly weren't pro-US at the time IOTL. What do you guys think they would have been likely to do?

 

[Axeman]

America would need something to gain from this.

Perhaps the British hold onto a colony somewhere bordering America? The south was the most loyal, but the revolutionaries took it anyway. Perhaps around the Hudson Bay?

 

[TRH]

Perhaps the British hold onto a colony somewhere bordering America? The south was the most loyal, but the revolutionaries took it anyway. Perhaps around the Hudson Bay?

Maybe they take Florida from the Spanish at some point in the 1800's, as a part of the war against Napoleon? They did the same to a lot of French colonies (lookin' at you, Pondicherry), and Spain was allied with France for a fair while.

As for gains in general, you're forgetting the trouble the Americans were having in the Northwest with the Indians. They'd want an end to Tecumseh and his British patronage, if nothing else.

 

[Archon of Thessaly]

It's almost certain it would be the US who struck first, no doubt taking advantage of the British's weakness in the area at the time.
To answer how the british would react? Probibly wityh great reluctence. Wellington and most members of parliment were focused ( rightly)on the main threat: Napoleon and the peninsuler campaign.

The canadian front would remain, at best a sideshow, with the local forces leading a largely defensive war, probibly under their apparently very able commander Issac Brock. Given the US armies evident deficensies at the time ( not to mention that congress relied mostly on milita who were reluctent to leave their home state), plus the fact that most native american tribes were pro british-i think the american expedition, after inital success in capturing york maybe, would have ended in shambles and beaten off. However, the british themselves would be unable to strick back untill the end of the ar in europe. once then, they could afford to send more troops to raid the east coast ( i even read they would have burnt washington DC-but thats ASB, The overwhelming local milita would have beaten off any raid their.)

In the end though, the british would lack the appetite for a prolonged war, and would probibly settle for a white peace.

Oh, here's a alternate history book that might help:
http://www.amazon.com/WHEN-WASHINGTON-BURNED-Illustrated-History/dp/1612001017
Parts of it are probibly ASB, but still, a good read.

 

[TRH]

OOC: Okay, this thread actually got derailed with the second post. Now that I've had a bit to think about it, it would make no sense for there to be significant British backing of Native Americans in the Northwest Territories if there was no British Canada to do it from. For the sake of continuity, I think we should forget American Canada for now.

IC: @Archon: You seem to be a lot more confident in the Americans than I am. Or less confident in the British capacity to fight on two fronts, I suppose. How much of the British army was tied down in the Peninsular Campaign, anyways? Wikipedia says Wellington had around 50k men at Toulouse, but that's including Spanish troops. Considering Britain's got more or less the same population as France, you'd think they could pull up a lot more troops if they really wanted to. That's kind of why I started this thread: what was the goal of British America policy at the time? If they really wanted it trampled underfoot, then I don't see why they couldn't do it.