Decisive British Victory in War of 1812. Peace treaty?

Say the British push harder in North America (maybe Napoleon screws up or something and less forces are needed in Europe), and the USA goes bankrupt trying to fight by the end of 1813. How much can the British realistically tear out of the USA, assuming they worry slightly less about fighting in the future. After all, if the US goes bankrupt in a war they aren't likely to be very happy with their opponent anyway.

Some things to consider:
  • Louisiana purchase. Not much of this land was settled anyway, so maybe the British would say "everything past *this* line is now ours."
  • Tecumseh's confederacy. Say the Indian chief lives. How much land can he hold, and how long can he really defend it for. Will the US be able to just take it back in 10 years?
  • Maine. I think UK is going to get whatever they want out of Maine.
  • Is New Orleans out of the question?
- BNC
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I don't know if the British would really go for much acquisition of territory. History is not a giant game of Risk, after all (except in Africa in the late 19th Century, of course). But in a really decisive victory, it's not impossible that the British might split New England off from the rest of the United States and set it up as an independent state allied to Britain.
 
I doubt the war can end much before late 1814, there's no way America burns through her cash by the end of 1813.
  • Louisiana- the British likely don't take it, it's big, undependable and would cause a further sore with America when cost cutting was the order of the day. They may however, declare the purchase illegal and demand it's return to Spain... and given that Spain is overwhelmed at the moment and can't do anything with it the end result will likely be America purchasing it from Spain and having ended up buying it twice.
  • Maine- the British nab northern and eastern Maine, the new border probably follows the Penobscot River.
  • New York- a sliver of northern New York along the St. Lawrence from Plattsburgh to Sackets Harbor gets nabbed granting Britain both banks of the river.
  • Niagara- Britain wanted some portion of the Niagara peninsula, but how much is debatable. Maybe everything as far East as Buffalo, more likely just Grand Island.
  • The west- Sadly, Tecumseh will get thrown under the bus because his state is totally untenable and will cause further friction with America. The British position at Ghent dropped him like a hot potato in OTL, and I doubt that changes here, especially since the British were using an old Greenville Line which had already been crossed by tens of thousands of settlers. His society limps on another decade before demographics and disease push his people out. Best case scenario is that the Indians are given citizenship in Canada and can actually influence policy rather than be separated from it (I find this doubtful given attitudes on both sides).
  • The West- Britain grabs all of Michigan, Ohio north of the Maumee River and some small portion of northern Idniana-Illinois (upper 1/3-1/4) to the Mississippi. Britain has an outlet on the Mississippi and has cut America off from the western Great Lakes and secured a huge buffer for Upper Canada.
  • The Great Lakes- the border is no longer the middle of the lake, but a few miles from the American shore, all the islands go to the British, America is forbidden from warships (Britain later sign a treaty saying she won't build warships either, a bone thrown to America and a cost-cutting measure in the UK).
  • Fishing- America is pretty much banned from Canadian waters and doesn't get the OTL sweetheart deal
That's the absolute best case scenario I can envision for Britain.
 
About the only AH ever written on this subject is Redcoats Revenge by Col David Fitz-Eng (USA Rtd.)
(So hardly a rampantly Pro-British POV.)

http://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Reve...d=1458594123&sr=1-1&keywords=Redcoats+revenge

Written by a professional who has given lectures on the subject at Fort Ticonderoga, and a widely respected & published historian on the War of 1812.
(The online reviews are much more favourable than Tsouras or Conroy, or Harrison)

His opinion is that it could have gone far worse for America, with a result that makes France's position in 1871 look like they got off easy.
The Indians don't necessarily get their guaranteed confederation, America is bankrupted and loses almost everything below the 43 degree parallel, and Britain gets full naval access rights for the length of the Mississippi Basin.
And it should be pointed out he makes several departures that improve the historical position for the US.
 

longsword14

Banned
His opinion is that it could have gone far worse for America, with a result that makes France's position in 1871 look like they got off easy.
Eh? Makes me question his authority then, and it is a book of popular fiction, not to be taken too seriously. Any 'harsh' peace would be hard to enforce and would demand continued commitment; not going to happen.
 
Eh? Makes me question his authority then, and it is a book of popular fiction, not to be taken too seriously. Any 'harsh' peace would be hard to enforce and would demand continued commitment; not going to happen.

A harsh peace would be incredibly easy to enforce. America was losing more troops to disease and desertion than they recruit, they were hauling gold across the Appalachians by wagon train to stay solvent because inflation was destroying their economy and their last set of bonds went unsold. Clay was so despondent over Washington being burned that if Plattsburgh or Baltimore went the other way he'd have caved right away.
 
A harsh peace would be incredibly easy to enforce. America was losing more troops to disease and desertion than they recruit, they were hauling gold across the Appalachians by wagon train to stay solvent because inflation was destroying their economy and their last set of bonds went unsold. Clay was so despondent over Washington being burned that if Plattsburgh or Baltimore went the other way he'd have caved right away.

That's difficulty of imposition, not enforcement.
 
That's difficulty of imposition, not enforcement.
If the terms of the treaty are only territorial based imposing that peace and enforcing it are distinctions without differences.

And for the sake of semantics
Impose and enforce are synonyms
 
That's difficulty of imposition, not enforcement.

So what's difficult about this treaty to enforce? There won't be hordes of Americans crossing the new border because as per OTL, there will better land elsewhere that will fill up first, and by then there will be a solid enough Anglo/Canadian population that it won't be worth conquering.
 
If the terms of the treaty are only territorial based imposing that peace and enforcing it are distinctions without differences.

And for the sake of semantics
Impose and enforce are synonyms

Versailles says that they're not, of course.

So what's difficult about this treaty to enforce? There won't be hordes of Americans crossing the new border because as per OTL, there will better land elsewhere that will fill up first, and by then there will be a solid enough Anglo/Canadian population that it won't be worth conquering.

I can't say, without us getting more specific. I think I'm less optimistic than you about Canada siphoning all of America's OTL immigrants away if they take Louisiana, though. Still doesn't fix the climate issue in OTL Canada.
 
Versailles says that they're not, of course.



I can't say, without us getting more specific. I think I'm less optimistic than you about Canada siphoning all of America's OTL immigrants away if they take Louisiana, though. Still doesn't fix the climate issue in OTL Canada.

My scenario has Louisiana explicitly remaining America, but at a cost. As for the climate, that had nothing to with Canada's problems. Infrastructure was the critical component missing in the Canadian economy, the lack of connections between the Canadas and the outside world. This won't be a problem in this TL because the first thing the British will do is construct the St. Lawrence canal and open up Upper Canada to settlement easier and allow Canadian goods to reach international markets.
 
I don't know if the British would really go for much acquisition of territory. History is not a giant game of Risk, after all (except in Africa in the late 19th Century, of course). But in a really decisive victory, it's not impossible that the British might split New England off from the rest of the United States and set it up as an independent state allied to Britain.

That's the point. Britain would of course probably annex some territories. But the point for any sound superpower to achieve lasting strategic victory and avoid the possibility of a future war of revenge is to divide and rule.

And Britain was the expert at that game.
 
That's the point. Britain would of course probably annex some territories. But the point for any sound superpower to achieve lasting strategic victory and avoid the possibility of a future war of revenge is to divide and rule.

And Britain was the expert at that game.

I very much doubt New England secedes during the war. The Hartford Convention deliberately excluded the most vocal proponents of secession specifically to keep that option off the table.

However, I could see them attempting secession in the 1830s-1850s after southern expansion into Texas and the Northwest Ordinance being overturned in favour of slavery (it was a very close vote in OTL, with the northern most portion of Indiana and Illinois nipped away it might be enough to flip the vote). In such a scenario Britain probably has no problem backing the fledgling state (unless they severely bungle their diplomacy).
 
The west- Sadly, Tecumseh will get thrown under the bus because his state is totally untenable and will cause further friction with America. The British position at Ghent dropped him like a hot potato in OTL, and I doubt that changes here, especially since the British were using an old Greenville Line which had already been crossed by tens of thousands of settlers. His society limps on another decade before demographics and disease push his people out. Best case scenario is that the Indians are given citizenship in Canada and can actually influence policy rather than be separated from it (I find this doubtful given attitudes on both sides).
Tecumseh's state was thrown under the bus because Tecumseh himself was already dead by the time of the peace treaty. In this TL he lives, so some sort of Indian state could potentially be stable given time.

Also, Greenville cuts into Ohio. I think the UK is going to have a lot of trouble forcing part of a state out of US hands when they could go for territories instead. Particularly ones that the US hasn't owned for too long.

A harsh peace would be incredibly easy to enforce.
Add the fact that the areas in question (Indiana-Texas line and west) have significant Indian populations, and that the Indians have good reason to oppose the USA.

Infrastructure was the critical component missing in the Canadian economy, the lack of connections between the Canadas and the outside world.
Louisiana territories don't have any infrastructure whatsoever at this time. AFAIK Tennessee and Kentucky weren't even fully settled yet, and Chicago wasn't founded until 1837. If Canada can get canals to begin with, and then a train line, in before the US can settle too much, that territory can easily belong to Canada.

Is it possible direct rule would be restored on the rebellious colonies
The USA is too big and too populated to be re-annexed into the British Empire completely. Those empty areas west of Ohio and the Mississippi river can be reclaimed to some extent.

How about Spain getting some of Louisiana (except the state), the Indians getting the rest of it and the Brits getting stuff north and west of Ohio state?

- BNC
 
Regardless of extra land I think the important part will be British (attempt of) containment of the U.S without hostility.
OTL both sides realised that fighting each other was much less profitable than neutrality or alliance.
There were some minor border incidents and diplomatic grumbles but even despite the U.S getting away from containment around the Mexican wars alliance always looked the better option.
 
Whatever claims Britain brought to the negotiating table the principal aim was to make the USA stop it and go away. Pretty well anything else was a negotiating ploy but nice if they could swing a few minor matters to their benefit.

Without most of the Royal Navy and the army being otherwise occupied with a huge war in Europe, Britain's war successes on the ground would have been limited only by logistics. The Royal Navy could place a substantial (by American standards not Napoleonic European standards) force ashore anywhere along the US coast that geography permitted. In a previous generation it was the intervention of the French Navy that took this advantage away at that time.

Given that overall war aim one could judge that Britain had a decisive victory IOTL. One might point to New Orleans but that battle, however it went, demonstrated that Britain could land a significant army anywhere from the Gulf to Maine at will reinforcing the seizure of Washington and Detroit. Never mind land actions from Upper Canada.
 
Top