Different War of 1812

For the sake of argument let's say the Brits pull the rabbit out and curb stomp the Americans, are they prepared for the long occupation necessary to prevent the next round? After all I can see the Brits continuing the same arrogant attitudes that triggered the war to begin with only now the US will be building up for the next round.
While Britain could interfere for a while sooner or later the loss of treasure in keeping the US from growing again will become unsustainable.

New England would likely become scapegoats for their actions and there would be less resistance to expanding both the Navy and the Army plus supporting infrastructure.

I could see a series of wars constantly breaking out between the US and Great Britian much like the constant series of conflicts between Great Britian and France in the 1700's.

I can see several things wrong with this:

1 - Britain wouldn't occupy the USA, nor even parts. There would be no cause for it. Britain had given up the lost colonies in the Treaty of Paris and it had surrendered its claim thereupon also. It had no plans to annex the USA or parts of it. Even if it was given a golden opportunity to do so, it would be strategically unsound to do so. The USA had already proven its fighting ability in the ARW and even if the UK beat it this time around, even comprehensively, then the British still wouldn't want to risk having to do it again by doing the 19th century equivalent of a Versailles peace. Britain could do better than fighting repeated wars to ensure its dominance - it wasn't Bismarck Germany and didn't want to be. The UK was much more interested in accepting what was over and making the best of it. At the worst, the peace deal would require recognition of New England's independence, and even that is only if the New Englanders actually made the first move. If NE didn't make a bid for secession then the British wouldn't even push that, they'd likely just have contested borders settled more in their favour, insist on some deal for proper treatment of the American Indians on the US side of the border, and then negotiate on a settlement on the causes of the war. The UK had no interest in breaking the American state, it was far more economically sound to befriend it so that it could profit from the American reliance on British trade.

2 - The British "arrogant attitudes" are only arrogant from the American point of view, and they don't translate into sneering and looking down upon the Americans. As stated before, the British had really quite humbly accepted the loss of the colonies with good grace. Support in the UK for the Americans during the ARW was widespread and reannexation would be universally unpopular. The politicians didn't want to revile the USA, there was no basis for it. The only causes for the war from the British side were attempts to block American trade with France, the British press gang, and the "supposed" British interference with the Indian tribes. Of these, the disruption of trade was vital to beating Napoleon, the press gang was viewed as at best a military necessity and at worst completely unavoidable, since crew members took recruiting into their own hands no matter what the Government said about it. The Indian issue is still unproven and at worst not something to go to war over. I'd contest that the American's desire to land-grab all of the Americas was the real motivation behind the war and far more illegal and immoral than any of the British problems, not to mention far more "arrogant". The British never made any pretense to being destined to rule parts of the world, even after over a century of supremacy. Conversely, even as a fledgling nation it took barely a couple of decades for the American state to proclaim itself rightful owner of the American continent regardless of the feelings of the legitimate governments of the time.

3 - I fail to see how the British could interfere in American affairs. It lacks strength and intent to annex or assume control, and the American government seems determined already to follow its own course, and not to follow the crowd. It makes no sense, the idea of the UK attempting to pull the strings on American affairs.

4 - I would challenge your assertion that America would see numerous conflicts between the UK and USA. I stress one last time, Britain did not want to go to war with the USA. The UK had no interest in gaining anything from a successful war with the USA. It just wanted to forge trade links and rule Canada in peace. If there is constant warfare in the Americas it is my firm opinion that it would simply be due to the USA refusing to set aside the ideal of Canadian annexation, and nothing else. That said, this point is opinion only, so I can't claim to know better.

Actual force levels involved at Waterloo and the entire 1815 campaign:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=8673&highlight=Blucher


British overall manpower, far less than they could have summoned: http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_casualties.html

Above force level does not include Canadians or allied Native American tribes.

Incidentally, Grim, I think that counts militia numbers; that, or all the regiments that were necessarily stationed in India. The Indian troops couldn't be moved except to be rotated, due to safety concerns. The militia by law was never to leave the British Isles; it was a defensive force only.
 
Actual force levels involved at Waterloo and the entire 1815 campaign:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=8673&highlight=Blucher


British overall manpower, far less than they could have summoned: http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_casualties.html

Above force level does not include Canadians or allied Native American tribes.

wemayberry, what occupation? If New England and New York secede, and Canada annexes what would have been Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and points west(including the Oregon Territory) then the US isn't going to be nearly as formidable. If a problem still exists then the British support Mexico and the US loses the entire Southwest, with the possible exception of a runt Texas ending at the Nueces River.

And why wouldn't the scapegoats be the War Hawks who rammed a war through by two votes bragging about how the militia alone would win the war, only to see the nation suing for peace three years later? New England is in the position to do the "I told you so" dance.

And New England's secession and failure to support the war would be considered the stab in the back. Canada annexing the territory sounds great but once again everyone assumes that the British can expand thier colonies as fast as the US did. Without the people on the ground you would get a series of new wars or at least skirmishes over the ground and is Britain willing to do that for territory it can't even exploit yet.

Further why are the Brits trying to prop up Mexico, assuming that country doesn't get butterflied away. Might be Spain selling off land to spite the UK.

As for manpower, how many Canadians are going to join up to cross the border and get killed conquering the US. Just as many American militia decided their service stopped at the border, I can't see the Canadians of the period being much different. The Native American tribes were becoming a joke as far as a miltary force. At best they would reduce the number of militia but might also increase it in the border areas.

Also what makes everyone think that the Northwest territory won't become a guerrilla war over time?

All this expansion at American expense overlooks the fact that unlike OTL where the war ended with both nations respecting each other and treaties ending the support of Native Americans against either party, you would have the race to the Pacific coast be a three way fight between the Brits, the US and the Native Americans in the way.

Add in that you've likely butterflied away the ACW as without the room to expand slavery and the threats of British backed slave revolts, slavery would die off in the 1820-1840's.

Another probability that many overlook is that after getting smackdown'd, is removal of the US reluctance to foriegn alliances and cooperation.

Either allied with one of the Great Powers or maybe allied to the new Republics cropping up in South and Central America. Instead of fighting a war with Mexico for Texas,California and the rest of the Southwest, it might be a compact for joint exploration and exploitation to fend off the Europeans.
 
our history textbooks.. sigh..

I suspect not mentioned in the textbook is that the majority of US troops were militia which only had success fighting the various Indian tribes and at New Orleans where it had a substantial stiffening of regulars, was dug in, and had a general who actually knew what to do with them.

Seriously though, the US was woefully unprepared for the War, and did very well to fight the British to a draw in the Great Lakes region and in New York. However the war did permanently crush the tribes east of the Mississippi, led to the development of industry in Pittsburg (it was a depot for building materials for the Great Lakes fleets), gave the US some broad traditions for its Army and Navy and forced the British to treat Americans as equals (in the European sense) instead of misguided colonists. Some historians are now calling it the Second War of Independence, and I tend to go with them on that.

Short of some outstanding luck in the early Canadian campaigns (a few more dead critically important British officers) I just don't see how the US could have conquered Canada when half the invasion army (nearly all of the militia) went on strike and refused to cross the border.
 
I can see several things wrong with this:

1 - Britain wouldn't occupy the USA, nor even parts. There would be no cause for it. Britain had given up the lost colonies in the Treaty of Paris and it had surrendered its claim thereupon also. It had no plans to annex the USA or parts of it. Even if it was given a golden opportunity to do so, it would be strategically unsound to do so. The USA had already proven its fighting ability in the ARW and even if the UK beat it this time around, even comprehensively, then the British still wouldn't want to risk having to do it again by doing the 19th century equivalent of a Versailles peace. Britain could do better than fighting repeated wars to ensure its dominance - it wasn't Bismarck Germany and didn't want to be. The UK was much more interested in accepting what was over and making the best of it. At the worst, the peace deal would require recognition of New England's independence, and even that is only if the New Englanders actually made the first move. If NE didn't make a bid for secession then the British wouldn't even push that, they'd likely just have contested borders settled more in their favour, insist on some deal for proper treatment of the American Indians on the US side of the border, and then negotiate on a settlement on the causes of the war. The UK had no interest in breaking the American state, it was far more economically sound to befriend it so that it could profit from the American reliance on British trade.

2 - The British "arrogant attitudes" are only arrogant from the American point of view, and they don't translate into sneering and looking down upon the Americans. As stated before, the British had really quite humbly accepted the loss of the colonies with good grace. Support in the UK for the Americans during the ARW was widespread and reannexation would be universally unpopular. The politicians didn't want to revile the USA, there was no basis for it. The only causes for the war from the British side were attempts to block American trade with France, the British press gang, and the "supposed" British interference with the Indian tribes. Of these, the disruption of trade was vital to beating Napoleon, the press gang was viewed as at best a military necessity and at worst completely unavoidable, since crew members took recruiting into their own hands no matter what the Government said about it. The Indian issue is still unproven and at worst not something to go to war over. I'd contest that the American's desire to land-grab all of the Americas was the real motivation behind the war and far more illegal and immoral than any of the British problems, not to mention far more "arrogant". The British never made any pretense to being destined to rule parts of the world, even after over a century of supremacy. Conversely, even as a fledgling nation it took barely a couple of decades for the American state to proclaim itself rightful owner of the American continent regardless of the feelings of the legitimate governments of the time.

3 - I fail to see how the British could interfere in American affairs. It lacks strength and intent to annex or assume control, and the American government seems determined already to follow its own course, and not to follow the crowd. It makes no sense, the idea of the UK attempting to pull the strings on American affairs.

4 - I would challenge your assertion that America would see numerous conflicts between the UK and USA. I stress one last time, Britain did not want to go to war with the USA. The UK had no interest in gaining anything from a successful war with the USA. It just wanted to forge trade links and rule Canada in peace. If there is constant warfare in the Americas it is my firm opinion that it would simply be due to the USA refusing to set aside the ideal of Canadian annexation, and nothing else. That said, this point is opinion only, so I can't claim to know better.



Incidentally, Grim, I think that counts militia numbers; that, or all the regiments that were necessarily stationed in India. The Indian troops couldn't be moved except to be rotated, due to safety concerns. The militia by law was never to leave the British Isles; it was a defensive force only.

I agree with many of your points. As I was poorly attempting to point out, if the UK did curbstomp the US , the best it could achieve would have been largely the same as OTL. Anything else would be as you stated above out of character and more in line with Versailles. Which would create its own problems for the UK.

As for American arrogance well that is an unfortunate act of history just as the creation of the British Empire in Indian and elsewhere. I expect that if certain groups decide it's in their interest to breakoff from the US then we will see conflicts similiar to colonial Africa and Asia.
Personally I see one the more inflammatory issues of the time being the pressganging off US Navy ships as had the US done the same to a Royal Navy ship then Parliment would have declared war almost over night.

Jefferson's Embargo caused as much damage to US trade as did the stopping of America ships going to France.

The Native American bit more than likely looked more important at the time but largely I suspect was just part of a land grab.

While I have no doubts that some saw the possibility of adding Canada, I find the current theory is that, at least at the national level, the plan was to use Canada as a bargaining chip at the peace table.

Anyway it's late and I feel I'm starting to mix up what I trying to convey, so cheers and I thank you all for some new points to ponder.
 
Last edited:
I'm not quite so sure Britain would take nothing from the war.
Outright annexation of the US (or proper parts of it) is of course just stupid. No one would want to do that.
However I could well see things happening with the fringes of the US- British New Orleans and the return of other lands to Spain?

But anyway. Maps are overrated in ah. Colouring in broad swathes of N.A. blue doesn't mean the US is strong or vice-versa. The most pressing damage a evil UK could cause to the US would be economic. They could stop the US ever developing anywhere should they set their mind to it (theoretically- of course in reality they wanted a rich US, it was part of the informal empire afterall).
 
Thank you Grimm Reaper. That post alone demonstrates how Napoleon had zero chance during the Hundred Days.

Britain might not gain any territory, though they very well did show interest in declaring the Lousiana Purchase illegal and creating an Indian nation out of some of it and returning the rest to Spain. Probably with rights over New Orleans.

That'd effect American history just a bit.
 
Thank you Grimm Reaper. That post alone demonstrates how Napoleon had zero chance during the Hundred Days.

Not necessisarily. Britain up until that point had always had a reluctance to truly commit to a land war in Europe. That started to change, in part due to napoleon and the Penninsula, but even then there was that fascination with descents on the French coast (walcheren campaign). Britain undoubtably could have fielded larger forces, but it (effectivly alone of the powers of the day) proved especially reluctant to dabble in conscription, even while the rest of europe did so to match the french armies in numbers. The british were capable of fielding massive armies on par with other nations, but due to several factors ranging from the geographic spread of the empire to a reliance on volunteer forces meant that the british presence in any one theatre, even one key to the war effort, was never quite as big as it could have theoretically been.

Now, numbers probably doom the hundred days anyways. A victory at waterloo (or even better, quatre bras) still leaves Kleist, Schwartzenburg, and Tolly, with signifigant reserves and allied contingents, to be dealt with. A hard scenario, by any means. but it would be possible.

If there was one thing that could have saved the hundred days campaign, it would have been able subordinates. One of the distinctions of Napoleon's greatest campaigns is that he always had a solid core of officers under him. But many of his best and brightest were absent during the hundred days. Davout, Suchet, and Berthier were avalible, but never served. Massena and Aguereau were also alive, but had fallen from their talents of old. Lannes, Bessieres, and Poniatowski were dead. And that is the tip of the iceberg. The only commanders from the early empire I remember at waterloo were Soult and Ney, and both were underwhelming. Ney possibly cost Napoleon the campaign, and Soult was far more ineffectual than I would have expected from him. But give Napoleon his marshalls of old, and the hundred days is suddenly not quite a forlorn hope.
 
Top