Earliest War of 1812 and effects?

In a TL I'm currently working on, the American government is controlled solely by public opinion in a "pure" democracy. But you could probably ignore this to think about the question.

As we know, there were a number of actions by Britain that pissed off the US, so at what point will the prospect of going to war be popular (majority opinion) for Americans? What are the possible effects of it? And ignoring the TL idea, when could it happen?
 
If this clash had been followed by several others, Jefferson might have been compelled to declare a naval war--similar to the one Adams fought with France. given the RN's supremacy, that could have compelled him to ask for a declaration of war and attacking Canada.



The ChesapeakeLeopard Affair was a naval engagement that occurred off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia, on 22 June 1807, between the British warship HMS Leopard and American frigate USS Chesapeake, when the crew of the Leopard pursued, attacked and boarded the American frigate looking for deserters from the Royal Navy.[1] The Chesapeake was caught unprepared and after a short battle involving broadsides from the Leopard, her commander, James Barron, surrendered his vessel to the British after firing only one shot. Four crew members were removed from the American vessel and were tried for desertion, one of whom was subsequently hanged. The Chesapeake was allowed to return home where James Barron was court martialed and suspended from command.
The Chesapeake–Leopard Affair created uproar among Americans and strident calls for war with Great Britain, but these quickly subsided. President Thomas Jefferson initially attempted to use this widespread bellicosity to diplomatically threaten the British government into settling the matter. The United States Congress backed away from armed conflict when British envoys showed no contrition for the Chesapeake affair and delivered proclamations reaffirming impressment. Jefferson's political failure to coerce Great Britain led him towards economic warfare: the Embargo of 1807.[2]
 

Saphroneth

Banned
In a TL I'm currently working on, the American government is controlled solely by public opinion in a "pure" democracy. But you could probably ignore this to think about the question.

As we know, there were a number of actions by Britain that pissed off the US, so at what point will the prospect of going to war be popular (majority opinion) for Americans? What are the possible effects of it? And ignoring the TL idea, when could it happen?
Silly answer - the earliest the War of 1812 could happen is Jan 1, 1812. :p
 
A "War of 1812"-type conflict between Britain and the United States could potentially erupt from the moment Jefferson became president. He was a major Francophile, and none too shy about his desire to side with France against Britain. Any nasty incident wherein the Royal Navy sinks an American vessel or something like that could be used to work up public outrage... giving Jefferson leeway to push for war.

Since the OP's proposed TL has a "pure democracy"/populist system, any leader seeking such a war could use such an incident to whip the public into a war frenzy. Which means it could happen even before 1800.
 
A "War of 1812"-type conflict between Britain and the United States could potentially erupt from the moment Jefferson became president. He was a major Francophile, and none too shy about his desire to side with France against Britain. Any nasty incident wherein the Royal Navy sinks an American vessel or something like that could be used to work up public outrage... giving Jefferson leeway to push for war.

Since the OP's proposed TL has a "pure democracy"/populist system, any leader seeking such a war could use such an incident to whip the public into a war frenzy. Which means it could happen even before 1800.

If the US allied with Revolutionary or Napoleonic France, it would go very, very badly for her.

Once Napoleon is dealt with, Wellington would be sent to BNA and the US would be turfed out of everything west of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River (up to the Ohio state border).

Turning a minor sideshow (otls War of 1812) into an extension of the Napoleonic wars is one of the few ways to get Britain to actually put serious effort into BNA.

Its one of the very few PoDs post1800 that could result in a megaCanada (or at least megaBNA).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1783....

If the US allied with Revolutionary or Napoleonic France, it would go very, very badly for her.

Once Napoleon is dealt with, Wellington would be sent to BNA and the US would be turfed out of everything west of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River (up to the Ohio state border).

Turning a minor sideshow (otls War of 1812) into an extension of the Napoleonic wars is one of the few ways to get Britain to actually put serious effort into BNA.

Its one of the very few PoDs post1800 that could result in a megaCanada (or at least megaBNA).


The 1812-15 conflict was was an extension of the Anglo-French/Napoleonic wars, in the same way the 1775-83 war was...

The results of both (and, for that matter, EVERY OTHER conflict engaged in by a European power in the same period in the Western Hemisphere) show pretty clearly why time and distance was against the Europeans in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.

To cut to the chase, trying to keep political control of much of anything in the Western Hemisphere without the consent of the governed was just too costly - economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily - for ANY European state, given the much more dangerous conflicts in play in Europe and the Mediterreanean in the same period.

Best,
 
True, but I think the point was that a change on what larger European conflict it was apart of could mean the U.S losses some of it's land OTL. Not necessarily that Britain remains direct control.

If I remember his timeline correctly, he brings up this POD and shows how it could change things in NA
 
The 1812-15 conflict was was an extension of the Anglo-French/Napoleonic wars, in the same way the 1775-83 war was...

The results of both (and, for that matter, EVERY OTHER conflict engaged in by a European power in the same period in the Western Hemisphere) show pretty clearly why time and distance was against the Europeans in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.

To cut to the chase, trying to keep political control of much of anything in the Western Hemisphere without the consent of the governed was just too costly - economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily - for ANY European state, given the much more dangerous conflicts in play in Europe and the Mediterreanean in the same period.

Best,

Very true in the main - however early 1800s America doesn't fit this mold completely.

The *vast* concentration of population at this time remained along the eastern seaboard. The major exceptions to this were Kentucky/Tennessee, and Ohio. The "southwest" of Alabama and Mississippi was still Native American, as was all the rest of the northwest territory.

If Great Britain committed serious force in North America during an 1812-like war, they would dominate everywhere besides the Atlantic Coast, where the outcome may be debatable (militarily). I grant you that even with a total military victory they could not politically control the US. However, they certainly could forcibly take everything west of the State of Ohio, largely because there were so few American people living there (in OTL, they forcibly controlled Michigan Territory for over a year). Similarly, a victory at New Orleans would be the expectation, rather than OTL's result which still stretches credulity.

Keep some garrisons in the main forts, and keep up a steady supply of guns to Tecumseh or TTL alternative, and America is not going to retake the territory (say, everything northwest of the Ohio River and west of the Mississippi - Britain will of course claim that the sale of Louisiana Territory was illegal). Everywhere the US does't already have massive numbers of settlers on the ground, even a very small long-term commitment by the British military will be enough to hold onto the land. With a slowed migration of American settlers to these dangerous lands, the territory will remain British for years if not decades to come (demographics will eventually win out, probably, but it will be slow).

And this says nothing about America's internal problems, primarily New England...
 
The 1812-15 conflict was was an extension of the Anglo-French/Napoleonic wars, in the same way the 1775-83 war was...

The results of both (and, for that matter, EVERY OTHER conflict engaged in by a European power in the same period in the Western Hemisphere) show pretty clearly why time and distance was against the Europeans in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries.

To cut to the chase, trying to keep political control of much of anything in the Western Hemisphere without the consent of the governed was just too costly - economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily - for ANY European state, given the much more dangerous conflicts in play in Europe and the Mediterreanean in the same period.

Best,
You're assuming there are any (significant number of) Americans in that area. There were a couple of thousand in the very south of Indiana and Illinois (who could simply move south a few miles to Kentucky if they weren't prepared to swear loyalty). Missouri and Louisiana were likely majority American, but only barely. If the Brits can maintain the loyalty or acquiescence of the French (and Indian) population, and prevent the influx of any more Americans (at least ones who won't accept British rule), then they can arrange the influx of British loyalists (e.g. muster out most of the Napoleonic war vets they're using for the military defeat of the US).

In my TL, which I really need to get back to, the Brits left the US in charge of the very southern bits of IL and IN, as those bits did have enough Americans to be a pain.

But if the US actively allies with Napoleon? The Brits are going to play hardball.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually, the British expeditionary forces in the Americas were

If Great Britain committed serious force in North America during an 1812-like war, they would dominate everywhere besides the Atlantic Coast, where the outcome may be debatable (militarily). I grant you that even with a total military victory they could not politically control the US.

Actually, the British expeditionary forces in the Americas among the largest they deployed and sustained overseas in the period (1783-1812) - during the Revolutionary War, for example, the combined British armies IN the Americas - some 56,000 British troops, plus loyalists - were larger than any other force they had in the field, and numbered almost the same as the British elements of Wellington's army in the Peninsula.

The British contingent in the field during the Peninsular War in topped out around 55,000 in 1813, just before Vitoria; at Waterloo, the British element was about 25,000.

The British forces at Plattsburgh numbered 11,000, including veteran troops transferred from Europe; the numbers for Pakenham's operations in the Gulf were about the same, as well as Whitelocke's force in Buenos Aires...

Historically, the costs of campaigning in the Western hemisphere were simply too much for the British in 1783, 1807, and 1815; they were also too much for the French (in New France and Haiti and Mexico), the Portuguese (in Brazil), and the Spanish (just about everywhere else, including their attempt in the 1860s to re-take the Dominican Republic). The French sold Louisiana in 1803 and the Russians Alaska in 1867 because, respectively, neither could hold their respective territories in the event of conflict.

The tribal peoples were, for obvious reasons, very brittle societies; none could compete militarily with a Western opponent, even with external allies, as - for example - Tecumseh's people learned...

A land war in Asia being "one of the classic blunders" is only slightly more justified than a land war in the Americas, certainly by the late Eighteenth Century...

Best,
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Um, yeah...the "white military colony" idea didn't work

If the Brits can maintain the loyalty or acquiescence of the French (and Indian) population, and prevent the influx of any more Americans (at least ones who won't accept British rule), then they can arrange the influx of British loyalists (e.g. muster out most of the Napoleonic war vets they're using for the military defeat of the US).

Um, yeah...the "white military colony" idea didn't exactly work out for the British when they tried it in South Africa, or Lower Canada...or Ireland, for that matter, other than Ulster.

Again, NONE of the European powers managed to hang on to anything in the Americas without the consent of the governed; given that there's been nothing in the thread so far about London allowing anything resembling self-government anywhere in whatever British North America is in the cards, good luck with that...

Britain could not afford it in 1783, 1807, or 1815; France could not afford it in 1763, 1803, 1804, or 1867; the Portuguese could not in 1824, and the Spanish could not at anytime in the Nineteenth Century.

To suggest otherwise against umpteen historical examples is applied handwavium...

Best,
 
Historically, the costs of campaigning in the Western hemisphere were simply too much for the British in 1783, 1807, and 1815; they were also too much for the French (in New France and Haiti and Mexico), the Portuguese (in Brazil), and the Spanish (just about everywhere else, including their attempt in the 1860s to re-take the Dominican Republic). The French sold Louisiana in 1803 and the Russians Alaska in 1867 because, respectively, neither could hold their respective territories in the event of conflict.

A land war in Asia being "one of the classic blunders" is only slightly more justified than a land war in the Americas, certainly by the late Eighteenth Century...

Best,

Your examples are mildly flawed. The Continental Rebels from the war of independence were not winning until foreign intervention and it was pure luck rather than lack of indigenous support or strategic limitations on the part of the
British that kept them afloat so long.They prosecuted the war rather well and didn't end up losing until they were basically fighting a world war. Without that...well you probably have no continental victory.

The British in 1814 had bottled the USN in port and literally crushed the American trade apparatus. The land war was sea sawing back and forth, the US had proved utterly incapable of occupying or threatening Canada while the British had mounted two major successful incursions into the US (and the destruction of Washington was only stopped by what amounts to an act of God) and acting as though the battles of Plattsburgh or New Orleans are somehow preordained is absurd. (Really the TL 'The Dead Skunk' illustrates this well) so using this as a 'ur example' is disingenuous.

The French in Haiti owes more to tropical diseases and the sheer tenacity of the rebels rather than inherent logistical difficulties. The French in Mexico...well that's a big maybe as it depends on the Juarez movement being able to have continuous US support (remember the Republican forces did not begin to significantly turn the tide until 1865 with increased US support) absent that the Republicans most likely lose the war, but it is doubtful the French can win the peace.

But you can't really compare the Russians in Alaska (who sold it because the colony was a net economic drain) and the Portuguese in Brazil (who never seriously contested the split, which had more to do with trans-Atlantic politics than anything else) to the pure military conflicts.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet, almost a score of independent nation states

And yet, almost a score of independent nation states in the Western Hemisphere by 1825, and the surviving European colonies worth note are on the road to independence or self-government by the end of the Nineteenth Century...

And, of course, the handful of "second tries" at European imperialism in the Nineteenth Century (Spain in Mexico, France in Mexico, Spain in the Dominican Republic, Spain against Chile and Peru, etc.) all ended in abject failure.

That's not "luck"....

Best,
 
Top