Lateknight
Banned
How would a total American victory have on the nations of the world? How much of canda would America take all of it or just most of it? Could this possibly lead to a earlier end of slavety in America or a earlier civil war?
Effects of a American victory in the war of 1812?
- Thread starter Lateknight
- Start date
How do you define victory in this scenario? The US war aims were pretty elastic or unrealistic (matter of marching anyone?) depending on the situation.
They got probably the best case scenario they could hope for OTL. The impediments on the professionalism of the US Army, the unpopularity of the war at home, and the sheer imbalance between the two combatants pretty much prevents any scenario where the US even occupies British territory for a significant length of time.
Even if the US somehow did do better in the opening stages of 1812-1813 when they were capable of launching large scale offensives why would Britain (still victorious in a Napoleonic War) even let them occupy territory? How would that compare to a blockade the Americans cannot break?
They got probably the best case scenario they could hope for OTL. The impediments on the professionalism of the US Army, the unpopularity of the war at home, and the sheer imbalance between the two combatants pretty much prevents any scenario where the US even occupies British territory for a significant length of time.
Even if the US somehow did do better in the opening stages of 1812-1813 when they were capable of launching large scale offensives why would Britain (still victorious in a Napoleonic War) even let them occupy territory? How would that compare to a blockade the Americans cannot break?
Lost Freeway
Banned
The problem was that Thomas Jefferson neglecting the US military. Having a leader who understands the value of a professional standing army would go a long way towards better American performance in the war.
Lateknight
Banned
True I think with a bit(well a lot) of training the American miltary could match the British in North America there quality would be worst but they would have the quantity to go toe to toe with regulars.
Cryostorm
Monthly Donor
This along with adequate spending on infrastructure, it is a "matter of marching", but you need something to march on.
With a proper POD before 1812 (say a decade or so just to get the organization and infrastructure) the American regular army would still not be very large, but no doubt they would be able to go toe-to-toe with the regulars and come out with an even fight.
Certainly more than a match for what existed in Canada in OTL's 1812 at first.
ManintheField
Banned
If at any point Chauncey can win on Lake Ontario the war in Upper Canada is essentially over. I've got a particular PoD in mind that I'd like to someday do a timeline with, but really if he can fight a decisive battle with Yeo that sinks enough British ships that he can then assault Kingston without having to worry about his back in Sackett's Harbor, that's it for the contest on the lakes.
With total control on Ontario and Erie, the Americans have a solid logistical chain that runs all the way up Upper Canada, making a campaign to capture that area much more literally 'a matter of marching'. Once control is cemented there, the Americans have significantly better logistical connection with Lower Canada than the British do.
It's not an entirely sure thing, of course, but if Lake Ontario can be taken, taking the rest of Canada (outside the Hudson Bay Company territories, of course) is a serious possibility.
With total control on Ontario and Erie, the Americans have a solid logistical chain that runs all the way up Upper Canada, making a campaign to capture that area much more literally 'a matter of marching'. Once control is cemented there, the Americans have significantly better logistical connection with Lower Canada than the British do.
It's not an entirely sure thing, of course, but if Lake Ontario can be taken, taking the rest of Canada (outside the Hudson Bay Company territories, of course) is a serious possibility.
Fearless Leader
Donor
Exactly. Had Dearborn and Chauncey attacked Kingston instead of York in April 1813 the war in Upper Canada would essentially be over. Pike (assuming no falling logs get him) can hold at Kingston until Harrison and others finish mopping up.
We should remember that the American initial war aims were hardly outrageous and the war was nearly averted a number of times. Contrary to popular belief, the main point of the American invasion of Upper Canada initially wasn`t to annex it but rather to use it as leverage in negotiations with the British.
I`d imagine that, in such a scenario, Britain might be willing to negotiate with the Americans and grant them a number of concessions in order to be spared the bother of retaking Upper Canada.
It wouldn`t be too much of a stretch to see a similar result to OTL: US and UK win...Native Americans Lose.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Logistics and economics pretty much ordained that offensive action by either side would end up a fiasco.
Fortunately for the USA destroying Native americans was a lot easier than invading Canada and turned out much more profitable.
Accidental strategic win?
Fortunately for the USA destroying Native americans was a lot easier than invading Canada and turned out much more profitable.
Accidental strategic win?
The problem is that in April 1813 Kingston had a garrison of over 2,000 men with considerable defences in terms of batteries and blockhouses to protect the town and harbor, and Yeo's squadron, which in early 1813 was not considerably outnumbered by the Americans.
The truly stellar team of leaders who it is proposed to lead this attack are Chauncey and Dearborn, both famous for being particularly ineffective, and less than the (in their opinion) required 7,000 men to take the town. Having barely 6,000 men who had been reduced by disease.
This would mean they are then required to launch a do or die attack on a fortified position. Knowing these two men the outcome isn't exactly set in stone. Opposing them are two British commanders. Prevost, who's a decent defensive commander, and victor of the Battle of Ogdensburg, George MacDonnell.
I would just point out that the nature of the attack, the personalities involved, and the very poor performance of the American regulars through much of 1813 and the even worse performance of the militia, should be brought into consideration here.
There wasn't much of a plan to the invasion, or even really what it was supposed to accomplish. American strategic planning throughout the war was simply atrocious.
If the US took Canada (and God knows that's an internal political can of worms all its own without the military problems of the US even being able to feasibly do this) then the British might negotiate.
However, the chances of the Americans actually taking strategically important locations such as Kingston, Montreal, and Quebec City, are not spectacularly high.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Wait...
I thought we did win.
Learned that in 5th grade.
Are you saying that Sister Agnes LIED?
No. She merely freedom fried the truth.
Fearless Leader
Donor
Well first off let's be realistic about Kingston's defenders. Only 600 are regulars and the rest are militia of dubious quality. Not only is the US force 3x larger but there's a much higher proportion of regulars there to boot
You do raise a good point about Dearborn. My preferred POD would be him dying in January 1813 and Pike taking over. Under Pike camp conditions are improved as is discipline, thus in 1813 you have a much stronger American fleet/army attacking Kingston. I think that's quite doable.