Federalist Victory 1812

Japhy

Banned
The Election of 1812 was decided by only 7,650 votes. This of course being the election just a few months after Congress and President Madison had declared war on the United Kingdom.

The Federalist Candidate DeWitt Clinton, ran on a platform of securing a peace treaty with the British in the North while in the South he ran claiming that he wanted to more vigorously fight the war then the administration. As the Anti-War Candidate in some places, he secured the support of a lot of Dissident Democratic-Republicans, and thats what made him the Federalist who was closest to wining the election of 1800.

So anyway, what happens if Clinton Wins? Does he end the war like he said in the Federalist Base, or does he Continue the war like he promised in the Central and Southern States, who gave him the votes necessary to win the election.
 
All Clinton would have to do is win Pennsylvania which would give him enough votes in the electoral college to push him over the top.

A Clinton victory in 1812 would in all likelihood bring about an earlier end to the War of 1812. A Second Bank of America would be founded first off, to bring about an end to America's financial woes in the conflict. He might also be able to convince the Federalist states to come along side and aid the war effort in the hopes of not being crushed by Britain.

George Prevost, the Governor General of Canada, was always eager for a ceasefire (negotiating two in the war's opening year!). And would have certainly given another one. America begins negotiations with Great Britain that drag on until the end of the Napoleonic Wars after which they become moot and the issue is dropped.

Meanwhile, Clinton, eager to placate the south and the west, officially endorses American efforts to secure Florida from Spain, prompting a Spanish American War that quickly spreads as America remember it's historic colonial claims to the Pacific Ocean and Manifest Destiny...
 
I like. Honestly, the British were for the most part ready to drop the conflict at a moment's notice, and I've even heard apocryphal tales of commanders being ordered to go easy on the Americans.

If this had happened, the whole conflict would probably be looked at as "That Ridiculous Little War," in hindsight. Could tension between the two be much lower than it was historically?
 
I like. Honestly, the British were for the most part ready to drop the conflict at a moment's notice, and I've even heard apocryphal tales of commanders being ordered to go easy on the Americans.

If this had happened, the whole conflict would probably be looked at as "That Ridiculous Little War," in hindsight. Could tension between the two be much lower than it was historically?
Prevost, the man in charge, had orders from London to stay on the defensive (at least early in the war), although I think that may have been that there was worry about the disparity of forces available. His subordinates did occasionally interpret 'defensive' in creative ways, but the basic ground-rules were to hold back.

It's also true that Prevost was excessively conservative in his force allocation. He only let Brock in Upper Canada have a tiny portion of the militia available, most of which was kept in Lower Canada.

Prevost was excellent at dealing with the legislatures, and with politics, but a horribly overcautious military commander.
 
Top