Fifty-Four Forty or Bite!

[Thespitron 6000]

Rough map of British-occupied New England:

This is a "light" occupation: while the bulk of Hardinge's army heads for New York, small units of troops stay behind holding key points designed to prevent resistance. Of course, that's not to say that resistance isn't happening...

 

[Deckhand]

Your occupation zone runs a bit into canada there. Presumably that part doesn't need to be occupied too much.


How are things going with the Canadian occupation by the way?
Given the main american field army is pinned, most of lower Canada, and the bulk of it's rural population, should have reverted by now. I would think there should be at least 10-20,000 Canadiens coming into the british lines around Quebec to increase the forces there by now.

With their superiority in numbers and artillery, the British by now should be able the keep quebec under seige and move on Montreal. The American Garrisons in Canada have to be pretty thin on the ground by this time, and the Canadian population is armed.

 

[stevep]

Deckhand

Probably the case but also Thespitron 6000 stated in the last post that Hardinge detached 22k troops to help liberate the occupied regions of Canada.

Steve

Your occupation zone runs a bit into canada there. Presumably that part doesn't need to be occupied too much.


How are things going with the Canadian occupation by the way?
Given the main american field army is pinned, most of lower Canada, and the bulk of it's rural population, should have reverted by now. I would think there should be at least 10-20,000 Canadiens coming into the british lines around Quebec to increase the forces there by now.

With their superiority in numbers and artillery, the British by now should be able the keep quebec under seige and move on Montreal. The American Garrisons in Canada have to be pretty thin on the ground by this time, and the Canadian population is armed.

 

[Deckhand]

I caught that, i am just not all that sure they are needed.

According to the census of 1852, lower canada had a male population of around 450,000. Only around 44,000 of these lived in the cities of Montreal and Quebec, so just under 10%. Assuming after taking away children and the elderly we are left with about 20% of the remainder, or 80,000 odd fighting age males. Although some of this number would have been lost in previous battles, I don't think it unlikely that at least half of that would volunteer to liberate their country from what is a foreign occupier. The British army at Quebec has the arms, there are literally thousands of muskets left ownerless from previous battles, and the time, they have been sieging for six months odd i think, to turn those volunteers into regulars.

I would think that by the time of the battle of Pelham, Rowan's force at Quebec should have at least doubled in size, and the ongoing artillery duel there should be going the British way, the British have more and heavier guns, and theirs can be replaced as losses mount. OTL the seige of sevastapol lasted slightly less than a year, in much worse conditions than the british will be here. Scott's position should be getting pretty untenable by now, assuming the British are not struck by Draka disease, and are just stupid and incompetent as a general rule.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

September - October 1850: President William Graham of the Confederacy is an unhappy man. When he appointed Jefferson Davis as commander of the Army of Maryland, it was under the assumption that Davis would pursue an aggressive strategy of confrontation designed to force the Federals to the negotiating table. Davis, however, has had other ideas about his role; he regards victory as being only through foreign recognition, which can be had only if the Confederacy has the moral high ground. That means defense, not attack. As a result, following Hagerstown, Davis has not re-invaded Maryland and attacked Taylor, who withdrew to the Pennsylvania-Maryland border at the beginning of September with just 15,000 men remaining. Graham, upon hearing word of this, is livid. Day by day, reinforcements pour into Taylor’s camp, building back up his army, while Davis is content to stand by and watch.

Graham would like nothing more than to remove Davis from command, but politics makes that impossible. So for three weeks in September, Graham can do nothing but stew, waiting for Taylor to once again return to the field.

Then, on the 25th of September, comes excellent news. Confederate sympathizers in Missouri and Kentucky report that William Worth’s Army of the Miami has departed for New England. Neither of the Confederacy’s currently active fronts--Maryland and Texas--is going well; perhaps it is time to open a new front. An unopposed front.

Graham and his Secretary of War, Arthur Hayne, decide on a bold thrust up into the unprotected underbelly of the Union: Kentucky. Kentucky is more Southern than Northern, a slave state, and Graham and Hayne reckon that the Kentuckians will welcome a Confederate Army with open arms. With Worth gone to New England, invading and taking control of the state should be simple.

To lead the invasion, Hayne picks a general who has ample reason to want to be out from Davis’ thumb in Maryland, a Virginian, Joseph Johnston. Johnston, a veteran of the Mexican-American War, has been chafing under Davis’ command, and is eager to go west to take control of Kentucky. The invasion will begin in the middle of November, late in the season but still early enough that victory should be possible before winter sets in.

In Canada, Winfield Scott is rapidly finding out how tenuous his position is. Food stocks and ammunition are running low in the besieged Quebec City; the American army cannot last another winter. Rowan’s army has been swelled by hundreds of volunteers, eager to shoot Americans, and now spies who have managed to slip through the British cordon inform him that Clitherow is heading west towards Montreal. Before the arrival of Hardinge’s force, Scott could at least justify staying on the defensive with the notion that he was tying down Rowan’s forces. Now, however, that is no longer the case. Now he is just marking time, waiting for the British to finish him off. He needs to break the siege, and quickly.

John Clitherow, meanwhile, is on his way to Montreal and Toronto. His mission is to expel the garrisons left behind by Scott and Taylor in 1848, then rally the Canadians to invade across the Niagara Frontier. While Hardinge moves towards New York City, Clitherow will cut Pennsylvania in two, separating the western states from New England and the coast.

This is not Clitherow’s only objective, however. He has orders to dispatch the 17th Lancers, borrowed from Rowan, ahead of his primary force. The 17th, lead by Maj. Henry Benson, has been assigned to what is euphemistically called “frontier logistics,” but Clitherow calls “stirring up a hornet’s nest”.

Scattered across the Minnesota Territory are tribes of Sioux, Cheyenne, Lakota, and Pawnee, none of whom have any great love of the United States. The British would very much like to rouse these Plains tribes to action against the American western states of Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, and Indiana. Benson comes armed with treaties, and promises of rich gifts in exchange for native help against the Americans. Whether they will help remains to be seen.

--------------------------------------------------------

Your thoughts?

 

[Direwolf22]

a possible native uprising against the americans? a new confederate assault into the union? a possible british success in new england? the canadians pushing out the yankees? sounds great to me. I'm assuming the uk hasn't recognised the csa yet because of slavery, correct me if i'm wrong, otherwise i'm sure they would have by now.

 

[Deckhand]

This is getting pretty ugly, i would think the US government would be thinking hard about cutting their losses at this point. Half the country is gone to secession, New England is half occupied, they are hanging by a thread in Canada, and their economy must be in ruins with the massive military expenditures and Blockade. How stubborn are they? If they keep fighting Great Britain the whole American enterprise is going to fall apart. Britain can't be demanding anything ridiculous. Or are the Americans still convinced they can win?

 

[stevep]

Thespitron 6000

Sounds like, other than Jefferson Davis letting them off the hook things are going pretty badly for the US. Doubt that Scott can actually escape from Quebec. He definitely shouldn't be able to after such a long siege and with plenty of locals operating against him. Even if he manages to get some men out somehow the likelihood would be their scattered by the following pursuit.

With the approaches to the Indian tribes is Britain planning on following up, possibly by demanding their territories after the war or to leave them in the lurch? Or possibly to see how things develop. Seeking to gain that land might make for a useful buffer, although likely to cause continued resentment if the south doesn't get away. If it does I think the US will have too much on it's plate for the foreseeable future.

If the Kentucky attack goes as successfully as the south hopes then it could end the war pretty quickly, especially in combination with planned British attacks from the north. [Although doubtful if Clitherow can march to liberate Montreal and Toronto then invade Pennsylvania until next year, even if he's not actually going to help finish the siege of Quebec, which I 1st thought]. However if he can help clear Quebec [even if only by panicking Scott into surrendering or trying to break out] and secure the rest of eastern Canada then he has the basis to pose a serious threat the following year.

Anyway, looking decent for Britain and distinctly bad for the US.

Steve

 

[stevep]

This is getting pretty ugly, i would think the US government would be thinking hard about cutting their losses at this point. Half the country is gone to secession, New England is half occupied, they are hanging by a thread in Canada, and their economy must be in ruins with the massive military expenditures and Blockade. How stubborn are they? If they keep fighting Great Britain the whole American enterprise is going to fall apart. Britain can't be demanding anything ridiculous. Or are the Americans still convinced they can win?

Deckhand

Good question. What are the US war aims at the moment? I also find it difficult to see they still have any illusions of victory against Britain and as you say, cutting losses and trying to conquer the south seems their best bet.

What Britain might demand after >2 years of bitter war? Quite possibly all of Oregon and/or some reparations, although I doubt the US could afford much of the latter. We might get the traditional [for AH anyway] Maine border changes or some other alterations depending on how angry Britain is and how confident the people in London are about being able to force the issue.

Possibly, as I suggested in my previous post, Britain has made promises to the western tribes. Given how barely populated in European terms those regions are if Britain took the Pacific coast they could fairly easily establish a protectorate over much of the Dakota and Montana territories]. It would be more a loss of face and the dream of a continental spanning state than noticable material loss at this point. On the other hand the war is now in it's 3rd year and there might be concerns about both the costs and the concerns of prolonged tension with the US. Whether the latter prompts a desire to be generous or to be harsh to remove any capacity for the US to pose a future threat?

Steve

 

[Thespitron 6000]

Spill not your blood across Quebec, my brother,
But turn southward home for to make war ‘gainst another,
For Old Cass has turned his back,
And Vicky is on the attack.
It’s liberty we lack,
But purchase it now for your son and your daughter, your father and your mother.
Oh, sing down the Volunteer, my brother, sing down the Volunteer...
--“Sing Down the Volunteer”, George Henry Miles, 1850

The British are a-marching, a-marching, a-marching south,
The Rebels are a-marching, a-marching, a-marching north.
We’ll whip ‘em both, we’ll whip ‘em both,
‘Cause we’ll follow General Taylor to the devil’s mouth
And rouse up the old flag with General Worth,
And we’ll whip ‘em both, we’ll whip ‘em both!
--“The Union is A-Marching”, Stephen Foster, 1850

 

[stevep]

Thespitron 6000

Sounds like distinctly divided opinion in the north, with some decrying the war and its futility and others calling for further attacks. Hence probably no end yet but will probably come quickly when it comes.

Steve

Spill not your blood across Quebec, my brother,
But turn southward home for to make war ‘gainst another,
For Old Cass has turned his back,
And Vicky is on the attack.
It’s liberty we lack,
But purchase it now for your son and your daughter, your father and your mother.
Oh, sing down the Volunteer, my brother, sing down the Volunteer...
--“Sing Down the Volunteer”, George Henry Miles, 1850

The British are a-marching, a-marching, a-marching south,
The Rebels are a-marching, a-marching, a-marching north.
We’ll whip ‘em both, we’ll whip ‘em both,
‘Cause we’ll follow General Taylor to the devil’s mouth
And rouse up the old flag with General Worth,
And we’ll whip ‘em both, we’ll whip ‘em both!
--“The Union is A-Marching”, Stephen Foster, 1850

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Sad to see the U.S doing badly.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

New Update!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ain't Got Nothin': The Rise and Fall of James K. Polk (Part One)

The war between the United States and the United Kingdom is now about to enter its third year. President Lewis Cass has come to be seen as weak, vacillating, opportunistic--all due to his own actions. The United States and Britain have both been hampered by a lack of clear war aims. The threads of power have become tangled and confused. Leadership is lacking. In such situations, men of iron conviction and deep-set ruthlessness can quickly acquire the authority to act, regardless of their position. A strong man who knows his own mind can accomplish much, can assert much in the way of policy. For the American government, that man is James K. Polk, the Vice-President.

It has been a bitter two years for Polk. An ambitious man, who feels the touch of God’s favor upon him, he has seen his nation divided at home and defeated abroad, and perhaps more hurtful, his own electoral hopes dashed by way of association with the increasingly unpopular Lewis Cass. Polk knows he will never be President now. He regrets accepting Cass’s offer of the vice-presidency, and so casts caution to the wind. Someone must lead, must save the Union, and that someone must be him.

To Polk, the path forward is clear. If America is to achieve its “manifest destiny” to control the whole of the North American continent, then it must be one nation. The Confederacy must be brought back into the fold, either by diplomacy or by force. This cannot be done while the British occupy New England and America’s armies are tied down in Canada. A peace must be made with Britain.

Polk’s people quietly extend feelers to the British ambassador John Bloomfield, to sound him out about a possible ceasefire and settlement. These actions are blatantly unconstitutional; the powers of diplomacy reside in the office of the President, not the Vice-President. But Polk is grimly determined to end the war with Britain, whatever the cost.

Unfortunately for Polk, his is not the only government in which strong men have taken advantage of the fog of war to advance themselves. Russell’s government was weak; Stanley’s is stronger, and has an actual mandate to deal diplomatically with the Americans, unlike Polk. William Gladstone, the foreign secretary, has been working in close harness with Prime Minister Lord Stanley--there will be no Palmerstons in this ministry. Gladstone and Stanley, as well as the other ministers, have thought long and hard about the current relationship between Great Britain and the United States, and reached certain conclusions. Those conclusions would be extremely disheartening to Polk, did he know them.

Britain and America have fought three wars in just seventy-five years. The Americans have repeatedly invaded Canada, despoiling the land, murdering British subjects, and violating numerous treaties. They have invaded Mexico, an action that Britain was previously inclined to dismiss, but now regards as an ominous portent of American intent. To Gladstone, Stanley, Peel, and the remainder of the Queen’s government, things are clear: the United States of America is a rogue state, a danger to international relations and peace in the New World. Gladstone prepares a memo outlining Her Majesty’s Government’s position: America can no longer be trusted to keep the peace and respect British sovereignty, and therefore must be removed as a threat. She must be ground down until she can no longer attack any aspect of Britain--until she is a fourth-rate power.

The division of the United States into two separate nations, North and South, is in Gladstone’s mind a good start, and the “Californectomy” that has recently occurred on the West Coast also good, but to the British the United States has not reached the desired state.

When Polk’s overtures of peace arrive in London, they are dismissed out of hand. Peace now would allow the United States to regain her rebellious provinces and eventually restore her strength. Inevitably she would attack Canada again. That would be intolerable. There can be no peace.

Therefore, the British respond with a deliberately inflammatory set of conditions upon which any attempt towards peace must be built:

• American recognition of the Union of California and New Mexico, and the Confederate States of America, as well as any other states which decide to exercise their right to secede from the Union.
  
• American military forces must be reduced to less than 5,000 soldiers. The American navy must be handed over to the Royal Navy, and a moratorium on American military shipbuilding must be enacted for a period of no less than 10 years.
  
• America’s claim to the Oregon Territory must be discarded, and the American government must recognize the full extend of Britain’s claim to the region.
  
• The United States must cede Upper Michigan, Wisconsin north of the Wisconsin River, and the entirety of the Minnesota Territory, to Britain.
  
• The United States must pay reparations to Great Britain of 20 million US Dollars.

Bloomfield is instructed to maintain these demands without the slightest deviation. Now that Britain holds the whip hand, the United States must be destroyed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Your thoughts?

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

Holy sh*t that's extreme. Why not just make them sign 'The Declaration of Unindependence.' Seriously the treaty is political poison for the next American president and this may have unintended consequences in Europe such as now Britain after the war would have done the equivalent of beating the upstart and reminding everyone what happens if you don't toe the line.

 

[The Gunslinger]

This will probably just prolong the war, as the Americans can't accept it with facing extermination.

 

[wietze]

It is clearly a set of demands that is put together to be as unacceptable as possible, and it shows their intent to the us.

 

[stevep]

Thespitron 6000

It has a form of logic, if you want to continue the war until you're confident the US will not pose a threat for quite a while. However I can't see a government in which Gladstone, with his idealist and economic views, was significant, supporting such a programme.

Even with a Palmeston in charge, after such a long war I could see determination for gains to secure the borders and weaken the US, but terms wouldn't I think be as harsh and they would be for actual negotiation. [I.e. they might start high for bargaining but would have some give.

While the terms aren't anything like extermination, as The Gunslinger says they are very harsh and will almost certainly mean the war continues for quite a while and harden American will. Given how long the war has already gone on and what is almost certain to happen now this is going to be very costly. Britain has the will to fight but I don't think it will see the need for such harsh terms.

Looking over the terms

• American recognition of the Union of California and New Mexico, and the Confederate States of America, as well as any other states which decide to exercise their right to secede from the Union.

This makes sense under the circumstances as it avoids Polk's desire of conquering the south and forcing it back into Washington's control. [Wasn't aware of the Californian rebellion but possibly getting confused between different TLs?] Not sure if California is populated enough to actually include Nevada let alone the large New Mexico territory at this stage. Especially since I don't think gold has been discovered yet?

Also what is meant by "any other states which decide to exercise their right to secede"? Are you suggesting that the US is forced to change it's constitution to give an explicit right to secede? I don't think that's practical and would probably have the same effect as the war guilt clause. Just the fact that California and the south were allowed to secede, possibly backed up by a defensive pact in the former case, should be enough as it establishes a precedent.

• American military forces must be reduced to less than 5,000 soldiers. The American navy must be handed over to the Royal Navy, and a moratorium on American military shipbuilding must be enacted for a period of no less than 10 years.

I'm not sure this sort of thing was done before the modern age. Also how would Britain or anyone else maintain such a situation. Even preventing any ships with military capabilities being built would be difficult while trying to prevent the US training forces deep in their interior would be impossible. Also again it would cause far more anger to no real point.

• America’s claim to the Oregon Territory must be discarded, and the American government must recognize the full extend of Britain’s claim to the region.

That's an obvious condition given how the war started.

• The United States must cede Upper Michigan, Wisconsin north of the Wisconsin River, and the entirety of the Minnesota Territory, to Britain.

Given how thinnly populated the regions were this would be practical, although it would be resented by the US. [I think at the time Minnesota territory includes the current states of Minnesota and north & south Dakota?]

• The United States must pay reparations to Great Britain of 20 million US Dollars.

This might be done but I don't think there's a real precedent and I don't think there will be a point to it. The US will be crippled financially anyway by the costs of the war and handicapped by its territorial losses. Furthermore while a strong nationalist reaction is very likely there would still be hope of some trade reviving so it would be pointless to seek to cripple the American economy.

I notice you have nothing on the Maine border, or the US access to the Grand Banks, which would probably be more practical than a number of the points above.

One good thing is that at least someone in the US has realised they need peace. To be honest, given the mess he's generated, I'm surprised that Cass hasn't been impeached.

It's an interesting idea, especially with Polk going behind Cass's back to get some terms but I doubt that Britain would take so extreme a hard line. Their winning and there is a purpose to weaken the US but the war is already costly and I think to take such a stance would take too great a collection of arrogance and stupidity on behave of the British government.

Steve

 

[The Gunslinger]

Also what is meant by "any other states which decide to exercise their right to secede"? Are you suggesting that the US is forced to change it's constitution to give an explicit right to secede? I don't think that's practical and would probably have the same effect as the war guilt clause. Just the fact that California and the south were allowed to secede, possibly backed up by a defensive pact in the former case, should be enough as it establishes a precedent.

Steve

I kind of assumed that it was referring to Texas, which looks to be totally FUBAR right now.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

Blackadder, Gunslinger, stevep,

I suppose I haven't been clear; the British fully intend for these demands to be rejected. They don't genuinely believe the Americans would consent to such demands, and an American rejection would result in the war continuing, which is what Stanley's ministry wants.

stevep,

Gladstone was committed to peaceful foreign relations, it's true, but I think in this case his desire for long-term international peace would trump the short term desire for normalized relations with America. The United States is, from the British point of view, an extreme aggressor over the past six years--and beyond that, to the War of 1812 and before. If the United States can't be trusted not to attack its neighbors, then Britain will hold it down until it can.

As to ending the war now, that would be a bad idea from the British perspective, since it would give the North a free hand in crushing the South and reuniting, something Britain does not want.

 

[stevep]

I kind of assumed that it was referring to Texas, which looks to be totally FUBAR right now.

The Gunslinger

Good point, both in what is meant by the term and probably the current status of Texas, which seems a mess to put it mildly. I was just wondering how far Thespitron 6000 was thinking.

Steve