I want to destroy the US, early and permanently

[Belisarius II]

Native America, Cambodia, the list goes on. But somewhat defeats the purpose of what op wanted, so I’m going to stop with this rather moribund pissing contest.

The Cambodian Holocaust was committed by the Khmer Rouge, not the United States. The Cambodian Genocide happened because the Americans failed to win the Vietnam War.

The Khmer Rouge army was slowly built up in the jungles of Eastern Cambodia during the late 1960s, supported by the North Vietnamese army, the Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao, and the Communist Party of China (CPC).[6][7][8][9] Although it originally fought against Sihanouk, on the advice of the CPC, the Khmer Rouge changed its position and supported Sihanouk after he was overthrown in a 1970 coup by Lon Nol who established the pro-United States Khmer Republic.[9][10] Despite a massive American bombing campaign against them, the Khmer Rouge won the Cambodian Civil War when they captured the Cambodian capital and overthrew the Khmer Republic in 1975. Following their victory, the Khmer Rouge who were led by Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, and Khieu Samphan immediately set about forcibly evacuating the country's major cities and in 1976 they renamed the country Democratic Kampuchea.

It was China who supported the Khmer Rouge though out, even after their reign of terror was overthrown by the NVA in 1978. The NVA Invasion of Cambodia was the main reason China attacked Vietnam in February 1979. So blame China, and the World Communist Movement of the 1960's, and 70's for that horror, not the United States.

 

[VVD0D95]

The Cambodian Holocaust was committed by the Khmer Rouge, not the United States. The Cambodian Genocide happened because the Americans failed to win the Vietnam War.

The Khmer Rouge army was slowly built up in the jungles of Eastern Cambodia during the late 1960s, supported by the North Vietnamese army, the Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao, and the Communist Party of China (CPC).[6][7][8][9] Although it originally fought against Sihanouk, on the advice of the CPC, the Khmer Rouge changed its position and supported Sihanouk after he was overthrown in a 1970 coup by Lon Nol who established the pro-United States Khmer Republic.[9][10] Despite a massive American bombing campaign against them, the Khmer Rouge won the Cambodian Civil War when they captured the Cambodian capital and overthrew the Khmer Republic in 1975. Following their victory, the Khmer Rouge who were led by Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Son Sen, and Khieu Samphan immediately set about forcibly evacuating the country's major cities and in 1976 they renamed the country Democratic Kampuchea.

It was China who supported the Khmer Rouge though out, even after their reign of terror was overthrown by the NVA in 1978. The NVA Invasion of Cambodia was the main reason China attacked Vietnam in February 1979. So blame China, and the World Communist Movement of the 1960's, and 70's for that horror, not the United States.

Dropping bombs on Cambodia which ended up wounding and maiming thousands is what I was on about.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think the easiest way to break the US permanently is with a British victory in the War of 1812.

IOTL, the British were preparing to send the Duke of Wellington over to prosecute the conflict after he wrapped up the Peninsular War. He didn't want to fight what he saw as a backwater war very badly, and Napoleon's reunion tour soon brought a stop to any idea that he'd be available to start a campaign there. But as a POD, say Napoleon dies in captivity in Elba instead of St. Helena and his 100 Days never happen. The British decide to fight the Americans more aggressively once they have the manpower freed up.

Wellington would absolutely smoke in a war against the United States. He'd be fighting in a low-density guerilla war type environment like he had just excelled in in Spain, against a tiny standing army and a bunch of untrained militia. You take one of the pre-eminent military minds of his age, give him veteran troops, and put him in his comfort zone - there's no way he doesn't crush the US.

Once the Americans have been soundly defeated, say the British annex New England back into fold as a "Baja Canada". To be honest, I don't know what it would take to placate New England this time, given that they had fought and won a revolution against the British within living memory. Maybe the New Englanders end up revolting again.

If they don't revolt, the US is broken right there into Canada and a southern rump state. Canada will probably be given autonomy in the mid-19th century just like in IOTL, and New Englanders would be very amenable to that. They'd probably carry on being happy Canadians into the present day; maybe with an OTL Texan "lone star, come and take it" type attitude from memories of a long-ago independence. The southern states will probably expand westward until they come into conflict with natives and Mexico.

But even if New England does revolt, they probably won't want anything to do with the south (call it Maryland and Virginia on down) again. IOTL, they went through a GREAT deal of strife with the southern states to make a union work, and they may decide after trying it once, that the agrarian pro-slavery South is just too different from them to be compatible. Without having a common enemy to bind them together this time, I don't know what else would motivate them to rejoin. If New England wins its independence back again, then it and the South probably carry on as independent and parallel nations. I can see the memory of union creating enough good will for them to get along and trade peacefully in the short term, but who gets the land in the West is probably going to be a major point of contention long term. Britain and Mexico will have says in that as well.

You misreading the situation on quite few points. First off in the Campaign Wellington fought in Spain the Guerilla's were on his side, not fighting against him. Second Wellington was a great general, not a miracle worker, he has to follow military logic. As he himself said they would need to gain naval control of the Great Lakes in order to invade the United States. The Naval buildup on Lake Ontario was already putting a major strain on Canadian Resources. At the time the war ended the British already had 1 First Rate SOL, and were building 2 more on the Lake, and the Americans were building 2. It's hard to imagine an escalation much beyond that, and if there was it would take lot of time.

Lake Erie is completely under American Control, and they have superiority on Lake Huron. After winning the Battle of Lake Champlain the Americans have full control of those waters. The British would have to build a new fleet of shallow draft Frigates to try again. Of course after the invasion in 1814 Vermont was then in the war, so they can't even get down the Richelieu River to get to Lake Champlain, without invading Vermont first.

By 1814 the Regular American Army isn't tiny, and U.S. regulars at this point were standing toe to toe with British Regulars.

In early 1814 Congress increased the Army to 45 infantry regiments, 4 regiments of riflemen, 3 of artillery, 2 of light dragoons, and 1 of light artillery. The number of general officers was fixed at 6 major generals and 16 brigadier generals in addition to the generals created by brevet. Secretary of War Armstrong promoted Jacob Brown, who had been commissioned a brigadier general in the Regular Army after his heroic defense of Sackett's Harbor, to the rank of major general and placed him in command of the Niagara-Lake Ontario theater. He also promoted the youthful George Izard to major general and gave him command of the Lake Champlain frontier. He appointed six new brigadier generals from the ablest, but not necessarily most senior, colonels in the Regular Army, among them Winfield Scott, who had distinguished himself at the battle of Queenston Heights and who was now placed in command at Buffalo.

Militia was a mixed bag, but some units were very good, and even average units could fight well from fortifications. Invading New York isn't as easy as you think, and invading New England is a bad idea, because it would force them into the war. They were determined to defend themselves, and they had the best trained, and equipped militias in the Union. Massachusetts mustered the following Militia forces during the War of 1812.

During the War of 1812, Massachusetts supplied 43,321 infantry men, 446 cavalry men, 2,714 artillery men, and 200 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 46,681 men.[1]

New Hampshire: During the War of 1812, New Hampshire supplied 5,279 infantry men, 642 artillery men, and 34 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 5,955 men.[1]

Vermont: During the War of 1812, Vermont furnished 4,853 infantry men, 243 cavalry men, and 140 artillery men for a total of 5,236 men.[1]

Rhode Island: During the War of 1812, Rhode Island supplied 746 infantry men and 164 artillery men for a total of 910 men.[1]

Connecticut: In the War of 1812, Connecticut furnished 9,161 infantry men, 137 cavalry men, and 905 artillery men for a total of 10, 203.[1]

New York: During the War of 1812, New York supplied 63,790 infantry men, 2,415 cavalry men, 8,830 artillery men, and 2,861 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 77,896 men.[1]

These are hardly insignificant forces that Wellington with even 20,000 men is going to just run roughshod over. Conquering these Northern States would be out of the Question, New York alone had over 1,000,000 people in 1815. What your talking about is a fantasy, it's just not realistic. The war was going to end in a draw. Going on, just throwing in more men, and ships is a waste of time, lives, and money, for both sides. Nether side was going to win a clear cut victory.

 

[Belisarius II]

Dropping bombs on Cambodia which ended up wounding and maiming thousands is what I was on about.

The United States bombed those areas of Cambodia because Viet Cong, and NVA supply lines ran though them, and they built bases there to stage attacks on South Vietnam. I guess they just didn't know Cambodia was supposed to be neutral. What did you think we were bombing Cambodia for?

 

[VVD0D95]

The United States bombed those areas of Cambodia because Viet Cong, and NVA supply lines ran though them, and they built bases there to stage attacks on South Vietnam. I guess they just didn't know Cambodia was supposed to be neutral. What did you think we were bombing Cambodia for?

Exactly those reasons.

 

[Aghasverov]

I think the feasibility of this thread is handicapped by setting the POD at 1783 or later. At that point, with the US of A recognized by treaty, it was just too late to stuff the cat back into the bag. Now, before then, especially with a POD before 1775 or 1763, no problem. All it would've taken was a bit less pig-headedness from the Parliamentarians in London, and the Eastern Seaboard Provinces could've been the 1st of the self-governing overseas British Dominions... sure that's probably been done on here sometime before though.

 

[CHKeeley]

Your bitter view of the society you live in, is a product of a modern system of education that is based on Deconstructionism. Under Deconstructionism all value systems are dissected, and each part proved imperfect, hypocritical, or based on a morally outdated, or now unpopular concept. This then gives the person a distorted view of the whole, only seeing it's flaws, and failing.

Trying to paint "the modern system of education" as a "post-modern deconstructionist" behemoth that indoctrinates historical victimhood and introduces "White Guilt", then moral relativism and collapse is... a very hard sell (and reeks of a conspiratorial worldview..) Even ignoring all the issues with the phrase "modern system of education" being applied to the United States given how non-standard historical education really is in the United States today: even within counties from school to school the quality, ideas, biases, etc. differ drastically. Who is creating this modern system of education and enforcing it? To what ends? How did this form of cultural and historical understanding come into the "modern education system"? To me this is a very odd take on the pushback of the last few decades to the legacy of American and European colonialism.

It's also logically inconsistent: the philosophy being taught is at the same time deconstructing every narrative and peoples and examining everything and everyone for their faults, while at the same time (as you say later in the thread) trying to espouse some grand narrative about good guys and bad guys and how imperialism destroyed peace and unity between non-European peoples. These two ideas are at odds with each other. I view this as a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of post-modernist philosophy within modern historical academia and an attempt to paint it as some attack on "the West" and it's values.

Not an appropriate topic for this thread or forum, but since it was brought up, I felt I needed to engage with this line of reasoning.

 

[Aghasverov]

Agree. In full.

 

[Belisarius II]

Trying to paint "the modern system of education" as a "post-modern deconstructionist" behemoth that indoctrinates historical victimhood and introduces "White Guilt", then moral relativism and collapse is... a very hard sell (and reeks of a conspiratorial worldview..) Even ignoring all the issues with the phrase "modern system of education" being applied to the United States given how non-standard historical education really is in the United States today: even within counties from school to school the quality, ideas, biases, etc. differ drastically. Who is creating this modern system of education and enforcing it? To what ends? How did this form of cultural and historical understanding come into the "modern education system"? To me this is a very odd take on the pushback of the last few decades to the legacy of American and European colonialism.

It's also logically inconsistent: the philosophy being taught is at the same time deconstructing every narrative and peoples and examining everything and everyone for their faults, while at the same time (as you say later in the thread) trying to espouse some grand narrative about good guys and bad guys and how imperialism destroyed peace and unity between non-European peoples. These two ideas are at odds with each other. I view this as a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of post-modernist philosophy within modern historical academia and an attempt to paint it as some attack on "the West" and it's values.

Not an appropriate topic for this thread or forum, but since it was brought up, I felt I needed to engage with this line of reasoning.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and we can all make observations. My experience in college was that most, but far from all of the liberal arts professors were very much anti Western, even though they embraced all it's advantages. Some were avidly Communists, most thought the Soviet Union was a force for good in the world, and the USA was the chief source of it's problems. Most thought Castro was a great man, who was a victim of American Aggression. They argued Lenin's logic that the Soviet Union's Eastward expansion into Asia was acceptable colonialism because it was overland, but American overland expansion was immoral.

I've met many women who told me marriage is a patriarchal construct, designed to enslave women to men. Many people have told me religion is a mass delusion, designed by the ruling class to enforce obedience. Many have told me Communism would be the best way of life for all human beings, but it just hasn't been done right yet, so we have to keep trying. Western Capital Investment is just the new form of Imperialism, and does no good for the people of the world. Western Values are just hypocrisy, and Christianity is the Whiteman's Religion, while at the same time claiming Jesus was Black. When I was a school teacher I found many more of my colleges held these types of beliefs then in the general population. Maybe that has nothing to do with the University System, or may be it does, they got those ideas from somewhere.

 

[CHKeeley]

It's based on personal experience and perception I suppose, at risk of derailing the thread we can just agree to disagree on this

 

[happy35]

Either way what’s the best way to get rid of it ( USA) ? Or was it doomed- I mean destined to always exist down the line?

 

[Belisarius II]

So, the writer had USA and Mexico switched?



You do realize that the Parliament was a much bigger problem than the King right?

The Mexicans did take California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and more. The Native American population of California dropped from 300,000 to 100,000 in the years from 1769 to 1846. Spanish/Mexican rule didn't work out to well for them.

 

[Belisarius II]

Belisarius II said:
The United States bombed those areas of Cambodia because Viet Cong, and NVA supply lines ran though them, and they built bases there to stage attacks on South Vietnam. I guess they just didn't know Cambodia was supposed to be neutral. What did you think we were bombing Cambodia for?

Exactly those reasons.

So why was it wrong?

 

[VVD0D95]

Belisarius II said:
The United States bombed those areas of Cambodia because Viet Cong, and NVA supply lines ran though them, and they built bases there to stage attacks on South Vietnam. I guess they just didn't know Cambodia was supposed to be neutral. What did you think we were bombing Cambodia for?




So why was it wrong?

Do you truly need to ask why agent orange and the consequences of it were wrong?

 

[TxAggie]

You misreading the situation on quite few points. First off in the Campaign Wellington fought in Spain the Guerilla's were on his side, not fighting against him. Second Wellington was a great general, not a miracle worker, he has to follow military logic. As he himself said they would need to gain naval control of the Great Lakes in order to invade the United States. The Naval buildup on Lake Ontario was already putting a major strain on Canadian Resources. At the time the war ended the British already had 1 First Rate SOL, and were building 2 more on the Lake, and the Americans were building 2. It's hard to imagine an escalation much beyond that, and if there was it would take lot of time.

Lake Erie is completely under American Control, and they have superiority on Lake Huron. After winning the Battle of Lake Champlain the Americans have full control of those waters. The British would have to build a new fleet of shallow draft Frigates to try again. Of course after the invasion in 1814 Vermont was then in the war, so they can't even get down the Richelieu River to get to Lake Champlain, without invading Vermont first.

By 1814 the Regular American Army isn't tiny, and U.S. regulars at this point were standing toe to toe with British Regulars.

In early 1814 Congress increased the Army to 45 infantry regiments, 4 regiments of riflemen, 3 of artillery, 2 of light dragoons, and 1 of light artillery. The number of general officers was fixed at 6 major generals and 16 brigadier generals in addition to the generals created by brevet. Secretary of War Armstrong promoted Jacob Brown, who had been commissioned a brigadier general in the Regular Army after his heroic defense of Sackett's Harbor, to the rank of major general and placed him in command of the Niagara-Lake Ontario theater. He also promoted the youthful George Izard to major general and gave him command of the Lake Champlain frontier. He appointed six new brigadier generals from the ablest, but not necessarily most senior, colonels in the Regular Army, among them Winfield Scott, who had distinguished himself at the battle of Queenston Heights and who was now placed in command at Buffalo.

Militia was a mixed bag, but some units were very good, and even average units could fight well from fortifications. Invading New York isn't as easy as you think, and invading New England is a bad idea, because it would force them into the war. They were determined to defend themselves, and they had the best trained, and equipped militias in the Union. Massachusetts mustered the following Militia forces during the War of 1812.

During the War of 1812, Massachusetts supplied 43,321 infantry men, 446 cavalry men, 2,714 artillery men, and 200 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 46,681 men.[1]

New Hampshire: During the War of 1812, New Hampshire supplied 5,279 infantry men, 642 artillery men, and 34 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 5,955 men.[1]

Vermont: During the War of 1812, Vermont furnished 4,853 infantry men, 243 cavalry men, and 140 artillery men for a total of 5,236 men.[1]

Rhode Island: During the War of 1812, Rhode Island supplied 746 infantry men and 164 artillery men for a total of 910 men.[1]

Connecticut: In the War of 1812, Connecticut furnished 9,161 infantry men, 137 cavalry men, and 905 artillery men for a total of 10, 203.[1]

New York: During the War of 1812, New York supplied 63,790 infantry men, 2,415 cavalry men, 8,830 artillery men, and 2,861 men in miscellaneous troops for a total of 77,896 men.[1]

These are hardly insignificant forces that Wellington with even 20,000 men is going to just run roughshod over. Conquering these Northern States would be out of the Question, New York alone had over 1,000,000 people in 1815. What your talking about is a fantasy, it's just not realistic. The war was going to end in a draw. Going on, just throwing in more men, and ships is a waste of time, lives, and money, for both sides. Nether side was going to win a clear cut victory.

Thanks for the info. I was unaware that the US army grew so much during the war. I knew it expanded, but had no idea it was 5x.

That's half of why I do counterfactuals - it forces you to dive in and look at details you'd otherwise gloss over.

 

[Belisarius II]

Do you truly need to ask why agent orange and the consequences of it were wrong?

I didn't know the United States was bombing Cambodia with Agent Orange, I thought the B-52's doing those secret missions were loaded up with 500, and 750lb bombs.

 

[Belisarius II]

Thanks for the info. I was unaware that the US army grew so much during the war. I knew it expanded, but had no idea it was 5x.

That's half of why I do counterfactuals - it forces you to dive in and look at details you'd otherwise gloss over.

There seems to be some serious contention on this subject. Another thread went heavy into the finances of the war, and if the Americans could sustain it much longer. American financial management of the war was a mess. The British Navy was blockading the U.S. Coast strangling trade, and costing New England a lot of money. New England actually sat out most of the war, and traded with the enemy, making the War of 1812 probable the second most divisive war in it's history. On the other hand the economy did grow, and domestic industry expanded. The War Department had to learn on the job, as did the army, and militias. Few countries have ever ended a war because they were late on interest payments, or owed pay to troops. It can be a bigger problem if you can't feed them. The navy won the most glory by winning the fames Frigate fights, and winning battles on the internal waterways, and the Great Lakes.

Both sides did better on the defense, then the offense. American Militia didn't want to fight outside of their State, let alone outside the country, and the British burned the White House, but couldn't make any permanent gains. With the Napoleonic Wars over the issues that caused the war were resolved, and both sides could claim enough success to satisfy their honor, so they could agree to the status quo anti, and go back to normal trade, and commerce. It's better to make money off each other then to kill each other.

 

[NotedCoyote]

...Both sides did better on the defense, then the offense. American Militia didn't want to fight outside of their State, let alone outside the country, and the British burned the White House, but couldn't make any permanent gains. With the Napoleonic Wars over the issues that caused the war were resolved, and both sides could claim enough success to satisfy their honor, so they could agree to the status quo anti, and go back to normal trade, and commerce. It's better to make money off each other then to kill each other...

In fact, some of the issues that provoked the war were resolved before the war, but I have a suspicion that some of the war hawks would have pushed for war even if they'd known. Personally, I wonder if the Americans were saved from a longer and potentially more destructive war by their own lack of success. By the time the British had dealt with Napoleon enough to free up greater numbers of soldiers and ships for what they considered a pointless sideshow, the US had already been repulsed from Canada multiple times and the increasing effectiveness of the blockade meant that the US posed little remaining threat to the UK's North American possessions.

The attempts by both sides to quickly secure territory to strengthen their bargaining positions failed, which made it easy to reach a status-quo treaty. The British public were tired of the expense of war and eager for a quick conclusion. If the Americans had successfully occupied and held onto Upper Canada, the UK might have considered it necessary to thoroughly defeat them before negotiating an end to the conflict, since I can't see the UK giving up territory when they have the means to punish American insolence.

That said, there are places where the UK could have done better in the war that might have led to territorial changes, mostly in the terms of western borders that were only loosely defined over parts of the US territories that were barely settled by Americans. That would almost certainly require a different outcome in the fight for Lake Erie and the other lakes - the British retaining Detroit (Adams) and Caledonia early on might be a quick and easy start to accomplishing that. What the War of 1812 could not have done, at least without being an entirely different war, would be to accomplish the OP's objective of totally destroying the US. The UK had no reason to want that outcome, and didn't have the public support they'd need to undertake such an uncertain campaign even if they'd wanted to.

 

[Belisarius II]

In fact, some of the issues that provoked the war were resolved before the war, but I have a suspicion that some of the war hawks would have pushed for war even if they'd known. Personally, I wonder if the Americans were saved from a longer and potentially more destructive war by their own lack of success. By the time the British had dealt with Napoleon enough to free up greater numbers of soldiers and ships for what they considered a pointless sideshow, the US had already been repulsed from Canada multiple times and the increasing effectiveness of the blockade meant that the US posed little remaining threat to the UK's North American possessions.

The attempts by both sides to quickly secure territory to strengthen their bargaining positions failed, which made it easy to reach a status-quo treaty. The British public were tired of the expense of war and eager for a quick conclusion. If the Americans had successfully occupied and held onto Upper Canada, the UK might have considered it necessary to thoroughly defeat them before negotiating an end to the conflict, since I can't see the UK giving up territory when they have the means to punish American insolence.

That said, there are places where the UK could have done better in the war that might have led to territorial changes, mostly in the terms of western borders that were only loosely defined over parts of the US territories that were barely settled by Americans. That would almost certainly require a different outcome in the fight for Lake Erie and the other lakes - the British retaining Detroit (Adams) and Caledonia early on might be a quick and easy start to accomplishing that. What the War of 1812 could not have done, at least without being an entirely different war, would be to accomplish the OP's objective of totally destroying the US. The UK had no reason to want that outcome, and didn't have the public support they'd need to undertake such an uncertain campaign even if they'd wanted to.

I agree with several of your points, but not with others. The British/Canadians lacked the troop strength to invade, and hold territory in any American State, and frontier areas were too far away from Canadian Supply Centers to sustain. Detroit was closer to Ohio then to the heart of Upper Canada, and Ohio alone was stronger then all of Upper Canada, with a population 2 1/2 X greater.. The Battle of Lake Erie made it highly unlikely the British could make any major advances in the Old NW, and gave the American easy access to the Niagara River area, making the Canadian Territory between Niagara, and Detroit indefensible. Jackson's victories at New Orleans, and over the Native Americans in the Old SW, meant that American expansion would continue, and that Florida was not going to be a continuing threat to American Territory.

Calling American advances "Insolence" to be punished demonstrates a pretty arrogant attitude, which was typical of the high handed manner in which the British dealt with the United States. That attitude of "These are the rules you will live by, because you have no ability to resist." "Any international trade you have is at our sufferance, so be grateful, and show the proper respect." That insulting lack of respect was also a factor leading to war. One result of the war was the British never again treated the United States with contempt. When you demonstrate that you can trade blow for blow you don't get bullied as much. For the next hundred years Canada was a hostage to British good conduct, the disparity of American & British power drew more even, and common interests drew both closer together.

P.S.
I should add the War of 1812 advanced the growth of Canadian Nationalism. Canada standing up for it's self gave it a strong sense of pride, that it was it's own country, not just an extension of Britain, and that it wasn't American ether. Canada had it's own Western lands to tame, and it's own destiny to build, without living in the shadows of ether the United States, or UK.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all of us command.
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee

 

[NotedCoyote]

...The Battle of Lake Erie made it highly unlikely the British could make any major advances in the Old NW, and gave the American easy access to the Niagara River area, making the Canadian Territory between Niagara, and Detroit indefensible...

...Calling American advances "Insolence" to be punished demonstrates a pretty arrogant attitude, which was typical of the high handed manner in which the British dealt with the United States...

P.S.
I should add the War of 1812 advanced the growth of Canadian Nationalism. Canada standing up for it's self gave it a strong sense of pride, that it was it's own country, not just an extension of Britain, and that it wasn't American ether. Canada had it's own Western lands to tame, and it's own destiny to build, without living in the shadows of ether the United States, or UK...

Well, yes, that's precisely why I suggested that a different outcome for the Battle of Lake Erie would have been vital to allowing the British to have more success in the Northwest. Had the British not lost the Caledonia to the Americans, and not been forced to burn Detroit after the same successful American raid (the ship that had been known as Adams before it was captured after the Battle of Detroit, not the one that would be built by the British later), they would have had two more hulls in the battle and the Americans would have had one fewer. You'd probably need to make other changes to the conflict for the lake too, but a stronger British edge early on would be a good start toward butterflying the outcome of the battle in OTL.

You're very likely right that the British didn't have the strength to carve off territory in places like Ohio, but if they'd finished the war in possession of the lakes and with troops in Detroit and other forts north of Harrison's purchase, in the parts of Illinois and Michigan that lacked any significant American settlement (even places like Detroit were mostly inhabited by French-Canadians at the time who, having been exchanged to the US by treaty after the Revolution, didn't really consider themselves American). If America doesn't control Erie, it may not be able to retake Detroit, and Tecumseh might finish the conflict alive. Militias in the conflict were, as you noted, notoriously unreliable when it came to fighting outside of their core territory... and the Ohio militia did not consider Detroit and the Michigan frontier to be part of that territory. Those regions unsettled by Americans, and perhaps the unsettled northern bit of Maine, are probably the only US territory the British could have conceivably taken and kept.

As for the insolence, I should have made it more clear that I was talking about the contemporary British attitude toward the Americans, not expressing my own opinion. The contempt with which the British treated American sovereignty before the war shows how little respect the British had for their former colony. But that lack of respect was not the case immediately after the revolution. It took years of American sabre-rattling, and terrible diplomats like Foster serving as the eyes and ears of the UK in Washington, to convince the British that the US posed no serious threat. And the reality is, notwithstanding the success of their privateers, the War of 1812 ended with the British having nothing substantial to avenge or reclaim. It doesn't follow that the British would have been unwilling to spend the blood and treasure necessary to secure at least a draw, and given how half-hearted the British war effort was in OTL, America probably got the best outcome it could have hoped for: Britain's violations of its sovereignty repealed or ceased, the threat of Tecumseh eliminated, and the war hawks who considered a war as necessary for the US to hold it's head high as a duel would be for a young gentleman entering society were also satisfied.

PS: I'm Canadian - so believe me, I am well aware of the role the War of 1812 played in building Canada's national consciousness, and of the exaggerated cultural mythology that surrounds the war in this country. However, neither the French or the English versions of O Canada, and the lyrics of them are quite different in places, directly commemorate the war in the same way that the American national anthem does.