Immediate/long term effects of Britain winning War of 1812

If Britain and her allies had won the War of 1812, what would the effects have been and what territory would most likely be lost? I'm assuming the POD would most likely be a successful capture of Baltimore and New York in 1814, or perhaps Tecumseh surviving longer. What do you think?
 
They did anyway. :cool:

Yep. The US declared war, not Britain. What Britain really wanted was to stop wasting resources fighting the Americans and get back to focusing on Europe. Britain had written off the US territory and had little to no interest in trying to retake it from the Americans and certainly not when Europe was so unsettled. Had the war gone better for the British (which is difficult since it pretty much went all their way) the treaty would likely have been the same status quo ante bellum. From the British pov it's much cheaper and easier to maintain good relations with the US than fight them.

Also, this appears to be a near duplicate of a much more detailed thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=329650
 
Basically, there were two major war aims for the Americans: stop the Brits impressing their sailors and conquer land in Canada. Impressment ended up a moot point, since the British abolished it anyway as the Napoleonic Wars wound down, and the conquest of Canada didn't work out. (Obviously; that's why there's still a country called Canada now.) And whilst none of the British counter-attacks had taken any major strategic targets (although capturing Washington was a great propaganda victory), the Brits had managed to extricate themselves well enough, and there was every reason to suppose that they'd be back again next year. Meanwhile America was on the verge of bankruptcy and finding it difficult to make good its losses because nobody wanted to fight in an unpopular and losing war. Really, the fact that so many people in America seem to consider not being conquered as a victory shows just how bad things had become.

Anyway, as said on the other thread, the Brits probably wouldn't be interested in taking too much land even in the event of a total US collapse, since their ambitions and efforts had moved elsewhere after 1783. Michigan and Wisconsin would be plausible demands, since they'd increase the strategic depth of British North America and weren't incorporated as US States, meaning that it would be easier to reconcile America to their loss. Maybe if things went really well and Tecumseh was still around they might demand US recognition of his confederacy, but that would be about the limit of their demands.
 
Yep. The US declared war, not Britain. What Britain really wanted was to stop wasting resources fighting the Americans and get back to focusing on Europe. Britain had written off the US territory and had little to no interest in trying to retake it from the Americans and certainly not when Europe was so unsettled. Had the war gone better for the British (which is difficult since it pretty much went all their way) the treaty would likely have been the same status quo ante bellum. From the British pov it's much cheaper and easier to maintain good relations with the US than fight them.

Also, this appears to be a near duplicate of a much more detailed thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=329650

The consensus basically is that if the British do better at the start of the war then they might grab more US territory, shear off the northern bits of Maine and some of New York to get strategic depth while taking the Michigan Territory.

The stark reality is that only a) the outbreak of war in Europe again distracted the British b) many of the British attacks failed due to either spectacularly ill luck (their commanders being killed) or stunning incompetence on the part of others and c) war weariness and home.

It was pointed out that if you look at the British negotiations and demands that had they been in a better position they would have seized some territory. Late stalemate in the war and lack of political will prevented that. Reverse the trajectory of the war however...

Basically, the US got lucky it fought Britain when it did and did as well as it did. They had sum zero advantages in this war besides being on the defensive in the later stages.
 
let us not forget that Britain OTL knocked out the minimal American presence in Oregon during the war. Not very hard to get the US to sign over the whole thing as they had no one there to contest it.
 
This is what I believe is known as "Spambombing". IDK if it is a violation of Forum Rules, as there is nothing unusual about repeat threads. But simultaneous threads? This site is heavily weighted with Sealion, (fill-in favorite country)-wanks, (losing side wins)-wanks, and so on. But having a new thread on exactly the same subject pop up when at least one or two others are raging at the same time... And while the OP may be forgiven for just not doing his homework, I'm seeing exactly the same posters showing up here as on the other active thread(s) saying exactly the same thing. What's that all about?

Why not direct the OP to that very active thread?
 
Top