No Andrew Jackson

The POD is that Andrew Jackson dies in a duel against Charles Dickinson on May 30, 1806. What are the effects on the War of 1812 and American politics, and the Native Americans, without Jackson? And what would be a good name for a TL on this premise? "Chopping Ol' Hickory"?
 
Without Jackson to command the Tennessee Militia in the Creek War, I'd wager a slower prosecution of the war in that theater. Jackson's domineering personality allowed him to take control of the American forces from the dawdling commanders.

His absence means these commanders remain in charge longer, giving the Red Sticks some breathing room and a chance to use weapons supplied by the British that they never got to use in OTL.

A better armed Red Stick faction combined with an incompetent American commanders means that the Creek war is by no means done by the time the British arrive in the Gulf in December 1814. In addition to occupying New Orleans with minimal trouble, Cochrane's force also retakes Mobile and sets out to aid the South Eastern Indians in their fight against the Americans. (They wanted to do this in OTL but found that by the time they had arrived the none of the Native Americans wanted to fight anymore. In TTL the Creek war is still ongoing.)

As news of the Treaty of Ghent reaches the South east the Treaty itself comes under fire as it was intentionally vague about the situation in the Gulf. Unlike OTL where Jackson's victories made the British accept the status quo, in TTL the British are in control of the entire Gulf Coast, and are actively aiding the Red Sticks in their war against the Americans. With the situation on the ground heavily favoring the British, another conference is called to deal with the Southern theater.

Throw in some more British victories in the Southeast and America could be very well shut out of the Gulf. Though I can't see Britain taking the entire Louisiana purchase away, I think New Orleans and Southern Louisiana would remain British. West Florida would remain Spanish and the Southern half of Mississippi and Alabama would become some kind of Native American conglomeration.

Post-war the Federalists sweep Madison from office and begin to rebuild. Florida will probably remain Spanish for longer, but I can't see it remaining Spanish indefinitely. Issues regarding the use of the Mississippi probably would lead to a Third Anglo American War sometime in the 1830's/1840's.
 
You can find a variety of opinions about the Battle of New Orleans, but I think it goes as OTL provided the American commander is sufficiently aggressive. The British were not equipped or prepared for a real fight, never mind a siege; they expected a walkover, and didn't bring enough ammo. If the Americans make a sortie on Dec 23 as per OTL, the British get slow and cautious, and by the time they're ready to attack the line, said line has been fortified beyond the British ability to take. I don't think it takes a military genius to realize that early sortie is a good idea.

Without Jackson, no one exceeds orders in 1819, so Florida remains Spanish.

1824, let's assume Calhoun stays in the race rather than take the safe spot of VP. He and Crawford still split the South and JQA wins in the House. But Calhoun will not be VP nor in the Cabinet - can he take the Presidency in 1828 from outside?

The British had no intention whatsoever of taking Louisiana for themselves. They intended to give it back to Spain. The Americans will be taking it from Spain by force even if the British win; a loss would discredit the Madison administration pretty badly, but I'm not sure a Federalist resurgence is really possible at this point - they're pretty moribund.
 
Last edited:
You can find a variety of opinions about the Battle of New Orleans, but I think it goes as OTL provided the American commander is sufficiently aggressive. The British were not equipped or prepared for a real fight, never mind a siege; they expected a walkover, and didn't bring enough ammo. If the Americans make a sortie on Dec 23 as per OTL, the British get slow and cautious, and by the time they're ready to attack the line, said line has been fortified beyond the British ability to take. I don't think it takes a military genius to realize that early sortie is a good idea.

Without Jackson, no one exceeds orders in 1819, so Florida remains Spanish.

1824, let's assume Calhoun stays in the race rather than take the safe spot of VP. He and Crawford still split the South and JQA wins in the House. But Calhoun will not be VP nor in the Cabinet - can he take the Presidency in 1828 from outside?

The British had no intention whatsoever of taking Louisiana for themselves. They intended to give it back to Spain. The Americans will be taking it from Spain by force even if the British win; a loss would discredit the Madison administration pretty badly, but I'm not sure a Federalist resurgence is really possible at this point - they're pretty moribund.

The problem is finding an American commander not currently engaged who isn't a political outcast (Like Harrison) who is aggressive enough. I can't think of any off hand. Plus if the Red Sticks get the chance to use the weapons delivered by the HMS Orpheus in Sept 1814, (a fairly plausible scenario given the poor performance of the other American commanders in the Creek War) the British might well have a walk over in New Orleans as most American troops will be tied up in the Mississippi Territory!
 
Conversely, without Jackson an early diplomatic settlement to the Creek War becomes much more plausible. The Fort Mims massacre may be butterflied away. The idea that the traditionalist Creek must be crushed and the assimilationist Creek supported seems to have been championed by him. Also, if Jackson is dead in 1806, Harrison may be rehabilitated by then.

I can see that it's possible for the Americans to be delayed into losing, but I don't think commanders capable of holding New Orleans are really that thin on the ground :)
 
So, without Andrew Jackson, we can have the British secure New Orleans and perhaps the land that became Louisiana State IOTL, a British Native American puppet in the south-east, and the possibility of a Calhoun Presidency later on?

Would a Calhoun presidency result in a more states-rights trend, rather than Federal primacy?
 
Yes, Calhoun interpreted the USA as an agreement been fully soveriegn states, revokable in whole or part. Much like the modern UN. To whatever extent he's capable, he's going to dismantle the national government.

If the Americans lost New Orleans, though, there are lots of political butterflies to be dealt with - 1816 is going to be competitive, probably with a profusion of candidates, and Monroe not even a front-runner.
 
If the Americans lost New Orleans, though, there are lots of political butterflies to be dealt with - 1816 is going to be competitive, probably with a profusion of candidates, and Monroe not even a front-runner.

Yeah, and looking back, it doesn't seem likely for Calhoun to become President. He agitated for the war that ITTL failed. Same for Henry Clay, for that matter. Seems more and more likely that the Federalists will win 1816 ITTL. Which could mean that party lasts longer, into the 1840s maybe.
 
I think personally, that regardless if the Amricans lose the Battle of New Orleans the British would return Louisiana as the Treaty of Ghent referred to 'Status quo ante bellum'. Were the British to refuse to hand over the territory they seized post signing, I would imagine you'd see a continuation of the war.

The British didn't really have any designs on the United States, the whole war was to them just a distraction from the Napoleonic wars. I think Britain would rather avoid a continuation of the war and resume trade with America, rather than have to continually risk their merchant fleet to American raiders, not to mention paying the costs of the war after having just fought with France for the better part of a decade. Personally, and this is just my opinion mind you, they'd probably demand some sort of compensatory payment and then return the territory to the US.
 
You can find a variety of opinions about the Battle of New Orleans, but I think it goes as OTL provided the American commander is sufficiently aggressive. The British were not equipped or prepared for a real fight, never mind a siege; they expected a walkover, and didn't bring enough ammo. If the Americans make a sortie on Dec 23 as per OTL, the British get slow and cautious, and by the time they're ready to attack the line, said line has been fortified beyond the British ability to take. I don't think it takes a military genius to realize that early sortie is a good idea.
AJ was really, really important for the defence of New Orleans. He was the one who demanded/pushed/insisted on those fortifications. Without him, they're not there.

Without him, the blacks won't be organized to fight, and the US won't have nearly as many defenders.

I don't like AJ. I think he was crude, uncouth and barely civilized. But, MAN, was he an effective fighter.


Also, random butterflies from AJ's death could mean that General Ross survives the attack on Baltimore, so the British attack on NO is much more organized. (A good part of the problem was that they had to ship ought a new commanding officer from Britain, who wasn't there when planning was happening, and so things were rather disorganized. Pakenham may not have been the sharpest pencil in the box, but much of the organization (or lack thereof) was due to his not having arrived due his being a late replacement.
 
How many of the British troops used in the New Orleans campaign also were at Waterloo?
If they are still tied up occupying NO when a certain Frenchman left Elba would this be a game changer for him, i.e. fewer troops defending when he attacks Wellington?

No AJ could be bad for the US, but a disaster for Britain if Nappy can retain power in 1815.
 
How many of the British troops used in the New Orleans campaign also were at Waterloo?
If they are still tied up occupying NO when a certain Frenchman left Elba would this be a game changer for him, i.e. fewer troops defending when he attacks Wellington?

No AJ could be bad for the US, but a disaster for Britain if Nappy can retain power in 1815.

Even if he did defeat Wellington at Waterloo, the weakened Napoleon probably would have met his end at the hands of the Russians.

Remember, the Napoleon and France of 1815 weren't the same thing as the ones who conquered Europe a decade before. Napoleon was already sick, and France had been on a war footing for over two decades. They were tired, and the rest of Europe had had it with France. The British having more or less men to throw at Napoleon doesn't change the fact that Napoleon was finished.

What it would change though, is British influence post war. Waterloo gave the British a nice boost in both prestige and influence post 100 days.
 
Yes, Calhoun interpreted the USA as an agreement been fully soveriegn states, revokable in whole or part. Much like the modern UN. To whatever extent he's capable, he's going to dismantle the national government.

Much of what Calhoun wrote in his Disquisitions and Discourse was an attempt to logically subordinate the federal government to the states. Primarily, though, it was written as a reaction to perceived wrongs imposed by the federal government in Washington on the South. Calhoun wanted to demonstrate with those writings that what the government was doing to the South was wrong. However, as these were not published until after he died, and given his proclivity to change himself as the times required, it is possible that a younger Calhoun who achieves the presidency in the 1820's or 30's would have a different outlook on the nature of federal power.

Also worth noting is the effect that a real southern (as opposed to Virginia or Tennessee) president would have on regional animosity; although, I guess if the British come do get toeholds in the Louisiana Territory during the War of 1812 those differences might be suppressed in favor of anti-British sentiment.

Another thought on Calhoun. He was a war-hawk in 1812. As one of the loudest voices in favor of a war that the Americans lost, is it possible that his political career comes to a crashing halt after the loss? You might be more likely to see Henry Clay and Daniel Webster's careers taking them through the White House than the gentleman from South Carolina.
 
Top