Territorial Changes in an Alternate War of 1812

I have been working on a side project since writers block has gotten me stuck on my Seven Years War Timeline, what if America did worse in the War of 1812. I have been doing a few thought projects with fellow alt history fans and have made a list of Territorial Changes below.

  1. Former Orleans Territory ceded to the United Kingdom.
  2. Michigan Territory and Maine District ceded to British North America.
  3. Indiana Territory, Illinois Territory and Northwest Ohio ceded to Tecumseh's Confederacy

I am questioning the realism of these changes, primarily the ones regarding Tecumseh's Confederacy, which I feel is too much, but am not familiar enough with the population demographics at the time to make a better idea. An important note here is that this timeline asks the question of what if America fared worse in every aspect possible.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
To better illustrate my idea, here is a map:

Z6XMl.png
 
Option 2 is the most likely to have been lost by the US. Some American leaders, notably Henry Clay, were ready to redraw the border of Maine at the Penobscot River.

As for New Orleans: I think the British would have realized that holding onto it would have led to another war against the US. It's more likely that they would have secured the full navigation of the Mississippi for the Royal Navy (as they did for the Columbia River) and pushed the border of Canada south to take the source for the Mississippi.

America will fight to collapse before giving into ceding the entire Old Northwest. I read that many American political leaders had already decided not to give it up no matter what.
 
With an 1812 POD hell will freeze over before the Americans will agree to that but there also no way the British would demand it.

Britain's war goal was basically a white peace. If the war goes better I think they'd be happy with and the Americans could live with a redrawing of the western border further south (possibly to the westernmost point of Superior) and the borders of Maine (which were vague at the time) finalized in a position very favorable to the British. Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana already have hundreds of thousands of US citizens in those territories and Tecumseh's confederacy was doomed from the start since within 10 years that number will more than double. Taking Louisiana is a possibility but will certainly lead to war as there are already 80,000 Americans present and everybody upstream (who wants access) will be American as well.

Here are the census figures for the states you mentioned. As you can see Tecumseh is probably doomed by demographics alone:

upload_2017-9-25_16-1-32.png



Taking and holding these lands is going to be an incredibly expensive proposition over unproductive wilderness that will make the Americans a permanent enemy and set the stage for another war in short order. For this to happen the British have to be committed financially, military, and politically to strangling the American states in the cradle, something they were clearly unwilling to do in our history.
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...war-of-1812-what-would-britain-demand.426514/

I'm fairly sure that we just had a thread on this very topic.
Britain's war goal was basically a white peace.

Only in a world where Britain lost the war in the west and saw indecisive campaigns in both Plattsburgh and Baltimore. If Britain is winning, they're going to slice off a big piece of the Northwest, bits of Maine and northern New York. They really badly wanted Michigan and it was mostly empty (and even then, half the white population was French and another good portion was straight from Britain). I doubt they end up taking much of Indiana, Illinois or Ohio, just the bits north of the Maumee and a line west to the Mississippi if they take it at all (the regions that were literal wilderness, most of the population was along he banks of the Ohio and thinned out as you got further north).

If they do go for the Grenville Line they probably renegotiate it in 1818 because there's going to be a lot of angry Americans and it will almost certainly cause a future war.
 
This is what I had at least regarding the Indian Protectorate the British were talking about.

As far as I can recall they never intended to turn over the entire Northwest Territory; as others have said it was heavily settled in parts by that time and it would have been impossible for the Indian tribes to govern American-majority areas. What they had planned to do was essentially enforce all the existing treaties up to that point, meaning that the remaining lands that the Indian tribes technically 'owned' would be protected from further encroachment, whereas those areas already sold would remain part of the United States. The end result would have been still a good chunk of the Northwest Territory being handed over for the creation of this barrier state, but there would also be a number of American enclaves within the Indian Confederation such as Detroit and Chicago. I made a map a long while ago detailing what it might have looked like.

HxPNWnr.jpg

There are of course other demands that could be levied such as the cession of lands or claims to the Oregon country and much of the former Louisiana territory, more favorable borders for the Canadian colonies, and so on, but I believe that the Indian Confederation was the main goal at the time so as to bloc or, more realistically, simply stunt the movement of American settlers west.

 
There are of course other demands that could be levied such as the cession of lands or claims to the Oregon country and much of the former Louisiana territory, more favorable borders for the Canadian colonies, and so on, but I believe that the Indian Confederation was the main goal at the time so as to bloc or, more realistically, simply stunt the movement of American settlers west.

The Oregon Region wouldn't be shared until a few years later, but that does bring up a good point, In an alternate Timeline where Britain takes such land in the war of 1812, how would Oregon be affected? Would the British try and claim more lands? Would the US fight for a larger share?

Also, What do you mean by taking from the Louisiana Territory, like down to the Missouri or Platte?


Taking Louisiana is a possibility but will certainly lead to war as there are already 80,000 Americans present and everybody upstream (who wants access) will be American as well.

How much of Louisiana do you think Britain could get away with, without war that is?

As for New Orleans: I think the British would have realized that holding onto it would have led to another war against the US. It's more likely that they would have secured the full navigation of the Mississippi for the Royal Navy (as they did for the Columbia River) and pushed the border of Canada south to take the source for the Mississippi.

About how far south? I'm now thinking everything west of the southern most tip of the Maumee River, since the area that would entail is very sparsely populated.
 
The Oregon Region wouldn't be shared until a few years later, but that does bring up a good point, In an alternate Timeline where Britain takes such land in the war of 1812, how would Oregon be affected? Would the British try and claim more lands? Would the US fight for a larger share?

Also, What do you mean by taking from the Louisiana Territory, like down to the Missouri or Platte?
Well I suppose the point is more that the British are able to secure the Oregon country for themselves, at least for a time. The policy of the British companies in the area was to actively dissuade colonial efforts within the region in favor of a number of forts, a policy that didn't really change till American settlers came in force, so colonization of the region probably would be offset by a couple decades if not more, depending on how quickly American settlers are able to overwhelm English-supported Indians throughout the West and make their push. I suppose immigration to California, Texas and Utah (barring somewhere-else) could also alter the timetable as well. The British however would be content with what they had for the most part, largely Indian protectorates; they would be struggling to settle what they already had in the form of Upper and Lower Canada.

In terms of a southern border, I think that the best bet would be a division along the Missouri R. -> Kansas R. -> Republican R. It would allow for the establishment of a number of Indian protectorates (or an exstention of the Indian Confederacy) which could serve as an effective buffer between British Canada and the United States, but at the same time would give the United States ample land to direct its settlers towards. It isn't going to be permanent by any means as American settlers are almost inevitably going to be trying their luck in the former Northwest and Western territories, with the support of wide swathes of the American population, but it should hold for some time; ultimately depends on how unified the Amerindians are when it comes to combating the settlers and how willing the British are to subsidize them.

 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...war-of-1812-what-would-britain-demand.426514/

I'm fairly sure that we just had a thread on this very topic.


Only in a world where Britain lost the war in the west and saw indecisive campaigns in both Plattsburgh and Baltimore. If Britain is winning, they're going to slice off a big piece of the Northwest, bits of Maine and northern New York. They really badly wanted Michigan and it was mostly empty (and even then, half the white population was French and another good portion was straight from Britain). I doubt they end up taking much of Indiana, Illinois or Ohio, just the bits north of the Maumee and a line west to the Mississippi if they take it at all (the regions that were literal wilderness, most of the population was along he banks of the Ohio and thinned out as you got further north).

If they do go for the Grenville Line they probably renegotiate it in 1818 because there's going to be a lot of angry Americans and it will almost certainly cause a future war.

If Britain is able to inflict a crushing defeat on the US in the war of 1812 and forces such harsh terms on the young US, then Britain will probably not care a lot about risking an other war with the US in the future.

Because the US ability to grow into a huge economic and political power will then have been amputated to such a degree that the US will probably never be able to become a deadly threat to British North America.

It is even quite probable that the US would gradually break-up.
 
How far south do you think?

If I remember correctly, the source for the Mississippi was not fully charted at that point. Perhaps the southern border of what is now Minnesota? I'm just guessing, though. I do know that the British at Ghent considered it highly desirable to link Canada to the Mississippi for commercial purposes.
 
If Britain is able to inflict a crushing defeat on the US in the war of 1812 and forces such harsh terms on the young US, then Britain will probably not care a lot about risking an other war with the US in the future.

Because the US ability to grow into a huge economic and political power will then have been amputated to such a degree that the US will probably never be able to become a deadly threat to British North America.

It is even quite probable that the US would gradually break-up.

Britain was cutting every military cost to the bone immediately post war, and now they've got a longer shared border with the United States to garrison as well as a hundred thousand settlers to expel. Who is going to shoulder this cost? How is it going to look in Britain when you start yanking people from their homes and the occasional family is murdered by Indians that Tecumseh only has the loosest control over? The British merchant class was making money hand over fist from trade with America and will be in an uproar by the British policy of deliberately poisoning the relationship.

Britain won't neuter America to such a degree even in the most massive victory. They won't take Louisiana and you probably need a pre-war PoD for it to happen. They'll negotiate themselves to an advantageous position that gives them control of the Great Lakes, an outlet on the Upper Mississippi and the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. Anything else will face massive opposition from America and the British public.
 
If I remember correctly, the source for the Mississippi was not fully charted at that point. Perhaps the southern border of what is now Minnesota? I'm just guessing, though. I do know that the British at Ghent considered it highly desirable to link Canada to the Mississippi for commercial purposes.

I was thinking north of the Missouri, sure it's a lot, but so few people live there that I doubt it would be as harsh as it sounds
 
Top