The Revenge of the Crown : An Alternate 1812 and Beyond.

[Sarthak]

Well so you chose the mix of medium to soft. With little adjustment for BNA.

It will make Canada that much stronger and richer since it now has access to all the lakes. A canal connecting Lake Ontario to Lake Huron needs to be first order of business.

Question will Americans still be welcoming to emigrants? What about emigrants from British isles?

With an antagonist US will the British protect Spain from American attacks. First would be florida. That be the first goal of the Americans.

now will the attacks by the Americans on the southern tribes trigger a war with the native confederation to the north? Waiting to see.

will the British open more of BNA for settlement? Will they encourage industry to be created or we going to see British investment in New England at the expense of BNA.

what we do know is that Britain has both a friend and bitter enemy in North America.

I would say it's harsh. The great lakes made up 16% of the US GDP in 1815, and losing 4 of the 5 will mean a contraction of 13% of their economy at least. Losing a fifth of their total lands, and giving up so much investment. Their economy is bust for the next decade or two.

The others, well those would be spoilers!

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans also splintered. Their abysmal handling of the economy, which was so poor that even the poorest regions of Europe would be laughing at them made them bitter, and the party soon split, mainly into the ‘Whigs’ which was led by Henry Clay. Clay stated that the war had been lost due to imperfect administration, and the main basis of the Whig Party was the advocacy of administrative reform, economic reform, and geopolitical reform as well. The other splinter group of the Democratic Republicans were the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was led by James Monroe. Monroe believed that the war shouldn’t have happened in the first place, and that the government should follow a conciliatory path with the Europeans diplomatically but stay untangled with their affairs, stating that America had been a co-belligerent of the Empire of France. He also stated the need for not a focus on agrarian economics, nor urban economics, but a mix of both with a rich trading culture. Monroe’s Democratic Party was decisively the smaller part of the two splinter groups that had formed.

Meanwhile a new party formed as well. General Andrew Jackson had become mildly popular due to his actions in putting down the New Orleans Revolt, despite having used brutal tactics for it. He and many other former Democratic-Republicans who didn’t agree with the Whigs or the Democratic Party formed their own on February 17th, 1816, as the first convention of the American National Party (ANP) took place. The ANP’s first head was John C. Calhoun. Calhoun had been one of the War Hawks, and one of the best proponents of the war with Great Britain. Calhoun had blamed their loss in the War of 1812 to the former Democratic Republicans and had stated that it was he who had managed to save the Americans from a more grave peace, and that his efforts to provide funds, raise troops, logistics, and regulation of commerce aided the Americans to at least win some token victories. His ‘second-in-command’ was General Andrew Jackson. Prominent members of the American National Party during it’s first convention were William H. Crawford, Charles Tait, Francis Locke Junior, William Branch Giles, George Troup etc.

Interesting.

Monroe is tainted badly by the war, He is one of Madison's closest ardvisors. He really should not have much of a place...well, anywhere.

Clay will be tainted by Ghent. AT least, for a while. But he is Henry Clay.

I am actually surprised that Clay and Calhoun are not partners in crime here, given that they are literally the Leading War Hawks and are really good as a team together, especially during that period.

Andrew Jackson becoming noticable, yes.
Calhoun and Jackson pulling towards one another. Yes.
Crawford graviting towards Jackson and Calhoun - WTF? Granted I only know from OTL that most opinions come from the 1818-1825 period of each other, so this is still surprising, and I may be a bit bias there. That said, Crawford is the State-rights man right now, whereas Calhoun is actually the Nationalist man. I do wonder how long they can stand each other.

 

[Sarthak]

Monroe is tainted badly by the war, He is one of Madison's closest ardvisors. He really should not have much of a place...well, anywhere.

Trying to be a little pragmatic, he did save the government from collapsing after the capture of elbridge and madison, so he does have some amount of support left, though yeah it's not strong.

Clay will be tainted by Ghent. AT least, for a while. But he is Henry Clay.

I am actually surprised that Clay and Calhoun are not partners in crime here, given that they are literally the Leading War Hawks and are really good as a team together, especially during that period.

More like Calhoun is angry at Clay for being the despodent bastard that he was OTL and ITTL in Ghent.

Crawford graviting towards Jackson and Calhoun - WTF? Granted I only know from OTL that most opinions come from the 1818-1825 period of each other, so this is still surprising, and I may be a bit bias there. That said, Crawford is the State-rights man right now, whereas Calhoun is actually the Nationalist man. I do wonder how long they can stand each other.

For now. Bitter sentiments and loss make strange political bedfellows.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

More like Calhoun is angry at Clay for being the despodent bastard that he was OTL and ITTL in Ghent.

Pity.

Also, John Quincy Adams can't be having a good time.

The man had to negotiate a Treaty for the United States AFTER his state has seceded.

 

[Sarthak]

Pity.

Also, John Quincy Adams can't be having a good time.

The man had to negotiate a Treaty for the United States AFTER his state has seceded.

yeah, i do intend to touch upon him. He's stuck between hard places.

 

[Lusitania]

I would say it's harsh. The great lakes made up 16% of the US GDP in 1815, and losing 4 of the 5 will mean a contraction of 13% of their economy at least. Losing a fifth of their total lands, and giving up so much investment. Their economy is bust for the next decade or two.

The others, well those would be spoilers!

Not in terms of the country in 1814. Yes if we compare to iotl but we talking about the loss of most empty areas full of natives. The Americans are more upset due to actually having to be forced to recognize Native groups as an equal than loss of land. They would of been less upset to loose all lands north of Ohio river to BNA as opposed to Natives.

in the 1814-1850 we seeing a more agrarian based country with less industry. That means it will also be limited in its development. There is a huge amount of empty lands in the huge USA.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

yeah, i do intend to touch upon him. He's stuck between hard places.

Man this makes all the OTL people so much harder to really comprehend now.

Adams, Clay and Calhoun are literally the three smartest if not intelligent people of the early 19th centruy. Its hard to see them all rivals like this now.

 

[Sarthak]

Man this makes all the OTL people so much harder to really comprehend now.

Adams, Clay and Calhoun are literally the three smartest if not intelligent people of the early 19th centruy. Its hard to see them all rivals like this now.

Yes it is kind of harder for politics to be followed in America ITTL.

 

[Sarthak]

Not in terms of the country in 1814. Yes if we compare to iotl but we talking about the loss of most empty areas full of natives. The Americans are more upset due to actually having to be forced to recognize Native groups as an equal than loss of land. They would of been less upset to loose all lands north of Ohio river to BNA as opposed to Natives.

in the 1814-1850 we seeing a more agrarian based country with less industry. That means it will also be limited in its development. There is a huge amount of empty lands in the huge USA.

We'll see

 

[The Gunslinger]

I would say it's harsh. The great lakes made up 16% of the US GDP in 1815, and losing 4 of the 5 will mean a contraction of 13% of their economy at least. Losing a fifth of their total lands, and giving up so much investment. Their economy is bust for the next decade or two.

The others, well those would be spoilers!

I don't see why the economy will be bust. They'll have a bigger debt load without New England helping to pay it down, but their debt wasn't insurmountable OTL and the economy rebounded nearly immediately with the war ending. Most of the lands stripped wouldn't be settled thickly until the 1830s anyways so they won't lose out on the land sales for at least fifteen years to come (the exception being western New York).

I'm genuinely curious where your GDP numbers come from because nearly all of the Great Lakes were nothing but empty wilderness. Detroit was the only community of any real size there, even Buffalo wasn't much of a community, Green Bay was a tiny fur trade settlement and Cleveland was a collection of rough cut log houses. Other than the fur trade there was nothing there, and Montreal was the one making all the money off of it anyways.

I'd also be very surprised if the first New England President wasn't from Massachusetts, seeing as they basically instigated all the opposition to the government from 1808 onward.

 

[Sarthak]

I'm genuinely curious where your GDP numbers come from because nearly all of the Great Lakes were nothing but empty wilderness. Detroit was the only community of any real size there, even Buffalo wasn't much of a community, Green Bay was a tiny fur trade settlement and Cleveland was a collection of rough cut log houses. Other than the fur trade there was nothing there, and Montreal was the one making all the money off of it anyways.

Hm, i took my numbers mostly from The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America by Drew McKoy and The Economy of British North America by John McCusker. McCusker settles on 18% of the economy being reliant on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie (mostly) and the other lakes, with McKoy at 18.9%. How much of that is direct or indirect influence on the economy is a little blurry though.

I don't see why the economy will be bust. They'll have a bigger debt load without New England helping to pay it down, but their debt wasn't insurmountable OTL and the economy rebounded nearly immediately with the war ending. Most of the lands stripped wouldn't be settled thickly until the 1830s anyways so they won't lose out on the land sales for at least fifteen years to come (the exception being western New York).

When i say bust, i mean in comparison to OTL by a huge margin.

I'd also be very surprised if the first New England President wasn't from Massachusetts, seeing as they basically instigated all the opposition to the government from 1808 onward.

Not necessarily. Vermont, Connecticut etc were equally angry ITTL, and to many extents OTL as well.

 

[Ficboy]

Hm, i took my numbers mostly from The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America by Drew McKoy and The Economy of British North America by John McCusker. McCusker settles on 18% of the economy being reliant on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie (mostly) and the other lakes, with McKoy at 18.9%. How much of that is direct or indirect influence on the economy is a little blurry though.

When i say bust, i mean in comparison to OTL by a huge margin.

Not necessarily. Vermont, Connecticut etc were equally angry ITTL, and to many extents OTL as well.

Any books you read for research on the timeline?

 

[Sarthak]

Any books you read for research on the timeline?

The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America
The Economy of British North America
British Generals in the War of 1812: High Command in the Canadas
Tecumseh & Brock: The War of 1812
Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans
The Iroquois in the War of 1812

and more and more....

 

[Ficboy]

The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America
The Economy of British North America
British Generals in the War of 1812: High Command in the Canadas
Tecumseh & Brock: The War of 1812
Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans
The Iroquois in the War of 1812

and more and more....

Pretty amazing research you got there.

 

[Sarthak]

Pretty amazing research you got there.

thanks

 

[Ficboy]

thanks

Any of the other books you can list.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Hm, i took my numbers mostly from The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America by Drew McKoy and The Economy of British North America by John McCusker. McCusker settles on 18% of the economy being reliant on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie (mostly) and the other lakes, with McKoy at 18.9%. How much of that is direct or indirect influence on the economy is a little blurry though.

When i say bust, i mean in comparison to OTL by a huge margin.

Not necessarily. Vermont, Connecticut etc were equally angry ITTL, and to many extents OTL as well.

Vermont was extremely tepid, the most tepid of the entirety of New England. The opposition to the war dropped off mightily as one got further inland from the coast. It's telling that even when Crittenden tried to get the militia to not join the federal forces (as Massachusetts and other New England states had done) the Vermonters refused and did it anyways. Even in a largely homogenous New England the political split is probably going to be the coast versus the interior with Boston at one end and Burlington at the other.

Honestly, I won't refute those numbers but they seem *extremely* high for 1815. There were barely 10,000 American souls on the Great Lakes in the era, half of which are in Detroit, and I'm hard pressed to see how they made 18% of the economy unless they mean Great Lakes states (Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York) which ismore doable. I'll check the sources out though and see what they say.

I think you're more likely to see near-OTL growth until 1825-1830 when all that federal land in Michigan and Wisconsin isn't opened up and the lack of an Erie Canal doesn't open up the interior causes a stall in growth.

 

[Sarthak]

Vermont was extremely tepid, the most tepid of the entirety of New England. The opposition to the war dropped off mightily as one got further inland from the coast. It's telling that even when Crittenden tried to get the militia to not join the federal forces (as Massachusetts and other New England states had done) the Vermonters refused and did it anyways. Even in a largely homogenous New England the political split is probably going to be the coast versus the interior with Boston at one end and Burlington at the other.

Honestly, I won't refute those numbers but they seem *extremely* high for 1815. There were barely 10,000 American souls on the Great Lakes in the era, half of which are in Detroit, and I'm hard pressed to see how they made 18% of the economy unless they mean Great Lakes states (Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York) which ismore doable. I'll check the sources out though and see what they say.

I think you're more likely to see near-OTL growth until 1825-1830 when all that federal land in Michigan and Wisconsin isn't opened up and the lack of an Erie Canal doesn't open up the interior causes a stall in growth.

Kind of yes. The economics will be harder to predict however.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I'm surprised that the British did not cut America off from the far West - there is nothing in the northern Louisiana Purchase area to stop them at the moment. Indiana territory is only just in the process of forming and Tecumseh may look unfavourably at being surrounded by Americans. Just as the First Nations in Indiana may look to Tecumseh and set their sights on their own state.

 

[Sarthak]

I'm surprised that the British did not cut America off from the far West - there is nothing in the northern Louisiana Purchase area to stop them at the moment. Indiana territory is only just in the process of forming and Tecumseh may look unfavourably at being surrounded by Americans. Just as the First Nations in Indiana may look to Tecumseh and set their sights on their own state.

reason is economical. Seen as a massive swamp with no economical value while being a drain on the maintenance costs.