The War of 1807/8

Well the USN is a bit stronger in 1807-08 than in 1812 however the army is much weaker and the British army isn't embroiled in Portugal and Spain at this time so the US will have to fight hard from the beginning but a Status Quo Antebellum result is still likely IMO as the US can out build the Brits and Canadians on the Great Lakes and perhaps seize Canadian territory once naval superiority had been achieved. The nation as a whole would be a bit more united in this war as the Embargo Act would be butterflied away.
 
Ironically, both sides are somewhat stronger than they were in 1807 than they were in 1812. Britain isn't embroiled in Europe, and America hasn't had enough time to kill off the Bank, allowing it to finance the war better.

A weaker situation in the West around Indiana/Michigan means IMO the primary American thrust is going to occur in the East, perhaps on the Niagara or through Lake Champlain into Quebec. Isaac Brock might win the initial battles, but as has been previously mentioned, America can outbuild the UK on the Great Lakes and once the US has naval control there, Upper Canada's toast. Furthermore the Bank of the US allows the American government to do so quicker and easier than OTL. I'd imagine that once it becomes apparent that conquering Canada will not be "a mere matter of marching" the US will invest in enough warships to gain control of the Lakes and outflank Brock's forces, probably by taking Kingston and cutting Upper Canada's line of supply.
 
O Canada

Ironically, both sides are somewhat stronger than they were in 1807 than they were in 1812. Britain isn't embroiled in Europe, and America hasn't had enough time to kill off the Bank, allowing it to finance the war better.

A weaker situation in the West around Indiana/Michigan means IMO the primary American thrust is going to occur in the East, perhaps on the Niagara or through Lake Champlain into Quebec. Isaac Brock might win the initial battles, but as has been previously mentioned, America can outbuild the UK on the Great Lakes and once the US has naval control there, Upper Canada's toast. Furthermore the Bank of the US allows the American government to do so quicker and easier than OTL. I'd imagine that once it becomes apparent that conquering Canada will not be "a mere matter of marching" the US will invest in enough warships to gain control of the Lakes and outflank Brock's forces, probably by taking Kingston and cutting Upper Canada's line of supply.

Fearless Leader

Prepare to be curbstomped.:eek: You are butchering some pretty sacred cows here. "We shall fight them on the lakes, on the rivers, on the waterfalls!:mad: We shall fight them in the cities, in the towns, in the villages!:mad::mad: We shall fight them in the hills, in the forests, on the plains!:mad::mad::mad: We shall NEVER SURRENDER!:mad:*infinity
 
cough* Napoleon *cough
A few uppity colonists on the other side of the ocean are just a nuisance in comparison to the corse ogre
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Jayge Carr actually wrote an excellent short story dubbed The War of '07 about a Burr presidency that involves his going to war with the British over the HMS Leopard incident, but only after sending Daniel Boone to neutralize the pro-British Indians and laying the foundations for an alliance with Napoleonic France.
 
I think it it all depends on how long this war drags on.

As stated a status quo antebellum result is likely. But only if the war is short and the US acts smart in politics. Yes, the US is likely to take the Great Lakes easily and outbuild Britain there. But this victory can easily be undone if the war drags on and ultimately have very negative results for the US.

For starters there is an election within less than a year after the war starts. It is likely that we might not see any change and that the following Dem-Rep (probably Madison) nominee wins and keeps Jefferson's main policies going as IOTL. But midway through a war I can see a third term for Jefferson, which maybe not a bad idea at the moment but it might have negative repercussions further down the line.
Also even if the country is more united at first during the war, since there is no embargo, if the war drags on New England would still be loosing a lot of trade. Maybe even more so than with an embargo that was never quite enforced. So if the war drags on these states might find even more reason to rebel. There would likely be more support during the Hartford Convention (or its equivalent). If Jefferson's reelection did happen they will likely have even more reason to do so.
Now while the US might easily march into Canada, actually occupying it would take a much bigger force something the US might not be able to afford due to fighting elsewhere.
Furthermore as noted the British army is not stuck in Portugal and Spain at the moment, and while the US might dominate in the Great Lakes Britain is master of the Atlantic and the Caribbean. British troops will arrive in greater numbers. IOTL they burned Washington, with more men they can do more damage not just to the capital but major ports as well. New Orleans might suffer badly.
With more troops to deal everywhere, resources needed to occupy Canada, and New England on the verge of rebellion some Native leader (Tecumseh) will take the opportunity and make a nuisance of himself.
So the war will slowly turn a mess that would be very hard to clean up for the US. If New England does end up rebelling (not necessarily seceding but declaring neutrality until certain demands are met) you are pretty much killing the US very early in its life.

Now the interesting butterfly is with the British troops occupied across the Atlantic, what happens in Europe once they are needed in Portugal and Spain? Does Napoleon march victorious across Europe? And an America angry at Britain could easily ally itself with Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
I'd read it. It sounds interesting.
I agree that it is unlikely to change much in the long run but it does sound interesting and perhaps the Bank of America might last longer?
 
Yeah, during this time period, as it's been said, the Napoleonic Wars are in something of a lull right now.

Though if Britain starts shipping troops and resources across the ocean, and the war drags on long enough over there, I could see Napoleon taking advantage of this on the Continent.

Certainly you'd have a larger sense of unity in the US, even if the British probably would have enough men and supplies available to occupy a few major coastal cities long term.

Though the further in-land you go, the more logistics will favor the US. Especially on the Great Lakes as mentioned.

It would be an interesting TL, especially to see if Napoleon would do better in Spain and Portugal. Heck, the Emperor might even send some advisors and such to help train the fledging American Army. That would have all kinds of interesting consequences.
 
Top