The War of 1812 lasts longer

CaliGuy

Banned
What if, for whatever reason, the War of 1812 would have lasted longer?

What would the battles and outcome of this war be in such a scenario?
 
As I recall off the top of my head, a major reason for wanting peace on Britain's side was Napoleon realizing that he's on an island within spitting distance of the European mainland with laughable guards and starting his comeback tour. If the PoD is that the victors of the Sixth coalition think for a moment and instead of Elba give him one of France's Caribbean holdings (Maybe Martinique, with the British turning HMS Diamond Rock into a powerful fortress to make Nappy sneaking out of the main port difficult.
 
As I recall off the top of my head, a major reason for wanting peace on Britain's side was Napoleon realizing that he's on an island within spitting distance of the European mainland with laughable guards and starting his comeback tour. If the PoD is that the victors of the Sixth coalition think for a moment and instead of Elba give him one of France's Caribbean holdings (Maybe Martinique, with the British turning HMS Diamond Rock into a powerful fortress to make Nappy sneaking out of the main port difficult.

That would be quite a time-travel feat. Napoléon was firmly busy overehauling Elba and turning it into a miniature Empire on December 24th 1814 when the Treaty of Ghent was signed and he had not yet moved out towards Golfe-Juan (February 26th) when the US Senate ratified it, on February 17th 1815. On the contrary, the victory of the Sixth Coalition allowed the United Kingdom to send more troops to North America, by freeing garrisons from the Carribean and other places where the French army and navy could, very theoretically challenge them.
 
Ah. I remembered tat a major reason for trying to force a quick peace was being focused on Nappy, but I did not have the timeline straight.
 
I really can't speak to the situation in Europe, but I think a prolonged War of 1812 would have ended in an American defeat--albeit not a catastrophic one. Although the war was very expensive for the UK, it was pushing the US toward financial collapse.

The US would probably have ceded eastern Maine and given up Grand Banks fishing rights (which Henry Clay was amenable to) first in order to buy peace. This would have been enough to satisfy British honor and the desires of UK merchants who wanted to resume trade.
 
I really can't speak to the situation in Europe, but I think a prolonged War of 1812 would have ended in an American defeat--albeit not a catastrophic one. Although the war was very expensive for the UK, it was pushing the US toward financial collapse.

The US would probably have ceded eastern Maine and given up Grand Banks fishing rights (which Henry Clay was amenable to) first in order to buy peace. This would have been enough to satisfy British honor and the desires of UK merchants who wanted to resume trade.
I would agree with this, the longer the war goes the worse it is for the Americans.
 
What if, for whatever reason, the War of 1812 would have lasted longer?

What would the battles and outcome of this war be in such a scenario?

Are we going with the historical situation as is existed when peace actually happened or are you speculating on what would be required to lengthen the war (something that keeps either side from a settlement in Ghent).

IF Plattsburg / Lake Champlain goes better for the British
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

Then the British are threatening upper New York State and are in a stronger position (and sitting on the headwaters of the Hudson River). This may cause the British to retain their initial demands.

New Orleans was after the peace treaty, so even success there means the British have to decide to actually resume the war. Not impossible but unlikely.

Other possibility is far better success at Baltimore (maybe attacking it first instead of Washington DC) which would reduce the time the Americans had to prepare.

Those are the most likely that come to mind. Either would give the British sufficient confidence of success to keep their initial demands and success in one but not the other might be enough to keep the Americans stubborn in resisting those demands.

Historically the decision to reach agreement was when the British failed at Plattsburg and Baltimore.
 
What if, for whatever reason, the War of 1812 would have lasted longer?

What would the battles and outcome of this war be in such a scenario?

The US was on the verge of bankruptcy when peace was signed; if the war goes on longer, presumably the US would go actually bankrupt, and be forced to accept a much less favourable peace treaty.
 
CaliGuy said:
What if, for whatever reason, the War of 1812 would have lasted longer?

What would the battles and outcome of this war be in such a scenario?

Militarily, the United States despite a well earned victory in New Orleans, and victorious battles against mostly British allied Native Americans, (Tippecanoe), was never in a great position to fight a war with a major power as Great Britain. Even with Britain downsizing due to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, she still had the one thing that even in a downsized mode the United States could not counter with, and that is a well trained, financed, and armed professional military.

A regular army, which the founding fathers (Washington the exception,) frowned upon and the US attitude and dependence on the "well regulated militia," (refer to the Second Amendment of the Constitution) instead of a professional standing army proved disastrous in this war when they faced regular British troops. And even with the good showing the small US Navy put up, its limited ability against the might of the British fleet leaves the US in a position of ultimate defeat and probably worse terms than were rendered in 1815. We can say all we want about "patriotism", and growing "Nationalism," and that the advantage of defending ourselves in our own homeland against an invading force from far away would eventually win out as it did in the Revolutionary War, but we didn't have the French Army and Navy and finances to help us this time or even the Spanish. As was mentioned before, Britain had regular forces garrisoned all over Canada and the Caribbean to defend against possible French attacks, which after Napoleon's defeat were now free to be used in the War of 1812, which some were, and it should be noted that many were not used that could have been had they been needed.

The war was not as popular especially in New England as President Madison would have liked, and yes the United States was on the brink of bankruptcy attempting to finance this war. With all that, the question becomes just how much more would the nation as a whole support and be willing to go on. In the end the best weapon the United Stated had was Britain itself which no doubt after almost 30 years of war, was ready to just stop fighting and concentrate on policies at home. Call it a win, (which we really can't), a loss (which we really should), or a tie, (which many prefer), a longer War of 1812 would do the United States much more harm than any good.
 
What's the US reaction to word of Caleb Strong's separate peace (I doubt it could be kept secret much longer)?

How does the US prosecute a war when its finances are shot? The soldiers need to be paid, and the army was shrinking as of the end of the war OTL due to desertion and disease. Every month the war drags on the quality of soldier that had been steadily rising since 1813 will find itself offset by smaller and smaller numbers.

The British dominated Lake Ontario at the end of the war and would likely stay ahead through the year, they'll have a massive edge on the Niagara front and can likely prevent the Americans from doing much of anything there.

There were plans underway to start rebuilding a new squadron along Lake Erie at Turkey Point in 1815, but this likely isn't finished by year's end. Expect sporadic fighting in Upper Canada as the British advance to set everything up. The Americans still control the Lake though, so they'll have the initial upper hand.

The British were going to institute a massive, massive building program on Lake Champlain, so there will be another battle probably near the OTL battle site. The Americans will be better prepared but still be underfunded and ill-equipped, but the British will have better leadership (Prevost will be undoubtedly gone) and more ships.

The far west will see continued British control of Wisconsin and pushes further south.

The Gulf Coast will see investment of the various forts by the British and the Americans attempting to push hem out.

It was fortuitous for the Republicans that peace came when it did so that the Hartford Manifesto got nipped in the bud. If they're still at war expect much more teeth gnashing and anger from the Federalists.

All in all, I doubt the British will win everywhere, but America is going to be under a lot more pressure than OTL with a crippling blockade, failing finances and a worn out army. I very much doubt they do as well as OTL in the peace if he war drags on another year.
 
Top