Undoing the Louisiana Purchase

What stops the US from sending three thousand men to the Rio Grande out of New Orleans in 1815?

Money?

The men in question not being interested in going to take Texas (volunteering to defend American soil =/= interested in fighting for conquest - I'm not saying it's impossible, just a possible issue) or being mustered out?

Spanish forces in the New World?
 
Sure there were plenty of troops in valuable parts of the Spanish American empire, but Spanish forces in Tejas? Not even enough to defend the area from the dreaded Comanche, much less a determined push from a potential army led by southern wannabe-filibusters in the US Army. You've made some good points, but the distance you've said is the only reason the US doesn't get curb-stomped is the exact problem for the Spanish. It's why the Spanish were happy to cede Florida (which was essentially in US hands anyway, and not likely for that situation to change) in exchange for recognition of its control of the colony of Tejas. That entire situation shows just what was standing against Spain. Now I think the Americans could easily take Texas, and maybe California and the OTL US southwest, but I highly doubt it would make any headway in Mexico or Cuba, or anywhere south, as like you said, there would be significant numbers of Spanish troops.

However your opinion of American military power, while appropriately conservative overlooks three important points:

One: The US army, despite the disastrous Canadian campaign during the War of 1812, did prove that it could go toe to toe with the British army on some occasions. The US Army was very capable when led by good leaders during this era, and although we had are share of bad ones, we had at least a handful of good ones.

Two: If the American army wasn't the finest force at the time, the Spanish definitely weren't either and the commitments to dealing with the uprisings throughout Spanish America, as well as their broken treasury would make it very hard for the Spanish to prosecute a war against the US. Expect aid to South American rebels by the US government and the US army to be a match for colonial Spanish forces in the areas directly adjacent to the US. If the US are Pygmies, the Spanish are Hobbits, and Tejas is a long way from Bree.

Third, your comment on a troop decrease being a sign of Congress not wanting to maintain a force to do something, ignores the fact I'm sure your aware of, that the US never did that after every war, the government never maintined a large standing army in peace, when it wanted to do something it created a force to do it, then disbanded it when the job was done. Your statement before that is the correct one: If the US had gone to war with Spain, that decrease wouldn't have happened until after the war was over. After the ravages to Spain's economy caused be the Peninsular War, as well as its doomed struggle to keep its American colonies, Spain is in no position to keep American hands off what was truly a lightly held backwater colony in Texas. Like I said though, with the possible Exception of Santa Fe and California, I don't see the US taking anymore ground. The supply lines just get too long. It might possibly cause an earlier Mexican revolution however. That would make for an interesting TL.

The only thing about this though, is that Spain would have to be dumb enough to declare war for this to come about, and I doubt that would happen with all the other issues facing Spain at the time. Bad enough Britain's helping your rebelling colonies, you don't want the US pitching in as well.
 
Sure there were plenty of troops in valuable parts of the Spanish American empire, but Spanish forces in Tejas? Not even enough to defend the area from the dreaded Comanche, much less a determined push from a potential army led by southern wannabe-filibusters in the US Army. You've made some good points, but the distance you've said is the only reason the US doesn't get curb-stomped is the exact problem for the Spanish. It's why the Spanish were happy to cede Florida (which was essentially in US hands anyway, and not likely for that situation to change) in exchange for recognition of its control of the colony of Tejas. That entire situation shows just what was standing against Spain. Now I think the Americans could easily take Texas, and maybe California and the OTL US southwest, but I highly doubt it would make any headway in Mexico or Cuba, or anywhere south, as like you said, there would be significant numbers of Spanish troops.

There don't need to be significant numbers of Spanish troops to deal with the Americans.

However your opinion of American military power, while appropriately conservative overlooks three important points:

One: The US army, despite the disastrous Canadian campaign during the War of 1812, did prove that it could go toe to toe with the British army on some occasions. The US Army was very capable when led by good leaders during this era, and although we had are share of bad ones, we had at least a handful of good ones.
Campaigns, plural. And things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg are just ridiculously shameful.

Given that most of any American army will be made up of volunteers/militia of uncertain quality and leadership, I'd bet on this being an example of failure, not success. It's not just leadership the US lacked, but trained soldiers. And a few thousand men with muskets is barely worth calling an armed mob if they try something like invading Tejas.

Two: If the American army wasn't the finest force at the time, the Spanish definitely weren't either and the commitments to dealing with the uprisings throughout Spanish America, as well as their broken treasury would make it very hard for the Spanish to prosecute a war against the US. Expect aid to South American rebels by the US government and the US army to be a match for colonial Spanish forces in the areas directly adjacent to the US. If the US are Pygmies, the Spanish are Hobbits, and Tejas is a long way from Bree.
No, the Spanish are not Hobbits. And Tejas isn't exactly close to any American supply bases or the like either.

Third, your comment on a troop decrease being a sign of Congress not wanting to maintain a force to do something, ignores the fact I'm sure your aware of, that the US never did that after every war, the government never maintined a large standing army in peace, when it wanted to do something it created a force to do it, then disbanded it when the job was done. Your statement before that is the correct one: If the US had gone to war with Spain, that decrease wouldn't have happened until after the war was over. After the ravages to Spain's economy caused be the Peninsular War, as well as its doomed struggle to keep its American colonies, Spain is in no position to keep American hands off what was truly a lightly held backwater colony in Texas. Like I said though, with the possible Exception of Santa Fe and California, I don't see the US taking anymore ground. The supply lines just get too long. It might possibly cause an earlier Mexican revolution however. That would make for an interesting TL.
The point is that depending on when the war happened, it may have already occurred - obviously if Spain and the US go to war in 1815, it won't occur, but the US in 1815 is also financially strained, trying to advance far away from supply bases or anything friendly, and in poor shape to demand Spain accept American terms.

The only thing about this though, is that Spain would have to be dumb enough to declare war for this to come about, and I doubt that would happen with all the other issues facing Spain at the time. Bad enough Britain's helping your rebelling colonies, you don't want the US pitching in as well.
This I agree with. The US may be in little position to hurt Spain, but Spain doesn't need even additional harassment, let alone active war.
 
There don't need to be significant numbers of Spanish troops to deal with the Americans.

Well, yes, I think there does. You're taking about how inexperienced the volunteer/militia the Americans would have, but the Spanish troops in Tejas are just, if not less experienced then any sizable force the Americans could muster. These troops were also sparsely distributed throughout the small settlements in Tejas. An excellent book I've read, The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen, also demonstrates that these meager forces were ineffective at the one form of combat the had experience in, defending the settlements from Comanche raids. If your point was the just needed to be good, well that's simply not likely to be in the cards. Spanish troops north of the Rio Grande will be significantly outclassed by even a small force of ill-trained Americans.

Campaigns, plural. And things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg are just ridiculously shameful.
Oh, I've
Given that most of any American army will be made up of volunteers/militia of uncertain quality and leadership, I'd bet on this being an example of failure, not success.

I'm not denying that there was some pretty pathetic events concerning the US Army during the War of 1812, I'm just saying that the US Army did have redeeming moments, including its Indian campaigns in the Old Northwest. A campaign to take Texas will be much more like those, then the invasion of Canada. Also if war with Spain happens in 1815, they're will be many more experienced men, leaders who have proved their metal, instead of being disgraced, and possibly a desire to wipe the stains of shame from the War of 1812.

I'm certainly not saying however that US defeat isn't a perfectly plausible possibility, what I'm saying is that the Spanish troops facing them in Tejas are equal, if not worse when it comes to uncertain quality and leadership. I think the difference, is I'm putting money on the uncertain capabilities of an American force, while your putting money on the uncertain capabilities of a Spanish force. I'd personally say that the odds are about 60 to 70% for a US victory in Texas, 50-50 in the Santa Fe area, and about 40% for California if the other two have been successfully captured, otherwise 0%. The only difference I see between us is that your calculations of the odds are less favorable for the Americans then mine. I think we both accept however that there is the possibility for either side to emerge victorious in Texas, and after that the odds rapidly drop for further American successes.



No, the Spanish are not Hobbits. And Tejas isn't exactly close to any American supply bases or the like either.

I'm sorry, but isn't New Orleans pretty close to Tejas? That's a pretty major supply base, and one of the bigger ports in the area. It might not be smack dab against the area of operations, but its pretty close, and much bigger then any supply base the Spanish have anywhere near the Rio Grande. It's also closer then any Spanish supply bases of similar or larger size. Also the small forces that are in Tejas mean Spain's disadvantage in supply line distance is compounded due to Spain's need to rapidly increase the garrison sizes to counter even a small American thrust.

If the American's are pygmies, the Spanish, with the huge demands that are pulling on them, after their entire nation was a Napoleonic battleground that also witnessed pretty extensive partisan warfare, are certainly Hobbits. Especially compared to the tasks they are already up against without a war with the US. The Spanish proved unable to muster the rescources needed to keep their valuable American colonies from domestic rebels. A backwater like Tejas, right on the border of the aggressor nation, is going to be very hard to keep. Santa Fe and California are also vulnerable, but much less so.

The point is that depending on when the war happened, it may have already occurred - obviously if Spain and the US go to war in 1815, it won't occur, but the US in 1815 is also financially strained, trying to advance far away from supply bases or anything friendly, and in poor shape to demand Spain accept American terms.

Agreed. This is certainly a boxing match between two out of shape lightweights. The reasons you've listed here, are why I doubt further expansion beyond Texas by the US. I just don't have enough faith in Spain's ability to believe it will hold the sparsely settled plains of Tejas.

This I agree with. The US may be in little position to hurt Spain, but Spain doesn't need even additional harassment, let alone active war.
Glad we agree on something! Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to the whole thing.
 
Well, yes, I think there does. You're taking about how inexperienced the volunteer/militia the Americans would have, but the Spanish troops in Tejas are just, if not less experienced then any sizable force the Americans could muster. These troops were also sparsely distributed throughout the small settlements in Tejas. An excellent book I've read, The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen, also demonstrates that these meager forces were ineffective at the one form of combat the had experience in, defending the settlements from Comanche raids. If your point was the just needed to be good, well that's simply not likely to be in the cards. Spanish troops north of the Rio Grande will be significantly outclassed by even a small force of ill-trained Americans.

I don't know much on the specifics of the troops in Tejas, but I'm not sure how they could be just as bad as half-trained American volunteers with muskets and egos.

I'm not denying that there was some pretty pathetic events concerning the US Army during the War of 1812, I'm just saying that the US Army did have redeeming moments, including its Indian campaigns in the Old Northwest. A campaign to take Texas will be much more like those, then the invasion of Canada. Also if war with Spain happens in 1815, they're will be many more experienced men, leaders who have proved their metal, instead of being disgraced, and possibly a desire to wipe the stains of shame from the War of 1812.
. . .why would it be more like those? It has much the same problems, although the likes of Jackson and Harrison and whatshisface (junior guy at Champlain, can't remember his name now) might be more than good enough for generalship, that doesn't necessarily give good colonels and below.

I agree the US army had redeeming moments, I just think it has to be emphasized they're in the minority in this period.

I'm certainly not saying however that US defeat isn't a perfectly plausible possibility, what I'm saying is that the Spanish troops facing them in Tejas are equal, if not worse when it comes to uncertain quality and leadership. I think the difference, is I'm putting money on the uncertain capabilities of an American force, while your putting money on the uncertain capabilities of a Spanish force. I'd personally say that the odds are about 60 to 70% for a US victory in Texas, 50-50 in the Santa Fe area, and about 40% for California if the other two have been successfully captured, otherwise 0%. The only difference I see between us is that your calculations of the odds are less favorable for the Americans then mine. I think we both accept however that there is the possibility for either side to emerge victorious in Texas, and after that the odds rapidly drop for further American successes.
Pretty much. The main issue that I think cripples any potential American campaign is logistics - quality of troop-wise, it'd be a contest to see who blunders less.

I'm sorry, but isn't New Orleans pretty close to Tejas? That's a pretty major supply base, and one of the bigger ports in the area. It might not be smack dab against the area of operations, but its pretty close, and much bigger then any supply base the Spanish have anywhere near the Rio Grande. It's also closer then any Spanish supply bases of similar or larger size. Also the small forces that are in Tejas mean Spain's disadvantage in supply line distance is compounded due to Spain's need to rapidly increase the garrison sizes to counter even a small American thrust.
New Orleans is a few hundred miles from anywhere in Tejas, and it gets worse the further the Americans go.

And the Spanish can rely on being in control of the area for supplies, at least to some extent, the Americans have to forage, bring it with them, or do without.

If the American's are pygmies, the Spanish, with the huge demands that are pulling on them, after their entire nation was a Napoleonic battleground that also witnessed pretty extensive partisan warfare, are certainly Hobbits. Especially compared to the tasks they are already up against without a war with the US. The Spanish proved unable to muster the rescources needed to keep their valuable American colonies from domestic rebels. A backwater like Tejas, right on the border of the aggressor nation, is going to be very hard to keep. Santa Fe and California are also vulnerable, but much less so.
No, they're not. The Spanish could and did send ten thousand men on a single expedition to deal with rebels, the whole US regular army is of comparable size - and militia has to be trained and equipped from the ground up.

Agreed. This is certainly a boxing match between two out of shape lightweights. The reasons you've listed here, are why I doubt further expansion beyond Texas by the US. I just don't have enough faith in Spain's ability to believe it will hold the sparsely settled plains of Tejas.

Glad we agree on something! Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to the whole thing.
No problem, glad you are reading my posts too. I think we agree on everything but exactly how bad the odds are for Spain - as you put it, this is a boxing match between out of shape lightweights. Neither side really has enough to launch a serious, major campaign for different reasons.

Personally, I pity the individual troops involved on both sides. So far from supplies, and fighting over Texas - not a place I'd want to fight in.

Best case scenario for Spain, IMO: The US winds up the one having to pay for this. Spain might be able to hold Tejas, it might be able to demand territory back with the help of other powers, but it will certainly not get Louisiana - even pieces thereof - on its own.
 
I don't know much on the specifics of the troops in Tejas, but I'm not sure how they could be just as bad as half-trained American volunteers with muskets and egos.

Because the Spanish troops in Tejas are half-trained colonials with muskets and no egos.:p Well maybe not the last part, but certainly the half-trained part.

. . .why would it be more like those? It has much the same problems, although the likes of Jackson and Harrison and whatshisface (junior guy at Champlain, can't remember his name now) might be more than good enough for generalship, that doesn't necessarily give good colonels and below.

Because of the size and supplies of the Spanish forces in the area, their access to support from Havana or Veracruz, the level of training of the Spanish forces in the area (who are nowhere remotely near that of a British Redcoat), and because of the very low population density of the colony of Tejas. I agree that good leadership at the top doesn't mean good leadership all the way through the officer corps, but the kind of campaign that would be mounted in Texas by the Americans minimizes that problem to my mind due to the small size of the actions that would take place there.

I agree the US army had redeeming moments, I just think it has to be emphasized they're in the minority in this period.

I mostly agree, but redeeming enough for a determined American assault to have a decent chance of swatting away the poorly supported, isolated frontier posts the Spanish have in Tejas.

Pretty much. The main issue that I think cripples any potential American campaign is logistics - quality of troop-wise, it'd be a contest to see who blunders less.

New Orleans is a few hundred miles from anywhere in Tejas, and it gets worse the further the Americans go.

And the Spanish can rely on being in control of the area for supplies, at least to some extent, the Americans have to forage, bring it with them, or do without.
The things is, is that the amount of supplies for Spanish troops aren't that great either, and the number of US soldiers needed to deal with the limited number of Spanish defenders means New Orleans can serve as a pretty decent hub for supplies by ship (it is a pretty major port after all), and while New Orleans might be a couple of hundred miles from Tejas, Havana is almost 900 miles from Tejas and Veracruz is about 700 miles away. When it comes to supply lines, New Orleans is much shorter. While I admit the American's will face logistic difficulties, the frontier forces in Tejas have a much longer distance to get back up then the Americans do. In fact, the logistic problems were another reason I compared it to the fighting in the Old Northwest. I was also thinking of George Rogers Clark's Illinois Campaign during the ARW, and I think a American expedition into Texas would be similar, although perhaps slightly better supplied.

No, they're not. The Spanish could and did send ten thousand men on a single expedition to deal with rebels, the whole US regular army is of comparable size - and militia has to be trained and equipped from the ground up.
They did, but that's why I don't think they would send ten thousand men to (I know I probably sound like a broken record saying this) the backwater colony of Tejas. With everything else on their plate, including the need to send that many men to actually valuable colonies, I don't see the Spanish as considering the logistical problems for sending a sizable relief force to Tejas worth their time.

No problem, glad you are reading my posts too. I think we agree on everything but exactly how bad the odds are for Spain - as you put it, this is a boxing match between out of shape lightweights. Neither side really has enough to launch a serious, major campaign for different reasons.

I think that's a pretty good summary of the situation before us. In my opinion, the US can win a minor campaign close to home however, and so that is why I'm giving them pretty good odds of taking Texas. It's certainly not guaranteed, but I think they've got a pretty good shot at it.

Personally, I pity the individual troops involved on both sides. So far from supplies, and fighting over Texas - not a place I'd want to fight in.
Inclined to agree with you, especially if it's a summer campaign.

Best case scenario for Spain, IMO: The US winds up the one having to pay for this. Spain might be able to hold Tejas, it might be able to demand territory back with the help of other powers, but it will certainly not get Louisiana - even pieces thereof - on its own.

I think that's probably right, and I don't think Spain could get Louisiana with the help of other powers, unless that help is significant active military assistance. I think the ultimately worst case scenario for Spain (or most successful US scenario depending on how you look at it) would be losing Tejas, the OTL US southwest, and California to the US, and some of the Colonies getting independence a little bit earlier. My thoughts on how likely this is has already been expressed.
 
Because the Spanish troops in Tejas are half-trained colonials with muskets and no egos.:p Well maybe not the last part, but certainly the half-trained part.

I guess my question here is. Are we looking at actual regular troops - as in, standing army of whatever quality?

Because I'd bet on that, all things being even, even given Spain's weaknesses. On the other hand, militia vs. militia . . . I'll cede the point.

Because of the size and supplies of the Spanish forces in the area, their access to support from Havana or Veracruz, the level of training of the Spanish forces in the area (who are nowhere remotely near that of a British Redcoat), and because of the very low population density of the colony of Tejas. I agree that good leadership at the top doesn't mean good leadership all the way through the officer corps, but the kind of campaign that would be mounted in Texas by the Americans minimizes that problem to my mind due to the small size of the actions that would take place there.
I'm not sure. I agree that they're nowhere near the British Redcoat, but

I mostly agree, but redeeming enough for a determined American assault to have a decent chance of swatting away the poorly supported, isolated frontier posts the Spanish have in Tejas.
The main problem is going to be converting this into enough to seize Tejas. I mean, seizing a frontier post or three is one thing, but occupying Tejas is another thing.

The things is, is that the amount of supplies for Spanish troops aren't that great either, and the number of US soldiers needed to deal with the limited number of Spanish defenders means New Orleans can serve as a pretty decent hub for supplies by ship (it is a pretty major port after all), and while New Orleans might be a couple of hundred miles from Tejas, Havana is almost 900 miles from Tejas and Veracruz is about 700 miles away. When it comes to supply lines, New Orleans is much shorter. While I admit the American's will face logistic difficulties, the frontier forces in Tejas have a much longer distance to get back up then the Americans do. In fact, the logistic problems were another reason I compared it to the fighting in the Old Northwest. I was also thinking of George Rogers Clark's Illinois Campaign during the ARW, and I think a American expedition into Texas would be similar, although perhaps slightly better supplied.
Clark's campaign was a gamble. It worked well, but it could easily fail with less stellar leadership.

Also, the Spanish in Tejas may not have close access to Havana and Veracruz, but they have whatever bases they're using IN Tejas - presumably Spain isn't trying to hold this with everything having to be shipped in.

They did, but that's why I don't think they would send ten thousand men to (I know I probably sound like a broken record saying this) the backwater colony of Tejas. With everything else on their plate, including the need to send that many men to actually valuable colonies, I don't see the Spanish as considering the logistical problems for sending a sizable relief force to Tejas worth their time.
I doubt they would either, but if the US tries beyond Tejas, this definitely becomes a problem. Its arguably that Tejas could be written off. It's not arguable that the US will topple Spain's colonial empire.

I think that's a pretty good summary of the situation before us. In my opinion, the US can win a minor campaign close to home however, and so that is why I'm giving them pretty good odds of taking Texas. It's certainly not guaranteed, but I think they've got a pretty good shot at it.
Yeah. I'm a little more skeptical - maybe more than a little - but I think there's solid reason to argue it could be done. "Likely", I dunno. But less likely campaigns (Clark's, IMO) have worked, in worse circumstances (definitely Clark's).

I think that's probably right, and I don't think Spain could get Louisiana with the help of other powers, unless that help is significant active military assistance. I think the ultimately worst case scenario for Spain (or most successful US scenario depending on how you look at it) would be losing Tejas, the OTL US southwest, and California to the US, and some of the Colonies getting independence a little bit earlier. My thoughts on how likely this is has already been expressed.
Yeah. I'll concede the point on Tejas as a backwater, but the OTL US southwest and California strain US logistics and possibilities to the breaking point - even if the US in battle is fine, this is not a two week march through February floods, which is bad enough, but infinitely worse.

One good thing for Tejas I think is that once the frontier posts are brushed aside, there aren't enough settlers to make "And what about the Spanish who live there?" meaningful. Doubt that's any less true of the other two OTL US territories, but a US invasion of Mexico, at this point, sounds like a recipe for utter disaster that might undo any previous successes - but I'm not sure the US would get that.

So, for discussion's sake, this has boiled down to the issue of how much the US has to work with and just how weak the Tejas garrisons really are, and the rest we agree with enough to leave it to someone else to provide a counterargument, yes?

We might not agree on exactly how likely or unlikely OTL New Mexico is, but its unlikely enough to be a probable failure, and nitpicking on percentages wouldn't be very fun or informative.

Edit: I don't need to spell out my agreement on fighting in summer, right? : )
 
Last edited:
I guess my question here is. Are we looking at actual regular troops - as in, standing army of whatever quality?

Because I'd bet on that, all things being even, even given Spain's weaknesses. On the other hand, militia vs. militia . . . I'll cede the point.

Fair enough on all accounts.

I'm not sure. I agree that they're nowhere near the British Redcoat, but

The main problem is going to be converting this into enough to seize Tejas. I mean, seizing a frontier post or three is one thing, but occupying Tejas is another thing.

Clark's campaign was a gamble. It worked well, but it could easily fail with less stellar leadership.

Agreed, I just think that all the Americans need to do to seize Tejas is to take the major settlements in the colony. A major occupying force would be pointless, in the sparsely populated area the population centers are all that need to be occupied for essentially effective control of anything that matters in the colony. We both agree it's a gamble, I just personally see it as one with better odds for the Americans then you do.

Also, the Spanish in Tejas may not have close access to Havana and Veracruz, but they have whatever bases they're using IN Tejas - presumably Spain isn't trying to hold this with everything having to be shipped in.

Agreed, I'm just saying the bases they have in Tejas aren't very significant. To my mind major support to put up effective resistance from an American incursion has to come from one of those two major Spanish settlements, and I think that translates to better back up for American troops then Spanish ones.

I doubt they would either, but if the US tries beyond Tejas, this definitely becomes a problem. Its arguably that Tejas could be written off. It's not arguable that the US will topple Spain's colonial empire.
Again, agreed. Logistics become a exponentially growing problem the further US troops go, with each further success depending on all other campaigns before it being a success. I've already posted what my thoughts are of the US taking each part of the Spanish holdings now within the OTL USA, and like I said, the US can only slightly push forward the dates of some colonies independence from Spain via material support. There won't be any daring forays into any significantly populated Spanish territories, or if there are, they'll meet with disaster.

Yeah. I'm a little more skeptical - maybe more than a little - but I think there's solid reason to argue it could be done. "Likely", I dunno. But less likely campaigns (Clark's, IMO) have worked, in worse circumstances (definitely Clark's).

Fair enough. The important part I think is that we both agree it isn't a done deal one way or the other. If everyone thought exactly alike there would be no point in discussing things like this because it would just be an echo chamber.

Yeah. I'll concede the point on Tejas as a backwater, but the OTL US southwest and California strain US logistics and possibilities to the breaking point - even if the US in battle is fine, this is not a two week march through February floods, which is bad enough, but infinitely worse.

I agree, although I do still think its even money for the US to capture Santa Fe (The really only important thing in the OTL US Southwest at the time) if they do succeed in taking Tejas. California though does seem to be just out of reach, that's why I give a chance, but not a good one for American succes, as long as everything goes ok in Tejas and in Santa Fe. As Ol' Boney said, an Army marches on its stomach. Any campaign into California is going to be about as, if not more risky than Clark's campaign in the Old Northwest. I think we both understand where we're coming from on this issue, and I think we've come to a consenus on it, we just differ on percentages, and like you said, arguing those aren't really helpful or particularly fun.

One good thing for Tejas I think is that once the frontier posts are brushed aside, there aren't enough settlers to make "And what about the Spanish who live there?" meaningful. Doubt that's any less true of the other two OTL US territories, but a US invasion of Mexico, at this point, sounds like a recipe for utter disaster that might undo any previous successes - but I'm not sure the US would get that.

Oh a US invasion of Mexico would be a complete disaster even if the Mexican's rose up to welcome the invaders, and I agree that campaigning there creates the possibility of putting at jeopardy any gains made previously. The only thing I see is American success in the Northern Spanish colonies lead to agitation among the Mexicans, and lead to a slightly earlier revolution then OTL. Mexico doesn't end up in the American fold under any conditions however. The US will provide some comfort to rebels in the Spanish colonies, but definitely not in the form of invading armies.

So, for discussion's sake, this has boiled down to the issue of how much the US has to work with and just how weak the Tejas garrisons really are, and the rest we agree with enough to leave it to someone else to provide a counterargument, yes?

We might not agree on exactly how likely or unlikely OTL New Mexico is, but its unlikely enough to be a probable failure, and nitpicking on percentages wouldn't be very fun or informative.
Pretty much. I think are really only differences are like you say how weak vs how strong Spanish troops in Tejas are to any American invasion force, and the exact odds of a US seizure of Santa Fe if the campaign in Tejas is successful for the Americans. As I said, I agree a battle of hypothetical odds isn't particularly informative or fun, since we've already identified to my mind most of the important factors in any conflict between the US and Spain in the most likely areas of operations.

I don't need to spell out my agreement on fighting in summer, right? : )
Not at all. You seem like a pretty reasonable person, so I assumed you would. :D
 
Fair enough on all accounts.



Agreed, I just think that all the Americans need to do to seize Tejas is to take the major settlements in the colony. A major occupying force would be pointless, in the sparsely populated area the population centers are all that need to be occupied for essentially effective control of anything that matters in the colony. We both agree it's a gamble, I just personally see it as one with better odds for the Americans then you do.

Yeah. Although it would be kind of hysterical for the Americans to occupy the place, chase off the Spanish . . . and then blunder into a Comanche raid and have to skedaddle.

Not saying it's likely, but I figure it's worth bringing up.

Agreed, I'm just saying the bases they have in Tejas aren't very significant. To my mind major support to put up effective resistance from an American incursion has to come from one of those two major Spanish settlements, and I think that translates to better back up for American troops then Spanish ones.
True. Tejas is that underwhelming.

Again, agreed. Logistics become a exponentially growing problem the further US troops go, with each further success depending on all other campaigns before it being a success. I've already posted what my thoughts are of the US taking each part of the Spanish holdings now within the OTL USA, and like I said, the US can only slightly push forward the dates of some colonies independence from Spain via material support. There won't be any daring forays into any significantly populated Spanish territories, or if there are, they'll meet with disaster.
Yeah. Best case scenario for the US is Spain expanding its definition of "not worth fighting over". If the US tries to push this harder, it might wind up with the war effort collapsing before the diplomats take over, which would not be a good position to make demands from.

Fair enough. The important part I think is that we both agree it isn't a done deal one way or the other. If everyone thought exactly alike there would be no point in discussing things like this because it would just be an echo chamber.
Yeah. There's always a value to different perspectives even in agreement.

I agree, although I do still think its even money for the US to capture Santa Fe (The really only important thing in the OTL US Southwest at the time) if they do succeed in taking Tejas. California though does seem to be just out of reach, that's why I give a chance, but not a good one for American succes, as long as everything goes ok in Tejas and in Santa Fe. As Ol' Boney said, an Army marches on its stomach. Any campaign into California is going to be about as, if not more risky than Clark's campaign in the Old Northwest. I think we both understand where we're coming from on this issue, and I think we've come to a consenus on it, we just differ on percentages, and like you said, arguing those aren't really helpful or particularly fun.
Yeah. I think the main issue is that going to Santa Fe involves way too much desert. Desert is even worse than flooded February for an undersupplied army.

Oh a US invasion of Mexico would be a complete disaster even if the Mexican's rose up to welcome the invaders, and I agree that campaigning there creates the possibility of putting at jeopardy any gains made previously. The only thing I see is American success in the Northern Spanish colonies lead to agitation among the Mexicans, and lead to a slightly earlier revolution then OTL. Mexico doesn't end up in the American fold under any conditions however. The US will provide some comfort to rebels in the Spanish colonies, but definitely not in the form of invading armies.
Yeah. More likely moral support and private individuals.

Pretty much. I think are really only differences are like you say how weak vs how strong Spanish troops in Tejas are to any American invasion force, and the exact odds of a US seizure of Santa Fe if the campaign in Tejas is successful for the Americans. As I said, I agree a battle of hypothetical odds isn't particularly informative or fun, since we've already identified to my mind most of the important factors in any conflict between the US and Spain in the most likely areas of operations.
Yep.

Not at all. You seem like a pretty reasonable person, so I assumed you would. :D
:D

Though, as something I hope any timeline author acknowledges, this is a biggie - I can only imagine how many Americans decide "Fuck this" and desert. It doesn't favor either side per se, but the Americans are the ones who have to achieve something proactive, the Spanish just have to avoid being beaten.

But that gets us back to the percentages.

One thing I would like your thoughts on, in this regard.

Let's say everything goes well for the US in Tejas and they decide not to risk it for OTL New Mexico (we can toss it in if you like, but let's just look at Tejas as more worth taking as actually settleable). How are they going to get Tejas in the treaty?

Meaning, how is this being worked out? Spain isn't going to happily just give it up, and the US can't force Spain to do so (the American troops in Tejas want to go home, and their enlistments will expire sooner or latter) , so some sort of deal has to be made.
 
Might this bring up chance of a joint invasion by the Americans, Mexicans, British, Haitians, and/or French of Cuba?
 
Sidetrack:
Could someone explain the pygmies>hobbits bit?
Are we talking real world pygmies (I forget the correct term) or
Plinian pygmies?
Because the latter were something like half the size of hobbits.
Not to mention that the hobbits, as I recall, were both very good at and
quite ruthless when throwing Saruman's men out of Shire once they got
around to it.
 
There don't need to be significant numbers of Spanish troops to deal with the Americans.

Campaigns, plural. And things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg are just ridiculously shameful.

If you are going to nitpick and pick one battle to prove American incompetence, how about New Orleans to prove British incompetence?

The Americans did not win only a handful of victories. They won quite more than a handful of important victories and even forced the British to surrender two naval fleets, twice.

Given that most of any American army will be made up of volunteers/militia of uncertain quality and leadership, I'd bet on this being an example of failure, not success. It's not just leadership the US lacked, but trained soldiers. And a few thousand men with muskets is barely worth calling an armed mob if they try something like invading Tejas.
When the War of 1812 started, American forces were composed of militias; after the War of 1812, thanks to Scott's management, they were composed of professional regulars the equal of any European regular army including that of the French which had the best army at the time.
 
If you are going to nitpick and pick one battle to prove American incompetence, how about New Orleans to prove British incompetence?

I'm not sure how I'm "nitpicking" to refer to one particularly bad battle as an example, but see below for more:

Defeat is one thing. Rout is another.

http://www.riverraisinbattlefield.org/

The fall of Detriot in the first place isn't exactly an inspired performance by either the American troops or Hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Queenston_Heights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beaver_Dams

And yes, I know you can find examples of American competence - I've studied the War of 1812, I can think of several - but we don't see much of anything that can be called a crushing American (land) victory - Eire and Champlain are in sharp contrast to the army's performance.

The Americans did not win only a handful of victories. They won quite more than a handful of important victories and even forced the British to surrender two naval fleets, twice.

The Americans won rather less than "quite more". And surrendering two navel fleets on the Great Lakes would be rather more impressive if it was matched by a comparable performance at sea (as in, the ocean), or on land.

When the War of 1812 started, American forces were composed of militias; after the War of 1812, thanks to Scott's management, they were composed of professional regulars the equal of any European regular army including that of the French which had the best army at the time.

With all due credit to Scott, I would not take the post-war US army as "equal the best European regular army", and that's referring to the small regular army.

I know that you have a very bad opinion of the British army in this period, and I have no particular interest in arguing it was especially awesome, but the US's record at best balances out to uninspired here, and unlike Britain which has the reality of the Canadian theater naturally not getting the best and brightest, the Americans don't have a major war going on somewhere else with their best regiments and commanders needed there.
 
I'm not sure how I'm "nitpicking" to refer to one particularly bad battle as an example, but see below for more:

Defeat is one thing. Rout is another.

http://www.riverraisinbattlefield.org/

The fall of Detriot in the first place isn't exactly an inspired performance by either the American troops or Hull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Queenston_Heights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beaver_Dams

These were militias involved in the battles. The USA had improved a lot by then by replacing militias with regulars. The difference in quality in American land forces between 1813 and 1814 was immense.

And yes, I know you can find examples of American competence - I've studied the War of 1812, I can think of several - but we don't see much of anything that can be called a crushing American (land) victory - Eire and Champlain are in sharp contrast to the army's performance.

There was no crushing British victory either against American regulars. Can you name one great British victory against American regulars as opposed to American militias?

The Americans won rather less than "quite more". And surrendering two navel fleets on the Great Lakes would be rather more impressive if it was matched by a comparable performance at sea (as in, the ocean), or on land.

Why would they need to win in the ocean? They were not fighting for overseas colonies. The purpose of this topic is whether the Americans could conquer more North American territory at the expense of Britain or Spain. They don't need to win in the ocean to do that. The fact that the Americans forced the British to surrender TWO naval fleets at the Great Lakes and at Plattsburg is impressive enough. Twice in a single war.

With all due credit to Scott, I would not take the post-war US army as "equal the best European regular army", and that's referring to the small regular army.

I know that you have a very bad opinion of the British army in this period, and I have no particular interest in arguing it was especially awesome, but the US's record at best balances out to uninspired here, and unlike Britain which has the reality of the Canadian theater naturally not getting the best and brightest, the Americans don't have a major war going on somewhere else with their best regiments and commanders needed there.

I don't have a bad opinion of the British army. I just don't think they had the greatest army in the world at the time. Nor have they proved that they were capable of training and maintaining a LARGE army to professional standards. The small army they had was competant, professional and could fight but it was still only small and would not have made a difference in a North American landmass. dominated by an advanced industrial nation.
 
These were militias involved in the battles. The USA had improved a lot by then by replacing militias with regulars. The difference in quality in American land forces between 1813 and 1814 was immense.

Some American forces some of the time. Bladensburg is 1814, remember.

There was no crushing British victory either against American regulars. Can you name one great British victory against American regulars as opposed to American militias?

Does Detroit count (it was part of Hull's force and it was surrendered by Hull, but it wasn't at Detroit at the time)?

Bladensburg is another example.

And saying "but those were mostly militia" - well, yes, duh, given the size of the US regular army. Most of the British troops in Canada weren't regulars either, so what's your point?

Why would they need to win in the ocean? They were not fighting for overseas colonies. The purpose of this topic is whether the Americans could conquer more North American territory at the expense of Britain or Spain. They don't need to win in the ocean to do that. The fact that the Americans forced the British to surrender TWO naval fleets at the Great Lakes and at Plattsburg is impressive enough. Twice in a single war.

To avoid being blockaded (looking at the War of 1812)? Winning in the ocean is rather important there.

And impressive enough for what? Liberating Detroit and turning back a British invasion, not exactly decisive victory for the US's war aims.

I don't have a bad opinion of the British army. I just don't think they had the greatest army in the world at the time. Nor have they proved that they were capable of training and maintaining a LARGE army to professional standards. The small army they had was competant, professional and could fight but it was still only small and would not have made a difference in a North American landmass. dominated by an advanced industrial nation.

The US is an "advanced industrial nation" in the 1810s. :rolleyes: I think I know what you mean here, but it still overstates the development of the United States at this point to treat it as especially "advanced".

And given that I've never seen you say a good word about British troops or British commanders in this period, I'm skeptical on that not meaning you have a poor opinion.
 
Spain has bigger problems than Florida, so it giving up an area it has little presence in is proof of American military power?
did anyone have any presence in the LA territory, military or otherwise? Outside of New Orleans and a couple of other towns, the population was about non-existent for Europeans. I've often wondered just what the non-native population of the region was at the time of purchase.
The conflict started because of their refusal to pay any of the taxes imposed on them.
My take on it has always been that the conflict started mainly because the colonists wanted everything to stay the way it had been; fewer taxes that were poorly collected, rampant smuggling that was rarely cracked down on, continual expansion westward, and colonial governors who did little. Basically, they wanted to keep the status quo. At the start of the conflict, the idea of actually separating from Britain and going it alone was a minority opinion... IIRC, it only really got going when the king sent more troops (especially the Hessians) into the conflict. Weirdly enough, the Texas rebellion started for almost exactly the same reasons...
 
Who controls the gulf of mexico? If one side has clear naval superiority, the other side has to supply overland, and those logistics would kill any advance or defense.
 
Top