That's the point. If the US insurgents had not been financed and supported by a european coalition against Britain, their revolution would have ended in a failure for a generation.
US victory in war of 1812 american gains
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
That's the point. If the US insurgents had not been financed and supported by a european coalition against Britain, their revolution would have ended in a failure for a generation.
it's important to note that the war was the main thing that gave Canada it's national identity. Before the war, the border was a nebulous thing that was widely ignored. Weirdly enough, the war saw former-Americans who had become Canadians, and former-Canadians who had become Americans, fighting for their adopted countries... enough of them that one book I have on the war is titled "The Civil War of 1812". The war cemented the border as a real thing in everyone's mind. So, in our POD here, if the US had managed to seize parts of Canada (a rather tall order), I'd think the Canadians would have assimilated rather well...
wouldn't you also need something along the lines of 'the French aren't crushed so badly at Trafalgar, so that they still have a fleet in being, requiring the RN to keep a lot of ships close to home? Wow, when you put all three of those together, that's a hell of a POD... the Brits are crushed in Europe, not quite stalemated at sea, and the upstart Americans grab parts of Canada. Not a super happy fun time to be a Brit...
I figure it would be easier to achieve results like this by having a stronger (or any, really) American army established in the years leading up to the war. British strength in North America couldn't get much weaker than 1812, but at least in theory there's plenty of room for improvement on the American side. You just need the political will and a realization that militia do not a quality army make. Some sort of Indian War discredits the state militias, perhaps?
Really depends on who and where I'd say. Modern Quebec would be quite a chunk for a young American Republic to swallow, but on the Ontario Peninsula? Different matter entirely.
It was still very sparsely populated, and many settlers were indeed former Americans who had moved north while the core of Loyalists was in the region around Kingston and primarily on the north shore of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence, the peninsula was still basically settlers territory and didn't quite have that core of Loyalists (well until after the war
) which would have made it far easier to assimilate like other chunks the US later absorbed.I think it's rather telling that you need these POD's to pull of an American victory in 1812
But the Americans did make a somewhat smart play by ensuring Britain was distracted before they made an attempted territory grab. Had they had a better military, leadership, and force of will they may very well have carried off the annexation of the Ontario Peninsula with the forces on hand.
I think it's rather telling that you need these POD's to pull of an American victory in 1812
well, to win the war, sure. I still think we won the peace.
TFSmith121
Banned
Except absent the previous century of
Except absent the previous century of European power politics, it is unlikely the issues that led to the American Revolution would have come to a head, anyway.
The revolution did not occur in a vacuum; the Atlantic World was an integrated entity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries.
Best,
Except absent the previous century of European power politics, it is unlikely the issues that led to the American Revolution would have come to a head, anyway.
The revolution did not occur in a vacuum; the Atlantic World was an integrated entity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
True, but there's a difference between the
True, but there's a difference between the Province of Canada, British North America, and the Dominion of Canada, in 1867 and afterwards...
There's something to the notion that "Canada" became "Canada" at Vimy Ridge...
Best,
True, but there's a difference between the Province of Canada, British North America, and the Dominion of Canada, in 1867 and afterwards...
There's something to the notion that "Canada" became "Canada" at Vimy Ridge...
Best,
ManintheField
Banned
Not really, no. This is 1812, not 1802. The US was actually less urbanized going into the 1810's than it was going into the 1800's decade. Manufacturing in the US was still highly decentralized and the very earliest stirrings of industrialism were often located outside of cities (being then dependent on mill races rather than steam power) rather than in them. The hinterland had been pushed back beyond the Appalachians and a large amount of economic activity occurred dozens of miles or more distant from any point the Royal Navy could realistically effect.
You really are forgetting that the US had already subjected itself to an economically devastating blockade.
This seems like another case of some posters coming into a thread on 18th or 19th century America to counter the arguments of chest-beating American nationalists -- who are conspicuous in their absence -- and then gone too far in other direction.
I did say all of the above were pretty tough conditions to achieve.. chuckle... and about the only way I can see the United States, which had an army more notable for its politicians than generals in 1812, with a public tax system based primarily on exports and dependent on militia to provide sufficient manpower to conduct an offensive had any way of achieving military victory in 1812 or 1813
Still more likely than Napoleon invading England successfully though
tough one to create.. as it was the US Army suffered the worst defeat it would ever suffer against Native Americans (including Custer) at the Battle of the Wabash in 1791, where 1,000 regulars (if you can call poorly trained soldiers this) and militia got wiped out with only 24 survivors.
It was enough to force more professionalism in the Regulars, but clearly not enough and Jefferson's budget cutting didn't help matters in terms of American defense. Those stupid gunboats were bad, but far worse were the overall cuts in spending
Jefferson, for all his vision, was impressively naive at times
well, to win the war, sure. I still think we won the peace.
and the Indians living east of the Mississippi really really lost. Two of the most important American land victories of the war were the Battle of the Thames and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, both of which totally smashed Native American hopes for effective resistance to the United States. Baltimore, Lundys Lane and New Orleans defeated the British counterinvasion, but smashing the Indians (which the British hoped to use as effective client states to slow the American expansion) were ultimately decisive for the future of the United States.
All in all though, achieving stalemate against the British is a form of victory when you compare American vs British real and potential power at that time.
Wellington seemed to agree
ManintheField
Banned
The Embargo Act wasn't just the dream of Jefferson, it went right back to a misapprehension of how the 1760's boycott related to the Stamp Act repeal. There's a reason that the early independence regimes in each colony were built on the back of enforcing the 1770's embargo agreed upon at the First Continental Congress. People genuinely thought that cutting the Home Islands off from the colonies would effect Imperial policy. By cutting both belligerents off in 1807, the general consensus amongst a broad swathe of the contemporary American political class was that France and Britain would be forced to change their policies with respect to the US.
We still think like that. Look at the sanctions against Russia. Or Iran. Or against South Africa in the 70's and 80's. It actually does work sometimes. The Democratic-Republicans of the 1800's decade just over-estimated the importance of American trade to the two global superpowers of the era. Surprisingly easy to do in an age before statistical macro-economics.
They, in general, didn't care about the issues it caused in the booming American commercial sector. American merchants had actually come to dominate the hemisphere's carry trade and were making serious inroads elsewhere, as a benefit of neutrality in an age of total war; but as constituencies the sailors, shipbuilders, shipowners, merchants, and other persons involved in overseas trade were dwarfed by constituencies that didn't share their interests. It's not the best proxy, but as a good-enough-for-our-purposes number, the urban/rural split in the pre-Embargo era still never jumped over 10/90 (using, I believe, the 'living in a conurbation of more than 2,000 persons' definition of urban, which would be a significantly sized town in this period). As the franchise widened, capturing more and more of the overwhelmingly rural majority, people sympathetic to the interests of ocean-borne commerce became rarer and rarer in Congress.
It's probably one of the most important economic causes of the failure the Federalist party. That party's political power rested in a narrow economic interest that was made narrower by its class-oriented snobbery.
JJohnson
Banned
The British might've ceded Ontario peninsula to the US? That's interesting. Where have you read that one?
As a possible scenario here:
-US wins one or more clear battles in or around Canada
-US gains west of the Lake of the Woods, but agrees to pay HBC ₤300,000 for it, and makes a sweet deal to the British for the lumber and furs. This will help the British pay down their debts, employ Americans, and compensate the British for the lost land. A future treaty clarifies the ambiguous wording which essentially yields Manitoba and everything north and west of it to the US. Thus the US gains 3-5 states plus one or more territories out of it.
-maybe the US gets an island? Bermuda? Bahamas?
-Canada still exists, begins forming its own identity like OTL, just with the eastern part of Canada: Ontario (peninsula up to French River/Lake Nipissing), Manitoulin (north of this Ontario, up to the 49th parallel, west to our Marathon, Ontario), Opasquia Territory (west of 86°22' W to 95°9′12.2″W and north to Nelson River, and having a shore along Hudson Bay), Quebec (northern border is 49° N to Lac St Jean, into the Saguenay river, and thence into St Lawrence, and including OTL southern Quebec; western border is OTL), New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia are OTL; Newfoundland is its own colony as is Labrador. East Quebec would be a line from the northernmost point of Lac St Jean due north, an all the land east thereof not in Labrador. The remaining land is Hudson Bay Territory. Eleven subdivisions - 9 provinces, 2 territories. Anyone up for a map?
Last edited:
I don't see the US getting a Caribbean island. Even in 1815 they were too valuable. A better campaign in Canada could see the US getting at least something in the peace treaty, but I doubt the British would give up a Caribbean island even if the US (somehow) took all of Canada at the time. Just my $0.02 on that point. The rest of your ideas look plausible enough, to me at least.
Yes. And the british are so impressed that they offer a 30% share on all the profits it makes in India for the next 15 years and half the ships of the Royal Navy.
One clear defeat any the brits take a french flee. Quite logical : the Channel straight is only 30 kilometers. They were contaminated.
The US, and only the US, shall never surrender. Huh !
More seriously, the problem for the US is not only about blockade. It is also about potential destruction of their coastal cities. What the brits did in Washington, they can do elsewhere.
Now if you want to go on with nationalist/expansionist dreaming, as you please.
One clear defeat any the brits take a french flee. Quite logical : the Channel straight is only 30 kilometers. They were contaminated.
The US, and only the US, shall never surrender. Huh !
More seriously, the problem for the US is not only about blockade. It is also about potential destruction of their coastal cities. What the brits did in Washington, they can do elsewhere.
Now if you want to go on with nationalist/expansionist dreaming, as you please.
TFSmith121
Banned
As has been said...
As has been said...
The two times the British actually tried combined operations against defended cities in 1814 and 1815, they lost - rather handily - including no less than three general officers.
See Baltimore (North Point, Fort McHenry, Ferry Branch) and New Orleans.
And to be fair, they lost both times they tried at Buenos Aires, as well.
Best,
As has been said...
The two times the British actually tried combined operations against defended cities in 1814 and 1815, they lost - rather handily - including no less than three general officers.
See Baltimore (North Point, Fort McHenry, Ferry Branch) and New Orleans.
And to be fair, they lost both times they tried at Buenos Aires, as well.
Best,
ManintheField
Banned
Yes. And the british are so impressed that they offer a 30% share on all the profits it makes in India for the next 15 years and half the ships of the Royal Navy.
One clear defeat any the brits take a french flee. Quite logical : the Channel straight is only 30 kilometers. They were contaminated.
The US, and only the US, shall never surrender. Huh !
More seriously, the problem for the US is not only about blockade. It is also about potential destruction of their coastal cities. What the brits did in Washington, they can do elsewhere.
Now if you want to go on with nationalist/expansionist dreaming, as you please.
Yeeaaaaah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't see anyone being unreasonable here except you.
Burning down every coastal city? Seriously? When did this ever happen, anywhere, ever, on the scale you're talking? When did the British ever freaking do that? The 'burning' of Washington (really: a few key buildings in the 'city') was a direct response to the American burning of York/Toronto. They did not decide to do so on a whim, they did so because it had been done to them.
And now the Royal Navy is going to lay strategic waste to the entire Eastern Seaboard on a scale not seen IOTL until World War II?
What the fuck man?