War of 1812 complete disaster for Britain

Lusitania

Donor
Louisiana in the New Orleans area was developing into a slave labor driven plantation economy. The area is prone to the same type of illnesses they have in other semi tropical climates. Staple food production was low, food had to be imported. The area you want to settle for a White Settler, staple crop economy is up in Arkansas, and Missouri, and west from there. The area West of the Mississippi is drier then East of the River. Then you start entering the Great Plains, with the deep sod that needs deep plow farming to break the soil. This is very labor intensive.

It took generations to cultivate that hard land of harsh continental weather, with bitter cold, intense heat, tornados, hail, and wind storms that flatten crops for miles. Most of the land is dry, so you have to dig deep wells for water. This was the land of the Buffalo herds in their millions, and swarms of locusts. It also has roving bands of nomadic Indians, who will trade with trappers, and traders, but will kill settlers. There are good reasons the Americans settled the Pacific Coast first, and filled the middle of the country in later. Living in that wilderness was a hard life. Most people aged fast, died young, and broke. To this day there are reasons the Great Plains are a low population density area of the United States. The Coasts are richer, and more densely populated.

It's a hard life for Frenchmen used to their moderate climate, and rich soil. I'm painting a picture of a land that was very hard to settle, and cultivate. Not many people would be Eager to go live in a vast harsh wilderness.
I not disagreeing with you but Napoleon was adamant in creating a settler colony out of it. Heck with his drive and push the French could of made something out of it. Plains for herding, plantations and farming all mixed in.

would they have the strength and will to see it through and stop America westward movement? If he at helm he would expect it and push for it. What the next leaders may do with the area not sure.
 
Louisiana in the New Orleans area was developing into a slave labor driven plantation economy. The area is prone to the same type of illnesses they have in other semi tropical climates. Staple food production was low, food had to be imported. The area you want to settle for a White Settler, staple crop economy is up in Arkansas, and Missouri, and west from there. The area West of the Mississippi is drier then East of the River. Then you start entering the Great Plains, with the deep sod that needs deep plow farming to break the soil. This is very labor intensive.

It took generations to cultivate that hard land of harsh continental weather, with bitter cold, intense heat, tornados, hail, and wind storms that flatten crops for miles. Most of the land is dry, so you have to dig deep wells for water. This was the land of the Buffalo herds in their millions, and swarms of locusts. It also has roving bands of nomadic Indians, who will trade with trappers, and traders, but will kill settlers. There are good reasons the Americans settled the Pacific Coast first, and filled the middle of the country in later. Living in that wilderness was a hard life. Most people aged fast, died young, and broke. To this day there are reasons the Great Plains are a low population density area of the United States. The Coasts are richer, and more densely populated.

It's a hard life for Frenchmen used to their moderate climate, and rich soil. I'm painting a picture of a land that was very hard to settle, and cultivate. Not many people would be Eager to go live in a vast harsh wilderness.
Yet it was practically inevitable that Americans would? ;)
 
I not disagreeing with you but Napoleon was adamant in creating a settler colony out of it. Heck with his drive and push the French could of made something out of it. Plains for herding, plantations and farming all mixed in.

would they have the strength and will to see it through and stop America westward movement? If he at helm he would expect it and push for it. What the next leaders may do with the area not sure.
The only thing is, that for Napoleon's drive and push to truly be effective, he would practically have to BE THERE in person... I don't think that's something he would... errr... stoop to. Think given a choice between being Emperor of Nouvelle France or being Prince of Elba, he might choose Elba... for the time being anyway :p
 
One thing that you could throw in. The Minie Ball could be discovered earlier. If a few American units had rifled muskets and had developed a doctrine to use them, that could be a rude shock to the British, or anyone else. The question is what would be the best time for that to happen. Too early, and everyone is introducing them. Too late, and there's not enough of the rifles, and no doctrine for their use.
That alone wouldn't do it, but would be an extra edge.
Decatur was experimenting with shell firing guns at sea, before Paixhans. Move that up and the Royal Navy is is real trouble Shell guns and Wooden ships, that's certain death
 
Decatur was experimenting with shell firing guns at sea, before Paixhans. Move that up and the Royal Navy is is real trouble Shell guns and Wooden ships, that's certain death
That would be BAD! It takes a lot of work and experimentation, though. The advantage of the Minie ball is that it's something that one person could invent in a workshop. It might not be super likely, but it's doable in this time of single inventors coming up with something NEW.
 
We in Canada say living next to the US is like sleeping next to an elephant. They completely ignorant of our existence and you feel every turn and shake. Plus got to be careful you not get flatten.
Nah, You're America's Hat.
We respect our headgear. It's bad form to sleep ontop your hat
 
That would be BAD! It takes a lot of work and experimentation, though. The advantage of the Minie ball is that it's something that one person could invent in a workshop. It might not be super likely, but it's doable in this time of single inventors coming up with something NEW.
The minie ball is a big advance, but you have to fire it from a rifle, and most soldiers of the era use smoothbore muskets. There are Rifle Regiments in the American, and British Armies, but not that many.
 
The minie ball is a big advance, but you have to fire it from a rifle, and most soldiers of the era use smoothbore muskets. There are Rifle Regiments in the American, and British Armies, but not that many.
That's why timing would be critical--time enough for enough rifles to be issued, and the troops trained on both use and tactics.
 

Lusitania

Donor
That's why timing would be critical--time enough for enough rifles to be issued, and the troops trained on both use and tactics.
Yes timing but not work with militia, who don’t get much training, you need a federal army that could be properly trained in just the right time.
 
The one way to make the War of 1812 go worse for the British is for Jefferson to take the Chesapeake Affair more seriously in 1807, and for New England to recognize that the British harassment of American shipping (to include impressing sailors) had to be stopped.

What you really need for that is a prominent Federalist who Jefferson could either trust, or who he owed a huge favor to. Alexander Hamilton would have fit the bill if he were still alive.

If he survives the duel with Burr, perhaps after the Chesapeake Affair, he not only convinces Jefferson to support a naval program (in essence, calling in the marker from 1800), but he also convinces many of the New England merchants that they are not safe as long as England is acting the way it does.

"If they do this to a warship, what would they do to your merchant vessel?"

No professional army, still, but now the US Navy has 24-30 ships, mostly the 44-gun frigates, but also some smaller ships-of-the-line/razees. Can't take on the entire Royal Navy, but the British can't keep Napoleon bottled up while chasing the larger American navy down.

They'd have to cut a deal, and one largely favorable to the Americans.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The one way to make the War of 1812 go worse for the British is for Jefferson to take the Chesapeake Affair more seriously in 1807, and for New England to recognize that the British harassment of American shipping (to include impressing sailors) had to be stopped.

What you really need for that is a prominent Federalist who Jefferson could either trust, or who he owed a huge favor to. Alexander Hamilton would have fit the bill if he were still alive.

If he survives the duel with Burr, perhaps after the Chesapeake Affair, he not only convinces Jefferson to support a naval program (in essence, calling in the marker from 1800), but he also convinces many of the New England merchants that they are not safe as long as England is acting the way it does.

"If they do this to a warship, what would they do to your merchant vessel?"

No professional army, still, but now the US Navy has 24-30 ships, mostly the 44-gun frigates, but also some smaller ships-of-the-line/razees. Can't take on the entire Royal Navy, but the British can't keep Napoleon bottled up while chasing the larger American navy down.

They'd have to cut a deal, and one largely favorable to the Americans.
No they would not for you need the war in Europe to go one indefinitely and British could outlast the Americans. Then any attack and occupation on BNA could be dealt with with the army that was under Europe. Wonder how Wellington do with the army from Waterloo in USA?
 
No they would not for you need the war in Europe to go one indefinitely and British could outlast the Americans. Then any attack and occupation on BNA could be dealt with with the army that was under Europe. Wonder how Wellington do with the army from Waterloo in USA?
The problem, though, is that can Britain occupy a United States far larger than the 13 colonies they couldn't bring to heel from 1775-1781, with a bigger population, and without the advantage of New England's ambivalence (to put it mildly) over the War or 1812 gave them?

The United States Navy wouldn't be sitting still, either. Razees might be one option, legit ships of the line would be another. Move the completion of the Independence-class forward by five years, and the British will have even more problems. By 1812, the US Navy has six 90-gunships of the line, eighteen of their 44-gun frigates, and a dozen smaller frigates, with more on the way.

It becomes a question of how much the cost to reclaim British North America would be... and do they really want to face decades of guerilla warfare if they do take Washington? Maybe the larger Navy they would face leads them to cut a deal.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The problem, though, is that can Britain occupy a United States far larger than the 13 colonies they couldn't bring to heel from 1775-1781, with a bigger population, and without the advantage of New England's ambivalence (to put it mildly) over the War or 1812 gave them?

The United States Navy wouldn't be sitting still, either. Razees might be one option, legit ships of the line would be another. Move the completion of the Independence-class forward by five years, and the British will have even more problems. By 1812, the US Navy has six 90-gunships of the line, eighteen of their 44-gun frigates, and a dozen smaller frigates, with more on the way.

It becomes a question of how much the cost to reclaim British North America would be... and do they really want to face decades of guerilla warfare if they do take Washington? Maybe the larger Navy they would face leads them to cut a deal.
You misunderstood the concept of BNA it British North America. It’s Canadá plain and simple. Not reclaiming US.
 
The problem, though, is that can Britain occupy a United States far larger than the 13 colonies they couldn't bring to heel from 1775-1781, with a bigger population, and without the advantage of New England's ambivalence (to put it mildly) over the War or 1812 gave them?

The United States Navy wouldn't be sitting still, either. Razees might be one option, legit ships of the line would be another. Move the completion of the Independence-class forward by five years, and the British will have even more problems. By 1812, the US Navy has six 90-gunships of the line, eighteen of their 44-gun frigates, and a dozen smaller frigates, with more on the way.

It becomes a question of how much the cost to reclaim British North America would be... and do they really want to face decades of guerilla warfare if they do take Washington? Maybe the larger Navy they would face leads them to cut a deal.
I think you are getting confused about what Britain would be aiming for here. They don't want to occupy the US, nor would they need to. As far as they are concerned they are defending Canada against US aggression, if Canada's kept then Britain can exit the war claiming victory or at least a draw. To say the Brits need to invade and occupy the US in 1812 to win is like saying the French needed to occupy England to win the 100 Years War. All they need to do is keep Canada at the negotiating table.
Indeed Britain trying to occupy the US would probably be a more complete disaster than any defeat the US could inflict on Britain but I can't imagine Parliament would be too happy.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think you are getting confused about what Britain would be aiming for here. They don't want to occupy the US, nor would they need to. As far as they are concerned they are defending Canada against US aggression, if Canada's kept then Britain can exit the war claiming victory or at least a draw. To say the Brits need to invade and occupy the US in 1812 to win is like saying the French needed to occupy England to win the 100 Years War. All they need to do is keep Canada at the negotiating table.
Indeed Britain trying to occupy the US would probably be a more complete disaster than any defeat the US could inflict on Britain but I can't imagine Parliament would be too happy.
There we go. This is the answer to the question posted by the thread. It would involve a huge expense, reduced revenue and wealth (since a lot of British $$ was invested in US plus a lot of tax revenue generated through trade with US).

The cost of maintain a large occupying army in US would greatly limit British ability to grow.

so we have a winner. Yeah!!!!!
 
You misunderstood the concept of BNA it British North America. It’s Canadá plain and simple. Not reclaiming US.
But they have to get the US to give up any part of Canada they take.

A naval buildup from 1807 gives the United States a stronger relative position than in @.
 

Lusitania

Donor
But they have to get the US to give up any part of Canada they take.

A naval buildup from 1807 gives the United States a stronger relative position than in @.
Which means that once Europe is done then the entire British navy can descend on USA and Britain can send Wellington and British army to occupy part of US or land in Canada and destroy any American forces there.
 
Top