What events would need to change for America to win the war of 1812?

[ShineMiraga]

Like, one thing I was thinking of is the Canadians voluntarily joining the U.S., unlike in our Timeline
Or the Napoleonic Wars go more in favor of France, unlike in our Timeline.

 

[m0585]

From one perspective, the U.S. did win the War of 1812. They successfully (despite multiple screwups) defended their territory/were lucky enough that the British withdrew from captured territory. Also, the British ended the practice of impressment; though this was mainly due to the Napoleonic Wars ending.

 

[Lusitania]

Like, one thing I was thinking of is the Canadians voluntarily joining the U.S., unlike in our Timeline
Or the Napoleonic Wars go more in favor of France, unlike in our Timeline.

For the Canadians to join it would mean they be upset at British and with majority of English speaking people in Canada being British loyalists that not going to happen since most were descendants of loyalists who fled US when it became independent

 

[Captain Seafort]

From one perspective, the U.S. did win the War of 1812. They successfully (despite multiple screwups) defended their territory/were lucky enough that the British withdrew from captured territory. Also, the British ended the practice of impressment; though this was mainly due to the Napoleonic Wars ending.

That's like saying France won the Seven Years War because neither the British or Prussian armies occupied Paris and Versailles.

For the US to win the War of 1812, the US Navy would have to control North American coastal waters, to prevent the RN obliterating the US economy and reinforcing BNA. This required far stronger ships than they were willing to build, and far more than they were capable of building.

 

[m0585]

That's like saying France won the Seven Years War because neither the British or Prussian armies occupied Paris and Versailles.

For the US to win the War of 1812, the US Navy would have to control North American coastal waters, to prevent the RN obliterating the US economy and reinforcing BNA. This required far stronger ships than they were willing to build, and far more than they were capable of building.

That's why I said "from one perspective". No, the U.S. definitely didn't "win" in the traditional sense of the word. Perhaps it was more a moral win.

 

[Captain Seafort]

That's why I said "from one perspective". No, the U.S. definitely didn't "win" in the traditional sense of the word. Perhaps it was more a moral win.

It was no more a moral victory than that of a would-be mugger who gets beaten to a pulp but doesn't have his wallet stolen. The only victory the US achieved was the propaganda one over the last two centuries, to successfully peddle the pack of lies that the war consisted of the UK trying to re-annex the colonies and failing.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

You'd probably need a pre-war POD, so that the US actually has a good-sized regular military going into the conflict.

From one perspective, the U.S. did win the War of 1812. They successfully (despite multiple screwups) defended their territory/were lucky enough that the British withdrew from captured territory.

I don't think "not losing any territory" can reasonably be counted a victory when the US started the war.

lso, the British ended the practice of impressment; though this was mainly due to the Napoleonic Wars ending.

Not only was it due to the Napoleonic Wars, it actually occurred before the US declaration of war. Again, I don't think this can be counted a victory when it had already occurred before the start of the war.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Not only was it due to the Napoleonic Wars, it actually occurred before the US declaration of war. Again, I don't think this can be counted a victory when it had already occurred before the start of the war.

I think you're getting impressment mixed up with the blockade orders in council - the former was maintained until the end of the European war, the latter were modified to give US shipping an exemption in early 1812.

 

[The Professor]

Essentially there's no way for the US to win the War of 1812 without it not being the War of 1812.

 

[m0585]

Again, to stress, I'm not saying it was victory in the traditional sense of the word. But given how bad it could have been for the U.S. (and yes it could have been very bad if Britain had wanted it to be) then it could be viewed as a victory from a certain perspective.

 

[The Professor]

Again, to stress, I'm not saying it was victory in the traditional sense of the word. But given how bad it could have been for the U.S. (and yes it could have been very bad if Britain had wanted it to be) then it could be viewed as a victory from a certain perspective.

Well if you want to count barely achieving even one of their war goals as a victory...

 

[ShineMiraga]

By "WIN" I mean achieve at least 1 of its war-goals, not a status quo like in our timeline.
Im asking what events had to change so that America COULD have won.

 

[The Professor]

By "WIN" I mean achieve at least 1 of its war-goals, not a status quo like in our timeline.
Im asking what events had to change so that America COULD have won.

It requires changes as far back in the ARW such that there won't be an analogous 1812 War for it to win.

 

[wcv215]

A more successful France leads to Napoleon semi-successfully reestablishing an empire in North America. In 1812 with France fighting in Europe again, and the US's ongoing desire for control of the Mississippi unresolved, and France distracted James Madison asks Congress for a declaration of war on France.

With the RN actively blockading French waters Napoleon is unable to send reinforcments, resulting in the US taking New Orleans and being granted control of Louisiana after Napoleanic France collapses.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Napoleon wins in Russia and the war of 1812 still happens. Suddenly, the to the British, the Canada front seems a lot less important. If they ever try to conscript Canadian-British to defend the homeland and fight on the European front, a divide might drive Canada from the homeland (since they feel abandoned with the crown sending the regulars to Europe, leaving Canada at the wrath of the Americans and now conscripting men on top of that) and sue for peace to America on favorable terms for America.

 

[Lusitania]

A more successful France leads to Napoleon semi-successfully reestablishing an empire in North America. In 1812 with France fighting in Europe again, and the US's ongoing desire for control of the Mississippi unresolved, and France distracted James Madison asks Congress for a declaration of war on France.

With the RN actively blockading French waters Napoleon is unable to send reinforcments, resulting in the US taking New Orleans and being granted control of Louisiana after Napoleanic France collapses.

Unless Napoleon is able to secure and control Haiti the rest of French North America was worthless to France. The carribean islands with their sugar plantations were the French top priority. When France lost Haiti he had no interest in French North America and sold it gladly to the US. So for France to be interested and still in control of French North America during war then France has to be able to hold onto Haiti.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Napoleon wins in Russia and the war of 1812 still happens. Suddenly, the to the British, the Canada front seems a lot less important. If they ever try to conscript Canadian-British to defend the homeland and fight on the European front, a divide might drive Canada from the homeland (since they feel abandoned with the crown sending the regulars to Europe, leaving Canada at the wrath of the Americans and now conscripting men on top of that) and sue for peace to America on favorable terms for America.

Given that the British army never had conscription before 1916, the Canadian militia was kicking the US Army's teeth in pretty effectively in 1812 with minimal regular support, and the RN proved perfectly capable of simultaneously blockading both the US and France in 1812-1814 (and, in 1812, provide seaward support to the Russian army), I don't find this theory convincing. If anything, it demonstrates that the only way the US can win is if the UK shifts its approach from apathy to actively trying to lose.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Given that the British army never had conscription before 1916, the Canadian militia was kicking the US Army's teeth in pretty effectively in 1812 with minimal regular support,

Yeah, but that was without cannibalizing the militia for the European front. OTL conscription didn't start yet, but the idea of conscription already existed in France, so it's not like it's unknown to the British. The question for them would be, how scary is Napoleon.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Maybe if Jefferson didn’t get rid of internal taxes, and used them to fund an army. I’m not sure how many men could be funded with those taxes though.

How many men would be needed to take Canada, provided America gets very lucky?

 

[Captain Seafort]

Yeah, but that was without cannibalizing the militia for the European front.

Correct. This was never going to happen in the relevant time frame, because of the importance of the principle of an all-volunteer army. Unless you can provide evidence that fighting Napoleon can put more of a strain of British army manpower than the Battle of the Somme.

the idea of conscription already existed in France, so it's not like it's unknown to the British.

Conscription had been standard wartime practice in the RN for decades, and was working well without serious protest. Using it in the army would have caused widespread uproar.

The question for them would be, how scary is Napoleon.

Not very, given that he didn't have a fleet. The worst realistic scenario is that Boney leads the Grand Army comes south of the Pyrenees in strength, in which case Wellington withdraws to Torres Vedras and either holds them there until central Europe kicks off again, or withdraws by sea.