What if the British Win the Battle of New Orleans and Andrew Jackson is killed?

So, I'm kicking an idea around and I'd love some help spitballing.

So, what would be the impact of Andrew Jackson dying in a failed attempt to hold off the British in the Battle of New Orleans?

I was thinking that the British might set their allies the Native Americans up with their own nation, creating a block to westward expansion for the American states, for one thing.

Jackson's later years, after the battle, are full of some pretty direct, decisive actions against the indians, not to mention his terms as president, which set the foundation for our very strong executive today. Without him, we might have a much weaker presidency.

But what am I missing? What would spin out from this change?
 
The thing is that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed. It's often the only other thing folks know about it, other than that it was one of the few clear American victories in the War of 1812. So all you're really doing is creating butterflies for American politics, unless the British decide to nullify the treaty after hearing about a victorious Battle of New Orleans. Which seems highly unlikely, and would make the Hundred Days potentially a lot different in context, if not necessarily outcome.

Certainly lots of butterflies for the 1820s and 1830s politically, but I think the rise of the Jacksonian Democrats is going to happen no matter what. Different folks would be leading it and it might not have the staying power it had OTL, but the increasingly wide franchise amongst white men guaranteed something like it would happen. Maybe without Jackson we get a totally different monetary history of the U.S., as if there's no Jacksonian crusade against the Second Bank of the United States, it's highly unlikely eight decades are spent without a central bank.
 
The immediate effect is that it becomes that much clearer that the US lost the war (and we would avoid so much of the modern nonsense which insists otherwise) and the US probably becomes much more concerned with making its military less of a shambles and it perhaps kills the militia myth. They return to concentrating on issues in their back yard and are far less likely to press things with Britain.

For long term American politics the effect is more interesting, but I'm not much of an expert on the 20s and 30s in the US so I can't offer to much useful speculation.
 
Ah! Thanks for the reply.

So, if I was very interested in flipping the outcome of the War of 1812, I need to look a lot earlier, obviously.

;)
 
If you want to change the outcome of the War of 1812, you really need to change the dynamics of the concurrent rounds of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, as it's hard for the U.S. to do worse than it did in the OTL War of 1812. So long as Napoleon absorb Britain's attention, you're not going to meaningfully change things as far as the eventual peace settlement. (Well, barring the secession of New England and the dissolution of the U.S. government.)

But once you start monkeying around with the flow of the Napoleonic Wars, you unleash legions of butterflies that could well remove all impetus for a War of 1812 (e.g. a French defeat during the Ulm or Austerlitz campaigns) or could shorten the war so significantly that we still end up with a status quo antebellum settlement.
 
If you want to change the outcome of the War of 1812, you really need to change the dynamics of the concurrent rounds of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, as it's hard for the U.S. to do worse than it did in the OTL War of 1812. So long as Napoleon absorb Britain's attention, you're not going to meaningfully change things as far as the eventual peace settlement. (Well, barring the secession of New England and the dissolution of the U.S. government.)

But once you start monkeying around with the flow of the Napoleonic Wars, you unleash legions of butterflies that could well remove all impetus for a War of 1812 (e.g. a French defeat during the Ulm or Austerlitz campaigns) or could shorten the war so significantly that we still end up with a status quo antebellum settlement.

Absent the war of the Fifth Coalition the US wouldn't have even conceived of fighting the British. The entire US game plan depended on Britain being too distracted to defend her North American possessions in order to hold them hostage/annex them to gain concessions from Great Britain. Absent that the only plausible outcome is a crushingly short war for the US. Without the debacles of 1812-13 the deadwood at the top levels of the US Army would have remained, and coupled with the truly pathetic shape of the US Army at the time its only plausible the result would have been worse for them.
 
So, I'm kicking an idea around and I'd love some help spitballing.

So, what would be the impact of Andrew Jackson dying in a failed attempt to hold off the British in the Battle of New Orleans?

I was thinking that the British might set their allies the Native Americans up with their own nation, creating a block to westward expansion for the American states, for one thing.

Jackson's later years, after the battle, are full of some pretty direct, decisive actions against the indians, not to mention his terms as president, which set the foundation for our very strong executive today. Without him, we might have a much weaker presidency.

But what am I missing? What would spin out from this change?

The Dead Skunk, by Lycaon pictus
 
I guess Upper Canada being burnt and occupied meant nothing. :)

Typical Britain uber alles.

This is precisely what I mean actually, especially since that was the high water mark of the American invasion.

But sure, it's a win when your navy is sunk to the bottom of the sea/driven to port, your trade destroyed, capital sacked, territory occupied, and your invasions repulsed. I'd hate to see what losing looks like in that case ;)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
How does this happen, exactly?

So, I'm kicking an idea around and I'd love some help spitballing.

So, what would be the impact of Andrew Jackson dying in a failed attempt to hold off the British in the Battle of New Orleans?

I was thinking that the British might set their allies the Native Americans up with their own nation, creating a block to westward expansion for the American states, for one thing.

Jackson's later years, after the battle, are full of some pretty direct, decisive actions against the indians, not to mention his terms as president, which set the foundation for our very strong executive today. Without him, we might have a much weaker presidency.

But what am I missing? What would spin out from this change?

How does this happen, exactly, given the relative positions and strengths of Jackson's forces vis a vis Pakenham's when the shooting starts?

The litany of errors made by the British commanders at New Orleans being what they were, how exactly do you think a) the British could "win" and B) given the Americans were on the defensive and dug in, how do you suggest Jackson would have been at risk?

You need a significant point of departure to even get your suggestion even close to occurring... And define "win" as you see it.

Best
 
How does this happen, exactly, given the relative positions and strengths of Jackson's forces vis a vis Pakenham's when the shooting starts?

The litany of errors made by the British commanders at New Orleans being what they were, how exactly do you think a) the British could "win" and B) given the Americans were on the defensive and dug in, how do you suggest Jackson would have been at risk?

You need a significant point of departure to even get your suggestion even close to occurring... And define "win" as you see it.

Best

Maybe Jackson dies at the start of a surprise attack, or a salvo from a British ship hits a magazine and kills a bunch of officers? That could have an extremely deletrious effect on American morale.

It's pretty easy with pre-industrial scale warfare to create a PoD to change a battle.
 
The immediate effect is that it becomes that much clearer that the US lost the war (and we would avoid so much of the modern nonsense which insists otherwise) and the US probably becomes much more concerned with making its military less of a shambles and it perhaps kills the militia myth. They return to concentrating on issues in their back yard and are far less likely to press things with Britain.:confused: (1)

For long term American politics the effect is more interesting, but I'm not much of an expert on the 20s and 30s in the US so I can't offer to much useful speculation.(2)

1) :confused: Since when did the USA engage in foreign entanglements prior to 1917?

2) Probably harsher relations with Great Britain. (3) If history is any guide, then Americans have very long memories regarding "the Mother Country". A greater chance of Foreign Intervention in the American Civil War, and/or the chance for strictest neutrality (no war loans) in WWI. (4)

3) In many ways, the myth of the War of 1812 ending in a draw (5) did wonders for Anglo-American relations. It softened feelings between the two countries for generations going forward. Britain knew full well who won, and if the Americans felt that simply winning a few victories on the Great Lakes, some frigate-to-frigate duels, and New Orleans constituted either a "win" or an "honorable draw", that was good enough for the Americans and the mythology was acceptable enough for the British. I think really only Canadians would make a more determined argument on the matter, since from their POV they were fighting for their own national survival.

Think of it as a fight in which the super-heavyweight is matched against a feather-weight. No matter how hard or skillfully the feather-weight fights, he has no chance whatsoever against a boxer who outweighs him by double his own size. But the super-heavyweight, so impressed is he by the spirit shown by his opponent, isn't really interested in humiliating his foe completely, and is willing to allow the feather-weight to believe it was an "honorable matching of two worthy foes." No reason to make for a vendetta when you don't have to.:) Hence, the Treaty of Ghent.

4) Sadly, when such things are brought up in discussion threads like this, it inevitably draws the chant of butterflies-butterflies-butterflies! Just because circumstances CAN change significantly, that doesn't mandate that they WILL change-always-in every instance.

5) IDK where other people were taught American History, but I was always told it was a draw, NOT an American victory. Though to be fair, it often depended on your school's syllabus and how old your textbooks were.:rolleyes:
 
Maybe Jackson dies at the start of a surprise attack, or a salvo from a British ship hits a magazine and kills a bunch of officers? That could have an extremely deletrious effect on American morale.

It's pretty easy with pre-industrial scale warfare to create a PoD to change a battle.

He could probably be killed during a moment of bravado, say the British are storming the works and he leads a counter attack. All you need is one stray bullet and down he goes.

God knows the British commanders were dropping like flies in that engagement, and Jackson was never lacking on personal bravado.
 
Maybe Jackson dies at the start of a surprise attack, or a salvo from a British ship hits a magazine and kills a bunch of officers? That could have an extremely deletrious effect on American morale.

It's pretty easy with pre-industrial scale warfare to create a PoD to change a battle.

New Orleans was too far inland for naval gunfire, and the intervening water was too swampy for them to sail ships through. They could barely get naval guns in on dinghies, and they lost an artillery duel horribly to the pirate gunners working for Jackson. Given the excellent local intelligence Jackson had, it seems hard for the British to catch him off guard.

Pre-industrial warfare was chancy stuff, but by those standards Jackson basically held all the cards. There were so many advantages in his corner it's not even funny.
 
1) :confused: Since when did the USA engage in foreign entanglements prior to 1917?


1836 - Texas
1848 - Mexico
1898 - Spain and then the Philippines
1914(?) - Mexico again

Then there's the Oregon crisis with Britain, the Lumberjack War and a bunch of other occurances

A greater defeat, or a humbling blow at New Orleans, might check American expansionism in the 19th century. Personally, I don't see how, as the ToG was already signed, but hey. Who knows what could happen, maybe the British decided to not leave New Orleans and declare the Louisiana purchase illegal post-facto and declare an independent Louisiana?
 
1) :confused: Since when did the USA engage in foreign entanglements prior to 1917?

2) Probably harsher relations with Great Britain. (3) If history is any guide, then Americans have very long memories regarding "the Mother Country". A greater chance of Foreign Intervention in the American Civil War, and/or the chance for strictest neutrality (no war loans) in WWI. (4)

3) In many ways, the myth of the War of 1812 ending in a draw (5) did wonders for Anglo-American relations. It softened feelings between the two countries for generations going forward. Britain knew full well who won, and if the Americans felt that simply winning a few victories on the Great Lakes, some frigate-to-frigate duels, and New Orleans constituted either a "win" or an "honorable draw", that was good enough for them and good enough for the Americans. I think really only Canadians would make a more determined argument on the matter, since from their POV they were fighting for their own national survival.

Think of it as a fight in which the super-heavyweight is matched against a feather-weight. No matter how hard or skillfully the feather-weight fights, he has no chance whatsoever against a boxer who outweighs him by double his own size. But the super-heavyweight, so impressed is he by the spirit shown by his opponent, isn't really interested in humiliating his foe completely, and is willing to allow the feather-weight to believe it was an "honorable matching of two worthy foes." No reason to make for a vendetta when you don't have to.:) Hence, the Treaty of Ghent.

4) Sadly, when such things are brought up in discussion threads like this, it inevitably draws the chant of butterflies-butterflies-butterflies! Just because circumstances CAN change significantly, that doesn't mandate that they WILL change-always-in every instance.

5) IDK where other people were taught American History, but I was always told it was a draw, NOT an American victory. Though to be fair, it often depended on your school's syllabus and how old your textbooks were.:rolleyes:

1) Well I count this as technically engaging in a foreign entanglement, though that's well up for debate but I consider 1812 a part of the Napoleonic Wars as a whole.

2)3) Hm that's a fair point actually. Even though relations could be sour throughout the period from 1815-1900 they tended to be at least somewhat friendly. The harsher a peace the British imposed the more acrimonious relations became over the years. That's a hazardous proposition for young Canada at this point.

(Also yes I do say Canadians make a pretty robust argument on the matter since it really was a war to preserve our burgeoning national identity)

4) Well there are circumstances where butterflies can change things, but its not enough to stop the final outcome. The thread on a potential French victory at Sedan made that pretty clear, the odds were just far to heavily stacked against them to make such butterflies even matter. I personally don't think there are butterflies big enough to change the general outcome of 1812 considering the factors stacked against the Americans in the war as it was.

5) I imagine its a matter of pride for some people south of the border too :p but hey the militia myth of Canadians being an overall important part of the War of 1812 (versus that of British regulars) endured for nearly a century in Canada and we still had it coming up when I was in school. That's popular history for you though.
 
1836 - Texas
1848 - Mexico
1898 - Spain and then the Philippines
1914(?) - Mexico again

Then there's the Oregon crisis with Britain, the Lumberjack War and a bunch of other occurances

A greater defeat, or a humbling blow at New Orleans, might check American expansionism in the 19th century. Personally, I don't see how, as the ToG was already signed, but hey. Who knows what could happen, maybe the British decided to not leave New Orleans and declare the Louisiana purchase illegal post-facto and declare an independent Louisiana?

I forgot about the Spanish-American War.:eek:

Texas & Mexico were basically the same war separated by a dozen years.

The last US-Mexican "war" in the 20th century was a defensive action in response to an incursion by forces answering to Pancho Villa attacking a civilian town in New Mexico. The USA isn't always the aggressor.

Oregon was a diplomatic crisis.

Attempting to create a British Louisiana has been a favorite ATL for many years, and has all the viability of a surviving Burgundy. Only a whole lot worse.:( Britian has a lot bigger fish to fry elsewhere. If a British Louisiana were attempted, New Orleans would be the busiest port on the face of Planet Earth, and all this coming pre-railroads and the Age of Steam in its absolute infancy. Lotsa Luck! Google "Osmosis".
 
I forgot about the Spanish-American War.:eek:

Texas & Mexico were basically the same war separated by a dozen years.

The last US-Mexican "war" in the 20th century was a defensive action in response to an incursion by forces answering to Pancho Villa attacking a civilian town in New Mexico. The USA isn't always the aggressor.

Oregon was a diplomatic crisis.

Well, even if Texas and Mexico are one war, that's still a foreign entanglement pre-1917.

As for US-Mexico,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ypiranga_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Veracruz

All of these predate the Pancho Villa expedition. And yes, the occupation of Veracruz was American aggression.

As for Oregon; diplomatic crises are still foreign entanglements, and a more-isolated US might not dispute the territory with Britain.
 
Top