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

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.

It would be more accurate to say that America limited its foreign entanglements until the end of the 19th Century. Considering that we should probably compare it to European powers, the shoe still fits. We may have been fairly involved in our near abroad, but most every European nation did more.

Your White House looked better after all the burning was hidden by whitewash, a bit like America's performance in the war!

Whoever stereotyped Canadians as consistently polite clearly never discussed 1812 with them. That date's basically a trigger to try and out-smug both Americans and Britons in a single breath.
 
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.

As others have said, this is very unlikely after the Treaty of Ghent has been not only signed but ratified by the Prince Regent. Doing so would damage British diplomatic prestige.

Because the Battle of New Orleans occurred almost simultaneously with the arrival of news of the treaty in the US, the war was seen and continues to be seen in popular memory as an American victory (many Britons and Canadians have similarly fanciful interpretations). If the US loses at New Orleans, the war will instead be seen as a draw, which would be an accurate assessment.

Madison wanted to vastly enlarge both the army and the navy following the war, but had to compromise with Congress on the subject. In the event of defeat at New Orleans, he might get what he wants.

Another possible change: a less confident America in 1815 may be hesitant to immediately attack Algiers.
 
So, moving away from the discussion on the outcome of 1812...

What are the ramifications for the Cherokee if Jackson is killed at New Orleans? Does it create any meaningful changes in the fate of Native Americans in the US, or would someone else embark on the same policies as Jackson's presidency?
 
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.

as far as jackson dying, it could be simply a case of preshadowing the death of another jackson. Shot by one of his own sentries, ala stonewall.
 

Driftless

Donor
So, moving away from the discussion on the outcome of 1812...

What are the ramifications for the Cherokee if Jackson is killed at New Orleans? Does it create any meaningful changes in the fate of Native Americans in the US, or would someone else embark on the same policies as Jackson's presidency?

That's where I could see Davy Crockett coming into play. He served in the Creek Indian Wars, but was opposed to the "Trail of Tears' forced expulsion that Jackson promoted. Crockett was often opposed to many of the causes Jackson supported. However, Crockett's vote against the Indian Removal Act cost him his seat in Congress, so he was probably ahead of his times in relation to Native Americans.
 
Last edited:
Madison wanted to vastly enlarge both the army and the navy following the war, but had to compromise with Congress on the subject. In the event of defeat at New Orleans, he might get what he wants.

Another possible change: a less confident America in 1815 may be hesitant to immediately attack Algiers.

How much did he want to enlarge the navy? The appearance that the British could land up and down the coast at their leisure, and the seizure of both the capital and the largest city in the South would probably be a pretty good source to site in order to encourage naval expansion.

That of course has some interesting butterflies all its own.

As to Algiers, I think it would be more likely that they would attack. The pirates were seen as a scourge by the civilized world and certainly weren't likely to draw the ire of European powers if America intervened. It would be an excellent morale booster and would be more celebrated after the war I think.
 
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)

A war in which the peace treaty calls for the status quo ante bellum is, by any reasonable definition, neither a victory nor defeat.
 
Fair enough, but the US succeeded in none of its war aims, while the British succeeded in all of them...

Actually the casus belli was the British impressment of American sailors and harrassment of U.S. shipping, as well as their support for Tecumseh's Confederacy. The first two ceased (although this was due to the Napoleonic Wars ending) and Tecumseh was killed by U.S. forces, causing his Confederacy to collapse.

The United States would have ideally liked to have captured some Canadian territory, to be sure, but that was not the formal rationale for the war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Others have already responded, but:

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.

1) The British commanders were, frankly, nuts for attacking the American position; as witness the deaths of Pakenham and Gibbs, and Keane WIA, the advantage was entirely with the Americans on the defensive (who were, after all, outnumbered roughly 4-3). Likewise, Jackson's subordinate general officers - Carroll, Coffee, and Adair - were hardly without experience, and were quite capable of holding a line and shooting down the British on the attack.

NewOrleansBattle.gif


Best,
 
So, moving away from the discussion on the outcome of 1812...

What are the ramifications for the Cherokee if Jackson is killed at New Orleans? (1) Does it create any meaningful changes in the fate of Native Americans in the US, (2) or would someone else embark on the same policies as Jackson's presidency? (3)

1) None:(

2) No:(:(

3) I suppose it MIGHT be better, if only because the only US presidents post-New Orleans with a worse record regarding treatment of Native Americans were the presidents during the Gilded Age (the Plains Wars).

That, and that it appears Jackson was considered an Indian-hater even among other Indian-haters.:mad:

That's where I could see Davy Crockett coming into play. He served in the Creek Indian Wars, but was opposed to the "Trail of Tears' forced expulsion that Jackson promoted. Crockett was often opposed to many of the causes Jackson supported. However, Crockett's vote against the Indian Removal Act cost him his seat in Congress, so he was probably ahead of his times in relation to Native Americans.

Crockett was AGAINST the tide of history, not ahead of it.:(:(:( After all, US soldiers were still butchering helpless Native American women and children without any consequences whatsoever as late as 1890!:eek::( And "Bureau of Indian Affairs" is to this very day a synonym within the Federal Civil Service for "corruption".

As to Algiers, I think it would be more likely that they would attack. The pirates were seen as a scourge by the civilized world and certainly weren't likely to draw the ire of European powers if America intervened. It would be an excellent morale booster and would be more celebrated after the war I think.

:confused:??? Weren't there US campaigns against the Tripolitans before 1812? And wasn't it an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1817 that pulverized Algiers (or was it Tunis?:confused::eek:) and wiped out Meditteranean piracy in the Pax Britannica?

1) The British commanders were, frankly, nuts for attacking the American position<snip>

Best

Churchill pulled no punches in calling it one of the most unintelligent maneuvers in the history of British warfare. If Pakenham had survived, Wellington would have been in the unenviable position of having to court-martial his own brother-in-law...:eek:
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep ... and Pakenham was one of the vaunted

Churchill pulled no punches in calling it one of the most unintelligent maneuvers in the history of British warfare. If Pakenham had survived, Wellington would have been in the unenviable position of having to court-martial his own brother-in-law...:eek:

Yep ... and Pakenham was one of the vaunted "Peninsular veterans" that was supposed to prove Prevost was a fluke.

Of course, Ross was as well, and we know how he ended up.

Best,
 

Driftless

Donor
1
Crockett was AGAINST the tide of history, not ahead of it.:(:(:( After all, US soldiers were still butchering helpless Native American women and children without any consequences whatsoever as late as 1890!:eek::( And "Bureau of Indian Affairs" is to this very day a synonym within the Federal Civil Service for "corruption".

The less cynical side of me could see that with no Andrew Jackson, the Indian Removal Act loses steam. Crockett,who opposed the act, being the "other" famous frontiersman, may carry more weight across the country. Even though his opposition to the Act narrowly cost him his seat in Congress, he was re-elected shortly thereafter.

That may be a Pollyanna idea, but Crockett's view may have had a beneficial effect on US vs. Indian relations
 
Yep ... and Pakenham was one of the vaunted "Peninsular veterans" that was supposed to prove Prevost was a fluke.

Of course, Ross was as well, and we know how he ended up.

Best,

All the training, leadership, experience, and esprit-de-corps in the world is useless against the firepower of stupid overconfidence!:p

The less cynical side of me could see that with no Andrew Jackson, the Indian Removal Act loses steam. Crockett,who opposed the act, being the "other" famous frontiersman, may carry more weight across the country. Even though his opposition to the Act narrowly cost him his seat in Congress, he was re-elected shortly thereafter.

That may be a Pollyanna idea, but Crockett's view may have had a beneficial effect on US vs. Indian relations

There is "less cynical", and then there is starry-eyed idealism.:(
 
1) None:(

2) No:(:(

3) I suppose it MIGHT be better, if only because the only US presidents post-New Orleans with a worse record regarding treatment of Native Americans were the presidents during the Gilded Age (the Plains Wars).

That, and that it appears Jackson was considered an Indian-hater even among other Indian-haters.:mad:

Huh I knew Jackson was pretty racist for his day, but he was that bad? Well that's certainly not giving me a more favorable impression of the man.

So maybe no forced Trail of Tears and ethnic cleansing, or maybe a series of even more unfair treaties? But if the Natives resisted it still ends pretty poorly for them.

:confused:??? Weren't there US campaigns against the Tripolitans before 1812? And wasn't it an Anglo-Dutch fleet in 1817 that pulverized Algiers (or was it Tunis?:confused::eek:) and wiped out Meditteranean piracy in the Pax Britannica?

I do believe we are both referring to the Second Barbary War. Though you are correct in stating the Anglo-Dutch fleet wiped them out for good.
 
How much did he want to enlarge the navy? The appearance that the British could land up and down the coast at their leisure, and the seizure of both the capital and the largest city in the South would probably be a pretty good source to site in order to encourage naval expansion.

Wait--I've made an error. It looks like there was actually little debate over the Naval Expansion Act of 1816.

Although Washington, D.C. was the capital, it was far from the largest city in the South. One of the reasons why the US was successful at Baltimore was that that city had larger resources to draw upon.
 
Top