What if US won the War of 1812?

Yeah, the idea that the US could "Win" the war of 1812 in the manner portrayed (i.e. holding swathes of Canada and in any way having a successful peace) is a fast-track to being effectively seen as deserving Napoleonic levels of punishment. Canada to my knowledge wasn't vital to winning in Europe. However, once Europe is won, suddenly there is an easy way for many Europeans to repay their debts to the UK - assisting in the American Theatre.

That is what an attempt to annex any territory will lead to, invasion on a scale that America wouldn't be able to handle, by armies that are veterans of the Napoleonic Wars. It is the fastest way to end the USA I could even think of.
 
The issue about lower Canada (Quebec) is that either it becomes a US state right away or independent. The US has no federal army which state is going to pay for the thousands of militia to garrison.

All US territories are self administering with people enjoying freedom to move around. So what the Americans going to do occupy and garrison. Thousands of troops. Where the $ coming from. The US has been cutoff from London and it’s financial system. For America is no longer a Anglo brother but a adversary and seen the same way as the French.

So we could see Britain provide financing and protection to Mexico. You could see Britain even provide French Canadian rebels with $ snd weapons. All in bid to slow American growth. Oregon trail going to not be negotiated amiacably.

Having an independent Quebec is a massive strategic problem for the US, since nothing precludes it from becoming the ally of a hostile foreign power. Even granting immediate statehood furthers the internal domestic problems, and the Quebecois will have their own sectional grievances to add. The sad truth is that they will need to garrison it if they hold it, something they really aren't prepared to do.

This is one of those problems never really thought of when considering US victory scenarios. OTL was about as close to a good outcome as they could hope for.
 
The best case scenario is that the Americans get the Ontario Peninsula. Unless you have a radical or very early PoD I doubt they can get Kingston to fall and almost assuredly not Montreal. Any lengthening of the war just puts further strain on a collapsing American economy and risks further or deeper intervention elsewhere.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The best case scenario is that the Americans get the Ontario Peninsula. Unless you have a radical or very early PoD I doubt they can get Kingston to fall and almost assuredly not Montreal. Any lengthening of the war just puts further strain on a collapsing American economy and risks further or deeper intervention elsewhere.

The problem is that the British have to agree to it and I not sure that another country conquering part of the Empire is the message they wAnt to send even if Napoleon stays in power.

The arguments that Britain is bankrupt not realistic. That France invades Britain also not happening.

Therefore I keep trying to see how the British let that happen. I mean give up Ontario. Let loyal British citizens be occupied permanently?
 
Therefore I keep trying to see how the British let that happen. I mean give up Ontario. Let loyal British citizens be occupied permanently?

The same way it left loyal British citizens to be occupied permanently after the Revolutionary War - the loyal British citizens either stayed or left the country.

Still, the US winning will take a PoD going back at least a decade - increasing the scope of the Army to actually exist in reasonable numbers prior to the war. probably would take a Federalist leadership (though that same leadership would have not lead to the War anyway considering their pro-British views as it stood). The only other option would be another conflict - perhaps a border one against the Spanish over the Louisiana territory - that, or a war against France to take the territory (the Quasi-War expands beyond its extent OTL, combined with the superficial appearance of success in Haiti (there doesn't have to be real success, but even the chance that France remains in North America)), could push the US to attempt war against France, which is a war that they'd be far more insulated throughout compared to a war against the UK. Either way, it'd provide a core of younger recruits with more experience that could be called back to service and another increase in funding that would create more reserves for the US (heck, if they take the Rio Grande claims, as difficult as that might be, they'd have even larger borders than OTL which need defending. They especially have to worry about the Comanche et al, so more Indian Wars will translate to more Army funding, etc).

But that being said, with the forces on the ground, with a change at the start of the War of 1812, I see no way to majorly affect the end results, which is status quo ante bellum for the US - they simply have too little to work with at the start of the conflict.

The easiest border change that I don't think I've seen mentioned are earlier finalization to the Minnesota/Maine borders. Though, again, I don't think that could be achieved OTL, but in some sort of conflict where the US starts out with a reasonably-sized military as mentioned above.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The same way it left loyal British citizens to be occupied permanently after the Revolutionary War - the loyal British citizens either stayed or left the country.

Still, the US winning will take a PoD going back at least a decade - increasing the scope of the Army to actually exist in reasonable numbers prior to the war. probably would take a Federalist leadership (though that same leadership would have not lead to the War anyway considering their pro-British views as it stood). The only other option would be another conflict - perhaps a border one against the Spanish over the Louisiana territory - that, or a war against France to take the territory (the Quasi-War expands beyond its extent OTL, combined with the superficial appearance of success in Haiti (there doesn't have to be real success, but even the chance that France remains in North America)), could push the US to attempt war against France, which is a war that they'd be far more insulated throughout compared to a war against the UK. Either way, it'd provide a core of younger recruits with more experience that could be called back to service and another increase in funding that would create more reserves for the US (heck, if they take the Rio Grande claims, as difficult as that might be, they'd have even larger borders than OTL which need defending. They especially have to worry about the Comanche et al, so more Indian Wars will translate to more Army funding, etc).

But that being said, with the forces on the ground, with a change at the start of the War of 1812, I see no way to majorly affect the end results, which is status quo ante bellum for the US - they simply have too little to work with at the start of the conflict.

The easiest border change that I don't think I've seen mentioned are earlier finalization to the Minnesota/Maine borders. Though, again, I don't think that could be achieved OTL, but in some sort of conflict where the US starts out with a reasonably-sized military as mentioned above.


Yes the British let it’s colonies become independent. What I was trying to say was that would it let a foreign government invade its territory and conquer part of the empire.

Now I was trying to find when the English/British did that and could not. So would they accept loosing part of empire right at same time they fighting in Europe or would they buckle down and attack back forcing the Americans to withdraw from all British lands as part of peace.
 
The same way it left loyal British citizens to be occupied permanently after the Revolutionary War - the loyal British citizens either stayed or left the country.

The difference was that were was widespread support for the American cause within Britain. As in one instance I need to track down the exact quote an officer who was deploying from Ireland IIRC to the rebellious colonies was told by a gentleman, "I do not wish you ill Sir but I cannot wish you well." This statement by a member of the gentry note not the peasantry. The idea of suppressing the rights and freedoms of 'fellow' Britons was one thing. The idea of leaving fellow Britons to be occupied by a foreign power would be quite another.

That said I do think it is perfectly acceptable to examine the repercussions on the US of the OP, once you accept the historical evidence that the British will move strongly to defend their own, you can still legitimately explore the counterfactual scenario that might occur should they not.
 
Yeah, the idea that the US could "Win" the war of 1812 in the manner portrayed (i.e. holding swathes of Canada and in any way having a successful peace) is a fast-track to being effectively seen as deserving Napoleonic levels of punishment. Canada to my knowledge wasn't vital to winning in Europe. However, once Europe is won, suddenly there is an easy way for many Europeans to repay their debts to the UK - assisting in the American Theatre.

That is what an attempt to annex any territory will lead to, invasion on a scale that America wouldn't be able to handle, by armies that are veterans of the Napoleonic Wars. It is the fastest way to end the USA I could even think of.
Britain does not need assistance to beat the US. They do not want to seem weak by requesting assistance from other countries. No one besides Britain has an interest in getting involved militarily. The US is in no way, shape, or form, a threat on the level of Napoleon by anyone, nor does it require a Nap level beatdown.

D
 
Britain does not need assistance to beat the US. They do not want to seem weak by requesting assistance from other countries. No one besides Britain has an interest in getting involved militarily. The US is in no way, shape, or form, a threat on the level of Napoleon by anyone, nor does it require a Nap level beatdown.

D

You're right - they don't NEED to - but it is an option.
 
Britain does not need assistance to beat the US. They do not want to seem weak by requesting assistance from other countries. No one besides Britain has an interest in getting involved militarily. The US is in no way, shape, or form, a threat on the level of Napoleon by anyone, nor does it require a Nap level beatdown.

D

And not everyone in the UK had interest

"I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any"

Duke of Wellington, November 1814

Now add on the US holding a good chunk of British North America

Enough of those in Power recalled how expensive the ARW was to fight, and there was already a problem with desertion in the British Army, over 70,000 cases during the Napoleonic Wars, and now new orders to fight in America after Spain and France would not be looked well on.
 

Lusitania

Donor
And not everyone in the UK had interest

"I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any"

Duke of Wellington, November 1814

Now add on the US holding a good chunk of British North America

Enough of those in Power recalled how expensive the ARW was to fight, and there was already a problem with desertion in the British Army, over 70,000 cases during the Napoleonic Wars, and now new orders to fight in America after Spain and France would not be looked well on.
This was a valid point in the iotl case where he argued that Britain had no right to demand anything. For Britain for all its victories had not been able to occupy any part of the US.

Would he turn around and state the same when it was the US who was the agressor and was occupying British territory. If the government had asked him to lead an army after Waterloo would he say no we have no right to liberate our lands? Would those who wanted to be free and leave the army not answer the call for volunteers to liberate the empire from American imperialism?
 
Would those who wanted to be free and leave the army not answer the call for volunteers to liberate the empire from American imperialism?

Not sure they would feel that, since most of Empire's holdings of of British North America was an empty, howling wilderness. Where was that enthusiasm to keep Cousin Johnathan in the Empire, and save the Tories in the 1780s?

The US was already the aggressor. here, ITTL they somehow got really lucky in the North.

Both sides were tired of the War. Had the US been doing good enough to control BNA thru 1814, the talks at Ghent would have concluded far sooner, before enough veteran Peninsular Troops would have been used in numbers to have made a difference in the outcome.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Not sure they would feel that, since most of Empire's holdings of of British North America was an empty, howling wilderness. Where was that enthusiasm to keep Cousin Johnathan in the Empire, and save the Tories in the 1780s?

The US was already the aggressor. here, ITTL they somehow got really lucky in the North.

Both sides were tired of the War. Had the US been doing good enough to control BNA thru 1814, the talks at Ghent would have concluded far sooner, before enough veteran Peninsular Troops would have been used in numbers to have made a difference in the outcome.
Yes the if the American position was to return all BNA for peace treaty and borders stay same. Yes the peace treaty be signed very fast and negotiation not drag on. If as few have indicated to attempt and annex BNA then the British would of responded in kind and used the veterans in North America.
 
The only way the us could gain Canada in the war of 1812 is if napolion is invading the island, otherwise iven if the us army could ocupid Canada the British could gust whate on its island and invade back whit is massive navy, not that it could sense the jefersonions had completly destroyed the professional army of Washington. So in that case the war did one good thing for the us, I made shere we knew it was the colonial army and not the state malisha that had won the revolutionary war.
 
Yes the if the American position was to return all BNA for peace treaty and borders stay same. Yes the peace treaty be signed very fast and negotiation not drag on. If as few have indicated to attempt and annex BNA then the British would of responded in kind and used the veterans in North America.
Original demands was not to gain territory, but to end British Right of Navigation on the Mississippi, support to Natives in the 'West', Impressing of Sailors and retaining the Right to Fish in North Atlantic.
Canada was a ways to get that, just a bargaining chip.

Though being so successful, only demands I'd see would be retaining control of areas around the Great Lakes, and the Saint Lawrence, not all of Upper and Lower Canada.

The Duke Wellington also said the problem wasn't the Army or Troop availability, but failure of the Navy, esp. on the Lakes.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Original demands was not to gain territory, but to end British Right of Navigation on the Mississippi, support to Natives in the 'West', Impressing of Sailors and retaining the Right to Fish in North Atlantic.
Canada was a ways to get that, just a bargaining chip.

Though being so successful, only demands I'd see would be retaining control of areas around the Great Lakes, and the Saint Lawrence, not all of Upper and Lower Canada.

The Duke Wellington also said the problem wasn't the Army or Troop availability, but failure of the Navy, esp. on the Lakes.
Those points about bargaining are valid. The issue is if US tries to demand territorial concessions then the British would continue their fight and most probable launch attacks to both liberate and inflict damage to US.
 
Top