WI British Victory in 1812

What if the British and the French won the war of 1812, or at least defeated the United States? What if Britain won Ft. McHenry and the US was defeated? What would happen in the Americas after that?
 

MrP

Banned
Prepare for a deluge of angry/contemptuous/baffled comments from Brits & Canadians that we did win. And then a counter-surge from Americans. ;)
 
What if the British and the French won the war of 1812, or at least defeated the United States? What if Britain won Ft. McHenry and the US was defeated? What would happen in the Americas after that?
...OK, you lose new-thread rights for the next half hour. :p

The most the Brits can plausibly get? Canada gets the Champlain valley, New Orleans, and Tecumseh et al gets Michigan. US western expansion is checked, at least temporarily. If it really goes badly for the US from the beginning, you may see NE seceed. I have trouble seeing things go worse for them than that.
 
Ahem. Since the US initial ambitions were to annex Canada while Britain was distracted with Napoleon, I think OTL return to statu quo ante qualifies as an US defeat.

Anyway, if you are looking for a harder peace result of a more favourable ituation for the British, then there would be a modification of Maine's northern border, an Indian buffer state in the Great Lakes region ruled by Tecumseh (or his successor) and in a extreme case the whole Louisiana Purchase handed back to Spain.
 
If there had been no Battle of New Orleans then the war would have been considered a draw between the US and Britain, tho the US certain got the worse end of it.
 
Last edited:
If there had been no Battle of New Orleans then the war would be been considered a draw between the US and Britain, tho the US certain got the worse end of it.
OK, let's completely validate P's preditction here... :rolleyes:

IT WAS A DRAW! Tilting towards a Brit Victory! The US acheieved none of it's strategic objectives! No, holding on to what you have at the ouset is not victory in an attempted landgrab! Nobody claims that Russia won the Crimean War just because the Brits didn't annex Sevastapol!
 
OK, let's completely validate P's preditction here... :rolleyes:

IT WAS A DRAW! Tilting towards a Brit Victory! The US acheieved none of it's strategic objectives! No, holding on to what you have at the ouset is not victory in an attempted landgrab! Nobody claims that Russia won the Crimean War just because the Brits didn't annex Sevastapol!
No doubt about it. Historically it was a draw, but the US never really considers it as such in its popular history. Jackson's victory at New Orleans completely overshadows this. Without New Orleans there would be at least one war where the US did not redeem itself.
 
No doubt about it. Historically it was a draw, but the US never really considers it as such in its popular history. Jackson's victory at New Orleans completely overshadows this. Without New Orleans there would be at least one war where the US did not redeem itself.
*CoughVietnamCough* ;)

...But the fact of New Orleans changes nothing; the US drew-shading-to-lost, and was, by 1814, fairly glad to do so.
 

mowque

Banned
you know, as an American, i always figured that when
a.) Your capital is burned
b. your major ports are shelled (Baltimore)
c. Your invasion fail miserably (Canada)

You LOST the war...
 
*CoughVietnamCough* ;)

...But the fact of New Orleans changes nothing; the US drew-shading-to-lost, and was, by 1814, fairly glad to do so.
Quiet well aware of that. But the typical school text books post 1860s and definitely when I was in school didn't say that. The average American citizen, with their less than adequate education, probably remembers the burning of Washington, the siege of Fort McHenry and the Battle of New Orleans.

I haven't looked at a elementary or high school US history textbook lately and would be mildly surprised if things aren't that much different. I believe that the recent interest in US history has created more forthright retelling of history. But in 1900 it wasn't like that.
 
Quiet well aware of that. But the typical school text books post 1860s and definitely when I was in school didn't say that. The average American citizen, with their less than adequate education, probably remembers the burning of Washington, the siege of Fort McHenry and the Battle of New Orleans.

I haven't looked at a elementary or high school US history textbook lately and would be mildly surprised if things aren't that much different. I believe that the recent interest in US history has created more forthright retelling of history. But in 1900 it wasn't like that.
And not, eg, General Hull. :p

Yeah, Canada does and I suspect always has put more emphasis on it. Your average Canadian schoolkid could probably name Washington and New Orleans, along with Queenston, Lundy's Lane, and probably Chateauguay (natives and anglos and Quebecois working together to fight off the Americans! They camoflauged their ambush with maple leaves, for goodnessakes!). It's a bigger thing up here (plus of course, we have less wars to pick from - the US has probably had two dozen riots bigger than the '37 in Upper Canada :rolleyes:).
 
Ah! A ASBDBWI! Always fun those.

I always find it odd when some Americans say New Orleans proves they won the war...Even aside the obvious a battle does not a war make. New Orleans is a American city...And the war was an American offensive... If it had been the battle of Toronto that the US had won then you could make a marginal case in that direction but New Orleans?
 
Last edited:
I'll only complicate matters further and say while Canada DOES deserve full credit for repelling Americans from Upper Canada/Ontario, that they claim Washington's burn as a victory is presposterous, even insulting to us and ignorant of them. Everyone knows the British won that one. ;)

Actually, what amuses me is how pathetic the Americans were when even then we should have had advantage of numbers on land and failed miserably, and yet did fantastically well for what we had on sea...the US Navy definately hasn't forgotten 1812 if what all the history courses I had in boot camp mean anything.
 
With the defeat of the British army and the death of Pakenham, Lambert decided that despite the arrival of reinforcements and a siege train for use against New Orleans, continuing the battle would be too costly. Within a week, all of the British troops had redeployed onto the ships and sailed away to Biloxi, Mississippi, where the British army attacked and captured Fort Bowyer on February 12. The British army was making preparations to attack Mobile when news arrived of the peace treaty.
The Battle of New Orleans actually turns out to be a strategic retreat with the British possibly planning on cutting off Andrew Jackson.
 
What if the British and the French won the war of 1812, or at least defeated the United States? What if Britain won Ft. McHenry and the US was defeated? What would happen in the Americas after that?
I think everybody missed a very important point in the OP. I put it in bold.

This suppose that France and Uk are allied against USA in 1812.

The only reason for the USA not to be outright conquered is if both regard this theater as a minor factor in a much bigger war.

Because if the RN is transporting the Grande Armee to America, USA is toast.

I just wonder what is the latest non-ASb PoD which can get a France-Uk alliance against USA in 1812
 
I think everybody missed a very important point in the OP. I put it in bold.

This suppose that France and Uk are allied against USA in 1812.

The only reason for the USA not to be outright conquered is if both regard this theater as a minor factor in a much bigger war.

Because if the RN is transporting the Grande Armee to America, USA is toast.

I just wonder what is the latest non-ASb PoD which can get a France-Uk alliance against USA in 1812
I bolded it back in post 3. :p

Hmmm... actually... How about just in general, an ASB Britian + France take on the world in 1800? Who wins?
 
How about just in general, an ASB Britian + France take on the world in 1800? Who wins?
You man Nelson, Napoleon and his marshalls and Wellington are on the same side?

They win any battle. However, they don't have the manpower to garrison the world. So any takeover would have to be gradual.
 
No sea to shining sea?

Territorially there should have been no changes to pre 1812 boundaries as Britain had no territorial dispute with the existing United States but the Westward expansion may have been affect particularly in the Pacific North West resulting in a border south of the 49th parallel at a later stage.

Had Tecumsah survived the Battle of the Thames there might well have been a British backed buffer state in the Mid West. Any expansion would have been South West
 
Top