WI: US wins War of 1812 decisively?

US fleet, 1812: 5000 seamen, 1000 marines
British fleet, 1812: 140,000 seamen incl 31,000 marines

The two are barely even on the same scale.


1810 RN count of ships of the line 152
1815 count 126

1810 RN count of cruising ships 183
1815 count 151

(1810 count of FRA+NLD+ESP+DNK+RUS liners = 46 + 13 + 28 + 2 + 43 = 132)


1810 US count of ships of the line
0
1815 count
3

1810 count of US frigates including those on ways
10 (of which three ready for action)
1815 count
12

1810 count of US sloops of war
4
1815 count
8


The US fleet is not far off a rounding error.

how many privateers? (as they are attacking British ships we should count them).... (peak strength a little over 500)
which took about 1300 ships (of which half were recaptured, the USN took another 165 (after adjusting for recaptures) (so around 800 British ships if you round to the nearest).

a reasonably even handed look at the War of 1812 can be found here

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-08/british-view-naval-war-1812

this page has several interesting links

http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng/Topic/66

basically the US inflicted some damage but really was in about the same situation at sea as the Germans were in both World Wars. Able to inflict serious damage but unable to deny British sea control

Except on the Great Lakes, where it turned out to matter decisively that the British were denied sea control and the Americans got it.
 
To be precise, the ability of the US to employ British sailors was an issue which was preferable to the ending of impressment:

'a provision, similar to that suggested, vizt. an engagement on our part to employ no British sailors would materially injure our navigation, much more indeed than any restrictions which supposing no treaty to take place they could lay upon our commerce. Nor will it be worth while to purchase at that price any of the suggested improvements in the commercial part of the treaty, because the curtailing of our navigation by that measure would effectually prevent our enjoying the advantages which might otherwise result from such modifications. The question, it seems to me, will be merely whether we will make that sacrifice in order to obtain an abandonment of the practice of impressing hereafter. And upon a reconsideration of the subject, the fact as to number & consequences being very different from what we had apprehended, I think the sacrifice too great for the object.' (Albert Gallatin to Thomas Jefferson, 13 April 1807; emphasis added)

'the number of English seamen being larger than we had estimated, and particularly as it relates to able seamen, it is to be apprehended that the measure proposed would materially injure the navigation of the United States. Indeed it appears to me that the only positive good resulting from it would be that the British would then abstain from impressing in future.' (Albert Gallatin to James Madison, 13 April 1807)

so in short, if the United States surrenders its sovereignty and the rights of people who have moved to the US in search of what America offered in terms of personal freedoms the British were willing to not infringe on American sovereignty any further?

One can see where that wasn't going to sell well in the United States
 

It's

Banned
is this the "Americans Lost the War of 1812" response, or the more reasonable "It was a tie" response

one things for sure, the Indians definitely lost (who were British clients)

The title of the thread implied that America won the sideshow, oops, I mean the war, of 1812. Just an on-balance victory.

The poor old Injuns went on losing, long after being British clients. Not much of a basis for a victory claim really, especially by an aggressor with such massive ambitions, and having their capital taken.

It was draw, but America could have done much worse if Britain hadn't been so busy fighting tyranny in Europe. If I as an American, the war of 1812 would not be in my historic hall of fame, from either a military nor political perspective.

But no more on this, it's been discussed to death in other threads.
 
how many privateers? (as they are attacking British ships we should count them).... (peak strength a little over 500)
which took about 1300 ships (of which half were recaptured, the USN took another 165 (after adjusting for recaptures) (so around 800 British ships if you round to the nearest).

a reasonably even handed look at the War of 1812 can be found here

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-08/british-view-naval-war-1812

this page has several interesting links

http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng/Topic/66

basically the US inflicted some damage but really was in about the same situation at sea as the Germans were in both World Wars. Able to inflict serious damage but unable to deny British sea control

Except on the Great Lakes, where it turned out to matter decisively that the British were denied sea control and the Americans got it.

Essentially this.

The Lakes were far more important than the great blue sea (where we can all agree the United States stood precisely zero chance of changing the strategic balance) for winning in the interior, the Lakes made all the difference. A different outcome at Lake Erie or Lake Champlain would be catastrophic for the US. However, had they managed to firmly seize control of all the Lakes then the British position south of Kingston is far more tenuous than was the case historically.

For a decisive win for the US they need to control all the Lakes, no ands, ifs, or buts. It's the same for the British. Lake Ontario in the hands of one side or the other would really have tipped the balance.

Sadly the historic commanders were men like Isaac Chauncey and Sir James Yeo...
 
Essentially this.

The Lakes were far more important than the great blue sea (where we can all agree the United States stood precisely zero chance of changing the strategic balance) for winning in the interior, the Lakes made all the difference. A different outcome at Lake Erie or Lake Champlain would be catastrophic for the US. However, had they managed to firmly seize control of all the Lakes then the British position south of Kingston is far more tenuous than was the case historically.

For a decisive win for the US they need to control all the Lakes, no ands, ifs, or buts. It's the same for the British. Lake Ontario in the hands of one side or the other would really have tipped the balance.

Sadly the historic commanders were men like Isaac Chauncey and Sir James Yeo...

be nice, they both provided an excellent jobs program on their respective sides of the lake
 
The title of the thread implied that America won the sideshow, oops, I mean the war, of 1812. Just an on-balance victory.

The poor old Injuns went on losing, long after being British clients. Not much of a basis for a victory claim really, especially by an aggressor with such massive ambitions, and having their capital taken.

It was draw, but America could have done much worse if Britain hadn't been so busy fighting tyranny in Europe. If I as an American, the war of 1812 would not be in my historic hall of fame, from either a military nor political perspective.

But no more on this, it's been discussed to death in other threads.

it deserves its moment because it is when the United States finally developed a professional Army and some deserved respect for its Navy. There are other results, but those are the most permanent

I too rate it a draw. As for "if the British hadn't been fighting" without that major development there wouldn't have been a War of 1812 to begin with

the topic is however how the US could have won.... any thoughts on that?
 
it deserves its moment because it is when the United States finally developed a professional Army and some deserved respect for its Navy. There are other results, but those are the most permanent

I too rate it a draw. As for "if the British hadn't been fighting" without that major development there wouldn't have been a War of 1812 to begin with

the topic is however how the US could have won.... any thoughts on that?

Well, I'll posit what I said earlier is that the US did perhaps as well as it could have considering the circumstances and that I have a hard time envisioning how the US could have gotten a better outcome, and that things could have gone a whole lot worse for the US. At the very least, a defeat at Lake Champlain could have enabled the British to really negotiate from a position of strength regarding the Great Lakes.

If you war game that particular war about 10 times, in about 8 of them the US clearly comes out on the losing end which sees the US having to give up territory to the British.
 
Well, I'll posit what I said earlier is that the US did perhaps as well as it could have considering the circumstances and that I have a hard time envisioning how the US could have gotten a better outcome, and that things could have gone a whole lot worse for the US. At the very least, a defeat at Lake Champlain could have enabled the British to really negotiate from a position of strength regarding the Great Lakes.

If you war game that particular war about 10 times, in about 8 of them the US clearly comes out on the losing end which sees the US having to give up territory to the British.

oh there was some skill involved on the American side, but I do agree that a decisive win requires major changes prewar going back to the first administration of George Washington. But that requires the Federalists keeping power (and Jefferson losing his election bid) and in that event there is a high probability of Federalists allying with the British against France
 

It's

Banned
it deserves its moment because it is when the United States finally developed a professional Army and some deserved respect for its Navy. There are other results, but those are the most permanent

I too rate it a draw. As for "if the British hadn't been fighting" without that major development there wouldn't have been a War of 1812 to begin with

the topic is however how the US could have won.... any thoughts on that?
Cheers. But isn't the topic what a victory would look like- very broad- it could mean the method but also consequences.
 
Top