WI War of 1812

uh... loses what, exactly? The US did get beaten in Canada, in Washington DC.... the only places they didn't lose were at Baltimore, New Orleans, and the naval battles on the Great Lakes... are you suggesting that the US loses these too, and Britain is able to dictate terms to them?
 
uh... loses what, exactly? The US did get beaten in Canada, in Washington DC.... the only places they didn't lose were at Baltimore, New Orleans, and the naval battles on the Great Lakes... are you suggesting that the US loses these too, and Britain is able to dictate terms to them?
Maybe if the January 1815 British assault on New Orleans succeeds. Although the Treaty of Ghent had been signed December 1814, though wouldn't be ratified by Congress until February OTL, a bit of revenge lust may push the Americans to fight on after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

A bullish British decide to push on, the Louisiana Purchase wasn't specifically covered by the treaty and those upstart colonials need teaching a good lesson. Nappy's been dealt with, he's not due back until March OTL, so there are lots of seasoned troops available.
 
A US loss on the Great Lakes secures them for BNA. By 1815 OTL Lower Michigan, Ohio & Indiana would become Terraohio and and OTL Upper Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and NE Minnesota would become Terramississippi (or something like that).
 
If the British captured New Orleans in 1815, its highly unlikely they would have ever let it go, short another war. Controlling the entire sea-going output of the Mississippi-Ohio river complex would simply be too potentially valuable.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The British aims for the War of 1812 was a basically a laundry list put together after the fact, and none of them was pursued with any vigor. The regiments sent to America were always second rate and even after Nappys fall nnly a few were sent. The British saw the war as an inconvinience. And after Napoleaons fall, what with about 25 years of war, everybody had had it.

So its exteremely unlikely anything besides status quo ante bellum could occur. As it is the UK had a goodley portion of the US territory occupied and they did not press to keep it.


They had won the last battle of the war, near what is now Mobile Alabama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Bowyer
 
If the British captured New Orleans in 1815, its highly unlikely they would have ever let it go, short another war. Controlling the entire sea-going output of the Mississippi-Ohio river complex would simply be too potentially valuable.
They would have given it back to the US since the war was already over and the peace treaty resetting things to antebellum was already signed.
 
I too was under the impression that since the US started the war to seize Canada and ended grateful not to lose territory it constituted a loss.
 
This question gets asked maybe every two months, and I'm always surprised to see someone under the impression the US won the war of 1812... if they didn't lose, what is it exactly that they won? A massive loss of trade revenue for New England merchants? whoo-hoo, what a victory...
 
Wow, first time I've ever heard of someone not counting the War of 1812 as an American victory (I live in New England by the way). I'd count it a win for the US for the following reasons (I wrote an essay on this):

1. Nationalism: Americans actually felt confident in their republic since they just stopped the world's superpower from stepping on them. Morale booster! This becomes VERY apparent later on.

2. Independence: Britain had been the source for most of their, well, everything from 1783 to 1812. However, during the war, Americans were forced to create their own products which started American industry.

Eh, I forget the rest. I'll add after I check my essay.

Now, if the Americans lost.. So, year 1 of the war was basically a loss, but let's say it went even farther. 1812 was basically a war with Canada, and if Britain managed to capture the Great Lakes, I could see Albany and New York City falling to them, thus eliminating New England. If that didn't get the US to surrender, a British force burns down ALL of Washington with NO rain, and a naval attack destroys Fort McHenry and then Baltimore. All of that would make Madison surrender for sure. I could see NE being absorbed by Canada, and Quebec gaining New York. The US basically dies, causing great discouragement in republics. Frankly, I see world history changed with the loss of all democracy and the continuation of monarchy/dictatorship...
 
Wow, first time I've ever heard of someone not counting the War of 1812 as an American victory (I live in New England by the way). I'd count it a win for the US for the following reasons (I wrote an essay on this):

1. Nationalism: Americans actually felt confident in their republic since they just stopped the world's superpower from stepping on them. Morale booster! This becomes VERY apparent later on.

2. Independence: Britain had been the source for most of their, well, everything from 1783 to 1812. However, during the war, Americans were forced to create their own products which started American industry.

Eh, I forget the rest. I'll add after I check my essay.

Now, if the Americans lost.. So, year 1 of the war was basically a loss, but let's say it went even farther. 1812 was basically a war with Canada, and if Britain managed to capture the Great Lakes, I could see Albany and New York City falling to them, thus eliminating New England. If that didn't get the US to surrender, a British force burns down ALL of Washington with NO rain, and a naval attack destroys Fort McHenry and then Baltimore. All of that would make Madison surrender for sure. I could see NE being absorbed by Canada, and Quebec gaining New York. The US basically dies, causing great discouragement in republics. Frankly, I see world history changed with the loss of all democracy and the continuation of monarchy/dictatorship...
I doubt that Britain is going to be annexing NE or NY. If they annex anything
it will be sparsely inhabited territory only. that means at best the occupied territory in Maine ( though its more likely they just give that back or press their extreme claims there, Michigan and Wisconsin at best and have Louisiana retro-ceded back to Spain if they don't keep it themselves. Mind you that would be just plain greedy, so retro-ceding it back to Spain is more even handed. As to NE and NY, simply fanning the flames of NE Secession should be sufficient.
 
Perhaps New England would leave the Union, perhaps not. Maybe a severe humiliation in 1812 will create serious rifts in Anglo- American relations for a long time, or maybe not.
 
Wow, first time I've ever heard of someone not counting the War of 1812 as an American victory (I live in New England by the way). I'd count it a win for the US for the following reasons (I wrote an essay on this):

1. Nationalism: Americans actually felt confident in their republic since they just stopped the world's superpower from stepping on them. Morale booster! This becomes VERY apparent later on.

2. Independence: Britain had been the source for most of their, well, everything from 1783 to 1812. However, during the war, Americans were forced to create their own products which started American industry.

Eh, I forget the rest. I'll add after I check my essay.

Now, if the Americans lost.. So, year 1 of the war was basically a loss, but let's say it went even farther. 1812 was basically a war with Canada, and if Britain managed to capture the Great Lakes, I could see Albany and New York City falling to them, thus eliminating New England. If that didn't get the US to surrender, a British force burns down ALL of Washington with NO rain, and a naval attack destroys Fort McHenry and then Baltimore. All of that would make Madison surrender for sure. I could see NE being absorbed by Canada, and Quebec gaining New York. The US basically dies, causing great discouragement in republics. Frankly, I see world history changed with the loss of all democracy and the continuation of monarchy/dictatorship...
This argument would work if Britain had invaded the US but as it actually happened the US invaded Canada.
If I go up to a man and punch him with the intention to rob him and then manage to escape without having my wallet stolen this does not count as a succesful mugging.
Britain didn't want the war, they were the defenders. If the defender in a war keeps all its territory and looses nothing at all then the defender has won.
 
Black Hawk Up

America loses the war of 1812.
I had started a British victory in the War of 1812 TL called Black Hawk Up a while back. It wasn't a "total victory" but involved Brock being allowed more initiative early in the war, Perry being killed as he tried to transfer his flag and Jackson dying in a duel. Lafitte sides with the British who take New Orleans. Champlain though was still an American victory.

Britain keeps Detroit, West Florida and a slice of Maine but return New Orleans in return for free navigation of the Mississippi. The most interesting delta was the creation of an Indian protectorate led by a surviving Tecumseh (Black Hawk is his adjutant) west of the Mississippi.

I got the TL up to 1822 when the British were deciding that Tecumseh had become something of a liability.
 
...Britain didn't want the war, they were the defenders. If the defender in a war keeps all its territory and looses nothing at all then the defender has won.
Even though America was the one that declared war, Britain was almost always the offensive. Like the invasion of the Great Lakes, attack up the Chesapeake, destruction of Washington, and attempted attack down the Hudson but was destroyed at Lake Champlain.
 
Even though America was the one that declared war, Britain was almost always the offensive. Like the invasion of the Great Lakes, attack up the Chesapeake, destruction of Washington, and attempted attack down the Hudson but was destroyed at Lake Champlain.
It was still the defender in the war; like Germany was always the aggressor even in the last days of WW2.
 
I've always thought of the war as a draw, simply because neither side really got what it wanted. But in the long term, you have to regard it as a US strategic victory, because of the political fallout afterwards. The US kept the LA purchase and New Orleans, the idea of a British backed Indian 'buffer state' died for good, and the borders between the US and Canada (in the east, at least) were settled. The War of 1812 was the last armed conflict between the US and UK, and from that point on, the US was basically free to expand west, dealing with Mexico and native American tribes... there was no real worry about the UK (or any other European powers, really). Once the Oregon borders were established (peacefully), relations between the US and UK basically settled out, and continued harmoniously (other than that brief flirtation with the CSA, which fizzled out). The War of 1812 was the last time that the US had to deal with one of the hostile great powers overseas while it was in it's growing stages... fortunately. When the US finally re-entered world politics, it was a great power itself....
 
Well, back at the OP (not getting into who won :rolleyes:) I would say, the Brits could have don distinctly better at Plattsburg - upstate New York and Vermont, the Chaplain Valley Region, would be back in Quebec where it belongs by virtue of geography. Aroostook would probably go to New Brunswick by default.

I really have trouble seeing us do better than that. The States will not let the Indians get a state of their own. It just won't happen. They will die to the last man before they let anyone, especially Tecumseh and co, get in the way of their sea-to-shining-sea dominions. Similarly, Louisiana doesn't get attacked until too late to get taken by us; keeping Ghent from happening requires the British government having some kind of (totally insane) war-fetish for the US.

So: Chaplain Valley, and Aroostook. Probably holding on to Florida and the Red River valley, barring a second war (which a catastrophic defeat probably makes more likely). Oregon is too far down the line to predict, although if the States doesn't win round 2, it's probably ours. The real iffy bit is the Hartford Convention and New England - the best way to make the States unequivocally lose is to have New England leave. I imagine that would entail having things go catastrophically bad in the beginning, and have Madison go nuts, try to call out New England militias that don't want to go, jack tariffs to raise money to raise troops, ban trading with the enemy, &c, &c. That would be an unequivocal defeat, even if the States keeps Indiana and Louisiana.
 
It seems that everybody is settling for too late a BP.

It is entirely possible for a massive British victory in the war without substantial investment on their part.

BP #1:

Issac Brock does NOT die at Queenstown Heights, but after capturing Scott's advance force as in OTL, holds on to and secures Forts Erie and George.

Then he moves west, and after the triple capture of Michilimakinac, Dearborn, and Detroit, pushes on towards the River Raisin, assuming a defensive position when Harrison arrives. At this point, with Brock instead of Proctor, it is possible for the British to capture Fort Meigs or Stevenson, and even if Perry wins on the lake the British at minimum still hold Michigan territory.

#2:

ANYONE BUT YEO is in command of the British forces on Lake Ontario. Both he and Chauncey on the American side refused to attack each other. Both forces saved their best for Lake Ontario, and Yeo had a slight advantage. If there was a major naval battle, probably the British would win. This would lead at least to the loss of Sackett's Harbor and probably inroads along the Niagra.

#3:

Top 2 officers of the Queen Charlotte are not BOTH wounded minutes into the Naval Battle of Put-in Bay. Even though Perry had the stronger force, it is generally agreed that he won when the Niagra was able to pummel both of the strongest two British ships simultaneously, and this was only because while turning, the inexperienced lieutenant on the Queen Charlotte rammed her into Detroit. If they remain maneuverable, then the Niagra can be destroyed by superior firepower, at which point the British would have destroyed both of Perry's capital ships, and he would lose.

This would prevent Harrison's invasion, and again lead at minimum to holding onto Michigan Territory.

#4:

ANYONE BUT PREVOST is in command of the drive down Lake Champlain. This one is self-explanatory.

#5:

British are actually smart at New Orleans, and follow the battle close to as in 1812....I forget the title, but it's a great AH book.

#6:

Just about any BP in Europe enabling Napoleon to be "defeated" by or before 1812. There are probably millions of ways to do this.
______

The Americans were very lucky to secure Status Ante Bellum in the end, this due primarily to Harrison, Scott, Perry to a small extent, Macdonough to a GREAT extent, and the natural geography of Baltimore.
 
Top