What would happen if the United States had lost the War of 1812?

[Valamyr]

I dont think it would be so horrible. The "evil" south would extend slavery longer, sure, but theyd be a rump province without the rich north. The British would basically just be preempting the civil war.

So we have

1. Maine back as a British colony, and future part of Canada.

2. A British buffer state in the Northwest and control of the Missisipi preventing Westwards expansion of the USA, and denying the USA a chance to steal California and Texas from Mexico.

3. The possibility for Britain to expand its northern colonies through the american heartland.

4. An independent New-England wary of the south, but who wishes to preserve its independence from Great-Britain nontheless.

5. A poorer South with an agrarian economy and much bitterness over Louisiana, and dreams of militaristic expansion.

I say, I'd like that world.

 

[FederationX]

What's so great about that world? Sounds pretty shitty to me.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

An interesting world indeed! And another benefit is that we won't have to worry about Hitler or Stalin in the future.

Oh, heh heh, that's because England was forced to surrender in 1917.

Hmmm, a world dominated by the Kaiser and stern monarchists...

 

[Straha]

I see britain using the louisiana terretory as a place to ship "undesirables" I could see the black population of the south being freed and then shipped to louisiana along with convicts, native american populations, the a large majority of the irish population and the french canadians. In a few decades some type of american nation will be reborn but it won't be like ours.....

 

[Straha]

Yes I know my scenario isn't super likely ubt I see it as one result if the brits go far enough to retake America...

 

[Archangel Michael]

What sort of PoD could result in an American loss in the War of 1812?

 

[Bill Cameron]

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!! It SECEDE...not SUCCEED. Unless you mean they might SUCCEED at SECEDING.

Robert,

You are ,of course, correct sir. My apologies. Late night/early morning posting bites me in my sizeable ass yet again... sigh


Bill

 

[Gladi]

Gladi, what difference will it make? Wellington's army is down 15-20 thousand men from what it actually had, so he gets stomped before Blucher can even arrive. Then the Prussians are outnumbered by roughly three to one and...

So I bet the British start to wonder if those border regions were worth it.

Well yeah, but weren't there also advancing Russian army?

 

[zoomar]

An interesting world indeed! And another benefit is that we won't have to worry about Hitler or Stalin in the future.

Oh, heh heh, that's because England was forced to surrender in 1917.

Hmmm, a world dominated by the Kaiser and stern monarchists...

Now that is an alternate future I like!

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Wouldn't have mattered. The fact is that Napoleon's military plan for 1815 worked in every category save the one marshall who couldn't be bothered to do his job and tie Blucher down long enough to beat the Allies in detail.

Had this also been done, it seems unlikely that a resurgent French Army, fresh from smashing a half dozen separate armies, would have quailed at taking out the Russians as well.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

IIRC, I don't think Britain really wanted to "take over" the US. Even after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, their commitment was only minimal. If Britain had really wanted to destroy America, they wouldn't signed a peace treaty right after beating Napoleon, and large numbers of veteran troops.

So let's say Britain wants to teach those bloody Yanks a lesson, the British basically take New Orleans, as a precondition, and sail up and down the coast burning everything, with the Duke of Wellington marching around the South demolishing whatever the Americans can scrape together. The US gives up in short order.

Britain gets New Orleans, Maine, and would probably want to control trade on the Great Lakes, and would thus probably try to take Buffalo. The US can't really do much, because Britain isn't going to want the US to get up from being this far down, and are going to do all in their power to keep the US from getting uppity, perhaps establishing a Texan Protectorate in the 1830s, and or if the US gets grabby with Mexico, an Alliance with the Mexicans against the US.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Then the US simply bides its time, builds up a large peace-time military, and the first time England is heavily involved in some other war...BAM!!!

Oh, and the Treaty of Ghent ending the war was before Waterloo. Apparently the British were scared s------- about a good portion of their army being in North America when Napoleon returned from Elba.

Or perhaps a long-term grudge match emerges, ending in 1917 when the German-American alliance crushes the Triple Entente?

 

[Paul Spring]

If Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he would still probably have been defeated, but by continental powers rather than by the British. He was massively outnumbered on all fronts, and his legendary skill doesn't seem to have been as sharp as it had once been. In the peace that followed, Britain would have less influence, while the continental powers would have more.

BTW, the Treaty of Ghent between Britain and the US was signed before Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to France. Clearly the British were interested in bringing the war with the US to an end regardless of what Napoleon did.

 

[DoleScum]

eh?

if Spencer Perceval had live to take charge. in this scenario all of us would be signing god save the queen have free higher education and decent socialized medicine.

What? At no time did Perceval ever consider the possibility of conquering the US, nor did any British politician of the day. For the British the revolution and its aftermath had taught them that an independent US was a good thing for Britain. They knew the US was still economically subservient to Britain, but without lumbering London with the expense and bother of actually governing the former colonies.
Had Perceval lived the causes of the war would have been clearer because they would not have been repealed in June 1812.
The outcome of a peace treaty dictated by Britain would probably have been:
1. Serious effects on the Republican party. Madison may have faced impeachment for blundering into the war. Possibly a Federalist victory at the next election.
2. Capture/Destruction of New Orleans – I doubt it would have any lasting effect, New Orleans was a raid. The British may have held on to it in order to force the US to allow British traders access to the Mississippi basin, or to get them to recognise Spanish possession of Florida (including west Florida)
3. Minor annexations along the Canadian boarder, certainly some of Maine around the St. Croix would be taken, Detroit and a number of other outposts on the lakes.
4. US forced to recognise British right to search and press men from ships flying the US flag.
5. US made to pay an indemnity to Britain for damages to her trade caused by the embargoes and restriction placed on British trade during the 1800s and for US trade carried out with France which contravened British law.
6. Recognition of an independent Indian kingdom in the old North West, this state would be a satellite of British North America and act as a buffer zone, with its boarders being pushed west into Oregon.
I doubt Britain would have pushed any harder than this whatever the circumstances, Britain wanted to continue dominating the American economy and selling her manufactured goods, therefore humiliating the US was not in British interests.

 

[BTD]

What? At no time did Perceval ever consider the possibility of conquering the US.

Imagine that. Of course he didn't considder it. He was shot in the house of commons in may and we declared ware in june. Since you obviously know little of Perceval you might want to go and look up his views on captured territory and property. Also read that into the context of the full post which gets rid of the voice of reason towards the United States, Robert Stewart.

 

[Paul Spring]

Actually reconquering the US in the 1812 - 1815 period would have been impossible for Britain without a much bigger army. It would have been hideously expensive, involving years of conventional warfare, and probably decades of guerrilla warfare. Economically, it would have been a huge drain on Britain. For all their rivalry, the US and Britain were huge trading partners. Why pay vast sums in blood and money in a probably futile attempt to remake the US back into loyal colonies when you could make a lot of money trading with them?

 

[BTD]

Why pay vast sums in blood and money in a probably futile attempt to remake the US back into loyal colonies when you could make a lot of money trading with them?

If economic logic ever prevailed we would never go to war.

 

[Xen]

The War of 1812 is almost like a forgotten war, its intresting to see how much it shaped the countries future. However to know the truth one must read Britains account of the war, then read Americas account and realize the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[Paul Spring]

If economic logic ever prevailed we would never go to war.

True, but there are different degrees of illogic. More than most other countries, Britain had a government that couldn't completely ignore economic and trade interests. A couple of years of diminished trade and high taxes to pay for a large army fighting a seemingly pointless war would almost certainly have toppled any government that was in favor of total war against the US. The US may have lost some territory, but it would probably have emerged basically intace, and probably with a larger standing army and a desire to recover its lost territory.

 

[DoleScum]

Allow me to educate you

if Spencer Perceval had live to take charge. in this scenario all of us would be signing god save the queen have free higher education and decent socialized medicine.

If we had lost militarily under the above situation Perceval would have made sure we ceded the entire country back to england plus all gained territory from 1775 to 1812. He would burn cities every time we refused and eventually we would give in, knowing we could always rebel again.

Another situation though is how would england have done with european wars if perceval had committed the forces needed to fight and take america. With perceval in charge the war of 1812 certainly would have gone on for a few more years. If it had gone on for another few yeasr with good ground being made and things looking poorly in europe would he have sent william to administer america? And upon her assention how would Victoria have dealt with a conquered america?

What the?? Perceval DID 'live to take charge' he'd been PM since 1809 and part of the cabinet since 1807. So what do you base the assumption that he would have pushed for total annexation of the US back into the empire? That he didn't like Americans much? Perceval's views on the US (as laid down by his biographer) was that the US was pain in the backside but that she should be persuaded to see the error of her ways and that eventually she would come around to supporting the British in their war against France.
Had Perceval still been PM in 1813-5, (which is a very big if) I doubt his policies would have been radically different from that of the Liverpool ministry, particularly because Lord Liverpool had served in Perceval's ministry, supported his policies towards the US and was from a far more Tory orientated background than Perceval.
The ministers who negotiated the treaty at Ghent didn't have free reign at all, on the contrary London kept them on a relatively short lease because they felt the US deserved to be humiliated for starting the war – this is why the peace negotiations dragged on for so long. It was only after Castlereagh left for Vienna that the British diplomats at Ghent were given more freedom to apply a liberal treaty.