WI: America Declares War on the British in 1804

[redlightning]

What if the Congress had been in session during the winter of 1804 when the British ship Leopard attacked American shipping and kidnapped dozens of American men? How does this action play out under Thomas Jefferson

 

[Matteo]

It will be a frank and harsh defeat. Britain's resources were less drained on in 1804 than they were in 1812.

 

[Alstein]

Much more disasterous war for the Americans, not much territorial difference in the end- Britain won't want the sideshow to go on for too long, and America would be unlikely to take a drastically bad peace as long as they can regroup.

My guess the US loses Maine, and perhaps parts of the Northwest Territory.

 

[Saphroneth]

The main factor in America's favour is the issue of Napoleon wanting to invade the British Isles, but I doubt that's going to be quite enough. Navally there's also that the French have a fleet-in-being in a way they did not in 1812 - but again it's hard to tell offhand.

This is also the period the British start to ramp up their weapons production (note - start to, they've not finished). Their production of muskets in 1803 Q2-4 is 40,000; their production in 1804 is 113,000. With such numbers they still have some hard choices to make about sending force to NA.

 

[Faeelin]

With Britain weirdly pouring major resources into Canada, Napoleon crosses the Channel!

 

[Saphroneth]

With Britain weirdly pouring major resources into Canada, Napoleon crosses the Channel!

I do not say he can come, I only say he cannot come by sea.


But yes, there's going to be strong pressure to keep forces in Europe (Britain specifically). It could actually result in a very fun alt-Napoleonic War as the British reallocate priorities.

Hm, wonder whether Fort McHenry was finished... 1800. So much for that plan!

(Reminds me of a fun AH possibility, which is that the bombardment of Fort McHenry does not involve a dud fuze for a shell and the whole magazine explodes. But anyway.)

 

[RodentRevolution]

With Britain weirdly pouring major resources into Canada, Napoleon crosses the Channel!

The US I think actually have a better Navy in 1804 than in 1812 but this is not saying much. The British do not have an expeditionary force in Spain so yes major resources could in theory be poured while the Channel fleet continues to guard against invasion quite handily.

 

[Faeelin]

The US I think actually have a better Navy in 1804 than in 1812 but this is not saying much. The British do not have an expeditionary force in Spain so yes major resources could in theory be poured while the Channel fleet continues to guard against invasion quite handily.

Unless this war ends within a year, Britain won't be sending troops to Scandinavia, or to Spain. Something has to give; Britain didn't have infinite supplies of men.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Unless this war ends within a year, Britain won't be sending troops to Scandinavia, or to Spain. Something has to give; Britain didn't have infinite supplies of men.

True and it likely would not send vast numbers to the America's in this instance but it could still simultaneously conduct operations in the Americas, Europe (mostly Spain and later southern France) and India in 1812-15.

 

[unprincipled peter]

IF Trafalgar still happens, then Britain can rest easy about a French invasion, and send plenty of troops to America. It's a year after the American war starts, but I think Britain can hang on that long.

The main advantage US had in 1812 was that British troops were occupied elsewhere. Once a French invasion is off the board, those troops are available. If British troops had been available in 1812, US is in deep doo doo.

One reason US kept tensions with the Brits from going hot for so long was that they knew they weren't ready. They still weren't ready in 1812, but with Britain occupied in Iberian Peninsula, the odds were better. Speed up the timeframe...you do the math

 

[Saphroneth]

Ships of the line

Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 145 73 48 72 32 58
1795 123 56 28 76 30 61
1800 127 44 16 66 28 67
1805 136 41 15 40 20 47
1810 152 46 13 28 2 43
1815 126 52 19 16 2 48

Cruisers

Year GBR FRA NLD ESP DNK RUS
1790 131 64 36 46 16 52
1795 160 65 30 51 13 40
1800 158 43 6 41 9 34
1805 160 35 10 26 11 16
1810 183 31 7 17 0 14
1815 151 31 14 15 3 21


Comparing 1805 and 1815, the British actually have more spare cruisers and battleships in 1805. The disparity with battleships is less in 1805 than 1810, but a few shouldn't cause a massive collapse in the capability of the navy - especially since they outnumber the French three to one in all categories.




As for the army...

They may have some difficulty, but the difference that makes is in the land war in the second phase. (OTL in 1812 the Canadians largely defended themselves in the first phase.)

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_strengths.html
suggests that one or two of the OTL expeditions would need to be cancelled. It's likely that the reinforcements post-Trafalgar would be to North America principally, to ensure Canada remains held - aside from that the main war would likely be at sea.


The 1800-1810 population increase of the US was about two million. Assuming that 1804-1812 we see an increase of 1.6 million (where the 1804 population is ballparked at 5.7 million) that means that the US population is approximately 20% less in 1804 compared to 1812.


General conclusion: The British will have more trouble shaking loose the reinforcements, and will be less able to go on their 1806-7 expeditions.

 

[Saphroneth]

How about a naval blockade that diverts American attention from Canada? The army could remain in reserve [for home defence or Continental] expeditions. Anyway, Britain's stronger navy and weaker army and the priorities are in Europe, which require an army to counter Napoleon anyway.

The blockade is just as much a slam dunk in 1804 as in 1812, really - which is to say, crippling.

 

[Tyr]

It all depends how long America wants to keep the war going really. They're willing to offer peace right away, Britain will say ok.
If they let it drag on though....Britain can wait longer than they can. But is more likely to want something for its efforts

 

[Faeelin]

It all depends how long America wants to keep the war going really. They're willing to offer peace right away, Britain will say ok.
If they let it drag on though....Britain can wait longer than they can. But is more likely to want something for its efforts

Britain faced severe economic problems just from the Embargo Act alone in OTL. Add in American privateering at a time when the Spanish markets are closed and Europe is being sewn up...

 

[Saphroneth]

Britain faced severe economic problems just from the Embargo Act alone in OTL. Add in American privateering at a time when the Spanish markets are closed and Europe is being sewn up...

Privateering never did that much damage, the peak insurance rate from Lloyds was 30% IIRC. (With a rebate of 1/3 for ships in convoy.)

 

[Westphalian]

In 1804 the US has the Louisiana Purchase just for one year and AFAIK its actually control was still quite tenuous. If the UK tries to take New Orleans, are their odds better than in 1812?

 

[Saphroneth]

In 1804 the US has the Louisiana Purchase just for one year and AFAIK its actually control was still quite tenuous. If the UK tries to take New Orleans, are their odds better than in 1812?

Probably. New Orleans is less than half the 1815 size.

 

[The Gunslinger]

The western theatre will be much more problematic. America built a lot of infrastructure and did a fair amount of damage to the Indians in those eight years, and eight years is a lot closer to the signing of the Jay treaty which means Britain will still have a large shadow in the Northwest.

But, the American navy is better at this point and a lot of her generals are younger so they might not waffle as much as OTL.

I would strongly suspect that this war goes somewhat worse for America than OTL.

 

[Saphroneth]

Speaking of the US navy, I'm having a look.
Great Lakes note - Sacketts Harbour is not yet anything like as big as it was OTL 1810, so that's a potential malus. Not sure on the Canadian equivalent.


Ships of the line - none (though some completed in 1814 so it's possible)



Sailing frigates

Built 1804-1812
Macedonian (38)


Lost 1804-1812
General Greene (30) - hulked 1805
Philadelphia (36) - captured by Tripoli



Sloops

Built 1804-1812
Hornet
Hornet
Ohio
Scourge
Trippe
Wasp
Eagle
Fair American
Growler
Hamilton

Lost 1804-1812
Hornet
Hornet
Scourge




It actually looks like the raw ship count of the US Navy went slightly up over the time period. Frigate count went down by one.

(What makes the USN in 1804 better than the one in 1812? Is it number of ships in commission?)

 

[West]

america loses, badly we probally remain an independent country because the brits have bigger fish to fry but we lose. The result would be the same in 1810s, the 1820s, the 1830s. The british are the greatist superpower on the planet. The Civil war was the empires last chance to take us out in a war and after that a long war meant losing canada.