WI A later war of 1812

tallthinkev

Quite simple.
Lets say the trials and tribulations that lead up to the war of 1812 happened 5 years later. Would the US risk a war in the first place, and if so how badly could it go for the US?

Type about this for a bit.:)
 
AlanJWhite

AlanJWhite

The Americans like to pretend that the causes of the War of 1812 were naval, arising from the Napoleonic Wars.

There were some naval problems of course,

Basically the RN was enforcing a blockade on Europe that the US believed was interfering with US trade ... which it was to some degree.
The RN knew that the US ships had many British born sailors ... which they did.
American practice regraded these as US citizens - despite teh fact that in most cases the US refused to write formal papers.
British law did not even recognise the individuals right to change nationality without permission.
Therefore the RN regarded such paperless Britons as 'draft dodgers' or outright deserters and therefore arrested them when found.

Of course, the real US war aims were a simple land grab north.

In OTL they believed they could manage this because the British were tied up with Bonaparte for the foreseeable future, who still looked invincible in 1812.

Assuming the OTL immediate disputes were settled
(as they well might have been. Delegates actually agreed terms twice only for one or the other Government to send them back)
Hostilities might well have been delayed ... with no losers , except possibly Bonaparte :evilsmile:

But ... would the Americans think the same in 1817? after Waterloo (or TTL equivalent?)

Personally I doubt it but if they did I would expect the results to be initially around the same.

Canada could be held against any initial US attacks.
While it is true the British had demobilised both their Army and Navy very quickly in 1815
the actual in place garrison of Canada was about the same in 1817 as 1815 and the potential reserves proportionally much higher.
Conversely there is no reason to expect the US Militia forces to perform any better than they did in OTL.
(were there 4 or 5 attempts all repulsed?)

At sea, the RN local squadrons were at "peacetime" levels in OTL and would be similar iTTL.
They were rapidly reinforced OTL and that would again be true.
While there were far fewer RN ships ships in commission, these tended to be the better designs and captains.
Equally there were many more in reserve.... and most still in good condition.

Overall, without the distraction of 100 French battleships and 100 French frigates, I would expect the RN to deploy more and better forces ITTL. Therefore the USN might still have some initial successes but as in OTL would eventually be destroyed or driven into port.

British sea trade would be less well escorted initially (simply less RN ships at sea) so more USN success raiding but US sea trade would be ruined... perhaps no quite so quickly as OTL, but just as completely within 2 years.

The Big question, is would the British stop their counter attacks as in OTL ?

OTL they were basically resource limited until 1814 and might still be in 1817 (though for different reasons).
However By 1817 both the the Admiralty and Horse Guards were looking out for an excuse to reactivate more forces,
so I imagine by 1818 more British regiments would be arriving
and with no "Spring Violets" in 1819 more US cities would burn before peace broke out.
 
Last edited:

John Farrier

The War of 1812 was a direct result of British impressment of American sailors and attacks on American shipping. Without those two central causes, there would be substantially less likelihood of a war.

The most likely causes of a second Anglo-American war after Napoleon would have been the a border dispute (probably Maine/New Brunswick) or continued British arming of Native Americans. The Maine border dispute almost did lead to war in OTL. American political and military leaders during the bloodless Aroostook War remembered the War of 1812 and, aside from the Mainers themselves, were not interested in a second round with the UK.

A Britain at the height of its power not distracted by the Continent would have given America a savage beating, even if it had to re-mobilize its forces.
 

Dupplin Muir

John Farrier said:
The War of 1812 was a direct result of British impressment of American sailors and attacks on American shipping. Without those two central causes, there would be substantially less likelihood of a war.
Click to expand...

Well, that was the pretext anyway. To me it's always been reminiscent of the 'Polish attack' on a German radio station that was used as an excuse for the invasion of Poland.
 
EnglishCanuck

EnglishCanuck

Well, theoretically the best time would be is if in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars you end up with an event similar to the Rebellions of 1837 breaking out. The U.S. declares sympathy for the rebels and invades.
 

The Gunslinger

Britain will come down on America like a sledgehammer. Without the French distracting them the British can devote a lot more of everything to every theatre. Professional sailors for the great lakes, more soldiers, a blockade that's as tight as a drum.

No president would be foolish enough to start a tussle with Britain that's at peace on the continent until at least 1830.
 

Deleted member 97083

What if the War of 1812 began, but Napoleon died in Russia and the whole France situation was dealt with by the end of 1813, allowing the British to use all their resources against the US?
 

hzn5pk

By this time, the Napoleonic wars are over, Britain stops the need to impress American ships, freedom on the seas is once again the norm.

With Americans settling the upper Midwest in greater numbers, the Native tribes are being pushed backed, forced to relocate

There does not seam to be much bad ill between the two countries. Even the so called border dispute between Maine and New Brunswick is just that, a minor dispute as interests outside of those in Maine were not thirsty for a few more square miles of forest.

I do not think that the USA would pick a fight. I do not think that the USA would win. Hopefully Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, ...... see this as well.

Even if the USA is successful in capturing Upper Canada and the Red River colony, how would they be able to keep it and more importantly, how would they get the British to the peace table to keep the gains?
 

DominusNovus

AlanJWhite said:
The Americans like to pretend that the causes of the War of 1812 were naval, arising from the Napoleonic Wars.

...

Of course, the real US war aims were a simple land grab north.
Click to expand...

I would like to suggest that you are incorrect and that, while te US certainly did want that land, the war itself was not a simple land grab. Further, the British were not respecting the border established by the treaty of Paris.

I wonder why it is that people are always so eager to disparage the Americans for having an interest in taking Canada, but nobody ever disparages the British for trying to take the land they agreed to give the Americans a generation earlier.
 

IndefatigableRN

DominusNovus said:
I would like to suggest that you are incorrect and that, while te US certainly did want that land, the war itself was not a simple land grab. Further, the British were not respecting the border established by the treaty of Paris.

I wonder why it is that people are always so eager to disparage the Americans for having an interest in taking Canada, but nobody ever disparages the British for trying to take the land they agreed to give the Americans a generation earlier.
Click to expand...
What land did the British want to take?
 

James XI

Dupplin Muir said:
Well, that was the pretext anyway. To me it's always been reminiscent of the 'Polish attack' on a German radio station that was used as an excuse for the invasion of Poland.
Click to expand...

You're saying it was a false flag? I don't think so. I think it's more like the Maine or WMD's...the U.S. wanted in, and grasped w/e was to hand to sell it. I don't think they invented it out of whole cloth.
 

The Gunslinger

DominusNovus said:
I would like to suggest that you are incorrect and that, while te US certainly did want that land, the war itself was not a simple land grab. Further, the British were not respecting the border established by the treaty of Paris.

I wonder why it is that people are always so eager to disparage the Americans for having an interest in taking Canada, but nobody ever disparages the British for trying to take the land they agreed to give the Americans a generation earlier.
Click to expand...

The border forts were settled by the Jay Treaty, and the reason the British were dragging their feet was because the American government was dragging its feet over recognition of asset seizures during the Revolution. None of these were issues by the time war broke out.
 

DominusNovus

The Gunslinger said:
The border forts were settled by the Jay Treaty, and the reason the British were dragging their feet was because the American government was dragging its feet over recognition of asset seizures during the Revolution. None of these were issues by the time war broke out.
Click to expand...

They continued to interfere with the local tribes.
 

DominusNovus

The Gunslinger said:
Ah yes, the old "We prefer doing business with the British because they don't treat us like utter shite and have developed longstanding trade relationships with us due to mutual benefits and elaborate gift giving ceremonies".
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the tribes in US territory for siding with the Brits. I'm blaming the Brits for siding with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top