Subject: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:35:16 -0500 From: "Carlos Th" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the UK much worst for both parties? The idea is to get a war lasting a few years with more resources wasted but at the end neither the USA nor the UK have significative territorial gains. Both countries would have lost many resources and manpower, if not destruction of cities (USA and Canada I suppose, unless there is a reasonable way to get USA bombing English cities... or Napoleon) POD, any time from 1776 but would be better after 1809. The dates of the war can change if required but most happen before, say, 1820. -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:38:59 GMT From: "Rex F. May" Organization: Peak to Peak Internet (peakpeak.com) Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Carlos Th wrote: > Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > UK much worst for both parties? > > The idea is to get a war lasting a few years with more resources wasted > but at the end neither the USA nor the UK have significative territorial > gains. Both countries would have lost many resources and manpower, if > not destruction of cities (USA and Canada I suppose, unless there is a > reasonable way to get USA bombing English cities... or Napoleon) > > POD, any time from 1776 but would be better after 1809. The dates of > the war can change if required but most happen before, say, 1820. How about Burr never duels Hamilton, and one or the other of them is President at the time the war starts. Both were, as I understand it, well-trained military men. The Pres could get very aggressive against the Brits, and result would be a greater commitment of Brit resources to the war here, hence more destruction. -- Rex F. May To order my book, click on: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm See my cartoons daily at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 11 Sep 2001 03:19:41 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Except Hamilton is an Anglophile and Burr seems to canny to get involved in a war which he doesn't know he can win. It seems much more likely that he'd try something in the west than try to tangle with the British for a "few acres of snow" ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:28:38 GMT From: Matt Giwer <"Matt Giwer"@giwersworld.org> Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Carlos Th wrote: > > Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > UK much worst for both parties? > > The idea is to get a war lasting a few years with more resources wasted > but at the end neither the USA nor the UK have significative territorial > gains. Both countries would have lost many resources and manpower, if > not destruction of cities (USA and Canada I suppose, unless there is a > reasonable way to get USA bombing English cities... or Napoleon) > > POD, any time from 1776 but would be better after 1809. The dates of > the war can change if required but most happen before, say, 1820. > > -- Carlos Th After it starts Napolean dies of a stroke. England has the resources to make it a serious war. -- If you pay taxes to support Israel's slaughter of Palestinians, you are a war criminal. -- The Iron Webmaster, 817 Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 21:57:00 -0500 From: Dan Goodman Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <9njbug$82ll8$1@ID-83976.news.dfncis.de>, chlewey@my-deja.com says... > Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > UK much worst for both parties? Lasting well into 1816 -- "The year without a summer" or "Eighteen hundred and froze to death." There'd been a major volcanic eruption in 1815; and a _very_ cold summer was one of the results. (In the northern hemisphere, that is. I don't know what happened in the southern hemisphere.) > The idea is to get a war lasting a few years with more resources wasted > but at the end neither the USA nor the UK have significative territorial > gains. Both countries would have lost many resources and manpower, if > not destruction of cities (USA and Canada I suppose, unless there is a > reasonable way to get USA bombing English cities... or Napoleon) > > POD, any time from 1776 but would be better after 1809. The dates of > the war can change if required but most happen before, say, 1820. > > -- Carlos Th > > > -- Dan Goodman dsgood@visi.com Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 08:18:39 +0100 From: Alison Brooks Organization: Dis Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <9njbug$82ll8$1@ID-83976.news.dfncis.de>, Carlos Th writes >Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the >UK much worst for both parties? > Opinion in the USA wasn't wholly in favour of the war. Increase the division, and have the war lead to major internal divisions within the USA. Opinion in the UK was rather focused on Napoleon. Have the British authorities split over whether to crush the Americans quickly and decisively, so as to return to the main war, or whether to leave the American war as a back issue that can be dealt with when Napoleon is beaten. Have that division cause major problems in British government. With luck, you can get civil war and the break up of the USA, and Britain unable to organise to bring an end to Napoleon, and the Napoleonic wars stretching on for another decade or so. >The idea is to get a war lasting a few years with more resources wasted >but at the end neither the USA nor the UK have significative territorial >gains. Both countries would have lost many resources and manpower, if >not destruction of cities (USA and Canada I suppose, unless there is a >reasonable way to get USA bombing English cities... or Napoleon) > >POD, any time from 1776 but would be better after 1809. The dates of >the war can change if required but most happen before, say, 1820. > >-- Carlos Th > > PS. I suppose you might try getting the USA to launch Operation Sealion. That would be the worst possible outcome for this newsgroup. Does that count? -- David Flin http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/ Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 11 Sep 2001 06:06:01 -0700 From: res05k58@gte.net (David Walker) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Alison Brooks wrote in message news:... > In article <9njbug$82ll8$1@ID-83976.news.dfncis.de>, Carlos Th > writes > >Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > >UK much worst for both parties? > > > > Opinion in the UK was rather focused on Napoleon. Have the British > authorities split over whether to crush the Americans quickly and > decisively, so as to return to the main war, or whether to leave the > American war as a back issue that can be dealt with when Napoleon is > beaten. Have that division cause major problems in British government. > British Opinion was SO focused on Boney that British history barely even refers to the War of 1812. There's a painting of the Burning of the Capitol hanging in the Pentagon. In WW-II a British member of the Combined Joint Chiefs actually asked his American counterpart 'Who did that?' The American general had to respond 'You guys did.' Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:24:28 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 11 Sep 2001 06:06:01 -0700, res05k58@gte.net (David Walker) wrote: >British Opinion was SO focused on Boney that British history barely >even refers to the War of 1812. There's a painting of the Burning of >the Capitol hanging in the Pentagon. In WW-II a British member of the >Combined Joint Chiefs actually asked his American counterpart 'Who did >that?' The American general had to respond 'You guys did.' A quick survey of people at work showed that none knew of the War of 1812 (least of all that the USA lost) - yet we have a captured battle standard in the regimental museum at Cardiff Castle for all to see... On the scale of UK history it just doesn't register. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:34:42 +0100 From: "richard.williams3" Organization: ntlworld News Service Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Lyn David Thomas wrote in message news:glbvptk6a5p62mhjelumd3dpaj9l0t4jrq@4ax.com... > On 11 Sep 2001 06:06:01 -0700, res05k58@gte.net (David Walker) wrote: > > >British Opinion was SO focused on Boney that British history barely > >even refers to the War of 1812. There's a painting of the Burning of > >the Capitol hanging in the Pentagon. In WW-II a British member of the > >Combined Joint Chiefs actually asked his American counterpart 'Who did > >that?' The American general had to respond 'You guys did.' > > > A quick survey of people at work showed that none knew of the War of > 1812 (least of all that the USA lost) - yet we have a captured battle > standard in the regimental museum at Cardiff Castle for all to see... > On the scale of UK history it just doesn't register. > -- And prominently displayed it is too. Last time I was in there I got talking to the curator - he mentioned he regularly got offers (lucrative ones too) from wealthy Americans attempting to buy and repatriate it. His response was always short and to the point... RPW Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 07:50:24 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:34:42 +0100, "richard.williams3" wrote: >> 1812 (least of all that the USA lost) - yet we have a captured battle >> standard in the regimental museum at Cardiff Castle for all to see... >> On the scale of UK history it just doesn't register. >> -- >And prominently displayed it is too. Last time I was in there I got talking >to the curator - he mentioned he regularly got offers (lucrative ones too) >from wealthy Americans attempting to buy and repatriate it. His response was >always short and to the point... I spoke to him too, he said that some Americans turn around when they see it and walk out of the room, unable to face the reality that they lost it or engage at all with their defeat. The curator was not very diplomatic in his views of the way the USA conducted its self in the war or the calibre of the troops and especially that of its officers. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 13 Sep 2001 22:53:37 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> and again you can harldy call a situation where the US achieved its war aims as a defeat. I might rank it as not a victory or a defeat but the War of 1812 also ended in the desturction of British influence among American Indian tribes in the American midwest essentially forever (there was British influence among Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest but this was generally evenly or moreso matched by US. Apparently the American traders tended to be more generous than the British/Canadian ones at least in the early years). >The curator was not very >diplomatic in his views of the way the USA conducted its self in the >war or the calibre of the troops and especially that of its officers. Yeah cause guys like Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, and Winfield Scott were real shitty commanders. The main British advantage was that they already had an organized and experienced military establsihed at the time war was declared. US regulars generally performed well against British regulars. The problem was that there weren't enough American regulars. The disparity was even less (possibly leaning towardss US advantage) in the naval sphere. The RN, its ranks filled with impressed sailors, generally faired poorly on a ship by ship basis in relation tot he US navy which was an all volunteer force. Generally the RN tended to win engagements where it had more ships available, as one would expect from the premier naval power at the height of a war. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 01:14:20 +0100 From: "richard.williams3" Organization: ntlworld News Service Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote in message news:20010913185337.01421.00000292@mb-ft.aol.com... > < see it and walk out of the room, unable to face the reality that they > lost it or engage at all with their defeat.>> > > and again you can harldy call a situation where the US achieved its war aims as > a defeat. What, such as the conquest of Canada? I must have missed that one. I might rank it as not a victory or a defeat but the War of 1812 > also ended in the desturction of British influence among American Indian tribes > in the American midwest essentially forever (there was British influence among > Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest but this was generally evenly or moreso > matched by US. Apparently the American traders tended to be more generous than > the British/Canadian ones at least in the early years). > > >The curator was not very > >diplomatic in his views of the way the USA conducted its self in the > >war or the calibre of the troops and especially that of its officers. > > Yeah cause guys like Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, and Winfield Scott > were real shitty commanders. Sigh. What part of "regimental museum" did you not understand in the original post? Let's be absolutely clear about. It means a museum that tells the story of a specific regiment. In this case a regiment that fought under Isaac Brooke when he won a string of brilliant victories against incompetent American commanders on the Canadian border. The main British advantage was that they already > had an organized and experienced military establsihed at the time war was > declared. Which was in Spain, fighting some guy called Napoleon. Maybe you've heard of him? Colonial garrisons were very much second-rate troops commanded by out of favour officers. US regulars generally performed well against British regulars. The > problem was that there weren't enough American regulars. The disparity was > even less (possibly leaning towardss US advantage) in the naval sphere. The > RN, its ranks filled with impressed sailors, generally faired poorly on a ship > by ship basis in relation tot he US navy which was an all volunteer force. > Generally the RN tended to win engagements where it had more ships available, > as one would expect from the premier naval power at the height of a war. > And it ended nevertheless with the USN swept from the seas. Lets be blunt about it - at a time when Britain had at least 90% of it's military establishment concentrated on the war against Napoleon the best the US could achieve was effectively a draw, and one in which they achieved virtually none of their pre-war objectives - even impressment had already been conceded before the war even started. Britain by contrast had only one serious goal in the war, namely to preserve Canada, and was completely successful at this. RPW Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:38:23 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 13 Sep 2001 22:53:37 GMT, prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: ><see it and walk out of the room, unable to face the reality that they >lost it or engage at all with their defeat.>> > >and again you can harldy call a situation where the US achieved its war aims as >a defeat. We have been over this, this is revisionism, no war aims of the USA were achieved and all the British ones were. Not a victory for the USA in the least. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:37:06 +0000 (UTC) From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk Organization: Nextra UK Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In article <20010913185337.01421.00000292@mb-ft.aol.com>, prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: > by ship basis in relation tot he US navy which was an all volunteer > force. Well prior to the war starting the Canadian station was a backwater. The main function of the RN was protection against the occasional French privateer. As a result it was unpopular with RN officers, there was far more chances of Prize Money on other stations. This resulted in most of the Captains on the station being the less competent ones. Another point to consider is the relative strength of ships. The large American Frigates were cut down two deckers with scantlings as thick as a 74. They also mounted more and heavier guns. Finally the small size of the US navy plus the large number of officers made giving each ship an exceptional Captain much easier. There were one or two exceptions, Lawrence made the sort of mistakes that would have got him cashiered in the RN if he had lived. Ken Young kenney@cix.co.uk Maternity is a matter of fact Paternity is a matter of opinion Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 22:55:59 -0700 From: "Robert A. Woodward" Organization: Home User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <9ntm92$dn8$1@thorium.cix.co.uk>, kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > In article <20010913185337.01421.00000292@mb-ft.aol.com>, > prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) wrote: > > > by ship basis in relation tot he US navy which was an all volunteer > > force. > > Well prior to the war starting the Canadian station was a backwater. > The main function of the RN was protection against the occasional > French privateer. As a result it was unpopular with RN officers, there > was far more chances of Prize Money on other stations. This resulted > in most of the Captains on the station being the less competent ones. > > Another point to consider is the relative strength of ships. The > large American Frigates were cut down two deckers with scantlings as > thick as a 74. They also mounted more and heavier guns. They were NOT cut down two deckers! They were big frigates designed from the keel up to be that (the French built a few in the 1790s as well, the Royal Navy had no problems capturing them). Carried 24 pound long guns, the cut down two deckers that the Royal Navy employed generally carried at 32 pound long guns. -- robertaw@drizzle.com http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw/ rawoodward@aol.com Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:58:11 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 "richard.williams3" wrote in message news:UzQn7.22799$fA.4357640@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > A quick survey of people at work showed that none knew of the War of > > 1812 (least of all that the USA lost) - yet we have a captured battle > > standard in the regimental museum at Cardiff Castle for all to see... > > On the scale of UK history it just doesn't register. > > -- > And prominently displayed it is too. Last time I was in there I got talking > to the curator - he mentioned he regularly got offers (lucrative ones too) > from wealthy Americans attempting to buy and repatriate it. His response was > always short and to the point... > In 1977, I helped move it there from its previous home in Maindy Barracks. How about this for an ATL; O/Cdt C**** P****'s lunatic driving destroys that piece of military heritage. Effects ? Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 13 Sep 2001 08:41:54 -0700 From: marathag@yahoo.com (mike) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Lyn David Thomas wrote in message news:<7fl0qtos9qnajvfulrnqeci62vsc41vc48@4ax.com>... > The curator was not very > diplomatic in his views of the way the USA conducted its self in the > war or the calibre of the troops and especially that of its officers. yeah- why would anybody think highly of obvious losers like Harrison or Jackson over such bright stars like Proctor or Pakenham. ** mike ** Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 13 Sep 2001 22:42:56 GMT From: prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 <> Well they don;t know that the US lost becuase the US didn't lose. We acheived our war aims. In fact one could make a case that the UK lost since they eventually accepted the US interperetation of the naval issue. In 1861 the British argued that goods transhipped through a neutral country were not fair game for seizure. Thats the same polciy asthe US took in 1812. ----------------- He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do, The fears of years, like a biting whip, Had cut deep bloody grooves Across our backs. -Etheridge Knight Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 14 Sep 2001 00:47:18 +0200 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 prestorjon@aol.com (Prestorjon) writes: > < 1812 (least of all that the USA lost)>> > Well they don;t know that the US lost becuase the US didn't lose. > We acheived our war aims. In fact one could make a case that the UK > lost since they eventually accepted the US interperetation of the > naval issue. In 1861 the British argued that goods transhipped > through a neutral country were not fair game for seizure. Thats the > same polciy asthe US took in 1812. The difference is that in 1812 the UK did not recognise the U.S. You can make a strong case that neither side lost the War of 1812 since both sides achieved their formal war aims. However, when you look at the undeclared war aims of the U.S. (to take the remaining British territory in North America) it become fairly clear that Britain prevailed. ===================================================================== To find out who and where I am look at: http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html Spammers: Please send spam to: abuse@aol.com and abuse@yahoo.com ===================================================================== Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:41:56 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 14 Sep 2001 00:47:18 +0200, Steve Holland wrote: > The difference is that in 1812 the UK did not recognise the U.S. No the UK gave diplomatic recognition to the USA before then I am sure. -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:03:27 +0100 From: "richard.williams3" Organization: ntlworld News Service Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Lyn David Thomas wrote in message news:pj93qt8606ojl3dc360iq4qb7p9pis0vp9@4ax.com... > On 14 Sep 2001 00:47:18 +0200, Steve Holland > wrote: > > > The difference is that in 1812 the UK did not recognise the U.S. > > No the UK gave diplomatic recognition to the USA before then I am > sure. > Treaty of Paris, 1783 which officially ended the AWI was when Britain first formally acknowledged the USA's independence. There were several other treaties after that as well as exchanges of ambassadors. RPW Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:45:11 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Lyn David Thomas wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2001 00:47:18 +0200, Steve Holland > wrote: > > > The difference is that in 1812 the UK did not recognise the U.S. > > No the UK gave diplomatic recognition to the USA before then I am > sure. Try: "at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three." Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:23:12 GMT From: Jamie McDonell Organization: @Home Network Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Prestorjon wrote: > > < 1812 (least of all that the USA lost)>> > > Well they don;t know that the US lost becuase the US didn't lose. We acheived > our war aims. In fact one could make a case that the UK lost since they > eventually accepted the US interperetation of the naval issue. In 1861 the > British argued that goods transhipped through a neutral country were not fair > game for seizure. Thats the same polciy asthe US took in 1812. The _stated_ military aim of the United States was the "liberation" of Canada (much as a pickpocket "liberates" your wallet). The cassus belli may indeed have been naval, but that matter had generally been resolved before the war broke out, and mustn't be confused with war _aims_. Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:26:19 +0100 From: "Karl Stringer" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Prestorjon" wrote in message news:20010913184256.01421.00000290@mb-ft.aol.com... > < 1812 (least of all that the USA lost)>> > > Well they don;t know that the US lost becuase the US didn't lose. We acheived > our war aims. In fact one could make a case that the UK lost since they > eventually accepted the US interperetation of the naval issue. While 'one' could make a case on that basis, one would then look rather foolish. The 'naval issue' as you refer to it was resolved before the US declared war and the resolution of the issue was arrived at by peaceful diplomacy. Sorry, but it seems ridiculous and stupid to suggest that Britain lost a war on those grounds when Parliament had changed its policies prior to any hostilities occurring. I also fail to see how the US could then view these as 'war aims' when it was impossible to militarily achieve these already accomplished goals. Now if you want to say that the US diplomats came out on top in the negotiations and won the diplomatic battle hands down, then I doubt that there'd be any argument there. But that is a separate issue to the war itself and shouldn't be confused with it given the one came to a conclusion before the other even began. Britain's war aims in the War of 1812 were simple. They were to retain BNA and to not allow it to fall to the aggressor. In this, Britain was 100% successful, ergo, Britain's war aims were achieved. Exactly how could Britain be said to have lost when it achieved everything that it set out to achieve when its territory was attacked? It is regrettable that some of the silly demands made at Ghent have subsequently muddied the waters, but they did not represent any real hopes, aspirations of intentions on the part of the government (as the speed with which they were dropped clearly shows). They weren't what Britain was fighting for, protecting BNA was. So, let's look at the US's war aims. They couldn't have been related to the impressment of sailors or interference with navigation as these were no longer issues. If that had been all they were fighting about then the war could have been over as soon as the news of Parliament's decision reached Washington D.C (now there's an ObWI just waiting to be written). The fact that fighting continued suggests that the US was trying to achieve something else. Now, the cynic in me, just might suspect that the real goal was the invasion and conquest of BNA. In this, the USA totally and utterly failed. By the time the peace treaty was signed, the net result was that the status quo was restored. As this is what Britain, the victim in this conflict, had always wanted, then this could only be looked upon as being a successful resolution of the war. The US on the other hand could have had this at any time, but instead decided to follow a policy of naked aggression in its attacks on its neighbour. Those attacks were repelled and it ended the conflict with its invading armies pushed back into their own territory, its navy swept from the seas and its coastal cities (including its capital) vulernable to attack. Oh, it won a largely insignificant if spectacular victory in a battle after the war was already over, but again, that only muddies the waters and doesn't reflect the pitiful state the US military found itself in by the end of 1814. Personally, I find it difficult to see how it can be said that the US didn't lose. I know that this can always be a difficult thing for someone who is very patriotic to accept, but any country can lose a war and there's no shame in admitting it. I suspect that the too many people assume that wars have to be total wars and that the concept that you can lose and not be wiped off the face of the map or at the very least suffer serious internal repercussions is something that perhaps has been lost in the glare of publicity that surrounds the total wars of the last couple of centuries. Now my final comments may seem a bit strange given how unequivocal I've been on who really 'won' or 'lost' this war. But I really do think that it is regretable that Lyn was quite so blunt in his post. Sure, he was only telling the truth (I'm not going to say 'IMO' because I believe that the facts are overwhelming) but given that it was likely to provoke such a response, then he should have been a bit more diplomatic. It's not as though stating that the US lost actually added anything to the very valid point that he was making. Personally I do find it very sad that seemingly _every_ thread on the War of 1812 degenerates into this same old slanging match of "we won", "no, we won". But given that it seems we can't agree, then the tactful approach would seem to be to agree to differ and to try to avoid rubbing it in that, at the end of the day, we all know that "we" are the ones that won. Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 14 Sep 2001 13:00:07 -0700 From: kevrob@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 > "Carlos Th" wrote in message news:<9njbug$82ll8$1@ID-83976.news.dfncis.de>... > > Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > > UK much worst for both parties? > > Here's a monkey-wrench: Have the U.S. land some expatriate United Irishmen on the Emerald Isle, complete with muskets, powder, shot, and some galloper guns. Smuggle the stores to the usualm suspects, and start a fire in John Bull's backyard. The problem here, of course, is that I rather doubt the U.S. could spare the cargo, getting the goods ashore is easier said than done, and the R.C. church was all for the U.K. crushing The Ogre on the continent. What we need is a practical prototype of Fulton's submarine! P.S. I've said it before: When the peace treaty restores the status quo ante bellum, that is a good clue that the war was a tie. Kevrob "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" The Hon. Robert Harper Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:41:10 -0500 From: Carlos Th Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if What If the US had been more agressive and successfull in the 1812 war so the British had took them as a serious menace, deserving more attention. This would give more involvement from Britain in North America while still fighting the Napoleonic wars. Having being more aggressive and successful whad granted the USA more territorial gains in Canada so, even if the British have more resources and eventually get the US to withdraw but more people had died in both armies. In the middle of the war, several New England stades decide to secede from the USA and Britain recognizes New England. The USA send troops to New England to prevent secession, and hostilities last to 1816 where the cold summer and the war get people starving. Finnally the USA is divided in two countries, both fully recognized by Britain and recognizing eachother. USA and New England are confined to pre-war limits. Now what? -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 18 Sep 2001 14:42:29 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: Carlos Th chlewey@my-deja.com >Finnally the USA is divided in two countries, both fully recognized by >Britain and recognizing eachother. USA and New England are confined to >pre-war limits. > >Now what? > Not too much change at first, but when the slavery question starts heating up, the political balance is shifted in favour of the South. At some point other northern states get fed up with being outnumbered and secede to join up with New England -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: 18 Sep 2001 14:24:11 -0700 From: hay9000@hotmail.com (Hay) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Alison Brooks wrote in message news:... > In article <9njbug$82ll8$1@ID-83976.news.dfncis.de>, Carlos Th > writes > >Which conditions would have made the war of 1812 between the USA and the > >UK much worst for both parties? > > > > Opinion in the USA wasn't wholly in favour of the war. Increase the > division, and have the war lead to major internal divisions within the > USA. > > Opinion in the UK was rather focused on Napoleon. Have the British > authorities split over whether to crush the Americans quickly and > decisively, so as to return to the main war, or whether to leave the > American war as a back issue that can be dealt with when Napoleon is > beaten. Have that division cause major problems in British government. > > With luck, you can get civil war and the break up of the USA, and > Britain unable to organise to bring an end to Napoleon, and the > Napoleonic wars stretching on for another decade or so. > YOu might want to remember that at that time the NEw England states (Federalist) were VERY opposed to the matter. Not only did they want (did?) deny men, materials and Money to the effort but actually had a secessionist movement. Although the movement failed at the end, it wouldn't take much tampering to get it going strong, specially if the Central Gov. Objects. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo2.html http://www.hillsdale.edu/dept/History/Documents/War/America/1812/1813-Secession.htm Another way to increase the fighting is to have Spain actually do something about the US invading West and East Florida around the same time period (he he). A Rampaging Gen. Jackson disregarding orders (even more than OTL) and performing afew more Attrocities might do the trick. Hay9000 Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:42:00 -0500 From: Carlos Th Organization: - Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Hay wrote: > Another way to increase the fighting is to have Spain actually do > something about the US invading West and East Florida around the same > time period (he he). A Rampaging Gen. Jackson disregarding orders > (even more than OTL) and performing afew more Attrocities might do the > trick. But Spain was under Napoleoinic rule at that time, wasn't she? -- Carlos Th Subject: Re: Challenge: Worst war of 1812 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:30:46 +0100 From: "Huw G" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 "Carlos Th" wrote in message news:3BA8BCC8.7D6793CD@my-deja.com... > Hay wrote: > > > Another way to increase the fighting is to have Spain actually do > > something about the US invading West and East Florida around the same > > time period (he he). A Rampaging Gen. Jackson disregarding orders > > (even more than OTL) and performing afew more Attrocities might do the > > trick. > > But Spain was under Napoleoinic rule at that time, wasn't she? > Under French occupation, with various Spanish armies and guerillas trying to drive them out, in conjunction (rarely in cooperation) with Wellington's British and Portuguese troops. While Joseph Bonaparte was nominally King of Spain, his rule extended little further than the edge of the French cavalry outposts. The Spanish recognised only King Ferdinand VII, but he was kept under house arrest in France. A provisional junta ruled in Ferdinand's name, first from Madrid, subsequently from Valladolid and Cadiz. I am not too sure how much interest the junta showed in their colonies while they were busy with the French; but they it is unlikely that they would to be able to reinforce any colony under threat, or actual attack.