How Could the US Have Decisively Won the War of 1812?

[Amadeus]

Despite its name the War of 1812 lasted three years, from 1812 to 1815. While the US saw its capital burned and the invasion of Canada failed, America didn't technically lose the war and the peace was negotiated on favorable terms. At the same time the US didn't decisively win either.

So how could America have decisively won the War of 1812?

 

[writofcertiorari]

The invasion of Canada needed either to not happen, or to happen in a more organized way. The rush into the West was ill-planned and did not really work with the defense militia that had been calling up. To change the outcome of the War of 1812 to this extent, we need to go back to the 1790s and the Legion of the United States.

After the end of the American Revolution, most soldiers returned home, and the Continental Army was effectively disbanded. The Articles of Confederation didn't really allow for a large standing army, and funding it would have been nearly impossible anyway. Plus, it seemed that the US was no longer going to be at war with any European power for the time being. This changed during the 1790s, when the Northwest Indian War began. While Britain was officially neutral, they supported the Natives and even managed to have some success supplying them. In the end, though, The US won a victory with the use of the Legion of the US, an army headed by "Mad" Anthony Wayne, who had been a Brigadier General in Revolutionary War. Now, when the conflict ended, and Wayne died soon after, the idea of a permanent Legion of the US kind of faded away, and it was eventually folded into the regular army.

There needs to be some impetus for that Legion of the United States to stay together. Also, it would help if Napoleon had been more successful and hadn't abdicated in 1814.

Might I suggest a point of divergence with the US more fully supporting the French Republic (though honestly it probably would have led to a mess in domestic politics, anyway...)?

 

[Philip]

I'm not sure out can happen, but it would require at a minimum

1. United States actually united in support of the war.
2. United Kingdom completely focused on the extended Sixth Coalition.
3. Collapse of British support for the war in America due to war exhaustion.

Even then...

 

[farmerted555]

Also, Nappy deciding not to invade Russia couldn't hurt.

 

[UCB79]

I'm not sure out can happen, but it would require at a minimum

1. United States actually united in support of the war.
2. United Kingdom completely focused on the extended Sixth Coalition.
3. Collapse of British support for the war in America due to war exhaustion.

Even then...

You’d also have to had the USA build up a navy @ least almost equal in size to Great
Britan’s- & that simply wasn’t going to hap-
pen(there simply was not present the politi-
cal will to spend the necessary funds).

 

[dandan_noodles]

One of my pet PoDs is the deployment of French military missions to Britain's colonial enemies; small staffs of experienced officers to bring the Americans up to speed in modern warfare through drill and military advice.

 

[Tyg]

There are a number of big British reasons why this is hard.

On the US side, there's a problem in that the American politicians who were aggressively expansionist and in favor of a big army and navy were also the ones least-likely to want a war with Britain. If we're imagining a two-term President Adams followed by (just for example) a President Hamilton, you'd have a United States far more prepared for war with Britain, but much more likely to go to war with France (and/or Spain). It'd be entirely possible that the Louisiana Territory is conquered by a Federalist-dominated US instead of bought, and an accommodation reached with Britain over trade, impressment, Indian & Canadian issues instead.

To give the US a better chance at a decisive victory in 1812, you'd somehow have to get a Federalist military, tariff (no other good way to pay for the military), and maybe banking policy while having a Democratic-Republican foreign policy and strategic outlook. I suppose this could be technically possible if you have Jefferson and Madison elected as IOTL while the Federalists dominate in Congress, but it'd be weird for there to be that much Federalist support without a Federalist President. It'd also be harder for Madison to get a declaration of war on Britain from such a Congress, but that could be resolved by having Britain do it or act as if at war.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Don't go to war.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Don't go to war.

Yeah, definitely a scenario where the winning move is not to play.

 

[Driftless]

I'm not sure out can happen, but it would require at a minimum

1. United States actually united in support of the war.
2. United Kingdom completely focused on the extended Sixth Coalition.
3. Collapse of British support for the war in America due to war exhaustion.

Even then...

Don't invade Canada. That idea was a fever dream of a couple of generations of US leadership and a hot button for the US War Hawks. The War Hawks grossly overestimated both the desire of the Canadians to be part of the US and also the ability of too many of the US Militia commanders. Too many of those guys were regional political bigwigs with no understanding or skill in leading troops in the field or fighting a war.

Have the British feel more of a threat from Napoleon, so that they decide that pacifying the Americans somewhat crosses off one item on their list of trouble spots. Not so crazy, as the British were slowly coming around on the grievances of the Americans - just too late to stop the descent to war

 

[Captain Seafort]

Don't go to war.

Or pick a better side. If the "war of 1812" is the US name for their participation in the Sixth Coalition rather than against it, then their chances improve considerably.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Another thing to keep in mind when thinking about an American victory in the War of 1812 is that in OTL Britain managed to perform quite well even though the majority of their troops in Canada were not engaged. Even if the Americans do better in TTL and conquer Upper Canada, they're going to face an impossible task in invading Upper Canada where not only are the majority of the British troops stationed, but impressive fortifications exist.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The State militias, which the US largely relied on, were ... variable, shall we say.
While it's true that the Kentucky mounted militia was very effective, most of the other States' militias were ineffective for an invasion.

Militias were raised to DEFEND, and militia men were meant to defend their own state. In the War of 1812, militiamen asked to cross the international border often said 'no, we don't have to, and we're not going to'. Heck, some militia refused to go further than the next State over. Worse, to some extent worse, each man made his own decision, so unit cohesion broke down. Officers had to convince and cajole their men into obeying orders (especially ones the men weren't obliged to follow).

It also didn't help that much of the Army high command were doddering incompetents.

If you could convince the 13 states that their militias were useful only as back up, and that a standing army really was necessary, well then you'd have a bigger army, more trained officers, and you could dump the deadwood at the top.

It would also help if there was any kind of concept of logistics.

If the US had had a decent, professional army, and if they'd, for instance used Lake Champlain as a supply route to seize chunks of Quebec province, cutting British supply to Ontario, they could have won handily.

 

[m0585]

Avoid the Democratic-Republicans from coming to power. They essentially gutted funding for the army and the navy from 1801-1809. The only good thing they did for the military was establish the USMA at West Point. Keep the Federalists in power and you might see more funding go towards building and developing a standing army as well as maintaining a decent sized fleet. Though, as @Tyg pointed out, as U.S. Government controlled by the Federalists would most likely not have declared war against Britain in the first place.

 

[James Ricker]

Napoleon becomes far more successful in Europe he doesn't have to win he just has to do good enough to drain British resources to the point where the population of Canada suffers under British rule.
Having the British put someone in charge of Canada whose only job is to squeeze as much tax revenue out of Canada as he can without regards to the consequences to the Canadian people and be brutal about it would guarantee local population would side with the the Americans

 

[Lusitania]

Napoleon becomes far more successful in Europe he doesn't have to win he just has to do good enough to drain British resources to the point where the population of Canada suffers under British rule.
Having the British put someone in charge of Canada whose only job is to squeeze as much tax revenue out of Canada as he can without regards to the consequences to the Canadian people and be brutal about it would guarantee local population would side with the the Americans

The Canadian colonies were not revenue rich colonies that provided the British crown with profit. No the profit came from the British and British occupied French carribean islands that produced sugar and other cash crops. Also the tax revenue received from import and export of goods between US and Britain. The Canadian provinces were just the 13 colonies before ARW not money makers and not so heavily populated to provide the British with tax windfall.

Note I read somewhere that the revenue from the sugar producing French islands that the British occupied during the Napoleon wars was sufficient to pay the costs of the Royal Navy Atlantic fleet.

 

[James Ricker]

The Canadian colonies were not revenue rich colonies that provided the British crown with profit. No the profit came from the British and British occupied French carribean islands that produced sugar and other cash crops. Also the tax revenue received from import and export of goods between US and Britain. The Canadian provinces were just the 13 colonies before ARW not money makers and not so heavily populated to provide the British with tax windfall.

Note I read somewhere that the revenue from the sugar producing French islands that the British occupied during the Napoleon wars was sufficient to pay the costs of the Royal Navy Atlantic fleet.

If things went worse in Europe expenses could increase rapidly. If Trafalgar degenerated into a slugging match, ship repairs and replacement would get very expensive. A prolonged land war in Europe would also get extremely expensive. Never underestimate the power of War to drain a national Treasury

 

[EnglishCanuck]

For the US to win decisively, you'd need a POD well before 1812, probably around 1806/07. Say the Chesapeake-Leopard, affair starts a more militaristic trend, the professional army is expanded and more pre-war work is done on the Lakes. 5-6 years of expansion and prep would go a long way to solving the manpower and probably professionalism problems which made the invasions of 1812-13 such debacles. However, much of that also comes down on the American leadership which was...lackluster in many cases. There's not many good ways to change that quickly.

 

[Lusitania]

For the US to win decisively, you'd need a POD well before 1812, probably around 1806/07. Say the Chesapeake-Leopard, affair starts a more militaristic trend, the professional army is expanded and more pre-war work is done on the Lakes. 5-6 years of expansion and prep would go a long way to solving the manpower and probably professionalism problems which made the invasions of 1812-13 such debacles. However, much of that also comes down on the American leadership which was...lackluster in many cases. There's not many good ways to change that quickly.

The US actually benefited militarily from the 1812 defeat for it finally showed US that it needed a professional army and could not rely on militia. Maybe some sort of military intervention in the 1800-1805 that went bad and forced the US to re-asses it military structure. But on its own, it would of been hard to change the mentality of many in the US. The ACW was still affected by militia mentality on the Confederate armies being under state control and not under National control.

 

[daveg1967]

Thomas Jefferson said that conquering Canada is "Merely a matter of marching." Jefferson, and his party, held in contempt, that which they did not understand. Those topics included military affairs, banking, and economics. Jefferson's party was incapable of managing the War of 1812 decisively. Note they failed to extend the charter of the Bank of the US when the VP voted against it to break the tie in the Senate.