Name of the timeline[]
Obviously the name is a (bad) pun based on the musical piece "1812 overture". Couldn`t think of something better and "1812 victory" or "1812 defeat" would be biased any which way.--Marcpasquin 01:18, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Footnotes[]
by --Marcpasquin 01:18, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
1[]
- Here* Captain Pring arrived a day or 2 earlier and chose to set up a battery on Isle Lamotte which, aparently unknown to him, was part of Vermont (and not New York). The vermonters who until then had stayed somewhat neutral (no battle had taken place on their territory) saw this as an act of agression and sent reinforcement across the bay. The arrival of the militiamen doubled the size of his force and allowed him to free up some of the regulars by given the labour to the volunteers who were inexperienced and in some cases, unfit for duty. By all acounts, the presence of the militias realy made all the difference.
2[]
- Here* he waited 2 hours by which time, the British fleet was in trouble. *There*, the lack of naval protection for the landing would have probably forced him to make an all out attack to maximise the effect.
3[]
The naval battle (up until the guns being turned) happened as *here*. When the British crew surendered, they were treated as "gallant foes" and treated with honour (from that era's perspective).
4[]
It took place in december *here* but I assumed the battle of Plattsburgh in early september would have pushed up the meeting
5[]
- Here*, the envoys arrived days after the ceasefire was signed and so their actions were seen as seditious (since everything was supposed to go back to normal). They went back but their actions became known and it lead to the demise of the Federalist Party.
*There* however, They would have arrived probably just before the signing became known in north-america. Even if not, the US having lost the war and the British having taken a chunk out of New England would have given them the courage to go ahead if only to prevent a repeat. In regard to the government's answer to the demands *there*, 3 things could, in my opinion, have happened at this point:
- Wanting to prevent any potential problem, the government agree to most or all the demands. The USA stays a very loose confederation of entities and eventualy some might decide to go their own way.
- The government stall for time and/or refuse some of the demands. New england declare independence and the government, knowing that Great Britain woul probably side with them and in any case prefering a neutral neighbour to an hostile one, negociate its secession. New England manage to restart its economy through commerce with europe and the USA are allowed the right to call on their ports as well as gaining a buffer zone between itself and British North America. There might also be some sort of indemnity paid to the USA for any federal structures they might inherit (barracks, ports, post offices, etc....).
Since countries rarely (although not never) let go willingly of its territory, this one is the least likely in my view.
- I disagree on this point. The US was still rather decentralized, and, still recovering from the War of 1812, many Americans would probably be unwilling to go to war to prevent New England's secession. Even in 1860 *here*, there were many in the US government, including President Buchannan, who felt that the federal government had no right to prevent secession, even if they felt it was unwise Nik 03:07, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be an outright "see ya !" or would there be some sort of negociation ?--Marcpasquin 01:05, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- The warhawks manage to convince the government to flat out reject their demands. Seeing there a possibility of scapegoating someone for losing the war, New England is declared to be in a state of apprehended insurection and troops are dispatch to occupy these states. A propaganda campaign is launch claiming that the new england's militias were riddled with anglophiles, explaining their less then stelar results during the attempted invasion of Lower and Upper Canada. The occupation is resented and eventualy leads to a civil war (and one assume the British would then back New England).
The British would probably not like a large build up of soldiers so close to its (new) border so this could either make the government rethink after the ambassador's protest or might result in a second invasion.
6[]
- Here* it was settled as status quo ante belum due in part to the battle of New-Orleans.
7[]
I have assumed that some elements wich were left in limbo *here* were simply resolved in Great Britain's favour:
- According to the London Convention (Treaty of 1818), the Oregon territory was to be settled jointly by both.
- The question of the great lakes (both side wanted sole control) was not realy settled until the international bounderies were drawn between Canada and the USA (the border is right in the middle).
- The entry to the bay of Biloxi might have been returned after a military occupation or could have been turned into a small base (think Guantanamo Bay).
- Article 4 of the treaty of Ghent leaves the question of the Bay of Fundy was to a mixed commission that is to convene later on.
8[]
Its possible that it was abandoned afterward as capital in favour of another city further inland.
9[]
Taken almost word for word from the capitulation written by the US militia officers of the county of Washington (Maine). Since Lower-Canada was given the right to maintain most of its insitutions, Maine would have more then probably be awarded the same advantages (as long of course as it did not go against major British laws).
10[]
The British had promised the Michigan territory to their native allies. *Here*, article nine of the Treaty of Ghent only required the USA to cease attacking the native tribes and return whatever might have been taken from them since 1811. I haven't figured out yet how big it would have been or exactly how independent they would be. In that last regard, I assume for the time being that it would have been somewhat similar to Nunavut or to some of the Canadian first nation territories *here*.
11[]
Article 10 *here* only require the parties to "use their best endeavours" to stop the traffic in view of abolition.
The full abolition after the war could lead to problem with the south earlier then *here*.
- If New England already seceded, then it seems quite likely that the US would begin to disintegrate. One possibility is that something similar to the Nullification Crisis *here* would've occured *there* earlier, either resulting in the breakup of the US into several small nations, or a weakening of the federal government, leaving the US merely a loose alliance of states. Nik 03:13, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Apart from New england, can you think of any block of states that existed (officialy or not) at that time ?--Marcpasquin 01:05, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Napoleonic Wars ITTL[]
What effect would all this have on the wars back in Europe? --Sikulu 11:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not much. Some other country (perhaps a south american one) might benefit from neutral trading with europe instead of the US.
- Slightly longer term, there would be no Monroe Doctrine so european powers would continue to be active in the americas meaning they might get involved in some 19th century conflicts. --Marcpasquin 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)