WI: British take New Orleans

[kodak]

If the British win in New Orleans, they will control New Orleans. And they will have just violated a treaty of peace signed a month ago, after spending two decades at war. In the eyes of Europe and the British public, continuing the war would be a bad move.

If the British decide to demand anything, the Americans can say 'no'. What power projection do the British have over US territory outside of southern Louisiana? New Orleans is important, but it's also the middle of winter, so the Americans in the Mississippi valley won't be missing out on much.

Even if the Spanish get Louisiana back, the area will probably end up containing so many Americans that it'll end up back in their hands. The Spanish can't do much to keep the Americans (or anyone, for that matter) out.

 

[The Gunslinger]

If the British decide to demand anything, the Americans can say 'no'. What power projection do the British have over US territory outside of southern Louisiana? New Orleans is important, but it's also the middle of winter, so the Americans in the Mississippi valley won't be missing out on much.

If the Americans say no their economy continues it's downward spiral while desertions increase and trouble with New England looms. A longer war favours Britain waaaay more than America at this point in time.

Even if the Spanish get Louisiana back, the area will probably end up containing so many Americans that it'll end up back in their hands. The Spanish can't do much to keep the Americans (or anyone, for that matter) out.

That is very well the case, but it makes for a much more intriguing nineteenth century. I doubt the Adams-Onis treaty winds up anything like OTL if Spain retains Louisiana. If (and likely when) America DOES go to war over it, do they take Texas as well in the bargain? How does an earlier occupation of Texas affect American politics?

If the British do win (it's unlikely, but doable) I honestly think they hand it back to the Americans but declare the purchase null and void and make America buy it back from Spain. A definite boon to Spain and a small slap on the hand to the Americans,

 

[unprincipled peter]

the British aren't giving Louisiana back to Spain. Why would they? NO is a bargaining chip. Spain isn't in the war, so there's nothing to bargain with them for.

IF Britain takes NO, it's using the opportunity to write up a better peace with the US, and that means making the US give up something to get NO back.

It's up in the air whether Britain decides to stick with a fairly neutral treaty already agreed to, or gets greedy for a better deal. They're war weary. they can now really concentrate on whupping the US. the US has also finally got it's stuff together and is getting on war footing. I'd garner that Britain says 'gimme a face saving minor point, and you'll get NO back'. Returning it to Spain? Ummm. No. Britain, in that period, isn't in the business of doing anything for anyone but themselves, and giving it back to Spain does nothing for them.

 

[Alt History Buff]

the British aren't giving Louisiana back to Spain. Why would they? NO is a bargaining chip. Spain isn't in the war, so there's nothing to bargain with them for.

IF Britain takes NO, it's using the opportunity to write up a better peace with the US, and that means making the US give up something to get NO back.

It's up in the air whether Britain decides to stick with a fairly neutral treaty already agreed to, or gets greedy for a better deal. They're war weary. they can now really concentrate on whupping the US. the US has also finally got it's stuff together and is getting on war footing. I'd garner that Britain says 'gimme a face saving minor point, and you'll get NO back'. Returning it to Spain? Ummm. No. Britain, in that period, isn't in the business of doing anything for anyone but themselves, and giving it back to Spain does nothing for them.

Spain was already in the process of losing their entire American Empire. There is no way they could or would be able to hold Louisiana even if gifted it.

 

[voss749]

I suspect the british would evacuate New Orleans voluntarily with some grumbling in the military. New Orleans is far more important to the US than it is to great britain. If they hadnt evacuated before Napoleon escapes from Elba which is early Feb. They would do so as soon as they hear about it to defend colonies in the west indies. Also the treaty ratified included provisions for returning land captured by the enemy. It would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[TFSmith121]

"Unlikely, but doable"

If the British do win (it's unlikely, but doable)...,

Um, how, exactly?

Obviously Pakenham et al could not win at Chalmette, so what do you suggest they should have done differently?

Best,

 

[Derek Pullem]

Um, how, exactly?

Obviously Pakenham et al could not win at Chalmette, so what do you suggest they should have done differently?

Best,

Bounce New Orleans and Jackson on the afternoon of 23 December instead of camping and awaiting Jackson's night attack. Or indeed move on from Pea Island much faster than OTL

If the land commanders were as aggressive as Cochrane then it would probably have worked (or at least ended in a messy battle in New Orleans which would have been more favourable to the British than an assault on a prepared defensive line.)

 

[John Farrier]

What power projection do the British have over US territory outside of southern Louisiana?

The British are occupying eastern Maine at this point.

 

[TFSmith121]

Upstream on the Mississippi using sailing vessels

Bounce New Orleans and Jackson on the afternoon of 23 December instead of camping and awaiting Jackson's night attack. Or indeed move on from Pea Island much faster than OTL

If the land commanders were as aggressive as Cochrane then it would probably have worked (or at least ended in a messy battle in New Orleans which would have been more favourable to the British than an assault on a prepared defensive line.)

Upstream on the Mississippi using sailing vessels doesn't seem very "bounce able"....

And a British army force fighting IN New Oreleans sounds an awful lot like Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 .., presumably the British learned something from THAT experience.

Best,

 

[The Gunslinger]

Um, how, exactly?

Obviously Pakenham et al could not win at Chalmette, so what do you suggest they should have done differently?

Best,

If Jackson had died during the Creek campaign the battle changes significantly.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, Coffee wins against Pakenham, instead...

If Jackson had died during the Creek campaign the battle changes significantly.

Yeah, Coffee wins against Pakenham, instead.

Or Carroll, or Overton, or Patterson, or whoever...if Pakenham makes the choices he does historically, and given what he chose to do even facing Jackson, don't know why that would change, why would anything change?

Jackson was an inspiring and inspired combat commander, but Pakenham was as responsible for his force's defeat as Jackson was...

Best,

 

[The Gunslinger]

Yeah, Coffee wins against Pakenham, instead.

Or Carroll, or Overton, or Patterson, or whoever...if Pakenham makes the choices he does historically, and given what he chose to do even facing Jackson, don't know why that would change, why would anything change?

Jackson was an inspiring and inspired combat commander, but Pakenham was as responsible for his force's defeat as Jackson was...

Best,

I'm not sure the others could rally the western militias and get to the same numbers to the battle. Jackson brought a huge number of men through just about sheer force of will, without him a lot of those guys stay home.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Upstream on the Mississippi using sailing vessels doesn't seem very "bounce able"....

And a British army force fighting IN New Oreleans sounds an awful lot like Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 .., presumably the British learned something from THAT experience.

Best,

They were already "upstream". Just not upstream on the Mississippi.

Pea Island is due East of New Orleans and Jackson attacked Keane at Lacostes plantation about nine miles South of New Orleans on the evening of the 23rd.

If Keane had pressed on harder (he had originally landed at Pea island on the 15th) he could have been in New Orleans before Jackson had time to rally his troops.

He had no artillery but did not know that Jackson did not have any guns covering this line of attack either.

As for city assaults - the British were veterans of Burgos and other sieges of the seven year Peninsula war not the green troops that were routed in Buenos Aries (although it should be noted they had captured Montevideo against a larger force than Jackson had prior to the second battle of BA).

 

[TFSmith121]

Lake Borgne is/was an inlet of the Gulf

They were already "upstream". Just not upstream on the Mississippi.

Pea Island is due East of New Orleans and Jackson attacked Keane at Lacostes plantation about nine miles South of New Orleans on the evening of the 23rd.

If Keane had pressed on harder (he had originally landed at Pea island on the 15th) he could have been in New Orleans before Jackson had time to rally his troops.

He had no artillery but did not know that Jackson did not have any guns covering this line of attack either.

As for city assaults - the British were veterans of Burgos and other sieges of the seven year Peninsula war not the green troops that were routed in Buenos Aries (although it should be noted they had captured Montevideo against a larger force than Jackson had prior to the second battle of BA).

Lake Borgne is/was an inlet of the Gulf, which means:

A) no "upstream" or "downstream", and
B) there was the minor element of Jones' squadron, which had to be dealt with before Keane's command or any of the other British troops could go ashore on the shores of Lake Borgne; and,
C) once ashore, the British have no artillery or mounted troops for scouting; and
D) the Anericans have both artillery and mounted scouts and early warning from Jones' men.

Other than that, it's a brilliant plan.

There are reasons the British were defeated at Chalmette, first and foremost that they could not deploy sufficient forces to overcome the very real and significant defensive strengths of the Americans.

You may see that as somehow "exceptional" - most anyone who has ever actually had the responsibility of getting a body of troops from Point A to Point B would consider taking terrain into account as a foundational issue.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, other than Patterson,

I'm not sure the others could rally the western militias and get to the same numbers to the battle. Jackson brought a huge number of men through just about sheer force of will, without him a lot of those guys stay home.

Actually, other than Patterson, who was USN, all the general officers in the U.S. Forces WERE westerners, as the term was understood at the time... So that's really not an issue.

Best,