This isn’t a scenario that will see an independent Louisiana/New England nor a behemoth Canada. The goal is to ask what the Treaty of Ghent would look like for a victorious Britain and her Indian allies. There are two PODs for this scenario
1) Proctor & Tecumseh lure Clay outside Fort Meigs and win a battle, ensuring the Fort’s later surrender (Fort Stephenson may also fall later as well). July 5/6 1813
2) Barclay catches Perry crossing the sand bar and smashes the Erie fleet August 3/4 1813
Proctor and Tecumseh wouldn’t be completely out of the woods having to deal with Harrison at Fort Sandusky, but maybe they fight an inconclusive engagement and both sides retire.
The Battle of Lake Erie changes the whole campaigns of 1813 though, Erie is a British Lake, Britain still holds Michigan so the whole Upper Canada campaign doesn’t happen. Instead, the action is set for the environs of Lake Ontario. Sackets Harbor sees a lot more fighting (think of the Niagra campaign reversed) and falls, and is liberated shortly thereafter. With Prevost busy in Lake Ontario the Plattsburgh campaign goes ahead under somebody else (Drummond?) it is successful but the Anglo/Canadian forces are beaten and can’t advance to Albany.
The Penobscot expedition goes as OTL, as does Baltimore, Prairie du chien and New Orleans.
So at the peace tables in Ghent, Canada controls much more territory than OTL and she hasn’t been as ravaged by the war, instead the USA has borne the brunt of the fighting, lost much of the west and has an active Tecumseh to rally the natives around. At the OTL peace treaty the negotiators were working off of the Treaty of Greenville, a treaty likely to be untenable due to the fact that there over 100,000 Americans living in the proposed area. BUT, in OTL the British were perfectly willing to sell the Indians down the river in exchange for “Canadian security” (aka- territory).
So my question is this, in an alternate war, what do the British ask for, and what are they likely to get? Have they beat on America enough to ask for an Indian State, or do they let it slide?
Lastly, does the answer change if Tecumseh is alive or not?
1) Proctor & Tecumseh lure Clay outside Fort Meigs and win a battle, ensuring the Fort’s later surrender (Fort Stephenson may also fall later as well). July 5/6 1813
2) Barclay catches Perry crossing the sand bar and smashes the Erie fleet August 3/4 1813
Proctor and Tecumseh wouldn’t be completely out of the woods having to deal with Harrison at Fort Sandusky, but maybe they fight an inconclusive engagement and both sides retire.
The Battle of Lake Erie changes the whole campaigns of 1813 though, Erie is a British Lake, Britain still holds Michigan so the whole Upper Canada campaign doesn’t happen. Instead, the action is set for the environs of Lake Ontario. Sackets Harbor sees a lot more fighting (think of the Niagra campaign reversed) and falls, and is liberated shortly thereafter. With Prevost busy in Lake Ontario the Plattsburgh campaign goes ahead under somebody else (Drummond?) it is successful but the Anglo/Canadian forces are beaten and can’t advance to Albany.
The Penobscot expedition goes as OTL, as does Baltimore, Prairie du chien and New Orleans.
So at the peace tables in Ghent, Canada controls much more territory than OTL and she hasn’t been as ravaged by the war, instead the USA has borne the brunt of the fighting, lost much of the west and has an active Tecumseh to rally the natives around. At the OTL peace treaty the negotiators were working off of the Treaty of Greenville, a treaty likely to be untenable due to the fact that there over 100,000 Americans living in the proposed area. BUT, in OTL the British were perfectly willing to sell the Indians down the river in exchange for “Canadian security” (aka- territory).
So my question is this, in an alternate war, what do the British ask for, and what are they likely to get? Have they beat on America enough to ask for an Indian State, or do they let it slide?
Lastly, does the answer change if Tecumseh is alive or not?