American allaince with Britain, instead of war in 1812

[simpleton]

OTL The war of 1812 is certainly among the worst strategic decisions ever made by the US government or any governement. The USN had 8 frigates and dozens of sloops, schooners, etc, against the RN's 200 frigates, 100 ships of the line and hundreds of sloops, schooners. The US army had few regulars, no experienced officers and old generals. The British army was very experienced and efficient. Canada had over 300,000 non Indian people (including many loyalist Americans who had left during or after the revolution). and the Indian nations were well led by Tecumseh and supplied by Britain. Invading Canada without a strong navy required large forces to march along narrow passages, which would be easily defended with guerrilla tactics (at which the Indians excelled and frontiersmen), Congress had refused to renew the charter fo the Bank of the US, so it ceased operations. Rich, coastal, Yankee tradesmen did not want to lose lucrative business with Britain and Canada, so they would be unlikely to help fund the war.

ATL  Madison realizes that it is absurd to fight a strong Britain, Canada and the Indian nations, when most of Hispanic America is undergoing a war of independence since 1810, Spain had lost most of its navy in Trafalgar in 1805 and was wrecked by war with Napoleon. There are about 20,000 non Indian people living in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, with a few hundred soldiers and a few cannon. Spanish troops in Mexico City can hardly leave the populated area to defend these huge territories. Havana has the most productive Spanish shipyards and an excellent harbor, which would be invaluable for the USN and the RN.

Madison Addresses Congress:
  Although Westerners and Irish-Americans clamour for war with Britain, this would certainly be the worst decision Congress would ever make. Britain has impressed hundreds of American sailors and illegally stopped our ships at sea. However, war with Britian would mean the loss of a large number of ships and thousands of sailors, would ruin our trade and economy. Many people think that invading Canada will be easy and fast. Montgomery and Arnold thought so in 1775, when Quebec and Montral were weak and bothpaid dearly, for no gains. Today Canada is much stronger andbetter led and the Indian Nations are receiving English weapons.

  The only way to ensure our territory and prosperity is to build a strong navy and army. A strong navy will alllow us to expand and secure our trade and territory. small Holland became wealthy after investing heavily on its navy in the 17th century. Britian became even stronger after, when the RN became stronger than the Dutch navy in the 18th century. America must build the strongest navy and trade in the 19th century.

  Pray tell how will the same Congress, which recently closed down the Bank of the US, finance war with Britain without this bank or trade (owing to certain RN blockade, destruction or invasion of our ports). During the recolutionary war AMerican soldiers were never fed, armed, clothed or paid adequately, because Congress and the states failed to gather the funds and goods. It was only the generous French help in the form of armament, money, the French army and navy that enabled Washington's poor army to defeat Cornwallis' very small force in Yorktown. The British convoy of 56 ships captured by the Spanish navy in 1780 and carrying thousands of troops, 80,000 muskets, gold to pay the troops, 200,000 cartridges, etc, also helped Washington considerably. Today France and Spain cannot help us against Britain. 

  Although Britain is busy fighting Napoleon, Napoleon is also busy fighting Spain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc, and will soon be defeated. If Napoleon is defeated after we declare war on Britain, the latter will unleash a most experienced army on us, which thanks to the RN can land wherever we have weak forces. In contrast, The small Spanish forces in America are fighting a revolt, without supplies or reinforcements from Spain. While Canada has over 300,000 inhabitants, the huge area of the northern New Spain including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California has about 20,000 non Indians, defended by a few hundred soldiers and dozens of cannon, spread over thousands of miles. Capturing California, etc, will provide the US access to the extremely rich Pacific. to expand into the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Capturing Panama will allow the US to move large numbers of people and huge quantities of goods between the 2 oceans. While Spain on average sailed a single Manila and Acapulco galleon per year, Britain and the US can sail 2 each in each direction. 
  Far from declaring war on Britain, I urge Congress to offer an eight year alliance with Britain and a peace treaty with Tecumseh, that Britain and the US may take advantage of the chaos inweak  Hispanic America, the Philippines, Hawaii, the Philippines, etc, and benefit greatly. We will use those years to expand our ridiculously small navy and merchant fleet and to  to wipe out piracy in cooperation with the RN. I also urge Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the US, without which it is impossible to expand our armed forces, much less to wage war.

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2017 18:50:52 GMT simpleton said:

OTL The war of 1812 is certainly among the worst strategic decisions ever made by the US government or any governement. The USN had 8 frigates and dozens of sloops, schooners, etc, against the RN's 200 frigates, 100 ships of the line and hundreds of sloops, schooners. The US army had few regulars, no experienced officers and old generals. The British army was very experienced and efficient. Canada had over 300,000 non Indian people (including many loyalist Americans who had left during or after the revolution). and the Indian nations were well led by Tecumseh and supplied by Britain. Invading Canada without a strong navy required large forces to march along narrow passages, which would be easily defended with guerrilla tactics (at which the Indians excelled and frontiersmen), Congress had refused to renew the charter fo the Bank of the US, so it ceased operations. Rich, coastal, Yankee tradesmen did not want to lose lucrative business with Britain and Canada, so they would be unlikely to help fund the war.

ATL  Madison realizes that it is absurd to fight a strong Britain, Canada and the Indian nations, when most of Hispanic America is undergoing a war of independence since 1810, Spain had lost most of its navy in Trafalgar in 1805 and was wrecked by war with Napoleon. There are about 20,000 non Indian people living in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, with a few hundred soldiers and a few cannon. Spanish troops in Mexico City can hardly leave the populated area to defend these huge territories. Havana has the most productive Spanish shipyards and an excellent harbor, which would be invaluable for the USN and the RN.

Madison Addresses Congress:
  Although Westerners and Irish-Americans clamour for war with Britain, this would certainly be the worst decision Congress would ever make. Britain has impressed hundreds of American sailors and illegally stopped our ships at sea. However, war with Britian would mean the loss of a large number of ships and thousands of sailors, would ruin our trade and economy. Many people think that invading Canada will be easy and fast. Montgomery and Arnold thought so in 1775, when Quebec and Montral were weak and bothpaid dearly, for no gains. Today Canada is much stronger andbetter led and the Indian Nations are receiving English weapons.

  The only way to ensure our territory and prosperity is to build a strong navy and army. A strong navy will alllow us to expand and secure our trade and territory. small Holland became wealthy after investing heavily on its navy in the 17th century. Britian became even stronger after, when the RN became stronger than the Dutch navy in the 18th century. America must build the strongest navy and trade in the 19th century.

  Pray tell how will the same Congress, which recently closed down the Bank of the US, finance war with Britain without this bank or trade (owing to certain RN blockade, destruction or invasion of our ports). During the recolutionary war AMerican soldiers were never fed, armed, clothed or paid adequately, because Congress and the states failed to gather the funds and goods. It was only the generous French help in the form of armament, money, the French army and navy that enabled Washington's poor army to defeat Cornwallis' very small force in Yorktown. The British convoy of 56 ships captured by the Spanish navy in 1780 and carrying thousands of troops, 80,000 muskets, gold to pay the troops, 200,000 cartridges, etc, also helped Washington considerably. Today France and Spain cannot help us against Britain. 

  Although Britain is busy fighting Napoleon, Napoleon is also busy fighting Spain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc, and will soon be defeated. If Napoleon is defeated after we declare war on Britain, the latter will unleash a most experienced army on us, which thanks to the RN can land wherever we have weak forces. In contrast, The small Spanish forces in America are fighting a revolt, without supplies or reinforcements from Spain. While Canada has over 300,000 inhabitants, the huge area of the northern New Spain including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California has about 20,000 non Indians, defended by a few hundred soldiers and dozens of cannon, spread over thousands of miles. Capturing California, etc, will provide the US access to the extremely rich Pacific. to expand into the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Capturing Panama will allow the US to move large numbers of people and huge quantities of goods between the 2 oceans. While Spain on average sailed a single Manila and Acapulco galleon per year, Britain and the US can sail 2 each in each direction. 
  Far from declaring war on Britain, I urge Congress to offer an eight year alliance with Britain and a peace treaty with Tecumseh, that Britain and the US may take advantage of the chaos inweak  Hispanic America, the Philippines, Hawaii, the Philippines, etc, and benefit greatly. We will use those years to expand our ridiculously small navy and merchant fleet and to  to wipe out piracy in cooperation with the RN. I also urge Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the US, without which it is impossible to expand our armed forces, much less to wage war.

Does this mean the United States of America join the United Kingdom in war against the French.

[stevep]

Aug 8, 2017 18:57:31 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2017 18:50:52 GMT simpleton said:

OTL The war of 1812 is certainly among the worst strategic decisions ever made by the US government or any governement. The USN had 8 frigates and dozens of sloops, schooners, etc, against the RN's 200 frigates, 100 ships of the line and hundreds of sloops, schooners. The US army had few regulars, no experienced officers and old generals. The British army was very experienced and efficient. Canada had over 300,000 non Indian people (including many loyalist Americans who had left during or after the revolution). and the Indian nations were well led by Tecumseh and supplied by Britain. Invading Canada without a strong navy required large forces to march along narrow passages, which would be easily defended with guerrilla tactics (at which the Indians excelled and frontiersmen), Congress had refused to renew the charter fo the Bank of the US, so it ceased operations. Rich, coastal, Yankee tradesmen did not want to lose lucrative business with Britain and Canada, so they would be unlikely to help fund the war.

ATL  Madison realizes that it is absurd to fight a strong Britain, Canada and the Indian nations, when most of Hispanic America is undergoing a war of independence since 1810, Spain had lost most of its navy in Trafalgar in 1805 and was wrecked by war with Napoleon. There are about 20,000 non Indian people living in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, with a few hundred soldiers and a few cannon. Spanish troops in Mexico City can hardly leave the populated area to defend these huge territories. Havana has the most productive Spanish shipyards and an excellent harbor, which would be invaluable for the USN and the RN.

Madison Addresses Congress:
  Although Westerners and Irish-Americans clamour for war with Britain, this would certainly be the worst decision Congress would ever make. Britain has impressed hundreds of American sailors and illegally stopped our ships at sea. However, war with Britian would mean the loss of a large number of ships and thousands of sailors, would ruin our trade and economy. Many people think that invading Canada will be easy and fast. Montgomery and Arnold thought so in 1775, when Quebec and Montral were weak and bothpaid dearly, for no gains. Today Canada is much stronger andbetter led and the Indian Nations are receiving English weapons.

  The only way to ensure our territory and prosperity is to build a strong navy and army. A strong navy will alllow us to expand and secure our trade and territory. small Holland became wealthy after investing heavily on its navy in the 17th century. Britian became even stronger after, when the RN became stronger than the Dutch navy in the 18th century. America must build the strongest navy and trade in the 19th century.

  Pray tell how will the same Congress, which recently closed down the Bank of the US, finance war with Britain without this bank or trade (owing to certain RN blockade, destruction or invasion of our ports). During the recolutionary war AMerican soldiers were never fed, armed, clothed or paid adequately, because Congress and the states failed to gather the funds and goods. It was only the generous French help in the form of armament, money, the French army and navy that enabled Washington's poor army to defeat Cornwallis' very small force in Yorktown. The British convoy of 56 ships captured by the Spanish navy in 1780 and carrying thousands of troops, 80,000 muskets, gold to pay the troops, 200,000 cartridges, etc, also helped Washington considerably. Today France and Spain cannot help us against Britain. 

  Although Britain is busy fighting Napoleon, Napoleon is also busy fighting Spain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, etc, and will soon be defeated. If Napoleon is defeated after we declare war on Britain, the latter will unleash a most experienced army on us, which thanks to the RN can land wherever we have weak forces. In contrast, The small Spanish forces in America are fighting a revolt, without supplies or reinforcements from Spain. While Canada has over 300,000 inhabitants, the huge area of the northern New Spain including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California has about 20,000 non Indians, defended by a few hundred soldiers and dozens of cannon, spread over thousands of miles. Capturing California, etc, will provide the US access to the extremely rich Pacific. to expand into the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii. Capturing Panama will allow the US to move large numbers of people and huge quantities of goods between the 2 oceans. While Spain on average sailed a single Manila and Acapulco galleon per year, Britain and the US can sail 2 each in each direction. 
  Far from declaring war on Britain, I urge Congress to offer an eight year alliance with Britain and a peace treaty with Tecumseh, that Britain and the US may take advantage of the chaos inweak  Hispanic America, the Philippines, Hawaii, the Philippines, etc, and benefit greatly. We will use those years to expand our ridiculously small navy and merchant fleet and to  to wipe out piracy in cooperation with the RN. I also urge Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the US, without which it is impossible to expand our armed forces, much less to wage war.

Does this mean the United States of America join the United Kingdom in war against the French.

  Actually the problem is that since the Spanish revolt against Napoleon's deposing of the Bourbon's and placing his brother on the throne the Spanish colonies, who are supporting the deposed Bourbons - in name if not very effectively militarily, are allied to Britain.  Also I think the post seriously underestimates the distances and logistics involved, especially in taking locations like California and Panama.  Furthermore when the US went to war with Britain Napoleon was looking to be at the height of his powers with Austria and Prussia cowered enough that they contributed forces to his invasion of Russia later in the year.

  Also I very much doubt the US would make a deal with Tecumseh, especially not one which would accept his nation as separate to them.  They, especially the northern and western colonies want Indian lands too much. 

  What I could see, especially if they wait a few weeks, so that news Britain has suspended the Orders of Council than allowed seizing of alleged British sailors on US ships, which would take out a prime reason for the OTL war then they could sign an agreement.  Both on trade and confirming Britain wouldn't support Tecumseh while the Americans attack him.

[simpleton]

lordroel,
No, the US does not declare war on France. The US-British alliance is for the purpose of taking over, sharing and settling invaluable and extremely weak Spanish territories and trade: New Spain, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Panama, Peru, Montevideo & Buenos Aires, Valpairaiso, Guam, the Philippines) plus Alaska, Hawaii, Formosa & Okinawa. Spanish sugar, cacao, vanilla, coccinille red, tobacco, potatoes, peanuts, plus the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade will make both countries extremely wealthy. Shipyards and portsw in Havana, the Philippines, Hawaii, Campeche, Texas, California, Peru, etc, will allow complete elimination of piracy and enemy navies, ensuring extremely intense and profitable trade.
Britain captured Portobello during the war of Jenkins' ear, invaluable Havana and Manila in 1762, Montevideo in 1807, but relinquished all of them for lack of troops and settlers, which the US can easily provide now.
Spain never realized the enormous potential of the Manila trade. It averaged less than one each Manila and Acapulco galleons per year and the goods had to be transported over long, toruous and mountains terrain with Oxcarts from Acapulco to Veracruz, instead of a very short distance across Panama using free Negroes and local Indians (resistant to tropical disease) using mules and iron railroads. Between the US and Britian at least 4 galleons each way and perhaps 10 or more galleons per year (escorted by frigates) can produce incredible wealth and finance the RN and an even more powerful USN.

[lordroel]

Aug 9, 2017 16:35:05 GMT simpleton said:

lordroel,
No, the US does not declare war on France. The US-British alliance is for the purpose of taking over, sharing and settling invaluable and extremely weak Spanish territories and trade: New Spain, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Panama, Peru, Montevideo & Buenos Aires, Valpairaiso, Guam, the Philippines)

So the United States is not going to war with France but they are going after Spanish territories in the Americans while Spain is a ally of the United Kingdom in fighting Napoleon in Spain.

[simpleton]

lordroel,
Napoleon had chased British forces from Spain, La Coruña being a preview to Dunkirk. The US convinces Parliament that Napoleon's fall cannot take more than a a few years and that the Manila trade, Havana, New Spain, Peru, Buenos Aires, etc, are invaluable to finance the British war efforts and that they can be easily invaded and held with American troops, American and Irish settlers, the mighty RN and the small USN, owing to a non existent Spanish navy and small Spanish forces spread over a huge territory. Breaking the alliance with Spain and forging one with the US and increasing trade with the US is the best option to continue fighting Napoleon and expanding the British empire and trade, at the cost of broken Spain.

It certainly beats having to fight Napoleon and the US simultaneously at great cost and suspending trade with the US.

[stevep]

Aug 9, 2017 16:52:14 GMT simpleton said:

lordroel,
Napoleon had chased British forces from Spain, La Coruña being a preview to Dunkirk. The US convinces Parliament that Napoleon's fall cannot take more than a a few years and that the Manila trade, Havana, New Spain, Peru, Buenos Aires, etc, are invaluable to finance the British war efforts and that they can be easily invaded and held with American troops, American and Irish settlers, the mighty RN and the small USN, owing to a non existent Spanish navy and small Spanish forces spread over a huge territory. Breaking the alliance with Spain and forging one with the US and increasing trade with the US is the best option to continue fighting Napoleon and expanding the British empire and trade, at the cost of broken Spain.

It certainly beats having to fight Napoleon and the US simultaneously at great cost and suspending trade with the US.

  The British retreated from Corunna but returned to Portugal shortly and stayed in Gibraltar as well as supporting the Spanish junta in Cadiz once the French overrun the rest of southern Spain.  The US is trying to persuade Britain to back-stab an ally who is playing an important part in the war against Napoleon, to fight to invade Spanish colonies that Britain already has pretty full access to.  This is to be done with an American army that at this point doesn't really exist and Irish settlers - guessing here you mean the Catholic Irish?  Also they do this by arguing that Napoleon's empire, which is nearing its physical peak and has repeatedly stomped Austria, Russia and Prussia is on the verge of collapse.  I'm afraid this doesn't make sense at all.

  Also the Spanish might not have much military strength in their American empire, although OTL, after the bitter devastation of the Iberian war, it contested much of its mainland colonies for several years.  However as Britain is already aware after the rash intervention in Buenos Aires by a general attempts to conquer Spanish possessions isn't going to be cheap or easy.

[simpleton]

Stevep,
Spain is not fighting for Britain, it is fighting for its liberty. If it loses its colonies or not, it will continue fighting Napoleon (it did so before Britain pitched in).

The British took and held Montevideo for 6 months quite easily with a relatively small force (sthough larger than the one attacking Buenos Aires the previous year) in 1807 (When Spain was still strong in America, before rebellions). Vernon took Portobello with 6 ships during the war of Jenkins' ear. The British seized Havana and Manila remarkably easily in 1762, when they were much better defended (the British captured a huge Spanish fleet with ships of the line in Havana, most of whose guns had been deployed for land defense. Vernon did fail in Cartagena in 1742-43 despite a large fleet and army (including Virginians) mostly owing to tropical disease and strong, well led, defending forces. The weather in Havana, New Spain, Montevideo, Valparaiso, Lima, etc, is infinitely better than in Cartagena and Portobello, close to the Equator. In 1812, The Anglo-American invasion and settlement of Panama will include Negroes, much more resistant to tropical disease.

Invading weak and invaluable Spanish colonies with the US to greatly expand trade, gold and silver mining, while trading vigorously with the US, is certainly easier than financing war with Napoleon without trade with the US and fighting the US in Canada, the Caribbean and at sea (Yankee privateers an USN capturing some British merchant ships, while the RN has to blockade Napoleon's Europe and assist Russia)

[stevep]

Aug 10, 2017 17:18:20 GMT simpleton said:

Stevep,
Spain is not fighting for Britain, it is fighting for its liberty. If it loses its colonies or not, it will continue fighting Napoleon (it did so before Britain pitched in).

The British took and held Montevideo for 6 months quite easily with a relatively small force (sthough larger than the one attacking Buenos Aires the previous year) in 1807 (When Spain was still strong in America, before rebellions). Vernon took Portobello with 6 ships during the war of Jenkins' ear. The British seized Havana and Manila remarkably easily in 1762, when they were much better defended (the British captured a huge Spanish fleet with ships of the line in Havana, most of whose guns had been deployed for land defense. Vernon did fail in Cartagena in 1742-43 despite a large fleet and army (including Virginians) mostly owing to tropical disease and strong, well led, defending forces. The weather in Havana, New Spain, Montevideo, Valparaiso, Lima, etc, is infinitely better than in Cartagena and Portobello, close to the Equator. In 1812, The Anglo-American invasion and settlement of Panama will include Negroes, much more resistant to tropical disease.

Invading weak and invaluable Spanish colonies with the US to greatly expand trade, gold and silver mining, while trading vigorously with the US, is certainly easier than financing war with Napoleon without trade with the US and fighting the US in Canada, the Caribbean and at sea (Yankee privateers an USN capturing some British merchant ships, while the RN has to blockade Napoleon's Europe and assist Russia)

  Simpleton

  Spain isn't fighting for Britain but it is fighting, like Britain, against Napoleon's empire which is threatening both nations.  As such it makes little sense to go to war with Spain for resources we already have access to when Britain's security is at risk.  [Despite popular belief Napoleon didn't give up on his navy after Trafalgar and while the RN had the upper hand it continued to have to work to keep the French navy under control].  Also the sheer economic and human costs of the war meant that Britain couldn't afford to waste resources attacking someone else.  Think how little strength Britain put against the US after that attack Britain in 1812.

  Britain had had successes against Spain in the past and might do so in a future war but its a pointless waste of scarce resources at the moment.

  There are relatively few free Negroes in either the empire or the US at this point and whether training and equipping them for military action in Spanish colonies is worth the effort.

  Your last paragraph suggests the US approach is "Help us conquer Spanish America or we'ill attack you."  Which is not a very good diplomatic ploy, nor would it be likely to go down well in the US where there are many people who don't want war with either Britain or Spain.

  Steve

[simpleton]

As I stated, capturing invaluable locations and trade with the US against ridiculously weak forces and while trading vigorusly with the US, sure beats fighting the US, losing US trade, defending Canada (risking losing it), losing a lot of merchant ships to American privateers, while fighting Napoleon and blockading Europe.

America wants war with Britian. Madison knows that he cannot wage war with militia, 8 frigates and no central bank or trade, against the RN the British army, Canadian militia and the bank of England. He is simply buying time to expand US territory, trade, the USN and US army, to go to war when the US can win. A perfectly sound and often used strategy. As when Aetius allied himself withthe Visigoths or Britian temporarily with Spain or America allied itself with thdians, which it betrayed or Austria allied itself with France after 250 years of war to attack Prussia in 1756 or when Stalin allied himself with Hitler in 1939.

[stevep]

Aug 12, 2017 19:41:06 GMT simpleton said:

As I stated, capturing invaluable locations and trade with the US against ridiculously weak forces and while trading vigorusly with the US, sure beats fighting the US, losing US trade, defending Canada (risking losing it), losing a lot of merchant ships to American privateers, while fighting Napoleon and blockading Europe.

America wants war with Britian. Madison knows that he cannot wage war with militia, 8 frigates and no central bank or trade, against the RN the British army, Canadian militia and the bank of England. He is simply buying time to expand US territory, trade, the USN and US army, to go to war when the US can win. A perfectly sound and often used strategy. As when Aetius allied himself withthe Visigoths or Britian temporarily with Spain or America allied itself with thdians, which it betrayed or Austria allied itself with France after 250 years of war to attack Prussia in 1756 or when Stalin allied himself with Hitler in 1939.

  Which is another good reason, as well as the ones I mentioned why Britain wouldn't be interested in such a deal that would be so heavily against their interests.

[simpleton]

Britain obviously doen't know that Madison plans eventual war against it. It does know that in 1812 it is nearly bankrupt and wasting a fortune blockading France, defending Lisbon, etc,
It is certainly not in in Britain's best interest to wage war with the US, stop trading with it, have to defend Canada, blockade the US and deploy more troop0s in America for God knows how many years.
It is certainly in Britains best 8 year interests to use American troops to wage a rapid campaign against ridiculously weak forces defending invaluable silver, nitrate, copper and gold mines, Manila trade, invaluable ports and large territories to profit from enormous trade, while continuing all the time to trade intensely with the US and the newly acquired Spanish colonies.

When Napoleon falls and the alliance lapses, Britain will be able to decide to wage war against the US or to offer tenew the alliance.

You missed the point that Spain will continue to fight Napoleon regardless of its colonies gaining independence or being invaded, so the colonial campaign does not change napoleonic Europe an iota and the trade funds and troops and resources not deployed in Canada and the US do contribute enormously to fighting in Europe.

[stevep]

Aug 13, 2017 19:23:29 GMT simpleton said:

Britain obviously doen't know that Madison plans eventual war against it. It does know that in 1812 it is nearly bankrupt and wasting a fortune blockading France, defending Lisbon, etc,
It is certainly not in in Britain's best interest to wage war with the US, stop trading with it, have to defend Canada, blockade the US and deploy more troop0s in America for God knows how many years.
It is certainly in Britains best 8 year interests to use American troops to wage a rapid campaign against ridiculously weak forces defending invaluable silver, nitrate, copper and gold mines, Manila trade, invaluable ports and large territories to profit from enormous trade, while continuing all the time to trade intensely with the US and the newly acquired Spanish colonies.

When Napoleon falls and the alliance lapses, Britain will be able to decide to wage war against the US or to offer tenew the alliance.

You missed the point that Spain will continue to fight Napoleon regardless of its colonies gaining independence or being invaded, so the colonial campaign does not change napoleonic Europe an iota and the trade funds and troops and resources not deployed in Canada and the US do contribute enormously to fighting in Europe.

  Neither Britain nor the US are nearly bankrupt, as the continued fighting for several more years and Britain's willingness to cancel the war debts of its allies post-war showed.  Britain was stressed by the long war, especially when the US sought to expand it but managed to continue massive support of its allies for another 3 years until the war was over.

  Its not in Britain's best interests to have a war with the US, which is why London took steps to avoid it.  However as history shows this was within Britain's capacity.  Arguably it not in the US's interests either, again as shown by history.  However that doesn't mean that Britain should risk destroying its attempts to hold back and eventually defeat Napoleon to support American imperialism against its Spanish allies.  Such a move, as well as being very expensive, with invasions on a massive scale in the Americas would make it very difficult for Wellington's army to co-operate with the Spanish resistance in Iberia.  Likely Britain can't fight there at all which would greatly reduce the strain on the French.  Also if Britain back-stabbed an ally as you suggest, as well as losing access to those colonies until their suppressed, which will take a lot longer than you assume, how likely is it to be trusted by the other powers its trying to coax into an alliance against France?  Such an action could well mean Alexander resumes his alliance with Napoleon, removing the other, even larger, campaign responsible for Napoleon's downfall.

  You vastly over-estimate the resources Britain used to fight the US OTL, compared to the much larger forces that would be needed to conquer then hold down the vast and populated Spanish colonies, even apart from the serious damage this does to Britain's position against Napoleon.

[simpleton]

Britain was saved only by Napoleon's debacles in Russia and Leipzig-Dresden. Profitable trade was extremely limited outside the US and Canada (trade in in the Indian Ocean colonies taking too long. British its allies were sucking up the British reserves and all it needed was to spend more arming the Indians and Canadians and waste men to reinforce Canada.. When the US is proposing the alliance, Britain has no idea that Napoleon will lose hundreds of thousands of men within a year, nor how long war will last with America.

As I stated repeatedly, the non Indian population of all Northern New Spain was ridiculous (20,000 people) and poorly armed and defended by a ridiulously few soldiers and cannon spread over a huge area (even when the US did take California in 1947, there were about 3,000 nonIndians there and the Indians were not armed nor good warriors and were rapidly wiped out), Panama had been taken by Vernon with only 6 ships (when Spain was much stro-ger in 1739) and Manila and Havana have fallen in short campaigns when Spain was strong in 1762 (when there was an impressive Spanish fleet in Havana). Britain has taken rapidly and held Montevideo for 6 months with a small force in 1807. The US is providing the land force.

[simpleton]

Continuing with the thread:

After rapidly invading Texas, Harrison realizes its potential and sends news of the Buffalo heards, plenty of land and ridiculous defenses. Madison becomes very popular.
In the meantime Havana and Santiago fall and the RN can service its ships there. Britain takes half the sugar harvest and the US the other half.
Panama falls quickly, 2,000 free negroes are left there with weapons and supplies (which learnt quite fast to fight in the American revolution and OTL in 1812 on both sides).
A month later Montevideo falls and 5,000 Americans are left there to defend it and take Buenos Aires when reinforcements arrive. Then the fleet gathers supplies and sails to the Pacific, takes Valparaiso and saild to Panam to pick up reinforcements in Panama in 1813 to take Lima, Mollendo, Acapulco, Barra de Navidad and California all of which are extremely weakly defended.
Construction starts for galleons for the Manila trade  in Acapulco and Barra de Navidad.

As soon as California falls in 1813, Madison asks Congress to write a memorandum to Russia to yield ALaska to the US or be at war with it. Russia has a few hundred settlers in Alaska and it is too far to defend it against US forces in California, so it yields Alaska.

Madison ebcomes even more popular.

Manila, Guam and Oahu fall in 1814 and the Manila trade is revived in 1815.

In 1816 gold is found in California, triggering massive migration to the west coast, making Madison a heroe and financing the great expansion of trade, the USN and army, Industry and agriculture (to feed the immigrants, armed forces personnel, etc,)

In 1818 gold is found in Alaska, triggering more migration also from Europe and Asia and making Madison the popular American for posterity. It further reinforces US economic and military expansion.

In 1819 a massive motherload of silver is found in Arizona and in 1820 even larger deposits in Colorado and Nevada.

By the time the Anglo-American alliance lapses, the USN has more and better frigates than the RN and most are fairly new, whereas most RN frigates are old. Most USn sailors are young and healthy. Most RN sailors are over 30, malnourrished and have rotten teeth, combat wounds and lashed backs.

Two months before the Anglo-AMerican and Tecumseh's treaty lapse, the USN instructs all American vessels to remain away from British, Dutch and Portuguese ports, except in Ireland, the Azores, Macau, Goa, Cape Verde, Angola, Madeira, Jamaica, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ceylon, Sumatra and Lisbon.

On the day the alliance lapses USN and US privateers begin sinking or capturing British, Dutch and Portuguese ships allover the world. US troops and sailors arrest British forces and seize British, Dutch and Portuguese ships in shared colonies and US ports. US troops disembark in Ireland, Ceylon, Iceland, etc, Armament and supplies are unloaded for Irish militia.
Ireland is liberated (including Ulster) Ireland and all captured ports are used as bases for USN and US privateers to deposit captured British, Dutch and Portuguese ships and sailors.

The US invades the places where US ships continue to operate (above). After seizing Ceylon and Sumatra (from the PI), the US declares Indian independence and induces India to sign a 20 year alliance with the US to invade and share the Ottoman empire, build ships for the US in exchange for coal, industrial goods, weapons, etc.