British annex Louisiana during War of 1812

[durante]

What do you mean by 'lower'? One of those things like 'upper Peru' or 'upper Ontario' where the geography looks more southerly or lower, on a map? Thus your 'lower LA' would be the half near Canada?

I think Lower Louisiana as the half with state of Louisiana/Arkansas. This half is accessible, albeit with difficulty, from NO. Technically, all of LA is accessible from NO, but the southern half is more doable. Roads can be built. USA has just as much difficulty, if not more, getting to that region. NO should be accessible for Britain, especially if they've taken West Florida as well.

IF the war ends with Britain in control of the Louisiana Territory , they can keep it. We agree taking/keeping the northern half is unlikely. But, I think if Britain takes the lower half (the most likely POD), they can keep it til war's end.

Lower = Down river

Upper = Up river

So you're right in describing "Lower Louisiana" as being the part towards New Orleans.

Specifically, the part south of the Arkansas river

Louisiana (New France) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Louisiana included two regions, now known as Upper Louisiana (la Haute-Louisiane), which began north of the Arkansas River, and Lower Louisiana (la Basse-Louisiane). The U.S. state of Louisiana is named for the historical region, although it is only a small part of the vast lands claimed by France.[6]"

 

[OxSpace]

American settlers don't immediately rise up to join the USA, and can in fact be integrated

Literally.

 

[The Gunslinger]

.Once the Americans had control of the city, they would never give it up. If that means a long hard war that would be fine because there was no acceptable alternative. The Alternative would be American being a dependency of Great Britain.

The war will go on as long as America can remain solvent, probably April of 1815, and then the bottom falls of the federal coffers. They can't afford the long hard war, the frontier war they were fighting was already bankrupting the nation. The people in charge were completely willing to let the nation lose the war rather than be inconvenienced by war taxes in OTL.

 

[Belisarius II]

The war will go on as long as America can remain solvent, probably April of 1815, and then the bottom falls of the federal coffers. They can't afford the long hard war, the frontier war they were fighting was already bankrupting the nation. The people in charge were completely willing to let the nation lose the war rather than be inconvenienced by war taxes in OTL.

No nation ever lost a war because of bad credit. They lost because they couldn't feed themselves or supply the army in the field. We have had endless debates about this eminent American economic collapse in the spring of 1815. The fact is the overall U.S. economy was growing throughout the whole War of 1812, it was the maritime industry that was in serious trouble. American industrialization was rapidly expanding to meet rising demands. American banks were continuing to expand, and finance would be found one way or another. As you said all they really had to do was raise taxes. The U.S. debt burden at the time was a mere fraction of the British debt burden.

Not even the Federalists were willing to end the war on terms of losing the west, because they were heavily invested in its future, and the city of New Orleans. Ships were being built, and armies raised, and the military efficiency of the country was going up not down in 1815. Much of this argument of a coming military collapse is based on modern British scholarship focusing on the issue of American credit, but that's only one aspect of the U.S. economy's ability to continue to support a war.

After Napolean's downfall in 1814 the British were able to shift major reinforcements to North American so they could go on the offensive. But after failing to inflict enough damage to force the Americans to come to their terms they found themselves at a loss on how to proceed so they dropped their demands and ended the war on a bases of a return to the pre-war status quo. Claims of a British victory are like the American claim's balms to national pride. The war ended in a draw with both sides having upheld their positions. The British had defended Canada, and the Americans were stronger after the war than before, and the issues that led to the war were no longer a problem. Even if the British hung tough at the peace talks, they'd give up that stance in March 1815 when Napoleon returned to France.

 

[Belisarius II]

Precisely. Many of the non Hispanic population of Texas were American, and yet Texas tried to exist as a seperate state for a decade before it joined the US. Having a common ancestry (if you can even make that argument with the US of all places) with the USA or anywhere else doesn't mean that much, or Canada, Australia and New Zealand would still be taking their orders from London

Texas admission to the Union was held off for 10 years for domestic reasons in the U.S. not because the Anglos of Texas wanted it that way. Very few people ever thought Texas would be independent permanently. It was only a matter of time before a political compromise would be reached. None of Britian's overseas possessions were ever direct extensions of Britian. Many of the settlers in those countries were exiles, or people who were done with England. Very few American settlers wanted to sever ties with the USA, in fact they saw every reason to want to stay part of it.

 

[The Gunslinger]

No nation ever lost a war because of bad credit. They lost because they couldn't feed themselves or supply the army in the field. We have had endless debates about this eminent American economic collapse in the spring of 1815. The fact is the overall U.S. economy was growing throughout the whole War of 1812, it was the maritime industry that was in serious trouble. American industrialization was rapidly expanding to meet rising demands. American banks were continuing to expand, and finance would be found one way or another. As you said all they really had to do was raise taxes. The U.S. debt burden at the time was a mere fraction of the British debt burden.

Not even the Federalists were willing to end the war on terms of losing the west, because they were heavily invested in its future, and the city of New Orleans. Ships were being built, and armies raised, and the military efficiency of the country was going up not down in 1815. Much of this argument of a coming military collapse is based on modern British scholarship focusing on the issue of American credit, but that's only one aspect of the U.S. economy's ability to continue to support a war.

Every time they could have raised taxes, they chose not to. The Federalists, because they were against the war, the Republicans because they couldn't be bothered. So why would they suddenly be willing to when they never did historically despite being in just as dire of circumstances? Support for the war was rapidly waning and the army was losing more men to combat, desertion and disease than it could replace. Raising taxes isn't going to make the war more popular, and it isn't going to make American fight harder and dig deeper, it's going to drive more people into the peace camp.

I'm curious to know where this credit would be found because the only banks still issuing credit were New England banks, and they straight up refused to loan money to the government when asked. Instead, their money was being invested in British bonds which offered better and safer returns since the American government was literally defaulting on loans by the war's end.

Here is some American scholarship regarding American finances during the war.

 

[Deckhand]

No, it was realistic because everyone could see that the Americans were going to be the ones to settle those lands in the next two generation. British settlers weren't going to do it, and nether were the French, or Spanish. But that wasn't the concern of the British negotiators, all they cared about was that they couldn't make their own claims good, so they ceded them to the Americans. If they gave up the 13 Colonies, the land they'd won in 1763 south of the Great Lakes up to the Mississippi had to go to.

There is also the impact of the 1807 British Slave trade laws. Any territory taken by Britain had immediate slave abolition. So if Britain takes Louisiana, i think roughly 30,000 slaves are freed, and any slave that escapes to the west is free, as are any who immigrants bring. So the British loyal population of Lousiana is going to grow extensively, as they know if the US comes back, what exactly is going to happen.

 

[Belisarius II]

Every time they could have raised taxes, they chose not to. The Federalists, because they were against the war, the Republicans because they couldn't be bothered. So why would they suddenly be willing to when they never did historically despite being in just as dire of circumstances? Support for the war was rapidly waning and the army was losing more men to combat, desertion and disease than it could replace. Raising taxes isn't going to make the war more popular, and it isn't going to make American fight harder and dig deeper, it's going to drive more people into the peace camp.

I'm curious to know where this credit would be found because the only banks still issuing credit were New England banks, and they straight up refused to loan money to the government when asked. Instead, their money was being invested in British bonds which offered better and safer returns since the American government was literally defaulting on loans by the war's end.

Here is some American scholarship regarding American finances during the war.

The U.S. Government was still raising loans, and it never defaulted on any loans. Being late on payments isn't a default, it's a technical default. A default is when you say you will never pay what you owe. That is a bankruptcy. The U.S. Army & Navy were larger in 1815 than in 1814. Rates of desertion, and sickness were always higher in winter, and since there wasn't any major campaigning at least in the North in 1815 you're claiming something that can never be proven. Jackson was actively campaigning in West Florida, and forces in Georgia & South Carolina were defending themselves against Admiral Cockburn's raids. None of those forces were melting away for lack of money.

 

[Intosh]

Say the British are more successful in taking over Louisiana from the U.S. What would a Louisiana under their control look like? Would America retaliate again, with a third American-British war? Would America entertain the idea of holding an exiled Napoleon?

If the result of the War of 1812 is a British annexation of Louisiana (Lower Louisiana including New Orleans), you need at least two POD :

- POD 1 : the British government is willing to annex Lower Louisiana and New Orleans to halt the westward expansion of the United States, even if it will create a potential "permanent" Casus Belli between the UK and the USA,

- POD 2 : the British Army is far more successful than in OTL in their military campaigns

You can divided the POD 2 into :

POD 2.1 : the British Army physically occupied the territories they want to take from the USA, so New Orleans and some territories in the State of Louisiana, and the Territory of Mississippi

and/or

POD 2.2 : the British Army successfully conquered some territories on the eastern coast of the USA (Washington or or one of majors coastal towns) that the Americans will be willing to exchange against Lower Louisiana,


For the POD 2, you need two things :

- the British Army is more successful with the same order of battle as in OTL (and it is a minor British Wank) as their officers will be rolling more "6" during the battles,

or

- the UK is able to bring more troops for the War of 1812 both on the Canadian and the Louisianan fronts.

To have more troops available for the secondary concern that was the War of 1812 ,the United Kingdom was prioritizing the Napoleonic Wars, you must have a POD on the European Theater. The most obvious is no Peninsular War or at least a Peninsular War where the British Army have no more troops in 1812.

So the POD will be no French invasion of Spain and a Bourbon Spain still allied to Napoleon.

My proposition : please correct or criticize these ideas.

- autumn 1807 : Invasion of Portugal by only the Spanish Army, the Spanish troops OTL (25 500 men) are reinforced by the La Romana Division (15 000 men) than is not send to Northern Germany,
- summer 1808 : Landing of British troops in Portugal and successful British Campaign against the Spanish Army occupying the country,
- autumn 1808 : now led by the General Dalrymple, the British are defeated by a French Army reinforced by Spanish troops,

without a Peninsular War, Austria will probably not declare the War of 1809, and the British will not send troops to Walcheren.

The British decided to intensify their military operations against the French and the Spanish in the Americas. British invasion of French colonies such as Guyane (Cayenne), Guadeloupe and Martinique, British aid to independantist Criollos in Spanish Colonies to provoke and help revolts against the Royalists.

If the British decide to send more troops to the West Indies and to some Latin America ports, and if they used only half of the British Army used in Spain in 1812, it represent ar least 20 000 to 30 000 men available for operations against the Americans.

So to continue my timeline :

- June 1812 : declaration of war of the USA against the UK,
- September 1812 : successful invasion of New Orleans and later occupation of most of the Louisiana State, the British used the additional troops they have in the West Indies because of no Peninsular War,
the British operations can be more successul if the vast majority of the White population (French speaking Creoles and French refugees from Saint Domingue) are neutral in a war between British Anglos and American Anglos.

 

[Intosh]

Lower Louisiana is down river. The British had to get to New Orleans by slogging through the swamps, which proved a nightmare. The American have settled bases west of the Mississippi and control the Ohio River leading to American centers of power. The whole upriver system is in their hands. The RN can't sail frigates upriver, and the Americans can easily sail down. The Americans are going to win in the end because they have geography, demographics, and logistics all on their side.

The Royal Navy don't need to sail Frigates upriver, it will enough to sail smaller ship, such as a Brig still armed with 20 guns.

I doubt that the Americans settlers living on the banks of the Tennessee River can build a gunboat able to fight a British Brig or even a smaller ship.

I don't know what are the navigation hazards on the Mississippi but in Europe, London, Rouen, Paris or Bordeaux were or still are seaports but they can be reached after navigation on a river.

 

[Intosh]

Since the Americans already controlled St Louis, and all the surrounding territory, and both banks of the Mississippi up and down its length no one's going to take it away. 1815 is just too late to reverse the Louisianna Purchase.

Saint Louis had a population of 1 600 people in 1810, a vast majority of French speaking who were in the last 50 years, French until 1763, Spanish until 1800, French during 1800-1803, and American since 1803. They probably don't care who is the power owning the territory if they are left to themselves.

Saint Louis don't need to be attack from the South, it can be attack from the North as the British did it in 1780.

If the British are successful in New Orleans, they can very well occupy both banks of the Mississippi river and even create an Amerindian Coalition with the Tribes of the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Choctaws and the Chickasaw that will protect from the North-East, the British Lower Louisiana including New Orleans, Mobile and half of the Mississippi Territory and of course, the trritories on the west bank of the Mississippi.

 

[Belisarius II]

The Royal Navy don't need to sail Frigates upriver, it will enough to sail smaller ship, such as a Brig still armed with 20 guns.

I doubt that the Americans settlers living on the banks of the Tennessee River can build a gunboat able to fight a British Brig or even a smaller ship.

I don't know what are the navigation hazards on the Mississippi but in Europe, London, Rouen, Paris or Bordeaux were or still are seaports but they can be reached after navigation on a river.

The towns on the Ohio like Pittsburg could build them. By 1815 steamboats were already common on the Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. It's easy to imagine brigs, and steam powered warships fighting on the river. British sailing brigs would be at a disadvantage against a steam ship especially on a river. It's good to be upriver in this kind of situation. Except for Paris the ports you're talking about in Europe are only a few miles from the sea, not hundreds of miles while fighting strong currents. Sailing warships couldn't sail up the Seine to attack Paris. The Vikings did it with rowing ships.

 

[Belisarius II]

Saint Louis had a population of 1 600 people in 1810, a vast majority of French speaking who were in the last 50 years, French until 1763, Spanish until 1800, French during 1800-1803, and American since 1803. They probably don't care who is the power owning the territory if they are left to themselves.

Saint Louis don't need to be attack from the South, it can be attack from the North as the British did it in 1780.

If the British are successful in New Orleans, they can very well occupy both banks of the Mississippi river and even create an Amerindian Coalition with the Tribes of the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Choctaws and the Chickasaw that will protect from the North-East, the British Lower Louisiana including New Orleans, Mobile and half of the Mississippi Territory and of course, the trritories on the west bank of the Mississippi.

50-100 men aren't going to capture St Louis in 1815. All the Indian tribes you mentioned were defeated by 1815. The Americans already controlled both banks of the river in 1815. Between 1810-1820 the population tripled to 4,600, so in 1815 it may have been 3,000. Missouri had a population of over 66,000 people in 1820, their not going to just surrender to a few hundred men.

 

[Intosh]

The towns on the Ohio like Pittsburg could build them. By 1815 steamboats were already common on the Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. It's easy to imagine brigs, and steam powered warships fighting on the river. British sailing brigs would be at a disadvantage against a steam ship especially on a river. It's good to be upriver in this kind of situation. Except for Paris the ports you're talking about in Europe are only a few miles from the sea, not hundreds of miles while fighting strong currents. Sailing warships couldn't sail up the Seine to attack Paris. The Vikings did it with rowing ships.

Paris symbol is a boat, Paris was always a port with strong shipping relations on the Seine river, Paris is 200 km inland.

I agree that the steamboats were already built in 1812. As for exemple the New Orleans built in 1811 in Pittsburg and 45 meters long.

New Orleans (steamboat) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But once they owned New Orleans, the British can also built steamboats to control the Mississippi. And between Royal Navy manned steamboats and steamboats manned by inexperienced militiamen, I bet on the British ones.

50-100 men aren't going to capture St Louis in 1815. All the Indian tribes you mentioned were defeated by 1815. The Americans already controlled both banks of the river in 1815. Between 1810-1820 the population tripled to 4,600, so in 1815 it may have been 3,000. Missouri had a population of over 66,000 people in 1820, their not going to just surrender to a few hundred men.

According to Wikipedia, the population of Missouri in 1810 was 19 783 people including slaves and French speaking settlers who can be very neutral in a conflict between the Americans and the British. In fact the British don't need to control the entire territory of the future State of Missouri. It is enough that they control Saint Louis and built a strong fort near the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers.

A population of 20 000 people can give a militia of 1000 to 2000 inexperienced and half motivated militiamen, if the British are able to send 100 or 200 real soldiers and a few hundred of allied Indians, Saint Louis can fall in British hands. It is not impossible, hard yes, not impossible.

I don't agree that the Four Tribes I mentioned were defeated in 1815.

In 1818, the Chickasaw still control Western Tennessee and Western Kentucky, territories south of the Ohio river, west to the Tennessee river and east of the Mississippi. Lost after the Treaty of Tuscaloosa.

Treaty of Tuscaloosa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Creeks were still undefeated in 1812 and if they fought the Americans in 1813 and 1814 as they did in OTL, with the British controlling Mobile and helping them, they can defeated the Americans. Again the British help can convinced the pro-Americans Indians tribes to switch sides. This is why I decided that the four great Indians Tribes formed a Southern Indian Confederation as Temucseh was able to form a great Northern Indian Confederation in the north-west.

Here a map of the territoiries control by the four great Indians tribes in the south-eastern USA in the 1830's.

In 1812-1815, they controlled more territories in the north and the east.

 

[Belisarius II]

If the result of the War of 1812 is a British annexation of Louisiana (Lower Louisiana including New Orleans), you need at least two POD :

- POD 1 : the British government is willing to annex Lower Louisiana and New Orleans to halt the westward expansion of the United States, even if it will create a potential "permanent" Casus Belli between the UK and the USA,

- POD 2 : the British Army is far more successful than in OTL in their military campaigns

You can divided the POD 2 into :

POD 2.1 : the British Army physically occupied the territories they want to take from the USA, so New Orleans and some territories in the State of Louisiana, and the Territory of Mississippi

and/or

POD 2.2 : the British Army successfully conquered some territories on the eastern coast of the USA (Washington or or one of majors coastal towns) that the Americans will be willing to exchange against Lower Louisiana,


For the POD 2, you need two things :

- the British Army is more successful with the same order of battle as in OTL (and it is a minor British Wank) as their officers will be rolling more "6" during the battles,

or

- the UK is able to bring more troops for the War of 1812 both on the Canadian and the Louisianan fronts.

To have more troops available for the secondary concern that was the War of 1812 ,the United Kingdom was prioritizing the Napoleonic Wars, you must have a POD on the European Theater. The most obvious is no Peninsular War or at least a Peninsular War where the British Army have no more troops in 1812.

So the POD will be no French invasion of Spain and a Bourbon Spain still allied to Napoleon.

My proposition : please correct or criticize these ideas.

- autumn 1807 : Invasion of Portugal by only the Spanish Army, the Spanish troops OTL (25 500 men) are reinforced by the La Romana Division (15 000 men) than is not send to Northern Germany,
- summer 1808 : Landing of British troops in Portugal and successful British Campaign against the Spanish Army occupying the country,
- autumn 1808 : now led by the General Dalrymple, the British are defeated by a French Army reinforced by Spanish troops,

without a Peninsular War, Austria will probably not declare the War of 1809, and the British will not send troops to Walcheren.

The British decided to intensify their military operations against the French and the Spanish in the Americas. British invasion of French colonies such as Guyane (Cayenne), Guadeloupe and Martinique, British aid to independantist Criollos in Spanish Colonies to provoke and help revolts against the Royalists.

If the British decide to send more troops to the West Indies and to some Latin America ports, and if they used only half of the British Army used in Spain in 1812, it represent ar least 20 000 to 30 000 men available for operations against the Americans.

So to continue my timeline :

- June 1812 : declaration of war of the USA against the UK,
- September 1812 : successful invasion of New Orleans and later occupation of most of the Louisiana State, the British used the additional troops they have in the West Indies because of no Peninsular War,
the British operations can be more successul if the vast majority of the White population (French speaking Creoles and French refugees from Saint Domingue) are neutral in a war between British Anglos and American Anglos.

If there was no Peninsular War the British Army would've stayed in Sweden, and fought in the Baltic against the French, Danes, and Russians. They only left because of the invasion of Portugal. If just the Spanish invade Portugal they'd lose. If for no other reason than Napoleon's personality, he'd be looking for some campaign to attack British interests. Maybe going after Southern Italy, the Balkans, another go against Egypt, sending a fleet to the West Indies, or trying to invade Sweden. He's not going to be passive. For their part barring a major land campaign the British Army won't grow so large as to have 10's of thousands of troops laying around.

 

[The Gunslinger]

The towns on the Ohio like Pittsburg could build them. By 1815 steamboats were already common on the Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. It's easy to imagine brigs, and steam powered warships fighting on the river. British sailing brigs would be at a disadvantage against a steam ship especially on a river. It's good to be upriver in this kind of situation. Except for Paris the ports you're talking about in Europe are only a few miles from the sea, not hundreds of miles while fighting strong currents. Sailing warships couldn't sail up the Seine to attack Paris. The Vikings did it with rowing ships.

Steamahips weren't common on the Ohio, they weren't common anywhere in the world at this point. America had no viable steamship that could be used militarily in the era, it would be straight sail or bust. If they weren't building them on the east coast or Lake Ontario, why would they all of a sudden have them on the Mississippi?

 

[tallthinkev]

As somewhat pointed out, there's nothing stopping anyone going west. They just become British or Spanish/Mexican. There's plenty of land to go around, plus the tribes will have more protection under the British

 

[unprincipled peter]

During the war there was no viable steamship that could go north on the Mississippi past Natchez. Sailing was also a no go. The voyage of the era was floating downstream, selling the barge lumber in New Orleans, then hiking the Natchez Trace back upstream. Bringing supplies to St Louis, and prior, to French Illinois was an arduous slog of rowing, and tugging from shore. Steam is not going to be a factor for this war.

IF Britain is not heavily occupied in Europe, USA may not be so brash in declaring war, but if the war does kick off as OTL, USA will be thumped hard during the first year while it figures out the military lessons.

Another factor is the Chickasaw, who controlled the eastern bank of the middle Mississippi. OTL, they remained neutral, having historically been allied with Britain. They'd come to regret that move a decade later when the USA forced them on a death march on the Trail of Tears. In a world where Britain is doing well in Louisiana, the Chickasaw may renew alliance with Britain. The USAmericans have been pouring westward, displacing natives, and it is only a matter of time before it is the Chickasaw being displaced. OTL, the British were nowhere nearby. Here, they are, and are the best hope for the Chickasaw.

 

[Belisarius II]

Steamahips weren't common on the Ohio, they weren't common anywhere in the world at this point. America had no viable steamship that could be used militarily in the era, it would be straight sail or bust. If they weren't building them on the east coast or Lake Ontario, why would they all of a sudden have them on the Mississippi?

• New Orleans, or Orleans, was the first Mississippi steamboat.[3] Launched in 1811 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for a company organized by Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, her designer, she was a large, heavy side-wheeler with a deep draft.[1][4][5] Her low-pressure Boulton and Watt steam engine operated a complex power train that was also heavy and inefficient.[1]
• Comet was the second Mississippi steamboat.[6] Launched in 1813 at Pittsburgh for Daniel D. Smith, she was much smaller than the New Orleans.[7] With an engine and power train designed and manufactured by Daniel French, the Comet was the first Mississippi steamboat to be powered by a lightweight and efficient high-pressure engine turning a stern paddlewheel.[8]
• Vesuvius was the third Mississippi steamboat.[9] Launched in 1814 at Pittsburgh for the company headed by Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton, her designer, she was very similar to the New Orleans.[10]
• Enterprise, or Enterprize, was the fourth Mississippi steamboat.[11] Launched in 1814 at Brownsville, Pennsylvania, for the Monongahela and Ohio Steam Boat Company, she was a dramatic departure from Fulton's boats.[1] The Enterprise - featuring a high-pressure steam engine, a single stern paddle wheel, and shoal draft - proved to be better suited for use on the Mississippi compared to Fulton's boats.[1][12][13] The Enterprise clearly demonstrated the suitability of French's design during her epic voyage from New Orleans to Brownsville, a distance of more than 2,000 miles (3,200 km), performed against the powerful currents of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.[14]
• Washington was launched in 1816 at Wheeling, West Virginia, for Henry Shreve and partners.[15] George White built the boat and Daniel French constructed the engine and drivetrain at Brownsville.[16] She was the first steamboat with two decks, the predecessor of the Mississippi steamboats of later years.[12] The upper deck was reserved for passengers and the main deck was used for the boiler, increasing the space below the main deck for carrying cargo.[12] With a draft of 4 feet (1.2 m), she was propelled by a high-pressure, horizontally mounted engine turning a single stern paddlewheel.[12] In the spring of 1817, the Washington made the voyage from New Orleans to Louisville in 25 days, equalling the record set two years earlier by the Enterprise, a much smaller boat.[17][18]

 

[Belisarius II]

As somewhat pointed out, there's nothing stopping anyone going west. They just become British or Spanish/Mexican. There's plenty of land to go around, plus the tribes will have more protection under the British

The people living in that vast area are American citizens, the people moving into the region are Americans, and the American Government is never going to cede it to anyone else. The British would have to except an endless state of war with the United States to try to impose this. What the British would be trying to do would be ending American expansion, and no political faction, or party would accept that. So, if they want the War of 1812 to go on till 1830 or longer go right ahead. The Americans are just going to keep on coming. Is it worth it to the British to fight an endless war to control the fur trade in the Great Plains?