Screwing Over the Allies

By February 20, 1813, the combined American and French forces had already surrounded the British Army in Ottawa. General Arthur Wellesley initially organized several counterattacks, which were quite effective, and he even captured some valuable weapons from the poorly guarded German-speaking France.

Overall, while the exchange ratios of these counterattacks were decent, they still consumed a large amount of resources, especially ammunition. Therefore, General Arthur Wellesley has given up on any further counterattacks and can only try to hold out in Ottawa as long as possible, hoping that the war situation will change.

But in reality, everyone, including General Arthur Wellesley, knew that even if the course of the war changed, the British Army in Ottawa would have a hard time holding out.

First, even if the British Army achieved any victories in Europe, under the current circumstances, it would be impossible to send many more troops to North America. Even if they did send troops, due to Quebec's betrayal, they would not be able to easily send supplies. And even if they could, well, the British Army in Ottawa would have already starved to death before they could send the precious supplies.

So at this point, continuing the fight was simply not an option, and the British Army, led by General Arthur Wellesley, began to consider surrendering. After all, this wasn't the first time the Britain army had surrendered to the American and French forces.

Normally, at this point, everyone would have a discussion, and then, as per tradition, the Britain would hand over their swords, and that would be the end of it. But this time, two problems that hadn't arisen before suddenly emerged.

The first problem, of course, is how to divide the spoils. During the North America Revolutionary War, the question of how to divide territory didn't exist. The France certainly wouldn't have said they would take one or two of North America thirteen colonies that were fighting for independence and give them to France. But things are different now; Canada is a huge territory.

The United States felt that the France had already gained a large portion of Quebec; Canada's best ports and coastal areas were already occupied by the France, so the remaining areas should naturally belong to the United States. Moreover, while the main American forces were attacking the Britain, the Quebec, while verbally proclaiming neutrality, quietly went and occupied a considerable amount of land that didn't originally belong to them. In short, the France had truly profited.

However, the France argue that this isn't the case. First, Quebec has only become independent; it hasn't joined France. Therefore, Quebec is Quebec, and France is France —these are two separate matters and shouldn't be confused. As for whether Quebec will join France in the future, that's a matter for the future. For now, Quebec is an independent country, recognized by the United States, and therefore cannot be included in the division of Canada!

Okay, even excluding Quebec, there's still quite a bit of land left in Canada that can be divided up. The large area near the Great Lakes is a lot of good land; dividing it up would be a good idea.

However, the France acted quickly. During the previous war, the Britain and Canada had committed many unsavory acts within United States territory, so they were very worried that if their territory were occupied by the United States, similar misdeeds might occur. In any case, Canada and the United States were already very familiar with each other and knew each other's true nature. Therefore, even if the United States wouldn't pursue them, they didn't dare believe it. Moreover, the United States certainly wouldn't dare to promise them a lenient pardon. If they really dared to say that, believe it or not, those Southern states that had been wiped out would rebel in no time and show them what would happen.

By this time, the Canada knew that the war was lost and that surrender was their only option. The question then became whose side they would surrender to.

In later generations, when the bandit gangs were repeatedly defeated by the Soviet Union, they encountered a similar problem. Although the leader always hoped that his troops could fight to the death on both the eastern and western fronts, San Dezi's army wisely chose to fight desperately on the eastern front and try to surrender on the western front.

Canada weren't any less foolish than Sanders; they understood this simple logic, so they adopted a similar approach. Apart from Ottawa, in other cities and outposts, they generally surrendered immediately upon seeing France, but fought fiercely against United States.

As a result, the France quickly occupied many important strongholds, such as "Mud York" (which later became Toronto. After losing New York in North America, the Britain built another York here. However, its development was far inferior to that of New York, so the United States nicknamed it "Mud York"), which surrendered to the France without firing a shot.

This raises the problem that the France occupied far more territory than the United States. If the war were simply awarded to whoever occupied the territory, the United States would have fought a completely pointless war. Moreover, the main costs of the war were borne by the United States.

Therefore, while the Britain were still resisting in Ottawa, the United States were already arguing fiercely with the France.

The United States felt that the France should cede some of the territory they occupied to the United States. But the France retorted without hesitation, "We earned this through our own merit; why should we give it up?"

The United States also thought that since they were now allies fighting the evil Britain, shouldn't they be able to reduce some of the money they had borrowed for the war? Back then, when His Majesty Louis XVI fought alongside them, he was very generous.

Modern France is far wealthier than France during the reign of Louis XVI. If the United States were Ireland, Napoleon's France would certainly have readily agreed to forgive these debts. But this is the United States.

According to Joseph's classification, the United States and Ireland are not the same kind of animal. Ireland is the dog, and the United States is the wolf. Ireland itself is close to Britain, and in terms of resources, it lacks coal and iron, making it virtually impossible for it to become a powerful independent nation separate from France. Therefore, the France did not need to be wary of Ireland.

But United States is different. United States are all tough, aggressive, and known for their expansionist tendencies. Before the France returned to the Americas, they bullied the Spain —and of course, after France Americas, France bullied the Spain even more.

Therefore, Louis Bonaparte had long received instructions from his brother Napoleon: "One of the objectives of the war is, of course, to weaken Britain, seize their colonies, and expand our territory. But there is another objective, if not more important, but at least equally important, which is to weaken United States. If possible, it would be best to divide United States."

With such a goal in mind, the France response was predictable. They certainly wouldn't hand over the strongholds they had already occupied for nothing. Some of them were negotiable, of course, but it would require additional payment.

There are also some outposts that ensure a land border between France and the Republic of Quebec, well, no amount of money can make that happen, unless the amount of money is squared, ah, no, it should be cubicd.

As for the debt issue, well, we're allies, so let's not talk about money. Talking about money hurts feelings, doesn't it? How about this, we'll lend you the United States in the name of the nation, and we won't charge you interest. What? You say you mainly borrowed money from the Louisiana Development Bank? Oh dear, this is going to be difficult, really difficult.

Look, this Louisiana Development Bank is a private bank, it's private property, understand? This isn't money you borrowed from France, it's money you borrowed from France citizens. Private property is sacred and inviolable; that's the most sacred law of our First Earth, ah, it should be the First Republic. Even the France government has no right to reduce or forgive the money you owe them.

So the debt was non-negotiable, and as for land, there wasn't much to discuss either. In this war, the United States shed the most blood and suffered the greatest losses, but when it came time to reap the rewards, they found that they had gained almost nothing.

It wasn't entirely a complete loss; some northern states did gain some land. But the south got absolutely nothing, except for burned cities and massacred people.

This led to two consequences. First, the South needed a lot of money to rebuild. The South hoped that the Northern states would support them, just as they had sent troops to support the North during the war. But the problem was that the North also lacked funds. They could only hope for two things: first, to capture Ottawa and loot it to see how much money they could get from Ottawa warehouses; second, to force the Britain government to pay reparations after defeating the Britain.

According to United States estimates, there was probably not much money left in Ottawa's warehouses. So it was just a drop in the ocean and completely ineffective. As for the Britain reparations, that was too far-fetched to help in the immediate crisis.

Another consequence was the question of what to do with the British Army in Ottawa. General Arthur Wellesley had sent men to probe the terms of surrender. The France, based on the principles of the joint declaration between France and the Holy See, believed that the personal safety and private property of the British troops should be protected if British Army surrendered. The United States, especially those in the American South, considered these men criminals who should pay for their wartime atrocities. According to the Georgia, these men should be sent to Georgia after surrendering to be tried in court and given a fair punishment according to their crimes.

The Britain, of course, would not accept such surrender terms. Even the France felt that this meant they had no intention of surrendering at all. What "fair punishment"? Who were they trying to fool? Did they think they hadn't seen how the India "fairly punished" Native Americans? Even if they hadn't seen how their courts tried Native Americans, did they not know how the "Revolutionary Tribunal" operated? In fact, their courts were more efficient at hanging Native Americans than their "Revolutionary Tribunal" were! The Britain weren't stupid enough to accept such terms.

But the United States couldn't back down on this issue, because anyone who did would immediately be seen as a "traitor" by the entire South. Given the habits of those Southern barbarians, shouting "God punish the traitor!" and then firing two revolvers was perfectly normal behavior.

Since negotiations fail, war is the only option.

However, the France had little interest in continuing the offensive, and their reasons were sound: with the outcome already decided, they shouldn't let their soldiers continue to sacrifice themselves. They even advised the United States not to rush, but to slowly encircle and besiege the enemy for a while, waiting until they were starving before launching their attack.

The United States initially thought the France suggestion was quite good. The British Army defenses were quite strong, and a direct assault would likely result in countless deaths. It was better to wait and see, until the British starved to death.

However, the United States soon discovered that this idea might not be reliable. The Britain launched a counterattack against the France, and then... they captured a considerable amount of property from the France and withdrew.

The United States were naturally unhappy and complained about what the France had done. The France, however, argued that the area was inhabited by Native Americans who had submitted to France, and that one couldn't expect too much from them.

"What? You're actually using Native Americans to defend the position? How can Native Americans possibly hold it?"

"But hiring them is cheap. And spring planting is coming soon, and the soldiers are eager to go home and farm. If they miss planting, we'll have to spend even more money to subsidize them. That's a lot of money, and besides, the Britain haven't broken out. What's there to be afraid of?"

Then, the number of Native Americans in the France army increased, while the number of France soldiers decreased. The reason, of course, was that spring planting was approaching, and the France army in Louisiana was mainly composed of militia, whose members were primarily farmers. Furthermore, the Louisiana government had limited funds, so...

Therefore, the only option was to hand over the position to the friendly Native Americans. Of course, the France wouldn't object if the United States were willing to take it over. Naturally, to take over the position, the United States would need to increase their troops. And increasing troops costs money, right? Where would the United States government get the money?

The United States protested the France's irresponsible actions. But the France retorted, "If you hadn't insisted on trying the Britain would have surrendered long ago, and we could have gone home long ago."

Thus, the besieging US-French forces gradually transformed into a US-Indian (Dionysian) coalition, and then gradually into purely US forces.

Solving the problem through a prolonged siege would certainly reduce casualties significantly, but the United States would need a lot of money to maintain such a siege, and United States simply don't have that kind of money. Alternatively, the United States could promise not to pursue Britain war crimes in exchange for their surrender, but this would be highly politically incorrect in the United States. Therefore, the United States now only have one option: a full-scale assault on Ottawa.