I agree with you that I neglected the Northern campaigns. I originally wrote about Perry, Old Ironsides and Canada but I cut it because the thesis of the article was that Britain and the US emerged from this era in position to become world powers. It would have almost doubled the length of the article without significantly advancing the central point. If I had been writing for a class of students, I would have included it.

I often read that Perry's victories ensured that the US maintained control of the Midwest and Great Lakes. We may disagree on this point but I doubt the US would have given up the territory and I'm not sure the British cared enough about the region to make a concerted effort. The British ended the war because the need to impress US sailors and prevent commerce with France ended. They could have shipped a big army over here if they really had designs on American territory. Maybe they would have but the British people were exhausted after 20 years of war. They also had a much more lucrative new possession, India which would require a lot of attention and effort. Even if the British had taken part of the north Midwest, the land would have been populated by Americans who likely would have pulled a Texas on the English. In my opinion, the real importance of the Great Lakes campaign was William Henry Harrison's decisive victory over Tecumseh and permanently breaking Native American resistance in the region.

Tippecanoe's campaign is probably worthy of its own article. When I started this blog I worried I would run out of ideas. It's been the opposite, I can't get to all the subjects I want to cover.

Here's a "what if" for you: what if the English had taken some or much of the Ohio River Valley and Great Lakes? There may not have been a Civil War or a very different one. It would have taken a lot longer for slave states to become a minority . That weird compromise in the Senate would have lasted much longer.