Why didn't the British try to reconquer the US after 1812?

Sep 2018
40
Sri Lanka
#1
Once France was beaten, why didn't the British turn their attention on the US and re-invade it and then turn them back into the Original 13 Colonies?

From what I can understand, their army was in disarray, their capital city was in ruins, their economy should be crippled, population should be demoralized and it's only been 30 years or so when they won their independence so the US should still be pretty weak.

So why didn't the once mighty super power try to take back its lost territories and teach the upstarts a lesson that they will never forget and this in turn will teach any colony a lesson that if they revolt, they get crushed, twice, and thus create an alternate reality in which the sun would still shine on the Empire for a 1000 years?
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,435
Australia
#2
It was not politically or economically worth it. The British Empire was expanding rapidly and its greatest days were still before it. To try and regain its recalcitrant North American colonies which had by now formed themselves into a functioning nation would be more trouble than it was worth. There was more money to be made in Africa and the subcontinent, and later on in Australia to be worried about gaining petty revenge for an indecisive war that should never have been fought in the first place.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#3
This has been discussed here. The British didn't want the war. It would be difficult to conquer such a large territory, and there would be strong resistance. The British were tired of war and needed their forces back in Europe with an unstable situation in France, the Russian Army in Paris, and unclear borders in Europe. In fact, having so much of their army in Canada and the Bahamas reduced the size of the British force at Waterloo. The British agreed to close to status quo ante bellum, despite their strong position, indicating what little interest they had in continuing the war.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,069
Dispargum
#4
Once France was beaten, why didn't the British turn their attention on the US and re-invade it and then turn them back into the Original 13 Colonies?
The British did, in fact, attempt this very idea. After Napoleon surrendered in 1814 the British sent much of their European army to attack the US. It was defeated outside New Orleans in January 1815.

After the Revolutionary War Britain remained the US's largest trading partner. Britain received all of the profits from trade with the US without the cost of defending or administering the 13 colonies.
 
Jul 2018
299
Hong Kong
#5
The British did, in fact, attempt this very idea. After Napoleon surrendered in 1814 the British sent much of their European army to attack the US. It was defeated outside New Orleans in January 1815.
No, the British never attempted that (US was too huge, and they 100% did not have enough resource for that goal, and wasn't worthy economically), they just intended to impose a more favorable treaty for them by pressing US harder. Moreover, prior to the Battle of New Orleans, US and Britain had already reached a peace agreement at Ghent, it was not necessary for another US victory to score the peace already gained, though undeniably Jackson’s crushing victory did consolidate the peace by discouraging the British to try more offensives on the US soil.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,791
#6
The British did, in fact, attempt this very idea. After Napoleon surrendered in 1814 the British sent much of their European army to attack the US. It was defeated outside New Orleans in January 1815.
As the British made peace without knowing teh result, they obiviously were not intenet on conquest andteh battle's result had nothing to do with Britihs polciy. If teh britihs intended conquestwith this expitdion they would have hardly made peace without knowing the outcome.

8,000 men is not accurately dicribed as "much of the British Euopean Army ,"
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,188
South of the barcodes
#8
Once France was beaten, why didn't the British turn their attention on the US and re-invade it and then turn them back into the Original 13 Colonies?

From what I can understand, their army was in disarray, their capital city was in ruins, their economy should be crippled, population should be demoralized and it's only been 30 years or so when they won their independence so the US should still be pretty weak.

So why didn't the once mighty super power try to take back its lost territories and teach the upstarts a lesson that they will never forget and this in turn will teach any colony a lesson that if they revolt, they get crushed, twice, and thus create an alternate reality in which the sun would still shine on the Empire for a 1000 years?
The same reason they hadnt persisted with the revolutionary war.
The Us could draw manpower from the general population and had developed its own staning professional army.

The British had little civil support to draw supplies from except from Canada which had a sparse population, otherwise they had to transport men and supplies over 300 miles of ocean.
The economics just didnt support a large scale effort.
They could support small scale naval raids which led to the burning of Washington and th battle of New Orleans, the could also use what small forces and militia resrves they had to protect Canada from US invasion but there was just no way to support a large force in the US and europe at the same time.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#9
The US wouldn't have declared war if there was much chance of Britain causing serious harm to the US. Pretty much the worse case happened, in that Napoleon was totally defeated, and it still wasn't practical for Britain to launch a real invasion.