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

Jul 2018
296
Hong Kong
#71
Nice analyze, Sam-Mary. You got the points I wanted to express. Edric Streona totally neglected the fact that “supporting the native Indian tribes to against US was also one of the British invariably strategic goal until the end of the Creek War”.

Now let us examine Edric’s argument about whether US suffered a defeat from different perspectives.

From the Canadian perspective : The US’s invasion of Canada was unsuccessful. The US army suffered a large number of crushing defeat in the process.

From the British perspective : Successfully protected Canada as its possession, burned the White House and scored the highly-favorable strategic situation by keeping the US ports under blockade ; however, its primary strategic goal of checking the US westward expansion was a complete failure with the downfall of Tecumseh and the Red Sticks. Moreover, Britain failed to impose a more favorable treaty on USA ultimately, gained neither territories nor prestiges from the US. So the result was pretty much 50-50.

From the native Indian perspective : The utter defeat at the hands of the US army, unquestionably!The forced relocation and ceding of territories came afterward as their “punishment” for resisting USA.

One victory, one draw, and one defeat....not really a defeat for the US in the War of 1812. It was pretty much “inconclusive” for USA and Britain, and perhaps a “minor victory” for USA considering the overall strategic position.
 
May 2011
13,454
Navan, Ireland
#72
........................

One victory, one draw, and one defeat....not really a defeat for the US in the War of 1812. It was pretty much “inconclusive” for USA and Britain, and perhaps a “minor victory” for USA considering the overall strategic position.
You start a war with a 'neighbour' you invasion of that neighbour fails , several times, your navy is defeated and blockaded in port, your trade disrupted your economy in ruins, your capital burnt, some parts of the country talk about break away from the Union and the enemy navy sails up and down your coast raid at will.

This is a victory? !
 
Feb 2016
3,972
Japan
#73
The stretches people need to make.

Halting American westward expansion was hardly a British Primary objective either in 1812 or the early part of the 19th century.
At best it was a desirable peripheral idea. It was very far from primary though.
But feel free to show me the mountain of resources ploughed into this “primary” objective.

I fully accept Britain handed the US an excuse to start the war with an arrogant and high handed attitude to impressment. The US failed to budge them on even that though.
But there is no evidence that Britain wanted the war... it came as a surprise.

So no. Britain had no grand design and succeeded in her only primary objectives.
The US failed in her two primary objectives.
I concede that the US was victorious in its war against the Creeks.
But if we are honest that was a seperate but concurant conflict.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,706
At present SD, USA
#74
The stretches people need to make.

Halting American westward expansion was hardly a British Primary objective either in 1812 or the early part of the 19th century.
Then why the connections with Tecumseh? Why send messengers to meet with various tribal leaders and promising to support them in some way if they go to war with the US? It wasn't a stated primary military objective when the War of 1812 began, but if impeding American westward expansion was not a British diplomatic goal in the years between the Revolution and the War of 1812, then the actions to impede America's expansion would not have been taken.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,433
Stockport Cheshire UK
#75
The British didn’t want the Native Indians to attack the USA in the period before the war
The British were using the Native Americans as a counter to any possible US aggression towards their colony while the British forces there were so weak. They gave them some weapons to defend themselves to help ensure that if any conflict broke out the majority of tribes in the region would support the British .
The major problem with this policy was that it inflamed the situation more than it provided protection, as the tribes had their own agendas and a number of them used these weapons in offensive raids on US territory rather than for defence.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,500
#76
The Czar tried to mediate an end to the war in 1812. The US sent high level envoys to Russia, but Britain refused to negotiate.

While early US invasions of Canada were disaster, the British were defeated at Plattsburg, Baltimore, and New Orleans after Napoleon's fall.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,706
At present SD, USA
#77
While early US invasions of Canada were disaster, the British were defeated at Plattsburg, Baltimore, and New Orleans after Napoleon's fall.
The Battle of New Orleans though wouldn't count as neither side knew that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed when the battle began.
 
Feb 2016
3,972
Japan
#78
That Britain’s punitive raids on the US territory had mixed results is by the by. The fact that the aggressor is even in a position where they are required to defend shows that they have lost.

There was no alliance with Tecumseh until AFTER the war had started.
Prior to that you have some trading and supplying of weapons... but that’s not an alliance. And how much of that was just British traders? How much was this government policy?
Jackson, a bigoted Anglophobe, made lots of noise about English agents, but it’s quite easy to see these for traders making money rather than a deliberate and provocative act of government. I’ll concede it might be, if you can show the relevant parliamentary discussions and orders to do it....

American citizens were bank rolling the IRA. Does that mean it was an official government policy?
Saudis attacked New York and have funded Islamic terror groups for years. ? No war on them.
 
Feb 2016
3,972
Japan
#79
The Battle of New Orleans though wouldn't count as neither side knew that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed when the battle began.
New Orleans did count, as did the British Victory Post Orleans at Fort Mobile.
Also there were several naval actions around the globe involving US and British ships and Privateers that happened quite a while later.
One of the few surviving US privateers took 4 or 5 civillian whalers until he found out they were at peace.

News travelled slow.
Peace had been signed in Ghent but the war was still on until news reached home.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,706
At present SD, USA
#80
New Orleans did count, as did the British Victory Post Orleans at Fort Mobile.
Also there were several naval actions around the globe involving US and British ships and Privateers that happened quite a while later.
One of the few surviving US privateers took 4 or 5 civillian whalers until he found out they were at peace.

News travelled slow.
Peace had been signed in Ghent but the war was still on until news reached home.
News travels slow, yes, but that doesn't mean they count with regard to the peace that was negotiated. The war was officially over when the Battle of New Orleans was fought. America couldn't just send an ambassador to London and claim "we just destroyed your army at New Orleans, we demand the treaty be renegotiated for our favor." The war was over and the peace was signed. The best that either side could say with regard to the actions that came after the Treaty of Ghent was signed was "whoops."
 
Likes: redcoat