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

Feb 2016
3,995
Japan
#81
No. Agreed.
But fighting and hostility were still acceptable.
And if the treaty had specified that both sides could hold their gains, Fort Mobile would have been British... for example.
So while it was after the peace treaty was signed, the war was still on, until news arrived that it wasn’t.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,069
Dispargum
#82
British practices towards the Indians was an aggravating factor in the buildup to war. As a result of the Battles of Tippecanoe (1811, before the war), Thames (1813), and Horseshoe Bend (1814) Indian power east of the Mississippi was permanently broken. This was probably the best result the US got from the war. To the extent that the Americans could blame the British for Indian troubles, the defeat of the Indians was a defeat of the British, but the connection between the British and the Indians is somewhat tenuous.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,514
#83
The British didn't want the war initially and didn't want it when the treaty was signed. However, the US was willing to negotiate peace all along, but the British weren't, since the war was going well for them.

In terms of the causes of the war, Tecumseh and other native Americans were taking an aggressive approach backed by British weapons. The Chesapeake incident 5 years earlier was probably more important than impressment.

There is also a question of what role the French played. There hasn't been much discussion of this. However, if they acted like powers normally do, they might have been encouraging war sentiment, maybe using money to get editorials for war and so on. Also, what diplomatic discussions did the French and US have before the declaration of war?

Impressment was obviously mainly a pretext, but I am not sure if desire for territorial concessions was the main reason either.
 
Feb 2016
3,995
Japan
#84
As far as I know the US was not on good terms with France. They had come to blows 1807-08 and were still not on friendly terms.

There was no sense of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and I don’t think there was much French influence on US policy or public feeling. France was distrusted as much as Britain but Britain was more of a threat....
 
Dec 2018
31
Chicago
#85
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?
Total lack of interest in doing any such thing, and a crushing defeat at the Battle of New Orleans which showed that such an outcome was extremely unlikely at best.
 
Oct 2010
7,791
#86
And there's always the World's Greatest Navy...

Constitution.

Wasp.

And many others.

War of 1812

USN/RN engagements were so one-sided that British captains were PROHIBITED from single ship combat with the Six Frigates.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Once again peddling your Nationalist distorted view of history without any regards for the facts. You have been told often enough. You are incapable of learning.

The US Frigates generally won when they had a significant advantage and lost when things were equal or the other way.

The British were not prohibited. just not fight against a stronger opponet without reason, outmatched convoy escorts continued to do their job, often dmaging the US frigates to finish their cruise.
 
Nov 2010
7,447
Stockport Cheshire UK
#87
The British didn't want the war initially and didn't want it when the treaty was signed. However, the US was willing to negotiate peace all along, but the British weren't, since the war was going well for them.
Actually the British wanted the treaty, they wanted this silly (in their view) war out of the way because they expected another major war in Europe between former Allies.
As for the claim the USA was always willing to negotiate peace this is true, but the problem was the terms the USA was asking for were totally unacceptable to the British and there was no point in discussing them as far as they were concerned. It was only when the US quietly dropped these demands that the British agreed to discuss a peace treaty.
 
#88
And there's always the World's Greatest Navy...

Constitution.

Wasp.

And many others.

War of 1812

USN/RN engagements were so one-sided that British captains were PROHIBITED from single ship combat with the Six Frigates.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Yes that baffled me, how did the Americans raise a Navy capable of beating the British Royal Navy who were elite mariners and had been practising on French and Spanish ships for at least nigh on two centuries? they were expert seaman.

Wasn't it something to do with the American ships durability to bombardment or something or the other?
 
Nov 2010
7,447
Stockport Cheshire UK
#89
As far as I know the US was not on good terms with France. They had come to blows 1807-08 and were still not on friendly terms.

There was no sense of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and I don’t think there was much French influence on US policy or public feeling. France was distrusted as much as Britain but Britain was more of a threat....
There was some discussion in the lead up to the war on whom to declare war on, Britain or France, because both sides were seizing US merchant ships at that time.
 
Nov 2010
7,447
Stockport Cheshire UK
#90
Yes that baffled me, how did the Americans raise a Navy capable of beating the British Royal Navy who were elite mariners and had been practising on French and Spanish ships for at least nigh on two centuries? they were expert seaman.

Wasn't it something to do with the American ships durability to bombardment or something or the other?
They didn't, the US had a few powerful ships which were capable of more than holding their own against Royal Navy ships in single combat, but once the British increased their presence off the coast of the USA the USN was reduced to impotence and was completely unable to protect the British from blockading the US merchant fleet in home ports and launching raids up and down the US coast