Why US goverment did not restart fighting and did not try to conquer Canada again after Battle of New Orleans in 1814 ?

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,932
Dispargum
#91
Weren’t British traders selling weapons to various American tribes long after 1815?
I can't speak to after the war, but I know that before the war British traders were selling arms to Indians in defiance of official British policy. We need to distinguish between what the British government was saying and what British traders were doing. Before the war it was true that Britain had banned the arms trade with the Indians, but it was also true that Indians were acquiring arms from British traders.
 
Likes: Kotromanic

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,721
Iowa USA
#92
Weren’t British traders selling weapons to various American tribes long after 1815?
Possibly they were.

That fella, Redcoat, tends to bring out the fighter in me.

My read of Article the Ninth is the UK recognizing that the tribes in American territory were defeated. There would never be a threat from the tribes as there was during '09-'13 again, aside from the Southwestern natives, who were never defeated by arms.
 
Feb 2016
4,343
Japan
#93
I know that Jackson caught two men in Florida who he shot for selling arms. They were British (white West Indians) but that happened in 1818.

I’d assume they were not the only ones... though it’s possible they were innocent.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,721
Iowa USA
#94
Maybe the fact that UK didn't forcefully protest the hanging (I believe) of those men in Florida proves the point about the de facto outcome of Treaty of Ghent.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,106
#96
The British were perfectly willing to settle for terms of status quo ante bellum, at any stage in the conflict, they really could not understand what the US were trying to do, the US could have gotten these terms any time during the ocnflict,
Do you have a source for this? The British declined an offer to mediate and the US accepted it in late 1812.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,106
#97
I know that Jackson caught two men in Florida who he shot for selling arms. They were British (white West Indians) but that happened in 1818.

I’d assume they were not the only ones... though it’s possible they were innocent.
Jackson hanged two British born British subjects in Spanish territory for selling arms to the Indians.
 
Aug 2018
375
Southern Indiana
#98
In 1830 Blackhawk claimed that he had the support of the British at Fort Malden for his uprising, but there is no evidence that the British promised him anything. He may have made the story up to gain more support from other tribes, either way, the British refused him any support after he started his war.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,718
Stockport Cheshire UK
Article the Ninth has reciprocal language, that is correct.

The treaty doesn't mention the traders, however, the use of the unlimited qualifiers about the necessary pacific behavior of the tribes means de facto: the existence of weapons trade with a foreign power was legal cause for war against the tribes.

England is agreeing that the expected benevolence towards their former allies is contingent on the tribes accepting their status as defeated.

So, absolutely, de facto, the British have agreed to cease arming the tribes. And... the proof is that they DID cease the trade.
No, that is a subjective reading of the text to further your argument.
The treaty merely states that if the Native tribes refrain from hostile acts the two powers will restore all possessions , rights and privileges the tribes enjoyed before the war nothing more.
Also, Britain is in no way confirming the tribes status as defeated. it is merely agreeing that if the Natives respect the treaty they will also enjoy the return of the status quo as before the war which is the exact same terms as the United States and Britain will enjoy
There is nothing in the treaty where the British agree to stop arming the natives, the subject is totally ignored in the treaty
 

Similar History Discussions