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

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
#81
Ratification was unanimous since the terms were outstanding for the US. Notably that for the first time there was a legal commitment for all the trading companies located in Canada to recognize America's right to prevent trade of weapons with the tribes. The Western States whose representatives voted for the war had their victory with this recognition in Treaty of Ghent. (Article the Ninth...)
The British had overwhelming forces in North America, but had not been able to do much, aside from burning Washington. It is obvious that the British were eager to get the war over with and get their army back to Europe. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to those terms.I don't know if anyone in the US proposed continuing the war after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.

As discussed in other threads, Britain only got 25,000 soldiers to Waterloo, but had 50,000 in Canada and the Bahamas at that time. The British were worried about some sort of trouble with France, Russia, Prussia or whatever and wanted their army back. They also didn't want a pointless major war trying to defeat the US after 20 years of war with France.

The war was an annoyance to Britain all along. That is why some in the US thought it would be successful. The British had the forces available after the fall of Napoleon, but by late 1814 it was just an annoyance for them again.
 
Last edited:

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,718
Iowa USA
#82
The British had overwhelming forces in North America, but had not been able to do much, aside from burning Washington. It is obvious that the British were eager to get the war over with and get their army back to Europe. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to those terms.I don't know if anyone in the US proposed continuing the war after the Treaty of Ghent was signed.
Yes.
Since our OP is from well outside English-speaking culture I thought a little elaboration on why the terms of Ghent were seen as satisfying the parties that launched the war would help complete the information available to him.

As discussed in other threads, Britain only got 25,000 soldiers to Waterloo, but had 50,000 in Canada and the Bahamas at that time. The British were worried about some sort of trouble with France, Russia, Prussia or whatever and wanted their army back. They also didn't want a pointless major war trying to defeat the US after 20 years of war with France.

The war was an annoyance to Britain all along. That is why some in the US thought it would be successful. The British had the forces available after the fall of Napoleon, but by late 1814 it was just an annoyance for them again.
Even Wellesley didn't see the potential of continuing, as has been referred to earlier. He was surely the most qualified person to "teach America a lesson" at the time.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,714
Stockport Cheshire UK
#83
Ratification was unanimous since the terms were outstanding for the US. Notably that for the first time there was a legal commitment for all the trading companies located in Canada to recognize America's right to prevent trade of weapons with the tribes. The Western States whose representatives voted for the war had their victory with this recognition in Treaty of Ghent. (Article the Ninth...)
Article Nine doesn't state that at all.
It merely states that if the Native tribes refrain from hostile acts towards Britain and the USA both nations will restore all rights and privileges that they enjoyed before the war.
Britain made no legal commitment to the USA on the matter of supplying weapons to the tribes whatsoever.
Avalon Project - British-American Diplomcay : Treaty of Ghent; 1814
 
Last edited:
Likes: Hoosierhiver

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
#85
AT Sea yes which was swept of US trade and ships, tegh bloackade was efefctive . On Land not even close,.
Yes, after the defeat of Napoleon, the Royal Navy was so large that it acquired a dominating position. From what I gather the British had 50,000 veteran troops in North America. They didn't win battles or take territory. That is why the British agreed to peace on terms of status quo ante bellum. The US was still in a bad situation and in no position to resume the offensive and invade Canada again. As discussed, conquering either the US or Canada was not easy, mainly because of their sizes.
 
Feb 2016
4,342
Japan
#86
By 1814, and the wars end there were 38 000 regulars and fencibles in the North America’s. Any additional troops would have been Canadian Militia.

At its peak in 1813 the British Army numbered
227 500 regulars
68 000 volunteers.
304 000 Militia.
32 000 Foriegn corps.

These were scattered far and wide. And as soon as France was defeated almost immediately they began downsizing.

I believe the Army had recieved more military expenditure each year than the Navy since 1809 or 1810.

50 000 men to Canada would be unrealistic and almost rivalling the army in Spain.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,057
#87
Yes, after the defeat of Napoleon, the Royal Navy was so large that it acquired a dominating position. From what I gather the British had 50,000 veteran troops in North America. They didn't win battles or take territory. That is why the British agreed to peace on terms of status quo ante bellum. The US was still in a bad situation and in no position to resume the offensive and invade Canada again. As discussed, conquering either the US or Canada was not easy, mainly because of their sizes.
The Royal Navy was able to defeat the US Navy without deploying it's main strength ,before the defeat of Napoeloen.
I doubt 50,000 veterans thats a lot for a British Army.,
The British were not trying to take terroritory, the landings were Raids, to drive the US to the negioating table,
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,
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,718
Iowa USA
#89
Article Nine doesn't state that at all.
It merely states that if the Native tribes refrain from hostile acts towards Britain and the USA both nations will restore all rights and privileges that they enjoyed before the war.
Britain made no legal commitment to the USA on the matter of supplying weapons to the tribes whatsoever.
Avalon Project - British-American Diplomcay : Treaty of Ghent; 1814
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.
 

Similar History Discussions