could the british have really retook the Americana colonies and occupied America if they wanted to, in 1812?

[jennifer1122]

If in 1812 the british wanted to come in force, with 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands of soldiers and massive british fleet to besiege the colonies and conquer it, could they have?
I imagine if they wanted to expend the resources they could. They did it in India and India was much more powerful than the American colonies. So if they did, what would it have looked like and what would they have had to do and how would that likely affect the future of the 19th century

 

[vizzer]

The British were engaged in more important affairs closer to home and once that had finished were more interested in disbanding their forces rather than getting involved in a colonial sideshow.
After spending nearly 30 years at war they were not really interested in further campaigns until the return of Napoleon.

 

[ahmedali]

If Napoleon did not exist or the Napoleonic wars ended early

(Napoleon's death in Russia or peace after the Frankfurt proposals)

Yes, there is a chance to restore America

(Especially if the British, angry at a peace favoring France and their Continental allies not going to fight, decide to pour out all their anger on the Americans.)

But it will take time to quell any rebellion

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

They probably could, but the hard part would be doing so without bankrupting the British treasury. The cost in blood and resources would make it a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[riggerrob]

Britain may have had the best navy in the world, but their army was still small. Then consider the massive cost of sailing that army across the Atlantic and re-supplying it in the middle of North America. The place I can see that being practical is along the Mississippi River ... which was lightly settled back in 1812.

 

[treefreak32]

I could see them severely weakening the US, maybe taking parts of Northern Maine or such, but I can't see them taking all of America back without ASB intervention.
That being said, an American loss in 1812 would severely weaken the US, and could easily led to an earlier civil war. IOTL, the War of 1812 was controversial, with certain New England leaders actually threatening secession. I could see a loss against the British leading to the disintegration of the Union as it stood, with a New England breakaway nation, one which would likely be more willing to befriend the British.

 

[cra0422]

The British would run into the same problem they had during the American Revolution. The original 13 colonies extended for 1000 miles north and south and 150 miles inland. By this time, America had expanded. The only ground that the British Army would truly control would be the ground underneath their feet.. I think the best option would be a naval blockade of the major port cities and possibly get a breakaway New England, but retaking all of America is not likely

 

[Elfwine]

The British would run into the same problem they had during the American Revolution. The original 13 colonies extended for 1000 miles north and south and 150 miles inland. By this time, America had expanded. The only ground that the British Army would truly control would be the ground underneath their feet.. I think the best option would be a naval blockade of the major port cities and possibly get a breakaway New England, but retaking all of America is not likely

Agreed with this. Logistics as far as supplying an army with the immense amount it needs, and manpower to occupy territory, are still ridiculously enormously large problems however you compare British armies or fleets to American armies or fleets.

 

[Jasmine23]

The British would run into the same problem they had during the American Revolution. The original 13 colonies extended for 1000 miles north and south and 150 miles inland. By this time, America had expanded. The only ground that the British Army would truly control would be the ground underneath their feet.. I think the best option would be a naval blockade of the major port cities and possibly get a breakaway New England, but retaking all of America is not likely

They did it in India and it was farther. But I guess they had a few companies set up to help and exploit the occupation efforts

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

That being said, an American loss in 1812 would severely weaken the US, and could easily led to an earlier civil war. IOTL, the War of 1812 was controversial, with certain New England leaders actually threatening secession.

The Hartford Convention did not threaten secession. That's a common misconception. It did hint at a possible separate peace though; however I should also note that the backlash to it doomed the federalist party, and that was a backlash within New England, not simply in the rest of the country.

 

[brokenrobot00]

I feel the British could win the war potentially but probably not the peace. A lot depends on how they intend to Govern the former United States. If it's the traditional British style colony with mercantilism ruling the day then things start falling apart almost immediately. The American population has gotten to large and industry has developed to quickly to ignore that, no more grabbing raw resources and then selling finished products back to the colonies. There were burgeoning factories and industrial works all over the country and the British would either have to close them all down or put a tariff on domestically produced goods to try and maintain their monopoly. Tax grievances were one of the big issues that lead to the American Revolution. The Crown would have to treat the former United States or even individual States as autonomous areas, bring them into the Parliamentary system, or Govern them as a Personal Union outside of Britain. If successful the next big issue is what happens when the American economy starts to take off with it's larger population and industrial capacity. Power will gradually start to shift to the other side of the Atlantic. That could cause conflict in and of itself. I also imagine the abolishing of slavery is delayed in an attempt to delay tensions and could become an us versus them issue in Europe and North America.

 

[Cymraeg]

If in 1812 the british wanted to come in force, with 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands of soldiers and massive british fleet to besiege the colonies and conquer it, could they have?
I imagine if they wanted to expend the resources they could. They did it in India and India was much more powerful than the American colonies. So if they did, what would it have looked like and what would they have had to do and how would that likely affect the future of the 19th century

No. The British Army was far too busy in Spain and Portugal and then Southern France in 1812-1814, where it was defeating a string of Napoleon's best Marshals. Once the various incompetent US invasions of Canada were defeated (Queenston Heights, Crysler's Farm, Chateauguay, etc) the worst of the emergency was over but there were never the plans or the intention to invade and retake America. That ship had long since sailed - the British just wanted to have peace as before.

 

[dfl_90]

The Hartford Convention did not threaten secession. That's a common misconception. It did hint at a possible separate peace though; however I should also note that the backlash to it doomed the federalist party, and that was a backlash within New England, not simply in the rest of the country.

At the time, the relationship between the federal government and the states was significantly more murky than it is today. New England politicians were undermining the federal war effort by refusing to raise militias and contemplating how to maintain a neutral stance in the war. In those days that sort of antagonistic obstruction was a pretty common tactic of various states to protect their regional interests. The Hartford Convention, much like the South Carolinians during the Nullification Crisis, never specifically advocated for secession, but there were extremist voices present who were happy to make such a threat if it advanced their cause.

 

[James Ricker]

The size of the area involved would have made taking it difficult and holding it with a hostile population an impossibility
The British Empire had a lot of enemies who would love to see them wasting manpower and resources in the Americas leaving them a free hand elsewhere

 

[wcv215]

Could they? Yes. But why bother? It would require yet another monumental war effort, while Britain was engaged against France, and had been so engaged for twenty years. Good luck getting Parliament to agree that it was worth such a war yet again, along with the debt and taxes that went with it.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Severely weakening the United States, and taking swathes of territory? Absolutely. Retaking the entirety of the United States? Not happening.

The best the British would really be able to get would be Maine north of the Penobscot River, maybe a strip of land across northern New York including Sackets Harbor, and heavy reparations (plus the British regarded the American purchase of the Louisiana Territory as illegal since France had no right to sell Spanish territory). The Great Lakes are made neutral to American warships, Grand Isle and the Lake Erie islands are made British, loss of American fishing rights of Grand Banks, and maybe some of the Old Northwest too (I think Adams was willing to sell parts to the British at negotiations at Ghent).

 

[vizzer]

The size of the area involved would have made taking it difficult and holding it with a hostile population an impossibility
The British Empire had a lot of enemies who would love to see them wasting manpower and resources in the Americas leaving them a free hand elsewhere

At this point there was only one real enemy - Napoleonic France - and most of the rest of Europe was in a Coalition, financed by British money, against him.

Unlike the ARW this time, except for France, most of the other European powers are allied with the British rather than against them and France is rather busy fighting to survive.

 

[Sarthak]

There is a vast difference between could and would. Militarily the British had the ability to do so, but they had the ability to do so even in 1783 if they had the military conflict of the American revolution. The British in 1812 had no wish to retake America in it's full. Territorially they were eying up Michigan and Maine, but that was really only to give Canada strategic depth more than anything else.

 

[vizzer]

Britain may have had to best navy in the world, but their army was still small. Then consider the massive cost of sailing that army across the Atlantic and re-supplying it in the middle of North America. The place I can see that being practical is along the Mississippi River ... which was lightly settled back in 1812.

The British army may have been small in European terms but the US army was insignificant on the same scale, hence the reliance on militia for the invasion of Canada.

 

[vizzer]

If Napoleon did not exist or the Napoleonic wars ended early

(Napoleon's death in Russia or peace after the Frankfurt proposals)

Yes, there is a chance to restore America

(Especially if the British, angry at a peace favoring France and their Continental allies not going to fight, decide to pour out all their anger on the Americans.)

But it will take time to quell any rebellion

If there's no ongoing Napoleonic war then the RN won't be pressing British sailors from American ships which removes the American causis belli leaving just "On to Canada" as a reason for a war.
Of course the British have probably also disbanded much of their army.