Did the US lose the War of 1812?

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
How its' portrayed in European volumes might be interesting................

I do not recall seeing anything in swedish history books about it except perhaps mentioning as a meaningless war in the end of the Napoleonic wars without any result. I suretnely do not mention anyone as winner of it.

 

[unmerged(5309)]

I didnt read past the first page so excuse me if I said something someone else did,

Speaking as an American i believe we came close too losing the war, but we won a couple of good battles (I am sure New Orleans has been mantioned a few thousand times already) but thats not one because the war was basically over but the treaty hadent been ratified by the U.S Congress, also concidering we only had 16 warships in comission at the time and held onto the Great Lakes and stopping a French Canadian General (forgot his name but talanted from what I hear) from attacking, I believe if he got through a Great General from our side would of beat him (unlikely but u never know) or we would of wore him down with Guillera war tactics and forced a with draw but the danage would have been conciderable. I think both sides couldnt show superiority, but one thing that wont be forgotten in Canadian or British schools is the bloodless Surrender of Gen. Hull (i think thats his name) and the burning of the Whitehouse, But what i Dont het is i herd somewere that Canada teaches it as a Decisive Canadian/British victory, which is not true because CAnada didnt exist at the time, I have heard countless times from Canadians that their country won, I cant stand it when i hear it, also something that American schools will teach is, the Victory at New Orleans, and the burning of capital buildings in York (Toronto). So i my opinion it was a stalemate.

 

[Malthus]

I think that this thread demonstrates that the question of "who won the war" depends entirely on subjective factors - whether you are American and want to demonstrate a tradition of victory, or Canadian and want to take the US a peg down or two.

The most truthful statement is from Fredrick ll, where he says "...I have heard countless times from Canadians that their country won, I cant stand it when i hear it...". Exactly. As a Canadian, the childish temptation to thumb one's nose at the mighty (and pompous)US and shout "na na na boo boo! we beat you in the war of 1812!" is overwhelming...and the Americans must have felt exactly the same temptation to tweak the mighty (and pompous) British Empire by starting this ill-concieved war in the first place.

 

[unmerged(5309)]

Your right about that, i am not so embarassed to say that it is very likely we could of lost, i perfer to look as it just another page of history, and the truth is people on both sides who go and say "our side won because you suck" havent done any real studying on the War but just pout off what they learned in school and i should have mentioned that i also noticed it on my side, and of course for Americans its New Orleans

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

war of 1812

It was a very near run thing, to paraphrase Wellington. We won security on sea, right to trade in the Caribean and Europe without being searched, and Louisana and the Old Northwest. Canada only defend itself. IT DID NOT CONQUER ANY US TERRITORY!!! If there had been better organization and generals Canada would be the suburbs of New York and Boston. Summer in York anyone?

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Let's face it, the US was never in any danger of being conquered. Victory and defeat are not just based on total victory which is a modern war aim. The reason Canadian's say we won is that we acheived our aim, not being conquered while the US aim, annexation of Canada, was not acheived. We are used to modern history where there is a clear cut winner and there was none in this war.

 

[unmerged(5451)]

Originally posted by Trooper
Let's face it, the US was never in any danger of being conquered. Victory and defeat are not just based on total victory which is a modern war aim. The reason Canadian's say we won is that we acheived our aim, not being conquered while the US aim, annexation of Canada, was not acheived. We are used to modern history where there is a clear cut winner and there was none in this war.

Not conquered outright, but the British were hoping for territorial gains in the Old Northwest. The United States was in danger of losing these territories, but the United States was able to establish dominance on the Great Lakes and disrupt the British plans.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Elias Tarfarius
It was a very near run thing, to paraphrase Wellington. We won security on sea, right to trade in the Caribean and Europe without being searched, and Louisana and the Old Northwest. Canada only defend itself. IT DID NOT CONQUER ANY US TERRITORY!!!

Yes, but then Britain (not Canada, since Canada was merely a territory at the time) didn't want the war in the first place and was perfectly satisfied with a white peace. The US, however, had gone into the war with the intent of conquering Canada. Thus, the status quo peace was a success for Britain.

 

[unmerged(5451)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

Yes, but then Britain (not Canada, since Canada was merely a territory at the time) didn't want the war in the first place and was perfectly satisfied with a white peace. The US, however, had gone into the war with the intent of conquering Canada. Thus, the status quo peace was a success for Britain.

Britain had a funny way of demonstrating they didn't want war. Seizing the Chesapeake, blockading US shipping and impressing US sailors were all acts of war.

 

[Gunthar]

I know this is rather old, but.......

Originally posted by p.leis
Yet you guys persist in ignoring the fact that on the Great Lakes at least...It was America who held the naval advantage...Amherstburg had been captured by us...Detriot was back in our hands...there was NO British shipping remaining on Lake's Huron,Erie,or Ontario...Upper Canada was completely open again for invasion.

What the heck are you talking about? Sure you had lake Erie, but not Huron or Ontario. Lake Huron was in British hands, with the British controlling Ft.Mackinac and having naval domination of the lake after they captured or destroyed all of the American schooners on the lake. Lake Ontario was mostly under British control with Comodore Yeo and the St.Lawrence of 104 guns (a first rate!) against Chauncy, who at most had one frigate of 58 guns. Although the St.Lawrence was never in an engagement, it's sheer size intimidated the Americans and gave the British control of lake Ontario. The Americans hadn't initiated an offensive on the lake since York in 1813 whereas the British had been very active, capturing Ft.Oswego and harassing Sackett's Harbour. Upper Canada was partially in American hands, this is true, but the British held Fort Niagara and had the war gone on, could have taken Sackett's Harbour by land and with the HMS St.Lawrence, thereby giving them total control of the region. As to the overall result, I think it is totally unreasonable to claim that the US won the war, American patriotism often gets in the way of reasonable thought. We all got somewhat what we wanted in the end, though not Thomas Jefferson who said that the conquest of Canada would be a mere matter of marching. I think not.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by savronela


Britain had a funny way of demonstrating they didn't want war. Seizing the Chesapeake, blockading US shipping and impressing US sailors were all acts of war.

Yes, they have a funny way of showing they love you

But it's been argued before that it was perfectly legal according to maritime conventions of the time since the US was bringing supplies to the ennemy.

And someone here (or in the other thread about it) posted numbers showing that apparently there wasn't that much US sailors that were arrested, in fact many were Brits and other strangers that offered their services.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

We've had this argument before.

The situation after the war was the same as it had been before the war, which counts as a draw. If you argue that the USA's objective was to conquer Canada, then it failed in its objective: but it does not follow from that that the USA "lost" the war, because they were not forced to pay indemities and/or give up territory. Neither were the British: ergo, a draw.

As for arguing the case for one side winning because of the number and importance of the battles they won, that's utterly stupid. The English fought France for over a hundred years and won every single set-piece battle that ever took place, but they lost the war comprehensively.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by savronela
Britain had a funny way of demonstrating they didn't want war. Seizing the Chesapeake, blockading US shipping and impressing US sailors were all acts of war.

Try reading through the thread.

Also, I strangely don't recall Britain blockading the US before the war...

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

Try reading through the thread.

Also, I strangely don't recall Britain blockading the US before the war...

I think he's referring to British interdiction of US trade w/ French-controlled continental Europe, which was a bone of contention.

And yes, vast numbers of US sailors (both on merchants and the US navy) were British deserters.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

After rereading all the posts and doing some deep thinking on the subject I wanted to say one more thing: we won!!

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Trooper
After rereading all the posts and doing some deep thinking on the subject I wanted to say one more thing: we won!!

I am willing to compromise and say that both Canada and US won everlasting glory on the battlefield but that the Brits were soundly spanked.

 

[unmerged(5451)]

Originally posted by viper37


Yes, they have a funny way of showing they love you

But it's been argued before that it was perfectly legal according to maritime conventions of the time since the US was bringing supplies to the ennemy.

And someone here (or in the other thread about it) posted numbers showing that apparently there wasn't that much US sailors that were arrested, in fact many were Brits and other strangers that offered their services.

It was Britains own law (passed 1756) which allowed trade between neutral countries and powers at war. However, you're right, the convention dictated otherwise. Britain did seem to recognize that interfering with US trade was causing tension between the countries. In 1809 the British Minister in Washington (Erskine) negotiated to lift the blockade, but that was overturned by the British Foreign Secretary (Canning). In 1812, two days before the US Congress declared war, Britain agreed to end the interference, unfortunately Congress had no way of knowing this.

Many of the sailors impressed were, no doubt, foreign nationals serving on US ships. However that did give Britain the right to stop US ships on the high seas and kidnap sailors. Britain's pretence was that the sailors were deserters from the British Navy, which was certainly not true in many cases.

This is not to say that the British did not have good reason for what they did. They needed to stop Napoleon's ability to make war so they stopped US trade with the continent. They needed to man their ships to win the war, so they kidnapped US sailors. They needed to maintain good relations with their Iriquois allies to protect their own settlements, so they supplied gifts and munitions to them. They were aware, however, that these acts were aggravating the US and chose to continue them. To say that the British did not want war with the US, I think, is to absolve them of too much, as they certainly had the ability to prevent it, and chose not to. Nor would I say that the US is completely innocent either, we did want to annex Canada, and we wanted to restore our national honor, so we wanted war too.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi

I am willing to compromise and say that both Canada and US won everlasting glory on the battlefield but that the Brits were soundly spanked.

I have a feeling the Brits won't accept this.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Well the Uk could aford to lose, which it did not btw, and still be king of the hill, on the other hand...

hannibal

 

[Agelastus]

Crikey, is this thread still going on, with all its' meretricious arguments...........................

For one last time-IT WAS A DRAW.

Although the longer this goes on the more one wonders just what the Americans and Canadians are so insecure about.