Did the US lose the War of 1812?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Sideshow!

Yes the US won some actions which provided embarrassment to the British.
Captain Jack Aubrey RN was feeling very low after one of them I recall
However, the real action in those years was at Borodino, Leipzig, Salamanca etc

 

[grumbler]

I think that, in the long run, the war was beneficial for the US (and to Canada, when it came into existance in the following century in need of some sense of identity), so both of those groups can claim that they "won" the war to some extent.

Nothing good came out of the war for the british, so they spent vast sums on nothing. Therefor, it can be argued that they "lost" to some extent.

However, I have been convinced by the arguments presented that "a draw" probably describes the war better in simple terms (although Mike the Red's arguments have much to say for themselves).

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by savronela

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.

Yes of course, I would never pretend that Great Britain was the poor innocent country portrayed by many Canadian history books

Americans were "searching" for it more than the British because they had more to gain (I doubt Great Britain ever thought it could submit the US again). And the British, imho (I have no basis for that, just a speculation) played on it to force them into declaring war (the Parliament was probably unwilling to dow the USA at this time).

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by viper37


Yes of course, I would never pretend that Great Britain was the poor innocent country portrayed by many Canadian history books

Americans were "searching" for it more than the British because they had more to gain (I doubt Great Britain ever thought it could submit the US again). And the British, imho (I have no basis for that, just a speculation) played on it to force them into declaring war (the Parliament was probably unwilling to dow the USA at this time).

Britain had absolutely no motivation to be dragged into a war on the other side of the world while Napoleon ramaged around Europe. The piss-poor way they went about waging the war is proof enough.

Arrogance, belief that the fleet could impose it's will on foreign navies (as it indeed could) perhaps, but in no way was war ever considered.

Out of curiosity, now that this debate has raged here for several months, 4 pages and the same conclusion, are there any other wars which are so difficult to measure the results?

I never really considered the 1812 war as one which might even be as controversial as it appears here, any others I might have missed?

 

[unmerged(3708)]

I've been spending the night checking through documents, including newspaper clipping, from the time period on the web. It does not appear from these documents that a primary goal of the war of 1812 was to establish Canada as a 13th state. Rather what I've seen suggests that the invasion of Canada was to prevent the British from using her as a base and to deprive the British of Canadian resources.
It also appears that the war of 1812 was a defensive one on the part of the United States - that is there objective was to protect their intrests on the high seas and in the west. They considered the impressing of Americans on the high seas to be acts of war and so were already engaged in an undeclared war. The purpose of the Declaraion of war was essentially to maintain the status quo as it exisisted prior to the British boarding of American ships.
If this is the case, then it would seem that the US 'won' the war. Regardless of the cause, the impressments on the high seas were halted. Also the establishment of the US - Canada boundry line along the Great Lakes to Lake of the Woods (Minnesota) clerly removed any legal basis for British interference to the west. The American war aims were attained.

Perhaps more important in the long run is that the US showed it was willing to stand up to the great powers - that there would be unwanted consequences to actions taken against American intrests in the New World. The treaty of Ghent is clearly a document negotiated between two equals - in that regard the United States took a step forward in the eyes of the world.

michael

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Out of interest, is the 1812 war well-known in Canada and the US?

I doubt if more than 2% of the British population have even heard of it

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
Out of interest, is the 1812 war well-known in Canada and the US?

I doubt if more than 2% of the British population have even heard of it

I would say most Canadians have no real understanding of the war and no interest in it. History is not well taught in our schools. In schools in my part of the country Canadian history is not required.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

New York Evening Post, 13 February 1815

What the terms of the peace are, we cannot tell; they will only be made known at Washington, by the dispatches themselves. But one thing I will venture to say now and before they are opened, and I will hazard my reputation upon the correctness of what I say, that when the terms are disclosed, it will be found that the government have not by this negociation obtained one single avowed object for which they involved the country in this bloody and expensive war.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Most people consider the Battle of New Orleans as the last battle fought but it was not. A month later another battle occured and this was a British victory. The British appeared off Mobile on February 8, confirming Jackson's fear that they planned an attack in that quarter. They overwhelmed Fort Bowyer, a garrison manned by 360 Regulars at the entrance to Mobile Harbor. Before they could attack the city itself, word arrived that a treaty had been signed at Ghent on Christmas Eve, two weeks before the Battle of New Orleans.

mzalar what were the US objectives, if not to conquer Canada? Besides the sea war, which was about impressment and commerce, the war occured because of war hawks in the US who wanted to own all of NA. The British certainly did not want another war at this time.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
Out of interest, is the 1812 war well-known in Canada and the US?

I doubt if more than 2% of the British population have even heard of it

Without a doubt most Americans would botch the details, but probably have a vague awareness because of the national anthem, burning the White House, "Old Ironsides," Andy Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans, etc.

 

[unmerged(5451)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
Out of interest, is the 1812 war well-known in Canada and the US?

I doubt if more than 2% of the British population have even heard of it

It's of local interest here, as Detroit was captured by the British and then the Americans, and Hull launched his ill-conceived invasion of Canada from here. This, and Pontiac's conspiracy were the only major conflicts played out in Michigan, so we have to take what we can get.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by Trooper


History is not well taught in our schools.

Yes, we would need a lot more hours to study history in high-school. I only had three history classes in my entire high-school (5 years).

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by viper37
Yes, we would need a lot more hours to study history in high-school. I only had three history classes in my entire high-school (5 years).

That's appalling...........utterly, totally appalling................

I had regular history classes for seven years at school, three of which were years where it was a compulsory part of my school's curriculum for that age group.

Not that we ever studied the "War of 1812"!

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


That's appalling...........utterly, totally appalling................

I had regular history classes for seven years at school, three of which were years where it was a compulsory part of my school's curriculum for that age group.

Not that we ever studied the "War of 1812"!

This makes sense. British history is so bloodthirsty that even with 7 years it would be hard to squeeze in a middling war like 1812.

Especially a middling war in which you got spanked.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
This makes sense. British history is so bloodthirsty that even with 7 years it would be hard to squeeze in a middling war like 1812.

Fortunately we also studied the history of other countries/regions................something (catty statement here) that most Americans probably don't.

Especially a middling war in which you got spanked.

Well, middling's accurate enough............but you're being a little silly with the rest of the description.

As four pages of erudite, if occasionally biased discussion, has obviously shown.

 

[unmerged(3865)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Fortunately we also studied the history of other countries/regions................something (catty statement here) that most Americans probably don't.



Well, middling's accurate enough............but you're being a little silly with the rest of the description.

As four pages of erudite, if occasionally biased discussion, has obviously shown.

There has been no bias here, just two different points of view: mine/Canada which is correct and everyone else who are wrong. Simple.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Fortunately we also studied the history of other countries/regions................something (catty statement here) that most Americans probably don't.

Ever heard of "multi-culturalism"? Although, I suppose this doesn't usually concern itself with actual history...

 

[Savant]

Was there more than that?

Without a doubt most Americans would botch the details, but probably have a vague awareness because of the national anthem, burning the White House, "Old Ironsides," Andy Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans, etc.

Actually, I'd say most Americans can associate two of those things with the War of 1812 - burning of the White House (Washington's portrait beingf saved by Dolly Madison - bless her sweet heart - she sewed the first American flag too! ) and the battle of New Orleans (where Mexico surrendered California and Texas!).

Who, but an UnAmerican, could forget those fax!?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Savant,

I thought you promised Mel Gibson you wouldn't reveal the screenplay for his next pic

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Re: Was there more than that?

Originally posted by Savant


Actually, I'd say most Americans can associate two of those things with the War of 1812 - burning of the White House (Washington's portrait beingf saved by Dolly Madison - bless her sweet heart - she sewed the first American flag too! ) and the battle of New Orleans (where Mexico surrendered California and Texas!).

And, of course, the 1812 Overture, so frequently played at our Independence Day concerts.