The United States sucks at war, great at peace

[CocoCincinnati]

War of Independence of 1775 - Washington was a famously bad general, terrible tactician, lost more battles than won, etc. This is only partly excused in that his army was basically bleh. It is no secret that, militarily, it was the French who won this war. But the Americans came out of the war with a sweet peace treaty in 1783 that basically gave them (almost) everything they wanted. So it was really won by American diplomats (both in Paris and London) than by anything the American military did in the field.

Washington wasn't a "great captain" to be sure but he achieved his strategic goals none the less and that was for his army to simply survive those first few years. The continental army was horribly trained, organized and outfitted at the start of the conflict and the Continental Congress did not give much support to improve it. Washington knew he had no chance in open battle with the British so he did the smart thing and avoided it whenever possible. He lost several battles early on but each time managed to live to fight another day all while improving the quality of his army and also learning from his own mistakes. Eventually (with the help of a Prussian) his army improved enough to be able to fight the British to a draw at Monmouth. Much like Eisenhower, his best asset during the events that he is remembered for was more his political skill than his tactical skill. It would be interesting to debate how things would have been different if Gates had been given command instead of Washington.

 

[keynes2.0]

Eventually (with the help of a Prussian) his army improved enough to be able to fight the British to a draw at Monmouth.

Monmouth was closer to the day that Washington took command then to the day of the British surrender at Yorktown.

 

[TheExecuter]

I'm amused to see the contention that the US military efforts in the war of 1812 are so lowly regarded.

While it is true that the goal to invade and liberate lower Canada never succeeded and was always an abject failure...the same can not be said of upper Canada.

One of the major war goals of the US was to open the western frontier (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, etc.) to settlement and end British support for native raids. The first invasion of upper Canada ended ignomiously at Detroit...however once the Battle of Lake Erie cut off supply to upper Canada, the Americans successfully invaded and held upper Canada for the duration of the war. They also destroyed the Indian threat at the Battle of the Thames.

1814 is another year of American victories. With the end to the Napoleonic wars, Britain sent large forces to win the war in battle. The invasion of New York was halted by US military dominance of Lake Champlain and the Battle of Plattsburgh.

The attempt to destroy American trade capability in the Chesapeake was abandoned after the British realized they did not have sufficient force to deal with the defenses at Baltimore. In effect, mere raiding of the bay and burning the capital was not sufficient military destruction to justify the attempt.

The attempt to close American trade through New Orleans and the Mississippi basin was defeated decisively at the Battle of New Orleans.

The US achieved all of it's major war aims save the incorporation of Canada. Great Britain only achieved a successful defense of Canada.

 

[Henry IX]

I'm amused to see the contention that the US military efforts in the war of 1812 are so lowly regarded.

While it is true that the goal to invade and liberate lower Canada never succeeded and was always an abject failure...the same can not be said of upper Canada.

One of the major war goals of the US was to open the western frontier (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, etc.) to settlement and end British support for native raids. The first invasion of upper Canada ended ignomiously at Detroit...however once the Battle of Lake Erie cut off supply to upper Canada, the Americans successfully invaded and held upper Canada for the duration of the war. They also destroyed the Indian threat at the Battle of the Thames.

1814 is another year of American victories. With the end to the Napoleonic wars, Britain sent large forces to win the war in battle. The invasion of New York was halted by US military dominance of Lake Champlain and the Battle of Plattsburgh.

The attempt to destroy American trade capability in the Chesapeake was abandoned after the British realized they did not have sufficient force to deal with the defenses at Baltimore. In effect, mere raiding of the bay and burning the capital was not sufficient military destruction to justify the attempt.

The attempt to close American trade through New Orleans and the Mississippi basin was defeated decisively at the Battle of New Orleans.

The US achieved all of it's major war aims save the incorporation of Canada. Great Britain only achieved a successful defense of Canada.

American war aims were explicitly to take control of Canada, which they totally failed to do in the face of an army a fraction the size of theirs. The gains you site were largely achieved in the post war negotiations - the removal of British support was critical in the long term defeat of the First Nations and the opening up of the West, which tends to support the 'better at negotiation than war' idea.

 

[TheExecuter]

American war aims were explicitly to take control of Canada, which they totally failed to do in the face of an army a fraction the size of theirs. The gains you site were largely achieved in the post war negotiations - the removal of British support was critical in the long term defeat of the First Nations and the opening up of the West, which tends to support the 'better at negotiation than war' idea.

The goal of taking Canada was to use it as a hostage for negotiating the opening of the West, it was not to outright conquer the place.

The US succeeded in holding upper Canada, which was successful in making the British negotiate.

Don't forget that Britain's objective was to return territories to the crown. Maine was occupied and oaths of allegiance administered. Louisiana was invaded in similar attempt to detach portions of the US and return them to the crown. These efforts were successfully resisted.

 

[DoomBunny]

The goal of taking Canada was to use it as a hostage for negotiating the opening of the West, it was not to outright conquer the place.

The US succeeded in holding upper Canada, which was successful in making the British negotiate.

Don't forget that Britain's objective was to return territories to the crown. Maine was occupied and oaths of allegiance administered. Louisiana was invaded in similar attempt to detach portions of the US and return them to the crown. These efforts were successfully resisted.

First I've heard of that.

 

[Digeridoo]

PragerU. Great. Pick one.

This is the US's own Dolchstosslegende, debunked many times.

Show me evidence that PragerU has been "debunked many times".

 

[Avernite]

The goal of taking Canada was to use it as a hostage for negotiating the opening of the West, it was not to outright conquer the place.

The US succeeded in holding upper Canada, which was successful in making the British negotiate.

Don't forget that Britain's objective was to return territories to the crown. Maine was occupied and oaths of allegiance administered. Louisiana was invaded in similar attempt to detach portions of the US and return them to the crown. These efforts were successfully resisted.

Britain's objective was to defend succesfully first, other things second. America seemingly had conquer Canada first, other things second as wargoal, though obviously it's debated if they had other primary goals too. So Britain succeeded at its primary goals and didn't get to play around with their secondaries, while the US failed a primary goal but had multiple successes (which were primary or secondary depending on the writer).

At that point it's a matter of taste which is the more important, succeeding at all primaries or succeeding at multiple goals.

 

[keynes2.0]

America seemingly had conquer Canada first,

Freedom of trade??? Impressment?

 

[TheExecuter]

The US certainly didn't accomplish all it's goals, nor did it achieve all it's objectives militarily.

I'm just pointing out that the war wasn't the military disaster that so many seem to believe it was.

 

[Avernite]

Freedom of trade??? Impressment?

Impressment was not stopped by the war, so that'd only be a second primary that wasn't achieved (though I am unsure from the data how much of it was abolished by the British pre-war already so that it was an obsolete wargoal, and how much was kept until Napoleon was finally defeated so that it was a not-achieved goal).

Free trade, again, was achieved by the defeat of Napoleon, so it's another primary obsoleted or not-achieved.

Leaving the one primary goal, conquering Canada, that remained and was not achieved.

So I still don't see anything but all the primary goals either failing or ending because, in CK2 terms, the CB stopped being valid.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Impressment was not stopped by the war, so that'd only be a second primary that wasn't achieved (though I am unsure from the data how much of it was abolished by the British pre-war already so that it was an obsolete wargoal, and how much was kept until Napoleon was finally defeated so that it was a not-achieved goal).

Free trade, again, was achieved by the defeat of Napoleon, so it's another primary obsoleted or not-achieved.

Leaving the one primary goal, conquering Canada, that remained and was not achieved.

So I still don't see anything but all the primary goals either failing or ending because, in CK2 terms, the CB stopped being valid.

This too was my impression. Essentially, neither side won the war in the strictest sense (the British didn't even know about the declaration of war until well after the commencement of hostilities. However, both sides won the peace - the USA established itself as a core nation while Canada shows itself to be able to survive as the entity of Canada. All three nations stabilised their relations to the system which still stands as the 5 eyes (inc AUS and NZ) cornerstone of western military and diplomatic cooperation.

 

[Avernite]

This too was my impression. Essentially, neither side won the war in the strictest sense (the British didn't even know about the declaration of war until well after the commencement of hostilities. However, both sides won the peace - the USA established itself as a core nation while Canada shows itself to be able to survive as the entity of Canada. All three nations stabilised their relations to the system which still stands as the 5 eyes (inc AUS and NZ) cornerstone of western military and diplomatic cooperation.

Depends what you call western, from over here France and Germany seem the cornerstones of western cooperation diplomatically, and the US & NATO militarily

 

[Easy-Kill]

Depends what you call western, from over here France and Germany seem the cornerstones of western cooperation diplomatically, and the US & NATO militarily

Well, the FVEYES community cooperates far more than NATO and probably more than even GER-FRA (based on my experience). The Travelling Cocktail Party

 

[Henry IX]

The goal of taking Canada was to use it as a hostage for negotiating the opening of the West, it was not to outright conquer the place.

This is not correct, based on the statement of American hawks at the time e.g. Congressman John Harper in 1812 stated "the Author of Nature marked our limits in the south by the Gulf of Mexico; and on the north by the regions of eternal frost" (quoted in The War of 1812 by Carl Benn). Even if the whole of the American polity was not annexationist those who supported the war were, and certainly entered it planning to annex Upper Canada and possibly Lower Canada.

 

[TheExecuter]

This is not correct, based on the statement of American hawks at the time e.g. Congressman John Harper in 1812 stated "the Author of Nature marked our limits in the south by the Gulf of Mexico; and on the north by the regions of eternal frost" (quoted in The War of 1812 by Carl Benn). Even if the whole of the American polity was not annexationist those who supported the war were, and certainly entered it planning to annex Upper Canada and possibly Lower Canada.

Just because some believed it was possible or necessary does not make it an agreed war goal...

 

[Yakman]

I'm amused to see the contention that the US military efforts in the war of 1812 are so lowly regarded.

While it is true that the goal to invade and liberate lower Canada never succeeded and was always an abject failure...the same can not be said of upper Canada.

One of the major war goals of the US was to open the western frontier (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, etc.) to settlement and end British support for native raids. The first invasion of upper Canada ended ignomiously at Detroit...however once the Battle of Lake Erie cut off supply to upper Canada, the Americans successfully invaded and held upper Canada for the duration of the war. They also destroyed the Indian threat at the Battle of the Thames.

1814 is another year of American victories. With the end to the Napoleonic wars, Britain sent large forces to win the war in battle. The invasion of New York was halted by US military dominance of Lake Champlain and the Battle of Plattsburgh.

The attempt to destroy American trade capability in the Chesapeake was abandoned after the British realized they did not have sufficient force to deal with the defenses at Baltimore. In effect, mere raiding of the bay and burning the capital was not sufficient military destruction to justify the attempt.

The attempt to close American trade through New Orleans and the Mississippi basin was defeated decisively at the Battle of New Orleans.

The US achieved all of it's major war aims save the incorporation of Canada. Great Britain only achieved a successful defense of Canada.

so... where nobody cared, and forces were tiny and battles skirmishes, the USA did okay.

but where it was important, the Brits were everywhere triumphant (aside from New Orleans). They burned DC - and the army and militia, rather than standing and fighting, ran away. Baltimore was spared from the same fate by luck rather than skill. The British operated with impunity throughout the Chesapeake Bay for 2 years. They were raiding, yes, but nobody did anything to stop them. And it wasn't a once off, either - the British operated whole campaigns for months in the Bay, raising raiding armies of freed slaves who wreaked havoc on the Virginia/Maryland economy and social structure.

 

[keynes2.0]

but where it was important, the Brits were everywhere triumphant. They burned DC - and the army and militia, rather than standing and fighting, ran away. Baltimore was spared from the same fate by luck rather than skill.

DC burned because the army wasn't there. Baltimore was saved because the army was there and beat the British.

You might disagree on the efficacy of the war of 1812 but your post simply butchers the history.

 

[TheExecuter]

so... where nobody cared, and forces were tiny and battles skirmishes, the USA did okay.

but where it was important, the Brits were everywhere triumphant (aside from New Orleans). They burned DC - and the army and militia, rather than standing and fighting, ran away. Baltimore was spared from the same fate by luck rather than skill. The British operated with impunity throughout the Chesapeake Bay for 2 years. They were raiding, yes, but nobody did anything to stop them. And it wasn't a once off, either - the British operated whole campaigns for months in the Bay, raising raiding armies of freed slaves who wreaked havoc on the Virginia/Maryland economy and social structure.

Plattsburgh - Invasion force of 14000 stopped by ~4000 US forces and a naval squadron.

Battle of the Thames - 3500 US vs 1600 UK and Indians - retreating because of the victory in the Battle of Lake Erie that cut off supplies and made upper Canada east of York untenable. Also destroyed the ability of Midwestern tribes to make further resistance.

Battle of Lundy's Lane - 3500 UK vs 2500 US, blunts UK efforts to retake Fort Erie quickly and bring Upper Canada west of Niagara back into play. The resulting siege of Fort Erie is an American defensive triumph...ending in the rout of the UK forces out of the Niagara region through lack of supply.

Battle of North Point - 2000 US vs 5000 UK - defeat of ground forces to take Baltimore.

Read up folks. It wasn't all epic bungling and disasters...

 

[Henry IX]

Just because some believed it was possible or necessary does not make it an agreed war goal...

Then that leaves only two war goals that were actually articulated prior to the war - an end to impressment (which didn't happen as a result of the war) and 'free trade' (which also didn't happen as a result of the war. By that metric the war was an absolute and total failure...

Of course war goals are rarely clearly expressed, particularly in a democracy, and in many (most) wars are so vague, even in the minds of the main belligerents, that actually working out what a 'win' is or how you can win is nearly impossible. So we look at what evidence we have from the statements recorded, public and private, and try to work out what people hoped to obtain from the war. If you do this it becomes very clear that those people who agitated most strongly and publicly for the war had some quite specific war goals that definitely included annexation as an objective.