Who won the War of 1812?

[LMSx]

Seems like as good a place to ask as any.

One particularly anal letter to the editor in my local paper was talking about U.S citizens claiming they're from Canada overseas, then boasted about how the Canadians beat the U.S so many years ago.

That got me wondering.

I checked a history book, and basically after the British burned Washington, we whupped them at Baltimore and New Orleans. Was it a stalemate, or did either side 'win'?

[Alex Moon]

Well, we're still around, so I guess we didn't do too badly

[Frank Hipper]

Well, we're damned lucky GB was busy with other things at the time. It was a negotiated peace that neither side can claim as a victory, to put a definition on it.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well one thing is clear, the US started it. the result was a lot of lives lost for the US's manifest desteny, with each side back at the start lines at the end of it. A monumental waste of time, lives and money.

[Tsyroc]

Well one thing is clear, the US started it. the result was a lot of lives lost for the US's manifest desteny, with each side back at the start lines at the end of it. A monumental waste of time, lives and money.

I wouldn't put it past the US being belligerent but from what we here in the US are told is that the British were stopping US ships and impressing sailors from those ships into the British Navy.

[Tsyroc]

Seems like as good a place to ask as any.

One particularly anal letter to the editor in my local paper was talking about U.S citizens claiming they're from Canada overseas, then boasted about how the Canadians beat the U.S so many years ago.

That got me wondering.

I checked a history book, and basically after the British burned Washington, we whupped them at Baltimore and New Orleans. Was it a stalemate, or did either side 'win'?

It essentially turned into a war that neither side gainded anything or wanted to fight anymore so I guess it was a stalemate.

A college professor of mine suggested that in reality the US lost because we took much more of a beating than the British did. However, he may have been using this bit of logic to set up his next point which was about the perception of the US at the time.

The signed treaty ending the war arrived in the US after the Battle of New Orleans. The battle itself actually took place after the war was officially over but since the announcement hit America shortly after the victory at New Orleans a lot of the US assumed we had won the war and that battle had done it. Certainly no politician in power at the time was going to try and convince them otherwise.

So the perception that the US won <again> against the British made a strong impact on the national psyche and most children in the US continue to be taught that we won the war of 1812.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well one thing is clear, the US started it. the result was a lot of lives lost for the US's manifest desteny, with each side back at the start lines at the end of it. A monumental waste of time, lives and money.

I wouldn't put it past the US being belligerent but from what we here in the US are told is that the British were stopping US ships and impressing sailors from those ships into the British Navy.

Yes the Brits were pressing American sailors, however that was an excuse to declare war to grab more territory.

[Stuart Mackey]

Seems like as good a place to ask as any.

One particularly anal letter to the editor in my local paper was talking about U.S citizens claiming they're from Canada overseas, then boasted about how the Canadians beat the U.S so many years ago.

That got me wondering.

I checked a history book, and basically after the British burned Washington, we whupped them at Baltimore and New Orleans. Was it a stalemate, or did either side 'win'?

It essentially turned into a war that neither side gainded anything or wanted to fight anymore so I guess it was a stalemate.

A college professor of mine suggested that in reality the US lost because we took much more of a beating than the British did. However, he may have been using this bit of logic to set up his next point which was about the perception of the US at the time.

The signed treaty ending the war arrived in the US after the Battle of New Orleans. The battle itself actually took place after the war was officially over but since the announcement hit America shortly after the victory at New Orleans a lot of the US assumed we had won the war and that battle had done it. Certainly no politician in power at the time was going to try and convince them otherwise.

So the perception that the US won <again> against the British made a strong impact on the national psyche and most children in the US continue to be taught that we won the war of 1812.

Thats quite interesting logic that America was insolvent, New England was concidering leaving the Union and Britain had not even begun to transfer its full combat capabilities over the Atlantic.

[Tsyroc]

Thats quite interesting logic that America was insolvent, New England was concidering leaving the Union and Britain had not even begun to transfer its full combat capabilities over the Atlantic.

No one likes to lose so if your people think you won why tell them differently?

[Joe]

For what it's worth, the U.S. did gain international legitmacy and respect from the war.

[HemlockGrey]

And the war provided a handy excuse to crush the insurgent Indians which were rallying under Tecumseh. It also gave us Andrew Jackson and our national anthem, but opinions vary on the worth of either of them.

But yeah, basically, no one won, but we did win ourselves some prestige- the smashing victory at New Orleans, the defeat of the British fleet at Put-In-Bay, the sinking of the Guerrire and the Java by the Constitution.

[RedImperator]

If you look at the war from the perspective of America's immediate strategic goals, it was an utter failure. Madison happily declared war on the greatest power on Earth after the Jefferson administration gutted the army and navy and expected 90 day militia volunteers to beat battle-hardened British regulars (volunteers who did so well in the Revolution, that it only took EIGHT YEARS to throw the British out of the United States). The objective was, of course, Canada, and on paper, the British had no chance. There were 4000 redcoats to defend the whole place and Britian was occupied with Naopleon. William Henry Harrison actually made good advances into the area known then as the Nipissing Country--now the heart of Canada between Ottawa and Toronto--but his 90 day volunteers went home once their enlistments expired and he was left with basically his officers and a handful of professional noncoms to hold the whole place. So he had to retreat (during our time up there, if I recall correctly, we burned York, which led to British retaliation at Washington). At sea, the frigates we had were better than the Royal Navy ships they faced, but there weren't nearly enough of them and the big secret of the naval war is that after a few well-known one-on-one victories, the Navy ended up totally ineffectual when faced with a full naval blockade.

From the British standpoint, they defended Canada and humiliated the Americans at Washington, and demonstrated their overwhelming naval superiority by closing the Atlantic to American merchantmen, but considering the actual weakness of the Americans and the general incompetence of much of its officers, they could have done a lot more--at the very least, a full British victory would have resulted in the Louisiana Territory falling into British hands, and possibly ended with the western boundary of the United States being the Appalachian Mountains and New England as either an independent republic closely tied to British commercial interests or an outright part of Canada. Their general invasion plan--down from the Great Lakes, up from New Orleans, and coastal raids like the one on Washington and the attempted one on Baltimore to keep America off balance and get the civilians screaming for whatever peace the government could take failed (one wonders if they'd burned Boston instead of Washington would the Federalist attempt to secede New England fail). They achieved spectactular success at Washington, but were repuled at Baltimore, lost their fleet in the Great Lakes, and were murdered at New Orleans. Now, had they not been fighting Napoleon at the same time for most of the war and they'd had, say, Wellington commanding the army at New Orleans, the outcome might have been very different, but if they hadn't been fighting Napoleon, Madison probably never would have declared war, either (and the primary causus belli, the impressment of American sailors and interdiction of American merchant traffic bound for Europe, would never have existed).

Overall, it was a tie that could be spun as a win for both sides. The British slapped the snot-nosed newcomer down and let them know who was running things in the Atlantic and proved they were in North America to stay, like it or not. The Americans repulsed the invader (save for one raid on the capital that didn't accomplish all that much in the end) and demonstrated they weren't going to be pushed around by Europeans. And with the Federalist party disgraced by its own tresonous behavior during the war, there was nobody to object when Madison and his allies painted the war as a great victory and glossed over the fact their own miscalculations had nearly gotten the United States destroyed.

[LadyTevar]

~In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Gen'ral Jackson down the Mighty Mississip
We took a little bread and we took a little beans
and (something something) to New Orleans~

[Tsyroc]

The Battle of New Orleans
by Johnny Horton
(c) 1991 Sony Music Entertainment Inc.

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon an' we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British at the town of New Orleans.

Refrain:
We fired our guns an' the British kept a'comin'.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more an' they begin to runnin'
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river an' we seed the British comin',
There must a'been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high an' they made their bugles ring,
We stood beside our cotton bales an'didn't say a thing.

Refrain

Ole Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise,
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire 'til we seed their faces well,
Then we opened up our squirrel guns an' really gave 'em ...well!

Refrain

Yeah, they ran through the briars an' they ran through the brambles
An' they ran through the bushes where the rabbits couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down,
So we grabbed an alligator an' we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls an' powdered his behind,
An' when they touched the powder off, the 'gator lost his mind.

Refrain

[Ted]

If the war had gone on longer, well into 1815, the Americans would've lost a lot. The Royal Navy would've pulled much of its strength from the coast of France and do a close blockade of the Americas.
Seeing a squadron of British 74's cruising off the harbour mouth does a lot for morale. However, the New England states weren't blockaded, throughout the war, they traded with Britain and Canada, actually supplying the Royal Navy with food, water, and lumber to continue the blockade further south.
The battle-hardend Army of Spain would've been deployed, probably in New Orleans, combined with many more raids on the American coast, probably culminating with Washington actually being captured and held by the Lobsters (Royal Marines).
Canada would've been bloody huge now, if the American merchants hadn't lobbied the President successfullyin 1814.

[RedImperator]

For once I agree with Ted. Most of North America could have ended up Canadian, including New England and New York, with only a small, impoverished, slaveholding southern republic hugging the Atlantic coast, and maybe a few tiny independent mid-Atlantic states.

[Ted]

For once I agree with Ted.

It's the end of the world! Quick, hide!

[Stormbringer]

Had the British been able to wage all out war the colonies would indeed be overrun. But that ignores the historical factors which caused the British to settle. They decided wisely to negotiate a peace.

[RedImperator]

For once I agree with Ted.

It's the end of the world! Quick, hide!

I've been agreeing with lots of people I normally don't lately...Queeb and salm come to mind. Strange things happen in the politics forum.

[Ted]

Had the British been able to wage all out war the colonies would indeed be overrun. But that ignores the historical factors which caused the British to settle. They decided wisely to negotiate a peace.

The Americans wisely decided, the British were occupied elsewhere, they really didn't seem to care aobut the whole mess.

The Admiralty continually neglected to send more ships to the America and West Indies station where they were needed and instead put them in the blockading squadrons around France, by which time, the French navy was no real threat at all. The Admiralty could have safely stripped half of the RN from the blockading squadrons, putting enough Royal Marines off shore from the America's to outnumber the Continental Army, effectively being able to launch an invasion around the Chesapeake, and continually supply it.

[Stormbringer]

The Americans wisely decided, the British were occupied elsewhere, they really didn't seem to care aobut the whole mess.

No, we got our asses kicked and decide to save our skins. The British wisely decided it wasn't worth the effort.

The Admiralty continually neglected to send more ships to the America and West Indies station where they were needed and instead put them in the blockading squadrons around France, by which time, the French navy was no real threat at all. The Admiralty could have safely stripped half of the RN from the blockading squadrons, putting enough Royal Marines off shore from the America's to outnumber the Continental Army, effectively being able to launch an invasion around the Chesapeake, and continually supply it.

They had the ships to bloackade us if they show chose to. The problem is they didn't exactly have the spare troops. Those were occupied else where for the most part. They could have done it but it wouldn't have been worth it and it would have cost them plenty of troops to invade the US.

[Lonestar]

Yes the Brits were pressing American sailors, however that was an excuse to declare war to grab more territory.

Way I learned it, the British also had some Forts in the Old Northwest, which was American by Treaty.

[The Dark]

Yes the Brits were pressing American sailors, however that was an excuse to declare war to grab more territory.

Way I learned it, the British also had some Forts in the Old Northwest, which was American by Treaty.

True, the Brits were slow in removing their old border forts, which were on American soil.

I would say that the timing of the end of the war was fortuitous for both sides. England didn't really want the colonies back; they were anti-British anyway, and would have required massive garrisons to maintain any semblance of order, which would have cost Britain more than the colonies were worth.

America could not hope to defeat Britain in a war. While the American "super-frigates" were greatly superior to any similarly sized British ship, there were (AFAIK) only 3SOLs being built in the US at the time (I know Independence and Washington were finished in 1814, and Franklin was under construction). While they likewise would have been superior to British ships (due to construction techniques), they would not have numbered enough to make a significant difference. While even Nelson himself feared the Constitution-class frigates, the eight of them were not a sufficient Navy to defend the coast of the United States. Likewise, the British would have had trouble keeping the frigates from causing them problems. The Constitution showed the ability to evade five British ships in July 1812, when it avoided the ship-of-the-line Africa and four frigates off New York. Essentially, the Americans could not stop the British fleet, but they could harass it and force casualties.

[Coyote]

It seemed to be one of those situations where we lost the war but won the peace; our negotiators after the fact did better. I hadn't thought of it from that point of view until a friend of mine (a self-described Canadian patriot) put it in those terms.

I always thought that the best thing about the War of 1812 was that our Navy (such as it was) actually did a lot better than expected and manged to not just be shoved aside as insignificant-- we'd managed to build up some strength and were not just a territorial rabble.

[Alyeska]

The UK was enslaving US citizens by boarding US ships and turning the US citizens into crew on the British ships. Furthermore the UK still had forts in the Ohio valley area that were supossed to have been removed more then 12 years prior. Those two factors helped catapult the US into the war. Once war was decided a third objective, the capture of Canada was tossed in. The British on the other hand merely wanted to defend Canada and get the United States to stop acting like an ass.

So of three war objectives, the US achieved two of them. For the British they achieved their two objectives as well. Somehow I doubt the British actualy wanted to retake the United States so I am going to leave their "failure" to conquer the US as a non issue. In other words neither side lost, although neither side exactly won in the traditional sense either. Basically it was a draw.