Who won the War of 1812?

[Ted]

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.

Few things.
The New England states were seriously considering seceding from the Union and possibly joining British North America or going independant.

The British never told the Americans, but their reason for keeping troops in the Border forts was that they would continue to man them until the Americans paid reparations to the Loyalists.

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.

Was the Constitution in commision before 1805?

The American Liners were not superior to British liners, their gundeck gunports were only 4' above the waterline, in any battle, their heavy guns would've been unable to fire.
Many of the casualites were caused on ships whose crew's were untrained. Java's crew was 80% landsmen, and hadn't had any gunnery training on that trip.

[Ted]

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.

The capture of Canada was the MAIN reason for war. Look up the War Hawks in Congress. Also look up Manifest Destiny.

The British were impressing deserters from the Royal Navy, as evidenced when the Captain of the Java was shown around the Constitution, many of her guns bore names like Nelson, Victory, Trafalgar. All British deserters.
A few unfortunate Americans got picked up tough.
Besides, the British viewed anyone born the the 13 colonies before 1783 as a British subject.

[The Dark]

Was the Constitution in commision before 1805?

Pardon my possible ignorance, but how is this relevant? And yes, it was completed in 1797. The last of the 44s to be built was the President, finished in 1800. They did not fight until the War of 1812 (at which time the Royal Navy also had three 44 gun frigates: Cornwallis, Endymon, and Indefatigable).

The American Liners were not superior to British liners, their gundeck gunports were only 4' above the waterline, in any battle, their heavy guns would've been unable to fire.
Many of the casualites were caused on ships whose crew's were untrained. Java's crew was 80% landsmen, and hadn't had any gunnery training on that trip.

The "no gunnery training" was standard practice for the Royal Navy back then. They didn't believe in live fire drills. That was part of the reason for overall superior American gunnery. American guns also carried sights, while British cannon were unsighted, and the packing of powder in lead containers rather than flannel bags improved rate of fire due to the lack of need to swab the barrel after each shot. However, the ammunition was inferior, with a tendency to be underweight and to shatter after firing. In fact, Captain Carden of HMS Macedon once told Captain Decatur of USS United States that the 24-pound guns of the American frigate were too heavy and slow to fire, and that the British 18-pounder would fire five shots to his three. In the eventual fight between the two ships, the United States fired 66 shots per gun to Macedon's 36 per gun.

Additionally, the American ships of the line were altered to fix the low waterline problem by removing spare equipment, removing the carronades (which were not terribly useful at the high seas), and replacing some of the long guns with lighter 24-pounders, rather than 32-pounders. Indeed, even before the ship was lightened, she could outrun the American frigates, which had routinely outrun British ships during the War of 1812.

The main superiority I was thinking of was not the guns, though, but rather the hull. The live oak used for American ship hulls was superior to Britain's white oak. Similarly, the abundance of wood meant that each frigate was as heavily armored as a ship of the line, with ribbing a mere inch and a half apart. It's not for nothing that the Constitution was nicknamed "Old Ironsides" when 18-pound cannonballs bounced off her hull at point-blank range.

American sailors also tended to have better morale. They were paid better than British sailors, got to choose their ship (assuming a slot was open), and served terms of one year, rather than the indefinite servitude of the Royal Navy. Quarters were larger, and the food was better.

And I take back the 3 SOLs I mentioned before. There were six: Independence, Washington, Franklin, Columbus, Chippewa, and New Orleans. All were near completion at the end of the war, when Chippewa and New Orleans were scrapped on the blocks.

[Ted]

Was the Constitution in commision before 1805?

Pardon my possible ignorance, but how is this relevant? And yes, it was completed in 1797. The last of the 44s to be built was the President, finished in 1800. They did not fight until the War of 1812 (at which time the Royal Navy also had three 44 gun frigates: Cornwallis, Endymon, and Indefatigable).

Just that you mentioned Neslon liked them, I had forgotten when they were built.

The "no gunnery training" was standard practice for the Royal Navy back then. They didn't believe in live fire drills. That was part of the reason for overall superior American gunnery. American guns also carried sights, while British cannon were unsighted, and the packing of powder in lead containers rather than flannel bags improved rate of fire due to the lack of need to swab the barrel after each shot. However, the ammunition was inferior, with a tendency to be underweight and to shatter after firing. In fact, Captain Carden of HMS Macedon once told Captain Decatur of USS United States that the 24-pound guns of the American frigate were too heavy and slow to fire, and that the British 18-pounder would fire five shots to his three. In the eventual fight between the two ships, the United States fired 66 shots per gun to Macedon's 36 per gun.

The Admiralty only allowed for a certain amount of rounds to be fired each month, Captains who wished to fire more training rounds a month had to pay for their own powder, which got expensive. It stems from the British attitude which was to fire into the hulls of the enemy ships and take them by boarding, which didn't require as much gunnery training.

Additionally, the American ships of the line were altered to fix the low waterline problem by removing spare equipment, removing the carronades (which were not terribly useful at the high seas), and replacing some of the long guns with lighter 24-pounders, rather than 32-pounders. Indeed, even before the ship was lightened, she could outrun the American frigates, which had routinely outrun British ships during the War of 1812.

Weren't they just Razeed? And before the lightening, what is the use of a liner that can out race a frigate when it is designed for blockade busting, and it cannot fire it's main guns in any sea state except dead calm?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Few things.
The New England states were seriously considering seceding from the Union and possibly joining British North America or going independant.

Most of the American people didn't feel too strongly in favor of war. So?

The British never told the Americans, but their reason for keeping troops in the Border forts was that they would continue to man them until the Americans paid reparations to the Loyalists.

That's ludicrous, Ted. If you want to get something like that done in international politics, you don't mysteriously occupy the territory of a sovereign nation and refuse to inform them of why. I can just see the discussions in Parliament:

"Well, we still haven't moved our troops out of the Ohio forts. Shall we do something about that."
"No, the Americans still haven't paid the loyalists off."
"But--didn't we waive the right to demand that payment when we signed the treaty of Paris? And shouldn't we at least send them a written demand for the monies?"
"No, of course not! But I think we should continue attempting to send telepathic messages to them, demanding the reparations."

The English occupied US territory and siezed US citizens because they didn't take the US seriously as a nation. As far as establishing the US as a player, the war of 1812 was a necessary and successful campaign. While the US would have lost if the English had made the stupid and politically untenable decision of trying to fully beat the Americans down, the United States showed that it was willing to fight to maintain its prestige and it further displayed that it could bloody the nose of the best military in the world.

[Ted]

The British never told the Americans, but their reason for keeping troops in the Border forts was that they would continue to man them until the Americans paid reparations to the Loyalists.

That's ludicrous, Ted. If you want to get something like that done in international politics, you don't mysteriously occupy the territory of a sovereign nation and refuse to inform them of why.
The English occupied US territory and siezed US citizens because they didn't take the US seriously as a nation. As far as establishing the US as a player, the war of 1812 was a necessary and successful campaign. While the US would have lost if the English had made the stupid and politically untenable decision of trying to fully beat the Americans down, the United States showed that it was willing to fight to maintain its prestige and it further displayed that it could bloody the nose of the best military in the world.

Those "US Citizens" were Royal Navy deserters.
The territory was stupidly given up. They thought it would appease the Americans. Anyways, that WAS their reason for continuing to man those forts.

Why would it be a stupid and untenable decision to actually use force against America?

America didn't fight to maintain "prestige", it fought because it thought it could win against the most powerful country in the world, and because of their stupid notions of Manifest Destiny.

A modern example would be Iraq, pre-GWII, declaring war on America, and America only using the troops it had in theatre.

[Frank Hipper]

The War of 1812 is pre-manifest destiny, Ted.

[Joe]

The spirit the gave Americans the sense of entitlement leading them to their attempted takeover of Canada is essentially the same thing as Manifest Destiny. It is true that Manifest Destiny as a concept did not really develop until the 1840s, but the spirit is similar.

[Frank Hipper]

The spirit the gave Americans the sense of entitlement leading them to their attempted takeover of Canada is essentially the same thing as Manifest Destiny. It is true that Manifest Destiny as a concept did not really develop until the 1840s, but the spirit is similar.

After posting that, I went outside to have a cigarette, and thought the exact same thing. Point taken.

[The Dark]

Those "US Citizens" were Royal Navy deserters.
The territory was stupidly given up. They thought it would appease the Americans. Anyways, that WAS their reason for continuing to man those forts.

Wait...there were seven THOUSAND deserters from the Royal Navy on American ships? Good God in Heaven! I would have been more concerned with finding ways to make sailors want to stay rather than take back those who were known to be unreliable.

And at least some were born in America, if I recall the captain's logbook of the Constitution correctly. It was quoted in A Most Fortunate Ship, which I will attempt to get for the 9 days we're still allowed to have books out from the campus library.

[Joe]

It's funny that you should say that, because I was about to make the exact same that you did before I thought the exact same thing.

[Joe]

Right, Ted, I'm sure the British Navy kept huge fucking enlistment records on each of their ships to make sure each and every one of the people they kidnapped into their ranks was in fact a Royal Navy deserter. And I'm sure they just refused to draft anyone who wasn't in fact a Royal Navy deserter, those stellar paragons of virtue.

[Montcalm]

The spirit the gave Americans the sense of entitlement leading them to their attempted takeover of Canada is essentially the same thing as Manifest Destiny. It is true that Manifest Destiny as a concept did not really develop until the 1840s, but the spirit is similar.

I`m not sure it was a takeover atempt,i see this more as the Americans tried to free us from the British empire.

[Joe]

The spirit the gave Americans the sense of entitlement leading them to their attempted takeover of Canada is essentially the same thing as Manifest Destiny. It is true that Manifest Destiny as a concept did not really develop until the 1840s, but the spirit is similar.

I`m not sure it was a takeover atempt,i see this more as the Americans tried to free us from the British empire.

Unfortunately, you did not want to be freed from the British Empire, so that makes it a takeover attempt. A half-assed, stupid one, but still a takeover attempt.

[Lonestar]

IIRC, one of the Ships-of-the-Line the Americans were building was the North Carolina


*Runs off to check his Blue Jacket's Manual

[Stormbringer]

Was the Constitution in commision before 1805?

<SNIP>

Many of the casualites were caused on ships whose crew's were untrained. Java's crew was 80% landsmen, and hadn't had any gunnery training on that trip.

Yes, the Constitution and her sister had been in commision for while.

Constitution, one of six frigates authorized by act of Congress, approved 27 March 1794, was designed by Joshua Humphreys, and built at Hartt's Shipyard, Boston, Mass., under the supervision of George Claghorn with Captain Samuel Nicholson as i nspector. She was launched on 21 October 1797 and christened by Captain James Sever.

While it's true that the British use of freshly pressed sailor against the American's comparatively experienced seamen was a factor it doesn't change the fact that they were materially superior ships. They were faster, bigger, and more heavily armed than their British counterpart's.

[The Dark]

IIRC, one of the Ships-of-the-Line the Americans were building was the North Carolina


*Runs off to check his Blue Jacket's Manual

That was a later ship, laid down in 1818. The only ones under construction during the War of 1812 were the four Independence-class ships and the Chippewa and New Orleans Great Lakes SOLs.

[Ted]

Those "US Citizens" were Royal Navy deserters.
The territory was stupidly given up. They thought it would appease the Americans. Anyways, that WAS their reason for continuing to man those forts.

Wait...there were seven THOUSAND deserters from the Royal Navy on American ships? Good God in Heaven! I would have been more concerned with finding ways to make sailors want to stay rather than take back those who were known to be unreliable.

And at least some were born in America, if I recall the captain's logbook of the Constitution correctly. It was quoted in A Most Fortunate Ship, which I will attempt to get for the 9 days we're still allowed to have books out from the campus library.

The Royal Navy did NOT take 7,000 sailors from American ships.
Some sailors knew their former ship mates, and there was the accent problem.

[Ted]

Right, Ted, I'm sure the British Navy kept huge fucking enlistment records on each of their ships to make sure each and every one of the people they kidnapped into their ranks was in fact a Royal Navy deserter. And I'm sure they just refused to draft anyone who wasn't in fact a Royal Navy deserter, those stellar paragons of virtue.

Sarcasm noted.

When they boarded American ships, there was the possibilities that sailors would be recognized, and if one of them spoke, the British accent would be a dead give away that they were a deserter.

[Joe]

Right, Ted, I'm sure the British Navy kept huge fucking enlistment records on each of their ships to make sure each and every one of the people they kidnapped into their ranks was in fact a Royal Navy deserter. And I'm sure they just refused to draft anyone who wasn't in fact a Royal Navy deserter, those stellar paragons of virtue.

Sarcasm noted.

When they boarded American ships, there was the possibilities that sailors would be recognized, and if one of them spoke, the British accent would be a dead give away that they were a deserter.

Or a recent British immigrant? Or just an older guy who hadn't shaken his British accent yet?

[Stormbringer]

Sarcasm noted.

When they boarded American ships, there was the possibilities that sailors would be recognized, and if one of them spoke, the British accent would be a dead give away that they were a deserter.

Given the way in which records were maintained at the time and the all important need to fill out crews with experienced seamen I don't doubt for a second the British pressed any sailor they could get away with taking.

And given the fact the US was still half-English culturally throws the accent arguement into the shitter.

[The Dark]

The Royal Navy did NOT take 7,000 sailors from American ships.
Some sailors knew their former ship mates, and there was the accent problem.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 : six to eight thousand.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyharris/1812war.htm : 4500 between 1803 and 1810, six to fourteen thousand during the War.

http://www.sandiego.edu/~jkuss/causes.html : three to seven thousand before the outbreak of war

http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... smentc.htm : six thousand by 1807

http://project1.caryacademy.org/north8/ : ten thousand between 1793 and 1811

Thus, we have between three and ten thousand before the war, and between six and fourteen thousand impressed into British service during the war. I could just go middle ground and say five thousand were impressed between 1800 and 1812, and there were ten thousand impressed serving during the War. I felt that was a touch high, though, so I used the middle numbers from the middle source.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Those "US Citizens" were Royal Navy deserters.

Says the Royal Navy. But you don't mention that it didn't ask for their return or provide proof of their desertion. No, they siezed who they wanted and then granted the Americans the courtesy of not sinking their ships.

The territory was stupidly given up. They thought it would appease the Americans. Anyways, that WAS their reason for continuing to man those forts.

A good reason, especially considering that it smacks of after-the-fact justification.
"Oh yeah, we were occupying those forts because we wanted you to pay of the loyalists. Didn't you know that?"
"No. Perhaps if you'd said something..."
"Well, we were hinting at it rather strongly."

Why would it be a stupid and untenable decision to actually use force against America?

Because it would bring no benefit, it would certainly end up with vast international and domestic disapproval, it would be horrendously expensive, it would be logistically difficult, and would just make more British folks dead. It would be sort of like France making the decision to occupy Morocco shortly after it won its independence. Sure, they could do it--but it's fucking stupid.

America didn't fight to maintain "prestige", it fought because it thought it could win against the most powerful country in the world, and because of their stupid notions of Manifest Destiny.

Notions which nobody really thought enough to even put into writing for several decades. What forward thinking hawks we were in those halcyon days!

A modern example would be Iraq, pre-GWII, declaring war on America, and America only using the troops it had in theatre.

???

You're massively exaggerating the power of the English at the time, and conveniently (stupidly?) forgetting that the British were engaged in--what were they called--oh, that's right the fucking Napoleanic wars. America thought it could win against a major power which was overextended in every sense of the word. It's not an unwarranted assumption.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

What everyone is ignoring is the fact that the British Government was burdened by a heavy financial debt after the Napoleonic Wars. They simply didn't have the money to wage a war, which would take place an ocean away and would last for an unforseeable amount of time. From the British perspective, making a cheap peace was the best course of action they could possibly take.

IMO my favorite thing about the War of 1812 was that British Frigates were actually ORDERED not to engage the Constitution Class Frigates in one on one combat.

[Stuart Mackey]

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?

Yup..cant argue with that..