NationStates Jolt Archive

The classic Canada-U.S. Debate: Who won the War of 1812. It was a war that was fought long ago, in the early 1800's(I can't remember what year, though. [/lamejoke]), yet even today people will have heated debates over it. This poll will see what the N.S. Community thinks(although I think I may already know...)

I, personally, believe it was a tie. Neither side gained any land. At all. Period. The American's won the recognition that they were an independent country, not some weak little state to be pushed around by the Brits, and the Canadians affirmed that, no matter how hard they tried, those people to the south(with their "democracy" and their "presidents") couldn't take their country. Baisically, everything was the same before and after(at least in North America).

Oh, and guys, please don't make your decisions based on if you hate America now. I know it's a long shot, but some people here just choose one side because they don't like the other ones modern politics.

Tie. Technically, the Brits were kicking our butts...but they didn't follow up with their advantage and didn't win anything. So, a tie.

I would say it was pretty much a draw insofar as the war itself.

The outcome however was ultimately and advantage for the US, because it gave it the breathing space needed to become a world power.

I find it sad that our greatest victory of the war happened after the war had ended(Battle of New Orleans, BTW).

It was still a sweet victory though...

The Britsh but it was a close victory
Napolean saved America by keeping britain occupied.

I would say it was pretty much a draw insofar as the war itself.

The outcome however was ultimately and advantage for the US, because it gave it the breathing space needed to become a world power.

What he said.

First lose for the young nation: the Union Jack won!

The Britsh but it was a close victory
Napolean saved America by keeping britain occupied.

How, pray tell, did the British 'win'.

Oh, and even though Britain would prolly kick our arse during the actual war if Napolean wasn't there, we'd still use the same tactics as before. Guerrilla warfare.

Of course, the U.S. didn't 'win' either.

I would say it was pretty much a draw insofar as the war itself.

The outcome however was ultimately and advantage for the US, because it gave it the breathing space needed to become a world power.
Yep.

keeping britain occupied.

When?

Japan

When?

...

This is why you have to study topics before you post something based on blind patriotism.

The war of 1812 took place during the end of the Napoleanic wars.

However, if I remember correctly, even once Napoleon was defeated we still tied with you. In fact, we won most of our victories during that part.

However, all that did was even-out our horrible losses during the first half.

Japan
I thought it was the Ruskies..oh wait wrong war.

...

[However, if I remember correctly, even once Napoleon was defeated we still tied with you.



Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.

BTW verry stupid to think that all people here are from involved nations, says enough about your level. You even don't deserve a debate, ignorant :)

Well lets see who's white house was burned to the ground ya Canada won....

Add a "Who cares" -option, and you get most of the votes.

I thought it was the Ruskies..oh wait wrong war.

You kiddin'? All during the war of 1812, the Japanese were formulating a true world agenda. With all the focus on Canada and the US, Japan was ignored.

Japan won that war and they're still winning today. Pearl Harbor, etc, was just a ruse. Don't you believe otherwise. Japan is so strongly tied with China that it's no longer funny and if China dumps the US Dollar (they own 600+ billion of our economy), then we're boned. The US will be like Russia in the 1970s - hell, we've already proven our "intelligence" community to be as inept as the Soviets during the Cold War.

All Japan needs do is give the nod to China and everything the US has been worried about for 200 years will come to fruition.

Japan won the war of 1812. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.
First off, I would expect someone with an MBA of History to be a bit more respectful of people who they are having a civil discussion, but that's just me...

And then claiming that such an education gives you some type of "Victory" in the discussion is at best a fallacious point, not worth making.

And then, what does it matter where you are from? Your espoused ideals have show a certain "bias" regardless of your location, has it not?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Besides... I thought an MBA was a "Masters in Business Administration"... What has that got to do with History?

BRL, I have never, until now, seeing an Ad Hominem compliment used as an attack in a debate in NS. I award you this beret. Its made of ButtFleece. Unwashed.

How, pray tell, did the British 'win'.

Oh, and even though Britain would prolly kick our arse during the actual war if Napolean wasn't there, we'd still use the same tactics as before. Guerrilla warfare.

Of course, the U.S. didn't 'win' either.
In reality thats true it was a tie!
Washington razed
New Orleans
Failed invasion of Canada
I think the Brits agreed to stop poaching US sailors.

When?
Well the Napoleanic Wars just because they werent always fighting dosent mean that youre not watching your back!

Everyone read up on Toussaint Louverture! ;)

You kiddin'? All during the war of 1812, the Japanese were formulating a true world agenda. With all the focus on Canada and the US, Japan was ignored.

Japan won that war and they're still winning today. Pearl Harbor, etc, was just a ruse. Don't you believe otherwise. Japan is so strongly tied with China that it's no longer funny and if China dumps the US Dollar (they own 600+ billion of our economy), then we're boned. The US will be like Russia in the 1970s - hell, we've already proven our "intelligence" community to be as inept as the Soviets during the Cold War.

All Japan needs do is give the nod to China and everything the US has been worried about for 200 years will come to fruition.

Japan won the war of 1812. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Yeeeeahhh...

America still exists, therefore we won. Militarily, we had a disgraceful retreat near Washington by amateur troops, but ultimately won two decisive victories and one aptly-fought stalemate.. so it was either a tie, in that neither country gained anything palpable, or a won for us, since we're still here.

America still exists

So does Canada ... dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnn. :D

America still exists, therefore we won. Militarily, we had a disgraceful retreat near Washington by amateur troops, but ultimately won two decisive victories and one aptly-fought stalemate.. so it was either a tie, in that neither country gained anything palpable, or a won for us, since we're still here.
But if Canada and Britain still existed, would you say it's a victory (well, I know they don't, but what IF?)?

Edit: and if Canada and Britain would still exist, would they have New York style legislation like the former Soviet Republics?

Actually the poll is wrong, Canada wasn't recognized as atleast a bit independant till 1867. That means the war of 1812 was fought by the British and Americans. Not the Canadians/British and Americans, for how can one fight in a war when they truly are not a nation to begin with?

So does Canada ... dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnn. :D

Yeah, but Canada and the U.S. had very different borders back then.. the "invasion" of Canada was more like a Pearl Harbor-type thing, where we went into land we had no ability to keep and won a few big Naval victories, destroying a few large (hugely expensive) British ships, then fled like schoolgirls and avoided the consequences of the Leviathan (England) trying to punish us, incredibly.

Yeah, but Canada and the U.S. had very different borders back then.. the "invasion" of Canada was more like a Pearl Harbor-type thing, where we went into land we had no ability to keep and won a few big Naval victories, destroying a few large (hugely expensive) British ships, then fled like schoolgirls and avoided the consequences of the Leviathan (England) trying to punish us, incredibly.
So how does that make you win?

Tie between the muppets and godzilla. I hate those things. Not quite mops and not quite puppets unclear lazy bums!

So how does that make you win?

It doesn't mean we won. It just means our original retreat from Canada wasn't a huge loss, since our intention was to strike at an enemy where it was weak, rather than where they had the advantage, since we didn't have the ability to effectively attack the blockade.

We won the war as a whole because, although no one gained land ultimately, we won an impressive number (and the great majority) of naval battles where we were at a disadvantage, defeated the combined British and Indian forces the majority of the time, defended against several well-organized seiges, etc. I just think we came out ahead, even if the war as a whole was unproductive.

Well lets see who's white house was burned to the ground ya Canada won....

actually, it didn't burn to the ground... it was merely gutted by fire, and a few months later, repaired and painted white to hid the scorch marks...

it was simply a tie..the US wanted to conquer Canada and failed. The British attempted to reconquer parts of the US and failed. Although the US merchant marine was driven from the seas, the US privateers made insurance rates so costly for British shipping that it contributed to the general British economic problems during 1813 - 14, to the point when 1815 rolled around and Napoleon showed up again, there are some historians who believe that if Wellington had lost at Waterloo, the British Empire wouldn't have been able to afford to continue fighting.

Complex stuff history, grossly simplifying generally leads to mistaken conclusions

the side that definitely lost were the British supported Indians living west of the Applachians in what is now the US Midwest and parts of the South (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia).. at the battles of Fallen Timbers and Horseshoe Bend their military power was completely crushed forever, which is one of the reasons the war started to begin with (US complaints about British traders arming said Indians with British government support)

I can live with the Canadians saying they won... their militia (mostly the fencible regiments and a couple of line regiments) were absolutely critical in preventing the rabble the US had in 1812 and parts of 1813 from conquering what is now Ontario. So Canada can be proud of that.

The Americans however defeated not one but three major British Offensives in 1814.... in upper New York State, at New Orleans, and at Baltimore (after DC was burned). Two of the three major British ground commanders (New Orleans and Baltimore) were killed, as was the principal British Naval commander at Lake Champlain.

Basically after that, the British realized the war was too expensive to justify, especially after nearly a generation of war with France, and the Americans were pretty much flat broke as well.

Pittsburgh won the war too by the way. The American and British naval arms race on the Great Lakes led to the development of factories at Fort Pitt, leading to the development of the town and later city of Pittsburgh. It also stimulated the nascent American Industrial Revolution, just as the Napoleonic Wars stimulated the British Industrial Revolution.

Well, as my US History teacher said, we won at sea and lost on land, at least until the end. I would think that the US won, since we got what we wanted. That is, stopping our sailors from getting impressed by the Brits.

Yeah, but Canada and the U.S. had very different borders back then.. the "invasion" of Canada was more like a Pearl Harbor-type thing, where we went into land we had no ability to keep and won a few big Naval victories, destroying a few large (hugely expensive) British ships, then fled like schoolgirls and avoided the consequences of the Leviathan (England) trying to punish us, incredibly.

ummm.... no. Thats not how it went.

The US crossed the Niagra River and the plan was to march on Montreal and Quebec. However, the US Army at that time consisted of too few regulars (and their training was weak) and a lot of militia who weren't interested in invading anybody, so most of them sat on the US side of the river and watched the US invasion collapse ... although the actual fighting before the US forces surrendered was a lot closer than you might think. At one point, both the Canadian militia and the US militia both broke and ran, leaving the slightly larger British regulars and Canadian Fencibles with enough of an advantage to defeat the ineptly led US regulars (the US general in overall command actually fled across the river, abandoning his troops... sigh).

After whipping our ass, the British decided maybe they could split the US again and get New England to secede and rejoin the Empire. At Lake Erie (1813) the US won and ensured control of the western Great Lakes, making the defeat of the Indians in what is now the Midwest certain. In 1814 the British tried again, planning to move due south via Lake Champlain and the Hudson River (trying again what was attempted in the Revolution, which in that war led to the British defeat at Saratoga). This time the Americans won the battle of Lake Champlain, stopping that invasion cold and managed to fight the British to a bloody draw at Lundys Lane (just outside of Buffalo New York). Both sides were so chewed up that neither side could launch an offensive after that, and the British finally began to respect American Regulars (who had been very well trained in 1813 and early 1814 and had much better leaders).

The British government asked the Duke of Wellington in 1814 to take control of the war (after the abdication of Napoleon) and he took one look at the situation and said essentially hell no, and told the British government to make peace as conquering the US was impossible.

Alright. This was a pain in the ass, but here's how the War broke down (NOT chronological).

------------------------------------
American Victories:

Battle of Chippewa
Battle of Lake Champlain
Battle of Thames (Indian Chief Tecumseh Killed (Bonus points))
Battle of Lake Eerie (Decisive Naval win, U.S. keeps the Lake for good)
Battle of New Orleans
Battle of Horshoe Bend (Jackson massacres Indians allied to British)
Battle of Baltimore
Dearborn captures British Fort York
Winfield Scott captures British Fort George

U.S. Major Croghan defeats British/Indian seige of Fort Stephenson, despite being commanded to abandon the Fort. (Not sure where this one belongs)

USS Essex captures British Ship "Alert"
USS Constitution (ol' Ironsides!) defeats "Guerriere"
USS United States (creative name) destroys HMS Macedonia
USS Hornet destroys HMS Peacock
USS President destroys 3 British ships near Ireland
US vessel "Wasp" captures 3 British ships over two-weeks time

------------------------------------

British/Indian Victories

U.S. General Hull retreats from Canada
British overrun Fort Niagra, occupy Buffalo
Battle of Bladensburg (White House, Capitol Bldg. Burned)
Battle of Cryslers Farm (Outnumbered British win)
Battle of Queenston
Battle of Raisin River (More of a skirmish)
Indians (Creek Allies) massacre civilians at Ft. Mim (Jackson makes Indian-hunting his favorite hobby).

HMS Shannon (52-gun monster) demolishes USS Chesapeake
HMS Boxer defeats USS Enterprise

---------------------------------------------------

Stalemate:

Battle of Lundy's Lane (Both sides take large losses)
British/Indians retreat after failed seige of Fort Meigs
British attack Sackett's Harbor, retreat after long fight
British bomb Fort McHenry - Fort withstands shelling (Nation Anthem written)

---------------------------------------------------

I don't know every political aspect of the war, or even half of it.. but I think the trend was in our favor... correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Good stuff New Shiron you are far more of a history buff than I am after I got done with it in school I didn't really worry about it anymore. Thanks for enlitening me on the entire subject we don't really hear much of it up here otehr than the cheesy commercials about some of the GREAT Canadians from the battles around Quebec.

ummm.... no. Thats not how it went.


Apparently, you're right. Thanks for correcting my poor memory, that was an excellent summary. :)

I'm impressed. I know next to nothing about the war of 1812. Certainly no detailed info.

Perhaps I should make a study of it...Something to look into I guess. Thanks for the ideas.

there are a number of fairly readable books on the War of 1812

best one is by CS Forester (who wrote the Horatio Hornblower books) but its real hard to find as its out of print but might be in a public library or school library "Age of Fighting Sail"

another good one is called "Amatuers to Arms"
http://www.booksearchpricecomparison.com/509738_john-robert-elting_0306806533amateurstoarms!amilitaryhistoryofthewarof1812majorbattlesandcampaignswheretofindboo ks.html

an excellent historical novel (came out about 6 years ago)
http://www.bookpage.com/9607bp/fiction/1812.html

very good history and a damn good read

I read 1812. Thouroughly enjoyed it. I would recommend it to anyone, even those who are not particularly interested in history.

What you're missing is that, regardless of the reason, the British withdrew. Since they were on the offensive, their withdrawal counted as a lost. Just because they burned our capital doesn't mean they won- We picked up in Philadelphea without missing a beat. Back in the old days, when the capital was captured it was considered a victory because the losing side surrendered. But America broke all the rules. And before anyone had word that the British withdrew, we kicked their buts in New Orleans, which could well have been a turning point in the war if the British didn't give up.

It was a tactical tie, for certain. No territory changes, and even though the British burned DC, they left pretty quickly afterwards. And the US troops burned York (now Toronto, I believe, but I'm not sure, so you can correct me on that.) The big accomplishment that the US pulled off was after the official end when Jackson trounced the British at New Orleans.

Both sides scored some points, but in the end it was a tie.

It was a tactical tie, for certain. No territory changes, and even though the British burned DC, they left pretty quickly afterwards. And the US troops burned York (now Toronto, I believe, but I'm not sure, so you can correct me on that.) The big accomplishment that the US pulled off was after the official end when Jackson trounced the British at New Orleans.

Both sides scored some points, but in the end it was a tie.

Well, we did take Lake Erie from Canada. The Eerie Canal wouldn'tve worked so good without that. ;) If anything though, the War of 1812 was a huge victory for New England shipbuilders. Defeating the previously-greatest navy on Earth is quite a feat, as were many of the victories on land.

You didn't mention the US taking the town of sandwiches, now called Windsor, Ontario. The US crossed from Detroit and just kept on marching north, until we woke up and fought back. We also had Canadians, who were impressed with the American war of independence, so they helped the US attack and pillage Canadian farms. We have one famous heroin, Laura Secord who I believe was American, who warned us of the US invasion. Now she sells chocolate and ice cream.

The US did. The Brits failed to halt American trade, and they didn't conquer the US when they had the chance. Besides, Andrew Jackson kicked the Brits' butts.

Actually the poll is wrong, Canada wasn't recognized as atleast a bit independant till 1867. That means the war of 1812 was fought by the British and Americans. Not the Canadians/British and Americans, for how can one fight in a war when they truly are not a nation to begin with?


I put Canada because if I didn't alot of Canadians would say "WTF!??!?! We r t3h CANAdA + w3 beat t3h amer1cans!!!1!1111 y r w3 nt 0n t3h p0l?!!!!111!!!1!!!!!1"

In British schools the war of 1812 barely gets a look in, but at Oxford University the British and Canadians are labelled as the winners. I think it is because they successfully invaded America, while the Americans failed when they invaded Canada. Simple as that. Also, the Americans had higher casualties.

It's important to remember that Britain was engaged in war with Continental Europe, therefore the war of 1812 is not so much a war but a colonial scrap. It had pretty minimal investment of resources, so the two sides were very well matched.

The US did. The Brits failed to halt American trade, and they didn't conquer the US when they had the chance. Besides, Andrew Jackson kicked the Brits' butts.

In Canada, there is an incident where 200 redcoats held off 15, 000 Americans. This incident is recorded as a pretty common example of the superior training of British Troops. The British won the majority of the battles as well.

In British schools the war of 1812 barely gets a look in, but at Oxford University the British and Canadians are labelled as the winners. I think it is because they successfully invaded America, while the Americans failed when they invaded Canada. Simple as that. Also, the Americans had higher casualties.

It's important to remember that Britain was engaged in war with Continental Europe, therefore the war of 1812 is not so much a war but a colonial scrap. It had pretty minimal investment of resources, so the two sides were very well matched.

Woud you believe me that in America the War of 1812 barely gets looked at in shool as well? It seems since it was (basically) a tie, no one wants to go over it.

The British didn't successfully invade America. Then invaded, but we drove them back(sure, they held a few square miles of Maine. We held lake Eire). We didn't successfully invade Canada.

We DID loose more men. We were against the most well-trained troops in the world. However, after the war America was recognized as a full-fledged country with rights, not some nation that the British could impress sailors from.

Oh, and although I think it was a tie, the Americans had a few things in their favor. The U.S.S. Constitution and the Battle of New Orleans, for example.

Of course, you guys burnt down our capital(which, in the long run, didn't matter much. It had only been there for a few years anyhoo.

no one wins a war

In Canada, there is an incident where 200 redcoats held off 15, 000 Americans. This incident is recorded as a pretty common example of the superior training of British Troops. The British won the majority of the battles as well.

There is also an incident where a bunch of rag-tag milita inflicted over 2,000 British casualties, and the Americans lost less than 100.

And remember one thing: our Militias sucked. Big time.

And the British didn't win the Majority of the Battles. At land, they may have, but at sea we did surprisigly well(of course, there weren't a whole lotta sea battles, but at least it kept New England from leaving the U.S.)

Well according to Solomon Short: "The only winner in the War of 1812 was
Tchaikovsky"

However to comment this:
In Canada, there is an incident where 200 redcoats held off 15, 000 Americans. This incident is recorded as a pretty common example of the superior training of British Troops. The British won the majority of the battles as well.
I do not know the historical facts about what you argue here, but then and now, I belive british soldiers would "whip american soldiers butt" if they had fought against each other in somewhat equal numbers.
As for peacekeeping, e.g. in Iraq, it is clear to see how triggerhappy, nervous and amaturish the american soldiers is.

As for the war: tactically it was a British victory, strategically it was an American victory.

In Canada, there is an incident where 200 redcoats held off 15, 000 Americans. This incident is recorded as a pretty common example of the superior training of British Troops. The British won the majority of the battles as well.
At the time, our strength did not lie in training or numbers, but our dedication. When the Brits set foot on American soil, they were slaughtered, as did happen in Baltimore and New Orleans.

I find it sad that our greatest victory of the war happened after the war had ended(Battle of New Orleans, BTW).

It was still a sweet victory though...

Battle of Lake Erie was a great victory. Battle of Lake Champlaign turned back the British. Fort McHenry was a great victory as well.

However, the war itself ended in a draw and if you want technicalities, still going on.

When?

The Napolianic War?

Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.

Then I ask for my money back. The War of 1812 was a draw! No one won this war. I suggest you go back to school then.

*majoring in history and an amature military historian*

BTW verry stupid to think that all people here are from involved nations, says enough about your level. You even don't deserve a debate, ignorant :)

This shows your ignorance as well.

Well lets see who's white house was burned to the ground ya Canada won....

What Canadian town was burned to the ground? oh yea York (present day Toronto)

Actually the poll is wrong, Canada wasn't recognized as atleast a bit independant till 1867. That means the war of 1812 was fought by the British and Americans. Not the Canadians/British and Americans, for how can one fight in a war when they truly are not a nation to begin with?

Here here Talfen.

Alright. This was a pain in the ass, but here's how the War broke down (NOT chronological).

------------------------------------
American Victories:

Battle of Chippewa
Battle of Lake Champlain
Battle of Thames (Indian Chief Tecumseh Killed (Bonus points))
Battle of Lake Eerie (Decisive Naval win, U.S. keeps the Lake for good)
Battle of New Orleans
Battle of Horshoe Bend (Jackson massacres Indians allied to British)
Battle of Baltimore
Dearborn captures British Fort York
Winfield Scott captures British Fort George

U.S. Major Croghan defeats British/Indian seige of Fort Stephenson, despite being commanded to abandon the Fort. (Not sure where this one belongs)

USS Essex captures British Ship "Alert"
USS Constitution (ol' Ironsides!) defeats "Guerriere"
USS United States (creative name) destroys HMS Macedonia
USS Hornet destroys HMS Peacock
USS President destroys 3 British ships near Ireland
US vessel "Wasp" captures 3 British ships over two-weeks time

------------------------------------

British/Indian Victories

U.S. General Hull retreats from Canada
British overrun Fort Niagra, occupy Buffalo
Battle of Bladensburg (White House, Capitol Bldg. Burned)
Battle of Cryslers Farm (Outnumbered British win)
Battle of Queenston
Battle of Raisin River (More of a skirmish)
Indians (Creek Allies) massacre civilians at Ft. Mim (Jackson makes Indian-hunting his favorite hobby).

HMS Shannon (52-gun monster) demolishes USS Chesapeake
HMS Boxer defeats USS Enterprise

---------------------------------------------------

Stalemate:

Battle of Lundy's Lane (Both sides take large losses)
British/Indians retreat after failed seige of Fort Meigs
British attack Sackett's Harbor, retreat after long fight
British bomb Fort McHenry - Fort withstands shelling (Nation Anthem written)

---------------------------------------------------

I don't know every political aspect of the war, or even half of it.. but I think the trend was in our favor... correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Excellent Post! Well done!

Actually the poll is wrong, Canada wasn't recognized as atleast a bit independant till 1867. That means the war of 1812 was fought by the British and Americans. Not the Canadians/British and Americans, for how can one fight in a war when they truly are not a nation to begin with?
the same way we fought as Americans at Lexinton, Concord, and bunker Hill in 1775 before the US declared independence and before anyone recognized us as a country.

Battle of Lake Erie was a great victory. Battle of Lake Champlaign turned back the British. Fort McHenry was a great victory as well.

However, the war itself ended in a draw and if you want technicalities, still going on.

I said the war was a draw.

I'm just saying, that the Americans greatest victory(or one of them) happened after the war happend.

See what happens when you can't communicate with your fleet? It attacks some city and get's its arse whooped.

Let's look at this logically, shall we? Wars are not won by territory gained and lost, but in objectives achieved.

The objective of the Americans was (officially) to secure their merchantmen and aid in expansion westward. In reality, it was to conquer Canada. The objective of the British, being preoccupied with a short little Corsican, was to keep Canada in their hands.

Obviously, the Americans failed that objective - and the British achieved theirs. By any measure, the British and Canadians won - even excluding casualty counts and events like the burning of Washington (which certainly trumps the burning of York, which was at the time naught more than a village).

Though the Americans got in a couple of licks, they were undoubtedly trounced.

Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.

BTW verry stupid to think that all people here are from involved nations, says enough about your level. You even don't deserve a debate, ignorant :)Gene Ray (http://www.timecube.com/)? May I have your autograph?

Let's look at this logically, shall we? Wars are not won by territory gained and lost, but in objectives achieved.

The objective of the Americans was (officially) to secure their merchantmen and aid in expansion westward. In reality, it was to conquer Canada. The objective of the British, being preoccupied with a short little Corsican, was to keep Canada in their hands.

Obviously, the Americans failed that objective - and the British achieved theirs. By any measure, the British and Canadians won - even excluding casualty counts and events like the burning of Washington (which certainly trumps the burning of York, which was at the time naught more than a village).

Though the Americans got in a couple of licks, they were undoubtedly trounced.

However, we did secure our merchantmen, our expansion westward, and respect. So that evens out what the British did, thus making it a tie.

Also, you forgot that we burned down York(which wasequal to Washington(not in politically, but size wise). Also, Washington was also barely a village. It was less than 2 decades old, and hardly anyone lived there.)

Andrew Jackson, got him elected President.

However, we did secure our merchantmen, our expansion westward, and respect. So that evens out what the British did, thus making it a tie.

Also, you forgot that we burned down York(which wasequal to Washington(not in politically, but size wise). Also, Washington was also barely a village. It was less than 2 decades old, and hardly anyone lived there.)
I forgot to mention bombing the hell out of Baltimore, destroying your trade (so actually, your merchantmen, instead of getting mildly annoyed got purely shafted). Respect? I think any nation who's troops refuse to fight (Queenston Heights, where the Americans lost 1400 troops to the British/Canadian 100) loses respect. You failed to crush a tiny colonial backwater who's owner was preoccupied with the largest war in human history that far. Bravo. Why can't you admit you lost?

Hmmmm.

This just goes to show that there are more Canadians/Brits on these boards than Americans.

Of course, the only way I could get an Un-biased answer would be if I went to a country that hates the U.S. and Britain equally...

Syria, here I come!

I forgot to mention bombing the hell out of Baltimore, destroying your trade (so actually, your merchantmen, instead of getting mildly annoyed got purely shafted). Respect? I think any nation who's troops refuse to fight (Queenston Heights, where the Americans lost 1400 troops to the British/Canadian 100) loses respect. You failed to crush a tiny colonial backwater who's owner was preoccupied with the largest war in human history that far. Bravo. Why can't you admit you lost?

You bombed Baltimore: big whoop. We trounced your fleet in the great Lakes.

Destroy our trade? BAH! As soon as the war was over, we traded more than ever before!

Oh, and I think you are forgetting a little place called New Orleans. You surprised the city after the war was over, but you still lost more than 2,000 highly-trained troops to a bunch of militia

You also failed to crush a small nation with no allies, even after you defeated Napoleon.

Bravo to you. Why can't you admit we tied?

Hmmmm.

This just goes to show that there are more Canadians/Brits on these boards than Americans.

Of course, the only way I could get an Un-biased answer would be if I went to a country that hates the U.S. and Britain equally...

Syria, here I come!
I really hope that wasn't serious. We're not numerous - we're just loud. Not as many Americans will touch this topic because many know it was an unjust war fought at an unjust time for unjust purposes like stealing land from Natives, crushing the last vestige of resistance against republicanism in North America (the United Empire Loyalists), and trying to achieve that load of bull known as "Manifest Destiny".

Don't claim it was a "tie". That's just the loser's attempt to try and pull some sense from senselessness.

I forgot to mention bombing the hell out of Baltimore, destroying your trade (so actually, your merchantmen, instead of getting mildly annoyed got purely shafted). Respect? I think any nation who's troops refuse to fight (Queenston Heights, where the Americans lost 1400 troops to the British/Canadian 100) loses respect. You failed to crush a tiny colonial backwater who's owner was preoccupied with the largest war in human history that far. Bravo. Why can't you admit you lost?
Baltimore was barely touched by the bombardment. Fort McHenry was bombarded, but the British fleet failed to accomplish anything, and was repulsed.

And most of our troops were militia. Do you seriously expect militia to perform that well against regulars in the best trained army in the world?

Beyond that, there were no US troops around Washington when the British burned it.

You bombed Baltimore: big whoop. We trounced your fleet in the great Lakes.

Destroy our trade? BAH! As soon as the war was over, we traded more than ever before!

Oh, and I think you are forgetting a little place called New Orleans. You surprised the city after the war was over, but you still lost more than 2,000 highly-trained troops to a bunch of militia

You also failed to crush a small nation with no allies, even after you defeated Napoleon.

Bravo to you. Why can't you admit we tied?
It wasn't my fleet. My country remained free from American tyranny - that's all that matters to me.

Did it ever occur to you that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the peace treaty was signed? So in essence, your only land victory had absolutely no impact?

Britain didn't want to crush the United States. Good riddance - let you Yanks go along your insanity by yourself. But don't force your insanity upon me.

clearly no side won, no one grained what they wanted canada wasnt taken by U.S. but U.S. was seen as a nation total tie

Baltimore was barely touched by the bombardment. Fort McHenry was bombarded, but the British fleet failed to accomplish anything, and was repulsed.

And most of our troops were militia. Do you seriously expect militia to perform that well against regulars in the best trained army in the world?

Beyond that, there were no US troops around Washington when the British burned it.
The vast majority of that army was busy, as I already stated, in Spain and other parts of Europe. There were just as many Canadian militia (proportionally) and Native irregulars.

I really hope that wasn't serious. We're not numerous - we're just loud. Not as many Americans will touch this topic because many know it was an unjust war fought at an unjust time for unjust purposes like stealing land from Natives, crushing the last vestige of resistance against republicanism in North America (the United Empire Loyalists), and trying to achieve that load of bull known as "Manifest Destiny".

Don't claim it was a "tie". That's just the loser's attempt to try and pull some sense from senselessness.

You, my friend, need to take a chill pill.

We're here to discuss like intellectuals, not

FLAMEBAIT.

Right, normally I'd just jump foot first in here, and come up with all sorts of facts to support that Britain won. But I'm in a good mood today, and I keep forgetting to start researching the war again like I used to.

But I will correct you on one matter.

The British didn't deploy a "fleet" to the Americans. They deployed a detatchment that may have been as much as 99 ships, compared to the Americans... 30, I believe. (21 of which, if I recall were frigates.)

However, the royal navies total fleet consisted of some 800 vessels. And the American navy did not sink anywhere close to 99 vessels, so saying that the British fleet was even bruised, is an overstatement. It lost a few ships, but hardly anything that it was overly concerned with.


edit: this is in lightning stars *?* statement that the British fleet was defeated in the great lakes.

Right, normally I'd just jump foot first in here, and come up with all sorts of facts to support that Britain won. But I'm in a good mood today, and I keep forgetting to start researching the war again like I used to.

But I will correct you on one matter.

The British didn't deploy a "fleet" to the Americans. They deployed a detatchment that may have been as much as 99 ships, compared to the Americans... 30, I believe. (21 of which, if I recall were frigates.)

However, the royal navies total fleet consisted of some 800 vessels. And the American navy did not sink anywhere close to 99 vessels, so saying that the British fleet was even bruised, is an overstatement. It lost a few ships, but hardly anything that it was overly concerned with.


edit: this is in lightning stars *?* statement that the British fleet was defeated in the great lakes.

The British and Americans fought a battle on lake Eire, and the British had a "fleet"(I use the term fleet lightly) of ships there. The British had better ships, but we still beat them. Of course, they retaliate by sending Indians to raid our towns and scalp our citizens. How nice.

Well, it can be safely argued that Britian Won tactically, if we had not been at war with naepolean, who presented the far larger threat, i don't really doubt a full scale campain to retake the colonies would have been undertaken.

And people will agure oh we'll just use guerilla war fare again, well it wasunt that alone that won you the war of 1783, it was primarrly Massive French Economic and millitary aid, hell ill think youll find it was french gunpowerd and muskets that most of the contental army fought with, not to mention the french navy harrasing the british navy constanlty, meaning supplies and men where being delayed and strech.

What was the main reason for america declaring was on Britian
Well Britian was giving millitary aid to the 'savages' you were 'civilising' in the west.

So British/ Canada won the war. Even though the battle of New Orleans was a loss, it cannot be argued that by 1815 the british forces were in the much stronger postion.

You bombed Baltimore: big whoop. We trounced your fleet in the great Lakes.

Destroy our trade? BAH! As soon as the war was over, we traded more than ever before!

Oh, and I think you are forgetting a little place called New Orleans. You surprised the city after the war was over, but you still lost more than 2,000 highly-trained troops to a bunch of militia

You also failed to crush a small nation with no allies, even after you defeated Napoleon.

Bravo to you. Why can't you admit we tied?


In regard to the Battle of New Orleans, the British were ordered to march against fortified US positions across marshes in full view of American guns without even posessing basic siege ladders. In the one place where British troops managed to sneak into US positions on one of the flanks, the militiamen fled without even stopping to destroy the guns they were manning.

Taking this into account, the kill ratio isn't that surprising.

Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.

BTW verry stupid to think that all people here are from involved nations, says enough about your level. You even don't deserve a debate, ignorant :)

I have an MBA. It took me two years to get it and all the time I was under the impression the it was a Master of Business Administration. I'll have to contact my school and see if I can get some sort of history credit for this. Back to the war though:

Both sides blundered into the war, with no real clear strategic goals. The US did want to stop the Navy impressing its Merchant crews, but there was also a vocal war party who wanted the US to conquer Canada.

The British were tied up in the Napoleonic Wars and were taken by surprise by the war. Apart from defending Canada the British had no idea of what they should be doing, so attacked at disparate points with enough strength to (mainly) get tactical victories, but without the strength to follow it through.

It could just be my conception of the word stalemate, but that seems to me to suggest mutual exhaustion. The US had hardly tapped into its potential manpower and the British had only committed a small amount of their land and sea forces. It was a draw when common sense prevailed.

We can all call it a draw and pat each other on the back. Remember New Orleans however…

"We fired our guns and the British kept a comin,
Wasn't quite as many as there was awhile ago,
We fired once again and they began to runnin',
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico"

Read about Toussaint Louverture Folks and the battle of Haiti(early 1790-1800's)

Wernt American ships smaller and faster and when they attacked they made sure they outnumbered Brit ships or had the wind?

Ambushing was a favourite wasnt it?

Let's look at this logically, shall we? Wars are not won by territory gained and lost, but in objectives achieved.

The objective of the Americans was (officially) to secure their merchantmen and aid in expansion westward. In reality, it was to conquer Canada. The objective of the British, being preoccupied with a short little Corsican, was to keep Canada in their hands.

Obviously, the Americans failed that objective - and the British achieved theirs. By any measure, the British and Canadians won - even excluding casualty counts and events like the burning of Washington (which certainly trumps the burning of York, which was at the time naught more than a village).

Though the Americans got in a couple of licks, they were undoubtedly trounced.

actually, US objectives were more ambitious than that. Canada was one of the goals, but so was ending British support (which included providing ammunition and weapons) to the Indians along the Frontier (at that time what is now the US Midwest and parts of the Old South). That was achieved and those Indians were crushed and the British driven out of the area permanently. Absolutely vital to the expansion of the US and to ensure the US would get to keep the Louisiana Purchase.

Another, and probably the most important objective was to get the British to stop stomping over American soveriegnity at sea (impressement of sailors for service in the RN, ignoring the rights of Americans who were native born British who had emigrated to the US and were scooped up anyway). Although the initial US military performance on land was awful, US victories at New Orleans, Baltimore and the bloody draw at Plattsburg and Lundys Lane forced the British Army to consider American Regulars to be as good as any. Considering these were Pennisula Veterans who beat several of Napoleons Marshals thats a pretty high compliment.

The Treaty of Ghent basically said it was a draw (status quo pro ante), but more important was several treaties post war where the Americans were treated as equals by the British government. Worth the Price.

In real terms, the US was effectively a 3rd rate power in 1812 and it managed to get a draw against the era's superpower. Pretty good any way you look at it.

In Canada, there is an incident where 200 redcoats held off 15, 000 Americans. This incident is recorded as a pretty common example of the superior training of British Troops. The British won the majority of the battles as well.

they didn't have to hold long though, and only a few hundred of the American troops were engaged. Most of the US militia weren't interested in invading Canada and they stayed on the US side of the border. This was also probably because they knew their leaders at the time were morons. Later on the militia did much better at times, and just as badly. Depended on the leadership skills of the local commanders.

Although I didn't read all the previous posts and this post of mine will likely go unread by most I will add my 2 cents.

US wanted to remove the British presence north of them but failed.

British/Canadians wanted to repel Americans and succeeded but did not 'retaliate' by crippling the US in any major way like seizing large quantities of land/resources as punishment/spoils. I assume because they didn't really want to.

US did not suffer under sanction or occupation after being pushed back.

Since bvoth sides retained their borders, resources and ability to self-govern after the war I voted a tie. However, giving it to the British may be okay since the American objective was defeated.

I will relent though that my knowledge of the war of 1812 is crappy and will accept any flaws in this assessment if they are brought up.

I really hope that wasn't serious. We're not numerous - we're just loud. Not as many Americans will touch this topic because many know it was an unjust war fought at an unjust time for unjust purposes like stealing land from Natives, crushing the last vestige of resistance against republicanism in North America (the United Empire Loyalists), and trying to achieve that load of bull known as "Manifest Destiny".

Don't claim it was a "tie". That's just the loser's attempt to try and pull some sense from senselessness.

a couple of things.. Manifest Destiny wasn't a term used until the 1840s in the US. The US ended up with practically all of the continent that it sought by 1860.

The US in military potential was in a lot worse position than the British, and by 1813 and 1814 the British had committed most of the Army that it had previously used against Napoleon and managed to fail in three major offensives. The only success was burning DC, and that actually worked in the American interest as it raised a lot of fervor, which had previously been lacking.

Every single attempt the British made to crush the US was defeated. On the other hand, every single attempt by the US to crush Canada was thwarted (which was pretty much overwith by 1813, the rest of the war the US was on the defensive except against the Indians)

The US merchant marine was indeed swept from the seas, however, most of the sailors promptly became privateers and managed to inflict a lot of havoc on the British merchant marine in exchange. Lloyds of London was very unhappy. So was Wellington, as the privateers were becoming a difficulty on his supply line.

Bottom line is this. The US did not have the ability or leadership in 1812 to conquer Canada. The British did not have the overwhelming numbers or superiority in troop quality after 1813 to conquer even a part of the US. The US was flat broke, but the British taxpayers were raising hell after a generation of war and pretty much forced the British government to end the whole fiasco, which was becoming an embarrassment to British prestige and far more costly than any likely benefit.

The Treaty of Ghent declared the war a draw (return to status quo ante bellum), but also resulted in no more British presence in American territory (a problem before the war). The US didn't get its official apology but did get a lot more British respect.

Sounds like a tie to me.

The vast majority of that army was busy, as I already stated, in Spain and other parts of Europe. There were just as many Canadian militia (proportionally) and Native irregulars.

your facts are seriously in error....check British regimental histories as to which regiments were present. Quite a lot of them were actually.

Thank you, New Shiron!

I needed a U.S. Military History Buff such as yourself to help clear the facts.

I am more of an amateur...but that's because I focus on too many subjects at once ><.

Who is "You". Go back to school kid. The "you" is quite stupid like you are, you don't have the minest notion from where I am. In any case, not of the involved nations and as a MBA of history more informed then you are.

BTW verry stupid to think that all people here are from involved nations, says enough about your level. You even don't deserve a debate, ignorant :)

there is no such degree as an MBA in History..... there is however a degree known as an MA in History. I would expect someone with a graduate degree to know that. Your grammer also makes no sense, which doesn't support your contention of having an advanced degree, or for that matter, a high school diploma. Your primary language is clearly English, based on the slang used, so there goes that excuse.

Be more polite. In addition, try not to pretend you have credentials that you clearly don't. It tends to undermine your case.

As to your original point..."first lose to the young republic" (sic)... I think the overwhelming majority of historians would disagree. Nearly all serious military histories define the war as a draw, in addition to being a war that clearly could have been avoided with more enlightened policies in England, and better thinking in the US Congress of that era.

The Canadian Army burned the white house to the ground. Thats why it's made of stone now. (If you don't beleave me, look it up). I'd say, if American forces successfully invaded Londen, and burned Buckingham palace, They'd claim victory. Sure, no land was gained, but can you imagine trying to hold the American colonies even if you could take them? British Military forces would be needed there at all times, and what with the French being big and militerstic at the time, that wouldn't be plausable. It was a hollow victory, but a victory none the less.

As an Australian, I tend to support the view that forces can be considered as belonging to a country if that country does not in fact exist yet. Examples include the Revolutionary Americans, the Canadians in this discussion the "Greeks" commanded by Alexander (apologies to any Macedonians out there) and the various Australian forces through our early history. In fact, during the Boer Wars Australia actually became the Commonwealth of Australia, and so the various colonial regiments sent to South Africa had to be renamed to reflect this.

I would also like to put in my tuppen'orth for the Canadians. Canadian militia supplied the bulk of the British forces (basically because they didn't have to be shipped across the Atlantic), put "eh" on the end of statements like the folk where I'm from (east of Perth, WA), and this way one can aid in deflating the egos of overpuffed yanks who go on about their glorious military history, and try to weasle out of answers about Vietnam and Korea.

In war, the only winner is the armaments industry.

The vast majority of that army was busy, as I already stated, in Spain and other parts of Europe. There were just as many Canadian militia (proportionally) and Native irregulars.

And the Canadian militia and native irregulars got trounced too.

I know more about this than you apparently. The war is a tie.

The Canadian Army burned the white house to the ground. Thats why it's made of stone now. (If you don't beleave me, look it up). I'd say, if American forces successfully invaded Londen, and burned Buckingham palace, They'd claim victory. Sure, no land was gained, but can you imagine trying to hold the American colonies even if you could take them? British Military forces would be needed there at all times, and what with the French being big and militerstic at the time, that wouldn't be plausable. It was a hollow victory, but a victory none the less.

There was no Canadian Army in 1812! Canada wasn't even a country till 1867. So this just tosses your entire premise right out the window.

The Canadian Army burned the white house to the ground. Thats why it's made of stone now. (If you don't beleave me, look it up). I'd say, if American forces successfully invaded Londen, and burned Buckingham palace, They'd claim victory. Sure, no land was gained, but can you imagine trying to hold the American colonies even if you could take them? British Military forces would be needed there at all times, and what with the French being big and militerstic at the time, that wouldn't be plausable. It was a hollow victory, but a victory none the less.

There was not Canadian Army in the war of 1812, only British. Time to go back to school junior.

The Canadian Army burned the white house to the ground. Thats why it's made of stone now. (If you don't beleave me, look it up). I'd say, if American forces successfully invaded Londen, and burned Buckingham palace, They'd claim victory. Sure, no land was gained, but can you imagine trying to hold the American colonies even if you could take them? British Military forces would be needed there at all times, and what with the French being big and militerstic at the time, that wouldn't be plausable. It was a hollow victory, but a victory none the less.

the Canadian Army? There wasn't a Canada yet according to previous posts by Canadians Just as in the American Revolution (where the British captured Philadelphia, the then capital) capturing the capital of the US accomplished nothing, as the government survived and a couple of weeks later that invasion force (all British troops from England and Scotland and Ireland) lost their general (Ross) who was killed by a militia sniper in a failed attempt to storm earthworks surrounding Baltimore, while the fleet failed to subdue Fort McHenry and eventually pulled back after the land assault failed. The entire force then pulled back to the ships and left (some of those troops then were sent to New Orleans). At New Orleans, poor tactics led to the death of nearly 4,000 British troops, plus that commander (General Packenham) and an embarrassing British defeat.

as stated earlier, the White House (which wasn't called that yet) was gutted by fire, and postwar was restored, and painted white to hide the scorch marks. Its still the same building Adams lived in (the 2nd US President, Washington lived in Philadelphia both of his terms as the capital wasn't moved to DC until 1800)

The burden of proof would seem to be on you my friend.

As an Australian, I tend to support the view that forces can be considered as belonging to a country if that country does not in fact exist yet. Examples include the Revolutionary Americans, the Canadians in this discussion the "Greeks" commanded by Alexander (apologies to any Macedonians out there) and the various Australian forces through our early history. In fact, during the Boer Wars Australia actually became the Commonwealth of Australia, and so the various colonial regiments sent to South Africa had to be renamed to reflect this.

I would also like to put in my tuppen'orth for the Canadians. Canadian militia supplied the bulk of the British forces (basically because they didn't have to be shipped across the Atlantic), put "eh" on the end of statements like the folk where I'm from (east of Perth, WA), and this way one can aid in deflating the egos of overpuffed yanks who go on about their glorious military history, and try to weasle out of answers about Vietnam and Korea.

In war, the only winner is the armaments industry.

well, since Australia provided troops in both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, does that mean Australia also lost in Vietnam and also got a tie in Korea?

But yes, Canadian Fencible regiments fought very well but were only used in the fighting around the Lakes and Upper New York State. British veteran regiments from the Pennisula campaign were used in Maryland and Lousiana, with additional troops from England sent to spearhead the failed invasion of New York in 1814.

Those pesky details.

The US has nothing to be ashamed of as far as military traditions go, although I wish our politicians would be more careful about spending our troops lives on dubious strategies.

well, since Australia provided troops in both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, does that mean Australia also lost in Vietnam and also got a tie in Korea?

But yes, Canadian Fencible regiments fought very well but were only used in the fighting around the Lakes and Upper New York State. British veteran regiments from the Pennisula campaign were used in Maryland and Lousiana, with additional troops from England sent to spearhead the failed invasion of New York in 1814.

Those pesky details.

The US has nothing to be ashamed of as far as military traditions go, although I wish our politicians would be more careful about spending our troops lives on dubious strategies.

Once again, thank goodness for your Military knowledge!

I missed it from the 1880 RP thingy.

If the war had kept going, there was no question the British were going to wipe the floor with the Americans. The entire east coast was blockaded by the British Royal Navy, and just in pure numbers, the Royal Navy outnumbered the American Navy literally 100 to 1. President Jefferson's massive slashes to military spending years before cut the army size down to roughly 2000 officers and men, and did not allow the Navy to grow much in size, thus the Americans were grossly underprepared for the well trained and battle hardened British grenadiers and men-o-war.

The greatest American claim to fame in the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, which actually took place after the peace treaty with Great Britain, meaning the battle was entirely meaningless. Sure, the Americans may have handed a sound defeat to the British there, but that was one battle out of many, and considering President James Madison fled from the White House mere moments before the British officers stormed in, I would hardly consider 1812 a victory on the part of the Americans.

For a source, these statistics come from my College HIST 201 class, History of America to 1865. (And yes, for the record, I AM an American.)

If the war had kept going, there was no question the British were going to wipe the floor with the Americans. The entire east coast was blockaded by the British Royal Navy, and just in pure numbers, the Royal Navy outnumbered the American Navy literally 100 to 1. President Jefferson's massive slashes to military spending years before cut the army size down to roughly 2000 officers and men, and did not allow the Navy to grow much in size, thus the Americans were grossly underprepared for the well trained and battle hardened British grenadiers and men-o-war.

The greatest American claim to fame in the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, which actually took place after the peace treaty with Great Britain, meaning the battle was entirely meaningless. Sure, the Americans may have handed a sound defeat to the British there, but that was one battle out of many, and considering President James Madison fled from the White House mere moments before the British officers stormed in, I would hardly consider 1812 a victory on the part of the Americans.

For a source, these statistics come from my College HIST 201 class, History of America to 1865. (And yes, for the record, I AM an American.)

all valid points, and true. Nevertheless, New Orleans was not the only US victory. Stopping the British invasions at Baltimore and New York state were equally important. A couple of good historians have also pointed out that it is hardly likely that the British would have given New Orleans back to the US if it had won there, even with the peace treaty signed, as it would have permanently crippled the US until such time as it got it back. Good thing for future peace between the 2 nations that it worked out the way it did.

The important point is this. The US held on strongly enough to make continued fighting more expensive than it was worth to the British and achieved military stalement on the ground, and American privateers were creating enough losses at sea (on British shipping) to make the whole thing too expensive to continue for the goals the British found they could achieve.

And thus,

The War of 1812 was a draw in all senses of combat and diplomacy.

And thus,

The War of 1812 was a draw in all senses of combat and diplomacy.

Exactly!

Militarily it was a slight loss for the US if you consider battles fought on the ground within N. America. If you include naval battles it stays a slight US loss but when privateering is thrown in it leans heavily toward the US. The reason the British were forced to sign a treaty was not from military pressure or Napolean. The US began hiring hundreds of privateers at the beginning of the conflict. These privateers were steadily capturing British shipping and severly damaging the economy.
Now, the Royal Navy probably could have done in most of these privateers eventually but the amount of effort it would have required far outweighed any benefit the British government saw in defeating the US. The Canadian invasions had been turned back, the capital had been burned in Washington and the last thing the British wanted was another situation like the Revolution where guerillas frustrated them.
So, they signed a treaty and moved onto to things that were more important to them. A tie basically as both sides got something and lost something.

Battle of 1812: Draw. British win, but can't hold anything. Thus the treaty.
Battle of New Orleans: British learn not to attack entrenched American forces Amphibiously a smidge too late. Jackson knew they were coming by sea, and had time to fortify. The British came in anyway.

Overall? Eh, no advantage, really.

Why is everyone here so obsessed with one of the most pointless, indecisive, and unimportant wars in world history?

How, pray tell, did the British 'win'.

Oh, and even though Britain would prolly kick our arse during the actual war if Napolean wasn't there, we'd still use the same tactics as before. Guerrilla warfare.

Of course, the U.S. didn't 'win' either.

Britain won because america didnt get canada (which is what started the war)oh and we burnt down the white house aswell.

Why is everyone here so obsessed with one of the most pointless, indecisive, and unimportant wars in world history?

Well, it sure as hell beats talking about why everybody hates the US.

Britain won because america didnt get canada (which is what started the war)oh and we burnt down the white house aswell.

The war started because the Brits were kidnapping US sailors from our ships and registered ships. The invasion of Canadia was just an oportunist land grab attempt, it didn't start the war.

Militarily it was a slight loss for the US if you consider battles fought on the ground within N. America. If you include naval battles it stays a slight US loss but when privateering is thrown in it leans heavily toward the US. The reason the British were forced to sign a treaty was not from military pressure or Napolean. The US began hiring hundreds of privateers at the beginning of the conflict. These privateers were steadily capturing British shipping and severly damaging the economy.
Now, the Royal Navy probably could have done in most of these privateers eventually but the amount of effort it would have required far outweighed any benefit the British government saw in defeating the US. The Canadian invasions had been turned back, the capital had been burned in Washington and the last thing the British wanted was another situation like the Revolution where guerillas frustrated them.
So, they signed a treaty and moved onto to things that were more important to them. A tie basically as both sides got something and lost something.

I think it was because to win the war and keep the country we would have had to spend nearly double britians wealth (18million I think ) at the time to raise an army to keep america, so we signed a treaty

America still exists, therefore we won. Militarily, we had a disgraceful retreat near Washington by amateur troops, but ultimately won two decisive victories and one aptly-fought stalemate.. so it was either a tie, in that neither country gained anything palpable, or a won for us, since we're still here.
So does that mean the USA lost in Vietnam because communism still exists their?

America still exists, therefore we won.

Eh? How does that work? Both belligerents still exist, so how can that be a criteria for victory?

Anyway, the French have had their asses kicked more times than Wile E. Coyote, and France still exists.

So does that mean the USA lost in Vietnam because communism still exists their?

Uh.. isn't that exactly what happened in Vietnam? The U.S. lost, and Vietnam is Communist? What's your point?


A couple of good historians have also pointed out that it is hardly likely that the British would have given New Orleans back to the US if it had won there, even with the peace treaty signed, as it would have permanently crippled the US until such time as it got it back. Good thing for future peace between the 2 nations that it worked out the way it did.

I'm glad someone pointed this out! A major U.S. gripe before the war was the continued presence of British troops in the West - not Canada, but legal U.S. territory. Not only did 1812 end that, but New Orleans prevented Britain from gaining control of the entire Louisiana Purchase (which it no doubt intended with the attack -- sailing with the army in 1815 was a colonial government all ready to set up shop had they won). So it wasn't just that the U.S. just barely managed to return to the pre-1812 status quo; a major threat to U.S. sovereignty in the west was stopped. This isn't enough to call it a clear victory for the U.S. considering the losses to the north, but in ultimately determining who'd control the lands west of the Mississippi it was hardly small potatoes, either.

Also: when will Canadians quit spouting this ridiculous idea that THEY burned down the white house? The troops were British, as in from the British isles. There's no shame in getting smacked by the world's greatest military power, but if you're going to claim it was Canadians instead -- which is a tremendous insult to any country -- you'd better have some facts to back you up. Fact is, the U.S. burned down Canada's colonial capital and they had to have their older brothers come around and beat up the bully for 'em. Hardly a point of pride for the canucks.

Why is everyone here so obsessed with one of the most pointless, indecisive, and unimportant wars in world history?

a number of historians now consider the War of 1812 the 2nd War of American Independence

in addition, it established that the US was not a nation that European Powers could successfully bully without paying an excessive cost. This, along with British Naval power, made possible the Monroe Doctrine which ensured the independence of Latin American nations when they broke free of the Spanish and Portugese. After that, the Latin Americans only had to worry about us (as Mexico and Columbia could attest to).

it also permanently cleared the way for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi (the morals of that are another issue)

It made possible a number of treaties between the US and Britian, and later the US and Canada and is the principal reason the US/Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the world.

It established a sense of nationalism in Upper Canada that accelerated the eventual creation of Canada as a Dominion instead of a colony

in other words, amazing how important this war was that both the US and Britain blundered into

Britain won because america didnt get canada (which is what started the war)oh and we burnt down the white house aswell.

that point has been repeatedly addressed... see earlier posts

The Britsh but it was a close victory
Napolean saved America by keeping britain occupied.

Damn Napoleon. But we tanned his arse good. Good old Duke of Wellington. If he and Nelson had been sent to America, then you would have been beaten back into the Pacific.

Britain won because america didnt get canada (which is what started the war)oh and we burnt down the white house aswell.

It was a draw and we burnt down the City of York (now toronto) which precipted the burning of the White House.

BTW: you didn't get us back so then technically nobody won.

So does that mean the USA lost in Vietnam because communism still exists their?

the short answer is yes. The nation of South Vietnam, which we intervened to save, fell to North Vietnam in 1975 after we gave up and went home in 1973.

So yes, the US lost, as did the other SEATO nations involved (and that treaty fell apart as well). New Zealand and Australian contributed about a brigade of troops (combined) plus an SAS squadron from 1965 until about 1971. South Korea also contributed troops (nearly 2 divisions at one point), and advisors were present from Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.

But the burden of the war was on the South Vietnamese and the US, and poor US strategy is the reason the North Vietnamese won, along with their willingness to lose 10 to 1 losses for years at a stretch.

A lot of parallels between the UK in the War of 1812 and the US in Vietnam...

both nations viewed the war as secondary to a larger struggle, and both lost the political will to continue the war after suffering serious casualties and left after it became clear victory was not possible without spending resources greater than the value of such a victory.

Damn Napoleon. But we tanned his arse good. Good old Duke of Wellington. If he and Nelson had been sent to America, then you would have been beaten back into the Pacific.

Wellington was offered command and said essentially "hell no" as victory in a conventional sense (conquering the US) wasn't possible with the resources available to Britian, and certainly not worth the effort. This occured after the abdication of Napoleon in 1814. Good thing too, it was more important to both the British Empire and the US that he be present at Waterloo.

Wellington was offered command and said essentially "hell no" as victory in a conventional sense (conquering the US) wasn't possible with the resources available to Britian, and certainly not worth the effort. This occured after the abdication of Napoleon in 1814. Good thing too, it was more important to both the British Empire and the US that he be present at Waterloo.

Agreed

It was a draw. The United States army was rebuffed quite embarrassingly in its attempts to launch an offensive into Canada, but its navy won several single-ship battles, and usually won those quite handily. It was enough for the British Admiralty to change their instructions to frigate captains to tell them NOT to engage American frigates unless they had a numerical advantage.

As the war progressed, the Americans suffered an embarrassing loss in Bladensburg where they offered little and meek resistance before the British burned Washington. However, the British were repulsed in the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Lake Champlaign (largely due to naval victories), the British attack on Baltimore failed, and the attack on New Orleans was a disaster.

The overwhelming numbers of the Royal Navy eventually caused them to successfully impose a blockade, but the American successes on the high seas forced several changes by the British. They were forced to build or acquire 24-pounder firing frigates, strip some 74s down to serve as frigates to deal with the large frigates like USS Constitution and USS United States.

Ultimately, the war was a draw, but in terms of the long-term effects on the U.S., it might as well have been an American victory because of the way it galvanized a sectionally divided populace into a genuinely united country. It caused European powers to start respecting the United States for withstanding the world's superpower.

Damn Napoleon. But we tanned his arse good. Good old Duke of Wellington. If he and Nelson had been sent to America, then you would have been beaten back into the Pacific.

Hey, at least we'd settle the west an extra, oh, 60 years earlier :).

Of course, now that you think of it, it would be horrible if the Brit's had taken back the U.S. Horrible for both sides. The American colonies would have cost way too much to control, not to mention there'd be constant guerilla attacks on the British.

It would be like Vietnam for the Brits. They'd win all the battles, but they'd loose the war because they couldn't defeat the overwhelming numbers of the America Guerrillas, who would have made it impossible for the Brits to maintain order, no matter how good their generals were.

Hey, at least we'd settle the west an extra, oh, 60 years earlier :).

Of course, now that you think of it, it would be horrible if the Brit's had taken back the U.S. Horrible for both sides. The American colonies would have cost way too much to control, not to mention there'd be constant guerilla attacks on the British.

It would be like Vietnam for the Brits. They'd win all the battles, but they'd loose the war because they couldn't defeat the overwhelming numbers of the America Guerrillas, who would have made it impossible for the Brits to maintain order, no matter how good their generals were.

You are probably right. Even had Wellington been deployed after he wiped the floor with Napoleon, I am not sure even he could have fought well in a guerilla campaign.

However guerilla wars dont last forever. Had Britain managed to gain a permeant grip by smashing the main armies of America, then it is likely that such resistance would have faded away and America would have probably become a second Ireland, full of rebellion and harsh reprisal measures.

Good point. When Britain wanted to, it had the will and the power to destroy guerilla rebellions in any way it wanted. Just look at the Boer wars, the Irish rebellions, etc. Unlike the US in Vietnam, Britain didnt feel the need to conform to 'conventional' tactics when its enemy wasnt.

Why is everyone here so obsessed with one of the most pointless, indecisive, and unimportant wars in world history?


Because Canadians can boast about 'winning' the war :rolleyes:

It's only fitting that they can boast about 'winning' one of the most pointless, indecisive and unimportant wars in world history.

The British weren't especially committed to the war, despite what some have argued about large commitments. If you look here ( http://www.warof1812.ca/charts/regts_na.htm ) you'll see that at New Year 1813 there were eight regular infantry regiments present, rising to 13 at New Year 1814 and 42 at New Year 1815. 42 regiments sounds like quite a lot but it's about 24,000 men. The British Army alone had almost 100,000 in Belgium at the time of Waterloo (though not all at the battle).

I don't see this as the 2nd American Revolution at all. There was the common factor that the British didn't put much effort into either, but this is far less significant. I think the idea that Britain wouldn't have signed treaties with the USA without the USA first winning respect in the war is a little a little fanciful, and even if it is true it's hardly a major factor.

But what happened not so long after the British put down the Boers and Irish?

They rose up about a gillion times, and got independence. They cost the Brit's way more than if they had just let them go. And, as we all know, the British Empire was an empire founded on gold.

But what happened not so long after the British put down the Boers and Irish?

They rose up about a gillion times, and got independence. They cost the Brit's way more than if they had just let them go. And, as we all know, the British Empire was an empire founded on gold.

The Irish spent centuries and centuries rebelling and it got them no where close to independence. The only time they ever came close to independence was when they used the democratic methods provided to them. Parnell got Gladstone and his Liberal Party to understand that Ireland should be granted home rule. From that point on, Ireland was free not because of violence but because of Charles Stewart Parnell and his Irish Unionist Party.

The British Empire was, like any empire, founded on gold. Trading posts need defence. The defenders push out a bit. They take territory from competitors. The native King starts getting pushy so you invade him too. From a trading post in a foreign city, you soon control an entire region. The British Empire was founded on gold. But it, like the Roman Empire before them, was sustained on principle. Which is why it endured so long.

The Irish spent centuries and centuries rebelling and it got them no where close to independence. The only time they ever came close to independence was when they used the democratic methods provided to them. Parnell got Gladstone and his Liberal Party to understand that Ireland should be granted home rule. From that point on, Ireland was free not because of violence but because of Charles Stewart Parnell and his Irish Unionist Party.

They only used democratic means after the British began to use tanks to kill innocent civilians during football games. Wow, that's so nice.

The British Empire was, like any empire, founded on gold. Trading posts need defence. The defenders push out a bit. They take territory from competitors. The native King starts getting pushy so you invade him too. From a trading post in a foreign city, you soon control an entire region. The British Empire was founded on gold. But it, like the Roman Empire before them, was sustained on principle. Which is why it endured so long.

I know. I am just saying, the British empire ran out of money, which was bad. Their "principles"(such as treating the people of the land they colonized as lesser beings) lead to their empire collapsing.

They only used democratic means after the British began to use tanks to kill innocent civilians during football games. Wow, that's so nice.



I know. I am just saying, the British empire ran out of money, which was bad. Their "principles"(such as treating the people of the land they colonized as lesser beings) lead to their empire collapsing.

Read a better book on the British Empire rather than relying on anti imperialist propaganda stories. That way you might produce more accurate answers. But dont respond now. I am in the progress of preparing a big, big thread in defence of the British Empire. Coming to a NationStates General Forum near you!

Read a better book on the British Empire rather than relying on anti imperialist propaganda stories. That way you might produce more accurate answers. But dont respond now. I am in the progress of preparing a big, big thread in defence of the British Empire. Coming to a NationStates General Forum near you!

Oh goody!

Finally, a place where I can post how the British Empire caused all the problems in South Asia!

Justice shall be achieved!

Oh goody!

Finally, a place where I can post how the British Empire caused all the problems in South Asia!

Justice shall be achieved!

And the Middle East and Africa too while your at it.

And the Middle East and Africa too while your at it.

I think I will!

I think I will!

Not to mention America! They did abuse us colonists you know! :p

The British weren't especially committed to the war, despite what some have argued about large commitments. If you look here ( http://www.warof1812.ca/charts/regts_na.htm ) you'll see that at New Year 1813 there were eight regular infantry regiments present, rising to 13 at New Year 1814 and 42 at New Year 1815. 42 regiments sounds like quite a lot but it's about 24,000 men. The British Army alone had almost 100,000 in Belgium at the time of Waterloo (though not all at the battle).

I don't see this as the 2nd American Revolution at all. There was the common factor that the British didn't put much effort into either, but this is far less significant. I think the idea that Britain wouldn't have signed treaties with the USA without the USA first winning respect in the war is a little a little fanciful, and even if it is true it's hardly a major factor.

nevertheless most American Historians, and the noted British Historian John Keegan in "Battlesfields of North America" seems to believe that very thing.

Hey, at least we'd settle the west an extra, oh, 60 years earlier :).

Of course, now that you think of it, it would be horrible if the Brit's had taken back the U.S. Horrible for both sides. The American colonies would have cost way too much to control, not to mention there'd be constant guerilla attacks on the British.

It would be like Vietnam for the Brits. They'd win all the battles, but they'd loose the war because they couldn't defeat the overwhelming numbers of the America Guerrillas, who would have made it impossible for the Brits to maintain order, no matter how good their generals were.

British defeats in 1814 in Maryland and Louisiana, and British defeat at Lake Champlain and the draw at Lundys Lane proved the British couldn't conquer the US. If they couldn't keep control of America during the American Revolution, when they controlled New York City for practically the entire war, most of Georgia, parts of South Carolina and had a far larger edge in numbers, what makes anybody think there is any way they could of done it in 1815 or 1816 with the US having nearly 3 times the population, a growing industrial sector (first operational steam powered warship by the way was constructed in New York City by Robert Fulton and it guarded the harbor the entire war... consider what further fighting would have meant).

Realistically the British political leadership and notables like the Duke of Wellington were well aware of the impracticality of further fighting, especially when the British people had already spent a generation fighting the French.

Easier to simple accept a compromise peace on the terms of the Treaty of Ghent.

bump