NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe I am just being a biased Brit but every time I see anything relating to the War of 1812 it always says that it was a draw and highlights American victories, whereas looking at things I think it was a clear British win. What do other people think, British American Canadian or others?

I know no territory changed hands but surely in any conflict were the attacking side, in this case the Americans, fail to gain anything then it is a clear win for the defenders. Also the British burnt down Washington and were busy fighting Napoleon at the time.

The only thing that came out of the War of 1812 was the advancement of Andrew Jackson's politcal career, at least thats how I see it.

But why do you think it was a draw rather than a British victory?

Yes! I always wanted to post this:

http://www.deadtroll.com/dvd/1812.html

Enjoy!

Maybe I am just being a biased Brit but every time I see anything relating to the War of 1812 it always says that it was a draw and highlights American victories, whereas looking at things I think it was a clear British win. What do other people think, British American Canadian or others?

I know no territory changed hands but surely in any conflict were the attacking side, in this case the Americans, fail to gain anything then it is a clear win for the defenders. Also the British burnt down Washington and were busy fighting Napoleon at the time.
meh, hardly anyone remembers the war of 1812.

At the time of Washingtons burning The war with France was over.

If the Brits won, why did they pack up and go home? Why did they stop impressing American sailors and harassing American shipping?

The Brits could've easily womped the U.S. The only reason the a Americans survived was the Britain's best troops were fighting Napoleon and that the British were tired of war.

The Brits could've easily womped the U.S. The only reason the a Americans survived was the Britain's best troops were fighting Napoleon and that the British were tired of war.

So, we won then. Just like we lost in Viet Nam.

So, we won then. Just like we lost in Viet Nam.

We didn't win, we survived. The British didn't want to fight anymore. Plus, the Battle of Lake Platt helped us at the barganing table. Then, after the treay was signed, we won the Battle of New Orleans. I still don't think we won completely.

So, we won then. Just like we lost in Viet Nam.


But as in Vietnam the Americans were the attacking side. We didn't go home we stayed in Canada

While neither side lost the War of 1812, it was a failure for the US, as they accomplished absolutely nothing, while losing Detroit and having Washington burned in the process.

When the war of 1812 was virtually over Canada (still a British colony) controlled most of the North Eastern States. Also, British and Canadian troops successfully attacked and blew up most of the White House (before i was called the White House).

Rumor has it that the British who were growing more reliant on the American South for the cotton trade and other commodities forced their colony to relinquinsh control of Captured American states in exchange for special trading privledges and access to certain ports.

Cheers,

V

It seems about one of the most pointless wars ever I have to say... maybe why it is barely known here in Britain. More important things going on over here at the time.

The British didn't win the war of 1812, Canada did!

The US offensively attacked Canada in order to acquire land and wealth. They failed. Therefore, Canada won.

THE US were v lucky the brits didn't take them more seriously and that they had napoleon to keep them occupied.

Draw, both sides won battles, both lost. Both didn't get all that they wanted, and both had to make consessions at the end of the war.

Now if the British Empire could bring its full weight to bear, it may have indeed crushed and retaken America. But you could say that about the American Revolution as well (And there again, France helped the US in distracting the Brits from committing fully).

In terms of actual effects, the War of 1812 was a minior one that is only remembered for the Battle of New Orleans (Mainly thanks to that damn song and Andrew Jackson) on the US side and the buring of Washington on the Canadian side. The only really interesting bit was that the US Navy was able to go against the Royal Navy and win a few.

Draw, both sides won battles, both lost. Both didn't get all that they wanted, and both had to make consessions at the end of the war.

Canada didn't get all it wanted? Canada was attacked, all it wanted was to successfully defend against the invasion. If they wanted more, THEY would have attacked.

Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America.

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America desirous of terminating the war which has unhappily subsisted between the two Countries, and of restoring upon principles of perfect reciprocity, Peace, Friendship, and good Understanding between them, have for that purpose appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say, His Britannic Majesty on His part has appointed the Right Honourable James Lord Gambier, late Admiral of the White now Admiral of the Red Squadron of His Majesty's Fleet; Henry Goulburn Esquire, a Member of the Imperial Parliament and Under Secretary of State; and William Adams Esquire, Doctor of Civil Laws: And the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, has appointed John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin, Citizens of the United States; who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective Full Powers, have agreed upon the following Articles.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE FIRST.
There shall be a firm and universal Peace between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their respective Countries, Territories, Cities, Towns, and People of every degree without exception of places or persons. All hostilities both by sea and land shall cease as soon as this Treaty shall have been ratified by both parties as hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions whatsoever taken by either party from the other during the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the Artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the Exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty, or any Slaves or other private property; And all Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers, either of a public nature or belonging to private persons, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of the Officers of either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties shall remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they may be at the time of the Exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty until the decision respecting the title to the said Islands shall have been made in conformity with the fourth Article of this Treaty. No disposition made by this Treaty as to such possession of the Islands and territories claimed by both parties shall in any manner whatever be construed to affect the right of either.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE SECOND.
Immediately after the ratifications of this Treaty by both parties as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the Armies, Squadrons, Officers, Subjects, and Citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities: and to prevent all causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the said Ratifications of this Treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the said Ratifications upon all parts of the Coast of North America from the Latitude of twenty three degrees North to the Latitude of fifty degrees North, and as far Eastward in the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty sixth degree of West Longitude from the Meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on each side:-that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of the Atlantic Ocean North of the Equinoctial Line or Equator:-and the same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies:-forty days for the North Seas for the Baltic, and for all parts of the Mediterranean-sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean South of the Equator as far as the Latitude of the Cape of Good Hope.- ninety days for every other part of the world South of the Equator, and one hundred and twenty days for all other parts of the world without exception.

[edit]
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
All Prisoners of war taken on either side as well by land as by sea shall be restored as soon as practicable after the Ratifications of this Treaty as hereinafter mentioned on their paying the debts which they may have contracted during their captivity. The two Contracting Parties respectively engage to discharge in specie the advances which may have been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of such prisoners.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
Whereas it was stipulated by the second Article in the Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America that the boundary of the United States should comprehend "all Islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States and lying between lines to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such Islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of Nova Scotia, and whereas the several Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan in the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which said Islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic Majesty as having been at the time of and previous to the aforesaid Treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three within the limits of the Province of Nova Scotia: In order therefore finally to decide upon these claims it is agreed that they shall be referred to two Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner: viz: One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty and one by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide upon the said claims according to such evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The said Commissioners shall meet at St Andrews in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall by a declaration or report under their hands and seals decide to which of the two Contracting parties the several Islands aforesaid do respectely belong in conformity with the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three. And if the said Commissioners shall agree in their decision both parties shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is further agreed that in the event of the two Commissioners differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them, or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners refusing or declining or wilfully omitting to act as such, they shall make jointly or separately a report or reports as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that of the United States, stating in detail the points on which they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they or either of them have so refused declined or omitted to act. And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said Commissioners to some friendly Sovereign or State to be then named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide on the differences which may be stated in the said report or reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner together with the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have refused, declined or omitted to act as the case may be. And if the Commissioner so refusing, declining, or omitting to act, shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he has so done in such manner that the said statement may be referred to such friendly Sovereign or State together with the report of such other Commissioner, then such Sovereign or State shall decide ex parse upon the said report alone. And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States engage to consider the decision of such friendly Sovereign or State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so referred.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
Whereas neither that point of the Highlands lying due North from the source of the River St Croix, and designated in the former Treaty of Peace between the two Powers as the North West Angle of Nova Scotia, nor the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River has yet been ascertained; and whereas that part of the boundary line between the Dominions of the two Powers which extends from the source of the River st Croix directly North to the above mentioned North West Angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said Highlands which divide those Rivers that empty themselves into the River St Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle of that River to the forty fifth degree of North Latitude, thence by a line due West on said latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding Article unless otherwise specified in the present Article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid from the source of the River St Croix to the River Iroquois or Cataraquy to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true Map of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and longitude of the North West Angle of Nova Scotia, of the North Westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing, or both, or either of them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and such reference to a friendly Sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of the fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE SIXTH.
Whereas by the former Treaty of Peace that portion of the boundary of the United States from the point where the fortyfifth degree of North Latitude strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior was declared to be "along the middle of said River into Lake Ontario, through the middle of said Lake until it strikes the communication by water between that Lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said Lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake Huron; thence through the middle of said Lake to the water communication between that Lake and Lake Superior:" and whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said River, Lakes, and water communications, and whether certain Islands lying in the same were within the Dominions of His Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order therefore finally to decide these doubts, they shall be referred to two Commissioners to be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding Article unless otherwise specified in this present Article. The said Commissioners shall meet in the first instance at Albany in the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall by a Report or Declaration under their hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said River, Lakes, and water communications, and decide to which of the two Contracting parties the several Islands lying within the said Rivers, Lakes, and water communications, do respectively belong in conformity with the true intent of the said Treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three. And both parties agree to consider such designation and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing or both or either of them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and such reference to a friendly Sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of the fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE SEVENTH.
It is further agreed that the said two last mentioned Commissioners after they shall have executed the duties assigned to them in the preceding Article, shall be, and they are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and determine according to the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers, which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior to the most North Western point of the Lake of the Woods;-to decide to which of the two Parties the several Islands lying in the Lakes, water communications, and Rivers forming the said boundary do respectively belong in conformity with the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, and to cause such parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and marked. The said Commissioners shall by a Report or declaration under their hands and seals, designate the boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus referred to them, and particularize the Latitude and Longitude of the most North Western point of the Lake of the Woods, and of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such reports, declarations or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and such reference to a friendly Sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of the fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner as if the same was herein revealed.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE EIGHTH.
The several Boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four preceding Articles shall respectively have power to appoint a Secretary, and to employ such Surveyors or other persons as they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective reports, declarations, statements, and decisions, and of their accounts, and of the Journal of their proceedings shall be delivered by them to the Agents of His Britannic Majesty and to the Agents of the United States, who may be respectively appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be settled at the time of the Exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty. And all other expenses attending the said Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And in the case of death, sickness, resignation, or necessary absence, the place of every such Commissioner respectively shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was first appointed; and the new Commissioner shall take the same oath or affirmation and do the same duties. It is further agreed between the two contracting parties that in case any of the Islands mentioned in any of the preceding Articles, which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to the commencement of the present war between the two Countries, should by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners aforesaid, or of the Sovereign or State so referred to, as in the four next preceding Articles contained, fall within the dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous to the commencement of the war by the party having had such possession, shall be as valid as if such Island or Islands had by such decision or decisions been adjudged to be within the dominions of the party having had such possession.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE NINTH.
The United States being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

[edit]
ARTICLE THE TENTH.
Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.




[edit]
ARTICLE THE ELEVENTH.


Show me how the US lost ? BTW that is the treaty of Ghent that ended the war....BUT if the British would have won in NO then it has been proven that since the treaty had not yet been ratified ..New Orleans ..and access to the Mississippi river..a choke hold on US trade and a clear win for the Brits would have resulted. As it is the US did not achieve its aims in Canada..but neither did the British..ANYWHERE . so what they Burned washington...then what ?
The fact the US even survived and came away witth this treaty and solidified itself as a nation indicates a clear victory strategicly for the US .

The only real win was the Battle of New Orleans. Gave the US control over the Mississippi. And that battle was after the war "ended".

The whole thing goes back to the idea that in war the loser is not the one that loses battles, but the one that quits fighting first.

It was a French diplomatic victory, since the British had to go off and fight the Americans.

Also a British tactical and strategic victory, since it was able to repulse the attacking Americans.

But it was still an American diplomatic victory as well, since it was able to [seemingly] battle the British Empire to a draw.

So I think it goes further than an 'either or' statement to really summarise the victors.

The U.S. won a majority of the battles, but failed to take Canada. We did take Lake Superior, however. The significance of the War of 1812 was that we defeated the #1 naval power on the seas, which made the Revolution look like less of a fluke.

I posted a breakdown of every battle fought during the war in a previous thread identical to this one if anyone wants to dig it up.

The only real win was the Battle of New Orleans. Gave the US control over the Mississippi. And that battle was after the war "ended".

The whole thing goes back to the idea that in war the loser is not the one that loses battles, but the one that quits fighting first.


The treaty was NOT ratified until after the battle of New Orleans..the WAR was not technically officially over until then .

ARTICLE THE SECOND.
Immediately after the ratifications of this Treaty by both parties as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the Armies, Squadrons, Officers, Subjects, and Citizens of the two Powers to cease from all hostilities: and to prevent all causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes which may be taken at sea after the said Ratifications of this Treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the said Ratification



see also ....

Fighting continued for several weeks after signing the treaty, including the Battle of New Orleans, because news of the treaty took time to reach North America. However, by terms of the treaty, the war was not officially over until ratifications were exchanged and the treaty proclaimed. The U.S. Senate unanimously advised ratification on February 16, 1815. President James Madison ratified the treaty on February 17 at which time the ratifications were exchanged. The treaty was proclaimed on February 18.

Uh...it's a win for the US because the US retained its territory and sovereignty? Isn't that largely the reason you fight a war of aggression? And if you don't accomplish any of those aims, doesn't that mean you lose? Any ground the US didn't gain was inconsequential because they weren't looking to start a shooting war over Canada in the first place. The British attack gave the US the free chance to try for the additional reason of strategy on top of conquest. They failed. No biggie -- no ground was lost and the Brits left the States defeated.

Anything else you'd care to revise while you're rewriting things?

The Brits had 600 ships, America had 36. The most guns on any Brit ship was 100, U.S....32. So HOW could America win you ask? Well, if the Brits went full on us, we couldn't, but they had the "Boggey-Man" (Napoleon) to deal with, and we just wern't worth the effort, so they left.
They COULD have won, but it would have simply weakened them up for NAP-ATTACK, and they figured...anyway, the way I figure it, America did pretty damn good for what they had to work with.

Americans, really at the time if they didin't totally lose they would had still won. Britain was head man in the world and had the biggest Empire that side of Rome, so when some crackpot ultra-republic acts all and mighty; Britain declares war and doesn't "win-win" then Britain obviously loses. Sometimes you forget who was the head honcho nowdays.....

I think everyone has it right; there's enough blame/praise to go around for this weird war. The only clear winner was Andrew Jackson, who did successfully defend New Orleans.

Canada didn't get all it wanted? Canada was attacked, all it wanted was to successfully defend against the invasion. If they wanted more, THEY would have attacked.
Canada didn't exist, it was a colony of Great Britian so you have to lump that together with the aims of that country.

The war was between the US and Britian, not the US, Britain and Canada.

Americans, really at the time if they didin't totally lose they would had still won. Britain was head man in the world and had the biggest Empire that side of Rome, so when some crackpot ultra-republic acts all and mighty; Britain declares war and doesn't "win-win" then Britain obviously loses. Sometimes you forget who was the head honcho nowdays.....

Yes, when we got Britain to cease the war, we gained political influence. How you ask. Well the impressment of sailors stopped, we did beat the British navy on the great lakes even though we were outnumbered. Andrew Jackson KICKED some british butt and we held them off until they were tired of it. I think that it was probably the best time for America to declare war on Britain. Probably declared war at this time for that reason. Great diplomatic move on our part.

That war was a draw. The Royal Navy got embarrassed by a navy that had a fraction of the tenure of the Royal Navy by ships that were better, crews that were better, and captains that were better than they were. The only thing the Royal Navy had going for it was sheer numbers.

As for the Army, when the U.S. had well-trained regulars under capable generals, you had the Battle of Chippewa (an American victory led in large part by Winfield Scott). The U.S. also burned York (now Toronto) and defeated the British in two squadron actions that prevented them from implementing their battle plans (The Battle of Lake Erie and The Battle of Lake Champlain). The Battle of New Orleans proved what a tonne of mixie mixed with a little bit of prowess could do both for the Americans and to the British.

The only way the British could have claimed more than a draw would have been if the Treaty of Ghent included major concessions by the Americans. The only way the Americans could have claimed victory would have been if the Treaty had forced the British to make major concessions to the Americans. As it was, neither outcome happened that way.

A draw in the end, but much more satisfying for the British soldiers and Canadian troops under their command. Torching the US government and defeating an army with scarecrows, plenty of fun.

Maybe I am just being a biased Brit but every time I see anything relating to the War of 1812 it always says that it was a draw and highlights American victories, whereas looking at things I think it was a clear British win. What do other people think, British American Canadian or others?

I know no territory changed hands but surely in any conflict were the attacking side, in this case the Americans, fail to gain anything then it is a clear win for the defenders. Also the British burnt down Washington and were busy fighting Napoleon at the time.

Your right. It is your biasness. It was clearly a draw. neither side won the war. Learn a little more about 1812. Yes the Brits had advantages but near the end of the war, tide changed and the Brits were in retreat. Both sides never wanted the war and it was haphazzardly fought.

Yes, the war itself was a draw. Neither side won the war.

We didn't win, we survived. The British didn't want to fight anymore. Plus, the Battle of Lake Platt helped us at the barganing table. Then, after the treay was signed, we won the Battle of New Orleans. I still don't think we won completely.

Ah Kulikovo. The Brits where in full scale retreat on all fronts.

While neither side lost the War of 1812, it was a failure for the US, as they accomplished absolutely nothing, while losing Detroit and having Washington burned in the process.

And Britain didn't gain anything either. None of what they wanted was accomplished so in reality, it was a failure for them too. Therefor, it was a draw. However....in retrospect, the US did get most of what they wanted minus Canada.

When the war of 1812 was virtually over Canada (still a British colony) controlled most of the North Eastern States. Also, British and Canadian troops successfully attacked and blew up most of the White House (before i was called the White House).

Actually the Northeast was pretty much reclaimed when the War was over.

Rumor has it that the British who were growing more reliant on the American South for the cotton trade and other commodities forced their colony to relinquinsh control of Captured American states in exchange for special trading privledges and access to certain ports.

Don't see how as it was the South that was advocating for the war with Great Britain. They wanted to trade more with France while the North wanted to trade with England. Ironic isn't it. Oh and the white house was burned. It wasn't blown up and they were defeated at Baltimore and at Fort McHenry and suffered reversals on all fronts.

It seems about one of the most pointless wars ever I have to say... maybe why it is barely known here in Britain. More important things going on over here at the time.

Well said. It was a pointless war and it is hardly remembered here too.

The British didn't win the war of 1812, Canada did!

The US offensively attacked Canada in order to acquire land and wealth. They failed. Therefore, Canada won.

So tell me what territory Canada won?

Draw, both sides won battles, both lost. Both didn't get all that they wanted, and both had to make consessions at the end of the war.

Now if the British Empire could bring its full weight to bear, it may have indeed crushed and retaken America. But you could say that about the American Revolution as well (And there again, France helped the US in distracting the Brits from committing fully).

In terms of actual effects, the War of 1812 was a minior one that is only remembered for the Battle of New Orleans (Mainly thanks to that damn song and Andrew Jackson) on the US side and the buring of Washington on the Canadian side. The only really interesting bit was that the US Navy was able to go against the Royal Navy and win a few.

I hate it when people drag that Canada was there at D.C. when they were in fact, not. Also, the War of 1812 is also remembered for the Star Spangled Banner, written by Francis Scott Key at the Battle of Fort McHenry. Nice to know you didn't bother to include that.

Also a point...Canada was not a nation in 1812.

The Canadians won.

The Brits had 600 ships, America had 36. The most guns on any Brit ship was 100, U.S....32. So HOW could America win you ask? Well, if the Brits went full on us, we couldn't, but they had the "Boggey-Man" (Napoleon) to deal with, and we just wern't worth the effort, so they left.
They COULD have won, but it would have simply weakened them up for NAP-ATTACK, and they figured...anyway, the way I figure it, America did pretty damn good for what they had to work with.

And yet the USS Constitution did a hell of a number to the British Ships sent against it. It is still in service too.

Americans, really at the time if they didin't totally lose they would had still won. Britain was head man in the world and had the biggest Empire that side of Rome, so when some crackpot ultra-republic acts all and mighty; Britain declares war and doesn't "win-win" then Britain obviously loses. Sometimes you forget who was the head honcho nowdays.....

Actually...it was the US that declared war, not the Brits. :rolleyes:

The Canadians won.

Bull. They weren't even a nation in 1812. They were still part of the British Empire.

Actually...it was the US that declared war, not the Brits. :rolleyes:
Yup. The Brits started fighting the war against the Americans first, but the AMERICANS who declared it first.:rolleyes:

Americans, really at the time if they didin't totally lose they would had still won. Britain was head man in the world and had the biggest Empire that side of Rome, so when some crackpot ultra-republic acts all and mighty; Britain declares war and doesn't "win-win" then Britain obviously loses. Sometimes you forget who was the head honcho nowdays.....
Uh, the US declared war because Britain was impressing its sailors and continued to mantain garrisons in the Northwest territory. The Canadian thing was more of an extra, and the argument was made at the time that the US was liberating it from British tyranny, seeing as how they continued the old French way of governing (no trial by jury, elections etc.)

The war of 1812 was clearly a draw. Neither side really accomplished anything in the war or clearly won.

While all you pish posh the effects of the war, the war did have a tremendous effect here in America (I don't know much of Canadian or British history, so I'm not sure of the effects over in those places). For one, the United States gained a tremendous amount of respect from the world powers at the time (the lack of respect being a major problem that led up to the war.....both France and Britain were pretty much walking all over the freshly established United States). Even more substantial, it heralded in the Era of Good Feelings, promoting a huge surge in nationalism and prosperity in the United States. This prosperity and nationalism can be directely tied to setting the foundation for several other things in American history...like the foundation of the "Manifest Destiny" idealogy. Thirdly, it gave Andrew Jackson the fame to become a future president...he greatly altered the American political system and the course of American history.....Saying the war was pointless and did nothing is completely wrong (again at least for the United States)...

Hmm, I'd probably of added more reasons and beefed it out a little more...but I'm a bit rusty on my history.....

I hate it when people drag that Canada was there at D.C. when they were in fact, not.
Considering that most of the British regulars at the time were in fact from Canada (Or what would someday be Canada), I think they can lay claim to it.

Also, the War of 1812 is also remembered for the Star Spangled Banner, written by Francis Scott Key at the Battle of Fort McHenry. Nice to know you didn't bother to include that.
*sighs* I could of course point out just how many Americans probably actually know where that song came from. I could also point out that said song actually wasn't a song, but a poem, and it was set to a British drinking song that was around well before the War of 1812. I could also point out that the Star Spangled Banner doesn't mention said war, whereas The Battle of New Orleans does.

But in any case, it doesn't invalidate my point that it was a minor war that didn't really do all that much. The war between Britian and Napolean was far more important to the US as it led to the doubling of the country overnight.

Also a point...Canada was not a nation in 1812.
Already made.

Considering that most of the British regulars at the time were in fact from Canada (Or what would someday be Canada), I think they can lay claim to it.

Well just because the British (notice the word British) came from there does not mean that they won the war. They didn't. Neither side did.

*sighs* I could of course point out just how many Americans probably actually know where that song came from. I could also point out that said song actually wasn't a song, but a poem, and it was set to a British drinking song that was around well before the War of 1812. I could also point out that the Star Spangled Banner doesn't mention said war, whereas The Battle of New Orleans does.

Oh but it does it does for the 1st stanza alone describes the battle for the most part.

But in any case, it doesn't invalidate my point that it was a minor war that didn't really do all that much. The war between Britian and Napolean was far more important to the US as it led to the doubling of the country overnight.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How did it double over night?

Already made.

yea I saw after I posted.

The war of 1812 was clearly a draw. Neither side really accomplished anything in the war or clearly won.

While all you pish posh the effects of the war, the war did have a tremendous effect here in America (I don't know much of Canadian or British history, so I'm not sure of the effects over in those places). For one, the United States gained a tremendous amount of respect from the world powers at the time (the lack of respect being a major problem that led up to the war.....both France and Britain were pretty much walking all over the freshly established United States). Even more substantial, it heralded in the Era of Good Feelings, promoting a huge surge in nationalism and prosperity in the United States. This prosperity and nationalism can be directely tied to setting the foundation for several other things in American history...like the foundation of the "Manifest Destiny" idealogy. Thirdly, it gave Andrew Jackson the fame to become a future president...he greatly altered the American political system and the course of American history.....Saying the war was pointless and did nothing is completely wrong (again at least for the United States)...

Hmm, I'd probably of added more reasons and beefed it out a little more...but I'm a bit rusty on my history.....
No, it was fairly pointless. It didn't even settle border disputes between the US and Canada (Great Britian). It DID establish the Mississippi as America's road and with the Louisana Purchace, allowed the US to expand out to the Pacific, eventually (and losing Britian's last foothold within current American borders). But in terms of what actually exhcanged...

Eh... it was a minor brush war that neither side really wanted or fully committed to thanks to other events and situations. Quite honestly, except for Jackson's star being shot up thanks to The Battle of New Orleans, the war could have been avoided compleately and we'd still end up where we are now.

Well just because the British (notice the word British) came from there does not mean that they won the war. They didn't. Neither side did.
Uh, never claimed that they did. I just said that it was people from Canada who burned Washington and that's probably why it's remembered up there.

Oh but it does it does for the 1st stanza alone describes the battle for the most part.
Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little trip
along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.

vs.

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The Star Spangled Banner, beautiful as it is, doesn't give any discriptions as to where or when. It could have been a battle during the revolution for all that it mentioned here.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How did it double over night?
*Blinks* Um... the Louisiana Purchace... it more than doubled the size of the nation in one swoop. It was sold to us because the Emperor of France needed the money for fighting the British. That's why those wars were, in the long run, more important to American interests.

I would have to say a draw, only because the British realized how hard it would be to have to conquer and occupy all of America. Instead the Brits (who by that time were sick of war), took advantage of the fact that the Americans were getting fairly desperate to end the fiasco which the war had turned into by that point in time. The fact that it probably seemed to Madison at the time that the only people who weren't screwing up at every turn was the "American Navy" (not even having the power of a squadron of the line in the British navy and barely warrenting the name). Ironically the British admiralty was even more sick and tired of the war than probably any other portion of the British military given the fact the the American's were showing up the British navy to the point where it was forbidden for 1 British frigate to go up against 1 American frigate; and an observer at the begining of the war probably would have predicted that the American army would have given the British army problems and that the American navy would be swept away by the British navy.

In the end no one won and no one lost, even in terms of prestige the US managed to gather some more on the international scene because they were able to survive. They also gained prestige because they managed to defeat the British navy in almost every engagement a feat which was impossible for any other nation in the world (the US only won these engagements because almost all of the fighting at sea was done between frigates and US frigates of the time were MUCH stronger in terms of hull strength and armament than their British counterparts).

NERVUN,

Just because it does not say that it took place during the war of 1812, doesn't mean it that it was describing the Shelling of Fort McHenry. That is precisely what it was doing in the 1st stanza. I never said anything different.

In order to judge who won the war of 1812, we first need to see what objectives the two sides had.

America: absorb Canada and become a continental hegemony
British Empire: keep all North American territory

The American invasion of Canada was stopped, and created a sense of national pride which has sustained Canada to the present day. The USA gained no new territory, despite having an overwhelming numerical advantage in terms of ground forces.

An obvious British victory, pity Canada's smaller neighbour can't accept it :D

In order to judge who won the war of 1812, we first need to see what objectives the two sides had.

America: absorb Canada and become a continental hegemony
British Empire: keep all North American territory

The American invasion of Canada was stopped, and created a sense of national pride which has sustained Canada to the present day. The USA gained no new territory, despite having an overwhelming numerical advantage in terms of ground forces.

An obvious British victory, pity Canada's smaller neighbour can't accept it :D

My advice to you is to actually read what both sides wanted to accomplish in the war. Neither side accomplished anything. The War was a draw and all historians, save for the nationalistic ones, agree.

Though neither side won the war it is interesting to point out that there was an established Canadian government at that time (The United Province of Canada) and is one reason for why Canada is bilingual today (otherwise the Quebecois would have joined the United States because the US has no official language and, at that time, not too much of a defacto language since it was a young, revolutionary and inspiring nation).

NERVUN,

Just because it does not say that it took place during the war of 1812, doesn't mean it that it was describing the Shelling of Fort McHenry. That is precisely what it was doing in the 1st stanza. I never said anything different.
Corneliu,

MY point being that the War of 1812 is remember more through the song of The Battle of New Orleans than the Star Spangled Banner in the US. I know what the song describes. Any case, the point being is that the damn war is little remembered nowadays between the combatants of that particular war.

Corneliu,

MY point being that the War of 1812 is remember more through the song of The Battle of New Orleans than the Star Spangled Banner in the US. I know what the song describes. Any case, the point being is that the damn war is little remembered nowadays between the combatants of that particular war.

Which is sad really :(