Could the Americans have won the war of 1812?
- Thread starter KCammy
- Start date
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Yeah... we lost by not shooting for the major cities of Canada like we did in the F&I War and instead attacked absurd territories of little strategic value and then proceeded to get stomped resoundly.
Given the reasons why we were stomped on, targeting the important cities wouldn't have helped.
A better army with better generals (hard even with a president Hamilton - the losers are in place by seniority, not Democratic-Republican credentials) might make some difference, but a POD that far back might not have a War of 1812.
A better army with better generals (hard even with a president Hamilton - the losers are in place by seniority, not Democratic-Republican credentials) might make some difference, but a POD that far back might not have a War of 1812.
If the Federalists stay in power, there won't be a war in the first place.
If the US has a much more effective army and navy, there won't be a war in the first place.
Well if the Americans had taken control of the St. Lawrence above Ogdensburg immediately at the start of hostilities, then the entire British position in Upper Canada would have been in danger.
That doesn't prevent the Peninsula veterans from immediately taking it all back in 1814, but it does give them more to do and so there are more places where things can go wrong.
That doesn't prevent the Peninsula veterans from immediately taking it all back in 1814, but it does give them more to do and so there are more places where things can go wrong.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Look at the Treaty of Ghent.
If we think of victory in terms of which side got some nice swag, America definitely won.
If we think of it in terms of which side achieved their objectives, both did.
And if you just think of it in military perspectives, America was fucking lucky Britain was busy, and could've easily been completely stomped at any point had Britain decided it was prudent.
ooh, thanks for that!
now i know what i need to do to make the american annexation of western rupert's land in my ASB ATL as plausible as possible Wow what a sad view. The british did not win a clear victory on the battlefield people. By 1814 the british were losing on all fronts except canada. The US also manaved to sieze some dammgood victories on the great lakes. Please the british did not win a complete battlefield victory. After the bombing of fort henry the tide of the war turned against britain. By 1814 even with the best british armies invading america said guys who defeated Napoleon with napoleonic generals americans won incredible victories. Heard of the victory at Thames for excample. I agree first part of war america sucked. Second part they were beatin the british left and right. True canadian invasion was a failure but the british invasuon of the usa was also a very big failure. Please prove to me otherwise. The war was a stalemate Britain could not make any gains on american soil nor could america make gains on british soil. Their is a reason it was a stalemate.
About victory pausable but like others said US wont gain very much. Really by 1814 the american soldoers learned how to combat the british forces. Led by winfield scott and jacob brown heard the british defeats in the niagra campaign for excample. Americans also crushed british in chesapeake with our victory at Plattsburg
About victory pausable but like others said US wont gain very much. Really by 1814 the american soldoers learned how to combat the british forces. Led by winfield scott and jacob brown heard the british defeats in the niagra campaign for excample. Americans also crushed british in chesapeake with our victory at Plattsburg
Last edited:
What the...?
Solomaxwell6, the US gained no territory and the British didn't even concede the impressment of seamen, no doubt because with the end of the war in Europe neither side thought that was going to be a concern again for a long time.
Frederick Barbarossa II, by 1814 the diplomats in Ghent had been told to just try to get a restoration of the 1812 status quo which is the ultimate sign of a nation not winning the war.
Had the war continued without London distracted by Napoleon the outcome would have been very bad for the United States with the possible secession of New England and New York adding to the pain.
Solomaxwell6, the US gained no territory and the British didn't even concede the impressment of seamen, no doubt because with the end of the war in Europe neither side thought that was going to be a concern again for a long time.
Frederick Barbarossa II, by 1814 the diplomats in Ghent had been told to just try to get a restoration of the 1812 status quo which is the ultimate sign of a nation not winning the war.
Had the war continued without London distracted by Napoleon the outcome would have been very bad for the United States with the possible secession of New England and New York adding to the pain.
I never said USA won. I just said it ended in a stalemate grimm.What the...?
Solomaxwell6, the US gained no territory and the British didn't even concede the impressment of seamen, no doubt because with the end of the war in Europe neither side thought that was going to be a concern again for a long time.
Frederick Barbarossa II, by 1814 the diplomats in Ghent had been told to just try to get a restoration of the 1812 status quo which is the ultimate sign of a nation not winning the war.
Had the war continued without London distracted by Napoleon the outcome would have been very bad for the United States with the possible secession of New England and New York adding to the pain.
As New orleons showed us the british simply do not have the capacity to conquer all of america. New england secession by this point is over. Face it the fed party is dead by this point. This is what happens. Should war continue Britain launches repeated invasions which end in failure. War becomes a defensive war for the USA, and after more years of fghting same type of treaty would occur. Really the british have by this point lost in their invasion. Please Plattsburg, Southern campains, chesapeake, USA was winning. The tide had turned in USA favour. so basically if we look at it strictly frommthe war goal point britain won cause canada was defended successfully. In reality it was a stalemate because britain could not make any real gains. Seriously America started to learn how to adapt, fight and defeat british at their own game and are led by some of the best american Generals like Winfield scot, Brown and Andrew JacksonA single battle two weeks after the war was over doesn't show any such thing nor did the British have any interest in conquering the United States.
The US abandoned all the goals it started the war for, practically the definition of a loss.
It took the US nearly three years to field armies which could handle defensive campaigns but the British had freed up much larger forces after Waterloo so another year of war without the British treating North America as a secondary theater would only have left the question of what the terms imposed on the US would have been.
The US abandoned all the goals it started the war for, practically the definition of a loss.
It took the US nearly three years to field armies which could handle defensive campaigns but the British had freed up much larger forces after Waterloo so another year of war without the British treating North America as a secondary theater would only have left the question of what the terms imposed on the US would have been.
Have you ever been to Fort Henry? If not then you should probably know the amazing thing about Fort Henry is that it never saw military action. It was established in 1812 but the impressive defenses we see today were not built until 1832.Though I have to assume your talking about Fort Henry Ontario because if you were talking about Fort Henry Virginia this would make less sense.
As for the British on the battlefield...um did you miss the part where they kicked the US out of Canada then proceeded to invade the US proper? Yes they were pushed back but that's because the campaign had no strategic direction and the higher ups in London weren't interested in dragging the war on. Had the British committed their best boys in Europe to the fight against the markedly inferior American armies those generals (and yes I'm talking about generals the British didn't commit their best commanders by far) they would have ground the Americans into the dust.
I meant fort Mchenry
yes they invaded US Proper but it was a failure. If what you say about britain is true, the victories americans acbieved just goes to show you Brtain may win the war but suffer heavy casultis. Like i Said if you mean because US were kicked out of canada the british won i agree. However if we take into context the british failures on american soil you will see it was a stalemate with neither side gainin or losing anything.When one side starts a war and ends with none of the starting goals and the other defends and achieves all of the starting goals that's not a stalemate.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Could the British have done it? Sure, they were at the height of their power, Britain was the center of military thought in the world, they had everything America didn't have. Problem is the commitment issue, and that of a paramilitary war. Britain was very powerful at the time of the Revolution as well and Britain's strategies were poorly thought-through, the problem with fighting America is that to fully win you have to have some elements of an occupation, destroy their land armies and they turn to paramilitary tactics, America's big and it has very few truly strategic cities (i.e. easy, identifiable targets) that if captured can bring America to a screeching halt. New Orleans and other port/trade cities would help but not give Britain an automatic victory.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Grimm, we've argued this before, and you've never shown any real evidence for America waging a war of aggression to annex Canada like you seemed to think it was. Yes, there were certain individuals who would've welcomed that, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the reason some members of Congress voted for the war, but it was absolutely not national policy.
The US declaration of war is basically summed up by this (from Madison's War Message):
America's leadership saw Britain as waging a de facto war against American commerce and sailors, and saw Britain aiding Native Americans fighting against America. It was absolutely not just a case of Madison saying "Canada loves us, let's go liberate them from those stupid limeys!"
Most of America's wargoals were rendered obsolete for one reason or another. You yourself admit that impressment was a non-issue after the war. Hell, it would've been a non-issue before the war, if only things had been delayed a while and the US had the chance to learn that Liverpool had become Prime Minister and opportunities for better relations and greater cooperation had opened up (I can't remember if Liverpool had actually ended impressment or had only planned to; either way, it would've happened shortly). The economic concerns, Britain interfering in American trade, ended with the Napoleonic Wars. Tecumseh's coalition was smashed, and so ended large scale, unified Native American rebellion in the midwest.
If we look at the actual terms of the Treaty of Ghent:
Articles 1-3 just declares peace, and states roughly a status quo ante bellum. Both sides return any property to the other, withdraw forces, and return POWs. Britain actually ended up paying indemnities rather than restoring some property (specifically, slaves).
Articles 4-8 are an agreement to settle some territorial disputes, creating various commissions to do so.
Article 9 is an absolutely toothless agreement that Canada and the US should treat their respective natives better, ends the state of war between Britain and the US and the respective natives, with a nice little out clause saying "You should give them back their land and stuff, unless they ever act hostile to any US citizen" and with absolutely no way of enforcement.
Article 10 is another toothless unenforceable agreement saying "Slavery is bad and we should probably get rid of it some day."
And finally article 11 is just an administrative thing, "this treaty shall go into effect when blah blah blah."
So, I'm just kind of wondering, given that the US more or less achieved what they wanted (if we don't give attention to the ridiculous assertion that the US was trying to annex Canada), the UK more or less achieved what they wanted, and the actual peace treaty doesn't give preference to either side, how anyone could consider the US losing the peace (the US losing the military situation is a given, and one I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously argue)?