Who Won the War of 1812?
- Thread starter the Apple Man
- Start date
As the others are saying militarily it was a draw. York was burnt but the US didn't hold Canada for any length of time. D.C. was burnt but the US shattered the RN's aura of invincibility. Culturally though the War of 1812 was a massive American coup a lesser victory for Canada and a slight defeat for Britain.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, the British failed in their intervention in the Old North-West, and they didn't even gain Astoria. In terms of lasting outcomes, it removed British influence from a large area that had seen it residually reside in. I realise Oregon became a co-dominion, but if Astoria had been recognised as British, the eventual border would have been on the Columbia River
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Actually I will argue that it was a massive victory for Canada as well, as the 1812 War galvanized all the latent nationalism that had existed here. As far as the perception went, Canadian civilian militiamen managed to successfully fight off American soldiers better than the British regulars did. Whether or not that perception is totally accurate is besides the point--that perception was there. It also stimulated the construction of various military defences as well as the Rideau Canal. It also completely erased any lingering pro-American feelings that the population had.
Dunno if this makes any sense, but I once came up with a metaphor for the War of 1812 when having this discussion with some American friends in an attempt to put American claims of victory into perspective. It went something like this -
Imagine if in June of 1944, with American armies fully committed in Europe and the Pacific, the Mexican government decides this is the perfect occasion to reverse the humiliations of the 19th century and launches a full on invasion with the intent of regaining the lost territories. Of course it's a fiasco - the Mexican army makes it a few miles over the border before being routed by the Texan and Californian national guards, and Mexico City is burned to the ground in what is essentially a training mission for the USAAF. An unusually well led force of Mexican troops and militia does however manage to secure a lucky victory against a poorly planned attempt to sieze Acapulco. It's now spring 1945, and the war in Europe is obviously winding down so the Mexican government sues for peace in the hope of getting the best deal possible before the American troops come home. The US government, wanting to concentrate on Japan, goes along and an agreement basically affirming the status quo ante is reached.
It's now 60 years later, and Mexican posters on the internet are claiming that they won the war because the Americans failed to conquer their country and were forced to take Mexico seriously for the first time. How do you respond?
Imagine if in June of 1944, with American armies fully committed in Europe and the Pacific, the Mexican government decides this is the perfect occasion to reverse the humiliations of the 19th century and launches a full on invasion with the intent of regaining the lost territories. Of course it's a fiasco - the Mexican army makes it a few miles over the border before being routed by the Texan and Californian national guards, and Mexico City is burned to the ground in what is essentially a training mission for the USAAF. An unusually well led force of Mexican troops and militia does however manage to secure a lucky victory against a poorly planned attempt to sieze Acapulco. It's now spring 1945, and the war in Europe is obviously winding down so the Mexican government sues for peace in the hope of getting the best deal possible before the American troops come home. The US government, wanting to concentrate on Japan, goes along and an agreement basically affirming the status quo ante is reached.
It's now 60 years later, and Mexican posters on the internet are claiming that they won the war because the Americans failed to conquer their country and were forced to take Mexico seriously for the first time. How do you respond?
I'll never undersand the inclination to declare an American victory to this war.
Yes, the aura of invincibility of the RN was damaged - but this was an assumption that any one RN frigate could and must defeat any two or three foreign ships in battle. The Rn believed this themselves, and the losses were terrific blows to the collective confidence. But select engagements do not make a full war.
Yes, the American forces were the weaker set - but the British were in an existensial conflict with the French, and this was a side-show. It's like saying Japan won WW2 because they chased Britain out of Hong Kong.
The Americans were the agressors and they gained nothing. The British/Canadians were defenders and lost nothing. The eventual settlement of the NorAm continent can hardly be claimed a victorious result of 1812, they were inevitable demographics. There were far more Americans (4 million) than proto-Canadians (500,000 all told, 100,000 in Upper Canada) to fill up the empty spaces. If anything, the fact that Canada is as large and complete as it is is something of a testament of how little impact the war of 1812 had on future divisions of the continent.
Sure, it was a draw in that Britain hardly tried or paid attention and the US tried as hard as they could and accomplished nothing, and in the end it was poor bastards in uniform that lost anything.
Yes, the aura of invincibility of the RN was damaged - but this was an assumption that any one RN frigate could and must defeat any two or three foreign ships in battle. The Rn believed this themselves, and the losses were terrific blows to the collective confidence. But select engagements do not make a full war.
Yes, the American forces were the weaker set - but the British were in an existensial conflict with the French, and this was a side-show. It's like saying Japan won WW2 because they chased Britain out of Hong Kong.
The Americans were the agressors and they gained nothing. The British/Canadians were defenders and lost nothing. The eventual settlement of the NorAm continent can hardly be claimed a victorious result of 1812, they were inevitable demographics. There were far more Americans (4 million) than proto-Canadians (500,000 all told, 100,000 in Upper Canada) to fill up the empty spaces. If anything, the fact that Canada is as large and complete as it is is something of a testament of how little impact the war of 1812 had on future divisions of the continent.
Sure, it was a draw in that Britain hardly tried or paid attention and the US tried as hard as they could and accomplished nothing, and in the end it was poor bastards in uniform that lost anything.
bravo! splendid! I wish I could sig that whole passage!Dunno if this makes any sense, but I once came up with a metaphor for the War of 1812 when having this discussion with some American friends in an attempt to put American claims of victory into perspective. It went something like this -
Imagine if in June of 1944, with American armies fully committed in Europe and the Pacific, the Mexican government decides this is the perfect occasion to reverse the humiliations of the 19th century and launches a full on invasion with the intent of regaining the lost territories. Of course it's a fiasco - the Mexican army makes it a few miles over the border before being routed by the Texan and Californian national guards, and Mexico City is burned to the ground in what is essentially a training mission for the USAAF. An unusually well led force of Mexican troops and militia does however manage to secure a lucky victory against a poorly planned attempt to sieze Acapulco. It's now spring 1945, and the war in Europe is obviously winding down so the Mexican government sues for peace in the hope of getting the best deal possible before the American troops come home. The US government, wanting to concentrate on Japan, goes along and an agreement basically affirming the status quo ante is reached.
It's now 60 years later, and Mexican posters on the internet are claiming that they won the war because the Americans failed to conquer their country and were forced to take Mexico seriously for the first time. How do you respond?
Last edited:
Why thank you, that is quite possibly the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me on AH.com
Officially it was more of a British victory, but psychologically it ended as a huge victory for the United States, with the successful defense of Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans. With those three victories, people in the US basically forgot all about the defeats earlier in the war or the failure to secure the war's original goals. It was a huge stimulus to US patriotism, with the idea (true or false) that the US had thoroughly beaten the same armies that had beaten the French in Spain.
Psychologically it was also a huge success for the Canadians, for reasons that other people have described.
It's one of the few wars in history where both sides considered themselves the clear winners.
Psychologically it was also a huge success for the Canadians, for reasons that other people have described.
It's one of the few wars in history where both sides considered themselves the clear winners.
but self-delusion doesn't change the objective outcome of the war.
The NY Rangers play the Vancouver Canucks in the NHL tonight... the Rangers are first in their division, the Canucks second in another. If the final score is tied, the Canuck fans can claim a victory in that they are the under-dogs and they overcame the odds. But that doesn't change the fact that they didn't win.
It's hardly a surprise that the Americans or anyone else would be more effective when on the defensive but the point of the war was to gain territory, not frantically fight to lose as little as possible.
Minor note: Actually the US outnumbered Canada by almost 15 to 1, 7.5 million Americans to .5 million Canadians.
Someone remind me to find the details as to why the US frigates were so formidable relative to the British frigates faced.
Minor note: Actually the US outnumbered Canada by almost 15 to 1, 7.5 million Americans to .5 million Canadians.
Someone remind me to find the details as to why the US frigates were so formidable relative to the British frigates faced.
I believe that in history, what people think happened is often just as, if not more, important than what actually happened. Why? Because people act based on how they perceive reality, not how it really is.
Going by initial goals, it was a successful defense of Canada by Britain. The US went in with the hope of caputuring Canada and wiping out the British-supported Indians in the North-west, and in the end got kicked out of Canada and then some. However, the Indian threat did get smashed.
Going by evolved goals, it gets debatable. Both sides certainly changed goals and intentions as the war evolved: the US just trying to stay togetherr, while expanding the campaigns even as far away from Canada as New Orleans certainly indicates more than 'just' protecting Canada, which had already been achieved by that point. Certainly there were voices in British circles about carving up parts of the US, if not all of it.
So the US failed in its initial goals (seize canada) and succeeded in its later ones (to reamain intact, independent, and not under undo British influence), while Britain certainly succeded in its initial objectived (protect Canada) but achieved little, if anything, else (no major concessions from the US, no enforcement of Britich will over future US policies, etc.).
I won't go into who really 'won' the war, but I will note that the conflict did have benefits for the US. The peace saw the British abandon forts on the Frontier in American territory and saw much less support for the Native Americans, who were soon smashed as a force in opposition to settlement. The conflict-turned-crisis also established a period of nationalism that helped unify the US as a nation, saw the Executive branch exercise its war-leading powers for the first time, and overall set the tone and traditions that would effect the growth of America from then on. People mention how 1812 saw the birth of a Canadian identity in opposition to the US, but the War of 1812 was also the birth of American identity and nationalism.
Going by evolved goals, it gets debatable. Both sides certainly changed goals and intentions as the war evolved: the US just trying to stay togetherr, while expanding the campaigns even as far away from Canada as New Orleans certainly indicates more than 'just' protecting Canada, which had already been achieved by that point. Certainly there were voices in British circles about carving up parts of the US, if not all of it.
So the US failed in its initial goals (seize canada) and succeeded in its later ones (to reamain intact, independent, and not under undo British influence), while Britain certainly succeded in its initial objectived (protect Canada) but achieved little, if anything, else (no major concessions from the US, no enforcement of Britich will over future US policies, etc.).
I won't go into who really 'won' the war, but I will note that the conflict did have benefits for the US. The peace saw the British abandon forts on the Frontier in American territory and saw much less support for the Native Americans, who were soon smashed as a force in opposition to settlement. The conflict-turned-crisis also established a period of nationalism that helped unify the US as a nation, saw the Executive branch exercise its war-leading powers for the first time, and overall set the tone and traditions that would effect the growth of America from then on. People mention how 1812 saw the birth of a Canadian identity in opposition to the US, but the War of 1812 was also the birth of American identity and nationalism.
US frigates stuffed more guns on board their ships than the British did, IIRC.
I always compare the war of 1812 to the Korean war... the aggressors in both wars (USA and NK) both started the wars with intent to grab territory and failed... the two defenders (Canada/UK and SK/UN) held the line and fought back, taking the fight onto the invaders' home ground, but ultimately failed to take any of the invaders' land. Thus, both wars ended pretty much where they started, with no land changing hands. Yet, both sides claim victory in the war of 1812, but the Korean war is always called a tie. I say both wars were a tie.
The war of 1812 was ultimately more important for the USA than the UK. To the latter, it was nothing but a sideshow of little importance. However, it also proved to be the last time the US and UK went to war. The US went on it's expansion across the continent pretty much free of worry about Canada and the UK. The borders between the US and Canada were all established peacefully, by negotiation, and all the UK plans for Indian buffer states (as well as support for hostile tribes on behalf of the UK) were ended. The US failed to take Canada, and never tried again, turning it's attention to Mexico. Whether it was a draw or a US loss, the war of 1812 had some long term and important consequences for the USA...
The war of 1812 was ultimately more important for the USA than the UK. To the latter, it was nothing but a sideshow of little importance. However, it also proved to be the last time the US and UK went to war. The US went on it's expansion across the continent pretty much free of worry about Canada and the UK. The borders between the US and Canada were all established peacefully, by negotiation, and all the UK plans for Indian buffer states (as well as support for hostile tribes on behalf of the UK) were ended. The US failed to take Canada, and never tried again, turning it's attention to Mexico. Whether it was a draw or a US loss, the war of 1812 had some long term and important consequences for the USA...