Who Won the War of 1812?

[Orioes]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

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.

[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Minor note: Actually the US outnumbered Canada by almost 15 to 1, 7.5 million Americans to .5 million Canadians.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Someone remind me to find the details as to why the US frigates were so formidable relative to the British frigates faced.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The initial stated points of the war was to break Britain's interference with American trade, the impressment of American sailors, the arming of Indians and the refusal to vacate a number of forts in theoretically American territory (all things the Americans considered illegal). The reason that Canada is remembered as the primary aim is because Britain had coincided or agreed to negotiate on all the other points shortly before the war began therefore the primary reason for invading Canada in the first place (forcing the UK to the bargaining table) vanishes . In fact if London-Washington communication had been faster there is a good chance the war would have been averted. On the matter of American frigates. Basically they were more heavily built and armed then British frigates yet faster despite it. Also they were crewed with a large number of well trained volunteers and officers fresh from the 1st Barbary War. Whereas many of the British crews were pressed men with 6th-rate officers (most of the good crews were concentrated on the French). The August edition of Naval History has a good article of the war from the British perspective if your interested.[/FONT]

 

[Sachyriel]

Canada won in the end, considering how it played out. We've got the most territory after a 200 year reprieve from war in our nation against the US, especially since they're our biggest trading partner.

Never mind their goals and ambitions during the war era of 18-fucking-12. The real question is who won, who lost, and the fact is Canada and Britain defeated the United States.

Because of this massive beat down, the United States had enough sense to not try again.

It hasn't tried in 196 years.

Canada:

9,984,670 km²
​

United States:

9,826,630 km²

Great Britain:

244 820 km²

Canada is even bigger than these other two nations combined [9 851 112 km² is US + UK area], so we are the champions.

Now, kindly shut the hell up about this, it is not up for debate anymore, because you cannot claim otherwise.
​

 

[Orioes]

Canada won in the end, considering how it played out. We've got the most territory after a 200 year reprieve from war in our nation against the US, especially since they're our biggest trading partner.

Never mind their goals and ambitions during the war era of 18-fucking-12. The real question is who won, who lost, and the fact is Canada and Britain defeated the United States.

Because of this massive beat down, the United States had enough sense to not try again.

It hasn't tried in 196 years.

Canada:

9,984,670 km²
​

United States:

9,826,630 km²

Great Britain:

244 820 km²

Canada is even bigger than these other two nations combined [9 851 112 km² is US + UK area], so we are the champions.

Now, kindly shut the hell up about this, it is not up for debate anymore, because you cannot claim otherwise.
​

Cool down dude we are just discussing our opinions on a war where there is no clear victor. Largely because those who gained from it gained in largely immaterial ways. If this irritates or angers you I suggest avoiding similar threads in the future. On the matter of the lack of another Anglo-American war. This in my opinion is largely due to the fact that Britain never substantially interfered in American affairs again and the fact that having "beaten" Britain in their estimation the Americans saw no reason to pick a fight to "prove" their independence. Basically if relations are amicable and national interests don't substantially conflict why fight? Finally if we judge success in a war on the basis of final controlled area Russia kicked Britain's butt in Crimea .

* Im not trying to call you out or anything. Just trying to make my points.

 

[Umbric Man]

Canada won in the end, considering how it played out. We've got the most territory after a 200 year reprieve from war in our nation against the US, especially since they're our biggest trading partner.

Never mind their goals and ambitions during the war era of 18-fucking-12. The real question is who won, who lost, and the fact is Canada and Britain defeated the United States.

Because of this massive beat down, the United States had enough sense to not try again.

It hasn't tried in 196 years.

Canada:

9,984,670 km²​

United States:

9,826,630 km²​

Great Britain:

244 820 km²​

Canada is even bigger than these other two nations combined [9 851 112 km² is US + UK area], so we are the champions.​

Now, kindly shut the hell up about this, it is not up for debate anymore, because you cannot claim otherwise.​

​

​

'Massive beatdown'? 'Enough sense'?

When one considers York actually got torched, I guess that counts...and a lot of land area you're currently loading over was already originally British territory given over or considering annexation to the US (witness the Columbia tract). Or the classic 'most of the population lives within 30 miles of the US border'.

Or that Britain also supplied many regulars to protect the native Canucks.

Yes, yes, go on about the 'massive beatdown' that the primarily British troops won and the territory pretty much handed over to you.

 

[candyman82]

Canada won in the end, considering how it played out. We've got the most territory after a 200 year reprieve from war in our nation against the US, especially since they're our biggest trading partner.

Never mind their goals and ambitions during the war era of 18-fucking-12. The real question is who won, who lost, and the fact is Canada and Britain defeated the United States.

Because of this massive beat down, the United States had enough sense to not try again.

It hasn't tried in 196 years.

Canada:

9,984,670 km²
​

United States:

9,826,630 km²

Great Britain:

244 820 km²

Canada is even bigger than these other two nations combined [9 851 112 km² is US + UK area], so we are the champions.

Now, kindly shut the hell up about this, it is not up for debate anymore, because you cannot claim otherwise.
​

Congrats, you have a bunch of shitty tundra and thousands of uninhabited islands.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Okay kids, go to your rooms and read quietly. No TV, internet, radio, gameboys or playing outside for the rest of the day.

 

[Dutchie]

everyone please note that most of us Canucks have a more nuanced approach than mmmeee0... at the very least we can formulate a more sensible defense...

 

[Redem]

Isn't the 1812 war the war we try to forget and push under the carpet?

 

[candyman82]

Isn't the 1812 war the war we try to forget and push under the carpet?

Your thinking of Korea

 

[Andrew Hudson]

1812 overtures

In reality it was a draw although the Canadians claim they won it as the drove the invaders back. Britain had the upper hand once the war in Europe was over and the Royal Navy had sunk or neutralised the six fast frigates. The first pocket battleships? the speed of a frigate but armour of a ship of the line. Packenhams incompetence at New Orleans weakened Britains hand a bit but the war was over by then anway.

There was however a major loser, the Cree, Shawnee and Lakota nations.

Teddy Roosevelt described it as ther most unecessary war in history. C.S Forester allegedly based Hornblower on a British Admiral in the war but amended the war and Patrick O'Brians Master and Commander was amended by Hollywood to have HMS Seraphis hunt and French privateer rather than an American one resulting in some anachronisms in the script.

What if Pakenhams brother in law Sir Arthur Wellesley had accepted command of the British forces in North America, would it have been a British Victory?

 

[Zyzzyva]

In reality it was a draw although the Canadians claim they won it as the drove the invaders back. Britain had the upper hand once the war in Europe was over and the Royal Navy had sunk or neutralised the six fast frigates. The first pocket battleships? the speed of a frigate but armour of a ship of the line. Packenhams incompetence at New Orleans weakened Britains hand a bit but the war was over by then anway.

There was however a major loser, the Cree, Shawnee and Lakota nations.

The Cree were a bit far away and the Lakota weren't even involved; you could only say it was a loss for them in the sense that it made the later American expansion possible, in which case the Mexicans, Apache, and Baathist Iraqis were also losers. But yes, the First Nations definitely came out the losers of the war.

[/quote]Teddy Roosevelt described it as ther most unecessary war in history. C.S Forester allegedly based Hornblower on a British Admiral in the war but amended the war and Patrick O'Brians Master and Commander was amended by Hollywood to have HMS Seraphis hunt and French privateer rather than an American one resulting in some anachronisms in the script.[/quote]

I love how the States was on the wrong side of the Napoleonic Wars.

What if Pakenhams brother in law Sir Arthur Wellesley had accepted command of the British forces in North America, would it have been a British Victory?

Pakenham, as you said, came too late to affect the course of the war. I'm really not sure there's any plausible way to have the Brits do that much better - the Champlain valley, OK, maybe Michigan and the extreme northwest for the natives, but not much more than that.

 

[Tyr]

Canada (well, Britain) won without a doubt.

For the xxxth time:

Mr.Britain is walking home through the city with his son Canada late one night when a man suddenly jumps out at him "Hand over your boy and your wallet you cur" yells Mr.US.
"Why on earth would I do that? I'm bigger than you" says Mr.Britain.
So Mr.US attacks.
Mr.US manages to land a few punches on Mr.Britain which manages to dirty his clothes a little, Mr.Britain is wearing a nice suit and dry cleaning is expensive.
Mr.Britain then punches Mr.US square on the nose and knocks him to the ground. He then kicks Mr.US in the head (Washington) then tries to kick him in the family jewels (New Orleans), Mr.US is wearing a cup though so Mr.Britain stubs his toe a little instead.
Mr.Britain then picks up his son and walks away.

Now.
Who won here?

Was it the mugger? I mean he didn't get HIS wallet stolen did he? And his only pains are on his head. He also picked himself back up straight after the confrontation and went about his business.

Or was it the victim? All he ever wanted was to get home safely afterall. As it turns out the stains from Mr.US' punches come straight off in the washing machine. Also as a added plus his son now thinks dad is the greatest man in the universe and can protect him from anything, this is especially nice for Mr.Britain considering the ongoing custody battle with Canada's mother and that the courts think the boy should have a large say in his fate.

 

[bill_mchale]

I must say I find the analogies amusing. I also find that they continue to be based on the rather questionable premise that conquest and annexation of Canada was a war aim for the United States. While I am sure some Americans in fact wanted to Annex Canada, I think most modern historians (including Canadian ones) believe that conquest of Canada was a means of waging war on Britain. Certainly in the period it was common in War to seize the over seas possessions of a country you were at war with and then use them to bargain with at the negotiating table.

Over all, in large part, the United States, in large part, fought the war because it felt that England was not really treating them as an independent country. England after all not only stopped American Merchant ships to impress members of their crew into service, she did the same to at least one American War ship (the Chesapeake in 1807). Further England refused to let American merchant ships trade with France (which by 1812, included most of Europe).

Further, while the official American Navy was mostly bottled up by the end of the War, American Privateers continued to operate
through out the war and took over 1000 prizes over the course of the war.

In other words, while the War might have been a relative side show for the British, the American did significant damage to British merchants.

I think it is clear that had the war continued into 1816 when the British had been freed from worrying about Napoleon, that America would have been in for a world of hurt. That being said; by 1815 when the war ended, the British had suffered enough losses, and with the need for them to blockade France over and therefore the need to impress sailors into service also being over, there was little need for them or for America to fight the war to a clear conclusion.

To put it in simple terms, the fact that people can argue after 190 years about who won the war suggests that very simply, it was a draw.

--
Bill

 

[bill_mchale]

To make the analogy a bit more accurate, lets add a few more details.

Canada (well, Britain) won without a doubt.

For the xxxth time:

Mr.Britain is walking home through the city with his son Canada late one night when a man suddenly jumps out at him "Hand over your boy and your wallet you cur" yells Mr.US.
"Why on earth would I do that? I'm bigger than you" says Mr.Britain.

Mr. Britain felt confident since he routinely slapped the face of Mr. US every time he passed him on the street. So he couldn't understand why Mr. US was acting so hostile now since he had taken his face being slapped for years.

So Mr.US attacks.
Mr.US manages to land a few punches on Mr.Britain which manages to dirty his clothes a little, Mr.Britain is wearing a nice suit and dry cleaning is expensive.
Mr.Britain then punches Mr.US square on the nose and knocks him to the ground. He then kicks Mr.US in the head (Washington) then tries to kick him in the family jewels (New Orleans), Mr.US is wearing a cup though so Mr.Britain stubs his toe a little instead.

Actually he did more than stub a toe since in the process of kicking Mr. US in the head he broke his one foot (i.e. the Battle of Baltimore).

Mr.Britain then picks up his son and walks away.

Now.
Who won here?

Was it the mugger? I mean he didn't get HIS wallet stolen did he? And his only pains are on his head. He also picked himself back up straight after the confrontation and went about his business.

Actually, he found that Mr. Britain had dropped a considerable amount of cash in the altercation (the 1000+ ships that U.S. Privateers took).

Or was it the victim? All he ever wanted was to get home safely afterall. As it turns out the stains from Mr.US' punches come straight off in the washing machine. Also as a added plus his son now thinks dad is the greatest man in the universe and can protect him from anything, this is especially nice for Mr.Britain considering the ongoing custody battle with Canada's mother and that the courts think the boy should have a large say in his fate.

Of course Mr. Britain never tells Canada how he frequently use to slap Mr. US in the head whenever he met him. And Mr. Britain decides it is probably a good idea to discontinue the process in the future.

Oh right and while Mr. Britain and his son are preoccupied at how great they are, Mr. US becomes the most powerful man in the world.

--
Bill

 

[Zyzzyva]

I must say I find the analogies amusing. I also find that they continue to be based on the rather questionable premise that conquest and annexation of Canada was a war aim for the United States. While I am sure some Americans in fact wanted to Annex Canada, I think most modern historians (including Canadian ones) believe that conquest of Canada was a means of waging war on Britain. Certainly in the period it was common in War to seize the over seas possessions of a country you were at war with and then use them to bargain with at the negotiating table.

Gah! It was a war aim! Yes, making the Brits respect them as a real country was a goal. But they also wanted Canada.

EDIT: and as for your analogy correction - Baltimore wasn't a broken foot. It was a failure to kick the US in the balls - the Brits bombarded Fort McHenry, realised it wasn't going to surrender any time soon, and left. Yes, it was a defeat, but hardly a crushing one.

Oh, and at the time of the treaty Britain had slightly over a century left of being far and away the mightiest nation on Earth. The States didn't become noticeably more powerful until the end of the First World War.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Meanwhile the US economy was nearly shattered to the point that New England effectively signed a separate peace with the British, which is rather more significant than a degree of privateering.

The US certainly achieved nothing regarding impressment or American trade except in the sense that neither issue mattered once Napoleon was beaten. And the US ironically invoked the right of blockade in 1861.

Likewise the British had withdrawn from the forts in the Old Northwest long before the war began.


As for Baltimore, if the British had been victorious you have to wonder if the US could have handled the utter humiliation of losing despite having all the advantages of the defender plus outnumbering the British 4 to 1.

 

[bill_mchale]

Gah! It was a war aim! Yes, making the Brits respect them as a real country was a goal. But they also wanted Canada.

Putting it in bold and italics doesn't make it so. The work of John Stagg, Donald Hickey, Roger Brown, Reginald Horsman and Alfred Burt (A Canadian) all reject the notion that annexing Canada was a war aim of the United States.

EDIT: and as for your analogy correction - Baltimore wasn't a broken foot. It was a failure to kick the US in the balls - the Brits bombarded Fort McHenry, realised it wasn't going to surrender any time soon, and left. Yes, it was a defeat, but hardly a crushing one.

I wouldn't call a broken foot a crushing blow. I would say however that the failure to take Baltimore (which was actually caused by two the British loosing two battles, the Battle of Fort McHenry and the Battle of North Point) mean that the whole Chesapeake Campaign was in large part a failure. Baltimore was considered at least as important as DC. Privateers from Baltimore were one of the major sources of British shipping losses during the war. Thus, while the British obtained the symbolic victory of burning DC, they didn't achieve much of anything in the way oh actually hindering the privateers that had caused British Shipping so much grief.

Oh, and at the time of the treaty Britain had slightly over a century left of being far and away the mightiest nation on Earth. The States didn't become noticeably more powerful until the end of the First World War.

Only if you weren't paying attention. The main reason the United States weren't noticed was they were concentrating on spreading across the continent. It can be argued that at the end of the Civil War, the United States Army was the most powerful in the world. The fact that it in large part demobilized after the war does not change the fact that by the latter part of the 19th century the United States was a giant in the world, a sleeping giant maybe, but still a giant. Certainly its industrial output, and therefore its potential military output was greater than either England's or Germany's well before 1914.


--
Bill

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

To make the analogy a bit more accurate, lets add a few more details.


Mr. Britain felt confident since he routinely slapped the face of Mr. US every time he passed him on the street. So he couldn't understand why Mr. US was acting so hostile now since he had taken his face being slapped for years.



Actually he did more than stub a toe since in the process of kicking Mr. US in the head he broke his one foot (i.e. the Battle of Baltimore).



Actually, he found that Mr. Britain had dropped a considerable amount of cash in the altercation (the 1000+ ships that U.S. Privateers took).




Of course Mr. Britain never tells Canada how he frequently use to slap Mr. US in the head whenever he met him. And Mr. Britain decides it is probably a good idea to discontinue the process in the future.

Oh right and while Mr. Britain and his son are preoccupied at how great they are, Mr. US becomes the most powerful man in the world.

--
Bill

Another Point, Mr. US is Also Mr. Britain's Estranged Adult Son ...

Furthermore, The Money in Question has been in Dispute for Years, While Half of The Other Son was Kidnapped by The Father and The Now-Adult Son Years ago ...

All in All a Pretty Dysfunctional Family, Luckily in 120 Years they will ALL Commiserate upon The Field of Battle!

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Another Point, Mr. US is Also Mr. Britain's Estranged Adult Son ...

Furthermore, The Money in Question has been in Dispute for Years, While Half of The Other Son was Kidnapped by The Father and The Now-Adult Son Years ago ...

All in All a Pretty Dysfunctional Family, Luckily in 120 Years they will ALL Commiserate upon The Field of Battle!

Actualy, I would like to put out the idea that Canada should be a girl.

I mean, seriously, why else would want Mr. America would want young Canada if not to marry her.

 

[Dan1988]

Actualy, I would like to put out the idea that Canada should be a girl.

I mean, seriously, why else would want Mr. America would want young Canada if not to marry her.

Eww, that's incest!