Who Won the War of 1812?

[River of Death]

The US risked substantial territory without any evidence that settlement was advanced in the slightest. Indeed, the wave which established Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri shows clearly that the Native Americans simply could not stand up alone or even offer a credible attempt and only active British support, which the US declaration of war provided, could give the Natives a chance to win.

Perhaps this was due in part to the fact that so many NA warriors were killed during W1812. Besides Prophetstown, there was no great American attack on the Native Americans during W1812 that was not covered with the excuse of going after either Britain or Spain. Possibly, even, active British support led to the Native Americans falling apart. If thousands of Great Lakes tribe NAs had not fought with the British, they would not have been killed, nor given the false hope of Michigan territory, and most importantly, their important leaders would not have been killed.

Furthermore, without Jackson leading the drive in the south, the Creek civil war would have been brought to a quicker and slightly less bloody end, and without American involvement the most likely outcome is a Red Stick victory - so Tecumseh now has an ally in the south.

Even if there is no US declaration of war on either England or Spain, probably both would still supply the NAs with guns and gunpowder. If the Native Americans can even partially unify before the decade ends, they could be strong enough militarily (and the Americans weak enough - without war as an excuse their peace-time army at this point was a 4-digit number) to prevent massive settlement from the SW corner of Lake Erie down the Wabash, along the Mississippi and then Tennessee, and in most of Alabama and Mississippi territory. How long this could hold for is debatable, but it certainly would be a credible attempt and it would delay westward expansion for possibly multiple decades.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Actually the British suffered greater casualties at the American debacle of Bladensburg because they walked into a contingent of @600 American sailors and marines under Commodore Joshua Barney who stood firm while ten times that many soldiers and militia ran at the first hint of danger.

While the British admired the courage and determination displayed by Barney's contingent it is understandable that they were taken off guard by one tenth of the opposing army fighting as long as was possible after the remaining nine tenths bolted in terror.



Tegytsgurb, absurd. When the US had enough settlers to take a territory that was it and the fact that by 1824 the tide of settlement sufficed to make Missouri a state makes this clear. Are you suggesting that the losses suffered in the war, and the US lost more soldiers than did the Native Americans, made the difference between the Natives successfully resisting the US for decades and giving way virtually without resistance?

Bear in mind that the most optimistic population levels for Native Americans east of the Mississippi(150-200K) was little more than half the population of Kentucky(300K) alone and their combined military capacity would have been less than Kentucky's, much less when artillery is taken into account.

Further, the likelihood of at least some tribes not joining Tecumseh is pretty much certain, and the ones which did join would of questionable training, extremely doubtful discipline, outnumbered, outgunned, divided territorially and in no position to yield anything without losing the alliance's cohesion, not to mention having zero competence when it came to logistics.

Then the history in the 18-24 months before the US declared war on the UK shows clearly that there was not the slightest chance of Tecumseh being able to form a coalition unhindered by the US.

Would the Spanish and British and American merchants as well have sold, not given, what the Indians wanted and could pay for? Certainly!

Would Tecumseh's vague coalition spread over a vast area, actually two separate areas, outnumbered and outgunned by just Kentucky's militia have been able to make a stand for even a portion of that territory, assuming they could decide which of their own territories and communities to abandon in the first place so as to make that stand? No.

Is there ANY case after 1800 east of the Mississippi where such a stand was successful? No.

I might also point out the 1790s in Ohio where an almost ludicrously small US troop contingent sufficed to seize an entire state whose population alone rivalled the entire Native population east of the Mississippi by 1812.

 

[67th Tigers]

I believe this, that the number of troops involved in the ACW was fairly overstated (on the other hand, no one claimed McClellan had an army of 180,000 in one place during the Antietam campaign, more like 90,000). Since it is probably close to your figures, let us assume that SG gets the number of troops exactly right over AG.

In that case, where are similar numbers for the Franco-Prussian War? Presumably AG overstates the numbers there as well, or are we using a different source?

The AG listed 180,000 men in the AoP. At Antietam McClellan had 60,000 present (about 40,000 actual combatants?). i.e. for every three men "in pay", actually one existed in the field. The Union Army probably had about 200,000 actually with the army (i.e. not deserters, on "French Leave" etc.).

1st Corps was pretty typical:

"I prepared a statement showing that Hooker's corps on paper was thirty-one thousand five hundred strong; that of this number there were present for duty only twelve thousand, and of these, a numerical list, made on the day of battle after we came out of action, showed only seven thousand. Hence, while the United States were *paying* and the authorities at Washington were *relying* and basing their orders and plans on the belief that we had thirty-one thousand five hundred men, facts showed that we had in reality, on the field fighting, only nine thousand. As to the seven thousand that came out of the fight, we should add some two thousand killed and wounded in it." - Geo. Meade

Actually, the British suffered more casualties due to great American marksmanship and their artillery. There are more...

What marksmanship?

 

[Tom_NUFC]

To put it into football terms, it was a score draw.

1-1.

 

[bill_mchale]

The AG listed 180,000 men in the AoP. At Antietam McClellan had 60,000 present (about 40,000 actual combatants?). i.e. for every three men "in pay", actually one existed in the field. The Union Army probably had about 200,000 actually with the army (i.e. not deserters, on "French Leave" etc.).

1st Corps was pretty typical:

"I prepared a statement showing that Hooker's corps on paper was thirty-one thousand five hundred strong; that of this number there were present for duty only twelve thousand, and of these, a numerical list, made on the day of battle after we came out of action, showed only seven thousand. Hence, while the United States were *paying* and the authorities at Washington were *relying* and basing their orders and plans on the belief that we had thirty-one thousand five hundred men, facts showed that we had in reality, on the field fighting, only nine thousand. As to the seven thousand that came out of the fight, we should add some two thousand killed and wounded in it." - Geo. Meade

I am kind of curious here... you can site primary sources... and that is good, but what do the professional historians make of those sources? After all, there are many reasons that a general might underestimate the strength he has available to him (after all, it will make his defeats easier to explain and his victories look more impressive).

After Grant takes over the command of the Union Army, he proceeds with the assumption that he can expend his men much more freely than Lee since they will be easier to replace. Ultimately almost 400,000 on the side of the Union will die from all causes. Considering the fact that, other than the Antietam and the Gettysburg campaign, most of the war was fought on confederate territory, it suggests that most of those losses are amongst the army and navy.

So in other words, the North lost almost as many men as France contributed to the Crimean War.

--
Bill

 

[67th Tigers]

I am kind of curious here... you can site primary sources... and that is good, but what do the professional historians make of those sources? After all, there are many reasons that a general might underestimate the strength he has available to him (after all, it will make his defeats easier to explain and his victories look more impressive).

Honestly? Many don't. It's one of those areas generally unexplored for two reasons IMHO:

1. A lot are lazy. Any Centenarist (such as McPherson) doesn't worry about the details, and the idea the north had overwhelming manpower seems to perculate through here.

2. A lot are Lost Causers. They deliberately exaggerate Union strength and underplay Confederate strength (often by using different metrics).

I regard Joseph Harsh's books on the Maryland campaign as an example of "good" ACW history research. It proved part of the OR's wrong for a start....

After Grant takes over the command of the Union Army, he proceeds with the assumption that he can expend his men much more freely than Lee since they will be easier to replace.

Actually no. This has been suggested (and the story of the idea would I suspect be interesting as research on the historiography), but the OR's show he was extremely concerned over the weakness of his forces and wanted to husband them as much as possible. "Butcher" Grant is a nice tale, but it has little truth to it.

Ultimately almost 400,000 on the side of the Union will die from all causes.

That's questionable. The Surgeon-General recorded only 35,408 killed in battle, 49,205 died of wounds and injuries (the majority being battle related?), 526 died by execution, suicide or homicide and 186,216 died of disease. The sum (271,355) is about 11,000 short of the recorded number of dead.

So 84,613 died as the result of combat by the SG (a bit over 50 a day) (you can get the often reported higher figure by using the AG's figures and adding those the AG states have no known cause).

So in other words, the North lost almost as many men as France contributed to the Crimean War.

Any idea the force levels involved in the Crimean?

Britain: 97,864 troops (4,602 KIA/DOW, 17,580 NCD, 18,280 WIA)
France: 309,268 troops (20,240 KIA/DOW, 73,375 NCD, 39,870 WIA)
Ottoman: 165,000 troops (20,900 KIA/DOW, 24,500 NCD, WIA not known)
Sardinia: 21,000 troops (28 KIA/DOW, 2,166 NCD, WIA not known)

The KIA/DOW rates for the two wars are oddly similar....

 

[freivolk]

In reality the war of 1812 never happend. Just look a the details. Brits burning down the White House. Yanks beats Brits in New orleans with the help of PIRATES! Obviously this is just a very bad AH!

 

[Tyr]

and yet, the real historians who write the books about these things call it a draw... because they look at the end results, not 'war goals'.... and in the end, nothing changed... NK and SK still both existed as they had before the war, no territory changed hands, etc. The parallels with the war of 1812 are striking... in the end, nobody gained anything after the war; except in the long run, when the borders between the US and Canada were peacefully established, and Britain gave up in it's goals for an Indian buffer state...

The Korean War was different though.
I was going to go into this but didn't feel it nessesary; the Korean war as fought was absolutely and without a doubt a S.Korean victory. I don't think any historians would disagree with that.
However the Korean war was not a isolated event that just happened, it had been brewing for a long time and it just happened that it was the North that finally launched the invasion. There was going to be a Korean war to decide who ruled the whole peninsula one way or another.
That greater conflict which is far more important and so what people write about was a draw, the actual war though? Southern win.

With 1812 there was no big brewing war. There were a few minor issues but they were mostly just the Americans against the UK. It wasn't anything like the inevitability that Korea was.

 

[Redem]

In reality the war of 1812 never happend. Just look a the details. Brits burning down the White House. Yanks beats Brits in New orleans with the help of PIRATES! Obviously this is just a very bad AH!

Don't forget that the guy who win a battle 2 weeks after it end happen to get elected president of the United States

 

[Dave Howery]

The Korean War was different though.
I was going to go into this but didn't feel it nessesary; the Korean war as fought was absolutely and without a doubt a S.Korean victory. I don't think any historians would disagree with that.
However the Korean war was not a isolated event that just happened, it had been brewing for a long time and it just happened that it was the North that finally launched the invasion. There was going to be a Korean war to decide who ruled the whole peninsula one way or another.
That greater conflict which is far more important and so what people write about was a draw, the actual war though? Southern win.

With 1812 there was no big brewing war. There were a few minor issues but they were mostly just the Americans against the UK. It wasn't anything like the inevitability that Korea was.

methinks you're just splitting hairs here. In the end, both wars were a draw. Neither side gained or lost anything. Both ended with all original territory intact, no real reparations or punitive measures exacted, etc. You can look at intentions and long term problems and whatever, but in the end, you have to look at what was achieved: in both wars, the answer is 'not much'....