"Who won the War of 1812?" Topic

British?
Americans?

British – retained Canada, maintained control of the seas post 1812, hampered French free trade.

Third option. There's no winners in war.

Miniatures manufacturers.

When's the last time you heard of the Limeys pressin' American sailors? Huh?

More to the point when was the War of 1812?

I not sure who won but the Indians were the big losers.

Whaddya mean?…IT'S OVER!!!

we did

Nobody. It was a tie. If it were a wargame then the British won. The Americans failed to achieve there victory conditions.

Amongst the most tragic losers were the British at New Orleans who were killed when the war was already over.

It wasn't the British working class.

lately it occurs to me, what a long strange trip it's been……and if you have no idea what I mean……..

Painters/Decorators in Washington? and those who sold them the white paint?

Amongst the most tragic losers were the British at New Orleans who were killed when the war was already over.

Would it be less tragic if the war were already on?

But, the war WAS still going on, despite what the history books say.
All peace treaties at the time had "when it ends" clauses in them, determined by how long it would take for news to reach the far flung fronts.
IF the treaty ends the war on the lines of "whoever possesses this at the end gets to keep it" (thre's a Latin phrase for that which I cannot remember), then the British COULD have taken AND HELD New Orleans. Had the Duke had a more competent brother in law, they would be speaking English in New Orleans today.

The tragedy is due to the incompetence of the British, and not the "fact" that the War was over, which it was not. Still had a few days left before the news arrived to make it official.
Interestingly, I wonder what would be the result if the British HAD won and taken NO, AFTER the war was over. Would the British have just given it back, with apologies? I doubt it.

There were four separate participants in the War of 1812.

The United States won the war by not losing, although they did not win any of he points for which they went to war ( Canada, Sailor's Rights etc) but gained some additional territory in Florida. The War did a lot to build up their National identity. After this war the US and Britain never fought each other again.

Canadians like the US did not lose the war and firmly established themselves as a separate part of North America doing a lot to establish their own identity Again after this War the US never invaded Canada .

Britain won the War because they kept Canada ,all major colonies and most importantly the war did not effect the greater struggle against Napoleonic France. They were able to defend Canada with a minimal expenditure of men and resources. The principal of being able to stop neutral ships at sea was maintained and was used effectively in the anti slavery patrols of later years. The War established a reason to negotiate further interests with the US as any future war would be very costly, both in terms of men and resources. making talk a much more economical option.

The real lesson of the War of 1812 showed that any future war would be very costly to all participants. The US could probably take Canada but would then have their major cities and trade destroyed in return by the Royal Navy. This could weaken both countries enough to possibly enable other foreign powers to take advantage of them both.

The First Nations ( Indians) fought on both sides but mainly the British) definitely lost the war. They were unable to establish any defined Indian territory, lost the support of Britain for future struggles and were basically left alone to struggle against the Americans losing control of most of the land thy had before 1812.

Winners:

1) The United States- Despite Yankee bumbling and incompetance the US came out of the war unscathed and intact. By successfully surviving the British invasions of 1814, the USA was able to apply "Manifest Destiny". There is also something to be said about standing up and surviving against a major world power.

2) Canada- helped to forge a national identity and unity for the country- something that the EU desperately needs.

3) United Kingdom- came out power and territory intact. Of course they abandoned their Native American allies in the process.

I still find it highly amusing that the United states invasions of Canada failed so miserably, the Brits were not the only ones with incompetent commanders!

In answer to your question, I think the war was a British/Canadian victory. I am VERY glad we are friends now and fight on the same side..mostly!

Two points for John the OFM. Both sides held portions of each other territories at the end of the war. After New Orleans the British took Mobile Alabama and already held a large portion of the Michigan territory and parts of Maine and New York.. The US had parts of western Ontario . All occupied territories were returned to their original owners after the war in accordance with the conditions set out in the "Ante quo bellum" meaning before the war. The territory in Florida that the US maintained was originally Spanish that the British had occupied.

The principles of Sailors' Rights was not addressed in the treaty. Britain still maintained the right to stop and search neutral ships at sea and did so in their anti slavery patrols as did the US Navy.

MEXX did! Today they have a department store in the building in Ghent were the treaty was signed…. And making money out of it because it is a landmark.

:)

Well, we're not speakin' English, so I guess we won (or at least we didn't lose).

If the British held New Orleans at the end of the war: the treaty specifically stated that troops would hold their positions when news of the treaty arrived, so the Brits would remain in the city – or the smoking ruins, if Andrew Jackson had his way.

Then troops were to leave each other's territory. Sounds like the Brits up and leave – except the British never recognized the Louisiana Purchase, so they might well stay there and claim the whole Mississippi watershed. Would the war weary and nearly bankrupt US mobilize again for this? Or would they settle down to another round of negotiations with a bad hand of cards?

But since Pakenham and his second in command were among the 2,000 casualties, the British view on the legality of the Louisiana Purchase was moot. The battle was indeed about something and the treaty was written knowing that Pakenham was out there.

Well – the Brits had stopped pressing sailors from US ships before war was declared – so I guess from that point of view the US won before the war even started

No question Canadians reckon they won

Brits same deal

As noted, Native Americans/Canadians got the short end of the stick

As to New Orleans, I have to think that a victorious Great Britain would probably have stuck around "for the duration" – which would have been an awfully long time

"Well, we're not speakin' English, so I guess we won (or at least we didn't lose)."

America is not speaking English…..

Lest we forget, it was the US that declared war once Napoleon invaded Russia, and it looked as though Britain's last Continental ally was about to be co-opted. It seemed like a great time to grab Canada while the Brits were in it up their necks with Nappy.

But the small Brit garrison of Canada, and the Canadian Militia's themselves, were able to defeat our every attempt to bite off the whole colony and add it to the US States.

So, Canada really was the Big Winner.

It was not called at the time the "Second War for Independence" for nothing! The US was coming apart militarily with our few vaunted warships lost or bottled up in ports around the world by the RN, and Jefferson's defense policies proved worthless. Politically, the pressures of the war were tearing at the very concept of Union, as evidenced by Massachusets heading for Secession. And, economically, the blockade was strangling the golden goose of Yankee commerce.

The Brits and Yanks had almost fought to a draw by Nawlins, but the US was able to survive until peace could be brokered. If the war had gone on long enough, Britain MIGHT have been able to force us back into the fold.

That this did not happen is the closest thing to "winning" that the US had to find pride in.

And, yes, there is universal agreement that the biggest losers where the Native Americans who were used and exploited by both sides, then left to their fate by a Britain that saw little more value in them.

This has to be the ONE war that most can agree the US should definitely have RSVP'd and said, "Sorry, we're washing our wigs that night."

TVAG

If the British had won we all would be speaking English…….

Canadahh………..

the US came out of the war unscathed and intact.

Being almost bankrupt and having some States in virtual rebellion through having their trade wiped out by a blockage does't count then?

And Washington burned to ground except for the Marine barracks.

Canada, (by a large margin)

And, yes, there is universal agreement that the biggest losers where the Native Americans who were used and exploited by both sides, then left to their fate by a Britain that saw little more value in them.

Agreed.

"the US came out of the war unscathed and intact."

How about scathed and intact?

Does anyone ever really win at war?

Does anyone ever really win at war?

Yes. But it's never the guy who do the fighting.

Unscathed? Except for Washington burnt.

It's a well known fact that America has never lost a war. Well, not one they will admit to. (Even Vietnam was a case of "lost the peace", as if that was somehow different.)

Having got that out of the way, for 1812, the Indians lost big time, the British won and the Americans didn't lose. However, the Canadians claimed the victory.

I seem to remember some story about Castlereagh, the British foreign secretary, not wanting to push for a treaty that hurt the US too much because he was smart enough to recognise that the US was going to be "important" in the future and the UK needed to improve their relations – which only took about another hundred years, of course…

More interesting is that, at the time, and hard though it might be to believe, these two countries were actually the most liberal and democratic on the planet and they STILL found a reason for a pointless squabble that should've been settled by gentlemen over a glass of port.

The British raided several ports along the Atlantic coast in georgia. the threat became so real that the Georgia troops in Alabama had to be replaced by ttroops from north and South Carolina.

After New Orleans the British did not retreat but withdrew to Mobile to reorganize for a second attck on new Orleans. So the American victory may not been as clear cut as the jackson supporters later made it during his run for President.

The Americans did gain a lot of land but as stated earlier, it was taken from native American allies of the British. Though the Spanish and british did lose Pensacola to the Americans.

Americans by God!

America. There are more NHL hockey teams in the US than in Canada. So there!

I agree with what MapleLeaf said.

The British, chin chin!

As a Yank who does a Redcoat interpretation for the War of 1812 I have always found it very neat to watch how proud my Canadian brethren are of their country. No doubt at all that the War of 1812 started to forge the Canadian identity. Quite a few of them look at Chateaugay as their Gettysburg, although on a much smaller scale. I would encourage you, if near an event, to come on out and talk to the re-enactors. Our opinions on who won the war and the reasoning behind their thought process can make for lively conversation. Even if they are wearing the same uniform. Fort Meigs in Perrysburg Ohio is going to be having a 200th anniversary of the First Siege on May 3rd and 5th. Come on out and check out the festivities.

Victory Points

America
Capital burned -50 points
Lake Squadrons Captured x2, +40 points
Frigates lost x3, -9 points
Enemy Frigates sunk x3, +9 points
Enemy Frigates captured x1, +6 points
Corvette captured +4
Brigs captured and sunk + 5
Loss of Detroit -30
Victory at New Orleans +30
Victory at Horseshoe Bend +10
Victory at Moraviatown +10
Defeat in Niagara campaign -20
Victory at Baltimore +5
Total +10

Canada
Capital burned -10 points
Victory in Niagara Campaign +10
Victory at Detroit +10
Total +10

Britain
Lake Squadrons Lost x2, -40 points
Frigates lost x3, -9 points
Frigates captured x2, +12
Sloops captured +4
Victory at Detroit +10
Defeat at New Orleans -30
Victory in Niagara Campaign +10
Defeat at Baltimore -5
Total -48

Indians
Capital burned -20 points
Victory at Detroit +10
Defeat at Moraviatown -10
Defeat at Horseshoe Bend -10
Total -30

Rough thumbnail. It could be done battle by battle.
Canada gained stature, as did the U.S. Army and Navy.
I believe the British dropped the mention of impressing seamen in polite company.

"More interesting is that, at the time, and hard though it might be to believe, these two countries were actually the most liberal and democratic on the planet and they STILL found a reason for a pointless squabble that should've been settled by gentlemen over a glass of port."

Hear! Hear!

Well said, Sir!

TVAG

The Russian Empire!

I like the victory point idea, though your list ignores a raft of US defeats. If the British lose 30 points for New Orleans, then what should the US lose for Chryslers Farm and various other fiascoes along the Canadian border?

Tie.

The British did stop taking sailors from ships and press ganging them. They did not stop inspecting ships to be sure but the press ganging was a big issue. The British pretty much won on land but IMO, would eventually lose there as well as the U.S. was quickly catching up with regards to seasoned troops.

Contrary to what many will post here, the British were in for trouble on the high seas and were struggling to keep up with the super frigates such as the Constitution that the U.S. could put to sea. Britania ruled the waves and had more ships. The U.S. was putting better ships to sea and was able to cause much trouble with far fewer but better ships.

Every wonder why the British wanted Mobile and New Orleans other than them being major ports? The answer is old growth live oaks. This was the true secret of the super frigates.

Interesting reading: The War of 1812 and the Rise of the U.S. Navy. It expounds on the successes of the super frigates and why they were so good. Shocked the hell out of the British Navy who built such ships but AFTER the conflict in response.

But the Brits hadn't been "press ganging" as you describe it. The RN claimed the right to board and search US ships for contraband and RN deserters, and continued to do so after the war. The US merely used the idea of "press ganging" as a pretext for a land grab on Canada, which failed. Britain had no intention of resuming dominion over the US, despite Americans liking the idea of defeating such an intention. Calling it the "2nd War of Independence" is a good way of concealing the reality, which was the US attempt to seize Canada.
Losers?
1) US. They failed in their invasion.
2) Indians. Became the focus of US aggression (until the Mexicans took over that role)
3) Britain. Dilution of resources necessary to win the real war in Europe.
The only serious winner was Canada, who repelled the US invasion and increasingly became self aware.

The US, however, didn't give up on Canada and financed and supported the French Canadians in their insurrection of the 1830's, with American Filibusters crossing the border in increasing numbers to encourage them.

Finally, the US "super frigates" were indeed powerful vessels, but weren't as much as a threat as you suggest. The USN kept most of them in "ordinary" as they were too expensive to man and properly maintain. The US economy was already in serious difficulties, so a continuation of the war would have meant economic disaster for the US.

Respectfully, I must diaagree with you, Ancientsgamer.

Yes, US built ships (a handful of 3rd Rates based on the latest theories of design, and heavily armed for their size) were generally superior to like rates in the RN. And US crews were large, better treated, and eager to fight.

All serious plusses.

But every one of them either ended the war in British hands, or bottled up in foreign ports around the world. This is a prime example of "quantity having a quality of its own" regarding the RN's principal advantage. Stretched thin while holding onto Britain's maritime interests, but not so thin as to fail at its ultimate purpose.

If the RN had the hell shocked out of them by the early encounters with US Frigates, that hardly resulted in US naval dominance. The RN has a long history of "Having the hell shocked out of them," but going on to win virtually all of their naval wars.

And, as an aside, whenever the argument is made that fewer, but better ships, is the way to go, no one has yet been able to arm a warship with the ability to be in more than one place at a time. Numbers are at least as important, and historically seem to be decisive.

Regarding the RN's practice of impressment, it was an irritant, but never of itself a cause de guerre. It did serve as a rallying point for many Americans who understood that national security was not imperiled by the Indians, but by Britain's control of Canada, flanking the whole of the US northern borders, and its direction of Indian pressure on the west and northwest.

Take Canada--as had been tried from practically Day One of the Revolution--and Britain has no base either to invade America, or influence the Indians.

It still seems like an elementary strategy, but one which went awry largely through the total inadequacy of Jefferson's ideas of national defense, and the outstanding performance of the reviled Redcoats and their committed Canadian subjects.

TVAG

No brainer the British won it.

1) The Americans were the first to declare war.

2) The Americans invaded Canada a few times and did nothing
but lose battles and men.

3) Although the Americans did win some encounters and
managed to obtain some concessions at the peace talks
they clearly failed at their objective to conquer
Canada.

In view of the above I don't see how the Americans could claim a win and I certainly don't see a tie. This was not a game where you could keep score. To win a WAR you have to beat your opponent into submission and this was clearly not the case for the Americans. Yes both sides realized a clear victory might not be in the future for either of them if the war continued. At the time of the ceasefire, however, the Americans had not achieved anything other then hold on to most of their own country. When you pick a fight and only manage to hold on to what you started with that's not bad, but it's not a win. At best it's called holding your own.

I beg to differ :-) You need to read the book I mentioned to realize what a game changer the super frigates are. 5 more ships and Britain would have been out of the theater. Not all of the ships were financed by the federal government during this time. They were financed by states and cities because essentially they were also privateers and profit makers. Each of the super frigates made money.

And you are wrong, the afforementioned ships that were inspected did result in press ganging. Ironically, some of them were former British citizens that were returned to the British Navy. You can call some of them deserters but many were actually U.S. citizens at the time. Others were very much U.S. citizens. As to whether this press ganging was enough to cause a state of war; no. But combined with the taking of goods from merchant ships; yes.

This is all spelled out in the book I mention which is rather well researched.

You can also read here of the effects of the super frigates: link

While you are correct that they never numbered many, they inflicted much damage and captured ships. Almost the entire first year of the conflict saw the U.S. winning in ship to ship combat. The British captured merchant vessels but so did the U.S. In fact the first victory by Britain was a relief to its public after having lost so many ship to ship conflicts up to this point. This first victory was over a lesser ship by the way.

If the super frigates weren't so successful, why did Britain change its rules of engagement against them? Groups of 3 or more frigates were not to be engaged by less than squadron strength. As a matter of fact, if you look at British successes regarding warships, you will find they won when outnumbering the U.S. vessels and usually by a factor or 2:1 or more.

Another outcome of the war was the privateering between the U.S. and Britain stopped. I would call this a win for the U.S. With regards to stopping U.S. ships, it can hardly be considered a loss for the U.S. being that Britain was trying to prevent war materials from reaching its enemies.

With regards to Canada; okay and no one is arguing the point that the U.S. failed in the invasions for the most part. But I believe that Canada and Britain lost the Great Lakes conflicts on the water? Also, I believe that parts of Ontario were occupied but I guess this is an overshight because of other Canadian victories :-) Since Canada was decidedly not independent at this point, I find it funny that Canadians mention "annexation" attempts when they were hardly free of British rule at this time :-)

But keep in mind, Canada only had to fight the U.S. The U.S. had to fight the Canadian colonists, native Americans and the British Navy and Army. Momentum towards the end of the conflicts was decidedly shifted to the U.S. The British won by burning the capital. They lost 2 out of 3 major conflicts by losing in Baltimore and New Orleasn, despite not having to contend with Napoleon at this point. I have little doubt that earlier defeats in the Canadian theater would have turned around as well. But we aren't talking about what ifs.

One major point the US won from the war, was it brought the western territories into the true fold of the Union. Before the war there was a strong feeling in the west for an independent nation, that they could not depend on the east for protection. Following the fall of Detroit and the River Raisin the westerners saw how vulnerable they were. With the US's naval victories on the lakes, the retaking of Detroit, and the battles of the Thames and New Orleans, the westerns realized the value of being part of the US.