"Who won the War of 1812?" Topic

"It's been said over and over here that the British never had any invasion plans to conquer America. Where do you find this fiction?"

No fiction. The British might have made a decision (and yes there were plans drawn up to invade, led by Wellington no less) not to invade but no one told the Americans. You can't expect the the American's to sit and wait for a British invasion. Better to take the initiative and preempt any possible invasion. Your using 20/20 hindsight.

Better to take the initiative and preempt any possible invasion.

Especially if you "accidently" end up occupying Canada and can incorporate it into the U.S. I'm sure that would have just been an unexpected side-effect. Right.

Hello Rallynow!

First, I think you may have missed a word in my sentence "conquer".

Second, please remember my comments were based on your preemptive theory. In order to justify your theory there had to be a British plan to conquer America prior to the war. Not during or after the war. There were plans to invade America during the war, but they were only raids or objectives. I know of no plans before the war formally approved by the British Government to conquer America. If you can enlighten me with EXACT DETAILS such as dates and who approved it, I will be amazed.

Anyway even if you can, they were never executed and have no bearing on the answer to the original question.

I stand on my comments, pure fiction.

Best regards,

Glenn

The point is that if Americans now beleive that Britain had planned to regain the 13 colonies (which they never did) it justifies their beliefs that:
1) Their invasion of Canada was justified.
2) It really was the "Second War of Independence".
The fact that Britain never had plans to invade before the US invasion of Canada, still less conquer the US, and never had any intention of regaining the Colonies is irrelevant to those who wish to believe that the US has never lost a war. They can say that "the British attempt to regain the colonies in 1812 failed therefore we didn't lose!" THat there's no truth in these beliefs doesn't change their mindset.

Hello Chouan!

Excellent point. I know it's an uphill battle and not really sure why I'm wasting my time. I guess because it's an open forum and anyone is entitled to state their opinions no matter how wrong they might be. I thought maybe I was helping them understand the truth but I now think your 100% correct. I'll never get through to them.

Best regards,

Glenn

pas de charge "Two points:
1. The US lost more merchant ships than Britain. That is a matter of historical record. American losses were 1407 merchant ships plus 278 privateers, while the British lost 1129. Anyway, this is not a factor in deciding who won or lost the war…….."

You haven't quoted any source, but I think the number of ships taken may not have been the important point. If the number of ships taken is roughly equal, you then have to consider the tonnage of the ships and the value of the cargos. The English navy's close blockade took many small coastal family-built schooners, while the American ships took larger ships doing long distance trading. The cargo of American ships was to a large part, raw commody goods or semi-manufactured material. It might consist of sawn lumber, grains, cattle, molasses, rum, peas, pitch or semi-finished barell staves. The English cargoes consisted of finished manufactured goods of much higher value. I am sure that the dollar/pound value lost by the English/Welsh/Scottish ships was much larger.

1968billsfan,

Nice go at moving the parameters under discussion. However, it is not relevant to who won or lost the war.

Just as another point, the value of the cargoes lost by the British was higher (although it is a mistake to assume that all British "cargoes consisted of finished manufactured goods of much higher value"). However, as a percentage of trade, it was lower as the value of British trade was far higher than that of the US. The overalleconomic impact was less, even allowing for increased insurance costs, which were, of course, something that US shipowners also suffered from.

The other point is that the Royal Navy's blockade effectively ended US maritime trade, completely. The USN's efforts did not effectively damage Britain's maritime trade, never mind stop it! The US couldn't afford to operate it's big frigates after the initial sorties, once Britain's blockade was in force. There's little point in having the biggest and best frigates (if they were) if the country that built them can't man and operate them!

Chouan,

I think we are at the stage of cranium meeting brick wall.

US trade effectively stopped due to the war, bringing the US to the brink of insolvency, while British trade continued at a slightly reduced level and with somewhat greater costs.

There's little point in having the biggest and best frigates (if they were)

Oh, they were, if you classify them as frigates. In fact they were razee 74's, with the removal of the upper deck occurring during the building phase (when it could be incorporated into the desgin) instead of being a later modification. So their hulls were actually built like a 74, with much heavier timber than would be used in a frigate (e.g., they were designed to withstand the fire of cannons heavier than those found on other frigates). While rated at 44 guns, they usually carried over 50.

These things were, in fact, history's most successful implementation of the "pocket battleship" idea – they could outrun anything they couldn't outfight, and outfight anything that could catch them. Add in excellent, all-volunteer crews, and you've got yourself some awesome warships. But they rather stretch the definition of the term "frigate."

Mserafin,

It's not for me to say you are incorrect regarding the US Frigates. Read Teddy Roosevelt's book on the naval war of 1812.

Bob Coggins

pas de charge,

Living in Baltimore, Maryland most of my life and being interested in history I well understand the effect of the blockade on the Chesapeake.

That said, many of the founders of the US were smugglers, John Handcock being a prime example, and in 1812 smuggling was still an "honest" profession, just as it was in Britain.

Because the British blockade mainly interferred with the ability of the Government to collect taxes, its main source of money, many incorrectly think Britain was bringing the US to its knees when nothing could have been further from the truth.

For as the US privateers prospered (I understood they capturered over 1300 prizes) so too did the smugglers. Both brought money into private coffers not government coffers. Indeed the US was much more wealthy after the war than before.

As for the US merchant marine,most were blockaded. The vast majority of captures were small vessels conducting coastal trade, hardly comparable in value to the ocean going merchantmen being captured by the privateers.

While government revenue was down by 89%, they had little to do with the ability of Americans, who as free men have the right to bear arms, to defend theirselves.

Indeed the well regulated militia defended Baltimore and New Orleons, with very little help from the standing amry. So too did that militia defeat the Indians at Horseshoe Bend and before that at Tippecanoe.

"They all have guns and they know how to use them," General Howe after Bunker Hill.

Bob Coggins

Bob Coggins,

"While government revenue was down by 89%, they had little to do with the ability of Americans, who as free men have the right to bear arms, to defend theirselves."

The first part of that sentence rather proves my point; the US was heading for bankruptcy as a result of the war. As for the second part, I am not really surprised that you would post something like that. The average US male citizen may well have been able to defend himself but a bankrupt government cannot fund all the other rather important costs of a war.

Regarding the privateers etc, it is worth noting that I already acknowledged that British economic losses were greater than those of the US, although lower as a percentage of national trade, so you are making a bit of a strawman argument there.

Your comment that "Indeed the well regulated militia defended Baltimore and New Orleons, with very little help from the standing amry." is, of course, inaccurate as the US forces at New Orleans and Baltimore contained significant numbers of regulars.

Of course Britain won, we got a new watermill out of it:

link

Calculon,

That is quite fascinating; I was completely unaware of the mill. Definitely a place to visit.

Can it perhaps be compared to the Korean War?

North Korea / the US try to invade a neighbour.
Get chased out.
UN forces / Great Britain then chase them back into their own territory.
And get chased back out again.
War ends with everyone pretty much back where they began.

So do those who claim America won the War of 1812 also think North Korea won the Korean War?

Can we all agree:

"Historians agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory allowed for the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and for the opening of a permanent era of good will and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada. The war established distinct national identities for Canada and the United States, with a "newly significant border".

In recent decades the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's untriumphant resolution as allowing two centuries of peaceful and mutually beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascoes and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failure to seize parts of Canada, and the failed British invasions of New Orleans and upstate New York.

However, other scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and that Canada retained her independence of the United States. By contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the US lost as it failed to stop impressment, which the British refused to repeal until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the US actions had no effect on the orders in council, which were rescinded before the war started.

A second minority view is that both the US and Britain won the war—that is, both achieved their main objectives, while the Indians were the losing party. The British won by losing no territories and achieving their great war goal, the total defeat of Napoleon. U.S. won by (1) securing her honor and successfully resisting a powerful empire once again,[c] thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) ending the threat of Indian raids and the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary—thereby opening an unimpeded path for the United States' westward expansion—and (3) stopping the Royal Navy from restricting American trade and impressing American sailors."

I like our Canadian neighbors immensely and I for one am grateful that we have been allies in peace and in war. I think we should say that neither Britain, Canada or the United Sates lost this war.

Rallynow,
I think that accurately reflects the overall position; stalemate just about sums it up.

pas de charge,

No more than 22% of the defenders of NO were Federal troops. The artillery was mostly naval guns provided by the citizens of New Orleans (the pirates). Jackson was a militia general.

About 9% of the defenders of Baltimore were Federal troops while 91% were militia. The 9% were mostly in Fort McHenry. The participants in the Battle of North Point were entirely militia. The overall commander Sam Smith, was the mayor of Baltimore and a militia major general in overall command of the city's defense.

So let me get this straight. After abandoning their Indian allies to their destruction by the US, the British claimed victory. So, lets call it a draw unless you are an Indian, in which case you lost or an American in which case you won access to the Northwest and Southeast territories.

Nevertheless, if everyone wants to call it a draw, I agree.

Bob Coggins

"Historians agree that ending the war with neither side gaining or losing territory ……"

The British's Indian allies lost control of their territory and and those tribes were eliminated as a British-lead counterweight to hinder American expansion.

The US took over the NW territories from France/Spain and the British attempted to take the "cork in the barrel" (e.g. New Orleans) but failed. This is about 10 times the amount of land in the British Isles.

The Americans wound up with naval control of the Great Lakes.

The British did burn the new capital in 1814, which was inconvient to the eight thousand citizens of that 14 year old town. It was in reprisal for the American's earlier burning of York (Toronto). Not a big deal.

The British were defeated in attempts to invade any American city, such as Baltimore, New Orleans, Boston or New York.

The British never again attempted to impress American seamen.

British industry and commerical interests became unfavorable towards any British government hostility to the Americans. Trade, shipping loses & insurance and economic distruptions were experienced in the war and lead Britian to have to consider the Americans as a equal world citizen.

The British gave careful consideration to American interests thereafter, as the Americans could combine with European nations to give an unfavorable situation to the British, particularily by opening another "front" against Britian.

Future boundary disputes between the US and Canada were skewed in favor of the US.

Sorry, in many senses, this was the "second war of independence" in that Britian could no longer dismiss and ignore American interests. Britian lost the former dominance in respect to the US. The US "won" that war.

The war at the time was against France. As it usually is. During this war an opportunist ally of France tried to seize a British colony. This did little to impede Britain's war effort, merely diverting some troops and ships. The British may not have been as successful as they expected, but they achieved their war aim and the allegedly short, supposedly rotund and definitely Corsican was defeated….

As a consequence the opportunist was able to have much better relations with the British, and their colony, and stopped ruining perfectly good tea.

Kettle's on!

No, not a draw. Look at the war aims of the countries involved, and see if they were achieved.
The British war aim was the defence of Canada against US aggression. Nothing else, no reconquest of the 13 Colonies, no occupation of US territory. Just the defence of Canada, and, of course, to maintain the war against the Corsican tyrant. Those aims were achieved. It doesn't matter that the US gained territory from the Indians who were aligned with Britain, it doesn't matter that the Americans got military control of the Great Lakes. It doesn't matter that US privateers captured British ships, or that the US captured a few obsolete frigates. Britain maintained the freedom and territorial integrity of Canada despite US territorial ambition and aggression.
The American war aim was the conquest of Canada. The pretext was to stop the Royal Navy impressing British seamen from American ships. Neither aim was achieved. Repulsing British raids and landings isn't relevant, nor is the capture of British ships, whether naval or civilian. The war certainly didn't ensure that "Britian (sic) to have to consider the Americans as a equal world citizen." because Britain didn't consider that until much later in the century, and certainly not because of Madison's War. Indeed, one could argue that the poor showing, militarily, of the US in that conflict, and it's weak economy and inability to maintain it's Navy at sea, meant that Britain would absolutely not consider the US as an "equal".
In short, the US lost.

The American war aim was to end impressment and stop the British and French from seizing American shipping. The British North American colonies was simply a means to an end.

Now, because of the Ghent Treaty not mentioning impressment, Indian raids, and free trade, one may state in the short run that, yes, the U.S. lost.

However, during the "100 days" of Napoleon's return and immediately afterwards. no U.S. ships were seized, U.S. citizens impressed, nor was their ever after a European backing of tribes. All of the reasons the U.S. went to war were fulfilled even if it didn't state so in the treaty.

Argue all you want. The U.S. locked horns with the power of Europe and remained standing in the end.

The French wish they could say as much.

Chouan- The aim of the United States was NOT the conquest of Canada- look at Madison's declaration of war. The conquest of Canada was just to bring Britain to the negotiating table. The war did force the other nations and Britain to recogize the United States as a sovereign nation, not just a rebellious colony in Britain's sphere of influence. As to the rest of your comments- what do you have to back that up with?

I suggest you read "The Weight of Vengence: The United States, The British Empire, and the War of 1812" by Troy Bickham.

I like this story from the opening chapter of the book- Secretary of State James Monroe was admonishing the British representative in Washington, Anthony St. John Baker, in May of 1815 (There was still unfinished business finishing the treaty)-

"The United States have acquired a certain rank amongst nations, which is due to their population and political importance, and they do not stand in the same situation as at former periods."

"Baker warned his superiors in London that Monroe was insistent: In the future, the order of the countries and signatures must be alternated. The United States, Monroe made clear, would be subordinate of no nation, whether in practice or in form."

But France and the rest of the european powers had already recognised the US as a sovereign nation! Another case of inventing history, or rather myth, to prove a spurious point!

Can I assume that you take every Presidential statement, official or otherwise, as an absolute truth? For example, JFK merely sending "Advisors" to Vietnam, or the bombing of Laos as merely a "police action"?

"The American war aim was to end impressment and stop the British and French from seizing American shipping. The British North American colonies was simply a means to an end."

That was the pretext, territorial aggrandisement was the aim. As has been pointed out impressment of British subjects had already stopped before the US started the war, and when had Britain been seizing American shipping? Seizing legally condemned contraband, yes, but not American shipping per se.

Chouan- not really. Recognition is different than treating a country as an equal or respected power. The other countries always differed to Great Britain in matters about North America (except of course when Napoleon sold (illegally probably) the Louisianna territiories). Yes, the USA had a huge chip on their shoulder but they were a new country with a totally new form of government.

Impressment only stopped, belatedly, just after war was declared (and came back during the war). Also note that the British never even thought of impressment afterwards (yes I know there was never a conflict as major as the Napoleonic Wars but still they never went back to it).

Chousan states: "when had Britain been seizing American shipping? Seizing legally condemned contraband, yes, but not American shipping per se"

Um, since the British were interdicting (neutral) US cargoes to Europe/France, I would think that would be the major cause of problems (for the New England states)…

The Britsh had no compulsion pushing around neutrals, ask the Danes.

Hello Rallynow!

The question was not what were the results of the war. So we can ignore your first two paragraphs.

The view of the scholars in your third paragraph is correct. They are scholars! It was a British victory.

Your fourth paragraph is a minority view. I would have termed it more an American point of view which probably amounts to the same thing. I see no point in paying any attention to this. Why should a minority view be considered?

I'm happy you like your Canadian neighbors, but I don't see this as a reason to say nobody lost the war.

Clearly if you filter out the side effects, etc. in your own message you should be able to see this was a British victory.

Best regards,

Glenn

(Sigh) This arguing is going around in circles…

Lets talk about a real controversy….

Can Balrogs fly (this topic usually leads to the most flames)?

or

Could the British have won/did win Waterloo without the Prussians?

"his was the "second war of independence" in that Britian could no longer dismiss and ignore American interests. Britian lost the former dominance in respect to the US. The US "won" that war."

But Britain could, and did continue to dismiss and ignore American interests! It wasn't until the US became a truly continental state that Britain started to take US concerns seriously

"Recognition is different than treating a country as an equal or respected power."

Yes, but none of the European states DID treat the US as an "equal or respected power" until decades later! In any case, you wrote "The war did force the other nations and Britain to recogize the United States as a sovereign nation,". As I indicated above, they had already done that in the 1780's.

You're right, impressment of British seamen ceased after the Napoleonic wars, whether on British or American ships, but that was nothing to do with the actions of the US government, or Navy, but because the RN didn't need such vast numbers of seamen any more, whether impressed from British ports or British, or any other nationality' ships.

"the British were interdicting (neutral) US cargoes to Europe/France, I would think that would be the major cause of problems (for the New England states)…"

That may well be the case, but Britain maintained the legal right, as did the US during their Civil War, to seize contraband and condemn the ships carrying it. It was perfectly legal and recognised in law by both Britain, the US and the rest of the world. It was just annoying to US commercial interests that they were being stopped from trading with France whilst Britain was at war with France.

"The Britsh had no compulsion pushing around neutrals, ask the Danes."

Of course Britain pushed neutrals around, all great powers do. Once the US became a world power they started pushing neutrals around as well, like Mexico and Spain, and the Central American countries, never mind seizing overseas territories as an overseas Colonial Empire (which the US still has), just like the rest of the world powers.

Hello Nasty Canasta!

"simply a means to an end", hardly, an American General wrote a report that Canada was ripe for the taking which impressed the President. Look it up. There is more, but that's enough.

I agree with the last phrase in your second paragraph "yes, the U.S. lost".

No, all of the reasons the U.S. went to war were not fulfilled, see the above.

Yes you are correct "the US locked horns" (their choice) but, they only barely remained standing. There is a possibly that if the war continued they might very well have collapsed.

Best regards,

Glenn

Chouan: "But Britain could, and did continue to dismiss and ignore American interests! It wasn't until the US became a truly continental state that Britain started to take US concerns seriously"

(VS) I am sorry- please provide an example? In fact the US had a voice in several European issues, such as the Crimean War. Of course the Europeans respected the Monroe Doctorine didn't they and stayed effectively neutral during the Civil War.

(VS) I remember reading that Britain entered several negotiations with the USA about the US-Canadian border and the disposition of islands on the Atlantic coast and Great Lakes during the 1820s and 30s. Also Britain totally gave up arming and supporting the Native Americans against the U.S.

Chouan: "That may well be the case, but Britain maintained the legal right, as did the US during their Civil War, to seize contraband and condemn the ships carrying it. It was perfectly legal and recognised in law by both Britain, the US and the rest of the world. It was just annoying to US commercial interests that they were being stopped from trading with France whilst Britain was at war with France."

(VS) I am sorry but at that time that was a pretty flimsy reasoning- what do you mean by "legal"? I dont recall the British Navigation restrictions as recognized by the United States or anyone else.

Chouan: "Of course Britain pushed neutrals around, all great powers do. Once the US became a world power they started pushing neutrals around as well, like Mexico and Spain, and the Central American countries, never mind seizing overseas territories as an overseas Colonial Empire (which the US still has), just like the rest of the world powers."

(VS) Yes, but the United States went to war, fought back and our sovereignty was recognized.

Hello Vincent!

I don't think the American Declaration of War has any objectives. I do however believe it's pretty easy to locate confirmation that one of the reasons they went to war was in fact to take over Canada.

The only reason this topic keeps going in circles is because the pro-American camp refuses to acknowledge the facts and the pro-British camp refuses to accept myths and fiction.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn, certainly I wouldn't argue that Canada was an objective (it always looks so tantalizingly easy to do) but that is not a "reason" to go to war against Great Britain- it was just the only place that the USA could reasonably strike at British interests and territory. The Declaration of War does express the reasons that the USA went to war, it didnt include "We always thought that Canada should be a part of the USA so we are going to take it now!".

Besides the Jeffersonian press and statements from the warhawks in Congress, I don't think you will find any presidential arguments for the conquest of Canada.

Glenn, your later statements are not really helping end the arguments.

"(VS) Yes, but the United States went to war, fought back and our sovereignty was recognized."

Fought back? Having invaded Canada you seem to be impressed that the US fought back? Your sovereignty had been recognised by everybody in the 1780's! Why do you think that a failed invasion of Canada in 1812 established your sovereignty?

"VS) I am sorry but at that time that was a pretty flimsy reasoning- what do you mean by "legal"? I dont recall the British Navigation restrictions as recognized by the United States or anyone else."

They were established in law by a democratic process. Britain was strong enough to impose this law and it was recognised, eventually by everybody else. The legal concept was used by the US during the Civil War.

"(VS) I am sorry- please provide an example? In fact the US had a voice in several European issues, such as the Crimean War. Of course the Europeans respected the Monroe Doctorine didn't they and stayed effectively neutral during the Civil War."

You may note that I said that Britain didn't take US pretensions seriously until the US was established as a continental power, which it was by the mid 19th Century. Also, Britain had no "interest" in the American Civil War, so of course stayed neutral, even when the US Navy stopped and seized people from a British ship in the Atlantic, the kind of thing that the Americans got upset about and, apparently, caused Madison's War.

(Chouan): They were established in law by a democratic process. Britain was strong enough to impose this law and it was recognised, eventually by everybody else. The legal concept was used by the US during the Civil War.

(VS)ROTFLMAO- now I know that you are doing this just for comedic effect and to get a laugh!! Napoleonic British foreign policy=democratic process, that is just hilarious! :D

I suggest you read about the "Rule of 1756" or the British Orders in Council.

(Chouan): You may note that I said that Britain didn't take US pretensions seriously until the US was established as a continental power, which it was by the mid 19th Century. Also, Britain had no "interest" in the American Civil War, so of course stayed neutral, even when the US Navy stopped and seized people from a British ship in the Atlantic, the kind of thing that the Americans got upset about and, apparently, caused Madison's War.

(VS) I disagree. I cannot see where you can diliniate British diplomatic attitudes of the United States in the period after the War of 1812 to mid-nineteenth century. Certainly the USA would have only a minor voice in European diplomacy but it did have a voice and a viewpoint to consider. Outside Europe, was there any other nation of note that had asuch a voice/diplomatic standing?

There was a great interest in Britain and Europe in the Civil War conflict. The United States was one of the top trading partners/competitors with Britain, including the the Southern cotton trade. The Confederacy was trying very hard to get diplomatic status with Britain and France, while the Union was trying to keep them out of the conflict.

The seizure of the two British citizens was immediately reveresed by the Lincoln Administration because it could have have tipped British sentiment in favor of the Confederacy.

Hello Vincent!

It does not matter what the American objectives or reasons were. These were not the subject of the original question.

I never said the President made an argument for the conquest of Canada. An American general apparently told him that it was ripe for the taking and he liked it. True or not it does not really matter either.

I don't see this as an argument. Simply a discussion about a simple question. You made a statement and I gave you my thoughts about it. If you don't agree with it or like it that's fine.

Anyway here's the simple facts, American forces crossed into another country and invaded it, under the direction of their political masters. Under force of arms they intended to seize whatever land or property they could that had not been given to them by law or concession. To achieve these goals they attempted to destroy the forces that were protecting the citizens and their property. They made this attempt more than once and failed. In other words a clear victory for the defenders.

Does anybody on this forum wargame?

Best regards,

Glenn

Oh I completely agree the the US invasions of Canada were a dismal failure (and also completely agree that Canada/Britain are also "winners" of the the War of 1812), I just believe that you could say that the USA could claim that they won (just not through territorial conquest).

The topic is "Who won the War of 1812?"

How about we expand this argument to: Who was the worst USA commander of the War of 1812?

There are so many to choose from! :^D

Hello Vincent!

Well yes, the US can claim whatever they want. It just seems that very few if any one else in the world agrees with them. Seems odd does it not that this view is seemingly only held mainly by Americans, who by most peoples standards lost the war?

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn- realistically most people don't even know or don't give a damn about the war. I didn't realize you did a survey on the world's views of the war? :^D

I bet most in the world could remember/recall the Battle of New Orleans (ok maybe the burning of Washington DC and Fort McHenry) more than any other battle though (except if you are Canadian!). Shooting droves of British excites most of the world outside of England itself.

"In 1814 we took a little trip…" :^)

Hello Vincent!

Okay let me rephrase the question.

Seems odd does it not that it seems to be mainly an American point of view?

Best regards,

Glenn

Why would that be odd- don't you subscribe to the Canadian point of view?

Even here in the Deep South of Alabama I have never heard anyone say that the Confederacy "won" the War Between the States (some argue that it never stopped…)

Or that Germany "won" World War 2

Because unlike Germany or the Confederacy, there was not a political collapse or a military surrender

Hello Vincent!

My question was in regards to your statement that the "USA could claim that they won".

Anyway, seems like you don't really want to answer the question, so don't bother.

We both agree that Britain won, so there is really no point in going any further.

Best regards,

Glenn

By not containing the USA as it could, you could say that Britain ultimately lost…

Nevermind!

Except that it was never Britain's intention to contain the US, just stop their attempts at land grabs by military force at Canada's expense. You create an impression that Britain saw the US as an enemy, whereas Britain was largely indifferent to the US.

Chouan, I suggest you do little research before blindly arguing:

The British were highly resentful;
1)The US was profiting quite well from trade during the Napoleonic wars as a Neutral, supplanting the British carrying trade in the West Indies.
2) The British mercantile interests saw the United States and a competitor
3) The British could read a map- thye saw the immence of North America and realized the vast resouces
4) The British were deeply distrustful of United States Republicanism and equated it with the violence of the French Revolutionary Republicanism
5) They were still ed off for losing the colonies- just ask they Loyalists in Canada.

In the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Ghent parts of the British government wanted to humiliate he US in the treaty by making strong demands for land and other territories. Despite what is said today the British were in negotiations with politicians in New England about their possible secession. Whether that would be as an independent country or returned colony had not been decided. All of this is found in the historical documentation.

A new book "The Weight of Vengeance: The United States and the British Empire and the War of 1812" by Troy Bickham is an excellent example of recent historical writing and ignores the many myths that have been associated with 1812. It should be essential reading for all those interested in 1812. It will change your opinion and give you the facts that you need to really decide who won.

link

Lord Liverpool , the British PM, however knew that the British taxpayer and the House of Commons were strictly against any more expenditures on the war and quite rightly decided that any humiliating pace would result in a constant quarrel with the US once they rebuilt or increased their force. Liverpool did not submit his request to Parliament to increase war funding as he knew it would not pass and he would then have to call elections that he could not win . He gave instruction o the negotiators to get a peace as quickly as possible before the money ran out.

The great "compromise+ of the War of 1812 became the policy that if the US left British North America alone the UK would not interfere with the US. That is the basis of the "special relationship" that now exists.

Britain and Canada "won" because the British taxpayer were happy and Canada was preserved. THE US definitely won the peace by gaining freedom from foreign interference allowing it to develop on its own as it so choose.