War of 1812 Discussion

[MaoSayTongue]

I think that Madison's War helped to instill a professional military tradition in the US. Winfield Scott cut his teeth fighting in Canada--and his military philosphy arose from his experiences there. He also first became a hero at the Battle of Chippewa.

Without Madison's War, Winfield Scott might've slipped into obsurity.


PS--Does anyone know exactly how many American cities the bloody British burned in retaliation for the York customs house? They burned Buffalo and several other WNY settlements in response as well.

 

[Darkling]

PS--Does anyone know exactly how many American cities the bloody British burned in retaliation for the York customs house? They burned Buffalo and several other WNY settlements in response as well.

Washington wasn’t burned in response to York, nothing was.

Buffalo was burned in retaliation for Newark at which point Prevost declared a moratorium on burnings if the US would do the same.

The US burned some more settlements and the British responded by burning Washington.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Yup, fairly common comment amongst Canadian historians that 1812 was the Canadian War of Independance. Without it they would have been happy to join the US eventually or have Quebec go its own way or what have you.

That's borne out by the second verse of what was once (and IMO should still be) the Canadian national anthem, The Maple Leaf Forever:

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane
Our brave fathers side by side
For freedom's home and loved ones dear,
Firmly stood and nobly died.
And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yield them never.
Our watchword ever more shall be
The Maple Leaf Forever

It should be noted that Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane are both locations very near the Niagara frontier.

I was under the impression that most historians would call that war a draw, since (particularly) the terms of the Treaty of Ghent could be summed up as status quo ante bellum; i.e., things as they were before the war. Granted, the US got a few concessions on issues such as impressment but by then the points were largely moot.

It seems to me that had the war not been fought--and it almost wasn't--it's entirely possible that Canada might not exist as a nation today, or would be one that occupied the northeastern part of the continent: that is to say, the present-day Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, and possibly eastern/northern Manitoba, along with some fraction of what was once called the Northwest Territories.

I have to admit that as an American with a very strong affinity for Canada (it's possible I'm one of the very few Yanks who can name more than one Canadian prime minister from the past), I find it a tad uncomfortable that we were once the enemy--just as, I'm sure, the British are a bit uncomfortable with some references to "the foe's haughty host"--meaning them--in the latter verses of The Star-Spangled Banner.

 

[Nicole]

I have to admit that as an American with a very strong affinity for Canada (it's possible I'm one of the very few Yanks who can name more than one Canadian prime minister from the past), I find it a tad uncomfortable that we were once the enemy--just as, I'm sure, the British are a bit uncomfortable with some references to "the foe's haughty host"--meaning them--in the latter verses of The Star-Spangled Banner.

Of course, the best example of this kind of thing is the verse of God Save the Queen that states "Rebellious Scots to Crush"...

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I have to admit that as an American with a very strong affinity for Canada (it's possible I'm one of the very few Yanks who can name more than one Canadian prime minister from the past), I find it a tad uncomfortable that we were once the enemy--just as, I'm sure, the British are a bit uncomfortable with some references to "the foe's haughty host"--meaning them--in the latter verses of The Star-Spangled Banner.

This is too anglo-centric to make a suitable anthem... It's all about Britain's personal waring with a related state.

Nothing for the francos.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

I don't see how this can be perceived as a draw.

If nation A goes to war bent on seizing territory from nation GB and nation GB's primary goal is to hold on to what it has, with reprisals at a later date and when convenient, and the war ends without any land changing hands, of course A lost the war.

 

[67th Tigers]

Obviously, the UK won the War of 1812, however, with the Battle of New Orleans the US saved a lot of face.

More to the point, the force at New Orleans was prettymuch intact. The majority of the losses fell on two fairly poor regiments which had seen no combat before.

http://www.warof1812.ca/redcoats.htm

 

[Kabraloth]

I don't see how this can be perceived as a draw.

If nation A goes to war bent on seizing territory from nation GB and nation GB's primary goal is to hold on to what it has, with reprisals at a later date and when convenient, and the war ends without any land changing hands, of course A lost the war.

I have in the past bounced this off a few US-Americans I know (nobody from this site) and most of them think it was a US victory or a draw.

The usual argument for a draw I have heard is that no land changed hands (status quo peace). While this was the goal of the Brits, most US-Americans I have discussed this with
a) Just won't accept that the Brits would refuse to gain territory in case of victory,
b) Refuse to believe that it was US policy to annex Canada ("Those were just fringe opions, it was never a stated goal"),
c) The USA got concessions out of it. Some of the more intellectually flexible ones seem to take this as the Brits caving in before the full might of the USA slaps them down for good. Usually New Orleans gets mentioned.

 

[stevep]

The US also smashed Tecumseh and other British Indian allies in the Northwest.

Technical point. The various Indian groups, most noticeably under Tecumseh were only allied to Britain, and that probably in part, after the US by attacking Canada bring Britain into the war it was already waging against the Indians.

Steve

 

[Jbenuniv]

1812 was really a draw more than anything else. We got some prestige from New Orleans, the navy's string of victories, and the defense of baltimore.

Plus, we got a kickin' national anthem.
Nobody ever sings the last three verses though.
They're cool, we really ought to.

 

[Saladin]

I don't see how this can be perceived as a draw.

If nation A goes to war bent on seizing territory from nation GB and nation GB's primary goal is to hold on to what it has, with reprisals at a later date and when convenient, and the war ends without any land changing hands, of course A lost the war.

1812 was really a draw more than anything else. We got some prestige from New Orleans, the navy's string of victories, and the defense of baltimore.

Plus, we got a kickin' national anthem.
Nobody ever sings the last three verses though.
They're cool, we really ought to.

Can you reconcile GM's interpretation with yours, Jbenuniv? For the record I concur with GM's assessment. As does Mahon in The War of 1812 and Haythornthwaite in The Napoleonic Sourcebook

 

[Tyr]

I have in the past bounced this off a few US-Americans I know (nobody from this site) and most of them think it was a US victory or a draw.

The usual argument for a draw I have heard is that no land changed hands (status quo peace). While this was the goal of the Brits, most US-Americans I have discussed this with
a) Just won't accept that the Brits would refuse to gain territory in case of victory,
b) Refuse to believe that it was US policy to annex Canada ("Those were just fringe opions, it was never a stated goal"),
c) The USA got concessions out of it. Some of the more intellectually flexible ones seem to take this as the Brits caving in before the full might of the USA slaps them down for good. Usually New Orleans gets mentioned.

True.
You'd think New Orleans was a epic, immensly important battle that involved the conquest of London with the amount it gets brought up....

 

[Jbenuniv]

Can you reconcile GM's interpretation with yours, Jbenuniv? For the record I concur with GM's assessment. As does Mahon in The War of 1812 and Haythornthwaite in The Napoleonic Sourcebook

I'm not gonna say there isn't more than one way to interpret the outcome, but my view is that despite the US achieveing none of it's initial war aims, this war did wonders for American confidence, the formation of a professional military, establishing a storied naval tradition, and getting us a few minor gains, such as securing Louisiana, forcing the British to vacate their forst on the Ohio frontier, and ending the sending of British supplies to the Indians.

Britain may not have lost anything, but neither did they gain. I'll say draw.

 

[Darkling]

The British had no forts within the US before the war of 1812, I hear this trotted out as a thing the Americans won quite but it is nonsense.

Jay’s treaty got the British to leave the Northwest over a decade before the war.

The British inciting Indians is also rather flimsy, even noted war harks admitted they had zero evidence for it.

It seems to boil down to people saying the Americans won because they (the people at the time) were so uninformed that they didn't know any better, that is a victory for ignorance not America.

 

[Johnnyreb]

Leaving aside Canada for the moment, in the War at Sea the Americans both won and lost:-

(a) US trading ships were swept from the sea, either taken or bottled in ports. Their privateers had some successes but really a pinprick in Britain's global trade. This was not a good thing for an infant nation which relied on trade, the American state was bankrupt by the end of the war.
(b) It was never British policy to impress Yankee sailors, the policy was to leave crewing levels to the RN captain on the spot. The War did not change this policy, but it taught the RN to show more respect for the US flag.

 

[67th Tigers]

further to (b): The RN offered a fairly large enlistment bounty, especially to merchant seamen. Some people tried bounty jumping, enlisting, taking the bounty and then jumping ship to escape on a merchantman.

Since continental merchantman had been swept from the seas, and British merchants were out of the question, that left US shipping. So in response to this, the RN Coast Guard started searching US shipping for deserters, forcibly returning them to the RN if found.