Who won the War of 1812?

[Joe McCarthy]

I recently finished Reginald Horsman's The Causes of the War of 1812 and thought this might make for an interesting discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Causes-War-1812-reginald-horsman/dp/B000EGHKJY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/229.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-2/war-of-1812-battle-of-new-orleans.jpg

http://www.allen-mesch-author.com/Push_on,_brave_York_volunteers.jpg

http://memyselfandhi.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/war1812.gif

[Joe McCarthy]

There is much debate on the outcome of this war but I will contend that the proper appraisal is that of an American victory as US war aims were achieved, e.g., the cessation of raids into the 'Northwest', the ceasing of impressment of American citizens, the ending of British interference with American trade, etc. Some will contend that the British won because the US invasion of Canada failed, but most historians now believe that the US never intended to actually annex Canada, but to use it as a bargaining chip to get Britain to cease its depradations.

On a side note, it should be said that Britain's outrages were somewhat understandable as they were in a life or death struggle with Napoleon, and the US was aiding their enemy through trade.

[Svipdag]

The US was allowed to "win" the War of 1812 by a strategic decision by Britain that it was better to devote its entire strength to fighting an enemy right on the other side of the English Channel than to weaken that effort by wasting men and materiel 3000 miles away, an intelligent decision, galling though it must have been to have to make it.

The US was hopelessly unprepared to wage that war. It proved once for all
that the Minuteman ideal, the notion that like Cincinnatus of ancient Rome, the citizen soldier would leave his plow in the furrow and , seizing his weapon, would dash off to war to defend his country was not feasible.

Armies take time to train and equip. Ships need time to be built, launched, and manned. It is impossible to raise an army and a navy overnight. The US learned that it had to have a standing army and a floating navy, of which it had neither. [John Paul Jones, unemployed, had had to emigrate to Russia to take employment under Catherine the Great.]

This discovery had an unfortunate effect which has bedevilled us ever since.
As long as there was no standing army, Presidents of the USA were not tempted to indulge in the Sport of Kings. Even though he was Commander in Chief of the army and navy, in fact, the President had no forces to command.

Though wars have to be declared by the Congress, once there was a standing army, the Commander in Chief could employ it as he pleased and use it in combat which was not war because it had not been declared by Congress.

Though there has been precious little peace in the past 65 years, the USA has not legally been at war since August 14, 1945. This illegitimate ability of Presidents to wage war without having it first declared by the Congress is a direct consequence of our unpreparedness in the War of 1812.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Svipdag
The US was allowed to "win" the War of 1812 by a strategic decision by Britain that it was better to devote its entire strength to fighting an enemy right on the other side of the English Channel than to weaken that effort by wasting men and materiel 3000 miles away, an intelligent decision, galling though it must have been to have to make it.


The British fought a defensive strategy until the defeat of Napoleon, but after that they poured troops into the American theatre. To suggest the outcome only occurred because Britain didn't use its full strength is thus a mischaracterization.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://www.warof1812.ca/image/isaacbrock.jpg


Major-General Sir Isaac Brock KB (6 October 1769 – 13 October 1812) was a British Army officer and administrator. Brock was assigned to Canada in 1802. Despite facing desertions and near-mutinies, he commanded his regiment in Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) successfully for many years. He was promoted to major general, and became responsible for defending Upper Canada against the United States. While many in Canada and Britain believed war could be averted, Brock began to ready the army and militia for what was to come. When the War of 1812broke out, the populace was prepared, and quick victories at Fort Mackinac and Detroitcrippled American invasion efforts.

Brock's actions, particularly his success at Detroit, earned him a knighthood, membership in the Order of the Bath, accolades and the sobriquet "The Hero of Upper Canada". His name is often linked with that of the Native American leader Tecumseh, although the two men collaborated in person only for a few days.[2]Brock died at the Battle of Queenston Heights, which was nevertheless a British victory.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Siege of Detroit, also known as the Surrender of Detroit, or the Battle of Fort Detroit, was an early engagement in the Anglo-American War of 1812. A British force under Major General Isaac Brock with Native American allies under the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, used bluff and deception to intimidate the American Brigadier General William Hull into surrendering the fort and town of Detroit, Michigan, and a dispirited army which nevertheless outnumbered the victorious British and Native Americans.

The British victory reinvigorated the militia and civil authorities of Upper Canada, who had previously been pessimistic and affected by pro-American agitators. Many Native American people in the Northwest Territory were inspired to take arms against American outposts and settlers. The British held Detroit for more than a year before the British fleet on Lake Erie was defeated, which forced the Army to abandon the western frontier of Upper Canada.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xC0p-PBMm7U/SJZghBjBHFI/AAAAAAAAAg4/eAVbrSLbCSc/s320/300px-Surrender_of_Detroit%2Bby%2Bwikipedia.jpg


The Surrender of Detroit by John Wycliffe Lowes Forster.

[Jake Featherston]

What made the War of 1812 an American victory, was our phenomenal victory at the Battle of New Orleans. Had the British succeeded in occupying the port at the mouth of North American's principal river, does anyone really believe they'd have just abandoned it? The lop-sided victory at New Orleans (the British lost over 2,000 men, whereas the Americans lost seven) was a key milestone in the establishment of the USA as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, and the rightful possessor of the Mississippi & Missouri valleys (and eventually...California, the Oregon Territory, and even Alaska).

[Albion]

The British because the Americans never did annex Canada. How's the White House looking these days anyway? ;)

[Logan]

From what I know of it I would say more a war of respect. I would think that they achieved it.