War of 1812: Stupidest war ever?

Great Debates
1

I’m currently re-reading the Master and Commander series by Patrick O’Brian and I’m struck by how stupid the war of 1812 between the US and Britian was…especially for the British. Necessarily this will all be from my perspective as a US citizen and what I learned about the war in school as well as what I’ve read in various book about the subject.

With the war against Napolean going on, why in hell did the British push the Americans to the point where war was inevitable? Destroying the US’s trade, impressing our seamen, sinking our ships…what was the purpose of antagonizing the US while fighting it out with France??

The British people (afaik) didn’t want a war with America. The American’s didn’t want a war with Britian…they were totally unprepared for war, with almost no navy and a joke of an army. Why did the British government/military, already fighting a huge war against France, push a war with the US at the same time?

What would have happened if the British had of actually won? Would they have allowed the US Government to continue to exist, but bottled up on just the North Eastern Seaboard? Would they have totally abolished the US government and re-instituted British rule on the ‘colonies’? If the British had of won at New Orleans, would they have honored the treaty they had previously signed?

How in the hell did the US ‘win’…by that I mean, how did we come out of the war intact? I’ve read 1812 and several other books about the war, and from what I understand initially the US did rather badly, being an untrained, very small army that was poorly lead and low on military supplies. The invasion of Canada was just sad. However, after that, even with the defeat of Napolean freeing up a lot more forces for the British, the US started to do much better in the battles, finially nearly equaling the British on the ground…and defeating them soundly at New Orleans. On the seas the US yankee frigates were a rather nasty surprise to the Royal Navy, though we never had the numbers to seriously challenge them in any meaningful way. How did the US, once again, take on THE pre-eminient world power and manage to get out of it intact? Looking at what the British did to France this is one of the biggest puzzles for me. I’m sure the British went light on the US, but even so…how did we survive??

Ok, thats the debate, such as it is. I just want to talk about the 1812 war. Most likely my facts are muddled, as its been a while since I read anything more than historical fiction about it. Feel free to go into more detail or correct any grossly incorrect aspects of my OP.

-XT

2

Well, we were allied, sort of, with France, and we claimed Canada. Also, after the American Revolution, the British had protected the Indians of the Midwest, and we wanted that land, so we declared war, figuring Britain was too busy to put up much of a fight in Canada and the American midwest.

3

You make excellent points. However I think that The War of Jenkin’s Ear is probably a better candidate for Stupidest War Ever.

Just sayin’.

4

Well, first off I don’t think you can say the US “won”, even in quotation marks. At best it was a draw, but since in fact it was a war of invasion, and the invader ended up with nothing, I’d suggest it’s actually a loss for the US. :slight_smile: I realize though, that in the US you learn about the frigate duels and New Orleans, whereas in Canada we learn about Detroit and Queenston Heights, so we have rather different pictures of the war.

Second, the yankee frigates were really kickass ships. But they were just frigates in the end, and would have been annihilated by a Royal Navy squadron of ships of the line, even just the ubiquitous “little” 72’s. A 100+ gun triple-decker like the Victory could probably sink the Constitution with just a couple broadsides. However, frigates are faster than ships of the line, and any sane frigate captain will go to great lengths to avoid slugging it out with one of the big boys, so bringing the might of the Royal Navy to bear on the US Navy wouldn’t have been a simple matter. A blockade would have been possible, but there weren’t the ships to spare for such an endeavour.

Third, Britain “provoked” the US in much the same was as, say, the US is currently provoking, say, Syria. Britain had bigger fish to fry, and didn’t think the US posed a serious threat. So it threw its superpower status around and didn’t much worry about the reaction. There was a war to be won, and petty colonial complaints weren’t relevant. What are the upstart Yankees gonna do, try to take on the Royal Navy? Hah! Funny, you are. The combined fleets of France and Spain were just destroyed at Trafalgar, and we should worry about a few frigates? Ridiculous. And I shouldn’t say the war began because of that provocation, really - that was just the excuse. In no small part the cause of the war was expansionist dreams in the US on the part of greedy shitheads like Harrison.

Fourth, the US survived primarily because of logistics, and Bonaparte. Of course, in the absence of Bonaparte, there may not have been a War of 1812 to begin with, so it’s not like you owe him any gratitude. British forces in North America for most of the war were mostly rag-tag colonial militia forces, which performed quite admirably in defending Canada, but had no way to take the fight to the US. The Royal Navy had all their big ships tied up blockading France. The late-war expeditions involved more and better troops, but were poorly led - particularly in New Orleans (which, of course, happened after the treaty had been signed, so it wasn’t relevant to the outcome anyways - I seriously doubt the British would have reneged on the treaty had they won there). Had Britain brought all her military capacity to bear on the US following the defeat of Napolean, of course, the US would have been fighting for its very existence. But as you say, the Brits had no desire to prosecute such a war, and so they agreed to terms.

5

I vote for The Soccer Warbetween El Salvador & Honduras as the stupidest one ever. And I bet you thought British hooligans were bad. :eek:

6

Wow! That’s twice that I get to pull out my trusty lyrics to the War of 1812 song! (Promise it will be my last) :smiley:
I’d link to the song…but I can’t find it.

Oh, come back, proud Canadians
To before you had TV,
No hockey night in Canada,
There was no CBC (Oh, my God!).
In 1812, Madison was mad,
He was the president, you know
Well, he thought he’d tell the British where they ought to go
He thought he’d invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough
Instead we went to Washington…
And burned down all his stuff! […]

http://www.canadaka.net/cka/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=111
Daizy

[Edited and link added due to copyright concerns. --Gaudere]

7

I see your 1812 song and raise you Johnny Horton. :smiley: Its actually a pretty good song.

8

I take it you didn’t notice the send-up of Horton’s song in the Arrogant Worms tune? It’s more obvious when you hear it, of course, since they actually change cadence, and have the whole drum thing going.

9

Well, we sure do have a different perspective on the war. Not sure how accurate MY perspective is, as its been years since I took history, and most of what I’m saying comes from historical novels like 1812 and the like.

I hadn’t realized we were cutting off Syria’s trade (to the point of strangulation), nor impressing their sailers at gun point, nor sinking their ships if they didn’t comply fast enough. I’m sure the British DID have bigger fish to fry. But they still seemed to (from our perspective anyway, afaik) go out of their way to provoke us. Why cut off our trade? I suppose I could see them impressing our sailors, but they had to know eventually it was going to set us off. What soveriegn nation is going to take having their ships sunk and/or their men impressed by a foriegn power??

Are you saying that the American’s used this as an excuse?? We WANTED to have our trade cut off, our men impressed, our ships sunk, and every attempt at reconsilliation basically thrown in our face?? All to invade Canada with an army that didn’t exist??? Do you realize the state of our armed forces prior to the war? If we REALLY wanted to invade Canada I’d think we would have made some attempt at training or ever equiping an army, and tried to build some kind of battle fleet. On the great lakes if nothing else. We didn’t. So, I’m not buying at this time that the US WANTED to go to war with Britian and was using their provocation as an excuse so we could invade Canada. If you have data that supports your position though, I would be more than happy to look it over, as I’m no expert on this stuff.

By the time the war started to really heat up Bonaparte and France were out of the picture (1814). As to the make up of British forces, I don’t know…I always thought they were regular army, not militia forces by and large. I know that a lot of the forces in the Canada campaign were made up of local Canadian militia (and of course almost ALL of the US forces were initial militia from what I remember) but I thought there was a solid core of regular red coat troops. Certainly the troops that invaded the US were regular army.

As to the last, I don’t agree. I don’t think the British would have gone by the treaty if they had of won decisively at New Orleans. Why would they have? New Orleans and the key to the Mississippi would have been theirs. It would have been a bitch for the US to take it back. I think if the British had of won in New Orleans their parliment would have found a way to invalidate the treaty. Just my opinion of course and nothing to really back it up but what I’ve read.

-XT

10

The intention wasn’t to cut off our trade…it was to cut off France’s trade. England was blockading European ports (and France was trying to blockade British ports, but not as successful).

11

My understanding (which could, admittedly, be wrong) is that Britian was cutting off US trade to more than just France. That our Asian trade also was being hampered, as well as our trade to other areas. In addition, again, my understanding is that Britian also curtailed a lot of trade with the US, and they were also one of our big markets. If I’m wrong and it was just trade to France that was being blocked thats certainly understandable. But if they were harming our trade elsewhere, thats another story. If I get the chance I’ll do some digging later tonight unless someone has a cite handy.

-XT

12

Um… not really. The territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, which would later become the Midwest, was ceded to the United States by the British in 1783. At the start of the War of 1812, we’d already added part of this territory to Pennsylvania, and had carved the states of Ohio and Louisiana out of it. Furthermore, the United States already had designs on how the Northwest Territory was to be organized. The ownership of the Northwest Territory (as well as what would later comprise Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and eastern Louisiana) was never in question as far as the British were concerned, after the revolution was over. And while the United States did have some qualms with Britain over just where the Canadian border was, there was no American claim on Canadian territory. There was an expansionist sentiment to add Canada to the United States that roiled for a long time, even with Secretary of State Seward’s tactless 1867 comment of how Canada’s provinces “will make fine states one day.”

I agree with Gorsnak about who “won” this war: it was at best a draw, since the United States, as an aggressor, didn’t really get much out of it. It wasn’t a total loss for the U.S., though; Britain did agree to stop pressing American sailors into British ships, which was one of the causa belli. But the cession of Canadian territory wasn’t all that this was about—though it certainly played its part in getting the war off the ground. Plus, yeah, if not for Britain being so tied up with Napoleon, the United States would never have dared start this war—nor would Britain have had reason to provoke it. Britain was attacking American merchant vessels trading with France and its allies, which was another American casus belli. If Britain hadn’t been doing this, the U.S. would have had far less reason to start anything.

The U.S. Navy performed very well in this war, but as has been pointed out already, it was never large enough to make that much of a difference. The invasion of Canada had a lot to do with the fact that about the only place we could get at the British was in Canada. The United States might have done better on the ground if its all-volunteer militia hadn’t refused to cross the border, on the grounds that their duty was to defend American soil, and not to fight on foreign soil.

Imperialism against Canada never really went away, but it was held at least partly in check by the Missouri Compromise, which stipulated that all states admitted north of the southern border of Missouri couldn’t have pro-slavery constitutions. That would include all states made up of former Canadian territory, of course, which discouraged northward invasions. Annexing all of Mexico was stopped in part by anti-slavery forces, since all of Mexico would have been open to pro-slavery constitutions. President Van Buren committed political suicide by opposing the annexation of pro-slave Texas, which lost him the support of Southern Democrats and thus the 1840 election. James K. Polk came along in 1844 and promised to fix things, by campaigning on the annexation of Texas and on his slogan of “Fifty-four forty, or fight,” which was shorthand for “We’re getting all of Oregon or we’re invading Canada.” Texas was annexed in Polk’s first year in office, but Polk realized he couldn’t get Britain to hand over all of Oregon, and fighting Britain didn’t make much sense, since the United States was at war with Mexico in 1846, which got us more potentially pro-slave territory. Polk did his best, though, and struck a deal with Britain, dividing the Oregon Territory in two, which is why there’s a British Columbia today and not an American Columbia.

I suppose I’m getting off the subject here, but the point I’m trying to make is that thoughout the nineteenth century, the United States often looked toward taking over Canada, and there was strong sentiment to do so. The War of 1812 was the only time military force was used to attempt it, but it was threatened later on. In fact, the purchase of Alaska had a lot to do with gaining influence over Canadian territory. Popular uprisings in Canada in the 1840s and 1850s in which citizens demanded more self-government also contributed to Britain’s worries: if the United States could promise Canadians representation in Congress, would Canadians be more willing to be occupied by the United States, if it came to that? The Dominion of Canada was set up the same year as the Alaska Purchase, at least in part to address that concern. After the Dominion was set up, American relations with Britain warmed, and American imperialism looked to the south and the west instead. If there was still serious sentiment in the United States for invading Canada after 1867, I confess I don’t know about it. There may have been, and if anyone can find it, I’d like to know.

Anyway, the Johnny Horton song is a lot of fun. I like Sink the Bismarck, too, but that’s a whole other discussion.

13

Oh, I didn’t mean any precise parallels with Syria. But let’s examine the purported irritants, shall we?

Impressment: Well, there undoubtedly were Royal Navy deserters on commercial US ships, which was the excuse given by the British. It’s also undoubtedly true that the British impressed some (even many) who had never been in the Royal Navy. However, the American position was, I believe, that the RN had no right to impress even deserters, and I don’t think you can reasonably expect them to have accepted that view. On the whole, though, a legitimate grievance, though probably not cause enough for war.

Strangulation of trade: What, precisely, are you talking about? The British were blockading the French. Any American trade with the French was directly aiding and abetting the enemy, just as weapons shipments from Damascus to Baathists in Fallujah would be now. Are you suggesting that the US would be imposing unfairly on Syrian autonomy if you prevented such trade (as you are undoubtedly actually doing)? I mean, you can bitch and whine all you like that as a neutral country you should be able to trade as you please, but you can’t possibly expect the British, locked in a life-and-death war with France, to agree than anyone who wants should be able to trade with France. The French were certainly trying to prevent everyone from trading from the British, as well, they just didn’t have the naval power to do so as effectively. And the French did seize American shipping, just as the Brits did. Should the US have gone to war with France, as well?

Did the British cut off American trade with anyone other than the French? I am unaware of such, though I could simply be ignorant on this point I suppose. I would welcome information to clear this up, but from what I can tell, there isn’t much in the way of legitimate grievance here. You can’t possibly expect to trade with one party to a war, and maintain peachy keen relations with the other party as well.

As for American expansionism, much of the pro-war sentiment in the US was in the West (or what you’d now call the Midwest), and had to do with the fur trade, and who would be the ones to benefit from the economic exploitation of the interior of North America:

Note that the position of the Spanish at the time swung back and forth. Spain was occupied by Napoleon, who gained control of the Spanish fleet (hence Trafalgar), but Spanish nationalists supported Wellington (then merely Sir Arthur Wellesley) throughout the Peninsular Wars in the name of Ferdinand VII. Describing Spain as Britain’s ally in 1812 is moderately problematic, since the French weren’t kicked out of Spain till 1813. Anyways.

That the US had next to no army was of no matter. One could be raised, and the redcoats were all tied up on the Continent. A battle fleet was built on the Great Lakes, and it did very well. You’ve heard of Commodore Perry and the Battle of Lake Erie, I trust?

British forces in Canada at the time were a mix of militias and redcoats. The redcoats, though, were in no small part recruited from the local colonial population, so there isn’t a huge distinction to be made between them. The cream of the army was with Wellington. The forces that invaded the US late in the war were much more regular army, assuming we’re referring to the forces at Bladensburg, Fort McHenry, and New Orleans, but that was long after the major invasion attempts by the US. Brock and his successors did not have much of a standing force to work with.

14

Pakenham was apparently under orders to ignore any reports of a treaty discussions at Ghent. Had the British won at New Orleans, they most certainly would have reneged on the Treaty of Ghent.

Instead, the British suffered one of their worst military defeats in their entire history, but not by much.

15

Help me out here, Gorsnak. You mean William Henry Harrison? I realize that he was one of the military commanders in the campaign against Canada, but he didn’t enter politics until 1816. He was less than humble after he retired from military service, sure, but politically, Harrison was cut more from the same cloth of Henry Clay than he was with the expansionists. James Madison was more of the expansionist type of the day; during the war, Harrison was more of a pawn.

16

Just wanted to remind you that though Wellington won at Waterloo (and even there, he wasn’t alone, there were Prussians, Dutch, etc…), the british didn’t won single-handedly against France by a long shot. The overwhelming majority of the Napoleonic battles were fought by other armies (Prussia, Austria, Russia, in particular). The 1814 campaign of France which resulted in Napoleon’s abdication was conducted by Blücher, Shwarzenberg and Bernadotte’s armies, for instance, not by the British.

So, the British army wasn’t the invincible force you apparently have in mind. Contrarily to the british navy, its reputation wasn’t that spectacular.

17

Was not Harrison the one of the instigators in the West? Perhaps I’m thinking of someone else.

18

You might be. Harrison was certainly one of the American military commanders in the West, fighting the British in Canada and later the Indians in Indiana, but politically, I don’t believe he was so much an expansionist as he was an opportunist. He stuck by Henry Clay, politically, which turned out to be part of his problem. Clay himself was an instigator during the War of 1812, though he evolved politically (or “flip-flopped,” as they say today,) and opposed American expansion into Texas and Mexico later in his political career.

19

I suspect I am thinking of someone other than Harrison, after doing a bit of searching. The web sucks for good information about the War of 1812, though. Anyways, I did come up with this lovely letter by Clay in support of the war, where he very explicitly addresses xtisme’s objections that the US had insufficient military forces to prosecute an invasion:

Hear that, xtisme? You’re timid and pusillanimous! :smiley:

20

This might be so in regard to the Canadas specifically, and to their fusion into the province of Canada following the 1837 rebellions, but not so much Confederation. Mackenzie and Papineau did consider union with the U.S. after the rebellions; one of them travelled to the U.S. afterwards and was shocked by how different it was than he was expecting. The fusion of the Canadas into the province of Canada was an attempt to reduce rebellious sentiment; the explanation I’d heard for this was that it was to assimilate and reduce the political power of the French-Canadians, but it might also have been to reduce the likelihood of joining the U.S. as well. (In addition to the fusion of the Canadas, responsible government was also granted as a concession to the rebels.)

However, as for Confederation (the union of the Province of Canada with the maritime colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scoatia), my understanding was that the Maritimes at least joined Confederation partly out of fear of American invasion, not out of an attempt to reduce some popular sentiment in favour of the U.S. After all, the British population of New Brunswick was largely Tories who had fled the American Revolution 90 years previous.